Chiming in as a former HS debater as well. I find every single sentence of the OP to be incorrect. IMHO this is based largely in an ignorance of CE, as well as having a great big unwieldy +3 Hammer of Righteous Indignation that makes everything look like a liberal-shaped nail.
If you have actual refutations to statements posted, please make them rather than providing a blanket dismissal attached to a not very veiled personal attack on the poster.
[ /Moderating ]
Sure, but the whole thrust of the article is that these black winners represent a new departure in terms of both style and the socio-economic background of winning teams. It’s “traditional” institutions who are insisting on the importance of the current rules and newer competitors who are shaking things up.
Regardless, I’d very much like to see these debaters use this tactic at a spelling bee.
The disagreement here rests on differing assumptions about the purpose of debate tournaments.
Is the purpose of these tournaments to train students to be logicians, or at least to work in related fields like math, computer science, and engineering? If so, then it would seem that the old-fashioned, white-male-populated form of debating is better. That form taught the debaters to use logical rules rigorously to construct sounds arguments, and to explain the flaws in arguments that aren’t sound.
Or is the purpose to train students to be politicians, media personalities, and so forth? Because if you’re trying to rise in the world of politics and media these days, logic is not what you need. Indeed, I think logic is mainly a barrier to success in those fields. If you get hung up on old-fashioned issues such as whether a certain statement is true or false, you won’t go very far in politics and you won’t get your own radio or television show. In modern-day America, you rise in the world by using emotions powerfully to manipulate your audience, by presenting yourself as a victim, and so forth; logic just gets in the way. According to the article that the OP linked to, the new debaters often use streams of profanity, throw furniture, and employ racial slurs. In the olden days, such things were frowned upon. In the case of throwing furniture, they might even have been illegal. But nowadays a good stream of profanity or a well-thrown chair can help make you one of America’s elite.
Aah, I see. So it’s people who didn’t even make it to the final round who’re complaining, I get it.
I have a question - I assume these debates are moderated and judged, right? So if those people decided these teams deserved to be in the final, and that the winning team was the winning team, either they are ignorant of the rules, or the rules aren’t what everyone thought they were, right?
Sorry tom~.
And my apologies, magellan.
The strategy you describe reminds me of Sarah Palin’s debate strategy in the VP debate. Ignore the question, and answer instead whatever you feel like. So maybe these kids are on the right track for success in Republican politics.
I was a high school debater back when there were rules. It looks like the problem here is the judging - you can’t fault a team for doing what works. If football refs allowed players on the bench to run out on the field to tackle an opponent, it is not reasonable for any team to play by the old rules.
Well, yeah, but you try to apply logic to spelling in English and see how far you get.
I’d suggest it rests on whether or not debate tournaments have a purpose. It’s a sport, an activity. We don’t assume that singing in a show choir has some underlying purpose to train singers, nor that football has the purpose of training athletes. At least I think we don’t assume those things. Do we?
Oh please. “Modern-day America?” When was this mythical time in the past where Americans–or humans–relied solely on cold logic to persuade others?
That’s the thing. We had rules in the 1980s as well…but we did our damndest to push them as far as possible if it would give us the win. We changed up the game as much as possible to gain advantage. If we had a judge who thought we were over the line, we got dinged. If we had one who was entertained enough, we didn’t.
Ghoti!
Anyhow, thanks to the wiki link above I’ve found the rules, sorry, guidelines to Policy Debate.
These rules are an abomination against all sense. Anyone who is fighting to change them is doing the Lord’s work.
nolonger lurking has already raised the issue of speed
Anyone who claims to be debating by merely blurting out a laundry list of barely comprehensible “arguments” has no business complaining about rap.
If I follow this absurdity correctly, these debaters are essentially reading out, one after the other, a brief sentence of their own, citation details and then paragraphs, or even pages, of someone else’s writing.
This is madness even before we get on to the business of questioning the judge about their “paradigm” or the straitjacket of “stock issues”. But worse than all of this is that there is one, and only one, resolution used in all competition for a given year. I mean, I hope I’m misreading it, but this is ludicrous.
It seems from this that the rules basically encourage people to recite large chunks of other people’s thoughts, as fast as possible, over and over and over again. It’s very hard to characterise that as debate.
Everybody needs to read post #40 very carefully. College debate has no relation to what most people think of when they hear the word. It is a sport, like Ultimate Frisbee. Kritiks are a valid and effective tool to use to win. That’s all. Said tool is less than useless outside of the sport and shouldn’t be considered at all in the real world, just like you wouldn’t call for a pick-off play when discussing mortgage interest with your accountant.
What we have at the base here (well, behind the “dashikis and dreds, oh my!” stuff) is a prescriptivist vs. descriptivist argument. Is debate defined as “whatever debater do at debate competitions,”'or is it now and forever defined as a highly stylized game where people pretend to be British parliamentarians from the 1700s?
In any case, my understanding is that debate is kind of like writing a sonnet. The challenge is more about making good use of an essentially arbitrary form than the actual content. As such, I’d say it is ripe for change, being nearly irrelevant AND unentertaining.
There are different styles of debate structure. This particular contest looks far stupider and useless than parliamentary style debate.
This.
I take a pretty dim view of multiculturalism in general, but Policy Debate is already so stupid, as it stands, that introducing rap and mini-theater can only be an improvement.
I don’t suppose we can get a cite for this. It sounds nice, but I see very little use of formal logic in politics. I’m not sure it’s selected for, so to speak. I’m not sure it works that way in law either. And if post #40 and #53 are accurate, this contention is obviously 100% false: it would mean these debates are highly specialized speed-talking contests that have nothing in particular to do with logic.
So a ton of fields that you believe are associated with professional and personal accomplishment and crafting our governmental policies are associated with white kids from a particular socioeconomic class. “SO WHAT?!!!” This is perhaps the least surprising I’ve ever seen here. A lot of us (not you) do give a shit about this kind of inequality because we believe it essentially excludes some groups of people from society: if the laws are mostly created by one type of white kid - and I think that’s largely true but has nothing to do with this foofaraw about college debate teams - it’s not hard to imagine that other groups of people will be poorly represented and the law won’t reflect their concerns or address their problems and that systemic biases may be reduced. And I’d like for everybody to have an equal opportunity to become doctors and lawyers and politicians and things, not just “upper-crusty white kids.” We’re all better off if that’s the case. Do you see the issue?
Come to think of it, though, the judges might have been 100% correct.
If I were judging the debate, and both sides disregarded the topic while performing spoken-word poetry about what they figured was a more pressing issue – or if both teams just stood there without saying a word – then I’d simply consult the rules to see which team had the burden of proof, before noting that the other team won.
At this point it seems clear that the particular debate format in the article is not the traditional debate format.
And procedural rules can have racial implications. When we talk about white privilege we are talking about a society that has been terraformed by a largely white constituency. Most of the time, the terraforming was done without race in mind. When they developed the rules of criminal procedure, they didn’t think “ooh this is really going to stick it to the minorities” They developed rules that white society would think was reasonable and intuitive. They may not have been quite as reasonable and intuitive for someone from a different cultural background.
Thanks, that was pretty enlightening and puts the OP in perspective.
IIRC a lot of folks on the HS debate teams think they are going to be lawyers or politicians some day.
At the trial level, catchy phrasses like “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” might be effective reminders to the jury that reasonable doubt has been created.
WWII? The logic of a gun or nuclear bomb is pretty cold and fairly convincing.