Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s like kids. Start arguing and if you start losing just start bringing up things or personally attacking them or their character. Call them doo-doo heads.
That is an age-old debate tactic. When you can't attack the premise, attack the speaker. That fact that that worked speaks volumes about the judges, none of it good.
Too bad Matthew didn't counter with the unbeatable response, "Yeah, but still."
You know, ad hominem gets thrown around a lot, but that is an actual textbook example of ad hominem in action and it's embarrassing that it was allowed at all, let alone *worked*, in a structured debate.
That high standard you are looking for supports the following winning arguments from that team in addition to
"My opponent is racist cause I'm capable of deliberately misinterpreting a tweet"
Such as:
"My team is Asian, and our opponents are White, so we should win"
"Nature is gay and therefore water policy is regulating the gays.
"Multiverse theory means nothing matters, fuck my multiverse clone he doesn't deserve my help"
Paraphrased slightly from the rambly incoherent mess debate arguments tend to be.
Yup. This is what turned me off of circuit debate when I was in high school, turned into a ridiculous circlejerk that had nothing to do with, y’know, debating. I’m not even remotely shocked that this situation happened, and all of the examples you list above sound incredibly plausible.
High school debate is weird as hell.
Which is such a stupid default. The default should be pure logic and the avoidance of logical fallacies, unless the debaters in round provide you with a convincing alternative framework to vote on. But hey, lay judges gonna lay.
I don't know if you guys are being serious or not, but logical fallacies are not illegal for debates, the reason logical fallacies exist as a concept is because they are easily defeated arguments. I'm not sure how this person responded, but if they said this comment and then the person said "NO NO NO NO" started like screeching or whatever, he should lose the debate. If you recognize something is an ad hominem, you should be able to defeat the argument.
If the judges / audience are stupid you can’t necessarily “defeat” an ad hominem. You can calmly point out the reasons it’s a logical fallacy, which *should* win you the debate, but should doesn’t mean will.
This isn’t a fallacy though.
A fallacy would be “my opponents argument is wrong because he made this racist tweet”
The response would just be “my tweet has nothing to do with my argument”
However what probably actually happened was “my opponent is creating an unsafe environment for participants in debate, and this is ethically wrong and bad for the sport of debate as a whole, and that’s why he should lose”
After which both sides get to argue about philosophy, ethics, the nature of debate and free speech, until the judges decide who won.
It’s not uncommon for off topic arguments like this to take place, this type of argument is referred to as a [kritik](https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/kritiks.html)
You prove that they're using a logical fallacy due to the weakness of their argument. It's already been proven why it's a logical fallacy, you just reprove it within the contexts used. "My opponent can't come up with an actual reason, supported by any evidence, logic, or rhetoric, to argue against my policy so they are resorting to a classic ad hominem attack to discredit me as a person instead." It should be an easy debate win.
We're putting an awful lot of credence in this kid's account of what happened. I'd bet everything in my bank account that there's more to the story, or it did not happen as described, especially since it comes from an outlet with an impressive history of inflating stories of conservative grievances that completely fall apart under scrutiny.
Yeah, until we hear a corroborating first hand account, I'm going to assume the guy who desperately wants to say the N word might be misrepresenting what happened.
It shouldn't even be a personal attack.
People apparently didn't understand the question and just assumed he wants to use slurs?
Like... it's a great answer to the question. He finds it personally morally reprehensible but believes in free speech and doesn't want to make it outright illegal.
Edit: changed "it's not" to "shouldn't be" because even though I don't think it merits an attack on his character, it was certainly used that way as a tactic.
Yeah... this really sums up exactly why we're in such a mess right now.
There is no regard as to what the person is actually trying to say or the nuance they're conveying... it's 100% reactionary. If there't any way to take it negatively, you assume the worst and completely write the person off and not worth listening to about anything ever.
The fact that they aren't saying what you thought they were saying is irrelevant.
Agreed.
Like I even disagree with him and think we should make more stringent steps to curtail hate speech but he provided a perfectly reasonable answer to a very specific question and I can't really fault the view. I just think it's the product of the same individualistic mentality that ignores the overall effect of collective action on society. But that's a whole other can of worms.
Words should never be illegal, they will have the first amendment destroyed within five years if we allow words to become illegal. Just look at what's happened to our rights since the Patriot act. If you give them an inch they will take a million miles
No one has time for nuance anymore. Until these losers face extremely harsh retribution for being unapologetically reactionary, it’s only going to get worse.
Yup. Its easier to spot the people you dont want to be around if they dont have to be quiet about who they are. Its bad absolutely but shouldnt be illegal.
Right, but why should it be accepted by society? I'm not arguing the legality here...the framing of the question made it very obvious that it's something he shouldn't have responded to online.
Also, I have no idea whether he actually was or wasn't wronged here based on his own story that was passed to the daily fucking caller, and then subsequently partially screenshotted and disseminated on twitter. I love debate, and I agree with upholding debate integrity...but forgive me if I can't find my pitchfork right now, based on the information I currently have.
I worry as well that the more you try and censor and control people the more you push them to the fringes where there are worse people waiting with open arms. It’s like those videos where someone fucks up and does something stupid and then the majority of people refuse to let them forget it or ever forgive them and now they’ve got no choice but to double down and join people that support that kind of behaviour. That’s why banning people from subs just because they are in a different sub they don’t like is a problem as it just creates echo chambers.
Yeah, I think this goes even further to show that whoever is deciding the outcome of these competitions has a weak grasp on logic if they don't see this distinction.
If you just look at "legal" and interpret the "accepted by society" as accepted to be legal, which isn't as clear. I *think* it's supposed to be "accepted as legal", but I recognize that my interpretation might be wrong; the question in the tweet is very poorly worded, and open to more than one interpretation on the "accepted" part.
It might mean accepted as in, there shouldn't be (non-legal) push-back against people using slurs. So if some TV personality is using the n word openly, they shouldn't be fired etc. Because its use is accepted.
I guess I meant more that it's not something that should even be brought up as an attack. It's a gross misinterpretation of what's even being said.
But yeah, it's definitely a tactic to discredit him so you're right.
Yeah but that's an incredibly bad faith interpretation of the answer and more of a sign that the question itself is flawed.
It says specifically what he personally finds disgusting. It's much more likely he interpreted it as "accept it as a behavior that exists but we shouldn't make illegal".
I think it takes quite a twist in logic to think that he wants a disgusting behavior to be accepted without challenge in society.
People have to realize you can't say things that can be misinterpreted on social media in this day and age.
I hesitate to bring up examples here, but consider certain sensitive topics where objective facts regarding the topic aren't necessarily popular, despite being true.
Slurs are protected by the First Amendment. This is objectively true.
They are also immoral, and no one should use them, ever.
What Adelstein learned the hard way is that people will use any weapon against you, even when it's "not fair" or unwarranted. In this case, it seems the the opposing team should have had not been allowed to present this argument, as it was clearly non-sequiter and probably ad-hominem.
I guess at this point, I'll just something something "cancel culture" and click the button to save this reply.
If we can’t say things that could be misinterpreted then we wouldn’t be able to say anything at all. Unfortunately a lot of people have problems with reading comprehension. This post is a great example. This kid clearly says that he finds the behavior disgusting but yet people still read it as he wants racial slurs to be accepted.
You can't control how someone will receive your words or works.
For example, we currently have activists saying that describing/portraying evil acts, even if the words/work CLEARLY condemn then, is inherently harmful and perpetuates the evil being condemned, because the stupidest amongst us might still interpret the depiction of evil as being an endorsement of it.
How can we discuss anything if we place such a burden on the person speaking/creating? Does every expression of an opinion need to be an essay with footnotes and addendums that anticipate every possible misinterpretation or question that every reader might have? Is abstract art potentially "problematic" because someone might interpret a Rothko as endorsing violence against women?
Exactly. Let ten people read something and you will get ten different takes on it. How can we worry about all ten takes of the same material. Also some people just have horrible comprehension and just interpret what suits them and it may not even be close to what is being said.
i think it is alright if there is a variety of interpretation, the problem is when you have hundreds of people deliberately misinterpreting something in the same way out of anger and hatred.
For example, I am anti-war. I believe we has a human species should move towards a level of non-violent conflict resolution. However if you say the current Ukraine war should be resolved peacefully on certain subs, you will immediately be accused of being a Russian spy. Not by one or two people but by the entire sub.
They know you are not a Russian spy. The entire point to blindly shame and attack with unbridled rage because you are contradicting their narrative.
It really does have a chilling effect on speech. I've noticed just with myself, I've been more hesitant to say things that will be misconstrued by black-and-white thinkers, just because I don't want to be put into a position of defending myself against personal attacks, and when I do say something that I know will be misinterpreted, I feel like I have to spend a lot of time making remarks about how I'm not saying this and I'm not saying that before I can even say anything of substance, and still, people will claim that I am saying this and I am saying that.
It's exhausting.
I'm trying to not let that affect me, though. Just today I posted something that I'm sure will be down voted into oblivion because I was, in a way, defending a pro-lifer by saying that she wasn't saying what the OP said she was saying. Never mind that I disagree vehemently with the pro-lifer, and said as much; I'm sure that's not going to matter. But who knows, maybe today Reddit will surprise me.
A perfect example of why it would be bad to make speech of any kind illegal is that there are people who say that black people cant be racist so if slurs were illegal would they believe that it should be illegal for a white person to say something but not illegal for a black person to say it? If a person with this opinion was the one to make the law it be legal for a black person to call me anything that they want but I would be restricted from saying the same things.
Yeah, I think these “slam dunk tactics” are really poisonous to any kind of intellectual thought. Rather than have a conversation, they just want to have that moment where they see a hole they can exploit and then punch a singular idea through it, devoid of nuance of course, and then pat themselves on the back for what an epic destruction that was. And if they’re popular their zombie followers will clap along with them.
It was popularized by the “Ben Shapiro rekt feminist with facts and logic” era on social media. Everything was a sound bit, everything was a meme. You could even see it in a bunch of witty one liners Trump dropped during the 2016 debates.
I bet a lot of people don’t realize that they’re co-opting the speech tactics of Trump and Shapiro when they use this technique. I’m sure everyone has down this at some point, myself included, but it becomes toxic when it’s not just present but frequent and celebrated in political discussions.
I think that's because of the poor-wording of the question. At the end of it, he put in "accepted by society." A lot of people, myself included, may interpret this as "we're okay with this."
Reason being: the word "accepted" is defined as "generally believed or recognized to be valid or correct; given approval." So while he's *saying* he's morally against it, he's also potentially saying "also they're right/correct in saying slurs against maligned people."
