At national tournaments, judges are making their stances clear: students who argue ‘capitalism can reduce poverty’ or ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’ will lose—no questions asked.
Oh my God, all of the old institutions must be swept aside. This is appalling! Thank you for bringing this rot to light. Bret Weinstein says that it only takes one institution to prize excellence to break the chains of group think, but I think you need more than that. It needs to be a tsunami. May your institution be the forerunner in the debate sphere. May University of Austin, Hillsdale, and Jordan's endeavor break the line in higher ed. The new Twitter crush it in social media. FIRE overcome the ACLU.
Don’t forget substack! For the author: what percentage of judges have ideological paradigms and is there a feedback loop where complaints can be filed with the nsda to potentially remove biased judges? I have competed and judged in the NSDA, it’s a long day and judges are paid little or they’re coaches and parents who volunteer. Speech and debate teaches many life lessons beyond the oration skills. Even 20 years ago, we knew that judges from the inner city schools evaluated competitors differently and that we had to navigate the cronyism and tribalism to succeed. Another life lesson in DIE demoralized America.
I have an idea. Let’s debate the judges. Just give me a place to sign up.
I sooooo want to debate the Marxist Lila Lavender, who blithely accepts the freedoms this country affords her in espousing her views, yet denies that freedom to the debaters on the stage..
A hypocritical position I would enjoy watching her defend.
Which she would. Gleefully. You would destroy her. Yet she would preen afterwards about how she demolished the capitalist pig.
Don't bother. This situation would be like playing chess with a pigeon. They just knock over the pieces and shit on the board and then fly away in victory.
Nah this this the same logic the ridiculous judge uses to justify her censorship.
Losers of a debate have always tried to gaslight people into thinking they won. Yet, debates have never ceased to make people reconsider their beliefs.
Don't forget that virtually everyone who changes their mind on something does so silently. People change their minds all the time, but they never announce the fact on Twitter.
To follow up, I emailed this article to my high school speech and debate coach who is still active and has changed the lives of many students including me. This was his response:
“It goes both ways on the political spectrum. Debate in several more progressive circles (TOC) has gotten very critical theory focused, including Public Forum. Hence, debate rounds now include pre-published paradigms, judge rankings, mutual judge preference (by both debaters) when scheduling, and trigger warnings.
On the local level, it's not as bad -- and NSDA has worked on topics which won't force a student to argue against their personal morals.”
Arguing against their personal morals is an essential part of debate. Debaters must be equally prepared and effective arguing the positive or negative sides of the issue. Just as lawyers must defend even the most despicable and obviously guilty criminals. Student debaters are learning (or should be learning) the process of researching an issue, analyzing the most persuasive evidence on both sides, organizing an argument and then effectively speaking to emphasize the most important points.
Sorry, a defense attorney, indeed any attorney, has a duty zealously to promote the interest of the client whether or not he likes what the client has or has not done.
And if you think seriously about the statute that is being argued, the elements needed to establish or refute are unequivocal.
Don't forget the Yale University law student that disagreed with a recent speaker. The sharpness of her worldview and political ideology was revealed by one brilliant statement: "I will literally fight you, bitch."
Omg, trigger warnings at debates!. Have we lost our minds? HS and all debaters should be required to argue against their political beliefs/morals. In the same vein, free speech advocates must argue in support of words, beliefs they find personally offensive. Todays HS and college students have been coddled to their and all our detriment.
Fishback only scratches the surface of this debate nonsense. A poster here, "T247", offered a comment with a link. I paste it here because KP's comment is highly liked and most folks will see it and this comment. All should go to the link, it is appalling. Here is the link and T247's comment:
"Although this is from 2014, this is what some of these “debates” are being dumbed down to. The long march through the institutions is here and most people don’t realize it."
Let me offer a different perspective. Unlike the (awesome) author of the post, I didn’t place 6th/9th at nationals and international tournaments, I (and my partner) won them outright - but not in the US, in Canada.
Then (this was over 20 years ago) I (and my debating partner too) transferred to an American high school, a famous prep school. They wanted us on their debate team. We quit in shock within a week.
American debate is the weirdest thing I’ve seen. Maybe the best comparison is to picture Canadian/international debate as those lively debates you see sometimes in British parliament or at the Oxford Union, with skilled orators thinking on their feet, getting down to first principles, trying to sway the audience with charm and humor and all the age old techniques of rhetoric.
American debate, on the other hand, is much more like our senate. Think one of our brain dead senators reading a boring speech, written by his aides, to an empty chamber.
It was bizarre! My partner and I weren’t even allowed to prepare our own speech. There was like a team speech, and it was full of arcane policy research, because apparently that’s what you’re judged on, and it’s super dense and boring and deeply anti-rhetorical, and you’re just supposed to practice for weeks on how to speak it really really fast so you can get through it all!
If you notice some recurring lines in the article today about kids “speaking fast,” that’s what is being referred to. It’s creepy and inhuman. And again, they’re not even speaking good ideas fast, just as much dull statistics as they can fit. And it’s not even their own words, but words written for them by others.
TLDR: if you’ve ever wondered why parliamentary debates are often so compelling, and why Senate “debates” are choreographed snoozefests, it’s because that’s how Americans deliberately train their kids to debate.
And that was before it all went woke…
(Sorry for long rant, you can tell I’ve been dying to get that off my chest for decades, lol)
Thank you for this explanation. Having a South African- Australian upbringing, I coupdn't understand some of the points made in the article and now I realize it's because we debated so differently in school.
Why are students not being given viewpoints with which they disagree, to argue. The whole point of a debate is the skill, not the side taking. Students should be practicing arguing the opposite of what they believe.
No wonder Americans struggle so much with partisan myopia if they've never been taught to see things from various perspectives.
Debate is about rhetorical skill, including public speaking and presentation skills. American debate as you describe it, sounds like a sad and pointless waste of time with the focus on the win and how that will look on a college application rather than the process of becoming a better speaker and thinker. Explains a lot, though.
Yes, I remember, in high school, we discussed an idea in class, then in the debate had to argue against our own ideology, in other words, raise as many points as possible in support of our opponent's view. There was no preliminary research done. We merely jotted down a few notes at the last minute to help us through the exercise. At the same time, we were getting a lesson in public speaking.
And when I taught high schoolers how to write a “persuasive” essay, I required them to find at least two opposing viewpoints. You must understand your opponent if you want to win the debate or convince an essay reader of your opinion’s merits.
I watched Konstantin Kisin debate climate change on YouTube. I'm not sure of the forum (British Parliament?) but it was a fascinating exchange as he laid out the reasons draconian measures John Kerry and his ilk want to force upon us Americans will never work. Cliff note -poor countries will never accept them.
The closest thing to it I've seen in his country was the first presidential debate between Romney and Obama where the two candidates went back and forth without the moderator, Jim Lehrer interfering. Romney absolutely destroyed Obama and exposed him as the vacuous vessel he was and is. I suspect that’s why that format has never been allowed again and maybe why fellow travelers masquerading as debate judges feel the need to silence opposing views.
I think political debate is over. If Biden is the Democrat nominee he can't. Hobvs from Arizona refused to debate her opponent. Fedderman was really sad.
It's been quite a few years since I judged a debate, but I quit because of "spread". It was evident that analysis and persuasive presentation were no longer being taught. It was all about spewing out as many words as possible. I was appalled.
Oh my gosh- my son did this style of debate in Kansas ........It never made sense to me because they spent hours researching and writing positions that the team would use, but then I was so surprised that the delivery was just so off-putting. As an inexperienced judge I would just tune out because it was so hard to follow along. The one upside, I guess is that judges cannot really understand them so maybe there is less room for ideology to determine outcome?????? JK. In the spring, with forensics comptetition, they had several different debate styles that were much better
I was in an American high school in the late eighties and enjoyed debating, mainly because you had to be able to think quickly, listen carefully and adjust arguments to the facts given by the opposing debater. I was no great thinker, to be sure, but I had fun.
My son attended a virtual public high school and I facilitated his education. I was surprised and disappointed to see that papers were written mainly to show the student’s ability to correctly cite other sources, not to have original ideas or even to understand the subject. (I never want to see the Purdue OWL again,)
I pulled him out of that program and put him in a private remote learning program where he was encouraged to think for himself. I hope it was a good decision, maybe he would fare better as a compliant member of the Outer Party.
The Senate, "World's most deliberated body", no longer exists! Today, Senators speak to an empty chamber with cameras that are not allowed to show the chamber is only occupied by a minimum of staff, the Senate volunteer chair and the next Senator waiting his turn at the shielded podium! The speeches are rushed to the Congressional Record to be rushed to the "waiting citizens", never read in the entreaty. What a farce! Then it is on to the next election fund activity, the important part of the job of these elected Senators and Representatives. The real work left to the bureaucratic staff, who really run the country. Real debates are a thing of the past! Skipjack
Oh, yes American national topic debate was ruined by the way it is scored and a debate camp based at Georgetown U. creating the fast-talking, jargon-laden "pull that through your flow", foot-note contest as a way of gaming the system. That happened long ago in the late 1960's or 1970's.
I was an "off-topic debater" as an undergrad at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. Our circuit included Canadian and American universities, and we actually argued points. Some of my favorite undergrad memories are a public speaking tournament at McGill -- I forget what the prepared debate topic was, but there were impromptu rounds with topics like "Resolved 'eh?' is better than 'huh?'," and round of public policy speaking in which I came second, marshaling speaking techniques usually reserved for oral interp rounds, which was agreed by all who witnessed it to have been better than the final; and a tournament we hosted at Dickinson which was the swan song for some really great teams from McGill and U. Chicago at which the *prepared topic* was the quote from Milton's Satan: Resolved: "It is better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven."
This is really interesting. And your last line made me laugh, haha. Do you think debate in Canada is still like that or has it also changed with the wokeness?
