At High School Debates, Watch What You Say
At High School Debates, Watch What You Say
Kids are losing high school debates because of their personal tweets, reveals James Fishback in a new exposé.
The article here takes a bit stronger stance than "losing debates because of tweets":
The NSDA has allowed hundreds of judges with explicit left-wing bias to infiltrate the organization. These judges proudly display their ideological leanings in statements—or “paradigms”—on a public database maintained by the NSDA called Tabroom, where they declare that debaters who argue in favor of capitalism, or Israel, or the police, will lose the rounds they’re judging.
The article calls out five judges for being biased. The NSDA site shows 47,168 paradigms. So, while there may be an issue, there doesn't seem to be much proof here. It could equally well be that the author is cherry-picking instances that fit his ideology.
It doesnt help that this website is yet another daily wire like
Very good point - I think however it's worth noting the lack of the NSDA's addressing of the judges biases and the high levels of debate within that organization the specific people oversee.
Regardless, and to the authors point, if an alternative org is provided that people prefer, it will gain popularity.
My own high school debate days are decades in the past. From that perspective, though, the fact that you can easily look up the judges' biases, and so prepare for them, is a huge advance that we would never have even dreamed of. To me that seems like explicitly addressing biases in a useful way.
I'd be interested in a more serious analysis that went through all 47,000+ paradigms and categorized biases so some non-anecdotal conclusions could be drawn. That would take a lot more time and money than picking out a few instances that the writer knows about.
And yes, if an alternative ends up being liked better by debate coaches, people will go in that direction. It's entirely possible that debate competition will end up being as fragmented as national politics.
Very good point - I think however it’s worth noting the lack of the NSDA’s addressing of the judges biases and the high levels of debate within that organization the specific people oversee.
to be honest though i'm not really sure how you can address human bias here, and i'm confident this was also a problem before people started complaining about wokeness like they are here. obviously in an ideal world you would have a system that can impartially adjudicate these things--but these debates are often on very real subjects that impact real people. (in a lot of cases, i'd argue there is even a correct answer to most of these debates that inevitably looms over them.) i suspect the easier route is to just bake in the reality that people will have biases and that's a part of convincing them in the debate process.
Lmao freepress is a right wing rage bait site, take it about as seriously as the news your kitchen table reports
Jesus christ what blood sucking billionaire thought it was a good idea to give Bari Weiss another website?
yeah speaking purely about the link here (and not OP, who i'm sure has normal reasons for posting it) i was initially interested in what this had to say but immediately seeing a site with Bari Weiss involved is a red flag, because she has nothing interesting or principled to say about free speech or where it's being violated. unfortunately, this site also strikes me as yet another uninteresting, right-wing one that primarily peddles articles like "Free Speech Is Being Destroyed On College Campuses By Woke Libtards And Cucked Teachers" that conveniently ignores the concerted political effort by Republicans to ban queer people from the public space and libraries and other venues of public speech from acknowledging their existence. and the article here doesn't really dispel my presumption.
Lol, they were biased 20 years ago when I debated.
It all depends on the local community judges are recruited from.
I lost rounds multiple times with the only note being "Global warming is a lie"
Nobody wants to judge debate tournaments except former debaters and parents forced into it by their students.
You get what you get when it comes to debate judges.
The author of the article is clearly biased themselves.
Summarized:
Bigots are astonished to discover they are largely unwelcome in society and that their actions have consequences, and that the majority of people (especially in places like a debate club) are not interested in giving bigots a platform.
Later tonight: Sports Celebrity is astonished to discover that even though he is really good at <sport>, he is kicked off the team for criminal actions earlier that week.
I saw this and was surprised that this sort of thing is allowed. Shouldn't debates be about the debate itself? I feel sorry for kids these days with having to be so careful with an online presence.