I did a little bit of debate in college APDA circuit. I only went to a handful of tournaments, but I didn't notice anything crazy like this. I did remember hearing about them introducing the practice of having an "equity officer" at tournaments. I was told that if I heard, for example, a debater calling a female opponent "catty" during a round, I should report that to the officer. That seemed quite appropriate, but I could imagine the remit of the equity officer having potential to spread into restricting the substance of the debate as well, which could present difficulties.
That was ~ 7 years ago. I don't know how things have changed. I imagine they've gotten considerably more woke (not always a bad thing), but I highly doubt things have gotten anywhere near this crazy at the college level.
I know you’re getting a lot of hate from the debate community but as a college debater I just want to say that more people agree with you than not. These screenshots are representative of a very vocal minority and should not be construed as the entirety of the debate community. I do applaud you for being rational, though — I know I would be seething if someone called me a fascist ugly pedophile, but you replied to each point calmly. I admire your logic!
I'd be curious to hear who you are -- I like knowing the identities of non-insane college debaters. Feel free to reach out to me privately -- my email is untrappedzoid@gmail.com, and my discord is Omni#3252
I'm surprised how bad these debater people are. But TBF, this part is worded badly:
> Being a conservative on social issues just means you hate minorities apparently
>> @MatthewAdelste1 being conservative on social issues is not a policy (which is what policy debate is about). it’s thinking minorities and certain groups do not deserve consideration (which i believe you attached a screenshot of you saying just that). that’s violent. hope this helps
> Also, this is supposedly violent. So if you just think conservative thoughts on social issues, you have committed violence. And presumably violence is allowed to stop violence, right? Therefore, by insane moon logic, it’s okay to be violent to conservatives based merely on their beliefs.
1. Are you "a conservative on social issues"? I don't think so, but you didn't deny it.
2. She alleged that you "[think] minorities and certain groups do not deserve consideration". I don't think so, but you didn't deny it.
3. "violence is allowed to stop violence" - maybe, but you're putting words in her mouth.
Also, you're not a reactionary, right? Probably it would be helpful to mention that when someone says you're a reactionary. Even for fascism. I'm not a fascist btw: the most disappointing part of the Doctor Who episode "Let's Kill Hitler" is that they didn't kill Hitler.
He glosses over the fact that at the highest levels, the type of debate he criticizes is gatekept by arguments functionally the same as he is making here. Look at the past 15 winners of the NDT and their general argument style and you can clearly see that their is actually no "harm" here that the good ol boys (white) in debate aren't already solving themselves with T and framework.
I don't deny that teams can and often do win on T. I'm claiming, among other things, that the arguments that proliferate randomly are idiotic nonsense and that the debate community has quite a pernicious bent towards wokeness, leftism, and vitriol.
Ok wait, how does it negatively affect you, or anyone else if teams are running "idiotic nonsense" but losing because of it? Doesnt that disprove that the debate community has this bent you speak of, at least competitively? It seems like the best solution to your complaints would be to get better at the types of arguments that seem to have success against the "idiotic nonsense" you obviously lost to (hint, some of those arguments share *some* of the logic of your ramblings here, just minus the racism, bigotry, etc).
Its laughable and shows you are not having this conversation in good faith when you are complaining that teams are running arguments that are not related to the topic but leave out the fact that more often than not, they lose because of it.
Actually, I know you are the plan reading type, what is your actual proposed solution here? How do we "solve" this "plague" of "idiotic nonsense?" Do tell.
Also, for a guy that hangs his hat on "everyone just ignores my arguments and picks on me", your response was very non responsive and full of personal, non relavent attacks.
Racism and bigotry? What racism and bigotry did I employ? For the record, I had quite a good record against the K -- I'm not complaining about it being impossible to win, though some judges would hack against me, as I described in the article I wrote after this. My complaint is about the debate community being insane -- both vitriolic and ridiculously far left.
I don't know why I need to specify that non topical arguments sometimes lose -- of course they do. The point is about how far the overtin window has shifted. I don't have a great solution -- I would like debaters to read less absurd arguments and judges to have more accurate epistemic standards that, for example, start afro-pass at 1% risk. I don't think I engaged in personal attacks in my reply to you.
