Free speech is dead in High School & College debate clubs

Not all immigrants are illegal, and it's perfectly proper to differentiate between legal and illegal migration. But of course you support adults imposing propaganda speech codes on minors under their control. Our entire education system is infected with this rights violating rot violating free thought, speech and expression.

Congress keep funding this indoctrinating crap.

Rep. Tim Burchett Says Congressional Conservatives Fail Because of the Prevalence of Sexual Blackmail. If your congressperson has been honeypotted, you'll need to primary them and move on to someone who has not been compromised.

https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/1...f-the-prevalence-of-sexual-blackmail-n2167976

 

But the quote is "Immigrants are illegal." And yet the guy is saying that this can and should be said in a debate. I pointed out that not all immigrants are illegal. All illegals are immigrants but not all immigrants are illegal. If the topic is about illegal immigration of some nature, such as do illegal immigrants provide a net positive to the American economy, I do not want to hear the phrase that all illegally are criminals. To me, it shows that one did not research the topic very well and will get an F grade for their lack of effort.

 

If the debate is specifically about illegal immigration, then it really doesn't matter that much.

 

Tough ****, it's a crime to enter the country illegally. If you want to punish students for telling you the truth, you have no business teaching minors.

 

Can't speak towards the college level, but free speech at the high school level has always been under the thumb of school, local, and state administrations.

22-26 years ago when I was in high school, schools exercised a lot of control over what you could say and do, as they should. I of course thought that was an outrage at the time. It was the man trying to keep enlightened high schoolers down so they could control us(Yep, that timeless boogeyman, the "they" who want to "control you").

As an adult, and especially after coming into adulthood at basically the same time as the internet did, I can see now that schools are not well served by making them all about free speech. There are other venues for that. The last thing we benefit from is having thousands of mini culture wars rehashed in schools across America. That's already going to happen anyway to a certain degree, and it's detrimental to the environment. Free speech is a good thing and it IS an important part of your overall education, but it's not supposed to be the focal point of school.

You go to school to help you learn how not use your free speech rights to make a fool of yourself because you don't know what you're talking about and didn't learn how to learn.

 

Actually, it does because LPRs are immigrants, but they are not illegal. If the debate topic is about illegal immigration, such as Be it resolved, illegal immigration provides a net positive for the economy, then I expect the debaters to do their full research and not resort to cliche, inflammatory phrases for their arguments. Again, that tells me a person did not do their research in a competitive debate. Different here, but not in HS or college debate though.

 

I am not interested in what a Congressman says. What you don't understand is that HS and College Debates is a competitive format, usually in a Lincoln-Douglas style. Most who do competitive debates are usually your future lawyers. It is similar to moot court in law school and there is competition for moot court in the US as well. In both cases, the person debating or the team debating better know their stuff. They talk very fast to try to squeeze as much information in as possible. But the key is the responses to the initial statements. But there are other various formats as well with even Congressional Debate teams. One team is Team R and the other team is Team D. Schools are assigned the team, not the individual debater. When you do a debate, a competitive debate, you need to think of all possibilities both for and against your argument. You need to layout your argument in a logical manner. This takes time, practice, and experience. When you are up there, you speak from your notes, not some speech prepared. Competitive speech does that, but again, it needs to be in a logical manner, argued logically, point by point, not use some grandiose statements we read on the internet.

 

I fully understand that you support teachers punishing minors for telling the truth, because the teacher is an open borders zealot.

 

There is still free speech, it just comes at a cost. If you're willing to give up all common sense, morality, self-esteem and vow allegiance to the MSM collective it's as free as it always was

 

Government property belongs to the taxpayers, can't really steal what you pay for.. Well unless you are a clinton

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1

 

This forum is slowly becoming this way as well.

 

the right is pro-censorship

 

I fear you are living in the past. I strongly encourage you to watch the video about this, as it's made by the person who wrote the paper. Within, you will find a number of clips of the "arguments" these kids came up with, that were so totally off the topic, and replaced with anti-Israel, anti-capitalist rants, if these are future lawyers, and by extension, future legislators, Judges, and Justices, then we truly are doomed, in a very literal way.

 

False narrative. Just because I have stock in T Mobile does not mean I get to tell T mobile employees what their work schedule is, whether they can have vacation time, or even fire them.

Are the Clinton's taxpayers too? Based on your argument, they should not have returned them since the furniture "belongs to the people." But the news article in and of itself proves my statements more accurately than yours, doesn't it?

Need to think before you post.

 

Doesn't even begin to make sense, let alone address my point, duh!

Yup, and apparently they to believed the way I do.. LMAO..

Think before you post

 

Banning books in children's libraries is not really the same thing as banning books in public libraries. It raises the question "should children be protected from perversion".

 

It would be kind of dumb if somebody was given a poor score merely for saying "illegal", especially if they gave an argument for using that term.

 

That's a question for parents, not schools. I did not need to know every title in my son's school library to know what he was learning. I took the time and trouble to talk to him daily about all manner of things. If something was objectionable to me, we discussed it. That's much easier than screeching at teachers and administrators.

 

Why would it be dumb? Again, I expect debaters in a competition to be fully researched instead of trying to use buzzwords to try to win arguments. That's the point in competition with debates. To win by your logical arguments, not the thirty second infomercial you are trying to do.

 

Actually it does go to the point. A owner of stock, you are an "owner of the company" right? But simply being a minority owner does not mean I get to dictate how the company is run. The law is very clear in that in much the same way as who owns the property. Technically speaking, the GSA owns all government property, no one else. All federal government documents are technically owned by the NARA, no one else. It is the same specious argument Trump is trying to use with his government documents case. It won't work legally.

You need to think here. According to your agument, government property is "owned by the people." The "people" include the Clintons. Based on your argument, therefore they have a right to the property since they owned it in some way.

But my argument is they never owned it, which is why they returned it once the government asked/demdanded that they returned it. It always belonged to the government, namely GSA, and no one else, which was my argument to begin with. Geez.

 

If it had made sense the first time you'd not be explaining it again

 

Becasue it should be about reason and good arguments, not political correct word usage.

As I wrote above, they should not be penalized for using a word you don't like, if they have an argument they are making. I agree, mere buzzwords don't mean anything, and shouldn't be given credit or loss.

It seems that we are in agreement, but that is not what you initally wrote.

 

IOW, he states explicitly that he is a liar who will not permit the truth to be identified.

 

That's a good point, but it would not be necessary to screech at teachers and administrators if they would manifest a little decency and stop pushing the woke agenda and keeping things secret from parents.