Or, if one were really hoping for an objective response, one could theorize that the rules itself are unfair and should be revised. You hold the rules as something absolute, and attack those who can’t or won’t follow them. Nothing makes rules absolute, maybe you should think about how proper debate should be in the way presented by these kids
Wait- that comment deserves some more attention.
Is that a stereotype? It sounds more like a clumsy attempt to link this trumped-up outrage about debate rules to a stereotype about black criminality, which is a stereotype that people actually believe. Who adopts stereotypes based on a combination of media depictions or crime reporting combined with college debate rules? We’re talking about freaking college debate teams. Who is less criminal than that? These people are giant nerds.
Perhaps a link to what we are really talking about would help. (skip to the 1 minute mark to get past the commercials). Both the “black” style and the “white” style seem to be presented.
This is insane, and it will remind nobody of any piece of legislative or judicial rhetoric ever.
So in other words, get off my lawn.
By the way, it’s kind of unfair to set us up for a “white debaters be like _____ but black debaters be like _____” joke. 
:rolleyes:
No one has presented any evidence that the people in question cannot debate logically.
They appear to have simply gamed the system of a game. They are not “resorting” to anything except to find a more effective way to play the game.
Go watch the “debaters” from Harvard in the link posted by Buck Godot. If they had been shown without any context as an example of “good” debaters, those posters who are upset by the way things are going in CEDA would have denied that they were debating, at all, and probably suggested that the video was a parody or other form of distortion.
True. And when posters behave in the manner of the Harvard “debaters” from Buck Godot’s link, running off streams of interminable, indecipherable, disconnected text, we Mod them, as well. We are not playing the same game that CEDA is playing, so our rules differ.
Jesus fucking Christ. So the “traditional” debate style is to read off a list of cites as fast as humanly possible.
This ain’t a debate. It’s a speed-talking contest that just so happens to be called a debate.
Exactly! That’s what everyone who’s been involved with debates has been trying to tell everyone who hasn’t.
Not at all. But James T. Kirk would approve of these debaters.
What you seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp is that by not answering a question on point, i.e., in a logical manner, you are not debating logically. Now doesn’t mean that the people in question are completely unable to debate logically, but it does mean that they’ve exhibited a fundamental disrespect for it so egregious, that I have little confidence in any theoretical latent ability.
But “answering a question on point” and “debating logically” is not how you win the game that they are engaging in. It’s like saying that moving the night on a chessboard proves you can’t make a straight line.
You opened this thread expressing shock that they were not capable of putting forth a logically sound case. Nothing that we have seen in the exploration of CEDA’s current situation supports that claim. They appear to have gamed the system, but their arguments might well be extremely logical. (Any claim that their opponents, with their run-on, stream of consciousness tirade of factoids that may or may not actually mean anything, are displaying “logic” are silly. Any claim that the Harvard team in Buck Godot’s video are demonstrating “respect” for debate may be dismissed as ludicrous.) Formal debate as it is generally recognized has not been a factor in these contests in a number of years, apparently. Claiming that a new strategy to win points–one that seems to have won over the CEDA selected judges–is a failure of logic is nonsensical. No contestant in any of those games is behaving logically or presenting logical arguments.
Had the histrionics of the newer groups been used against a team that was actually “debating” in the sense that most of us regard that word, you might have a point. Given the reality of the “debates” that are nothing more than displays of theater of the absurd, I cannot get worked up over a new act winning with a different style.
Drawing conclusions from these displays regarding the capabilities of the teams of either type of display in regard to actual debate or to logic is rather like judging performance art on the basis of the set rules of ancient Greek drama. One may simply dismiss performance art, but one cannot possibly draw a legitimate conclusion regarding the capabilities of the actors based on one’s revulsion for performance art. Pretending that teams such as the one from Harvard are actually engaged in debate is ridiculous and criticizing their opponents for displaying a different kind of theater than the Harvard crowd is, itself, without basis in reason or logic.
“I am playing a game. If I perform a certain set of actions, I will win the game. Therefore, I shall perform those actions.”
Seems pretty logical to me.
I didn’t realize they . . . TookLongPauses before . . . getting . . . to . . . THE POINT!
Are you making determinations based on the color of someone’s skin?
THAT’S RACIST!
HE! IS! DEBATING! LOGICALLY! [gasp] THISISALOGICALDEBATE [gasp] BECAUSEITISIADEBATEANDIAMLOGICAL [gasp] MY! CITE! IS! THIS! THREAD! [gasp] BOWBEFOREMYAWESOMELOGIC! [gasp] SINCE! THIS! IS! CLEARLY! [gas] THE! BEST! WAY! TO! DEBATE! [gasp] WHY! DON’T! YOU! [gasp] DEBATE! LIKE! THIS!?
Makes sense.
The disconnect I see here is that people think debates SHOULD be logical and that it follows that whatever the rules to determine style or substance back up that fact, or should as most people believe so.
However, given the actual debate seems to descend into speedtalking and recitation of citations, it is arguable that the rules promote such logic.
So these kids take advantage of that, attack the rules, and win. Since the debate is a competition, one with a lack of strict enforcement of some rules, that forces people to confront the reality that the rules don’t necessarily promote what they think a debate should be, and people lose their shit over that rather than acknowledge they were wrong
I don’t see how that follows logically.