Well this has gotten awkward. You are now telling me that the entire point of this days long, multiple “article” rant is simply for you to get it off your chest that you don’t like certain argument types in competitive debate? Why should anyone care that you think the Overton window has shifted? You have conceded that there is no impact to these arguments being run, and that empirically it has actually been a competitive disadvantage for teams running these arguments. You have also conceded that this competitive disadvantage proves that debate is not nearly as “insane -- both vitriolic and ridiculously far left” as you would like your audience to believe. If the “community” was all that you say it is, these arguments would be nearly unbeatable, and that is, admittedly from you, not the case.
I’m also curious about your generalization of the debate community writ large. I believe I remember a major part of you and Michael Moreno’s contention is that we cannot judge an entire community based on the actions of its members, how does that not apply to, and invalidate the logic of your entire thesis here?
Your proposed solution is that you get to be the judge in every competitive debate in America so you can gatekeep the activity even more than it is now, so people who run arguments you don’t agree with on face, lose immediately. How is this not the absolute worst version of everything you have complained about ad nauseum?
I’m sure you have gotten tons of engagement and clicks with this take, kudos for that, but the whole thing is intellectually bankrupt, riddled with contradictions and fallacies, lacking in real world harms or even theoretically reasonable solutions. Move along now.
//You are now telling me that the entire point of this days long, multiple “article” rant is simply for you to get it off your chest that you don’t like certain argument types in competitive debate? //
No, it's not just that I don't like them -- it's that I think they're bad for the world.
//Why should anyone care that you think the Overton window has shifted?//
Well, most people of sense are opposed to the overton window being shifted to permit only insane arguments in debate.
// You have conceded that there is no impact to these arguments being run, and that empirically it has actually been a competitive disadvantage for teams running these arguments. You have also conceded that this competitive disadvantage proves that debate is not nearly as “insane -- both vitriolic and ridiculously far left” as you would like your audience to believe. If the “community” was all that you say it is, these arguments would be nearly unbeatable, and that is, admittedly from you, not the case.//
I have conceded no such thing. The overton window has shifted to "you can't disagree with crazy far left arguments except occasionally by arguing they're bad for heg, going for T, or the Cap K. You cannot make conservative arguments at all." This is... bad. I don't know where you think I made all these concessions.
//I’m also curious about your generalization of the debate community writ large. I believe I remember a major part of you and Michael Moreno’s contention is that we cannot judge an entire community based on the actions of its members, how does that not apply to, and invalidate the logic of your entire thesis here?//
I don't quite know what this means, I don't think it's my point.
//Your proposed solution is that you get to be the judge in every competitive debate in America so you can gatekeep the activity even more than it is now, so people who run arguments you don’t agree with on face, lose immediately. How is this not the absolute worst version of everything you have complained about ad nauseum?//
This is not what I said -- I proposed having rational priors.
//No, it's not just that I don't like them -- it's that I think they're bad for the world.//
1)You think that, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence, or even logic that would support that claim, that would be a "harm" or "impact"
2) You could go judge debates yourself and have an impact on both the world and the debate community by letting everyone know which arguments are good, which are evil, and voting accordingly. But taking that right away from every other judge in the world and forcing them to use your paradigm is idiotic, and the antithesis of debate.
//Well, most people of sense are opposed to the overton window being shifted to permit only insane arguments in debate.//
1) it is only your definition that these arguments are insane
2) This is a non-sequitor, you cant say something is bad... because its bad, how would this effect debate or the world outisde of debate at all?
3) Who exactly are you trying to educate about debate here? The debate community? Society?
//I have conceded no such thing. The overton window has shifted to "you can't disagree with crazy far left arguments except occasionally by arguing they're bad for heg, going for T, or the Cap K. You cannot make conservative arguments at all." This is... bad. I don't know where you think I made all these concessions//
1) The window has not shifted, you have conceded that policy teams win MUCH more often than K teams which means this bogeyman is only in your head, not the actual debate community
2) You list 3 really good (conservative) argument types that serve as a starting point, and remember, are WILDLY SUCCESFULL against K args, and then say "you cannot make conservative arguments at all" so that's obviously nonsense
3) How many winning arguments do you need access to in order to beat these args? What is the brightline? Why is 3 not sufficient?