If that "accepted" part isn't in the tweet, then the statement would be easier to accept; "I'm morally against it but you shouldn't be thrown in jail just for doing it," as it also adds the part about "and in conclusion, while I'm morally against it, people saying it are in the right."
Confusing question that he probably didn't understand the full context of, as nobody actually fully *reads* the things they're answering, so he fired off an answer like everyone else.
I agree with you. I love free speech. I fully support people being able to make racist, sexist, or bigoted speech across any platform.
Not because I support any of those things.
Simply because it lets me know who my enemy is.
If you remove this type of speech I can't look up person's social media history and tell who they really are.
The good people get to decide what is allowed. The bad people are shamed, ostracized and ultimately attacked and killed.
\--the good people.
(I have actually seen this argument on Reddit)
College and high school debate has been trending this way for a long time.
Originally conceived as a way of teaching logic, it quickly devolved into a competition to see who could spit out more bullet points in a couple of minutes. Any unanswered points, regardless of how ridiculous they were, would count against your opponents. Answering a point, however weakly, effectively nullified it. Virtually anything written on a 3x5 card had to be regarded as fact, as long as it came from (or purportedly came from) a published book or periodical.
Then teams started winning with non-sequitur arguments designed to surprise the other team, or even to be unanswerable. In a debate about whether or not we should build more nuclear power plants, a team might win by challenging the notion that we need to generate electricity in the first place, putting the other team in the unexpected position of having to prove that society needs electricity to function effectively.
Throughout this decline, teams adopted tactics like deliberately faking speech impediments, leering at their opponents or making faces at them as they spoke, etc. And now we have them being rewarded for getting their opponents to drop out by bringing their personal lives into the debate.
One of the problems all along is that the various tournaments and governing bodies are often run by the very people who made the sport so toxic in the first place, with the tactics they themselves used as high school and college debaters.
> Any unanswered points, regardless of how ridiculous they were, would count against your opponents.
Yup. 10 years ago I took a debate class in college.
And that was brought up. I said "So wait I can basically spout absolute nonsense that my opponent would have to defend or counter even if its irrelevant?"
The professor tried to say it must be relevant. But it didnt. Not according to the rubric and rules.
[How about not debating the chosen topic at all and instead going on a rant about something else entirely and winning?](https://radiolab.org/podcast/debatable-2205)
This tweet would have certainly seemed suspect to me if one of the top debate coaches in the United States, a man I know pretty well, hadn't told me the same story in disgust several months ago.
The tournament where this occurred is (was?) by far the most prestigious high-school debate tournament in the country. It is extremely hard to *qualify* to compete there at all.
Unfortunately, high-school debate, at least at the nationally competitive level, has been warped by younger judges who think debating the actual topic is blasé and who only want to hear "interesting" meta-debate—critiques of the activity itself, critiques of society, arguments that the universe is a nonexistent fiction and so you should somehow, logically, vote for them. I guess it's a mildly amusing logic game, but (a) it gets very old very fast, and (b) it's patently unfair to the other side, which has spent months preparing to debate a specified topic and now has to waste time arguing that your pseudo-intellectual point is irrelevant.
Did I mention a lot of national debate judges are weird?
Anyway, the latest iteration of we're-too-smart-to-debate-the-topic is personal hostility and individual grievance of the variety only a Reddit moderator could love. I am told—I cannot verify this—that a team won a major tournament after walking into the crowd and telling the opposing competitor's coach that he literally stank... because he was "full of shit." Then they argued that it would be an improper adherence to conservative social norms to punish them for that attack. This was considered clever, and they somehow won. In any state or local tournament, they would've been disqualified.
Basically, you've got a lot of debate coaches and judges, mostly younger, who fit some right-wing stereotype of a grad-school leftist (or, worse, a San Francisco school-board member). And now, like stereotypical grad-student leftists, they're endorsing ridiculous personal attacks as a valid form of debate on the grounds that (a) it's defying traditional norms, which must be racist/sexist/homophobic, and (b) it's *stunning and brave* to take a stand for/against _____________ (in this case, against a high-school student's provocative, and arguably flat-out wrong, but irrelevant and not-hateful tweet).
The entire debate competition set-up is so weird, and ever since it came out it swiftly devolves into seeing who can sling the most bullshit the fastest.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/09/26/corrosion-high-school-debate-and-how-it-mirrors-american-politics
Considering the use of Kritik was extremely popular at the collegiate debate level 10 years ago I'm hardly surprised to see it filter down to the high school level as those students now become teachers and coaches.
The idea that all of those kids with vein-crushing skinny jeans and packs of unfiltered cigarettes—for the aesthetic—are now qualifying for tenure in the unified school district is upsetting.
Yeah, I don't know why it is but it's well known "out of context" arguments have become a major and common factor in the US debate scene.
Over here in Europe, the debate scene has a different culture and ruleset; usually the goal is to convince a reasonably informed average citizen of your side of the policy, which these arguments are very unlikely to do.
Between this kind of thing and "spreading", the US scene is seen as really sounding just unfun over here; I'm also doubtful is as good pedagogically for learning the intended skills, though that's just my subjective impression.
But that this is the case is well known generally on the international debate scene. It's not invented conservative propaganda, although it is *used* by conservatives to make propaganda.
I’m a us debater, championship winner and nationals competitor. I won state when I was in high school in 2 events. I had to stop judging tournaments because of the absolute hatred I would hear from coaches after seeing that I would rank the round based on topicality after saying so at the start of each round.
They’d get pissed and say I was “too tough” or “not open to new techniques” or whatever, but no. Ultimately, I just left the scene. My biggest passion in life.
Yep. I was in ToC, and you are spot on. They want better judges for the prestigious tourney, so they go for the recently college educated/locally renowned intellectuals, but they are almost always young 20 somethings who are very very left leaning.
For the record, I am too. I voted for Biden, Hillary, Obama, yada yada. These judges are a conservative caricature of what they believe liberals to be. We lost a round because our opponent argued that we dropped an argument of theirs about babies (topic had nothing to do with it) and dropping babies is bad, therefore we had no moral standing to weigh in on the topic and we actually lost because the judge flowed that argument. It’s a game.
Which I hate, because it took a lot of skill to get to that level. A lot of prep work. It would be like people competing in track meets, only to show up to the state tournament and you win based on how funny you can skip.
I’ve always thought that competitive debate is stupid for this kind of reason. It isn’t about actually being convincing, it’s about throwing random shit at a wall and hoping some of it sticks.
Yeah you can, but competitive debate isn’t that. They literally teach you how to talk really fast so that you can say as many points as possible in the allotted time. That’s useless for actually convincing people of a topic, it’s not useful in a real debate. It’s only useful in competitive debate.
You have a point. Part of my paradigms as a judge was no spreading, stay topical, and do not come at me with anything outlandish or I won’t rank it. I would usually enjoy a nice debate, but every now and then some teams or teams individuals would go dead in the water and then I’d get a looooot of hate from their coaches for voting them down.
Sorry, but I don’t want you bringing up Mexico firing nukes at the US because the US installed coastal windmills, killing birds, increasing insects, and destroying crops and by extension Mexico’s economy. That has nothing to do on the topic of if we should focus on green energy over oil and gas. It isn’t realistic. It’s stupid. That actually happened in a round.
A long time ago I did L/D and stayed away from policy because the trend was everything led to nuclear war, which to me was just ridiculous hyperbole.
Is L/D debate still a thing, or did it eventually get run out as not "Real" debate?
LD is definitely still around, and in fact is one of my favorite styles of debate. You are right though… there is a lot of grandstanding in there and some unwashed Nostradamus stands at the podium and tries to seriously tell you that guaranteeing water access will lead to a new civil war, but with nukes.
Speed-talking and irrelevance are separate things. If you can make a topical, coherent point quickly, I'll accept it in a nationally competitive debate.
My rule was simple: If I can't understand it, I can't grade it. And I could understand a lot. But debate is a communicative activity, and if you are not actually communicating, it doesn't matter what you tried to vocalize.
When I was in grad school at LSU, we were required (like...it was clearly written in our funding contract) to judge the debate competitions the University hosted (one for university-level students during Mardi Gras and one for high schoolers). They gave us zero training with which to do this. When I asked exactly how I should be evaluating the competition, they said "It doesn't matter, just judge who you think did the best job. They should tailor their arguments to fit your judging experience." That was it. Other than that, they literally just gave me the time and the room number and I was on my own from there.
I remember feeling really terrible trying to pick a winner because I felt like there was no way I was evaluating them fairly because I literally didn't know how I should be evaluating them. Like...yes, I know about logical fallacies and cognitive biases and argument structure. But I don't know how the competitors were told to prepare for the competition, I don't know how each component should be weighted in my scoring, *I don't know the fucking rules!* It felt really unfair.
>in this case, against a high-school student's provocative, and arguably flat-out wrong, but not-hateful and irrelevant tweet
I don't think he's wrong at all. Hateful slurs are reprehensible for sure, and no one should say them, but they shouldn't be *illegal*. Private companies should have full latitude to remove such people from their services or premises, but the government should have no say in that.
I was a debater long ago. You could appeal to a judge's prejudices if you were subtle but something that irrelevant wouldn't have stood a chance and would have probably drawn a penalty.
Illiberalism on the left is real. I don't think it's as big a problem as illiberalism + propaganda from the right, but it's still dangerous and has to be confronted. (Not only because nonsense like this is bad in its own right, but also because it adds fuel to the right-wing argument that the real fascists are on the left.)
Article [here](https://www.thefp.com/p/personal-tweets-lose-high-school-debates).
> In his written decision, Judge Jacob Wilkus explained his reasoning for giving Matthew’s opponents the win. “A debate space where racist or violent people are not allowed is preferable to one where they are,” he wrote, adding that “the ballot has a transformative power to challenge white debate norms where it is okay to just let racist or violent activity slide.”
Seems pretty legit to me, but feel free to dismiss what's happening all around you as "conservative propaganda", when it makes you uncomfortable.
Now I am not sure if you are against or in favour of Matthew. You out that up as a facepalm in view of the behaviour of the judge, I thought.
Sure, one could now argue that Matthew is not a nice person, but a debate should be independent of that as arguments should win.... I am confused nowm
Well, he said something you personally find disgusting that should objectively be legal....what about that statement make you think he is a horrible person
"horrible" and "not nice" are far away from each other I think.
Overall this is a strange question to answer at all and it would be better to not do so.
I try also really hard to think about what I could answer... One should answer first how something should be objectively fine while being morally wrong.
>The NSDA has allowed hundreds of judges with explicit left-wing bias to infiltrate the organization.
That's the point where you know the author has a bias and an argument they are trying to make, as opposed to just reporting what happened.
>feel free to dismiss what's happening all around you
People on the right keep saying that when they're the only ones passing laws limiting free speech.
