# Are the traditional rules of debate racist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742 "2014-04-23T04:20:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/21 "2014-04-23T12:55:34Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > We do all the time. There is no sport on earth that hasn’t felt the impact of new techniques, innovations in training, and new equipment. What **Alessan** said. What you’re describing has no bearing on what is described in the article. No one is arguing that the rules of a debate can’t be changed. But whatever they are when you enter the debate should be adhered to. And sorry, but the rules of logic don’t transmute because, we’ll, you just happened to to want to talk about your personal experiences. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/22 "2014-04-23T12:59:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? Before we address that question, it would be useful to know whether that has actually happened. The guy who blew off the time limit lost. (Was his exceeding the time a contributing factor to the loss?) Nothing in the linked story indicates that illogical arguments were promoted or accepted. There were references to arguments that employed personal experience and “artistic” presentation, but I saw no indication that violations of logic were ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/23 "2014-04-23T13:01:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Before we address that question, it would be useful to know whether that has actually happened. That’s so 1790s! ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/24 "2014-04-23T13:11:17Z")
The article does a poor job explaining the racial bias. It quotes a professor explaining that a lot seemingly neutral procedures are actually not but doesn’t then connect that observation to the rules of debate. The white privilege here seems to be that traditionally research was prioritized which gave an advantage to students from high resource institutions like Harvard and Northwestern. Now that the standards of evidence are less formalized the ability and life-experiences of the debtors themselves are more important. My concerns follow those of **tomndebb**. Debate is really selling itself short if it’s merely a contest to impress the crowd rather than to inform them. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/25 "2014-04-23T13:11:32Z")
> [@nani](#): > > 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. Yes. That and the article’s examples outlining both who is not adhering to the rules of debate and why. > [@nani](#): > > 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. How do we know? How do we know they are not as bad at it as some kid who doesn’t even enter the debate? > [@nani](#): > > 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. Again, what is it about the rules of logic that are somehow “white”. Should the same be said of math? The Laws of Motion? > [@nani](#): > > 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. But what is the gain? Is it to just say, “Hey, look some Black kids won a debate against some rich White kids?” It seems so. Though the “victory” is not one at all. Those who tasked with judging the winners could save a lot of time by just kicking out all the White kids and give the award to the kid with the most passionate argument about anything at all. 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…” > [@nani](#): > > Unfortunately, even if you get a prize, it doesn’t mean they really listened. Or that you really deserve the prize. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/26 "2014-04-23T13:16:29Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > We do all the time. There is no sport on earth that hasn’t felt the impact of new techniques, innovations in training, and new equipment. You don’t get to change the rules in the middle of the game. If someone wants to propose new rules, have it. If someone wants there to be no rules (or mushy rules), then what’s the point? _Resolved: Debates Should Not Have Rules._ ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/27 "2014-04-23T13:21:12Z")
I’ve participated in formal debates at the collegiate level and, while I didn’t get very far, there were people in our group who competed on an international level. One thing that’s important to understand is that “debate” in the competitive sense bears as much resemblance to actual debate as fencing does to sword fighting. And it’s racist in about the same way that fencing may be considered racist. That is, there’s no overt preference towards race but the high cost, investment in time and culture surrounding it inherently privileges upper middle class white people. The argument that’s playing out is whether debate should remain a fusty old niche sport or re-invent itself to become more relevant for the modern world, especially for a more diverse audience. It’s akin to the kids who first picked up the football and invented the game of rugby. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/28 "2014-04-23T13:22:54Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Before we address that question, it would be useful to know whether that has actually happened. > > The guy who blew off the time limit lost. (Was his exceeding the time a contributing factor to the loss?) > > Nothing in the linked story indicates that illogical arguments were promoted or accepted. There were references to arguments that employed personal experience and “artistic” presentation, but I saw no indication that violations of logic were ignored. Isn’t it right in the part quoted in the OP? > [@](#): > > Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities. “Rather than address the resolution straight on”. Umm, no they ignored the resolution. Presidential war powers relating to a euphemistic “war” on Black people is a little hard to swallow. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/29 "2014-04-23T13:30:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Before we address that question, it would be useful to know whether that has actually happened. > > The guy who blew off the time limit lost. (Was his exceeding the time a contributing factor to the loss?) Ignoring the time was just one example of flouting the rules. The article does not say if the loss was due, in part or in whole, to him ignoring the time constraint. The implication I got from the totality of the article is that no flouting of any rule had resulted in any negative consequence. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Nothing in the linked story indicates that illogical arguments were promoted or accepted. There were references to arguments that employed personal experience and “artistic” presentation, but I saw no indication that violations of logic were ignored. Here you go: > [@](#): > > On March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities. It seems to me that “the government being at ‘war’ with poor black communities” has pretty much nothing to do with the amount of power the President should have when we are fighting against the Germany, Japan, or some other enemy. One might as well choose to respond with a diatribe about the “War on Christmas”. The response defies logic, it is not on-point. Here’s another: (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > This year wasn’t the first time this had happened. In the 2013 championship, two men from Emporia State University, Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith, employed a similar style and became the first African-Americans to win two national debate tournaments. Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students. One would think that just as conclusions should logically follow from premises, what you offer in an answer should logically address what was actually asked. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/30 "2014-04-23T13:31:26Z")
