Blatantly racist college "debate"

[Derec]

But they face no consequences because anti-white racism is perfectly politically correct.
VIDEO: Students debate at Harvard whether whites should kill themselves due to ‘privilege’
Also, if you are member of the approved minority, in addition to being racist you are also allowed to completely ignore the topic of the debate and rant about whatever you want. This has happened before.
How To Speak Gibberish & Win A National Debate Title

What the hell is going on with "higher education". Hypersensitivity to perceived "microaggressions" for certain preferred minorities, but outright calls for genocide against whites is not only tolerated, but celebrated.

 

[ronburgundy]

But they face no consequences because anti-white racism is perfectly politically correct.
VIDEO: Students debate at Harvard whether whites should kill themselves due to ‘privilege’
Also, if you are member of the approved minority, in addition to being racist you are also allowed to completely ignore the topic of the debate and rant about whatever you want. This has happened before.
How To Speak Gibberish & Win A National Debate Title

What the hell is going on with "higher education". Hypersensitivity to perceived "microaggressions" for certain preferred minorities, but outright calls for genocide against whites is not only tolerated, but celebrated.

You might want to read the "Updates" to your link about debates, where the author recants his central claim that this person violated the debate rules or that this had anything to do with the race. Ranting incoherently about logically disconnected irrelevancies has become the standard protocol for how to "win" these debate competitions. We have pseudo-intellectual idiocy of post-modernism to thank for that.

That doesn't address the racism of advocating that whites killing themselves is "a step in the right direction", but it refutes your claim that winning college debates via gibberish is a black thing.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's amazing that universities allow black women to speak.

 

[Derec]

That doesn't address the racism of advocating that whites killing themselves is "a step in the right direction", but it refutes your claim that winning college debates via gibberish is a black thing.

Really? There are two unrelated things here. The 'fast talking so you can spew out as many things in the allotted time' seems rather universal, but 'ignore topic of debate entirely' seems to be a black thing at these debates. Especially since disqualifying them for that would put the university in danger of being Mizzoued.

- - - Updated - - -

It's amazing that universities allow black women to speak.

Are you really that far gone in your identity politics madness that you perceive no difference between "allowing somebody to speak" and "rewarding incoherent racist ranting"?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A Black thing?

I am glad to hear you have such an acute interest in the college debating scene.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's amazing that universities allow black women to speak.

Are you really that far gone in your identity politics madness that you perceive no difference between "allowing somebody to speak" and "rewarding incoherent racist ranting"?

No, I see this to be unimportant and wonder why anyone would care.

 

[Derec]

A Black thing?

I am glad to hear you have such an acute interest in the college debating scene.

1. Do you support incoherent ranting as a winning strategy in these debates
2. Do you support calls for genocide against white people?

 

[Derec]

No, I see this to be unimportant and wonder why anyone would care.

Then why do you post a reply?
And I think that it is very important that we have created a culture at college campuses where minority students are on one hand inventing "microaggressions" to be offended by while on the other hand minority students are allowed to call for genocide against white people with impunity.
Don't you think all people on colleges should be treated equally and that skin color should not confer special rights and privileges?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A Black thing?

I am glad to hear you have such an acute interest in the college debating scene.

1. Do you support incoherent ranting as a winning strategy in these debates
2. Do you support calls for genocide against white people?

1.) Have you ever watched a presidential debate? Or one with Sarah Palin?
2.) Who doesn't? Seriously, get real.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No, I see this to be unimportant and wonder why anyone would care.

Then why do you post a reply?
And I think that it is very important that we have created a culture at college campuses where minority students are on one hand inventing "microaggressions" to be offended by while on the other hand minority students are allowed to call for genocide against white people with impunity.
Don't you think all people on colleges should be treated equally and that skin color should not confer special rights and privileges?

Do you beat your wife? Seriously, I work on a college campus and know that this "culture" (boogeyman) you describe is not widespread. These students are being provocative like many young adults before them. If discussion continues, then someone will point out how absurd their position is. This is how people learn to curb their idealism.

 

[Derec]

1.) Have you ever watched a presidential debate? Or one with Sarah Palin?

