Skip to comments.Does Traditional College Debate Reinforce White Privilege?
Posted on 04/18/2014 3:33:09 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
It used to be that if you went to a college-level debate tournament, the students youd see would be bookish future lawyers from elite universities, most of them white. In matching navy blazers, theyd recite academic arguments for and against various government policies. It was tame, predictable, and, frankly, boring.
These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These alternative-style debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.
But this transformation has also sparked a difficult, often painful controversy for a community that prides itself on handling volatile topics.
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. presidents 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.
In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like nigga authenticity and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lees rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. Fuck the time! he yelled...
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Fo’ shizzle my debatin’ nizzles!
So rational thought and argumentation goes out the window in order to pander to these “winners?”
No. Just no.
As a former high school debater, I found the article interesting at several levels. On the surface, I’m astounded that the judges have awarded teams with confrontational approaches to the debate that ignore the stated question. In addition, a prime directive within the debate context was that debate was a combination of persuasive evidence and argumentation skills which included framing the discussion using logic and rhetoric. Nowhere within that was personal experience or anecdote considered to be an element that would lead to success in the debate.
I’m 56 years old. When do I get my white privilege?
They’re just peeved that “You Rasis” isn’t considered a valid argument.
That's the "beauty" of claiming white privilege. If you're white you were born with an advantage, no matter what environment you lived within. And if your not white you were disenfranchised no matter what. This theme is racist at it core.
Well if you axed me.
Why hasn’t anyone pointed out to these people that there’s a difference between a formal debate and a gathering of community organizers?
This is a confused piece of writing. The two Towson students didn't "attack the premise." They free-associated off the words "war powers" and simply changed the subject. I imagine their opponents spent the time trying to bring the debate back to the topic at hand, while the Towsonettes rambled on about any number of extraneous issues. Why the judges would tolerate and reward this is beyond me.
No....it shows what happens with hard work and good ethics.
Well, it does encourage black people to “think white.”
But if there is such a thing as “thinking white” rather than “thinking human” it is non whites who are to blame for dropping the ball. The old idealist song “He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother” has been transmogrified into “I’m Gonna Be As Heavy As I Can Because I Deserve It, Now Heave, Brother!”
It’s a seductive road.
There is no white privilege, only accomplishment.
“...the resolution asked whether the U.S. presidents 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.”
Since they didnt actually address the issue, the debate was NOT won on the argument but on affirmative action and political correctness. Another academic institution destroyed by the elimination of standards.
Certainly it does. These new debaters are experiencing the end point of the usefulness of their debating “skills,” while white students go on to use traditional skills in the courtroom and the boardroom, neither venue of which tolerates such self-indulgent nonsense.
The privilege is a derivative of being white, i.e. the inability to rely on verbal violence and chaos for a momentary win.
“Fuck the time!”
I believe I detect an ancestral flash of future President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
Kinda makes you go all weepy, don’t it!
Except, sadly, where it does... case in point the modern "gay" craze. It's trouble in rainbow garb.
About 50 years ago a moment of curiosity led me to attend the tryouts for my high school debate team. When the teacher told us we would be assigned to either the “Pro” or the “Con” side of the argument I asked, “What if we don’t believe in that position?”
The teacher replied, “That does not matter. We are here to teach debating skill. Whether or not you believe the premise to be true is irrelevant.” So I got up and walked out.
If these “community activists/rappers” want to demonstrate that they are the best collegiate debaters in the land, assign them to argue FOR the topic, “States Rights, as enumerated in the US Constitution, required that the South Secede from the Union”. (have a good electrician standing by - a lot of folks will be “blowing fuses”!)
It should be clear that in this context “white” is a proxy for conservative Judeo-Christian values (or what is left of them), and “not white” or “of color” is a proxy for socialist. Moreover, the issue is to purge their society of everything connected with this “white” with the assumption that what remains will be ideologically harmonious.
To the extent that this is being advocated by people who are themselves Caucasian, they are of the mindset that they have made it clear they repudiate conservative Judeo-Christian values, maybe even to the extent they participate in public displays of repudiation by protesting what they call “white privilege.”
Liberal self-loathing has driven them all mad.
The irrefutable rebuttal is that black subcultures are poor by choice.
Were the members of the subculture, especially the urban subcultures, to decide they wanted a different life, all they have to do is to just make the change. They are free to do so.
That would have troubled me too. Giving an account of the pro’s and con’s of an issue is not the same as being forced into being devil’s advocate.
They were too uneducated to know a thing about presidential war powers. That is the simple unescapable fact. But they DO know all about the neverending racial grievances prompted by Sharpton & Jackson LLC. So that's what they screamed about. Indiana University is dumbing itself down by encouraging this.
Fear of the race card, aka Black Privilege?
“At one point during Lees rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. Fuck the time! he yelled”
THAT tells you everything you need to know about where our ‘culture’ is going.
It is apparent in all and everything.
“White privilege” - The “privilege” to realize early on that working class whites have to work twice as hard as everyone else due to self hating whites and political correctness.
“Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like nigga authenticity and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format.”