I have no idea! Haven’t been back since high school. I assume if you speak non woke thoughts Trudeau will have your parents’ bank accounts frozen, but that’s just a guess ; )
I can tell you that our parliamentarians these days are barely capable of putting a sentence together. If they were called upon to give directions to the restrooms (called washrooms here), they'd have to read from their notes.
I am a product of the Canadian schooling debate world and have judged debates in California through 2005. It is quite different here in the states but the denigration of the more parochial American way has destroyed the basic premise of debate and the challenge of arguing both sides of the issue at hand. Very sad and I did not see that in any meaningful way at my last contest in 2005.
I have very limited exposure to American “debate,” but could not agree more. It’s volume and speed as opposed to persuasion. Nothing of Rhetoric, in the classic meaning of the term.
I taught English at a rural community college from 2006 to 2010. Every semester I would hear complaints about other professors who graded on the basis of whether the student agreed with the professor's Leftist ideology. Students were amazed (and pleased) that I taught apolitically. I also required students to be able to argue both sides of an argument.
This statement will probably just reveal my age but when I taught US Government to high school seniors it was a point of pride to me that my students were constantly trying to guess my political leanings - because they couldn’t tell what they were. Strangely, I thought it was part of my job to get them to think, learn, and reach their own conclusions about where they stood.
My AP government & politics teacher in high school refused to reveal his political leanings too. It was the #1 goal of the students to try to uncover. I was disappointed then that I could never figure it out, but 20 year later I understand and respect his wisdom in that choice. The world needs more teachers like you.
Thank you for writing this. My 35 years teaching Political Science in the Philadelphia school system I tried never to give my political leanings to the students. I provided the information and expected them to make up their own minds and discuss all views. Thank goodness I am retired!
When I taught Government at the local community colleges here, students would come up to me at the end of the semester and ask if I was an R or a D. I told them that if they couldn't tell, I was doing my job right.
Wow, just wow. That Dreher article is a mindblower. Not being a participant in the world of debate, I had no idea that, at least in the U.S., debate competition is not what we think it is. Apparently this isn't even a new thing - going back to at least to 2014. It's crazy. It seems as though these debate competitions are not about intellect but about entertainment (or something). Are we creating a nation of dunces?
America’s founders engaged in spirited debate before drawing up documents whose most basic principles still stand centuries later. They were intelligent people excited about laying the groundwork for a country free of monarchy and respecting individual rights. Most important of all is they had generations of people that followed them in mind when creating the documents. They saw things in the long term. This is the opposite of what we experience in modern politics where every proposal or decision is made with the next election in mind. History is ignored.
I enjoy and encourage a good civil debate. Our role as an audience/jury is to weigh the merits of both sides. Biased debate judges make a mockery out of a useful tool for listening and learning. They may as well stick their fingers in their ears.
What is happening with the teen/high school debates is just a reflection of what is happening everywhere else. That is why Twitter is so important now that Elon Musk owns it. It is why Ron DeSantis made his announcement about his run for president on TwitterSpaces.
There are topics with which no one can disagree or even be allowed to research - like "trans" among kids:
Major Journal Retracts Study On ‘Socially Contagious’ Transgenderism Among Kids Following Activist Threats
Springer’s Archives of Sexual Behavior is retracting a study on rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) after transgender activists threatened to stop working with the publication in an open letter; ROGD describes the sudden adoption of a transgender identity by youth, typically in response to peer influence.
The journal claimed the retraction was due to issues with informed consent, but Dr. Michael Bailey, one of the study’s authors, has disputed this explanation and argued the journal is caving to the demands of activists who object to his conclusions about ROGD.
“What is entirely obvious, based on the people who spearheaded the attack, is that suppressing the idea of ROGD was the primary goal,” Bailey told the DCNF
This is a Maoist Cultural Revolution with American characteristics. Mao killed between 1/6 and 1/5 of the population of China. How many are these nut jobs will to kill?
I debated (a long time ago) in HS and college; I cannot believe that the Left is destroying that fine academic exercise. It was one of the most enriching experiences of my academic career. This is heartbreaking.
In Montana I met a lawyer who finally left Washington because there, judges explicitly rule against the law and in favor of whatever they subjectively feel is "equity."
This is the American Cultural Revolution, and these people will get worse as they get more power.
Skinny, my philosophy of life is: "People are stupid and generally choose against their own self-interests" Why is this? It is because we are now taught that how you FEEL is more important than what is real.
Please give me an example. It wasn’t leftists who overturned Roe, “settled law” as Kavanaugh falsely claimed, nor a leftist Florida judge who made that grotesque ruling for Trump. But it certainly was many GOP appointments who rightly shut down 5 dozen phony Trump lawsuits two years ago. So I don’t see our legal system being overrun by lefties. Show me an example.
Judges have always had their biases. They are human, after all. I practiced law for 50+ years (litigation, as a member of the DC Bar) and in the beginning I felt that judges would try hard to overcome their biases and rule on the basis of law and facts. Now that is all gone. How can the DC judiciary keep the January 6 defendants in jail for years, often in solitary, and often on charges of trespassing, without bail or trial? What happened to the right to a speedy trial? What happened to habeas corpus? I think we all know.
Ah, but it was leftists who decided Roe in the first place, and that decision was terrible jurisprudence. Dobbs restored the law. Your personal bias is showing.
Bias is only bad where pure objectivity is called for. The history of abortion law shows that objectivity is impossible, and that’s ok. Either you give more weight to the proto-human who isn’t born or to the woman who is. That’s the nature of this beast.
Now, you have stepped into a place where objectivity matters. Calling the baby a "proto-human who isn't born" is a scientifically unsound concept which does not pass the muster of objectivity. But that is a red-herring issue anyway. Dobbs did not deal with issues of when life begins. It was about the law and how Roe used an overly broad interpretation of the 14A and the finding of a nebulous "right" in the "penumbras (sic) and emanations" of the 4A, to nullify the 10A. Dobbs merely returned abortion law to the states, where it should be under the Constitution. That is the real point I'm making apropos to this thread.
Now, if you want to debate when life begins, and other aspects of the abortion debate, bring it on. I'm happy to indulge that. But do be advised it is off topic to this particular discussion.
All of us have our own biases. We won’t ever be rid of them but if we can seek to defend our positions with legitimate facts and examine them, we may just change our minds. It’s important to not feel so certain that we can’t entertain the other side’s positions well. If all we know is our side , we know very little.
Exactly, Brian. Where the hell is William F. Buckley when we truly need him? He would rip these imposters who call themselves judges into little strips of already rancid flesh to rot in the sun of a much higher intellect. And I say that as a (somewhat lapsed) liberal.
This is group think orthodoxy run criminally amok and this nation will be the poorer for it. Bias is not seen as bias anymore - just rules of thought to stay forever in and to never stray.
Bill is spinning alright, ..and looking for his antagonist Gore Vidal as well (who would also be aghast at what has happened to the Left he once championed). They would probably be on the same side now.
It starts with understanding the difference between bias and prejudice. This is not being snide BTW. Language matters. Anyone governed by their biases or prejudices is not objective.
This is the paradox at the heart of modern leftism. If you believe that people are biased but can overcome that bias then they quite often will, though will also often let you down. But if you believe that people are always biased as the current left does then they will always be biased. It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
"We’ve come a long way from the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when an obscure state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama said, “If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read . . ." - Because we now know 19 YEARS LATER that his speech was campaign rhetoric used to emotionally move his audience and get him ELECTED and not to move anyone to action to actually help the communities he identified. Is Chicago better as a place to work or live? Has reading comprehension for children in public school improved since 2004? Are fewer children hungry since his political trajectory? He is rich, privileged, and has moved on to continue to further enrich himself in the world of media and endorsements. In other words, he is like everyone else that he disparages.
Exactly! This is one of the most troubling things about Barack Obama. While I wasn't a big Obama fan, I held out hope that after serving as president, he and Michelle would "practice what they preached" and return to Chicago and make an effort to help make Chicago a better place by working directly with and in the minority community. They could serve as real-life examples that with effort, an education and a supportive family structure, children in the community could improve their lives and create a better future.
Nope. They stayed in DC and summer in Martha's Vineyard, living the lives of politically-connected multi-millionaires. They left the community that they supposedly cared about behind. How sad...
Obama was your standard craven machine hack with new-age veneer. His "library" (under construction on Chicago's south side) is the perfect metaphor for his life: Another half billion dollars of other people's money feeding thousands more political leeches. Hope and change. Sure.
The Obamas are grifters. Liberals willingly see them through rose-tinted glasses because they were dying to show how much they were not racist. Obama won riding on their vanity need to virtue signal. And the black community is so sorely lacking of any good leader, they're willfully blind to the Obama's betrayal of them. What they hell have they done for black people? Can't Obama make donate some time to go around the country and talk to black boys in dire need of black male role models? No he's too busy rubbing shoulders with celebrities. And WTF did Michelle do as first lady? She had the golden opportunity to champion education as for black kids in poor neighborhoods as a non-controversial pet project. Instead, she pushed some half-baked campaign about obesity, making schools waste money on "healthy" school lunches kids wouldn't eat, and made some lame "let's move" video. All the while she knows her stupid pet project was useless and pointless because her husband was in the bag of Cargill, Monsanto, and all the giant agricultural special interest groups which entire business model thrives on ensuring government farm subsidies go to the stuff that produce the most fattening food we eat. Individuals trying to live healthy have the deck stacked against them. But she picked this phony pet project anyway because it's what trendy urban elites shopping at Whole Foods and buying shit peddled by Gwyneth Paltrow like. She cares about them, and playing Jackie Kennedy, not the black people she and her husband left behind.
And last but not least, is anyone ever going to point out the blatantly obvious? Has anyone ever seen a public picture os Malia Obama with any black friends? I swear all public photos of her I've seen are her hanging out with white friends, in ski resorts or some such expensive places. I might have seen a picture or two of Sasha with a black friend. But their daughters don't hang with black friends. It's like a giant blind spot everyone overlooks.
All Michelle cared about was her wardrobe- so when I hear that she ought to run for President I just laugh. That woman has no ambition except to make money.