Sorry, as shallow and vacuous as presidential debates can be these college debates are orders of magnitude less intellectual. Yes, even when Sarah Palin is participating. I mean try to watch a video of one. They are embarrassingly bad.

2.) Who doesn't? Seriously, get real.

Well I for one don't. But thanks for revealing your true colors.

 

[fromderinside]

Don't you think all people on colleges should be treated equally and that skin color should not confer special rights and privileges?

No. Minority is a pejorative that need be remedied by providing them leeway and privilege from the majority.

 

[Derec]

Do you beat your wife? Seriously, I work on a college campus and know that this "culture" (boogeyman) you describe is not widespread. These students are being provocative like many young adults before them. If discussion continues, then someone will point out how absurd their position is. This is how people learn to curb their idealism.

So calling for genocide against white people is now called "idealism". And by the way, one of these racists from the OP is at an institute named after a Black Panther cop killer.
And by the way, if a white student called for a genocide against blacks he'd be expelled quickly. So why are black racists not only tolerated but also celebrated? Do you see nothing wrong with such blatant racist double standard?

 

[laughing dog]

A Black thing?

I am glad to hear you have such an acute interest in the college debating scene.

1. Do you support incoherent ranting as a winning strategy in these debates
2. Do you support calls for genocide against white people?

Since the winners did not break any rules or protocols (as ronburgundy pointed that out), your problem is with the protocols and rules for cross-examination debate, not with the particular topic or responses. The side that someone takes in a formal forensic competition is not necessarily accepted as valid or real by the person. So, if you think incoherent ranting should not be a winning strategy, then why are you engaging in it?

 

[Derec]

No. Minority is a pejorative that need be remedied by providing them leeway and privilege from the majority.

So combined with your advocacy for female sexism you believe white males should be treated as third class citizens?

Treating people as individuals used to be a core principle of liberalism. Sadly, what is called "liberalism" in US today is nothing but left wing illiberalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Since the winners did not break any rules or protocols (as ronburgundy pointed that out), your problem is with the protocols and rules for cross-examination debate, not with the particular topic or responses. The side that someone takes in a formal forensic competition is not necessarily accepted as valid or real by the person. So, if you think incoherent ranting should not be a winning strategy, then why are you engaging in it?

I am not. And that one of the little racist twerps works at an institute named after a Black Panther cop killer shows that the racist views expressed in the "debate" closely align to the views he actually holds.

 

[fromderinside]

So calling for genocide against white people is now called "idealism". And by the way, one of these racists from the OP is at an institute named after a Black Panther cop killer.
And by the way, if a white student called for a genocide against blacks he'd be expelled quickly. So why are black racists not only tolerated but also celebrated? Do you see nothing wrong with such blatant racist double standard?

Just your language proves your majority presumptuousness. Inventing terms like idealism to pair with 'calling for genocide' from a minority person gives proof to that. What makes a black racist? Is she a majority? Has she all the rights and privileges of a majority person in view of the state - Remember the last tie a white person was thrown to the curb by a police person on a traffic stop - when you answer as well as whether your parents told you hove to behave if you are in the presence of authority to prevent abuse and arrest.

A white person yelling genocide is an oxymoron since a minority has never done that. therefore the white person doing so is baiting and stupid at once.

 

[Derec]

Just your language proves your majority presumptuousness. Inventing terms like idealism to pair with 'calling for genocide' from a minority person gives proof to that.

Squirrel was the one who mentioned "idealism". I merely responded to him.

What makes a black racist?

Same thing that makes a white racist.

Is she a majority?

That doesn't matter. Otherwise no white person could be racist in much of the Atlanta metro area.

Has she all the rights and privileges of a majority person in view of the state

Both of the racist twerps are male, but yes, they have all the rights and privileges of a majority person and then some - like the ability to call for genocide and not suffer any consequences.

- Remember the last tie a white person was thrown to the curb by a police person on a traffic stop - when you answer as well as whether your parents told you hove to behave if you are in the presence of authority to prevent abuse and arrest.

I witnessed a white person being thrown to the curb by police. He was running for a bus.