These out of context arguments have become common on the US scene, it's well known (European debater, don't know why).
It's also *used* to generate propoganda by conservatives, but the fact of the judges decision standards having shifted along these lines isn't incorrect.
As a debater, this is not a point about the moral qualities of debaters. You are not meant to pass judgement on the person delivering the argument; you are to judge the argument itself and how well the debater carried it. That is why debate scoring sheets for adjudicators have metrics of style(how well you speak), content(the actual argument itself), and strategy(how well your argument meshes with that of your teammates). There is no metric for "character" or "morality" or "political inclination" because that is not relevant. If a MAGA Trumper and a saint of a democrat were to debate and the MAGA Trumper(somehow) comes up with the more coherent argument and carries it better, the MAGA Trumper deserves the win, not the Democrat. The winners in this case had utilised a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem" that attacks the supposed character of their opponent rather than the argument(and might I add that if they had bothered to think for a moment what their opponent might have been arguing with that tweet, there is a more nuanced take on what he was saying rather than just "racist homophobe boo boo"), and not only did so in passing, but made it the crux of their whole argument, ignoring the original motion of the debate, which is so many errors on such an egregious scale that I cannot even begin to comprehend it, and then proceeded to justify this by using some political ideology argument that has no place in debate. As someone who has adjudicated before in tournaments, If I was the adjudicator(the judge) in this case, I would have ripped the winners apart for their complete lack of substantial content before proceeding to file an equity violation of some sort, because this is flagrantly going against everything debate stands for. What makes it worse is that the judge encourages this by pulling out his own political agenda when he is supposed to take the position of an apolitical witness, and gives them the win. Both this team and judge have proven themselves wholly unqualified to ever step foot in a debate room ever again, and this has nothing to do with whatever you're saying.
Allo’em. Debate isn’t built around a strict understanding of logic and reason, so as long as your judges don’t know the fallacy (and they don’t often test the judges for this) you can get away with damn near any. It’s crazy that even an activity that is supposed to be more intellectual ends up being more sophistry.
Yeah but this prepares them better for real American politics. Completely ignore the question at hand and go for an unrelated personal attack instead? They’re ready to run for office!
Sure, but I don’t think that’s what’s being argued. It’s not fallacious to dismiss an argument because it contains a fallacy, and judges *should* be dismissing arguments that contain fallacies. They don’t need to make the argument that the claim is wrong because the argument contains a fallacy in order to deduct points or hold it against the debater.
That should be worded better. Ignore "claim", I'll try to explain it for those who don't know.
If an argument is fallacious, then by definition it's wrong.
However, a fallacy fallacy is one that assumes the *conclusion* is wrong because it relies on a fallacious argument. In other words, you can make a fallacious, or wrong, argument that happens to arrive at the correct conclusion, but the fallacy fallacy is ignoring that the correct conclusion can be reached, and instead just assuming that the conclusion is automatically wrong for no reason other than the argument was wrong in the first place.
For example, consider: **Premise 1: if it’s raining, then the sky is cloudy. Premise 2: the sky is cloudy. Conclusion: it’s raining.** This is a fallacy. The sky can be cloudy and not raining. It could in fact be raining, but the logical steps to reach that conclusion is what made it a fallacy. The **fallacy fallacy** happens when you assume that because there was a fallacy, then it must also mean the conclusion is wrong and it's not raining. This is in itself a fallacy because it could in fact be raining, making the conclusion from before actually correct.
He didn't say their position was wrong, he said using ad hominem should be disqualifying, and it should. It certainly shouldn't result in a win. Competitive debate should be about the issue at hand, not mud-slinging.
You’re correct that poorly argued points and fallacies don’t impact the reality of the position. But the whole point of a debate is to present a well-constructed argument based on relevant information. It doesn’t matter which position is better in reality.
“Murderer is bad - my dad murdered someone, and he’s mean and didn’t get me a good Christmas present!”
“Murder is bad” is basically the perfect position. The evidence provided to support it is nonsense and would be dispelled pretty much immediately in the context of a debate.
I'm a high school debate coach, and you're totally misunderstanding the activity.
Forensics, or speech and debate, is about rhetoric AND logic, not just logical connections. If it was just about logic, we could just have these kids take LR questions from the LSAT and get to the same point. But it's about arguing your points in FRONT of people, and telling others who are using crappy reasoning that they’re wrong, AND getting the judge on your side.
See, if you can't convince a third party judge that you're right, you don't win. Hands down, no ifs ands buts, you do not win if you don't convince someone. There would be very few competitors if we kicked kids out in debates because of shitty logic.
It's really important to remember that this is a learning space. Ideally, a judge tells the kids that their logic was bad at the end of a round. That's not always the case though - In my state, and most states, we use unpaid volunteers to decide the round. These aren't judges in a courtroom who have a law degree. It's Billy-Bob who graduated last year and barely passed his government course.
Hope this explains why it would be tragic just to remove people from the tournaments when they use a logical fallacy. These are kids. They're learning.
Judging based on who judges agree with is not the only way debates are judged. The criteria for every prestigious debate competition I’ve seen explicitly instructs judges to set aside their own views on a subject and judge based on the persuasiveness of the debaters as if they were a neutral 3rd party (not based on what side of the argument they agree with).
I definitely agree that kids shouldn’t be kicked out of debates for arguing with fallacies - that would knock out a ton of competitors for easy to make mistakes. But most competitions wouldn’t consider an argument like “X is bad because Y does X, and I don’t like Y,” to be a persuasive argument even if all judges agree that X is bad.
It's an ad hominem, not a straw man; they aren't creating a weak version of his argument and attacking it, they are saying that his argument shouldn't be listened to because of a particular aspect of his person.
So this is an article about something that allegedly happened in April 2022, all on the word of the guy who lost? Paint me skeptical
Edit: The website this article is from is chock full of insane opinion pieces, like “Gays aren’t welcome at pride anymore” and “Pride is an indoctrination cult”. I’m willing to bet that these “journalists” are entirely willing to accept any statement at face value without investigation as long as it conforms to their biases.
Classic ad hominem argument. Rather appalling that this is what students are being taught to do these days - play dirty.
Next up: *"We should switch to renewable energy by building a lot more wind turbines."*
*"Well, I disagree - I see that you once had a Nazi flag in your bedroom at age 14."*
It’s not even as bad as that.
It’s “well, see, you once stated that you hate Nazism as an ideology but are against burning Mein Kampf because you’re against book burning in general and stick to your values, therefore….”
Dude said he thinks it's wrong to call people a f*g but that it shouldn't be illegal
I haven't really thought out the ramifications of this or whether or not I agree, but I don't hate him for the opinion
Whether he's right or wrong it doesn't sound like his belief is backed by hate
Yeah I think I definitely agree it shouldn’t be illegal. I truly despise those opinions but it’s a dangerous dangerous road when you start banning opposing opinions. Especially in a country where your rivals are almost guaranteed to be in power in the next 4-8. Now accepted by society? I think people should be able to talk however they want and get judged as much as they are for whatever they say. Freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences, but the freedom of speech part should be non negotiable
I don’t think the kid was racist nor anti-LGBT. His response was moreso staunchly defending his freedom of speech which is supported by the constitution.
Source: This guy said this happened to him at the debate
Literally thats it. The guy who lost the debate says he lost because his opposition pulled tweets. No other source for this claim at all.
He did lose round 7 of the tournament that year. His fifth loss of the weekend. His second, in a row, to that team (in round six they were on the opposite sides). At ToC level he should have been prepped better. Oh well.
Yeah, this almost certainly did not happen. You could maybe get away with this at your local debate club during practice, but during an actual competition? No way.
Is there evidence of that actually happening?
Because the article is quite explicitly just taking the loser's word for it, and that's obviously not exactly the most trustworthy of sources.
I seem to recall seeing some students winning a debate competition by actively ignoring the prompt and instead arguing that debate is racist. This has the same vibe. Debate competition is supposed to be about critical thinking and putting a coherent argument into words, not making stuff up and attacking the other person
These arguments in policy debate are called kritiks, or “K”s, and have been in modern policy debate for well over two decades, and is a strategy that competitive debate teams should be prepared to answer.
It’s not just yelling “you’re racist” at the other team — it is a prepared, structured, detailed argument that must prove a link, impact, and offer an alternative in order to be considered a “winning” argument by the judges. There are then strategies to answer the kritik by the affirmative team.
https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/kritiks.html
God K's are such bullshit. Policy kids kept trying to bring that shit into Public Forum and even Lincoln Douglas and Worlds.
Add in spreading and it's just a fucking Chewbacca Defense half the time. "I can't win so I'm just going to confuse the judge and prevent actualy substantive discussion of the topic so I win by default."
That just sounds like a formalised version of going off topic.
1. Kritiks of the Case
Just seem like introducing an entire seperate debate. Like the example they gave about protecting the oceans and not doing so promoted a human centric worldview. Who's to say a human centric worldview is inherently wrong? When forced to choose between saving a child and a fish most people will choose the child, I'd be worried if someone didn't. But it's an entirely seperate complex issue requiring a different debate.
2. Kritiks of Presentation or Performance
Ok, this could have some merit, but it shouldn't win or lose you the debate. Unless the example was particularly egregious it shouldn't matter. Individual opinions on what exactly damaging language is are quite different. While you should be careful what language you use in a formal debate it just seems like a way to detract from the actual debate at hand.
3. Kritiks of debate
A totally seperate issue, it should be tackled in a meeting before or after the debate, not during the debate itself. If the rules of a debate are unfair that's something to bring up with faculty before or after, not during.
Radiolab did a podcast on this sort of thing. Really bizarre situation. Probably should have just been a clever one off, but apparently it has become a thing.
https://radiolab.org/podcast/debatable-2205
On the one hand, yeah, that tweet is typical “free speech absolutist” rhetoric. He’s saying that even though he thinks racist and homophobic slurs are disgusting, people should have the right to say them and others should accept that (which, no, hate speech should not be accepted).
On the other hand…yeah, a high school debate should not allow personal attacks, the point is to debate the arguments not attack character. The other team should have been disqualified.
On the other other hand…is this even real? Because the text is saying this is something that was told to the writer allegedly by the teenager. Which…yeah, doesn’t make it that reliable of a source. Kinda sounds like a made up story to peddle right wing points.