As a fellow UCC pastor. I knew who the real Obama was, the second he threw Jeremiah Wright under the bus. I also was pretty sure he would end up exactly where he has. jet skiing and partying in Martha's Vineyard.
Obama was a community organizer in Chicago and Wright had done more community organizing in Chicago than Obama ever thought about doing. His church was huge and, very prominent within the black community - not only in Chicago but in black communities throughout the nation. They sent hundreds of South Side kids to college, built homes for the homeless , kept kids off the streets and out of gangs by providing a huge assortment of activities etc. It was clear that Obama needed Wright's creds in order to make a name for himself since not a soul knew who he was. He and Michelle were married by Wright who was naive in thinking that Obama really was dedicated to the improvement of black lives. He wasn't.
The press viciously started attacking Wright - this was before it was "okay" to be an angry black man and Wright, who had lived during the Daley years in Chicago, was an angry black man on behalf of his people. By this time, Obama was becoming known and didn't need Wright anymore, and under the bus he went. As Ii remember, Wright did allow his hurt and anger to get the better of him on a press conference which of course justified the press's treatment and that pretty much finished him off.
Obama is going back to Chicago to build his national monument on land that no South Sider wants built. But what Obama wants, Obama gets.
Anyone who says, "God damn America!" is not going to be acceptable to anyone but Leftists. And back in 2008, even Leftists didn't always admit that kind of thinking in public.
I do not have a high opinion of Barack Obama. He got the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. He did nothing when Russia invaded the Crimea. He did nothing to support, even morally, the youth of Iran in their attempted revolution. It was just so hip, voting for an attractive black man as President. And now he -- and his wife -- can't bear being out of the limelight.
St. Louis consistently wins the prize per capita. Last I looked Chicago was way down the list - 22nd? Can't remember. Some of the worst cities are five or six times deadlier per capita for murder. Memphis is several times worse. But it's a media totem. An icon, if you will. MSM is fixated on it.
But it tells you nothing about likelihood and risk. Which would you rather live in? a city with Chicago's murder rate or one of the dozen orcso whose rates are six times higher but a fraction the size? And of course neither way of looking at it gets at the issue of it not being uniformly distributed within cities.
As an American presidential candidate, who vigorously lived and governed by his principles and philosophy, famously asked, “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”
The best part of The FP to me is the comments section. I learn a lot from the many brilliant posters bringing their own unique perspectives and experiences.
Amazingly, there is only one troll here. ONE!
I would like to see the local contrarian Comprof’s ideas put forth in a way to encourage more dialogue. I get the hint he/she isn’t always wrong. Make your case to us and engage in good faith. I’m interested in hearing what everyone has to say. I’m not interested in cryptic, sarcastic trolling.
Nah. Tried that LONG ago. Was insulted, called names, cursed at, called an Affirmative Action hire, a racist, etc... So, that didn't work. No one here is worth "making a case" to or "engaging in good faith" with, because no one did with me, George, so why should I? :)
So, remember kids, as I was told: get a thicker skin, "Words aren't Violence" and "Sticks and Stones" - well, that applies to ALL OF YOU as well. ;) So quit whining. I've dealt with far worse IRL, I deal with it, YOU can deal with it too.
This place pretends to be some erudite space for deep thinkers ("brilliant" LOL), former "disaffected liberals" and supporters of Free Speech....blah...blah....some farcical, self-aggrandizing digital "Alonquin Round Table", when in reality it' nothing more than a MAGA/GOP echo chamber where everything is "woke," transgender people are hiding under everyone's bed and white people are under attack.
I appreciate your response and understand. I do think you made some unfair generalizations (“no one here is worth”). And there have been many brilliant comments here (relatively rare, of course, as in any public forum). I think the majority here are deserving of mutual respect and goodwill.
I'm starting to report the account. It's been over a year of petulant antagonization and at this point it's reaching the point of harassment. I made it clear long ago I don't respond to this troll account and it keeps following me and trying to goad me into a response anyway.
Notice that it's Comprof2.0. Comprof actually got booted a while back--something that seems to happen *very* rarely here--due to his trollish behavior. But as is typical of trolls, he came back with a new account.
My approach is simply not to respond to him, regardless of what he might say, regardless of how he might attempt to goad me. Think of it as a test of willpower.
I do! I'm often almost sucked in and catch myself. But I think reporting the account is appropriate now. Was wondering if that was the reason for the 2.0!
No. Actually, what happened is one of your peers was whining and complaining and tried to have me banned....y'know....."canceled"....moderators did for a bit....then looked into it. Now, I'm back!
Almost everyone who ends up in Congress (which includes the Senate) comes out the other end orders of magnitude wealthier than their salaries could make possible. Both parties. We've got an Aristocracy by election system set up here. One thing that would improve the quality of governance would be to make them eat their own dog food: they shouldn't be able to vote themselves special benefits (retirement, health insurance, etc). They should have to live and breath under the same system we all have to. That would change a lot of things. Take away their platinum retirement and insurance plans and have to depend on social security and medicare like everyone else (the aluminum plan - or maybe pewter).
As attractive as that sounds, we don’t have the power to make them eat the dog food. These lifelong grifters don’t become multimillionaires because of congressional pension plans, regardless of how cushy they are.
The incredible, obscene wealth comes from the sale of their influence, from their numerous corruptions, large and small.
Now, if we had a way to stop that, I’d be there to support it. Right now, exposing how that mental rot is developed is a good start.
But short of that, if they couldn't carve out special privileges for themselves we would at least get more sensible governance in areas that profoundly affect us - while they are busy selling their influence in other areas. It's all hypothetical - I know. None of it will happen without revolution. History of civilizations over all of human history tells us that.
If you are on Twitter,* follow the account "Unusual Whales." It tracks the stock trades of our betters in Congress, and whaddaya know? Their timing on sales and purchases is astonishingly lucrative.
* Yes, I know, Twitter, I should know better. But to paraphrase Mencken, "why do people go to zoos?"
I'm not on social media (outside of a few comments sections on substacks and Unherd). But someone elsewhere posited that there is a mutual fund that basically follows the investment practices of such whales. I don't know the name of it though.
Check out the tickers NANC and KRUZ. However, there is a 30-45 day delay between when a Congressman/Senator makes a trade and when it is reported publicly.
I am of the opinion that this approach will always - sadly - be a dollar short and a day late. It will only catch the few and not the many. I read an article over a decade ago that claimed the Japanese at the time had taken a different approach. They did not outlaw insider trading whatever, judging that it was impossible to enforce in any meaningful way. It lulls people into the notion that outside of a few rogues it doesn't happen much. What they replaced it with was extreme transparency. Their thinking was supposedly that "let people watch them like hawks. Markets move so fast that any attempt to exploit insider trading will get diluted in real time". Don't know that I ever read anything else backing this up. Interesting idea though. It is congruent with David Brin's idea in "The Transparent Society" that trying to pass laws protecting "privacy" only serves to restrict "private" information to the Government and to big commercial entities and Elites who can pay for it or to get around the restrictions. No one else can exploit any of it as a form of detente and counter measures.
My disillusionment with the media began when Obama made horrible decisions, and the media acted as though he was still wonderful. The next marker in my memory is Harry Reid saying that Mitt Romney paid no taxes. When later called out on it, he said, “well it worked didn’t it.” It is evident probably even to Democrats that Democrats have no integrity.
While Obama was in office I made the decision not to respond to any surveys whatsoever.
No, my reading comprehension is outstanding. The article is about judging standards in HS debate. So, not sure what "Obama" has to do with it. Lol. But I'm sure you'll find a way to connect the two. You are so dim.
Yeah....you're right. He should have focused more on H.S. debate judging when he was in the White House. Was probably to busy making 'racial relations the worst they've ever been in American history." Lol.
As appalling as this account is, just replace "debate judge" with "university professor" to really appreciate the scope and impact of illiberal institutional rot. The problem is much broader than the impact on a niche competitive activity.
You are absolutely correct. These people were brainwashed long before they became so-called debate judges. And I'd also say their indoctrination began well before they reached college. Our children are now being indoctrinated in pre-school.
You need to understand that university professors are under pressure to watch what we say, pressure that mainly comes from a small percentage of students - a percentage which varies by institution - and from administrative staff who come out of education programs where they have been thoroughly indoctrinated.
At my institution, there are a small percentage of truly "woke" faculty, and a lot of faculty who roll their eyes but go along to get along, like Havel's greengrocer. There are also faculty who are feisty and contrary and, given the focus and location of my university, generally get away with it.
The students could exert pressure, but without the absolutely rock-solid support and encouragement of the woke-infected administrations, there would be no pervasive atmospheric oppression.
Professors, school teachers, union reps, non-profits, HR managers, social workers, government regulators, most marketing execs and anything in the creative field, half the legal judges, even new church ministers, and lets not forget journalists.
My D debated all 4 years of HS (2017-2021) and to watch the change during that time was remarkable. What we now know as “woke” infected debate quickly. I sent her this article in the hopes she will realize what changed and why they had to police their speech so much. Sad. Our country needs educated debate now more than ever.
Btw, she still occasionally judges (she’s at college on the East Coast) and her paradigm is entirely “old school” and pre-2018. She’s not woke so if this new debate league (bravo BTW) needs judges, lmk!
This is appalling. I’m so so angry on behalf of the students, and that there is apparently no intellectual honesty in the organization that will enforce its own rules for fair, rigorous debate.
I hope Incubate Debate crushes NSDA in popularity over the next decade. There seems to not be much more you can do that vote with your feet and have your students withdraw from participation.
This is so depressing to read, but frankly I am not surprised. It is a terrible shame how, in the name of tolerance, we have become so intolerant. An ideology built on resentment and envy and fed by identity-based, and often manufactured, antagonism is bound to arrive at this point eventually. George Orwell tipped us off to that.
'Decent people'? Who gets to decide what that is? You?Rhetorical debate is the way to finding those answers. Not censoring people into compliance with a narrow viewpoint.
