Hi everyone. I'm one of the former debaters who will be participating in the zoom meeting on Thursday. If anyone's curious to read an account of my experience with insane leftist ideological capture, see here. https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-things-about-insanity-in-debate
Resolved: that those expressing strong political opinions in public are obligated to articulate clearly the basis of their beliefs, specifically the principles which they hold dear, how they define those principles, and what facts they feel are relevant. Those unable to do so should not be taken seriously, and if they then attempt to use coercive power to impose their ideas, should rightly be judged by all as Fascistic in temperament, if not specific named political committment.
Yeah, that was a bit leading, but pretty much a place I would be happy to live, and most Leftists would refuse to touch. Once you take a clear position, you can't mutate on a dime, which is the actual game they play.
I included that story in a book chapter I wrote for IGI. I was both horrified and infuriated at the judges whose biases meant teenaged debaters couldn’t win no matter how strong their arguments, evidence, and logic.
Who would have known that the evil of DEI would infest high school debate. The upside of this story is there is no obfuscation about the what and why. It is "clear and present". I debated in college under the tutelage of one of Jimmy Carter's debate coaches. This may well become the incident that is the beginning of the end of the DEI debate.
Debating debate. Interesting idea. The potentially interesting aspect is that for those who truly don't believe they should need to be able to articulate and defend clear principles such an opportunity will have no appeal. The only people likely to show up are the ones who don't need it.
I still like the idea. I'm busy and unlikely to participate, but who knows?
Would it be possible to also include in the discussion on Thursday evening one of a number of debate judges whose illiberal ideaology is well known in this arena? If invited to participate would he/she even accept the invitation?
As they prepare for debate, I suggest everyone read about Harvard President Drew Faust speaking at the United States Military Academy (West Point) in 2016:
"Speaking at the U.S. Military Academy, Harvard President Drew Faust told an audience of about 800 West Point cadets and faculty members Thursday that an understanding of humanity — including what inspires people to action — is at the heart of leadership."
2016 seems so long ago, yes, the Harvard President spoke at West Point...
Bari: sorry that I didn’t see a way to send you a note outside of another story’s comments. I want to suggest a story to explore. It is the relabeling of “mass shootings” to incorporate what used to be called “gang-related” or “rival” shootings. This this seems intentional, to draw away labels from black on black shootings, while simultaneously increasing the incidences of “mass shootings” that strengthens the gun ban argument. The prompt for this note came from a CBS national evening news on Memorial Day about a shooting near Miami, FL. The intro headline was “Mass shooting”, while the report told of rival groups shooting at each other, 4-5 guns recovered, innocent bystanders shot in the crossfire, etc. It seems the categorization of this as a mass shooting is meant to obscure some behavior we no longer want to talk about, and build a narrative of epidemic mass shootings, which there are already plenty of. Many traditional media report and label similarly.
At root, debate is a structured way of asking Why a lot.
You say you want to improve humanity. Why do you believe your ideas are better? Why do you claim those of your opponent are worse? Why do you favor this method over some other?
Why do you to improve human life, and what would that look like? Why that way and not some other?
Its not unreasonable to view Platos Dialogues as debates in which Socrates always won by asking Why a lot.
All logical processes begin with core assumptions that cannot be further defended, but logic very much CAN be used to identify and map those assumptions.
It is not logical to find baby seals adoreable but it is logical to want to defend them if you do. But even there you may find baby Eskimoes adoreable too and there may be a real world, practical and unavoidable conflict between loving seals and loving people who need them to survive.
The failure to perform that sort of analysis is a core feature of Leftist thought. They want the good feels but none of the bad, and since the world rarely works that way they develop the habit of lying early on.
Hi everyone. I'm one of the former debaters who will be participating in the zoom meeting on Thursday. If anyone's curious to read an account of my experience with insane leftist ideological capture, see here. https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-things-about-insanity-in-debate
Here is a proposed focus for the discussion:
Resolved: that those expressing strong political opinions in public are obligated to articulate clearly the basis of their beliefs, specifically the principles which they hold dear, how they define those principles, and what facts they feel are relevant. Those unable to do so should not be taken seriously, and if they then attempt to use coercive power to impose their ideas, should rightly be judged by all as Fascistic in temperament, if not specific named political committment.