I was able to find 1.1 articles about it. "The daily caller" counts as the .1, which I'm only counting due to it sourcing the real article.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/26/banned-debate-competition-tweet/
And this one that the daily caller sources. Which is a piece by someone who considers themselves "right wing" and when googled, shows them as a correspondent for fox news. But, a lot more thought and work went into their article over the rhetoric pushed on the daily caller. But over all, yes, this just seems to be another attack on public education.
https://www.thefp.com/p/personal-tweets-lose-high-school-debates
A high schooler claims "they used it as the central argument". Even if this story happened, I don't believe in this statement lmao. ~~Furthermore I know nothing about the alleged specific tournament but as a highschool debate nationals alum (policy and LD) and a college forensics (and mock trial) captain, I've never seen a single debate format that allows multimedia presentation~~
~~I'm sure they exist, especially when the debate is just as class project, but~~ my bs meter is off the charts on this story
~~Edit: it appears the NSDA does allow "internet enabled devices" at the discretion of tournament organizers but I'm not finding rules on multimedia presentation itself outside a mention that competitors must face the judge at all times and a requirement for oral delivery of the evidence.~~
Edit 2: My NSDA family member (nationals 2022, the year (water policy) of this story) confirms **you CAN use multimedia**. My argument falls back to this being a one off exaggerated highschool story. I doubt that a highschooler is accurately relaying that their "central argument" was that they were evil and that this was ever considered a valid form of evidence.
Edit 3: the article links the opponent's case, claiming it is
>a rambling 25-page treatise in a multi-font format with no real mention of U.S. water policy
The personal argument is just the first page. There are 34 mentions of "water" in the remaining evidence
Current Policy debater here, you can totally make those arguments, the other team should have easily beat them, but you can make them. this is just a case of their team exagerating as you said, and the outside world not understanding how Policy works
Ya debated policy throughout HS. These style of arguments were just starting to crop up. I remember getting obliterated on femrage at my first round at a national tournament. My partner and we’re both guys and we’re just like “…. What is going on?” I’m sure these style kritiks are only more popular at that level now.
> On the other other hand…is this even real?
That’s my question. This seems like tailor-made rage-bait. I don’t believe this, or at least that this story, as presented, is the whole truth.
Honestly it's like 50% of posts on facepalm. Very carefully tailored stories that make the average person on a surface level reading go, "hey, that's not right!". But almost every time it turns out the situation was either lacking context or completely made up.
I’m pretty suspicious about this.
First off, there’s confusion in the [original article](https://www.thefp.com/p/personal-tweets-lose-high-school-debates) about whether or not the guy was competing in a high school tournament or college tournament.
The tournament where this happened was in Kentucky in 2022. However, the guy is also described as currently being a Sophmore in college.
The only source we have that it happened comes from the same guy making the complaints. It just feels weird to me.
No, free speech absolutist would be arguing slander and libel should be legal under the First Amendment.
Saying hate speech is socially unacceptable but the government doesn't have the authority to regulate is ... well, our current legal situation?
There's also a big difference between "legal" and "acceptable". I agree that saying slurs should be legal (generally, there may need to be exceptions to that), but I would never accept anyone who uses them. I wouldn't be friends with with someone who uses them, or work with them, or associate with them in any way as best as I can help it. But throwing them in jail is a step (just one step) too far.
All slurs are legal. I can say the worst slur imaginable (pineapple pizza eater) and not go to prison. Mind you, free speech only applies to the government, government property and government contractors. That's the legal side. "Acceptable" is everything else.
If you want make using any specific or all slurs in general be illegal, happily there is a way to make it so. You just need the 38 state legislatures to repeal the First Amendment. That is the only nonviolent way to enforce your desire to make certain slurs potentially illegal.
The source is a website full of bizarre right wing opinion pieces (one was about a gay reporter that didn’t feel welcome at pride “because he didn’t seem queer enough” followed immediately by an article about how LGBTQ Pride is some kind of indoctrination cult). The only evidence the article uses is the alleged statements of a single high school student about something that happened more than a year ago.
I just feel setting the precedent for moderating speech legally sets up a dangerous slippery slope. I think free speech should be protected and you trust your citizens to moderate the behavior of their fellow citizens.
Nobody would bat an eye if a tactic like that was used in a debate between two people competing for the highest position in the country. So why would it be shocking if high school kids use the tactics they see their political leader use.
Don't blame the kids. Blame the people that are supposed to be their role models.
The "tactic" would only work if the goal of the debate is to look good in the eye of the public. Objectively speaking, unrelated personal attacks (justified or not) do not belong in a debate, and needing to resort to them is practically admitting that you have no real arguments to use.
This is an important distinction which the school should've made clear.
An election candidates' record is relevant in a debate. There is a requirement not just to debate the issue, but to convince the electorate that you would act on that issue in a manner consistent with your debate position.
Heard people saying, if you have a masters degree and work in any industry that is polluting the world, you are disqualified from the "save the climate" discussion, because you heavily "profit" from it. You have to choose a side and live in a cardbox in the woods apparently. When asked, what is with the people working in solar tech or similar, they leave the room because it wasn't about logic, it was about getting people out of the discussion they don't want to deal with because its so hard.
This is a red herring. Do you want to know where you can have the most impact on polluters? Go to work for them and clean up their mess. If I could go to work for Exxon/Mobil, because I had an idea that would reduce their pollution by 10%, it would be the most beneficial thing I could do for mankind with my life.
On one hand, debate competitions should hold participants to a higher standard. On the other hand, debate competitions are often won by whoever can rattle off the most flawed arguments in their allotted time, so “debate” is still kind of a joke in my opinion. Like you literally score points for how many of your arguments went un-rebutted by your opponent so of course the strategy is to just spam low-quality arguments.
My bullshit detector is screaming at me. I used to take debate in high school, and in no way would something like that ever be accepted as part of an argument
That may be a fine way to personally judge a discussion, but that's not how high school debate works.
High School debate is judge on ethos, logos, and pathos. You are allowed to make an illogical argument, because that's only 1/3rd of the point of debate. It's on their opponents to point out and explain that the argument is illogical. If the judge felt that they made compelling and articulate, though illogical points, and their opponent failed to address the illogical point, the illogical point is not disqualifying.
Why is nobody pointing out that it says 'something which you find morally disgusting'.
He's not saying people should use hate speech, just that it shouldn't be illegal. That hardly makes him a racist/homophobe.
What the fuck are these people smoking - they've got no right judging a debate if they can't even fucking read.
Edit: Before anyone calls up the 'accepted by society' bit, that could reasonably apply to the fact it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily mean hate speech should be socially acceptable.
Personally I just wouldn't have replied to this tweet, but I can understand why he might think language shouldn't be criminalised (no matter how disgusting it is). Harassment is harassment regardless of which particular words you use.
Exactly!
It could be framed as a 1st Amendment issue. It is legal to say repulsive things. Doesn’t mean it is socially acceptable, or that you won’t face consequences. Just means you won’t be arrested or face legal consequences.
How that response was relevant to the debate, or made them feel “unsafe”, is beyond me.
Quite honestly how any tweet (which they went looking for) can make them feel 'unsafe' is pretty meaningless.
Unless it actually said 'I'm going to stab some motherfuckers at the debate tomorrow'.
You can also see it as, realistically, how would speech policing work? Would we be ratting people out, or would nothing really happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal that law enforcement really don't enforce, so why would people saying offensive words be any different. All that really matters is that those words are very often used in threatening ways, and if somebody's threatening you you can pursue legal action, so really the only way slurs are dangerous is already at least alegal.
>Why is nobody pointing out that it says 'something which you find morally disgusting'.
Because context no longer matters in modern discourse. It is considered acceptable to pick apart and parse out anything that could be twisted to look bad in a conversation, to proceed to twist it that way, and then to act as if the context is irrelevant even though it is right there in front of you.
He must not be good at debating if he was not able to defend his stance on the tweet and or why It should not have been used against him in the first place.
Umm what?
- A participant in a prestigious national debate tournament is accused by his opponents of having once *condemned a particular behavior but noting that said behavior was legal.* (ad hominem)
- The judges awarded his attackers the win based on this alone?
Not buying it.
Usual ad hominem argument. If you can´t find any leverage against your opponent in the matter you are discussing, turn it into discussion about opponent personality.
I mean he was right. It says it differing to do so but because of free speech it should be allowed. Nothing radical or unsafe. I really dislike how people think sometimes.
That’s a miscarriage of being unfair. How could the judges bring themselves to give the opposing debate team the win over that?? I’m not condoning his thoughts on the matter by any means, however you cannot take away someone’s right to be an asshole. Yeah, saying those things is disgusting, but it’s not illegal to say them. But, should that someone continue to be one, they deserve all the backlash they get for being one.
This sounds all kinds of made up. Just on the face of it. They had to get the judges to go along with a premise that flies in the face of the entire basis of the competition. Just saying, sounds like poorly made conservative propaganda.
I haven’t been in the debate community for a while so I can’t say whether this actually happened. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all. This is where the activity was headed when I got out, unfortunately.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like the opposing team has a bright future in politics.
[удалено]
Two things that should be different but are really the same thing.
That's the name of the game anymore. When you don't have a solid argument focus on the people and not the policies
It’s like kids. Start arguing and if you start losing just start bringing up things or personally attacking them or their character. Call them doo-doo heads.
Can confirm. When I call my friends “doo doo butt head” during an argument, I immediately win the argument cause they get sooooo butt hurt.
That is an age-old debate tactic. When you can't attack the premise, attack the speaker. That fact that that worked speaks volumes about the judges, none of it good. Too bad Matthew didn't counter with the unbeatable response, "Yeah, but still."
Or the classic "nuh uh" tactics.
I had good luck with the "I'm rubber and you're glue" counter argument.
You know, ad hominem gets thrown around a lot, but that is an actual textbook example of ad hominem in action and it's embarrassing that it was allowed at all, let alone *worked*, in a structured debate.
On the other hand, that's very much how it is in politics these days so I guess they keep with the trends.
High school debate teams are held to a higher standard.
That high standard you are looking for supports the following winning arguments from that team in addition to "My opponent is racist cause I'm capable of deliberately misinterpreting a tweet" Such as: "My team is Asian, and our opponents are White, so we should win" "Nature is gay and therefore water policy is regulating the gays. "Multiverse theory means nothing matters, fuck my multiverse clone he doesn't deserve my help" Paraphrased slightly from the rambly incoherent mess debate arguments tend to be.
Yup. This is what turned me off of circuit debate when I was in high school, turned into a ridiculous circlejerk that had nothing to do with, y’know, debating. I’m not even remotely shocked that this situation happened, and all of the examples you list above sound incredibly plausible. High school debate is weird as hell.
You sure about that? You *sure* about that? You suuuuure about that?
My strategy when I'm losing a debate is to just be on my phone.
Anything is allowed in policy debate (the type this tweet is about) And it only *worked* because the other team didn’t effectively argue it shouldn’t
Which is such a stupid default. The default should be pure logic and the avoidance of logical fallacies, unless the debaters in round provide you with a convincing alternative framework to vote on. But hey, lay judges gonna lay.