What you're doing here is dumbing down the argument in order to argue against allowing people access to facts, research, and debate so they can come to their own reasoned conclusions.
Ironically, your expecting it to be a 'given" that Nazis are not decent people is actually advocating for preventing and disempowering students to come to these conclusions for themselves. It's that leftist 'let me dictate what's best for you' thinking.
It is your approach that actively drives kids into cults and hate groups when you actively prevent them from learning things for themselves. When they're prevented from learning and exploring concepts by adults who tell them what they should assume is right, they are then more susceptible to 'information' on the internet claiming to hold the 'truth'.
Above all else- teach children how to think, don't tell them what to think.
“A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others - not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others”
Not at all. I was impressed that you referenced Popper. Unusual for most online discussions I have and I agreed. To expand on the discussion I quoted the man (Popper) on the very subject that Mr. Fishback's article references, which is the about the lack of rationalism in modern day debate. I could have just re-quoted your reference to his theory on the "paradox of tolerance" (related to the "paradox of freedom") but what would be the point? You already referenced it.
Amazing that you started a new debate league!! Way to go!
The answer to this nonsense, in all arenas, is to make an alternative and just wash our hands of the woke garbage. It's not even woke anymore, it's sociopathic.
This is absolutely chilling. Further evidence that the left is, and I am loathe to say it, absolutely evil. They love to accuse people on the right of being fascists -- but shutting down free speech and alternate world views is a central tenet of fascism. Lastly, the fact that there are no penalties (across society, not just in debate) for being rabidly anti-white scares the heck out of me. Where does this end???
"... and I am loathe to say it, absolutely evil. "
Don't be. It's the only explanation I've been able to come up with for these people so consumed with hate for anyone who does not share their, lets say it, evil ideology.
Yes. Rabidly anti-white. Let me guess, comprof....you are a professor? That would not surprise me, and aligns with my previous comments that Marxist ideals are being perpetuated by faculty at American universities. I was once a liberal myself and do believe, sadly, that liberals have fully turned to fascist methodologies to encourage group think (including that white people are oppressors and black people are victims) to perpetuate their hateful, divisive world views.
Compost is a one-trick pony, i.e. - all things left are good, any thought/utterance/idea against leftist tripe is bad. So tiring, so boring and so predictable. C'mon post...you can do better!
Yes, rabidly anti-white. There are plenty of instances of this in what passes for the Left these days (forget working-class solidarity, the white working class are "deplorables" and "cling bitterly to their Bibles and their guns" on my side of the pond, and sneered at as "gammon" or "white van men" on the other). I think my favorite instance to illustrate the point was a proposed racial justice curriculum that was actually considered for use in California schools until someone realized it would be pointless to buy, as its use would be ruled a violation of the First Amendment. Its author actually found a way to retarget the hoary old anti-semitic charge of deicide (dressed up with a bastardized mixed Greek-Latin neologism "theocide") against all white people, not because we killed Jesus, but because Cortez was white and through him, somehow, we collectively offed the entire blood-thirsty pantheon of the Aztecs (to whom the curriculum proposed school children offer chants in hope of being made "warriors for social justice").
Besides the ominous implications for our public discourse - think about more “downstream” impacts: Imagine serving on a jury with people who embrace this kind of mental rigidity? I have served on 3 criminal trial juries- it is the real life application of debate, evidence, arguments with a person’s future in the balance. Mr. Fishback - I was thoroughly enthralled, and horrified, by your essay. Thank you.
Great point. This is exactly how leftists cultists behave on juries if they are selected. Absolutely everything must move through the lenses of their new faith.
Since the 1990s, I have been producing supplemental history materials for secondary students. A line called MindSparks. Perhaps 90% of those materials are based on a debate model. That is, a history problem is defined (say the differences between Willliam Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass about the Constitution and slavery). Students get the background account of the issue, a set of primary sources on it, and an activity that asks THEM to formulate a point of view and debate it with others in their class. The formats change, but this underlying structure is common.
This report tells me I am now utterly obsolete. We have turned a corner and are headed down a very dark alley. It does not matter that good judges still judge the NSDA contests. The small group of Maoist fanatics put all students on guard to be dishonest and betray their own best impulses. James Fishback has adopted what I fear will in the end be the ONLY effective alternative to these totalitarians - to create entirely new parallel institutions. Good Luck, James. May Incubate Debate thrive!
Parallel institutions, parallel economy, parallel this, that, etc., etc.
This idea is simply the next stage of diversity, the only purpose of which is to divide.
Worse, it implies that if Parallel Everythingism were employed, liberals would somehow become honest when they are inherently dishonest. Inherently.
Liberals cannot return from their descent. They have abandoned Western Civilization. A great turning point was the Kavanaugh Hearings, when liberals openly said “it doesn’t matter if there is evidence.” Once you have assumed that position, it is impossible to return to integrity.
I agree those people are probably beyond hope. However, I disagree with this: "This idea is simply the next stage of diversity, the only purpose of which is to divide." -- Depends on one's perspective. I prefer to think of parallel alternative societal structures as a place for the still sane among us to turn when they can no longer be a part of a decaying system. It's actually what has occurred organically in the evolution of societies throughout human history. Decaying structures necessitate the building of new and improved ones; at first alongside, and then as replacements. Analogous to crumbling/toxic infrastructure like bridges and plumbing.
Parallel institutions will offer the next generation a choice. The marketplace of ideas, and generational change, are the best hope for correcting the excesses of the illiberal mainstream.
It’s nothing more nor less than segregation. I’m 100% in favor of national divorce and the sooner the better but then, what is divorce if not segregation?
Wow. Reading some of the paradigms linked in this piece is quite possibly the most apocalyptic experience I’ve had in awhile. First of all, these people can’t even speak English or spell (which, I know, is an awfully elitist thing for me to say). But also, they’re literally saying, “If you say anything that makes your opponent uncomfortable, you lose.”
I just don’t even know how to respond to this. It’s horrifying. How are such brazenly biased people allowed to judge debate??? And when thousands of kids are conforming their arguments—their THINKING—to these random tyrants’ views, what does that mean for the future of ideas and public discourse and policy? God save us.
It’s worth reading the selected judges’ pages just to see how insane they are - and how riddled with awful spelling and grammar. Why are these people being selected to judge anything at all??
That makes it seem like they were different at some point in the past. The only difference I see is that in the past their rationale was somewhat understandable, despite that we all knew they were FOS.
Oh my God, all of the old institutions must be swept aside. This is appalling! Thank you for bringing this rot to light. Bret Weinstein says that it only takes one institution to prize excellence to break the chains of group think, but I think you need more than that. It needs to be a tsunami. May your institution be the forerunner in the debate sphere. May University of Austin, Hillsdale, and Jordan's endeavor break the line in higher ed. The new Twitter crush it in social media. FIRE overcome the ACLU.
Don’t forget substack! For the author: what percentage of judges have ideological paradigms and is there a feedback loop where complaints can be filed with the nsda to potentially remove biased judges? I have competed and judged in the NSDA, it’s a long day and judges are paid little or they’re coaches and parents who volunteer. Speech and debate teaches many life lessons beyond the oration skills. Even 20 years ago, we knew that judges from the inner city schools evaluated competitors differently and that we had to navigate the cronyism and tribalism to succeed. Another life lesson in DIE demoralized America.
I have an idea. Let’s debate the judges. Just give me a place to sign up.
I sooooo want to debate the Marxist Lila Lavender, who blithely accepts the freedoms this country affords her in espousing her views, yet denies that freedom to the debaters on the stage..
A hypocritical position I would enjoy watching her defend.
Which she would. Gleefully. You would destroy her. Yet she would preen afterwards about how she demolished the capitalist pig.
Don't bother. This situation would be like playing chess with a pigeon. They just knock over the pieces and shit on the board and then fly away in victory.
Nah this this the same logic the ridiculous judge uses to justify her censorship.
Losers of a debate have always tried to gaslight people into thinking they won. Yet, debates have never ceased to make people reconsider their beliefs.
Don't forget that virtually everyone who changes their mind on something does so silently. People change their minds all the time, but they never announce the fact on Twitter.
My first laugh of the day..
You’re right of course. She would deflect it into a victory. Shitting on the board - priceless..
Pair her up with the N-word judge and we'd make bank on the pay-per-view.
Yes, I could have added to the list and should have included Substack, Rumble, Locals, etc. Anything else I'm missing?
To follow up, I emailed this article to my high school speech and debate coach who is still active and has changed the lives of many students including me. This was his response:
“It goes both ways on the political spectrum. Debate in several more progressive circles (TOC) has gotten very critical theory focused, including Public Forum. Hence, debate rounds now include pre-published paradigms, judge rankings, mutual judge preference (by both debaters) when scheduling, and trigger warnings.
On the local level, it's not as bad -- and NSDA has worked on topics which won't force a student to argue against their personal morals.”
Arguing against their personal morals is an essential part of debate. Debaters must be equally prepared and effective arguing the positive or negative sides of the issue. Just as lawyers must defend even the most despicable and obviously guilty criminals. Student debaters are learning (or should be learning) the process of researching an issue, analyzing the most persuasive evidence on both sides, organizing an argument and then effectively speaking to emphasize the most important points.
Actually this is what I thought debate was all about. You learn to debate by arguing positions you don't agree with.
You are absolutely right. That's the strength of debating; the mastering of that skill.
Defense attorneys have morals?
"Defense attorneys have morals?" Ha ha ha ... they can't even see their reflection in the mirror.
Constitution guarantees an adequate defense. Don’t ridicule people hoping To follow individual rights guaranteed in the constitution
"Offense" attorneys are no better, perhaps worse.
Sorry, a defense attorney, indeed any attorney, has a duty zealously to promote the interest of the client whether or not he likes what the client has or has not done.
And if you think seriously about the statute that is being argued, the elements needed to establish or refute are unequivocal.
Yeah but you think debate should be about sharpening your persuasive skills and learning how to objectively evaluate the world.
