Posted on 02/07/2019 11:58:24 AM PST by A Formerly Proud Canadian
Two Utah high school seniors lost a round in a debate when they argued against racism and classism by citing the works of two “racist” pundits, psychologist Jordan Peterson and conservative writer Ben Shapiro.
A debate judge deemed the writings of “white supremacists” Peterson and Shapiro as inadmissible in the Jan. 5 verbal contest held at Arizona State University in Tempe.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
I would bet my bank account the “judge” was a freakin chick.
With that resolution in mind, the next thing to understand is that one team argues in the affirmative case, i.e. in favor of the resolution. The opposing team argues the negative or status quo case. Both sides present information in support of their case that can be data, studies, opinion, etc. The teams must use their evidence to support their case by following logic and persuasive argumentation. These are the points for the judge to evaluate and arrive at a decision on which team did the best job of supporting their case in all elements: evidence, logic, argumentation, presentation.
The director was correct that the judge was outside the bounds of the job when taking a position on the question and ending the debate prematurely. The director was incorrect in calling out the one team's case as being unwinnable on its face, IMO. There was no way to know the predisposition of that judge and it would have been nearly impossible to have tailored your case to meet that burden. If I had been the judge, the team of young women that was calling out their opposition because of "white male privilege" would have lost for using an ad hominem argument rather than presenting alternative evidence or logic.
There’s video. I believe its a ‘he’, if that happens to be ‘their’ preferred pronoun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IIm2an8QkI&feature=youtu.be
[[Debate judge disqualifies high school students]]
Apparently the rules are ‘not up for debate’ if you are conservative- you are scum and will be disqualified because snowflakes might need safe spaces after your speech- they can’t handle the TRUTH!@
“the argumentative content that you chose, the strategy that you chose, for that judge and for his stated philosophy, was a poor choice on your part.”
That means that the team failed to take into account the known prejudices of the debate judge, which is apparently a valid part of debate-contest strategy. In general, in a practical sense, this is true. This goes back to ancient rhetoric, wherein all the teachers insisted that the argument be designed around the known prejudices and knowledge of the audience.
Needed at the state level: statutory bills of rights to protect students’ ability to argue their political beliefs.
The kids will learn in law school never to use an argument that exceeds the judge’s intelligence.
Some of Lincoln's words are indicative of actual racism, in the true sense of the word, as one who believes that one race is inherently superior to another. Nothing to do with hatred.
In the voice of Arnold in Conan: How weak you must be that mere words can hurt you so.
Hey! These judges behave just like real Rat SJ court judges.
Snopes, I’m sure.
That was me in high school and beyond, too.
You must know how to address all opposing views to your core beliefs. It takes time, but you must stand or you will fall.
I get the greatest adrenaline boost from every such opportunity. The more people I can challenge and debate in front of, the better.
“I’m not having this debate”.
Declared the ‘winner.’
All hope is lost.
It will come out - nothing the ‘protected class’ can do about it.
That “judge” is a cunt.
Essentially the judge’s position is “that all your arguments are invalid because you are white”. Furthermore the very act of whites defending their position is racist and was considered physically harmful to their opposition. The game is rigged in favor of the browns.
In high school debate, it is a “game”, and you win the game by convincing the judge, or judges, that you did a better job of presenting an argument than your opponent.
So it is quite true that you need to take into account the judge/judges.
And it is surprising that the director was so obvious in saying that the judge was clearly going to be biased, and they should have KNOWN that. How? Were they supposed to look at his skin color?
Lincoln to his credit understood the evil of slavery. The ugly truth about Lincoln is he considered the negro inferior. If one is curious look up what he has said. Lincoln was a very flawed man with good intentions.
The real sin of Lincoln is if slavery (a most horrid institution) were allowed to exist another twenty years it would have died. Instead we had the civil war and ripped the soul out of our nation.
Lincoln is a man to be admired and also a man to be scorned. In addition he was an abomination to Constitutional law, but that is a different conversation.
I admire Lincoln but abhor many of his decisions and antipathy to our Constitution. Lincoln won the war, he damn near destroyed our Republic.
I forgot to add this about the debate. This was not just a one off thing in class. My most learned civics teacher assigned this project and we went to the high school library and the local college to study the basics behind the logic.
I studied well, I destroyed the opposing side though my side was Marxism that I was totally against. My opponents in debate were on the side of good. They did not research properly and thus were helpless in debate.
Our civics teacher was not an insane liberal. He had the wisdom to make students debate and make them debate positions that he knew were philosophically opposed to their personal beliefs. It was actually quite brilliant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.