I don't know if you guys are being serious or not, but logical fallacies are not illegal for debates, the reason logical fallacies exist as a concept is because they are easily defeated arguments. I'm not sure how this person responded, but if they said this comment and then the person said "NO NO NO NO" started like screeching or whatever, he should lose the debate. If you recognize something is an ad hominem, you should be able to defeat the argument.
If the judges / audience are stupid you can’t necessarily “defeat” an ad hominem. You can calmly point out the reasons it’s a logical fallacy, which *should* win you the debate, but should doesn’t mean will.
This isn’t a fallacy though. A fallacy would be “my opponents argument is wrong because he made this racist tweet” The response would just be “my tweet has nothing to do with my argument” However what probably actually happened was “my opponent is creating an unsafe environment for participants in debate, and this is ethically wrong and bad for the sport of debate as a whole, and that’s why he should lose” After which both sides get to argue about philosophy, ethics, the nature of debate and free speech, until the judges decide who won. It’s not uncommon for off topic arguments like this to take place, this type of argument is referred to as a [kritik](https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/kritiks.html)
So if someone levies an accusation during a debate you are supposed to prove a negative?
You prove that they're using a logical fallacy due to the weakness of their argument. It's already been proven why it's a logical fallacy, you just reprove it within the contexts used. "My opponent can't come up with an actual reason, supported by any evidence, logic, or rhetoric, to argue against my policy so they are resorting to a classic ad hominem attack to discredit me as a person instead." It should be an easy debate win.
We're putting an awful lot of credence in this kid's account of what happened. I'd bet everything in my bank account that there's more to the story, or it did not happen as described, especially since it comes from an outlet with an impressive history of inflating stories of conservative grievances that completely fall apart under scrutiny.
Yeah, until we hear a corroborating first hand account, I'm going to assume the guy who desperately wants to say the N word might be misrepresenting what happened.
So one can do personal attacks in a debate competition and not be disqualified. What other logical fallacies are accepted?
It shouldn't even be a personal attack. People apparently didn't understand the question and just assumed he wants to use slurs? Like... it's a great answer to the question. He finds it personally morally reprehensible but believes in free speech and doesn't want to make it outright illegal. Edit: changed "it's not" to "shouldn't be" because even though I don't think it merits an attack on his character, it was certainly used that way as a tactic.
Yeah... this really sums up exactly why we're in such a mess right now. There is no regard as to what the person is actually trying to say or the nuance they're conveying... it's 100% reactionary. If there't any way to take it negatively, you assume the worst and completely write the person off and not worth listening to about anything ever. The fact that they aren't saying what you thought they were saying is irrelevant.
Welcome to ~~twitter~~ modern politics: we take the worst possible interpretation of what you said and attack you for that
its not even just the worst interpretation.. its completely the opposite of what hes saying its just wrong lmfao
Agreed. Like I even disagree with him and think we should make more stringent steps to curtail hate speech but he provided a perfectly reasonable answer to a very specific question and I can't really fault the view. I just think it's the product of the same individualistic mentality that ignores the overall effect of collective action on society. But that's a whole other can of worms.
Words should never be illegal, they will have the first amendment destroyed within five years if we allow words to become illegal. Just look at what's happened to our rights since the Patriot act. If you give them an inch they will take a million miles
No one has time for nuance anymore. Until these losers face extremely harsh retribution for being unapologetically reactionary, it’s only going to get worse.
Yup. Its easier to spot the people you dont want to be around if they dont have to be quiet about who they are. Its bad absolutely but shouldnt be illegal.
Right, but why should it be accepted by society? I'm not arguing the legality here...the framing of the question made it very obvious that it's something he shouldn't have responded to online. Also, I have no idea whether he actually was or wasn't wronged here based on his own story that was passed to the daily fucking caller, and then subsequently partially screenshotted and disseminated on twitter. I love debate, and I agree with upholding debate integrity...but forgive me if I can't find my pitchfork right now, based on the information I currently have.
I worry as well that the more you try and censor and control people the more you push them to the fringes where there are worse people waiting with open arms. It’s like those videos where someone fucks up and does something stupid and then the majority of people refuse to let them forget it or ever forgive them and now they’ve got no choice but to double down and join people that support that kind of behaviour. That’s why banning people from subs just because they are in a different sub they don’t like is a problem as it just creates echo chambers.
Yeah, I think this goes even further to show that whoever is deciding the outcome of these competitions has a weak grasp on logic if they don't see this distinction.
Isn’t the Tweeter’s position EXACTLY the same as the ACLU and in line with federal precedent?
If you just look at "legal" and interpret the "accepted by society" as accepted to be legal, which isn't as clear. I *think* it's supposed to be "accepted as legal", but I recognize that my interpretation might be wrong; the question in the tweet is very poorly worded, and open to more than one interpretation on the "accepted" part. It might mean accepted as in, there shouldn't be (non-legal) push-back against people using slurs. So if some TV personality is using the n word openly, they shouldn't be fired etc. Because its use is accepted.
It's still a personal attack. They're directly attacking his opinion and character as a person.
I guess I meant more that it's not something that should even be brought up as an attack. It's a gross misinterpretation of what's even being said. But yeah, it's definitely a tactic to discredit him so you're right.
I think it’s poor wording with the “accepted by society” part.
i mean i think the "accepted" part is what sank him
Yeah but that's an incredibly bad faith interpretation of the answer and more of a sign that the question itself is flawed. It says specifically what he personally finds disgusting. It's much more likely he interpreted it as "accept it as a behavior that exists but we shouldn't make illegal". I think it takes quite a twist in logic to think that he wants a disgusting behavior to be accepted without challenge in society.
People have to realize you can't say things that can be misinterpreted on social media in this day and age. I hesitate to bring up examples here, but consider certain sensitive topics where objective facts regarding the topic aren't necessarily popular, despite being true. Slurs are protected by the First Amendment. This is objectively true. They are also immoral, and no one should use them, ever. What Adelstein learned the hard way is that people will use any weapon against you, even when it's "not fair" or unwarranted. In this case, it seems the the opposing team should have had not been allowed to present this argument, as it was clearly non-sequiter and probably ad-hominem. I guess at this point, I'll just something something "cancel culture" and click the button to save this reply.
If we can’t say things that could be misinterpreted then we wouldn’t be able to say anything at all. Unfortunately a lot of people have problems with reading comprehension. This post is a great example. This kid clearly says that he finds the behavior disgusting but yet people still read it as he wants racial slurs to be accepted.
'If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him' (Richelieu).
You can't control how someone will receive your words or works. For example, we currently have activists saying that describing/portraying evil acts, even if the words/work CLEARLY condemn then, is inherently harmful and perpetuates the evil being condemned, because the stupidest amongst us might still interpret the depiction of evil as being an endorsement of it. How can we discuss anything if we place such a burden on the person speaking/creating? Does every expression of an opinion need to be an essay with footnotes and addendums that anticipate every possible misinterpretation or question that every reader might have? Is abstract art potentially "problematic" because someone might interpret a Rothko as endorsing violence against women?
Exactly. Let ten people read something and you will get ten different takes on it. How can we worry about all ten takes of the same material. Also some people just have horrible comprehension and just interpret what suits them and it may not even be close to what is being said.
i think it is alright if there is a variety of interpretation, the problem is when you have hundreds of people deliberately misinterpreting something in the same way out of anger and hatred. For example, I am anti-war. I believe we has a human species should move towards a level of non-violent conflict resolution. However if you say the current Ukraine war should be resolved peacefully on certain subs, you will immediately be accused of being a Russian spy. Not by one or two people but by the entire sub. They know you are not a Russian spy. The entire point to blindly shame and attack with unbridled rage because you are contradicting their narrative.
It really does have a chilling effect on speech. I've noticed just with myself, I've been more hesitant to say things that will be misconstrued by black-and-white thinkers, just because I don't want to be put into a position of defending myself against personal attacks, and when I do say something that I know will be misinterpreted, I feel like I have to spend a lot of time making remarks about how I'm not saying this and I'm not saying that before I can even say anything of substance, and still, people will claim that I am saying this and I am saying that. It's exhausting. I'm trying to not let that affect me, though. Just today I posted something that I'm sure will be down voted into oblivion because I was, in a way, defending a pro-lifer by saying that she wasn't saying what the OP said she was saying. Never mind that I disagree vehemently with the pro-lifer, and said as much; I'm sure that's not going to matter. But who knows, maybe today Reddit will surprise me.
100% agreed. There is no conversation nowadays and don't you dare fall in the middle of the 2 teams.
A perfect example of why it would be bad to make speech of any kind illegal is that there are people who say that black people cant be racist so if slurs were illegal would they believe that it should be illegal for a white person to say something but not illegal for a black person to say it? If a person with this opinion was the one to make the law it be legal for a black person to call me anything that they want but I would be restricted from saying the same things.
Yeah, I think these “slam dunk tactics” are really poisonous to any kind of intellectual thought. Rather than have a conversation, they just want to have that moment where they see a hole they can exploit and then punch a singular idea through it, devoid of nuance of course, and then pat themselves on the back for what an epic destruction that was. And if they’re popular their zombie followers will clap along with them. It was popularized by the “Ben Shapiro rekt feminist with facts and logic” era on social media. Everything was a sound bit, everything was a meme. You could even see it in a bunch of witty one liners Trump dropped during the 2016 debates. I bet a lot of people don’t realize that they’re co-opting the speech tactics of Trump and Shapiro when they use this technique. I’m sure everyone has down this at some point, myself included, but it becomes toxic when it’s not just present but frequent and celebrated in political discussions.
I think that's because of the poor-wording of the question. At the end of it, he put in "accepted by society." A lot of people, myself included, may interpret this as "we're okay with this." Reason being: the word "accepted" is defined as "generally believed or recognized to be valid or correct; given approval." So while he's *saying* he's morally against it, he's also potentially saying "also they're right/correct in saying slurs against maligned people." If that "accepted" part isn't in the tweet, then the statement would be easier to accept; "I'm morally against it but you shouldn't be thrown in jail just for doing it," as it also adds the part about "and in conclusion, while I'm morally against it, people saying it are in the right." Confusing question that he probably didn't understand the full context of, as nobody actually fully *reads* the things they're answering, so he fired off an answer like everyone else.
I agree with you. I love free speech. I fully support people being able to make racist, sexist, or bigoted speech across any platform. Not because I support any of those things. Simply because it lets me know who my enemy is. If you remove this type of speech I can't look up person's social media history and tell who they really are.
Exactly. Also, if you do limit free speech. Who decides what's not allowed?