Yeah, that was a bit leading, but pretty much a place I would be happy to live, and most Leftists would refuse to touch. Once you take a clear position, you can't mutate on a dime, which is the actual game they play.
I included that story in a book chapter I wrote for IGI. I was both horrified and infuriated at the judges whose biases meant teenaged debaters couldn’t win no matter how strong their arguments, evidence, and logic.
Who would have known that the evil of DEI would infest high school debate. The upside of this story is there is no obfuscation about the what and why. It is "clear and present". I debated in college under the tutelage of one of Jimmy Carter's debate coaches. This may well become the incident that is the beginning of the end of the DEI debate.
Debating debate. Interesting idea. The potentially interesting aspect is that for those who truly don't believe they should need to be able to articulate and defend clear principles such an opportunity will have no appeal. The only people likely to show up are the ones who don't need it.
I still like the idea. I'm busy and unlikely to participate, but who knows?
Is there any way this is recorded? I’m in London and the time is not terrific for me to listen to this debate
Would it be possible to also include in the discussion on Thursday evening one of a number of debate judges whose illiberal ideaology is well known in this arena? If invited to participate would he/she even accept the invitation?
As they prepare for debate, I suggest everyone read about Harvard President Drew Faust speaking at the United States Military Academy (West Point) in 2016:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/to-speak-and-move-others-to-act/
"Speaking at the U.S. Military Academy, Harvard President Drew Faust told an audience of about 800 West Point cadets and faculty members Thursday that an understanding of humanity — including what inspires people to action — is at the heart of leadership."
2016 seems so long ago, yes, the Harvard President spoke at West Point...
#GoNavyBeatArmy
This is amazing. Thank you so much for sharing light to this important topic.
Bari: sorry that I didn’t see a way to send you a note outside of another story’s comments. I want to suggest a story to explore. It is the relabeling of “mass shootings” to incorporate what used to be called “gang-related” or “rival” shootings. This this seems intentional, to draw away labels from black on black shootings, while simultaneously increasing the incidences of “mass shootings” that strengthens the gun ban argument. The prompt for this note came from a CBS national evening news on Memorial Day about a shooting near Miami, FL. The intro headline was “Mass shooting”, while the report told of rival groups shooting at each other, 4-5 guns recovered, innocent bystanders shot in the crossfire, etc. It seems the categorization of this as a mass shooting is meant to obscure some behavior we no longer want to talk about, and build a narrative of epidemic mass shootings, which there are already plenty of. Many traditional media report and label similarly.
Maybe there’s a story there . . .
does anyone know where the link is for this live conversation??
At root, debate is a structured way of asking Why a lot.
You say you want to improve humanity. Why do you believe your ideas are better? Why do you claim those of your opponent are worse? Why do you favor this method over some other?
Why do you to improve human life, and what would that look like? Why that way and not some other?
Its not unreasonable to view Platos Dialogues as debates in which Socrates always won by asking Why a lot.
All logical processes begin with core assumptions that cannot be further defended, but logic very much CAN be used to identify and map those assumptions.
It is not logical to find baby seals adoreable but it is logical to want to defend them if you do. But even there you may find baby Eskimoes adoreable too and there may be a real world, practical and unavoidable conflict between loving seals and loving people who need them to survive.
The failure to perform that sort of analysis is a core feature of Leftist thought. They want the good feels but none of the bad, and since the world rarely works that way they develop the habit of lying early on.
I don’t know where the link to this meeting would be.
Sorry, where do we register for this event?
I’m already a paying member! Why did I receive this without a login??
Sounds like a bunch of yentas getting ready to talk about a tornado. Absolutely no control over the situation, but everyone has an opinion.
Most if you voted for this and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
The law of unintended consequences?