4) Why are you not complaining about "crazy" arguments like Malthus or Spark?
5) This still conceded the main point, which is that final rounds are still dominated by policy teams that had to beat K teams to get there, and judges in the back that are voting for them, which means the community is definitively skewed towards folks who think debate should look like your model, not the one you say exists.
//This is not what I said -- I proposed having rational priors.//
1) I think you fundamentally misunderstand competitive debate based on this response. Debate is subjective. There is no scoreboard, no goals, baskets, or touchdowns. Each round is it's own universe, with it's quirks, intricacies and undulations. From the arguments, to the participants, to the setting, to the judges, every round is it's own and unique, never to be duplicated again. The ecosystem in which all of these individual universes exists can shape what they look like (tournament location, records, round number, etc) but ultimately they are self contained and most importantly, self governed. The beauty of debate is that it is not chess, who's rigidity has turned it into more of a math and memorization game than analytical. I know YOU might not like a lot of arguments being run in a given round or tournament, but that lack of uniformity is exactly why debate is so intellectually stimulating and engaging. There are no patterns, nothing is guaranteed, if you think an argument in your current universe is insane, you have every opportunity to assert and defend that claim, and based on your abilities, you will be deemed correct or incorrect IN THAT UNIVERSE. What you are proposing, "having rational priors", is meant to sound so simply obvious, but to anyone who has been in a competitive debate round, it is a red herring that is both infeasible and would actually kill competitive debate with haste, which is why you have been entirely unable to articulate any reasonable solution, and are left complaining into the void that "debate is too woke" despite literal evidence to the contrary that you continue to ignore and minimize (policy teams success vs K teams success).
Wow this is truly insane!
I did a little bit of debate in college APDA circuit. I only went to a handful of tournaments, but I didn't notice anything crazy like this. I did remember hearing about them introducing the practice of having an "equity officer" at tournaments. I was told that if I heard, for example, a debater calling a female opponent "catty" during a round, I should report that to the officer. That seemed quite appropriate, but I could imagine the remit of the equity officer having potential to spread into restricting the substance of the debate as well, which could present difficulties.
That was ~ 7 years ago. I don't know how things have changed. I imagine they've gotten considerably more woke (not always a bad thing), but I highly doubt things have gotten anywhere near this crazy at the college level.
I know you’re getting a lot of hate from the debate community but as a college debater I just want to say that more people agree with you than not. These screenshots are representative of a very vocal minority and should not be construed as the entirety of the debate community. I do applaud you for being rational, though — I know I would be seething if someone called me a fascist ugly pedophile, but you replied to each point calmly. I admire your logic!
I'd be curious to hear who you are -- I like knowing the identities of non-insane college debaters. Feel free to reach out to me privately -- my email is untrappedzoid@gmail.com, and my discord is Omni#3252
I'm surprised how bad these debater people are. But TBF, this part is worded badly:
> Being a conservative on social issues just means you hate minorities apparently
>> @MatthewAdelste1 being conservative on social issues is not a policy (which is what policy debate is about). it’s thinking minorities and certain groups do not deserve consideration (which i believe you attached a screenshot of you saying just that). that’s violent. hope this helps
> Also, this is supposedly violent. So if you just think conservative thoughts on social issues, you have committed violence. And presumably violence is allowed to stop violence, right? Therefore, by insane moon logic, it’s okay to be violent to conservatives based merely on their beliefs.
1. Are you "a conservative on social issues"? I don't think so, but you didn't deny it.
2. She alleged that you "[think] minorities and certain groups do not deserve consideration". I don't think so, but you didn't deny it.
3. "violence is allowed to stop violence" - maybe, but you're putting words in her mouth.
Also, you're not a reactionary, right? Probably it would be helpful to mention that when someone says you're a reactionary. Even for fascism. I'm not a fascist btw: the most disappointing part of the Doctor Who episode "Let's Kill Hitler" is that they didn't kill Hitler.
