Is this video about these college debate winners real and if so, has Idiocracy already arrived?

[repoman]

 

[OLDMAN]

Community college?

 

[Derec]

Affirmative action?

Speaking of AA, that makes Brooke Kimbraugh's (the one that compared college rejection letters to nooses) supposedly impressive debate credentials in a whole different light, doesn't it?

 

[Underseer]

Affirmative action?

Affirmative action is a specific legal concept that applies to the workplace. If you can prove in a court of law that you missed out on a job or promotion due to discrimination (yes, even if you are a part of the majority), then you have standing to sue for damages.

This brings up two questions:

• how can you possibly think this college debate team has anything to do with affirmative action?
• why on Earth would you think it is a bad thing to allow people to sue if they miss out on a job or promotion due to discrimination?

 

[Derec]

Affirmative action is a specific legal concept that applies to the workplace.

No, it is not. I may have started that way, but is no longer.

This has everything to do with the concept of "affirmative action" as it is commonly used today (and has been for the last 40 years). Debate organizers wanted more "diverse" teams to win, so they changed the format to allow rap, and also allow "debaters" to not address the topic of debate at all and still win (the two finalists didn't address presidential war powers in any way, shape or form).

Atlantic has a way too positive article on this (one feels like falling through the rabbit hole) but it still gives an overview of the situation.

 

[ApostateAbe]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate

Style and delivery[edit]

Speed[edit]

Policy debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. The debaters who speak most quickly speak at rates of 350[7] to in excess of 500 words per minute.[8] In many tournaments, debaters will speak very quickly in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained speech. Speed reading is referred to as spreading. At the majority of national circuit policy debate tournaments, spreading is the norm.

Some feel that the rapid-fire delivery makes debate harder to understand for the lay person.[9] Rapid delivery is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of argumentation makes debates more educational. Others, citing scientific studies, claim that learning to speak faster also increases short- and long-term memory. A slower style is preferred by those who want debates to be understandable to lay people and those who claim that the pedagogical purpose of the activity is to train rhetorical skills. Many further claim that the increased speed encourages debaters to make several poor arguments, as opposed to a few high-quality ones. Most debaters will vary their rate of delivery depending upon the judge's preferences.

Many judges are willing to prompt debaters by yelling "clear!" or variants when they can no longer understand because the speed has become too great or because the debater is enunciating poorly.

Flowing[edit]

Main article: Flow (policy debate)

Debaters utilize a specialized form of note taking, called flowing, to keep track of the arguments presented during a debate. Conventionally, debater's flowing is divided into separate flows for each different argument in the debate round (kritiks, disads, topicalities, etc.) There are multiple methods of flowing but the most common style incorporates columns of arguments made in a given speech which allows the debater to match the next speaker's responses up with the original arguments. Certain shorthands for commonly used words are used to keep up with the rapid rate of delivery. The abbreviations or stand-in symbols vary between debaters.[10]

Flowing on a laptop has become more and more popular among high school and college debaters, despite the reservations of certain schools, tournaments, and judges. Some debaters use a basic computer spreadsheet; others use specialized flowing templates, which includes embedded shortcut keys for the most common formatting needs.

This form of debate is highly specialized and stylized and can be quite jarring for the uninitiated. It combines poetry, argument, music into a performance art piece judged not only on argument but style and speed And creativity within the guideline of very specific rules..

 

[Derec]

This form of debate is highly specialized and stylized and can be quite jarring for the uninitiated.

From reading the above wiki entry it looks to me as if this is a perversion of the "policy debate" format. Sadly, US academia has split along two lines - the sciences, engineering and other fact based disciplines and social sciences and humanities that have degenerated into a combination of grievance politics and post-modernism (which states that no narrative is better than any other).

It combines poetry, argument, music into a performance art piece judged not only on argument but style and speed And creativity within the guideline of very specific rules..

It is no longer a debate - they didn't even have any recognizable arguments nor did they address the topic in any way. It's a really combination of a rap battle and the "theater of the absurd" and has no place in what is supposed to be a competition for actual academic debate. What "very specific rules"? Certainly not about staying on topic. Certainly not about offering cogent arguments backed by fact. Certainly not about not using the n-word (actual CEDA rule). Not even about keeping to your allotted time. But hey, I am sure all these are just examples of white imperialism and not what being an "authentic nigga" is all about. Even time is white imperialist imposition no doubt because mechanical clocks were invented in Europe.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It's a really combination of a rap battle and the "theater of the absurd"

You are aware there've been white contestants too?

 

[Derec]

It's a really combination of a rap battle and the "theater of the absurd"

You are aware there've been white contestants too?

How is that in contradiction to what I wrote? Just FYI, "theater of the absurd" is a French invention from the time when the pomo nonsense was just heating up.
If the white contestants offered the same non-debate they didn't deserve to be there any more than the black finalists. After all, there are white rappers and white idiots just as there are intelligent blacks that can participate in proper debate.
If, on the other hand, they attempted to actually participate in an actual debate but these four non-debating clowns got into the finals then they (or a non-white team that actually debated the topic) should have won.
And it raises the question why these two teams were made finalists, because they certainly didn't debate the topic.

We already have the PoMo generator. We need to make a "CEDA Debate Generator". It would not even require many tweaks - mainly adding "nigga" as every other word and an exclusion algorithm to make sure the purported debate topic is not even remotely addressed.

 

[NobleSavage]

WTF?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From reading the above wiki entry it looks to me as if this is a perversion of the "policy debate" format. Sadly, US academia has split along two lines - the sciences, engineering and other fact based disciplines and social sciences and humanities that have degenerated into a combination of grievance politics and post-modernism (which states that no narrative is better than any other).

