I find this troubling, to say the least. I makes every debate an appeal to emotion. But hey, who cares about the fallacies, I guess. This represents the latest heights of silliness the political correctness of the left has achieved.
I have basically two problems with this. One, the types of people who you’d usually find on debate teams are the types that end up as lawyers and those who craft our governmental policies. To put forth the impression that one need not present a logically sound case—that is on point—does not prepare our next generation of leaders well.
The other big problem I have is that it gives credence to the lie that Black students cannot compete head to head with any other student, namely white students. I find this the opposite of productive. Why in the world would anyone want to perpetuate that lie?
Additionally, and this is also very unhelpful in the quest for racial blindness, it perpetuates a stereotype that young Blacks are someone simply unable to follow simple rules. Very troubling. And astounding.
The SDMB is a great place to ask what people think about this. People from left, right, center and fringe have taken other posters to task for not answering on point, arguing fallaciously, or simply evading the question. So what do you all feel about this change to college debate? It’s something I think has been very valuable. We want good sound thinking from our leaders, regardless of their particular ideology.
I’m unclear how students (of any race) can cry “fuck the time” and manage to win a debate. It sounds as if the judging and moderating was as wanting as the debating skill.
The article cites debate coaches and participants who think that the traditional form of debate privileges white participants over others. That’s probably where the thread title comes from.
It’s one thing to say that the formalized rules of college debate contribute to white privilege. That should be a relatively uncontroversial thing to point out. It’s another thing to say that what is happening as described in the article doesn’t have its own problems. Frantz Fanon would have a field day with this.
Still, I think the OP’s objections are a bit off. For the first point, the participants are showing a mindfulness to the larger picture, and making the debate a part of a larger critique. I doubt that they don’t know how to make an on-point case when asked. There are certainly worse times to be creative and think bigger than while playing a game. Secondly, I don’t think it perpetuates a notion that black students can’t compete in a head to head fashion with white students. It just shows that some black students are tired of having what they see as the way white people like to do things be the default and only standard.
What is getting attention here isn’t what the minority students are doing, it’s that they are receiving awards for it. As is often the case when it comes to things having to do with minorities, this is really an argument within a predominantly white establishment over how they want to handle things for themselves.
As such what’s really sad for me is to read that last line in the article from one of the debaters: “No matter how people feel about my argument, they have to listen to me for all of my speeches…”
Unfortunately, even if you get a prize, it doesn’t mean they really listened.
I’ve never been to a debate - we don’t have them here - but it seems to me that if any of the debaters mentioned in the OP had been posters here, the threads they posted in would have been locked with warnings issued. Should the Cross Examination Debate Association, whatever that is, really have laxer moderation standards than the SDMB?
I just have no idea what you’re talking about. The rules of debate seem incredibly unbiased to me - there’s nothing there which would favor any race, gender, or creed (save perhaps for a moderator who doesn’t control Gish gallops leading to pseudoscientists getting an unfair advantage) .
Note that the final debate mentioned was black vs black, it looks like, so going outside the normal debate rules wasn’t really about sticking it to any white teams.
Having been involved in university-level debating in Australia in the distant past (not as a debater, but as a spectator and administrator), my first question would be, What are the “rules of debates” that we are talking about? Are debaters supposed to persuade, provoke, amuse, or show that they have researched the topic?
My next comment is that, debaters should be prepared for whatever their opponents throw at them. So if the other side says, “Fuck the rules, we’re going to debate another topic,” you should be ready to combat that, one way or another.
Not exactly. It was implied that the finalists had already won to that round by using unorthodox methods.
= = =
A few questions I have:
Is CEDA the only organizing agency for college level debates?
Has any outside group examined the debates to see whether the winners of these events won because of their extraneous behaviors? In other words, does it seem to outsiders that the contests are being won on flash and dazzle? Or are the contests actually being won on standard points, but the flash and dazzle upsets traditionalists in blue blazers?
I think it’s pretty cool. Every field could use some shaking up now and then, and debate is ripe for it. It’s become a tired and irrelevant ritual that isn’t contributing anything new to the world, and what’s the value in that? Is anything happening on debate that wasn’t happening 50 years ago? It’s practically the only field that hadn’t seen innovation.
These are student run organizations, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t do what students have always done-- push envelops, innovate, and question the standard way of doing things. And students who can’t keep up are free to start their own organizations, but they shouldn’t be surprised at being ridiculed for wanting to play-act the 1950s in isolation rather than rising to the challenge.
As a final note, this isn’t about race at all. Race happened to be the hook these kids used, but it could have been anything.
Do you think that the rules of logic are subject to the whims of college students? How about math?
So, if a debate challenge is “Should abortion be made illegal?”. One should be able to 1) argue issues not on point and get rewarded for it for it and 2) not adhere to the time limitations? How is being on-point and adhering to time limitations something that was fine in the '50s but annoyingly quaint now?