A white person yelling genocide is an oxymoron since a minority has never done that. therefore the white person doing so is baiting and stupid at once.

What the fuck are you talking about? The little racist twerps are clearly advocating for genocide. Their presumed inability to actually implement it does not mean what they said is ok. If two white students called for genocide they have as little means to implement it but they would be punished, just because of the color of their skin. But blacks advocating genocide are celebrated. Sickening!

 

[fromderinside]

So combined with your advocacy for female sexism you believe white males should be treated as third class citizens?

Treating people as individuals used to be a core principle of liberalism. Sadly, what is called "liberalism" in US today is nothing but left wing illiberalism.

Wow. Bring in ammunition from one of your wrongful accusations from another thread and combine it with another illicit generalization from you with this discussion. Very fair, very fair indeed. - not.

1. One pointing out differences in effect of acts of by one sex or the other is not sexism.
2. Whites needing to show deference and allow space for minority venting is not lowering the class of white men.

So having posted two untruths you go on to conclude something about liberalism, a topic of which you seem to know nothing, which is clearly not justified. BTW: liberalism, by definition, is left wing. Adjusting for uneven playing field is a very proper place for liberals to set standards. Doing so changes the nothing for the most advantaged part of the majority class beyond they now have a few rules to play by giving them a taste of what minorities suffer by just being minorities and targets of majority ranking criteria.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The law school moot court model is much better. The parties are given a couple of narrow issues and then must take existing law, apply them to those issues, and develop deeply detailed arguments, during which, a panel of knowledgeable judges interrupt the speaker by firing questions at them from every possible angle. Another aspect is that one side is usually required to provide an argument persuasive enough for the judges to reverse existing law. But at the same time, the speaker's manner of speech must be conversational yet professional, and paced so that anyone sitting in the room can follow along. This must also be accomplished within a set time limit. It's rigorous, productive, and applicable to the real world.

As to the subject matter of the debate in the first link, I see nothing wrong with it. The parties chose a controversial topic and then "debated" it. To be sure, it's garbage--loose opinions supported by "because I think so"' or when questioned, asking a question in response. It's the stuff of burgeoning 7th grade intellects. Also, the students have been poorly coached on demeanor, delivery, and presentation.

I can't hear the audio on the second link, but it doesn't really matter. Whatever the topic, college debate has been such that the topic is little more than something to be abused by being briefly addressed in the first sentence before the subject matter becomes whatever the speakers feel like making it. So the black students are simply rolling with the traditional format.

The problem is not with what the students are saying. The problem is with the format being allowed to be raped and pillaged, which results in the teams blathering about multiple and different things utterly unrelated to the topic or even each other's arguments. It's silly and has no application to anything in the real world or even in academia. It does everyone involved a huge disservice.

 

[Derec]

1. One pointing out differences in effect of acts of by one sex or the other is not sexism.

Saying that one sex should have more rights and privileges over another is the definition of sexism.

2. Whites needing to show deference and allow space for minority venting is not lowering the class of white men.

You saying that whites need to show "deference" to other racial groups is pretty blatant racism.
I advocate that individuals should be treated as individuals, without regard to gender or race. Why is this so controversial? That is a very liberal position. Too bad those who call themselves "liberals" in the US today have nothing whatsoever to do with liberalism.

So having posted two untruths you go on to conclude something about liberalism, a topic of which you seem to know nothing, which is clearly not justified. BTW: liberalism, by definition, is left wing.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Adjusting for uneven playing field is a very proper place for liberals to set standards. Doing so changes the nothing for the most advantaged part of the majority class beyond they now have a few rules to play by giving them a taste of what minorities suffer by just being minorities and targets of majority ranking criteria.

Treating people as replaceable ciphers for certain groups is highly illiberal. And about "uneven playing field", you are advocating for an uneven playing field favoring blacks and favoring women. If you treat everybody as individuals you get even playing field automatically.
For example if a black student is a racist twerp you should treat him like you would a white racist twerp. Even playing field.
His great-great-great-grandfather having been a slave a century and a half ago (and that only if his ancestors are from the old Confederacy, otherwise even longer ago) should not excuse blatant racism in the here and now.