The judge claimed that by quoting 'racist' statements by Mr. Shapiro and Professor Peterson, they were subjecting their opponents, two Hispanic girls (obviously not 'White' Hispanic) to '“actual psychological violence” and that their safety was at risk.' (I guess that Tempe, AZ is too warm a climate for snowflakes of any kind!)
The 'kind of' good news is that one of the directors of the debate stated that the judge over stepped his bound HOWEVER, he also slammed the young men by stating, "... it’s incredibly obvious that – regardless of how many ways you try to couch this argument in front of that judge – the bar for the other team to respond to it was going to be so low that 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.” Kind of a 'back handed' acknowledgement on the part of the director.
BTW, one of the disqualified high school debaters is Michael Moreno, obviously a 'White' Hispanic, trying to display his 'patriarchal white supremacy'! (/sarc)
Sue the bastard!...................
Debate by censorship!
If they were assigned to argue against Racism, were the two hispanic girls assigned to argue FOR racism?
Didn’t the topic picker inflict psychological violence?
Betting this won’t be ‘an unidentified judge’ for long. Welcome to the national stage, idiot.
I believe this violates the students 1ST Amendment rights. The teacher/professor is a representative of the government and as such his actions were censoring the students. Is it no wonder students from k-college are coming out indoctrinated in the Leftist ideology when those in power penalize students for “wrong” thinking.
A political purge is on by the same Communist filth who said it was wrong to hound Communists for being card carrying members of The Party.
Looks like Big Media blurred out the debate “judge”’s photo, bur not the students’ that he bullied.
Do debate teams now have to come with their own lawyer?
How long before the speeches of Abraham Lincoln are banned?
Not typical. Cranked up discrimination against conservatives.
Sue sue sue!!!!!
I well remember a high school debate in Civics class. In high school I was a hard core conservative. My civics teacher assigned me the role of Marxist advocate. As an exercise in debate I eagerly took the assignment. I crushed the conservative side of the debate. They were ill prepared. If they were prepared with knowledge they would have destroyed my logic.
After the debate a couple of my friends asked me “if I was a communist?” I then knew I had done well in the debate. I told them “hell no, I am working for the Barry Goldwater campaign. This was just a debate.”
“... it’s incredibly obvious that – regardless of how many ways you try to couch this argument in front of that judge – the bar for the other team to respond to it was going to be so low that 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.”
_____________________________________________________
So, a Left-wing debate-judge gets to decide which arguments are of quality. Here’s a great idea: bring in Shapiro or Peterson and let them debate this “debate judge”. Let’s have an audience of civilians judge the debate. I wonder which arguments the viewers would deem to be of “poor choice”.
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.
[[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.
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.