I am not a reactionary.
This was a really interesting article!
You seem to be having a lot of fun with this.
Truly ridiculous how so-called "debaters" try to bully people out of productive discourse.
He glosses over the fact that at the highest levels, the type of debate he criticizes is gatekept by arguments functionally the same as he is making here. Look at the past 15 winners of the NDT and their general argument style and you can clearly see that their is actually no "harm" here that the good ol boys (white) in debate aren't already solving themselves with T and framework.
I don't deny that teams can and often do win on T. I'm claiming, among other things, that the arguments that proliferate randomly are idiotic nonsense and that the debate community has quite a pernicious bent towards wokeness, leftism, and vitriol.
Ok wait, how does it negatively affect you, or anyone else if teams are running "idiotic nonsense" but losing because of it? Doesnt that disprove that the debate community has this bent you speak of, at least competitively? It seems like the best solution to your complaints would be to get better at the types of arguments that seem to have success against the "idiotic nonsense" you obviously lost to (hint, some of those arguments share *some* of the logic of your ramblings here, just minus the racism, bigotry, etc).
Its laughable and shows you are not having this conversation in good faith when you are complaining that teams are running arguments that are not related to the topic but leave out the fact that more often than not, they lose because of it.
Actually, I know you are the plan reading type, what is your actual proposed solution here? How do we "solve" this "plague" of "idiotic nonsense?" Do tell.
Also, for a guy that hangs his hat on "everyone just ignores my arguments and picks on me", your response was very non responsive and full of personal, non relavent attacks.
Racism and bigotry? What racism and bigotry did I employ? For the record, I had quite a good record against the K -- I'm not complaining about it being impossible to win, though some judges would hack against me, as I described in the article I wrote after this. My complaint is about the debate community being insane -- both vitriolic and ridiculously far left.
I don't know why I need to specify that non topical arguments sometimes lose -- of course they do. The point is about how far the overtin window has shifted. I don't have a great solution -- I would like debaters to read less absurd arguments and judges to have more accurate epistemic standards that, for example, start afro-pass at 1% risk. I don't think I engaged in personal attacks in my reply to you.
What are K and T?
Well this has gotten awkward. You are now telling me that the entire point of this days long, multiple “article” rant is simply for you to get it off your chest that you don’t like certain argument types in competitive debate? Why should anyone care that you think the Overton window has shifted? You have conceded that there is no impact to these arguments being run, and that empirically it has actually been a competitive disadvantage for teams running these arguments. You have also conceded that this competitive disadvantage proves that debate is not nearly as “insane -- both vitriolic and ridiculously far left” as you would like your audience to believe. If the “community” was all that you say it is, these arguments would be nearly unbeatable, and that is, admittedly from you, not the case.
I’m also curious about your generalization of the debate community writ large. I believe I remember a major part of you and Michael Moreno’s contention is that we cannot judge an entire community based on the actions of its members, how does that not apply to, and invalidate the logic of your entire thesis here?
Your proposed solution is that you get to be the judge in every competitive debate in America so you can gatekeep the activity even more than it is now, so people who run arguments you don’t agree with on face, lose immediately. How is this not the absolute worst version of everything you have complained about ad nauseum?
I’m sure you have gotten tons of engagement and clicks with this take, kudos for that, but the whole thing is intellectually bankrupt, riddled with contradictions and fallacies, lacking in real world harms or even theoretically reasonable solutions. Move along now.
This comment has a dizzying array of errors.
//You are now telling me that the entire point of this days long, multiple “article” rant is simply for you to get it off your chest that you don’t like certain argument types in competitive debate? //
No, it's not just that I don't like them -- it's that I think they're bad for the world.
//Why should anyone care that you think the Overton window has shifted?//
Well, most people of sense are opposed to the overton window being shifted to permit only insane arguments in debate.