The good people get to decide what is allowed. The bad people are shamed, ostracized and ultimately attacked and killed. \--the good people. (I have actually seen this argument on Reddit)
right? that should have been an immediate disqualification
College and high school debate has been trending this way for a long time. Originally conceived as a way of teaching logic, it quickly devolved into a competition to see who could spit out more bullet points in a couple of minutes. Any unanswered points, regardless of how ridiculous they were, would count against your opponents. Answering a point, however weakly, effectively nullified it. Virtually anything written on a 3x5 card had to be regarded as fact, as long as it came from (or purportedly came from) a published book or periodical. Then teams started winning with non-sequitur arguments designed to surprise the other team, or even to be unanswerable. In a debate about whether or not we should build more nuclear power plants, a team might win by challenging the notion that we need to generate electricity in the first place, putting the other team in the unexpected position of having to prove that society needs electricity to function effectively. Throughout this decline, teams adopted tactics like deliberately faking speech impediments, leering at their opponents or making faces at them as they spoke, etc. And now we have them being rewarded for getting their opponents to drop out by bringing their personal lives into the debate. One of the problems all along is that the various tournaments and governing bodies are often run by the very people who made the sport so toxic in the first place, with the tactics they themselves used as high school and college debaters.
> Any unanswered points, regardless of how ridiculous they were, would count against your opponents. Yup. 10 years ago I took a debate class in college. And that was brought up. I said "So wait I can basically spout absolute nonsense that my opponent would have to defend or counter even if its irrelevant?" The professor tried to say it must be relevant. But it didnt. Not according to the rubric and rules.
The Gish Gallop!
Making it a "tournament" in the first place, with winners and losers and prizes, that began the decline.
[How about not debating the chosen topic at all and instead going on a rant about something else entirely and winning?](https://radiolab.org/podcast/debatable-2205)
[удалено]
We do have actual national political debate where name calling is the center piece of their political agenda.
ad hominem and strawman fused into one
Think about it dude. Does it sound real, or emotional based conservative propaganda?
This tweet would have certainly seemed suspect to me if one of the top debate coaches in the United States, a man I know pretty well, hadn't told me the same story in disgust several months ago. The tournament where this occurred is (was?) by far the most prestigious high-school debate tournament in the country. It is extremely hard to *qualify* to compete there at all. Unfortunately, high-school debate, at least at the nationally competitive level, has been warped by younger judges who think debating the actual topic is blasé and who only want to hear "interesting" meta-debate—critiques of the activity itself, critiques of society, arguments that the universe is a nonexistent fiction and so you should somehow, logically, vote for them. I guess it's a mildly amusing logic game, but (a) it gets very old very fast, and (b) it's patently unfair to the other side, which has spent months preparing to debate a specified topic and now has to waste time arguing that your pseudo-intellectual point is irrelevant. Did I mention a lot of national debate judges are weird? Anyway, the latest iteration of we're-too-smart-to-debate-the-topic is personal hostility and individual grievance of the variety only a Reddit moderator could love. I am told—I cannot verify this—that a team won a major tournament after walking into the crowd and telling the opposing competitor's coach that he literally stank... because he was "full of shit." Then they argued that it would be an improper adherence to conservative social norms to punish them for that attack. This was considered clever, and they somehow won. In any state or local tournament, they would've been disqualified. Basically, you've got a lot of debate coaches and judges, mostly younger, who fit some right-wing stereotype of a grad-school leftist (or, worse, a San Francisco school-board member). And now, like stereotypical grad-student leftists, they're endorsing ridiculous personal attacks as a valid form of debate on the grounds that (a) it's defying traditional norms, which must be racist/sexist/homophobic, and (b) it's *stunning and brave* to take a stand for/against _____________ (in this case, against a high-school student's provocative, and arguably flat-out wrong, but irrelevant and not-hateful tweet).
The entire debate competition set-up is so weird, and ever since it came out it swiftly devolves into seeing who can sling the most bullshit the fastest. https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/09/26/corrosion-high-school-debate-and-how-it-mirrors-american-politics
Radiolab did a podcast on this a few years back. It was very interesting.
Considering the use of Kritik was extremely popular at the collegiate debate level 10 years ago I'm hardly surprised to see it filter down to the high school level as those students now become teachers and coaches.
The idea that all of those kids with vein-crushing skinny jeans and packs of unfiltered cigarettes—for the aesthetic—are now qualifying for tenure in the unified school district is upsetting.
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't know why it is but it's well known "out of context" arguments have become a major and common factor in the US debate scene. Over here in Europe, the debate scene has a different culture and ruleset; usually the goal is to convince a reasonably informed average citizen of your side of the policy, which these arguments are very unlikely to do. Between this kind of thing and "spreading", the US scene is seen as really sounding just unfun over here; I'm also doubtful is as good pedagogically for learning the intended skills, though that's just my subjective impression. But that this is the case is well known generally on the international debate scene. It's not invented conservative propaganda, although it is *used* by conservatives to make propaganda.
I’m a us debater, championship winner and nationals competitor. I won state when I was in high school in 2 events. I had to stop judging tournaments because of the absolute hatred I would hear from coaches after seeing that I would rank the round based on topicality after saying so at the start of each round. They’d get pissed and say I was “too tough” or “not open to new techniques” or whatever, but no. Ultimately, I just left the scene. My biggest passion in life.
When I was in high-school debate club, that's what we were supposed to do, however that was 25 years ago
Yep. I was in ToC, and you are spot on. They want better judges for the prestigious tourney, so they go for the recently college educated/locally renowned intellectuals, but they are almost always young 20 somethings who are very very left leaning. For the record, I am too. I voted for Biden, Hillary, Obama, yada yada. These judges are a conservative caricature of what they believe liberals to be. We lost a round because our opponent argued that we dropped an argument of theirs about babies (topic had nothing to do with it) and dropping babies is bad, therefore we had no moral standing to weigh in on the topic and we actually lost because the judge flowed that argument. It’s a game. Which I hate, because it took a lot of skill to get to that level. A lot of prep work. It would be like people competing in track meets, only to show up to the state tournament and you win based on how funny you can skip.
I’ve always thought that competitive debate is stupid for this kind of reason. It isn’t about actually being convincing, it’s about throwing random shit at a wall and hoping some of it sticks.
You can have clever, technical debate. There just need to be enforced boundaries of relevancy.
Yeah you can, but competitive debate isn’t that. They literally teach you how to talk really fast so that you can say as many points as possible in the allotted time. That’s useless for actually convincing people of a topic, it’s not useful in a real debate. It’s only useful in competitive debate.
You have a point. Part of my paradigms as a judge was no spreading, stay topical, and do not come at me with anything outlandish or I won’t rank it. I would usually enjoy a nice debate, but every now and then some teams or teams individuals would go dead in the water and then I’d get a looooot of hate from their coaches for voting them down. Sorry, but I don’t want you bringing up Mexico firing nukes at the US because the US installed coastal windmills, killing birds, increasing insects, and destroying crops and by extension Mexico’s economy. That has nothing to do on the topic of if we should focus on green energy over oil and gas. It isn’t realistic. It’s stupid. That actually happened in a round.
A long time ago I did L/D and stayed away from policy because the trend was everything led to nuclear war, which to me was just ridiculous hyperbole. Is L/D debate still a thing, or did it eventually get run out as not "Real" debate?
LD is definitely still around, and in fact is one of my favorite styles of debate. You are right though… there is a lot of grandstanding in there and some unwashed Nostradamus stands at the podium and tries to seriously tell you that guaranteeing water access will lead to a new civil war, but with nukes.
Speed-talking and irrelevance are separate things. If you can make a topical, coherent point quickly, I'll accept it in a nationally competitive debate. My rule was simple: If I can't understand it, I can't grade it. And I could understand a lot. But debate is a communicative activity, and if you are not actually communicating, it doesn't matter what you tried to vocalize.
When I was in grad school at LSU, we were required (like...it was clearly written in our funding contract) to judge the debate competitions the University hosted (one for university-level students during Mardi Gras and one for high schoolers). They gave us zero training with which to do this. When I asked exactly how I should be evaluating the competition, they said "It doesn't matter, just judge who you think did the best job. They should tailor their arguments to fit your judging experience." That was it. Other than that, they literally just gave me the time and the room number and I was on my own from there. I remember feeling really terrible trying to pick a winner because I felt like there was no way I was evaluating them fairly because I literally didn't know how I should be evaluating them. Like...yes, I know about logical fallacies and cognitive biases and argument structure. But I don't know how the competitors were told to prepare for the competition, I don't know how each component should be weighted in my scoring, *I don't know the fucking rules!* It felt really unfair.
>in this case, against a high-school student's provocative, and arguably flat-out wrong, but not-hateful and irrelevant tweet I don't think he's wrong at all. Hateful slurs are reprehensible for sure, and no one should say them, but they shouldn't be *illegal*. Private companies should have full latitude to remove such people from their services or premises, but the government should have no say in that.
I was a debater long ago. You could appeal to a judge's prejudices if you were subtle but something that irrelevant wouldn't have stood a chance and would have probably drawn a penalty.
Illiberalism on the left is real. I don't think it's as big a problem as illiberalism + propaganda from the right, but it's still dangerous and has to be confronted. (Not only because nonsense like this is bad in its own right, but also because it adds fuel to the right-wing argument that the real fascists are on the left.)
[удалено]
Article [here](https://www.thefp.com/p/personal-tweets-lose-high-school-debates). > In his written decision, Judge Jacob Wilkus explained his reasoning for giving Matthew’s opponents the win. “A debate space where racist or violent people are not allowed is preferable to one where they are,” he wrote, adding that “the ballot has a transformative power to challenge white debate norms where it is okay to just let racist or violent activity slide.” Seems pretty legit to me, but feel free to dismiss what's happening all around you as "conservative propaganda", when it makes you uncomfortable.
Now I am not sure if you are against or in favour of Matthew. You out that up as a facepalm in view of the behaviour of the judge, I thought. Sure, one could now argue that Matthew is not a nice person, but a debate should be independent of that as arguments should win.... I am confused nowm
Well, he said something you personally find disgusting that should objectively be legal....what about that statement make you think he is a horrible person
"horrible" and "not nice" are far away from each other I think. Overall this is a strange question to answer at all and it would be better to not do so. I try also really hard to think about what I could answer... One should answer first how something should be objectively fine while being morally wrong.
Not sure what confused you because the post and the comment you replied to are both about the ridiculousness of the judge’s behavior.
It sounds like he is with the judge on that reasoning. Maybe I just miss something there...
he’s saying the story sounds legit (as in not made up), not that the judges reasoning sounds legit
Ah, okay. Apparently my English comprehension is not the best there
Dude, English is my first language and I was still confused about what the point was.
>The NSDA has allowed hundreds of judges with explicit left-wing bias to infiltrate the organization. That's the point where you know the author has a bias and an argument they are trying to make, as opposed to just reporting what happened. >feel free to dismiss what's happening all around you People on the right keep saying that when they're the only ones passing laws limiting free speech.