They’re debating like politicians. Get asked a question you don’t like, say “Let me tell you like the _real_ issue is”. We’ve all seen it all a million times. It’s Politics 101: stick to your talking points and avoid actual debate. What they’re doing isn’t new - it’s old, and boring. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/31 "2014-04-23T13:41:35Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > I’ve participated in formal debates at the collegiate level and, while I didn’t get very far, there were people in our group who competed on an international level. One thing that’s important to understand is that “debate” in the competitive sense bears as much resemblance to actual debate as fencing does to sword fighting. > > And it’s racist in about the same way that fencing may be considered racist. That is, there’s no overt preference towards race but the high cost, investment in time and culture surrounding it inherently privileges upper middle class white people. > > The argument that’s playing out is whether debate should remain a fusty old niche sport or re-invent itself to become more relevant for the modern world, especially for a more diverse audience. It’s akin to the kids who first picked up the football and invented the game of rugby. So, it’s long been the purview of upper-crusty white kids—SO WHAT?!!! The same could be said of Medicine, Physics, Cosmology, hell, even Chess. Should each participant be allowed to wing it: “I shouldn’t have to set my Black piece down on a White square—they represent White privilege.” This is simply more politically correct nonsense sprouting from our schools. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/32 "2014-04-23T13:50:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It seems to me that “the government being at ‘war’ with poor black communities” has pretty much nothing to do with the amount of power the President should have when we are fighting against the Germany, Japan, or some other enemy. One might as well choose to respond with a diatribe about the “War on Christmas”. The response defies logic, it is not on-point. Ignoring the resolution is a flagrant violation of the rules of the game. However, nothing in either of your examples indicates that their presentations were, themselves, illogical. I am not arguing that this practice should continue, (or that it be stopped). It is a game with a limited number of players and audience and I will let those who have a vested interest in it work that out. However, you went beyond saying that they were being silly; you claimed that they were failing to demonstrate logic. I have not yet seen the evidence for that claim. They appear to have gamed the system by presenting a different argument before sympathetic judges. That is not the same thing as demonstrating a failure of logic. Should tri-hulls and catamarans be permitted to compete for the America’s Cup? One may argue either side of that point. However, regardless of the decision, there, it would be false to claim that such vessels are not sailboats or that their crews did not sail them “correctly.” ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/33 "2014-04-23T13:54:53Z")
I poked around a bit and it looks like the camps are so divided that there are “policy teams” and “K teams”. The policy teams are the traditionalists. What they want is to argue what they see as the nuts and bolts of policies. If asked to argue against (“the neg”) the Smoot–Hawley Tariff they will discuss economics. The “K teams” engage in “kritik” (German for critique.) They attack the foundations of their opponents arguments on the basis of racism, or feminism, or Objectivism, or whatever. What they want is to apply their philosophy to the question at hand. If they are asked to argue in favor (“the aff”) of Smoot-Hawley they will grind their philosophical axes against it. The issue for the policy teams then is that if they go up against a feminist K-team on the question of Gay Marriage they will have an argument about feminism. If they face the same team again on the question of the Electoral College they will again have an argument about feminism. And the same thing if they face that team on the “nuclear option” or whatever. A K-team becomes good at arguing their philosophy and then deploys it against people who are not used to doing so. So policy teams not only end up having repetitive debates but find themselves at a disadvantage. Again this is just what I’ve picked up reading in the last few minutes. If we have actual participants they can tell us more. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/34 "2014-04-23T14:03:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Ignoring the resolution is a flagrant violation of the rules of the game. > > However, nothing in either of your examples indicates that their presentations were, themselves, illogical. The problem with your argument here is that it ignores the more pressing issue: the War on Blacks. Why should I give examples of illogical arguments when so many black people make up the American prison population? ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/35 "2014-04-23T14:06:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, it’s long been the purview of upper-crusty white kids—SO WHAT?!!! The same could be said of Medicine, Physics, Cosmology, hell, even Chess. Should each participant be allowed to wing it: “I shouldn’t have to set my Black piece down on a White square—they represent White privilege.” This is simply more politically correct nonsense sprouting from our schools. Yes, but the difference there is that there are clear advantages to sticking to the rules of Medicine, Physics, Cosmology etc. Even Chess has shown, through surviving while new variations fell by the wayside, that it’s better the way it is. I don’t see that Debate has shown that. There’s no great benefit to mankind that’s being discovered or maintained by virtue of the Debate rules staying as they are, unlike Medicine or Cosmology. It may well be that the changes being pushed by these kids will make it \*better \*- not just in terms of breaking it out of the rich white ghetto it’s apparently got stuck in, but in terms of making participants think faster, speak more persuasively and argue better. I think if you want to argue that it’s wrong for debate rules to be challenged, you’d have to show the big advantages that are coming from keeping them as they are. (My background - I did debating in the UK, where tactics like disregarding the motion were commonplace. It made for sharper debates, much wider background knowledge, and people who could think on their feet.