{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/21/2014 2:30:15 PM
16
"Classic Academic Debate" -vs- "New Debate" method
A really interesting article in the Atlantic about how the age-old method of academic debate (point/counterpoint with research, data, and structured points) is being challenged (and in some cases overwhelmed) to the dismay of some and the delight of others by a new dynamic debating methodology. This methodology includes allowing one or both sides of the debate to not only argue each other, but argue the framework of the debate, question and challenge the matter being discussed, included emotional responses, anecdotal evidence, and arguments that the primary resolutions and the thesis/antithesis are flawed.
[url=http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/does-traditional-college-debate-reinforce-white-privilege/360746/]Does Traditional College Debate Reinforce White Privilege?
Minority participants aren't just debating resolutions—they're challenging the terms of the debate itself.[/url]
I am puzzled and curious as to how/why this is considered to be or is being presented as a racial issue (perhaps I am blinded by my own "privilege"). Who knows? But I am concerned that the outcome of this is debates will not be decided solely on reasoning, but on volume, passion, and who "feels the strongest".
Actually, this is a trend that has been going on for decades. People tend to make decisions based on emotion and many large institutions not only accept that, they enable it. Just look at how news reports/interviews are formatted. No longer does the on-the-scene reporter ask "what do you think about there being a mass murderer living in your neighborhood for decades?" they question(s) are always "how to you FEEL about ____" and "what did it feel like to see ____?"
Advertisers, politicians, anyone who needs to motivate and get a response from others, they will almost inevitably go for an emotional approach instead of an intellectual one.
Well, just an observation of mine. I am not surprised to see classical debating being changed in this way, but I do believe that it discourages calm rational thought in favor of strong powerfully presented emotional arguments. Whether or not that is a good thing? I guess that is up to the individual. What do YOU think?
English
#Offtopic
-
[quote]I am puzzled and curious as to how/why this is considered to be or is being presented as a racial issue[/quote] Because traditional ideas and customs when it comes to student debating have been dictated by the standards of what has always been overwhelmingly white, upper-middle class education. This stuff is racial because class is racial.
-
In policy debate, something along the lines of "White power rules in debate" would fall into what's called a Kritik (cri-teek) I remember seeing a kritik a few years back. affirmative teams plan was to reduce the number of U.S Soldiers in other countries. The negative team ran a "fall of an empire" Kritik, where basically the argument was "U.S has to keep soldiers in other countries to stay powerful, or risk not being the top dog." There were some other things in that Kritik but I can't fully remember. The negative team won that round. Kritiks, and the arguments you talked about in the OP aren't designed to get rid of the oppositions plan by proving it won't work. They are designed to prove that the resolution in general is a waste of time, thus making the aff plan pointless. [quote] But I am concerned that the outcome of this is debates will not be decided solely on reasoning, but on volume, passion, and who "feels the strongest".[/quote] This has always been the case in Forensics and policy debate. That's not the future, that's right now.
-
If this is the case, I'm going to probably say that people in the Off-Topic would probably win more debates. And the academic world will weep for going backwards.
-
Winning by going completely off point? the -blam!- is this bullshit? this is ruining what debates were based off, and instead of being powered by logic and facts, it's now based on emotion? -blam!- the "new method" if you can even call it that, if you're too stupid to find an argument on the original topic, or ignorant of the rules for debating, then you deserve a loss.
-
Filthy debate casuals. If you're going to roll back the rules why stop there?
-
I find this interesting for a few reasons. The first being I recent;y won a debate in class because I purposefully shared my facts in a way that would cause the other side to loose there shit. It was a men Vs women debate. The topic was whether women are better at communication in relationships. The first thing that came out of my mouth was: Women are not the superior when it comes to communication in a relationship for one reason. They have been socialized to respond and draw from emotion rather than logic. It is because of this type of behavior that women tend to self sabotage in the relationship. They also rely on past experiences when communicating rather than building new ones with the person they are with now. An example being, a past boy friend after raising his voice may have hurt them. Though there current boyfriend may raise his voice, he will not necessarily respond with physical abuse. The majority of women will respond the same way they did to the past boyfriend as they would to the current. It is because of this sort of behavior that women are ineffective communicators. As I was stating this opening argument, 70% of the women lost there minds. One girl even stood up and said she wanted tp punch me. Throughout the entire statement I continued speaking and getting my point across. The women started to rebuttal with emotional responses. I cut in and said one line. My point has been proven, almost all of you hate me right now, for no reason other than I said that women think only with emotion. The professor ended the debate. Giving the victory to we the men. I personally enjoy face to face debate a lot. I feel that this type of change would resemble that of a town hall meeting. It takes away the purpose of a debate. The one who loses control of their emotion should always be the loser.
-
4 RespostasCan't we mix the two styles? There has to be a way that debaters can use anecdotes and emotion that is backed up by facts and logic. I don't like either side of this debate, personally. Sticking to "tradition" just because it's tradition is how we keep people from advancing in society. Keeping things "traditional" gives an unfair advantage to whoever the dominant group in a society is, with the only reason being "that's just how it is". On the other hand: [quote]Hardy and others are also disappointed with what they perceive as a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions, and believe that the alternative-style debaters have contributed to this environment. “Judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs,” he said.[/quote] Angry, irrational, emotion-based Internet arguing is not what we should let rule our debates. There's a difference between passion and immaturity. I think both sides of this debate are equally right and wrong here.
-
I dun liek :(
-
4 RespostasMy inner (outer) philosopher is raging so hard right now. How are arguments supposed to be judged as objectively stronger or weaker than others if you let all the subjective elements in? If someone is screaming and raging in my face and making no coherent argument, it seems as if I don't actually have the authority to claim he has a 'weaker' argument because of it, but why? What is the point?
-
But... logical fallacies! Objective points! This made me die inside
-
2 RespostasEditado por BannedPiranha: 4/21/2014 2:50:55 PMThis is wrong.
-
I did debate in high school (with people from every variation of personal characteristics) and I hate everything about this. Let's replace scholarly debate and empirical evidence with shouting, trivial semantics, and unreliable anecdotes.
-
2 RespostasEditado por TechnoKat: 4/21/2014 2:45:40 PMI can understand the excessive use of emotional argumentations, but I could never quite why they're suddenly and more often than ever being used to combat logical arguments and win. I would be able understand it in such popularity contests as political office runs, but in debates about... Well anything that isn't a popularity contest. I really don't think that it's a good thing, more than that, it seems like it would only drag the whole point of the debate down. As for the rest of the point, the bits covering the questioning of the topic itself specifically, seems like it could be a positive thing, if only for the fact that it would take the debate itself to the next level by allowing someone to debunk an otherwise solid argument by questioning the basis itself. People would be required to put even more thought into what they say in order to back themselves up.
-
7 RespostasPerhaps the flood was ahead if it's time...
-
2 Respostas[quote]Does Traditional College Debate Reinforce White Privilege?[/quote] No. Aren't most debates just "One side presents an argument, the other side counter argues while usually presenting his/her own point" I fail to see how that reinforces any sort of privilege.
-
6 RespostasEditado por RageQuitMichael: 4/21/2014 2:40:58 PMI am so sorry. Kids. Go to your parents and yell, "I won a math debate! I won a math debate" really fast. [spoiler]I am so. So sorry OP.[/spoiler]