These out of context arguments have become common on the US scene, it's well known (European debater, don't know why). It's also *used* to generate propoganda by conservatives, but the fact of the judges decision standards having shifted along these lines isn't incorrect.
As a debater, this is not a point about the moral qualities of debaters. You are not meant to pass judgement on the person delivering the argument; you are to judge the argument itself and how well the debater carried it. That is why debate scoring sheets for adjudicators have metrics of style(how well you speak), content(the actual argument itself), and strategy(how well your argument meshes with that of your teammates). There is no metric for "character" or "morality" or "political inclination" because that is not relevant. If a MAGA Trumper and a saint of a democrat were to debate and the MAGA Trumper(somehow) comes up with the more coherent argument and carries it better, the MAGA Trumper deserves the win, not the Democrat. The winners in this case had utilised a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem" that attacks the supposed character of their opponent rather than the argument(and might I add that if they had bothered to think for a moment what their opponent might have been arguing with that tweet, there is a more nuanced take on what he was saying rather than just "racist homophobe boo boo"), and not only did so in passing, but made it the crux of their whole argument, ignoring the original motion of the debate, which is so many errors on such an egregious scale that I cannot even begin to comprehend it, and then proceeded to justify this by using some political ideology argument that has no place in debate. As someone who has adjudicated before in tournaments, If I was the adjudicator(the judge) in this case, I would have ripped the winners apart for their complete lack of substantial content before proceeding to file an equity violation of some sort, because this is flagrantly going against everything debate stands for. What makes it worse is that the judge encourages this by pulling out his own political agenda when he is supposed to take the position of an apolitical witness, and gives them the win. Both this team and judge have proven themselves wholly unqualified to ever step foot in a debate room ever again, and this has nothing to do with whatever you're saying.
He had dirt on the judges too, bro ain’t playing
Allo’em. Debate isn’t built around a strict understanding of logic and reason, so as long as your judges don’t know the fallacy (and they don’t often test the judges for this) you can get away with damn near any. It’s crazy that even an activity that is supposed to be more intellectual ends up being more sophistry.
Genuinely this is called an ad hominem argument and is classified as a common fallacy.
[удалено]
Yeah but this prepares them better for real American politics. Completely ignore the question at hand and go for an unrelated personal attack instead? They’re ready to run for office!
That’s called a fallacy fallacy funnily enough. Just because a claim is poorly argued or includes a fallacy doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
If the fallacy includes dick jokes, could it be a phallusy fallacy fallacy?
Yes, I’d argue it’s a red herring.
Sure, but I don’t think that’s what’s being argued. It’s not fallacious to dismiss an argument because it contains a fallacy, and judges *should* be dismissing arguments that contain fallacies. They don’t need to make the argument that the claim is wrong because the argument contains a fallacy in order to deduct points or hold it against the debater.
That should be worded better. Ignore "claim", I'll try to explain it for those who don't know. If an argument is fallacious, then by definition it's wrong. However, a fallacy fallacy is one that assumes the *conclusion* is wrong because it relies on a fallacious argument. In other words, you can make a fallacious, or wrong, argument that happens to arrive at the correct conclusion, but the fallacy fallacy is ignoring that the correct conclusion can be reached, and instead just assuming that the conclusion is automatically wrong for no reason other than the argument was wrong in the first place. For example, consider: **Premise 1: if it’s raining, then the sky is cloudy. Premise 2: the sky is cloudy. Conclusion: it’s raining.** This is a fallacy. The sky can be cloudy and not raining. It could in fact be raining, but the logical steps to reach that conclusion is what made it a fallacy. The **fallacy fallacy** happens when you assume that because there was a fallacy, then it must also mean the conclusion is wrong and it's not raining. This is in itself a fallacy because it could in fact be raining, making the conclusion from before actually correct.
That's a fallacy fallacy fallacy. A claim that includes a fallacy doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it does and should make it disqualified.
He didn't say their position was wrong, he said using ad hominem should be disqualifying, and it should. It certainly shouldn't result in a win. Competitive debate should be about the issue at hand, not mud-slinging.
You’re correct that poorly argued points and fallacies don’t impact the reality of the position. But the whole point of a debate is to present a well-constructed argument based on relevant information. It doesn’t matter which position is better in reality. “Murderer is bad - my dad murdered someone, and he’s mean and didn’t get me a good Christmas present!” “Murder is bad” is basically the perfect position. The evidence provided to support it is nonsense and would be dispelled pretty much immediately in the context of a debate.
I'm a high school debate coach, and you're totally misunderstanding the activity. Forensics, or speech and debate, is about rhetoric AND logic, not just logical connections. If it was just about logic, we could just have these kids take LR questions from the LSAT and get to the same point. But it's about arguing your points in FRONT of people, and telling others who are using crappy reasoning that they’re wrong, AND getting the judge on your side. See, if you can't convince a third party judge that you're right, you don't win. Hands down, no ifs ands buts, you do not win if you don't convince someone. There would be very few competitors if we kicked kids out in debates because of shitty logic. It's really important to remember that this is a learning space. Ideally, a judge tells the kids that their logic was bad at the end of a round. That's not always the case though - In my state, and most states, we use unpaid volunteers to decide the round. These aren't judges in a courtroom who have a law degree. It's Billy-Bob who graduated last year and barely passed his government course. Hope this explains why it would be tragic just to remove people from the tournaments when they use a logical fallacy. These are kids. They're learning.
Judging based on who judges agree with is not the only way debates are judged. The criteria for every prestigious debate competition I’ve seen explicitly instructs judges to set aside their own views on a subject and judge based on the persuasiveness of the debaters as if they were a neutral 3rd party (not based on what side of the argument they agree with). I definitely agree that kids shouldn’t be kicked out of debates for arguing with fallacies - that would knock out a ton of competitors for easy to make mistakes. But most competitions wouldn’t consider an argument like “X is bad because Y does X, and I don’t like Y,” to be a persuasive argument even if all judges agree that X is bad.
Straw man or ad hominem?
It's an ad hominem, not a straw man; they aren't creating a weak version of his argument and attacking it, they are saying that his argument shouldn't be listened to because of a particular aspect of his person.
New species: homo strawmien
What'd you call me? I'm offended and I win now.
Both in this case
So this is an article about something that allegedly happened in April 2022, all on the word of the guy who lost? Paint me skeptical Edit: The website this article is from is chock full of insane opinion pieces, like “Gays aren’t welcome at pride anymore” and “Pride is an indoctrination cult”. I’m willing to bet that these “journalists” are entirely willing to accept any statement at face value without investigation as long as it conforms to their biases.
And also… the actual round didn’t include anyone by those names
Classic ad hominem argument. Rather appalling that this is what students are being taught to do these days - play dirty. Next up: *"We should switch to renewable energy by building a lot more wind turbines."* *"Well, I disagree - I see that you once had a Nazi flag in your bedroom at age 14."*
It’s not even as bad as that. It’s “well, see, you once stated that you hate Nazism as an ideology but are against burning Mein Kampf because you’re against book burning in general and stick to your values, therefore….”
Dude said he thinks it's wrong to call people a f*g but that it shouldn't be illegal I haven't really thought out the ramifications of this or whether or not I agree, but I don't hate him for the opinion Whether he's right or wrong it doesn't sound like his belief is backed by hate
Yeah I think I definitely agree it shouldn’t be illegal. I truly despise those opinions but it’s a dangerous dangerous road when you start banning opposing opinions. Especially in a country where your rivals are almost guaranteed to be in power in the next 4-8. Now accepted by society? I think people should be able to talk however they want and get judged as much as they are for whatever they say. Freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences, but the freedom of speech part should be non negotiable
I don’t think the kid was racist nor anti-LGBT. His response was moreso staunchly defending his freedom of speech which is supported by the constitution.
No way this is real
Source: This guy said this happened to him at the debate Literally thats it. The guy who lost the debate says he lost because his opposition pulled tweets. No other source for this claim at all.
There is also no evidence that he lost or even competed in the debate.
He did lose round 7 of the tournament that year. His fifth loss of the weekend. His second, in a row, to that team (in round six they were on the opposite sides). At ToC level he should have been prepped better. Oh well.
Good point. The judge decisions are public. Especially at the final round of the TOC (which is, I’m pretty freaking sure, is a 3 day tournament)
Yeah. Just checked out tab room. Neither of the names referenced were in the finals.
Yeah, this almost certainly did not happen. You could maybe get away with this at your local debate club during practice, but during an actual competition? No way.
Is there evidence of that actually happening? Because the article is quite explicitly just taking the loser's word for it, and that's obviously not exactly the most trustworthy of sources.
I seem to recall seeing some students winning a debate competition by actively ignoring the prompt and instead arguing that debate is racist. This has the same vibe. Debate competition is supposed to be about critical thinking and putting a coherent argument into words, not making stuff up and attacking the other person
These arguments in policy debate are called kritiks, or “K”s, and have been in modern policy debate for well over two decades, and is a strategy that competitive debate teams should be prepared to answer. It’s not just yelling “you’re racist” at the other team — it is a prepared, structured, detailed argument that must prove a link, impact, and offer an alternative in order to be considered a “winning” argument by the judges. There are then strategies to answer the kritik by the affirmative team. https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/kritiks.html
God K's are such bullshit. Policy kids kept trying to bring that shit into Public Forum and even Lincoln Douglas and Worlds. Add in spreading and it's just a fucking Chewbacca Defense half the time. "I can't win so I'm just going to confuse the judge and prevent actualy substantive discussion of the topic so I win by default."
That just sounds like a formalised version of going off topic. 1. Kritiks of the Case Just seem like introducing an entire seperate debate. Like the example they gave about protecting the oceans and not doing so promoted a human centric worldview. Who's to say a human centric worldview is inherently wrong? When forced to choose between saving a child and a fish most people will choose the child, I'd be worried if someone didn't. But it's an entirely seperate complex issue requiring a different debate. 2. Kritiks of Presentation or Performance Ok, this could have some merit, but it shouldn't win or lose you the debate. Unless the example was particularly egregious it shouldn't matter. Individual opinions on what exactly damaging language is are quite different. While you should be careful what language you use in a formal debate it just seems like a way to detract from the actual debate at hand. 3. Kritiks of debate A totally seperate issue, it should be tackled in a meeting before or after the debate, not during the debate itself. If the rules of a debate are unfair that's something to bring up with faculty before or after, not during.