It combines poetry, argument, music into a performance art piece judged not only on argument but style and speed And creativity within the guideline of very specific rules..

It is no longer a debate - they didn't even have any recognizable arguments nor did they address the topic in any way. It's a really combination of a rap battle and the "theater of the absurd" and has no place in what is supposed to be a competition for actual academic debate. What "very specific rules"? Certainly not about staying on topic. Certainly not about offering cogent arguments backed by fact. Certainly not about not using the n-word (actual CEDA rule). Not even about keeping to your allotted time. But hey, I am sure all these are just examples of white imperialism and not what being an "authentic nigga" is all about. Even time is white imperialist imposition no doubt because mechanical clocks were invented in Europe.

derec,

If you really care (which you don't) you can look up the rules on the INTERNET (which you won't).

Since the girls WON, it is safe to assume they followed the rules of this competition and that is valid whether those rules were vetted by YOU or not.

You don't have to like it, (I don't) but to put it up as an example of something people think it should be as opposed to what it is, is disingenuous at best.

 

[dismal]

It's a really combination of a rap battle and the "theater of the absurd"

You are aware there've been white contestants too?

Yeah, I saw 8 mile.

Mom's spaghetti.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It's a really combination of a rap battle and the "theater of the absurd"

You are aware there've been white contestants too?

How is that in contradiction to what I wrote? Just FYI, "theater of the absurd" is a French invention from the time when the pomo nonsense was just heating up.
If the white contestants offered the same non-debate they didn't deserve to be there any more than the black finalists. After all, there are white rappers and white idiots just as there are intelligent blacks that can participate in proper debate.
If, on the other hand, they attempted to actually participate in an actual debate but these four non-debating clowns got into the finals then they (or a non-white team that actually debated the topic) should have won.
And it raises the question why these two teams were made finalists, because they certainly didn't debate the topic.

We already have the PoMo generator. We need to make a "CEDA Debate Generator". It would not even require many tweaks - mainly adding "nigga" as every other word and an exclusion algorithm to make sure the purported debate topic is not even remotely addressed.

derec

This is a highly edited video of a much longer competition. Did you see the entire competition? If not, then you have no idea what was and was not addressed.

 

[laughing dog]

I really don't understand the point of the OP at all.

 

[Achwienichtig]

It's debate meets slam poetry. I've got no problem with that. My problem is, I totally think the other team won.

 

[Deepak]

I'll stick to Intelligence Squared.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is some information about this particular tournament (source:http://tunews.towson.edu/2014/03/25/tu-debate-team-becomes-first-black-female-pair-to-win-national-championship/):

The Towson team beat Oklahoma in the final round to claim the national title. The competition featured teams from elite schools including Harvard, Trinity, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, Wayne State, Cal State Fullerton, Florida, Bard College, Pepperdine, Sacramento State, Vanderbilt, NYU and others......Next, Ruffin and Johnson will join teams from Cal-Berkeley, Georgetown, Harvard, Kansas, Mary Washington, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Rutgers, Wake Forest and West Georgia at the National Debate Tournament in Bloomington, Ind., March 28 through April 1.

One would think W,'s election and re-election would make the OP question out of date.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This competition may well be the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Top schools compete in this and call it "debate"? Why?

 

[J842P]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate

Style and delivery[edit]

Speed[edit]

Policy debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. The debaters who speak most quickly speak at rates of 350[7] to in excess of 500 words per minute.[8] In many tournaments, debaters will speak very quickly in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained speech. Speed reading is referred to as spreading. At the majority of national circuit policy debate tournaments, spreading is the norm.

Some feel that the rapid-fire delivery makes debate harder to understand for the lay person.[9] Rapid delivery is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of argumentation makes debates more educational. Others, citing scientific studies, claim that learning to speak faster also increases short- and long-term memory. A slower style is preferred by those who want debates to be understandable to lay people and those who claim that the pedagogical purpose of the activity is to train rhetorical skills. Many further claim that the increased speed encourages debaters to make several poor arguments, as opposed to a few high-quality ones. Most debaters will vary their rate of delivery depending upon the judge's preferences.

Many judges are willing to prompt debaters by yelling "clear!" or variants when they can no longer understand because the speed has become too great or because the debater is enunciating poorly.

Flowing[edit]

Main article: Flow (policy debate)

Debaters utilize a specialized form of note taking, called flowing, to keep track of the arguments presented during a debate. Conventionally, debater's flowing is divided into separate flows for each different argument in the debate round (kritiks, disads, topicalities, etc.) There are multiple methods of flowing but the most common style incorporates columns of arguments made in a given speech which allows the debater to match the next speaker's responses up with the original arguments. Certain shorthands for commonly used words are used to keep up with the rapid rate of delivery. The abbreviations or stand-in symbols vary between debaters.[10]

Flowing on a laptop has become more and more popular among high school and college debaters, despite the reservations of certain schools, tournaments, and judges. Some debaters use a basic computer spreadsheet; others use specialized flowing templates, which includes embedded shortcut keys for the most common formatting needs.

This form of debate is highly specialized and stylized and can be quite jarring for the uninitiated. It combines poetry, argument, music into a performance art piece judged not only on argument but style and speed And creativity within the guideline of very specific rules..

Right. I believe what we are seeing is an example of "spreading," which basically means talk as fast as you can. I really dislike it and it's part of the reason I never participated in debate in high school. Plus, I had you guys to debate when I was in high school That was back in the IIDB days.

Anyway, here's another example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ejl0tOhszM#t=790