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/36 "2014-04-23T14:09:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Ignoring the resolution is a flagrant violation of the rules of the game. > > However, nothing in either of your examples indicates that their presentations were, themselves, illogical. > > I am not arguing that this practice should continue, (or that it be stopped). It is a game with a limited number of players and audience and I will let those who have a vested interest in it work that out. > > However, you went beyond saying that they were being silly; you claimed that they were failing to demonstrate logic. I have not yet seen the evidence for that claim. They appear to have gamed the system by presenting a different argument before sympathetic judges. That is not the same thing as demonstrating a failure of logic. > > Should tri-hulls and catamarans be permitted to compete for the America’s Cup? One may argue either side of that point. However, regardless of the decision, there, it would be false to claim that such vessels are not sailboats or that their crews did not sail them “correctly.” If I asked you to give me reasons why you thought Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all time, and you answered, “Filet-of-Fish is better than a Big Mac—WAY BETTER!”, would you be of the mind that your answer to the question was logical one? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/37 "2014-04-23T14:13:18Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > The problem with your argument here is that it ignores the more pressing issue: the War on Blacks. Why should I give examples of illogical arguments when so many black people make up the American prison population? That’s a blatantly antisemitic argument. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/38 "2014-04-23T14:38:29Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > It may well be that the changes being pushed by these kids will make it \*better \*- not just in terms of breaking it out of the rich white ghetto it’s apparently got stuck in, FWIW, a quick image search seems to show that last year two black guys won and in 2008 as well. > **[Cross Examination Debate Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Examination_Debate_Association#National_Tournament_Results)** > > The Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) (/ˈsiːdə/ SEE-də) is the largest intercollegiate policy debate association in the United States. Throughout the school year, CEDA sanctions over 60 tournaments throughout the nation, including an annual National Championship Tournament that brings together over 175 individual debate teams from across the nation to compete on the basis of research, persuasive speaking, argumentation, and philosophy. > For a number of years, CEDA employed a two-person ... ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/39 "2014-04-23T14:39:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If I asked you to give me reasons why you thought Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all time, and you answered, “Filet-of-Fish is better than a Big Mac—WAY BETTER!”, would you be of the mind that your answer to the question was logical one? If I presented a coherent argument for that position, it could, indeed, be logical, if off topic. However, your scenario is merely absurd to try to make your point. A more realistic scenario, in keeping with the examples in your linked story, would be that given a topic that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer, the kids might attack Boxing as a brutal sport or society for creating a situation in which only the poorest people are reduced to engaging in it in order to escape their poverty. In making those arguments, they would need to present supportable assertions and logical arguments. It would be (in my view) a flagrant violation of the rules, but it would not be illogical. ---
**Author:** ![nolonger\_lurking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/41988e/32.png) [@nolonger\_lurking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nolonger_lurking)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742/40 "2014-04-23T14:51:15Z")
Having participated in CEDA debate at the high-school level, I think that it is important to remember that this is a _sport_, not a search for truth or an effort to pass legislation or even to simply convince the judges of you position. The high-school teams in Anchorage AK, where I debated, generally stuck to a more persuasive/rhetorical style of debate, and were almost invariably crushed in the first rounds of the national competition. The same debaters often went on the dominate the national circuit on the UAA parliamentary debate team. > [@Shalmanese](#): > > I’ve participated in formal debates at the collegiate level and, while I didn’t get very far, there were people in our group who competed on an international level. One thing that’s important to understand is that “debate” in the competitive sense bears as much resemblance to actual debate as fencing does to sword fighting. CEDA debate is the most artificial I’ve seen (compared to Lincoln-Douglas and parliamentary styles). Even sticking to actual policy debate, the way that scoring is done rewards fast speech over logic or rhetoric. It is even worse than Gish-galloping, in that individual points only need to be barely comprehensible. When the winning strategy is to spout off a case like someone listing 50 states in one breath, I think a meta-debate on rules or judging philosophy is no less harmful. You can claim that abandoning the resolution is violating the “rules” of the debate, but if the team doing so wins you have to recognize that the rules of the debate are not what you thought. > [@2sense](#): > > The issue for the policy teams then is that if they go up against a feminist K-team on the question of Gay Marriage they will have an argument about feminism. If they face the same team again on the question of the Electoral College they will again have an argument about feminism. And the same thing if they face that team on the “nuclear option” or whatever. A K-team becomes good at arguing their philosophy and then deploys it against people who are not used to doing so. So policy teams not only end up having repetitive debates but find themselves at a disadvantage. I sympathize with the frustration here, because the P-team is faced with either talking past their opponents or engaging them on severely lopsided grounds. The solution must be in training the judges. I am less concerned about kritik arguments focused directly on the opposing team’s language. Either way, every P-team needs to have a convincing argument prepared that makes the case against kritiks generally, and probably additional arguments for kritiks that go further afield. If the judges entered the room expecting to evaluate a policy, arguments for that evaluation method needn’t be as convincing as arguments that the judge should be evaluating the social good of having a debate at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-traditional-rules-of-debate-racist/686742.md?page=3)