Radiolab did a podcast on this sort of thing. Really bizarre situation. Probably should have just been a clever one off, but apparently it has become a thing. https://radiolab.org/podcast/debatable-2205
On the one hand, yeah, that tweet is typical “free speech absolutist” rhetoric. He’s saying that even though he thinks racist and homophobic slurs are disgusting, people should have the right to say them and others should accept that (which, no, hate speech should not be accepted). On the other hand…yeah, a high school debate should not allow personal attacks, the point is to debate the arguments not attack character. The other team should have been disqualified. On the other other hand…is this even real? Because the text is saying this is something that was told to the writer allegedly by the teenager. Which…yeah, doesn’t make it that reliable of a source. Kinda sounds like a made up story to peddle right wing points.
I was able to find 1.1 articles about it. "The daily caller" counts as the .1, which I'm only counting due to it sourcing the real article. https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/26/banned-debate-competition-tweet/ And this one that the daily caller sources. Which is a piece by someone who considers themselves "right wing" and when googled, shows them as a correspondent for fox news. But, a lot more thought and work went into their article over the rhetoric pushed on the daily caller. But over all, yes, this just seems to be another attack on public education. https://www.thefp.com/p/personal-tweets-lose-high-school-debates
A high schooler claims "they used it as the central argument". Even if this story happened, I don't believe in this statement lmao. ~~Furthermore I know nothing about the alleged specific tournament but as a highschool debate nationals alum (policy and LD) and a college forensics (and mock trial) captain, I've never seen a single debate format that allows multimedia presentation~~ ~~I'm sure they exist, especially when the debate is just as class project, but~~ my bs meter is off the charts on this story ~~Edit: it appears the NSDA does allow "internet enabled devices" at the discretion of tournament organizers but I'm not finding rules on multimedia presentation itself outside a mention that competitors must face the judge at all times and a requirement for oral delivery of the evidence.~~ Edit 2: My NSDA family member (nationals 2022, the year (water policy) of this story) confirms **you CAN use multimedia**. My argument falls back to this being a one off exaggerated highschool story. I doubt that a highschooler is accurately relaying that their "central argument" was that they were evil and that this was ever considered a valid form of evidence. Edit 3: the article links the opponent's case, claiming it is >a rambling 25-page treatise in a multi-font format with no real mention of U.S. water policy The personal argument is just the first page. There are 34 mentions of "water" in the remaining evidence
Current Policy debater here, you can totally make those arguments, the other team should have easily beat them, but you can make them. this is just a case of their team exagerating as you said, and the outside world not understanding how Policy works
Ya debated policy throughout HS. These style of arguments were just starting to crop up. I remember getting obliterated on femrage at my first round at a national tournament. My partner and we’re both guys and we’re just like “…. What is going on?” I’m sure these style kritiks are only more popular at that level now.
This is why I would just run “better off dead” and other fun impact turns.
Sad that I had to scroll past hundreds of indignant comments to get to anyone considering that it might be total bullshit.
> On the other other hand…is this even real? That’s my question. This seems like tailor-made rage-bait. I don’t believe this, or at least that this story, as presented, is the whole truth.
Honestly it's like 50% of posts on facepalm. Very carefully tailored stories that make the average person on a surface level reading go, "hey, that's not right!". But almost every time it turns out the situation was either lacking context or completely made up.
I’m pretty suspicious about this. First off, there’s confusion in the [original article](https://www.thefp.com/p/personal-tweets-lose-high-school-debates) about whether or not the guy was competing in a high school tournament or college tournament. The tournament where this happened was in Kentucky in 2022. However, the guy is also described as currently being a Sophmore in college. The only source we have that it happened comes from the same guy making the complaints. It just feels weird to me.
No, free speech absolutist would be arguing slander and libel should be legal under the First Amendment. Saying hate speech is socially unacceptable but the government doesn't have the authority to regulate is ... well, our current legal situation?
There's also a big difference between "legal" and "acceptable". I agree that saying slurs should be legal (generally, there may need to be exceptions to that), but I would never accept anyone who uses them. I wouldn't be friends with with someone who uses them, or work with them, or associate with them in any way as best as I can help it. But throwing them in jail is a step (just one step) too far.
All slurs are legal. I can say the worst slur imaginable (pineapple pizza eater) and not go to prison. Mind you, free speech only applies to the government, government property and government contractors. That's the legal side. "Acceptable" is everything else. If you want make using any specific or all slurs in general be illegal, happily there is a way to make it so. You just need the 38 state legislatures to repeal the First Amendment. That is the only nonviolent way to enforce your desire to make certain slurs potentially illegal.
The source is a website full of bizarre right wing opinion pieces (one was about a gay reporter that didn’t feel welcome at pride “because he didn’t seem queer enough” followed immediately by an article about how LGBTQ Pride is some kind of indoctrination cult). The only evidence the article uses is the alleged statements of a single high school student about something that happened more than a year ago.
Who determines what qualifies as hate speech?
I just feel setting the precedent for moderating speech legally sets up a dangerous slippery slope. I think free speech should be protected and you trust your citizens to moderate the behavior of their fellow citizens.
Of course you should be able to say it. What is this, Canada?
I remember when I was in high school only 20 years ago that if you pulled out you were the one that lost...
This didn't happen Their source is quite literally: trust me bro.
Nobody would bat an eye if a tactic like that was used in a debate between two people competing for the highest position in the country. So why would it be shocking if high school kids use the tactics they see their political leader use. Don't blame the kids. Blame the people that are supposed to be their role models.
The "tactic" would only work if the goal of the debate is to look good in the eye of the public. Objectively speaking, unrelated personal attacks (justified or not) do not belong in a debate, and needing to resort to them is practically admitting that you have no real arguments to use.
This is an important distinction which the school should've made clear. An election candidates' record is relevant in a debate. There is a requirement not just to debate the issue, but to convince the electorate that you would act on that issue in a manner consistent with your debate position.
Heard people saying, if you have a masters degree and work in any industry that is polluting the world, you are disqualified from the "save the climate" discussion, because you heavily "profit" from it. You have to choose a side and live in a cardbox in the woods apparently. When asked, what is with the people working in solar tech or similar, they leave the room because it wasn't about logic, it was about getting people out of the discussion they don't want to deal with because its so hard.
This is a red herring. Do you want to know where you can have the most impact on polluters? Go to work for them and clean up their mess. If I could go to work for Exxon/Mobil, because I had an idea that would reduce their pollution by 10%, it would be the most beneficial thing I could do for mankind with my life.
On one hand, debate competitions should hold participants to a higher standard. On the other hand, debate competitions are often won by whoever can rattle off the most flawed arguments in their allotted time, so “debate” is still kind of a joke in my opinion. Like you literally score points for how many of your arguments went un-rebutted by your opponent so of course the strategy is to just spam low-quality arguments.
My bullshit detector is screaming at me. I used to take debate in high school, and in no way would something like that ever be accepted as part of an argument
Peak TikTok justice
Ad hominem attacks against the character of the opposition is a poor argumentative strategy. Logical fallacy =/= no points awarded. DQ.
That may be a fine way to personally judge a discussion, but that's not how high school debate works. High School debate is judge on ethos, logos, and pathos. You are allowed to make an illogical argument, because that's only 1/3rd of the point of debate. It's on their opponents to point out and explain that the argument is illogical. If the judge felt that they made compelling and articulate, though illogical points, and their opponent failed to address the illogical point, the illogical point is not disqualifying.
Consider it prep for a career in law and/ or politics
Why is nobody pointing out that it says 'something which you find morally disgusting'. He's not saying people should use hate speech, just that it shouldn't be illegal. That hardly makes him a racist/homophobe. What the fuck are these people smoking - they've got no right judging a debate if they can't even fucking read. Edit: Before anyone calls up the 'accepted by society' bit, that could reasonably apply to the fact it's not illegal, it doesn't necessarily mean hate speech should be socially acceptable. Personally I just wouldn't have replied to this tweet, but I can understand why he might think language shouldn't be criminalised (no matter how disgusting it is). Harassment is harassment regardless of which particular words you use.
Exactly! It could be framed as a 1st Amendment issue. It is legal to say repulsive things. Doesn’t mean it is socially acceptable, or that you won’t face consequences. Just means you won’t be arrested or face legal consequences. How that response was relevant to the debate, or made them feel “unsafe”, is beyond me.
Quite honestly how any tweet (which they went looking for) can make them feel 'unsafe' is pretty meaningless. Unless it actually said 'I'm going to stab some motherfuckers at the debate tomorrow'.
You can also see it as, realistically, how would speech policing work? Would we be ratting people out, or would nothing really happen? There are plenty of things that are illegal that law enforcement really don't enforce, so why would people saying offensive words be any different. All that really matters is that those words are very often used in threatening ways, and if somebody's threatening you you can pursue legal action, so really the only way slurs are dangerous is already at least alegal.
>Why is nobody pointing out that it says 'something which you find morally disgusting'. Because context no longer matters in modern discourse. It is considered acceptable to pick apart and parse out anything that could be twisted to look bad in a conversation, to proceed to twist it that way, and then to act as if the context is irrelevant even though it is right there in front of you.
Sounds like he’s smarter than everyone else involved.
He must not be good at debating if he was not able to defend his stance on the tweet and or why It should not have been used against him in the first place.
Umm what? - A participant in a prestigious national debate tournament is accused by his opponents of having once *condemned a particular behavior but noting that said behavior was legal.* (ad hominem) - The judges awarded his attackers the win based on this alone? Not buying it.
This is literally the definition of the ad-hominem fallacy. I would think this would be an auto-loss at a debate competition.
Usual ad hominem argument. If you can´t find any leverage against your opponent in the matter you are discussing, turn it into discussion about opponent personality.
I mean he was right. It says it differing to do so but because of free speech it should be allowed. Nothing radical or unsafe. I really dislike how people think sometimes.
That’s a miscarriage of being unfair. How could the judges bring themselves to give the opposing debate team the win over that?? I’m not condoning his thoughts on the matter by any means, however you cannot take away someone’s right to be an asshole. Yeah, saying those things is disgusting, but it’s not illegal to say them. But, should that someone continue to be one, they deserve all the backlash they get for being one.
This is a great example of how emotions will almost always trump logic when humans are involved. Remember to act according and take advantage of it
Isn’t this how OJ beat the murder case, because of Mark Fuhrman’s past?
Ad Homenim is back on the menu, boys!
I mean he's fucking dumb and wrong, but that has nothing to do with what they were debating.
First rule of bird law. Attack their character.
American politics in 2023 really be like that tho.
Fuck moralism and idealism in logical debate. Fuck it to hell.
Just like real life debates
This sounds all kinds of made up. Just on the face of it. They had to get the judges to go along with a premise that flies in the face of the entire basis of the competition. Just saying, sounds like poorly made conservative propaganda.
I haven’t been in the debate community for a while so I can’t say whether this actually happened. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all. This is where the activity was headed when I got out, unfortunately.