Debate seems like a horrible format in the first place: It incentives willfully misunderstanding the person you're talking to, arguing by volume rather than quality, pouncing on any flimsy excuse to take offense and perform moral outrange, being glib and confident rather than nuanced and acknowledging good objections, etc. It's the intellectual version of professional wrestling - certainly takes some skill and superficially looks like what it's pantomiming, but at the end of the day it's just a parody of real productive discourse.
The professors arguments really show that the woke aren’t just liberal, they’re definitely influenced by Critical Social Justice. All the stuff about standpoint and multiple truths and stuff is just bad reasoning. When you point this out, they resort to social stigma. If someone thought clearly and continued to engage in good faith they would’ve selected out of this ideology. It seems many conservatives self select out of the nonsense.
I consider myself fairly liberal, but I'm not really sure what the deal is with this. It seems like these are examples of debate moving away from trying to establish what is true to some other sort of scoring.
Much apprctd. Well transcripted. Thank you. Jeremy bentham imagined the panopticon is that right? As well as a compassionate streak of utilitarianism? Am I right? About the debating community? Let some bold teacher introduce Nietzches idea that sex is an illuminating flaming light with inherent narratives. And let the whole thing deflate. I don't know they are kids of a serialized age so they should be allowed to compete in theater of their mothers most exaggerated compassionate pieces? When their mothers on average say Co2 is bad because it is a poison? It seems the moderators in these should be signed off on according to their passing the bar of 1964 science baselines. Had the tectonic plate even come in by then? Maybe not for 5 or 8 more years. Shiit you do not know why the pimple of a volcano erupts, why shld you be allowed to critique, as they say, a person who believes fluid magma moves under pressure. Give us another transcript before you take your degree. Nietzche says the most organized way to combat a thing is to attack it. But the youthful debaters here will find they are just put out of a job or an apartment if they say their landlord wld not accept rent 10 days late because those ten days relatively were serving whiteness?
I agree that the round should not have ended, but I can't help but see that you're saying things about resolutions you know are not true. It's not a rule that the affirmative has to defend a plan which exemplifies the resolution just like it should not be a rule that you can't read conservative authors. It's up for debate. Also, Dan Bannister presented conservative arguments and won the national championship in 2019. It's okay to be upset with the group exclusion, but you're the one defending an emphasis on facts over "psychic violence."
These woke debaters/professors are just generally fairly stupid and are covering for it with nonsense. That is the real bottom line. They found a cheat code in the current academic milieu (yell "racism!"), and it allows them to advance beyond their actual abilities. They need to defend this giant edifice they have built on all points, because they cannot survive without it.
I'm the former teammate of the two debaters who were affirmative in the video you shared where the judge stopped the round.
I don't think this video should have been made, posted, or shared. My teammates were not aware of this recording at the time and did not want it to occur. They were pretty scared and upset by its posting and the bunch of critical comments they received. People are cool to criticize things they disagree with ofc, but the fact that my teammates did not assent to this video makes the harm done to them the fault of the dude who posted it. I do not think its right to do that, regardless of who's being recording without consent and I do not think it is right to share it. I hope that you will remove this video and your discussion of it from this post.
I do not think that the non-consensual nature of this recording is public knowledge, so I don't want to sound like I'm mad at you for doing something you probably had no way of knowing why it could be wrong. Additionally, I'm not sure if you can edit posts or not. But please do so if possible.
Debate seems like a horrible format in the first place: It incentives willfully misunderstanding the person you're talking to, arguing by volume rather than quality, pouncing on any flimsy excuse to take offense and perform moral outrange, being glib and confident rather than nuanced and acknowledging good objections, etc. It's the intellectual version of professional wrestling - certainly takes some skill and superficially looks like what it's pantomiming, but at the end of the day it's just a parody of real productive discourse.
Great pushback against an unreasonable force.
The professors arguments really show that the woke aren’t just liberal, they’re definitely influenced by Critical Social Justice. All the stuff about standpoint and multiple truths and stuff is just bad reasoning. When you point this out, they resort to social stigma. If someone thought clearly and continued to engage in good faith they would’ve selected out of this ideology. It seems many conservatives self select out of the nonsense.
I consider myself fairly liberal, but I'm not really sure what the deal is with this. It seems like these are examples of debate moving away from trying to establish what is true to some other sort of scoring.
Weird.
How do you think the debate community came to be so woke?
Much apprctd. Well transcripted. Thank you. Jeremy bentham imagined the panopticon is that right? As well as a compassionate streak of utilitarianism? Am I right? About the debating community? Let some bold teacher introduce Nietzches idea that sex is an illuminating flaming light with inherent narratives. And let the whole thing deflate. I don't know they are kids of a serialized age so they should be allowed to compete in theater of their mothers most exaggerated compassionate pieces? When their mothers on average say Co2 is bad because it is a poison? It seems the moderators in these should be signed off on according to their passing the bar of 1964 science baselines. Had the tectonic plate even come in by then? Maybe not for 5 or 8 more years. Shiit you do not know why the pimple of a volcano erupts, why shld you be allowed to critique, as they say, a person who believes fluid magma moves under pressure. Give us another transcript before you take your degree. Nietzche says the most organized way to combat a thing is to attack it. But the youthful debaters here will find they are just put out of a job or an apartment if they say their landlord wld not accept rent 10 days late because those ten days relatively were serving whiteness?
I agree that the round should not have ended, but I can't help but see that you're saying things about resolutions you know are not true. It's not a rule that the affirmative has to defend a plan which exemplifies the resolution just like it should not be a rule that you can't read conservative authors. It's up for debate. Also, Dan Bannister presented conservative arguments and won the national championship in 2019. It's okay to be upset with the group exclusion, but you're the one defending an emphasis on facts over "psychic violence."
These woke debaters/professors are just generally fairly stupid and are covering for it with nonsense. That is the real bottom line. They found a cheat code in the current academic milieu (yell "racism!"), and it allows them to advance beyond their actual abilities. They need to defend this giant edifice they have built on all points, because they cannot survive without it.
I'm the former teammate of the two debaters who were affirmative in the video you shared where the judge stopped the round.
I don't think this video should have been made, posted, or shared. My teammates were not aware of this recording at the time and did not want it to occur. They were pretty scared and upset by its posting and the bunch of critical comments they received. People are cool to criticize things they disagree with ofc, but the fact that my teammates did not assent to this video makes the harm done to them the fault of the dude who posted it. I do not think its right to do that, regardless of who's being recording without consent and I do not think it is right to share it. I hope that you will remove this video and your discussion of it from this post.
I do not think that the non-consensual nature of this recording is public knowledge, so I don't want to sound like I'm mad at you for doing something you probably had no way of knowing why it could be wrong. Additionally, I'm not sure if you can edit posts or not. But please do so if possible.
L