The mongrels pretending to be debate judges are there to actively take part in the DESTRUCTION of thought or debate. Trust me.
Don't forget the Yale University law student that disagreed with a recent speaker. The sharpness of her worldview and political ideology was revealed by one brilliant statement: "I will literally fight you, bitch."
Omg, trigger warnings at debates!. Have we lost our minds? HS and all debaters should be required to argue against their political beliefs/morals. In the same vein, free speech advocates must argue in support of words, beliefs they find personally offensive. Todays HS and college students have been coddled to their and all our detriment.
There was a time that the ACLU defended the 1st amendment and the constitution. Now they are just another PC/Woke tyrant.
I think this is right.
Fishback only scratches the surface of this debate nonsense. A poster here, "T247", offered a comment with a link. I paste it here because KP's comment is highly liked and most folks will see it and this comment. All should go to the link, it is appalling. Here is the link and T247's comment:
"https://www.theamericanconservative.com/how-to-speak-gibberish-win-a-national-debate-title/
"Although this is from 2014, this is what some of these “debates” are being dumbed down to. The long march through the institutions is here and most people don’t realize it."
Let me offer a different perspective. Unlike the (awesome) author of the post, I didn’t place 6th/9th at nationals and international tournaments, I (and my partner) won them outright - but not in the US, in Canada.
Then (this was over 20 years ago) I (and my debating partner too) transferred to an American high school, a famous prep school. They wanted us on their debate team. We quit in shock within a week.
American debate is the weirdest thing I’ve seen. Maybe the best comparison is to picture Canadian/international debate as those lively debates you see sometimes in British parliament or at the Oxford Union, with skilled orators thinking on their feet, getting down to first principles, trying to sway the audience with charm and humor and all the age old techniques of rhetoric.
American debate, on the other hand, is much more like our senate. Think one of our brain dead senators reading a boring speech, written by his aides, to an empty chamber.
It was bizarre! My partner and I weren’t even allowed to prepare our own speech. There was like a team speech, and it was full of arcane policy research, because apparently that’s what you’re judged on, and it’s super dense and boring and deeply anti-rhetorical, and you’re just supposed to practice for weeks on how to speak it really really fast so you can get through it all!
If you notice some recurring lines in the article today about kids “speaking fast,” that’s what is being referred to. It’s creepy and inhuman. And again, they’re not even speaking good ideas fast, just as much dull statistics as they can fit. And it’s not even their own words, but words written for them by others.
TLDR: if you’ve ever wondered why parliamentary debates are often so compelling, and why Senate “debates” are choreographed snoozefests, it’s because that’s how Americans deliberately train their kids to debate.
And that was before it all went woke…
(Sorry for long rant, you can tell I’ve been dying to get that off my chest for decades, lol)
Thank you for this explanation. Having a South African- Australian upbringing, I coupdn't understand some of the points made in the article and now I realize it's because we debated so differently in school.
Why are students not being given viewpoints with which they disagree, to argue. The whole point of a debate is the skill, not the side taking. Students should be practicing arguing the opposite of what they believe.
No wonder Americans struggle so much with partisan myopia if they've never been taught to see things from various perspectives.
Debate is about rhetorical skill, including public speaking and presentation skills. American debate as you describe it, sounds like a sad and pointless waste of time with the focus on the win and how that will look on a college application rather than the process of becoming a better speaker and thinker. Explains a lot, though.
Yes, I remember, in high school, we discussed an idea in class, then in the debate had to argue against our own ideology, in other words, raise as many points as possible in support of our opponent's view. There was no preliminary research done. We merely jotted down a few notes at the last minute to help us through the exercise. At the same time, we were getting a lesson in public speaking.
And when I taught high schoolers how to write a “persuasive” essay, I required them to find at least two opposing viewpoints. You must understand your opponent if you want to win the debate or convince an essay reader of your opinion’s merits.
The left doesn't want opposing idea. They want to stifle them. That is why they support and defend PC/Woke.
I watched Konstantin Kisin debate climate change on YouTube. I'm not sure of the forum (British Parliament?) but it was a fascinating exchange as he laid out the reasons draconian measures John Kerry and his ilk want to force upon us Americans will never work. Cliff note -poor countries will never accept them.
The closest thing to it I've seen in his country was the first presidential debate between Romney and Obama where the two candidates went back and forth without the moderator, Jim Lehrer interfering. Romney absolutely destroyed Obama and exposed him as the vacuous vessel he was and is. I suspect that’s why that format has never been allowed again and maybe why fellow travelers masquerading as debate judges feel the need to silence opposing views.
I think political debate is over. If Biden is the Democrat nominee he can't. Hobvs from Arizona refused to debate her opponent. Fedderman was really sad.
It was the Oxford Union
Thanks! I'll probably watch it again.
It's been quite a few years since I judged a debate, but I quit because of "spread". It was evident that analysis and persuasive presentation were no longer being taught. It was all about spewing out as many words as possible. I was appalled.
Oh my gosh- my son did this style of debate in Kansas ........It never made sense to me because they spent hours researching and writing positions that the team would use, but then I was so surprised that the delivery was just so off-putting. As an inexperienced judge I would just tune out because it was so hard to follow along. The one upside, I guess is that judges cannot really understand them so maybe there is less room for ideology to determine outcome?????? JK. In the spring, with forensics comptetition, they had several different debate styles that were much better
Thank you for sharing this.
I was in an American high school in the late eighties and enjoyed debating, mainly because you had to be able to think quickly, listen carefully and adjust arguments to the facts given by the opposing debater. I was no great thinker, to be sure, but I had fun.
My son attended a virtual public high school and I facilitated his education. I was surprised and disappointed to see that papers were written mainly to show the student’s ability to correctly cite other sources, not to have original ideas or even to understand the subject. (I never want to see the Purdue OWL again,)
I pulled him out of that program and put him in a private remote learning program where he was encouraged to think for himself. I hope it was a good decision, maybe he would fare better as a compliant member of the Outer Party.
The Senate, "World's most deliberated body", no longer exists! Today, Senators speak to an empty chamber with cameras that are not allowed to show the chamber is only occupied by a minimum of staff, the Senate volunteer chair and the next Senator waiting his turn at the shielded podium! The speeches are rushed to the Congressional Record to be rushed to the "waiting citizens", never read in the entreaty. What a farce! Then it is on to the next election fund activity, the important part of the job of these elected Senators and Representatives. The real work left to the bureaucratic staff, who really run the country. Real debates are a thing of the past! Skipjack
Oh, yes American national topic debate was ruined by the way it is scored and a debate camp based at Georgetown U. creating the fast-talking, jargon-laden "pull that through your flow", foot-note contest as a way of gaming the system. That happened long ago in the late 1960's or 1970's.
I was an "off-topic debater" as an undergrad at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. Our circuit included Canadian and American universities, and we actually argued points. Some of my favorite undergrad memories are a public speaking tournament at McGill -- I forget what the prepared debate topic was, but there were impromptu rounds with topics like "Resolved 'eh?' is better than 'huh?'," and round of public policy speaking in which I came second, marshaling speaking techniques usually reserved for oral interp rounds, which was agreed by all who witnessed it to have been better than the final; and a tournament we hosted at Dickinson which was the swan song for some really great teams from McGill and U. Chicago at which the *prepared topic* was the quote from Milton's Satan: Resolved: "It is better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven."
Yes, that was my childhood! I debated at that McGill tournament many times, and I loved those types of questions. It was so much fun!
This is really interesting. And your last line made me laugh, haha. Do you think debate in Canada is still like that or has it also changed with the wokeness?
I have no idea! Haven’t been back since high school. I assume if you speak non woke thoughts Trudeau will have your parents’ bank accounts frozen, but that’s just a guess ; )
I can tell you that our parliamentarians these days are barely capable of putting a sentence together. If they were called upon to give directions to the restrooms (called washrooms here), they'd have to read from their notes.
Have you advanced to the point of electing literally brain-damaged people yet like the US has? Biden, Fetterman, etc
Lol, that’s the WEF training kicking in ; )
Agreed!🤓
I am a product of the Canadian schooling debate world and have judged debates in California through 2005. It is quite different here in the states but the denigration of the more parochial American way has destroyed the basic premise of debate and the challenge of arguing both sides of the issue at hand. Very sad and I did not see that in any meaningful way at my last contest in 2005.
This is invaluable perspective. Thank you. And, how sad, for us here in the states!
The speed-talking thing is exactly why I stuck with speech events in high school (wayyy back in the 90s!)
I have very limited exposure to American “debate,” but could not agree more. It’s volume and speed as opposed to persuasion. Nothing of Rhetoric, in the classic meaning of the term.
I taught English at a rural community college from 2006 to 2010. Every semester I would hear complaints about other professors who graded on the basis of whether the student agreed with the professor's Leftist ideology. Students were amazed (and pleased) that I taught apolitically. I also required students to be able to argue both sides of an argument.
This statement will probably just reveal my age but when I taught US Government to high school seniors it was a point of pride to me that my students were constantly trying to guess my political leanings - because they couldn’t tell what they were. Strangely, I thought it was part of my job to get them to think, learn, and reach their own conclusions about where they stood.
My AP government & politics teacher in high school refused to reveal his political leanings too. It was the #1 goal of the students to try to uncover. I was disappointed then that I could never figure it out, but 20 year later I understand and respect his wisdom in that choice. The world needs more teachers like you.
Thank you for writing this. My 35 years teaching Political Science in the Philadelphia school system I tried never to give my political leanings to the students. I provided the information and expected them to make up their own minds and discuss all views. Thank goodness I am retired!
Applause
When I taught Government at the local community colleges here, students would come up to me at the end of the semester and ask if I was an R or a D. I told them that if they couldn't tell, I was doing my job right.
Applause 👏
My 12yo calls it "Democrat-washing" her papers. Already.
I really had to stop reading. This is madness.
The emperor is naked.
At the end he explains an alternative he founded. I think it is worthy of support.