Swami says: I see in your future EBT cards and section 8 housing. Here’s your prize, debaters: One case of MD 20-20.
I imagine their opponents spent the time trying to bring the debate back to the topic at hand....
I doubt it, considering that one of the Oklahoma “debaters” yelled the obscenity when informed that his time was up.
This is just so absurd that I actually went back to check the source given here to make sure this was not from the “Onion”.
There is no such a thing as 'white privilege'. Its a racist fabrication.
These new debaters are experiencing the end point of the usefulness of their debating skills, while white students go on to use traditional skills in the courtroom and the boardroom, neither venue of which tolerates such self-indulgent nonsense.
Perhaps not in the courtroom of today, but I can see it coming.
Why have a “traditional” debate when “diverse” groups can simply mug their opponents and call it social justice?
There is no such thing as “white privilege.”
“Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like nigga authenticity and performed hip-hop -——————”
And this is where I stopped reading.
Academics can’t get much lower than this.
“White privilege” is a self-loathing de facto admission by non-whites that Western Civilization with its Judeo-Christian roots is superior to the rest of the world’s civilization. It certainly is in decline, but nothing else can hold a candle to it.
That can be empirically proven by those who have a choice as to what “race” they identify as.
It would be obvious that anyone given the choice would choose to identify with the “race” with the most privilege.
When you look at everyone that tries to claim some “minority” status, you see that the privilege enforced in our current society is not in being “white”.
Even with a college education the "authentic niggas" are oblivious to the fact that DEMOCRATS run the governments that are home to most all the poor black communities in this country.
They obviously agree with Al Sharpton about the current bi-racial, president's lack of black authenticity!
“White privilege” involves skin pigmentation that is well-suited for survival in the high northern latitudes under the economic conditions of the past. With the economic conditions of today, it is irrelevant, as are the privileges associated with other pigmentations.
With regard to drawing debate judges from college faculties, this is such a biased and privileged group as to question the relevancy of college debate. A possible solution would be to draw judges from a range of professions, not merely from college faculties, so as to have a pool of judges representative of the range of professions for which college is to be a preparation.
It is bad enough that college faculties are hopelessly left-wing, if this is true of the professions in general our country is doomed and there’s no use to worrying about it.
There will always be sore losers.
Ok... I am stealing that word...”victimidation”
Nobody has been able to explain exactly what this “privilege” is supposed to encompass. So it’s nothing more than a vague catch-all excuse for white success and non-white failure. And the beauty of it, its power, arises from the fact that your very denial of its existence is ... wait for it ... because IT exists!
Marx — and the whole postmodern movement — relies on these tautological syllogisms to immunize themselves against any criticism. “You can’t argue with me because you’re wrong. The very fact that you’re arguing with me proves it.”
In the field of Logic, this is known as “Byproduct of Bovine Digestion.”
Affirmative action in progress. Measurable standards be damned. I see no moral difference between the Towson technique and resolving a difference with a bullet.
You cant argue with me because youre wrong. The very fact that youre arguing with me proves it.
This assumptive belief encompasses far more of leftist thought than just the “race issue”.
They believe that their ideological opponents are unworthy of conducting discussion with because they’re immoral, and the proof of their immorality is that they hold an opposing viewpoint.
To arrive at this convoluted reasoning, liberals have this inherent base assumption that since their intentions are “good”, any policy they support must be inherently “good” and moral. Any opposition to those policies is therefore immoral and evil and not worthy of debate.
Words only do so much justice for this. Keep in mind, this is a liberal writing this stuff, as y’all have seen, so it’s written in the best light possible.
Here’s the actual video of the debate if it hasn’t been posted yet. I was taken aback when I read the article, but when I actually saw this with my own eyes, I was positively mortified.
“The beginnin’ of the tournament, you know what I’m sayin’, in this context, or whatever, how do you articulate this mode of suffering?”
“Hold on, I’m identifiying how niggas ain’t livin’, you know what I’m sayin’, hol’ up... hol’ up, hol’ up”
“This whiteness kills the black imagination so we can only envision racist visions, where they are dying on the street, where they are Treyvon Martin. [...] The negro should live... no, no, the nigga will live.”
“They reflecting my perspective,
for the shit they don’t care!
They ain’t pop a shot,
they niggas don’t care!”
This is just scratching the surface. I didn’t even get to the part where one of the “debaters” told he judge to “fuck the time”. I didn’t need to. There were curse words abound.
My God. National debate champions. I’m absolutely horrified.
I had watched some of it earlier. Several of the participants were speed-reading and gasping loudly for air their entire time. It was unintelligible; I actually couldn’t understand most of the words, much less discern any cogent thoughts.
I suppose that’s the point of this “method”: avoid the question, complain about white people, and use it as a platform to start one’s career as a rapper before an imprisoned audience. Entirely narcissistic.
It was interesting at the beginning when the clock started, but then it was reset because the guy spent the next four minutes thanking people and making comments and shout-outs.
Oh, here’s another quote: “I’m glad Reagan’s dead.”
Next silly question?