// You have conceded that there is no impact to these arguments being run, and that empirically it has actually been a competitive disadvantage for teams running these arguments. You have also conceded that this competitive disadvantage proves that debate is not nearly as “insane -- both vitriolic and ridiculously far left” as you would like your audience to believe. If the “community” was all that you say it is, these arguments would be nearly unbeatable, and that is, admittedly from you, not the case.//
I have conceded no such thing. The overton window has shifted to "you can't disagree with crazy far left arguments except occasionally by arguing they're bad for heg, going for T, or the Cap K. You cannot make conservative arguments at all." This is... bad. I don't know where you think I made all these concessions.
//I’m also curious about your generalization of the debate community writ large. I believe I remember a major part of you and Michael Moreno’s contention is that we cannot judge an entire community based on the actions of its members, how does that not apply to, and invalidate the logic of your entire thesis here?//
I don't quite know what this means, I don't think it's my point.
//Your proposed solution is that you get to be the judge in every competitive debate in America so you can gatekeep the activity even more than it is now, so people who run arguments you don’t agree with on face, lose immediately. How is this not the absolute worst version of everything you have complained about ad nauseum?//
This is not what I said -- I proposed having rational priors.
//No, it's not just that I don't like them -- it's that I think they're bad for the world.//
1)You think that, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence, or even logic that would support that claim, that would be a "harm" or "impact"
2) You could go judge debates yourself and have an impact on both the world and the debate community by letting everyone know which arguments are good, which are evil, and voting accordingly. But taking that right away from every other judge in the world and forcing them to use your paradigm is idiotic, and the antithesis of debate.
//Well, most people of sense are opposed to the overton window being shifted to permit only insane arguments in debate.//
1) it is only your definition that these arguments are insane
2) This is a non-sequitor, you cant say something is bad... because its bad, how would this effect debate or the world outisde of debate at all?
3) Who exactly are you trying to educate about debate here? The debate community? Society?
//I have conceded no such thing. The overton window has shifted to "you can't disagree with crazy far left arguments except occasionally by arguing they're bad for heg, going for T, or the Cap K. You cannot make conservative arguments at all." This is... bad. I don't know where you think I made all these concessions//
1) The window has not shifted, you have conceded that policy teams win MUCH more often than K teams which means this bogeyman is only in your head, not the actual debate community
2) You list 3 really good (conservative) argument types that serve as a starting point, and remember, are WILDLY SUCCESFULL against K args, and then say "you cannot make conservative arguments at all" so that's obviously nonsense
3) How many winning arguments do you need access to in order to beat these args? What is the brightline? Why is 3 not sufficient?
4) Why are you not complaining about "crazy" arguments like Malthus or Spark?
5) This still conceded the main point, which is that final rounds are still dominated by policy teams that had to beat K teams to get there, and judges in the back that are voting for them, which means the community is definitively skewed towards folks who think debate should look like your model, not the one you say exists.
//This is not what I said -- I proposed having rational priors.//
1) I think you fundamentally misunderstand competitive debate based on this response. Debate is subjective. There is no scoreboard, no goals, baskets, or touchdowns. Each round is it's own universe, with it's quirks, intricacies and undulations. From the arguments, to the participants, to the setting, to the judges, every round is it's own and unique, never to be duplicated again. The ecosystem in which all of these individual universes exists can shape what they look like (tournament location, records, round number, etc) but ultimately they are self contained and most importantly, self governed. The beauty of debate is that it is not chess, who's rigidity has turned it into more of a math and memorization game than analytical. I know YOU might not like a lot of arguments being run in a given round or tournament, but that lack of uniformity is exactly why debate is so intellectually stimulating and engaging. There are no patterns, nothing is guaranteed, if you think an argument in your current universe is insane, you have every opportunity to assert and defend that claim, and based on your abilities, you will be deemed correct or incorrect IN THAT UNIVERSE. What you are proposing, "having rational priors", is meant to sound so simply obvious, but to anyone who has been in a competitive debate round, it is a red herring that is both infeasible and would actually kill competitive debate with haste, which is why you have been entirely unable to articulate any reasonable solution, and are left complaining into the void that "debate is too woke" despite literal evidence to the contrary that you continue to ignore and minimize (policy teams success vs K teams success).
Are u retarded
Not that I know of.
Are you one of the debaters Matt was talking about?