Wow, just wow. That Dreher article is a mindblower. Not being a participant in the world of debate, I had no idea that, at least in the U.S., debate competition is not what we think it is. Apparently this isn't even a new thing - going back to at least to 2014. It's crazy. It seems as though these debate competitions are not about intellect but about entertainment (or something). Are we creating a nation of dunces?
Yes.
Thanks for link
I'm surprised this is even going on or allowed to go on. How are parents of these kids not making a stand?!
For the same reason that any woman would share a swimming pool, much less a locker room with a man. I just wish that I knew what it was.
America’s founders engaged in spirited debate before drawing up documents whose most basic principles still stand centuries later. They were intelligent people excited about laying the groundwork for a country free of monarchy and respecting individual rights. Most important of all is they had generations of people that followed them in mind when creating the documents. They saw things in the long term. This is the opposite of what we experience in modern politics where every proposal or decision is made with the next election in mind. History is ignored.
I enjoy and encourage a good civil debate. Our role as an audience/jury is to weigh the merits of both sides. Biased debate judges make a mockery out of a useful tool for listening and learning. They may as well stick their fingers in their ears.
Well said!
The parents aren’t allowed to - remember the parents are classified as domestic terrorists!
What is happening with the teen/high school debates is just a reflection of what is happening everywhere else. That is why Twitter is so important now that Elon Musk owns it. It is why Ron DeSantis made his announcement about his run for president on TwitterSpaces.
There are topics with which no one can disagree or even be allowed to research - like "trans" among kids:
Major Journal Retracts Study On ‘Socially Contagious’ Transgenderism Among Kids Following Activist Threats
Springer’s Archives of Sexual Behavior is retracting a study on rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) after transgender activists threatened to stop working with the publication in an open letter; ROGD describes the sudden adoption of a transgender identity by youth, typically in response to peer influence.
The journal claimed the retraction was due to issues with informed consent, but Dr. Michael Bailey, one of the study’s authors, has disputed this explanation and argued the journal is caving to the demands of activists who object to his conclusions about ROGD.
“What is entirely obvious, based on the people who spearheaded the attack, is that suppressing the idea of ROGD was the primary goal,” Bailey told the DCNF
https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/24/major-journal-retracts-study-on-socially-contagious-transgenderism-among-kids-following-activist-threats/
The article in "Archives of Sexual Behavior"
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02576-9
Kids are not more mentally healthy after being "transed" - per study - but that is not acceptable to the trans fanatic ideologues.
This is a Maoist Cultural Revolution with American characteristics. Mao killed between 1/6 and 1/5 of the population of China. How many are these nut jobs will to kill?
I debated (a long time ago) in HS and college; I cannot believe that the Left is destroying that fine academic exercise. It was one of the most enriching experiences of my academic career. This is heartbreaking.
How can one be a judge of anything with biases so strong? They simply must not be allowed to judge - period.
"How can one be a judge of anything with biases so strong?"
Just walk into our courts and watch the leftist freaks and clowns that are permitted to preside.
In Montana I met a lawyer who finally left Washington because there, judges explicitly rule against the law and in favor of whatever they subjectively feel is "equity."
This is the American Cultural Revolution, and these people will get worse as they get more power.
But why are regular Americans giving them more power?
Skinny, my philosophy of life is: "People are stupid and generally choose against their own self-interests" Why is this? It is because we are now taught that how you FEEL is more important than what is real.
Yip that’s about right thanks for reply
Massive media psyops
Please give me an example. It wasn’t leftists who overturned Roe, “settled law” as Kavanaugh falsely claimed, nor a leftist Florida judge who made that grotesque ruling for Trump. But it certainly was many GOP appointments who rightly shut down 5 dozen phony Trump lawsuits two years ago. So I don’t see our legal system being overrun by lefties. Show me an example.
Judges have always had their biases. They are human, after all. I practiced law for 50+ years (litigation, as a member of the DC Bar) and in the beginning I felt that judges would try hard to overcome their biases and rule on the basis of law and facts. Now that is all gone. How can the DC judiciary keep the January 6 defendants in jail for years, often in solitary, and often on charges of trespassing, without bail or trial? What happened to the right to a speedy trial? What happened to habeas corpus? I think we all know.
Ah, but it was leftists who decided Roe in the first place, and that decision was terrible jurisprudence. Dobbs restored the law. Your personal bias is showing.
Well, then, so is yours, right?
Perhaps with the use of "terrible" to describe the jurisprudence in Roe, and my failure to
explicitly note that most legal scholars, including those who are pro-abortion, knew that the jurisprudence was bad. No other opinion in my post.
Bias is only bad where pure objectivity is called for. The history of abortion law shows that objectivity is impossible, and that’s ok. Either you give more weight to the proto-human who isn’t born or to the woman who is. That’s the nature of this beast.
Now, you have stepped into a place where objectivity matters. Calling the baby a "proto-human who isn't born" is a scientifically unsound concept which does not pass the muster of objectivity. But that is a red-herring issue anyway. Dobbs did not deal with issues of when life begins. It was about the law and how Roe used an overly broad interpretation of the 14A and the finding of a nebulous "right" in the "penumbras (sic) and emanations" of the 4A, to nullify the 10A. Dobbs merely returned abortion law to the states, where it should be under the Constitution. That is the real point I'm making apropos to this thread.
Now, if you want to debate when life begins, and other aspects of the abortion debate, bring it on. I'm happy to indulge that. But do be advised it is off topic to this particular discussion.
All of us have our own biases. We won’t ever be rid of them but if we can seek to defend our positions with legitimate facts and examine them, we may just change our minds. It’s important to not feel so certain that we can’t entertain the other side’s positions well. If all we know is our side , we know very little.
Exactly, Brian. Where the hell is William F. Buckley when we truly need him? He would rip these imposters who call themselves judges into little strips of already rancid flesh to rot in the sun of a much higher intellect. And I say that as a (somewhat lapsed) liberal.
This is group think orthodoxy run criminally amok and this nation will be the poorer for it. Bias is not seen as bias anymore - just rules of thought to stay forever in and to never stray.
Disgusting.
Where is Bill Buckley? Spinning in his grave, aghast at the fact that Firing Line is now run by liberals.
Bill is spinning alright, ..and looking for his antagonist Gore Vidal as well (who would also be aghast at what has happened to the Left he once championed). They would probably be on the same side now.
You know Lee, you are probably right about that.
It starts with understanding the difference between bias and prejudice. This is not being snide BTW. Language matters. Anyone governed by their biases or prejudices is not objective.
Very true - if these judges are pre-judging these students based on biases, do they realize they are prejudiced? Ban them from society immediately!!
No need for such extremes.
“Where are the adults in the room?”
Sorry, all the adults left about thirty years ago.
This is the paradox at the heart of modern leftism. If you believe that people are biased but can overcome that bias then they quite often will, though will also often let you down. But if you believe that people are always biased as the current left does then they will always be biased. It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
"We’ve come a long way from the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when an obscure state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama said, “If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read . . ." - Because we now know 19 YEARS LATER that his speech was campaign rhetoric used to emotionally move his audience and get him ELECTED and not to move anyone to action to actually help the communities he identified. Is Chicago better as a place to work or live? Has reading comprehension for children in public school improved since 2004? Are fewer children hungry since his political trajectory? He is rich, privileged, and has moved on to continue to further enrich himself in the world of media and endorsements. In other words, he is like everyone else that he disparages.
Exactly! This is one of the most troubling things about Barack Obama. While I wasn't a big Obama fan, I held out hope that after serving as president, he and Michelle would "practice what they preached" and return to Chicago and make an effort to help make Chicago a better place by working directly with and in the minority community. They could serve as real-life examples that with effort, an education and a supportive family structure, children in the community could improve their lives and create a better future.
Nope. They stayed in DC and summer in Martha's Vineyard, living the lives of politically-connected multi-millionaires. They left the community that they supposedly cared about behind. How sad...
Obama was your standard craven machine hack with new-age veneer. His "library" (under construction on Chicago's south side) is the perfect metaphor for his life: Another half billion dollars of other people's money feeding thousands more political leeches. Hope and change. Sure.
The Obamas are grifters. Liberals willingly see them through rose-tinted glasses because they were dying to show how much they were not racist. Obama won riding on their vanity need to virtue signal. And the black community is so sorely lacking of any good leader, they're willfully blind to the Obama's betrayal of them. What they hell have they done for black people? Can't Obama make donate some time to go around the country and talk to black boys in dire need of black male role models? No he's too busy rubbing shoulders with celebrities. And WTF did Michelle do as first lady? She had the golden opportunity to champion education as for black kids in poor neighborhoods as a non-controversial pet project. Instead, she pushed some half-baked campaign about obesity, making schools waste money on "healthy" school lunches kids wouldn't eat, and made some lame "let's move" video. All the while she knows her stupid pet project was useless and pointless because her husband was in the bag of Cargill, Monsanto, and all the giant agricultural special interest groups which entire business model thrives on ensuring government farm subsidies go to the stuff that produce the most fattening food we eat. Individuals trying to live healthy have the deck stacked against them. But she picked this phony pet project anyway because it's what trendy urban elites shopping at Whole Foods and buying shit peddled by Gwyneth Paltrow like. She cares about them, and playing Jackie Kennedy, not the black people she and her husband left behind.
And last but not least, is anyone ever going to point out the blatantly obvious? Has anyone ever seen a public picture os Malia Obama with any black friends? I swear all public photos of her I've seen are her hanging out with white friends, in ski resorts or some such expensive places. I might have seen a picture or two of Sasha with a black friend. But their daughters don't hang with black friends. It's like a giant blind spot everyone overlooks.
All Michelle cared about was her wardrobe- so when I hear that she ought to run for President I just laugh. That woman has no ambition except to make money.
As a fellow UCC pastor. I knew who the real Obama was, the second he threw Jeremiah Wright under the bus. I also was pretty sure he would end up exactly where he has. jet skiing and partying in Martha's Vineyard.
