We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
There's no doubt that this constitutes "breaking" the game you don't feel like playing, however.
Of course, that didn't work out so well for Tonya Harding, last I checked.
No, they are winning, so it's not really a good example of nihilism.
They are clearly breaking the rules to win the game, which is quite different from breaking the game to make sure that it can't be played.
They are clearly breaking the rules, period. They should have been disqualified.
You cannot blame them for trying as they obviously lacked the skills needed to win by the rules but I do blame the judges for allowing these blatant breaches of the rules to prevail.
The purpose of a debate and if they do not stick to the rules they are arguing not debating the same as if you use your hands you are not playing soccer.
BTW tennis is clearly racist. Arthur Ashe and Yannick Noah would have won a lot more tournaments had they been allowed to arbitrarily move the lines on the court
That story is amazing.
I, of honky heritage, attended an inner-city high school where I was definitely a minority. Our debate team -- reflecting the school's racial make-up -- performed quite well, including making it to State one year.
I don't recall a single n-bomb or f-bomb even being contemplated, let alone utilized during competition. And no chair throwing, either.
Guess we weren't "alternatively stylistic" back in the day.
Here's a sample from CEDA 2013:
And here's a point wherein one of Aff speakers criticizes the Neg team for failing to remember their respective roles and responsibilities in the debate format. Or something to that effect.
(Not particularly safe for work... or tender ears, but certainly exemplifies what is discussed in the OP article.)
Being offended is a natural consequence of leaving the house. - Fran Lebowitz
I think this story is missing a lot of information. Let's look carefully at the bit about the chair-throwing:
Quote
Hardy and others are also disappointed with what they perceive as a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions, and believe that the alternative-style debaters have contributed to this environment. “Judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs,” he said.
"People" have done these things. What people? Hardy believes that the debaters have "contributed to this environment." That could mean that people got mad about the alternative debaters and they were the ones throwing chairs at THEM.
I have the feeling this is a long, complicated, interesting story that merits a feature-length piece. This isn't it.
I agree. I was a high school CX debater. When I was participating, if you wanted a polite, well-reasoned debate, you did Lincoln Douglas. If you wanted a creative, high-stakes battle where random ideas hit you in the face and forced you to think crazy, random thoughts creatively on your feet and then find some evidence for them even faster, you went CX. We had workshops on speaking and reading quickly. That was absolutely the most important skill you could have. It didn't matter what you were saying, you just needed to say it fast.
I was in it for the disadvantages and counterplans. It was fun to get as creative as you could. If you could come up with a good counterplan or disad that would lead to nuclear war and nobody had evidence against it, you could win a tournament. Not always. Some judges frowned on that unless it was very creative and made some kind of sense. And not more than a tournament, because by the next tournament everyone would be prepared to take you down. But you could win a tournament.
I don't know the trends in CX debate now, but it hasn't been about the policy in a really long time.
Edited to say Wikipedia actually has a good description of how the game is played. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate. Kritiks did not exist when I was involved, but everything else did. It can sound very odd and incomprehensible to people who haven't participated, but that's the game.
I'm sad to hear that debate has turned into politician-speak, but that's what it sounds like -- instead of answering the question, turn it around and talk about your own subject.
I was a debater in high school, and a debate judge after, and this breaks my heart.