Obama was a community organizer in Chicago and Wright had done more community organizing in Chicago than Obama ever thought about doing. His church was huge and, very prominent within the black community - not only in Chicago but in black communities throughout the nation. They sent hundreds of South Side kids to college, built homes for the homeless , kept kids off the streets and out of gangs by providing a huge assortment of activities etc. It was clear that Obama needed Wright's creds in order to make a name for himself since not a soul knew who he was. He and Michelle were married by Wright who was naive in thinking that Obama really was dedicated to the improvement of black lives. He wasn't.
The press viciously started attacking Wright - this was before it was "okay" to be an angry black man and Wright, who had lived during the Daley years in Chicago, was an angry black man on behalf of his people. By this time, Obama was becoming known and didn't need Wright anymore, and under the bus he went. As Ii remember, Wright did allow his hurt and anger to get the better of him on a press conference which of course justified the press's treatment and that pretty much finished him off.
Obama is going back to Chicago to build his national monument on land that no South Sider wants built. But what Obama wants, Obama gets.
Anyone who says, "God damn America!" is not going to be acceptable to anyone but Leftists. And back in 2008, even Leftists didn't always admit that kind of thinking in public.
I do not have a high opinion of Barack Obama. He got the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. He did nothing when Russia invaded the Crimea. He did nothing to support, even morally, the youth of Iran in their attempted revolution. It was just so hip, voting for an attractive black man as President. And now he -- and his wife -- can't bear being out of the limelight.
They were both a scam and a sham show ponies I might add - Flint still gets brown water it’s more a disaster then sad.
Does anyone have any data about where Chicago ranks in comparison to other cities (i.e. gun violence, poverty, etc.)
I see you are in here just trolling every comment. Don’t allow yourself to think critically or actually probe your assumptions.
St. Louis consistently wins the prize per capita. Last I looked Chicago was way down the list - 22nd? Can't remember. Some of the worst cities are five or six times deadlier per capita for murder. Memphis is several times worse. But it's a media totem. An icon, if you will. MSM is fixated on it.
Chicago leads in total homicides, hence the attention. “Per capita” lacks the emotional punch of 750+ per year.
But it tells you nothing about likelihood and risk. Which would you rather live in? a city with Chicago's murder rate or one of the dozen orcso whose rates are six times higher but a fraction the size? And of course neither way of looking at it gets at the issue of it not being uniformly distributed within cities.
Obama said beautiful things and did the exact opposite. He is the founder and high priest of the American Cultural Revolution.
If he meant a word of it, he would be speaking out, strongly, against what is happening now.
What is happening now?
As an American presidential candidate, who vigorously lived and governed by his principles and philosophy, famously asked, “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”
I am.
Well currently you're being a douche but what's new homie
Nah. Just not agreeing with the echo chamber homie.
And everyone is whining about it homie.
The best part of The FP to me is the comments section. I learn a lot from the many brilliant posters bringing their own unique perspectives and experiences.
Amazingly, there is only one troll here. ONE!
I would like to see the local contrarian Comprof’s ideas put forth in a way to encourage more dialogue. I get the hint he/she isn’t always wrong. Make your case to us and engage in good faith. I’m interested in hearing what everyone has to say. I’m not interested in cryptic, sarcastic trolling.
Nah. Tried that LONG ago. Was insulted, called names, cursed at, called an Affirmative Action hire, a racist, etc... So, that didn't work. No one here is worth "making a case" to or "engaging in good faith" with, because no one did with me, George, so why should I? :)
So, remember kids, as I was told: get a thicker skin, "Words aren't Violence" and "Sticks and Stones" - well, that applies to ALL OF YOU as well. ;) So quit whining. I've dealt with far worse IRL, I deal with it, YOU can deal with it too.
This place pretends to be some erudite space for deep thinkers ("brilliant" LOL), former "disaffected liberals" and supporters of Free Speech....blah...blah....some farcical, self-aggrandizing digital "Alonquin Round Table", when in reality it' nothing more than a MAGA/GOP echo chamber where everything is "woke," transgender people are hiding under everyone's bed and white people are under attack.
I appreciate your response and understand. I do think you made some unfair generalizations (“no one here is worth”). And there have been many brilliant comments here (relatively rare, of course, as in any public forum). I think the majority here are deserving of mutual respect and goodwill.
I'm starting to report the account. It's been over a year of petulant antagonization and at this point it's reaching the point of harassment. I made it clear long ago I don't respond to this troll account and it keeps following me and trying to goad me into a response anyway.
I encourage others to follow suit.
Notice that it's Comprof2.0. Comprof actually got booted a while back--something that seems to happen *very* rarely here--due to his trollish behavior. But as is typical of trolls, he came back with a new account.
My approach is simply not to respond to him, regardless of what he might say, regardless of how he might attempt to goad me. Think of it as a test of willpower.
I do! I'm often almost sucked in and catch myself. But I think reporting the account is appropriate now. Was wondering if that was the reason for the 2.0!
"Words aren't violence."
"Sticks and Stones."
No. Actually, what happened is one of your peers was whining and complaining and tried to have me banned....y'know....."canceled"....moderators did for a bit....then looked into it. Now, I'm back!
Lol. Want another picture?
In the words of Glinda, be gone, you have no power here!
In the words of Samuel L. Jackson, "Go f-ck yourself."
Barry talked jive.
America lapped it up.
Barry now lives in mansions. On the Vineyard and in DC.
Democrats run for office to get rich. Republicans get rich to run for office. Two sides of the same coin.
Almost everyone who ends up in Congress (which includes the Senate) comes out the other end orders of magnitude wealthier than their salaries could make possible. Both parties. We've got an Aristocracy by election system set up here. One thing that would improve the quality of governance would be to make them eat their own dog food: they shouldn't be able to vote themselves special benefits (retirement, health insurance, etc). They should have to live and breath under the same system we all have to. That would change a lot of things. Take away their platinum retirement and insurance plans and have to depend on social security and medicare like everyone else (the aluminum plan - or maybe pewter).
As attractive as that sounds, we don’t have the power to make them eat the dog food. These lifelong grifters don’t become multimillionaires because of congressional pension plans, regardless of how cushy they are.
The incredible, obscene wealth comes from the sale of their influence, from their numerous corruptions, large and small.
Now, if we had a way to stop that, I’d be there to support it. Right now, exposing how that mental rot is developed is a good start.
that and insider trading.
But short of that, if they couldn't carve out special privileges for themselves we would at least get more sensible governance in areas that profoundly affect us - while they are busy selling their influence in other areas. It's all hypothetical - I know. None of it will happen without revolution. History of civilizations over all of human history tells us that.
If you are on Twitter,* follow the account "Unusual Whales." It tracks the stock trades of our betters in Congress, and whaddaya know? Their timing on sales and purchases is astonishingly lucrative.
* Yes, I know, Twitter, I should know better. But to paraphrase Mencken, "why do people go to zoos?"
I'm not on social media (outside of a few comments sections on substacks and Unherd). But someone elsewhere posited that there is a mutual fund that basically follows the investment practices of such whales. I don't know the name of it though.
Check out the tickers NANC and KRUZ. However, there is a 30-45 day delay between when a Congressman/Senator makes a trade and when it is reported publicly.
https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/track-congressional-stock-picks-with-these-new-etfs
And scrutinize the insider trading.
I am of the opinion that this approach will always - sadly - be a dollar short and a day late. It will only catch the few and not the many. I read an article over a decade ago that claimed the Japanese at the time had taken a different approach. They did not outlaw insider trading whatever, judging that it was impossible to enforce in any meaningful way. It lulls people into the notion that outside of a few rogues it doesn't happen much. What they replaced it with was extreme transparency. Their thinking was supposedly that "let people watch them like hawks. Markets move so fast that any attempt to exploit insider trading will get diluted in real time". Don't know that I ever read anything else backing this up. Interesting idea though. It is congruent with David Brin's idea in "The Transparent Society" that trying to pass laws protecting "privacy" only serves to restrict "private" information to the Government and to big commercial entities and Elites who can pay for it or to get around the restrictions. No one else can exploit any of it as a form of detente and counter measures.
Oh I agree. I said scrutinize. If we had a competent press it would be easily accomplished.
Term limits, Jeff!
Not even close.
My disillusionment with the media began when Obama made horrible decisions, and the media acted as though he was still wonderful. The next marker in my memory is Harry Reid saying that Mitt Romney paid no taxes. When later called out on it, he said, “well it worked didn’t it.” It is evident probably even to Democrats that Democrats have no integrity.
While Obama was in office I made the decision not to respond to any surveys whatsoever.
Obama - for so many reasons- has been THE WORST President in my seven decades.
Do you think worst than Biden?
They're TWINS - they are one and the same
"In other words, he is like everyone else that he disparages."
...plus he's a racist.
Best post so far!!! Brilliant description of Obama
An discussion re: article about HS debate manages to eventually get around to Obama....well done.
You are so dim. The article isn't about debate at all. It's about cultural rot and the politicization of formerly apolitical spaces.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit as a prof.
No, my reading comprehension is outstanding. The article is about judging standards in HS debate. So, not sure what "Obama" has to do with it. Lol. But I'm sure you'll find a way to connect the two. You are so dim.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Whates doeses Obamaipsa haveth doeth witha H.S. debata judgingitur?
Yeah....you're right. He should have focused more on H.S. debate judging when he was in the White House. Was probably to busy making 'racial relations the worst they've ever been in American history." Lol.
As appalling as this account is, just replace "debate judge" with "university professor" to really appreciate the scope and impact of illiberal institutional rot. The problem is much broader than the impact on a niche competitive activity.
You are absolutely correct. These people were brainwashed long before they became so-called debate judges. And I'd also say their indoctrination began well before they reached college. Our children are now being indoctrinated in pre-school.
You need to understand that university professors are under pressure to watch what we say, pressure that mainly comes from a small percentage of students - a percentage which varies by institution - and from administrative staff who come out of education programs where they have been thoroughly indoctrinated.
At my institution, there are a small percentage of truly "woke" faculty, and a lot of faculty who roll their eyes but go along to get along, like Havel's greengrocer. There are also faculty who are feisty and contrary and, given the focus and location of my university, generally get away with it.
That's one reason DeSantis is so compelling, at least to me--he shut down all DEI departments at Florida state universities.
The students could exert pressure, but without the absolutely rock-solid support and encouragement of the woke-infected administrations, there would be no pervasive atmospheric oppression.
Professors, school teachers, union reps, non-profits, HR managers, social workers, government regulators, most marketing execs and anything in the creative field, half the legal judges, even new church ministers, and lets not forget journalists.
just replace "debate judge" with "university professor"
How about:
Kindergarten teacher
Principal
Federal Judge
Hiring manager
CEO
Journalist
Mommy
Daddy
My D debated all 4 years of HS (2017-2021) and to watch the change during that time was remarkable. What we now know as “woke” infected debate quickly. I sent her this article in the hopes she will realize what changed and why they had to police their speech so much. Sad. Our country needs educated debate now more than ever.
Btw, she still occasionally judges (she’s at college on the East Coast) and her paradigm is entirely “old school” and pre-2018. She’s not woke so if this new debate league (bravo BTW) needs judges, lmk!
This is appalling. I’m so so angry on behalf of the students, and that there is apparently no intellectual honesty in the organization that will enforce its own rules for fair, rigorous debate.
I hope Incubate Debate crushes NSDA in popularity over the next decade. There seems to not be much more you can do that vote with your feet and have your students withdraw from participation.
This is so depressing to read, but frankly I am not surprised. It is a terrible shame how, in the name of tolerance, we have become so intolerant. An ideology built on resentment and envy and fed by identity-based, and often manufactured, antagonism is bound to arrive at this point eventually. George Orwell tipped us off to that.
Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance.
Karl Popper paradox.
Also a subjective, tautological mess. Who defines "tolerance"? Who is the decider? AKA, I define "tolerance" as anything I agree with.
Absolutely not. Decent people define whst tolerance is. Not that difficult. Would let a Nazi/SS officer define "tolerance."
Absolutely clear. Not difficult in the least.
'Decent people'? Who gets to decide what that is? You?Rhetorical debate is the way to finding those answers. Not censoring people into compliance with a narrow viewpoint.
Think we're mostly pretty clear that Nazis were not decent people, right?
At least I don't think they were. Maybe you'd like to hear more from them before you decide?
What you're doing here is dumbing down the argument in order to argue against allowing people access to facts, research, and debate so they can come to their own reasoned conclusions.
Ironically, your expecting it to be a 'given" that Nazis are not decent people is actually advocating for preventing and disempowering students to come to these conclusions for themselves. It's that leftist 'let me dictate what's best for you' thinking.
It is your approach that actively drives kids into cults and hate groups when you actively prevent them from learning things for themselves. When they're prevented from learning and exploring concepts by adults who tell them what they should assume is right, they are then more susceptible to 'information' on the internet claiming to hold the 'truth'.
Above all else- teach children how to think, don't tell them what to think.
“A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others - not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others”
~Karl Popper
Fascinating, really.
Two separate quotes for two separate issues.
Oh, and it was one quote, from Popper, same exact issue.
Oh, ok. Let's it in its entirety, then.
To do that I would just recommend reading Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies” . Excellent read from 1945
Not at all. I was impressed that you referenced Popper. Unusual for most online discussions I have and I agreed. To expand on the discussion I quoted the man (Popper) on the very subject that Mr. Fishback's article references, which is the about the lack of rationalism in modern day debate. I could have just re-quoted your reference to his theory on the "paradox of tolerance" (related to the "paradox of freedom") but what would be the point? You already referenced it.
“It’s ok when we do it” is not a paradox.
Amazing that you started a new debate league!! Way to go!
The answer to this nonsense, in all arenas, is to make an alternative and just wash our hands of the woke garbage. It's not even woke anymore, it's sociopathic.
Terrifying article, but so necessary.
Great job 👍
Yes! I am so glad that an alternative has been founded. That is the only answer.
This is absolutely chilling. Further evidence that the left is, and I am loathe to say it, absolutely evil. They love to accuse people on the right of being fascists -- but shutting down free speech and alternate world views is a central tenet of fascism. Lastly, the fact that there are no penalties (across society, not just in debate) for being rabidly anti-white scares the heck out of me. Where does this end???
"... and I am loathe to say it, absolutely evil. "
Don't be. It's the only explanation I've been able to come up with for these people so consumed with hate for anyone who does not share their, lets say it, evil ideology.
Lol. Yeah, don't think you "loathe to say it."
Rabidly anti-white?
Yes. Rabidly anti-white. Let me guess, comprof....you are a professor? That would not surprise me, and aligns with my previous comments that Marxist ideals are being perpetuated by faculty at American universities. I was once a liberal myself and do believe, sadly, that liberals have fully turned to fascist methodologies to encourage group think (including that white people are oppressors and black people are victims) to perpetuate their hateful, divisive world views.
Compost is a one-trick pony, i.e. - all things left are good, any thought/utterance/idea against leftist tripe is bad. So tiring, so boring and so predictable. C'mon post...you can do better!
Yes, rabidly anti-white. There are plenty of instances of this in what passes for the Left these days (forget working-class solidarity, the white working class are "deplorables" and "cling bitterly to their Bibles and their guns" on my side of the pond, and sneered at as "gammon" or "white van men" on the other). I think my favorite instance to illustrate the point was a proposed racial justice curriculum that was actually considered for use in California schools until someone realized it would be pointless to buy, as its use would be ruled a violation of the First Amendment. Its author actually found a way to retarget the hoary old anti-semitic charge of deicide (dressed up with a bastardized mixed Greek-Latin neologism "theocide") against all white people, not because we killed Jesus, but because Cortez was white and through him, somehow, we collectively offed the entire blood-thirsty pantheon of the Aztecs (to whom the curriculum proposed school children offer chants in hope of being made "warriors for social justice").
Besides the ominous implications for our public discourse - think about more “downstream” impacts: Imagine serving on a jury with people who embrace this kind of mental rigidity? I have served on 3 criminal trial juries- it is the real life application of debate, evidence, arguments with a person’s future in the balance. Mr. Fishback - I was thoroughly enthralled, and horrified, by your essay. Thank you.
Thank you, John! Excellent point re: downstream effects.
Great point. This is exactly how leftists cultists behave on juries if they are selected. Absolutely everything must move through the lenses of their new faith.
Everyday I am disheartened by how rapidly our civilization is being swept away. God held us.
" (The NSDA did not respond to emails and phone calls asking for comment.)"
So the Debating Society does not want to debate . That explains everything.
Succinct. Accurate.
Since the 1990s, I have been producing supplemental history materials for secondary students. A line called MindSparks. Perhaps 90% of those materials are based on a debate model. That is, a history problem is defined (say the differences between Willliam Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass about the Constitution and slavery). Students get the background account of the issue, a set of primary sources on it, and an activity that asks THEM to formulate a point of view and debate it with others in their class. The formats change, but this underlying structure is common.
This report tells me I am now utterly obsolete. We have turned a corner and are headed down a very dark alley. It does not matter that good judges still judge the NSDA contests. The small group of Maoist fanatics put all students on guard to be dishonest and betray their own best impulses. James Fishback has adopted what I fear will in the end be the ONLY effective alternative to these totalitarians - to create entirely new parallel institutions. Good Luck, James. May Incubate Debate thrive!
Parallel institutions, parallel economy, parallel this, that, etc., etc.
This idea is simply the next stage of diversity, the only purpose of which is to divide.
Worse, it implies that if Parallel Everythingism were employed, liberals would somehow become honest when they are inherently dishonest. Inherently.
Liberals cannot return from their descent. They have abandoned Western Civilization. A great turning point was the Kavanaugh Hearings, when liberals openly said “it doesn’t matter if there is evidence.” Once you have assumed that position, it is impossible to return to integrity.
I agree those people are probably beyond hope. However, I disagree with this: "This idea is simply the next stage of diversity, the only purpose of which is to divide." -- Depends on one's perspective. I prefer to think of parallel alternative societal structures as a place for the still sane among us to turn when they can no longer be a part of a decaying system. It's actually what has occurred organically in the evolution of societies throughout human history. Decaying structures necessitate the building of new and improved ones; at first alongside, and then as replacements. Analogous to crumbling/toxic infrastructure like bridges and plumbing.
Now that is quite intriguing ty
Parallel institutions will offer the next generation a choice. The marketplace of ideas, and generational change, are the best hope for correcting the excesses of the illiberal mainstream.
It’s nothing more nor less than segregation. I’m 100% in favor of national divorce and the sooner the better but then, what is divorce if not segregation?
Wow. Reading some of the paradigms linked in this piece is quite possibly the most apocalyptic experience I’ve had in awhile. First of all, these people can’t even speak English or spell (which, I know, is an awfully elitist thing for me to say). But also, they’re literally saying, “If you say anything that makes your opponent uncomfortable, you lose.”
I just don’t even know how to respond to this. It’s horrifying. How are such brazenly biased people allowed to judge debate??? And when thousands of kids are conforming their arguments—their THINKING—to these random tyrants’ views, what does that mean for the future of ideas and public discourse and policy? God save us.
It’s worth reading the selected judges’ pages just to see how insane they are - and how riddled with awful spelling and grammar. Why are these people being selected to judge anything at all??
It's called "equity" - and it positively BREEDS incompetence.
It seems more and more the leftest activists are determined to destroy every single thing.
Conservative commentator Dennis Prager has a quote I’ve realized is true: The Left destroys everything it touches.
And his corollary : "Being a Leftist means never having to say you're sorry"
Like a bull in a china shop
Not really. The bull doesn't know what it's doing.
That makes it seem like they were different at some point in the past. The only difference I see is that in the past their rationale was somewhat understandable, despite that we all knew they were FOS.