Free speech is dead in High School & College debate clubs

So, I ran across this story this morning, and while I am disgusted by it, I am not at all surprised. The left has been quite successful at taking over the educational system in this country, that even college students are afraid to answer "controversial" questions (like, can a man get pregnant?) on camera lest the wrong person see it.

Here is a quote from an article linked below that will demonstrate this. This is from a debate judges "paradigm", which explains a judges style... What they care about, what they don't, that sort of thing.

“Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. . . . I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging. . . . I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. . . . Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc.”
​

As sickening as the above is, it actually gets worse. The first link, https://www.thefp.com/p/judges-ruin-high-school-debate-tournaments is an article from a former HS debate champ who tried to return to be a coach/judge, but found in the 5 years or so since he graduated, free speech no longer exists. The second link, is a video where the author of that article is interviewed. It's a long video, but I would suggest that at the VERY least, you watch the clips of how debates work in 2023. Absolutely disgusting.

 

Free speech is dead in many places in this country, but not all places.

Rumble and Substack are 2 places it flourishes, but they are under immense pressure from authoritarian forces.

 

Interesting observations. I've heard of Rumble, as far as I know it's like a smaller version of YouTube that isn't quite as censorship happy, but no idea what or who Substack is. Who are the authoritarian forces applying pressure to them, and how is it being done?

 

Your analysis of Rumble is fairly accurate. Though I don't go to YouTube, some describe Rumble as YouTube without censorship. Tucker now spends some time at Rumble.

Substack is writing oriented, with minimal video material. Writers like Matt Taibi, formerly of Rolling Stone, also Seymour Hersch and many many more. Virtually all the dissenting doctors and nurses and others are there. Very civil for the most part.

I do not visit Twitter, but I am aware of what the so-called Twitter Files are, and have followed that expose since it began. So if you've kept up with the Twitter Files you understand that during the Scamdemic and before, pretty much every federal agency including the White House were putting pressure on Twitter to censor and remove any doctor or nurse or even journalist such as Alex Berenson that made true statements about health policy (how harmful it was to society) and especially the shots.

 

Your analysis of Rumble is fairly accurate. Though I don't go to YouTube, some describe Rumble as YouTube without censorship. Tucker now spends some time at Rumble.

Substack is writing oriented, with minimal video material. Writers like Matt Taibi, formerly of Rolling Stone, also Seymour Hersch and many many more. Virtually all the dissenting doctors and nurses and others are there. Very civil for the most part.

I do not visit Twitter, but I am aware of what the so-called Twitter Files are, and have followed that expose since it began. So if you've kept up with the Twitter Files you understand that during the Scamdemic and before, pretty much every federal agency including the White House were putting pressure on Twitter to censor and remove any doctor or nurse or even journalist such as Alex Berenson that made true statements about health policy (how harmful it was to society) and especially the shots.

 

Your analysis of Rumble is fairly accurate. Though I don't go to YouTube, some describe Rumble as YouTube without censorship. Tucker now spends some time at Rumble.

Substack is writing oriented, with minimal video material. Writers like Matt Taibi, formerly of Rolling Stone, also Seymour Hersch and many many more. Virtually all the dissenting doctors and nurses and others are there. Very civil for the most part.

I do not visit Twitter, but I am aware of what the so-called Twitter Files are, and have followed that expose since it began. So if you've kept up with the Twitter Files you understand that during the Scamdemic and before, pretty much every federal agency including the White House were putting pressure on Twitter to censor and remove any doctor or nurse or even journalist such as Alex Berenson that made true statements about health policy (how harmful it was to society) and especially the shots.

 

Sorry for the repetition, the PF software erred.

 

So in other words, it sounds like they are allowing "debates" about some topics, but really only allowing one side to state their views, while the other side is under such a handicap that they practically can't state their case.

Which isn't really a real debate at all. Almost gives an illusion of debate.

It reminds me of one of those unfair trials where, for some reason, the judge won't let the defense bring up a critical issue that is central to their side of the argument.
So the whole thing just becomes an illusion of a trial.

 

Apparently, James Fishback does not understand what debates are about. It is not about which buzzwords you use or make inflammatory remarks, which tend to be illogical, reactionary, etc. Nothing in the links suggests anything other than not knowing the topic. For instance, from your second link, one debate judge said you can lose automatically if you say “Referring to immigrants as ‘illegal.’ ” I can see that happening. Let's say the debate topic is "Are immigrants a net positive to the country?" One of the debaters takes up the position as negative and uses that phrase, right off the bat. It is a general statement in which it makes assumptions about immigrats. Immigrants legally is any alien who comes here to live permanently or wishes to. This can include LPRs, the various work visas under the EB category, and even some consular visas such as the IR visa for spouses of USC. And yes, it can include those who are unauthorized under the law. But all of them could be legal or illegal. Thus, if the statement is "immigrants, those who are coming here to live permanently, are illegal tells me the person did not research the topic well enough. And that is the point the debate judge is trying to make, not free speech here. That person is still willing to make a grandiose statement that is not accurate at all. That's the point. Stop using buzzwords. Debate judges should judge on the logical content of the argument, period. I don't care if they are a die-hard capitalist who wants everything under a Laizze Faire policy or thinks Karl Marx was the greatest philosopher on earth, but debate is to logically present your argument to the IJ.

Second, nowadays, debaters are now taught who your judge is. And they prepare who their judge is or might be. Many of the college debaters will have three or even four outline debate notes based on who the judge might be, based on the "intelligence" of the national debate forum going to take place a month from now. Since Google is our friend, it is quite easy to find out a few things about the various debate judges and the likelihood of who that person might be. Thus, "knowing who your audience is" is also taught in debate.

this is a poor attempt to make this about "free speech." It has more to do with how to win a debate without using grandiose, very generalized, buzzwords. Do that, and you won't win, not because of you were not allowed to say that, but because you were using an argument that was too generalized to begin with and shows you were not researching the topic on the debate you were assigned to research on. In other words, it is not what you say specifically, it is how you present your argument that is more important than what you say specifically.

 

It is about what is allowed to be said in public, and of course what is NOT allowed to be said in public, just as we've seen throughout the Scamdemic.

Censorship, institutionalized.

 

By the way, I've noticed that the "forbidden topics" are not what some might think.
It largely comes down to three issues.

Things having to do with race and equality
Transgender issues
Abortion

Sometimes they will be okay with letting you bring up an argument, but will shut it down if you bring some overwhelming logic to the table that seems to make a powerful insurmountable case, both logically and emotionally.
With race/immigration issues, they will let you make your argument but only so long as it reinforces the view they have created about people who make those arguments. In other words they are more okay with an obviously hateful white male who identifies as a member of the KKK saying bad things about black people (especially if they have an incoherent expletive argument or no real argument), than they are with a black person making a seemingly compelling and rational argument about how immigration is hurting lower income groups, for example.

 

Do you guys see a trend here?
Jail time for J6 rioters, Kamala cash for BLM rioters
Former presidents that have not been CONVICTED of anything removed from ballots
Judges that openly admit they will incorporate their political bias into judging
The leftist regime has gotten so embolden they do not even bother to hide this stuff anymore. Oh, and a vote for the left is a vote for FASCISM so you guys might want to chill with using that word in every post (it just shows your projection)
KthnxBYE

 

The issue of "race and equality" usually is related to pertinent issues that have a good chance in public opinion of not going the way progressives want them to go if there was a free debate.

But what's interesting is that a fourth, sort of "forbidden topic" emerged, and that was during the coronavirus pandemic (2019-2021). It was obviously very political, but in their minds they had "convinced" themselves that the danger was so real that free open debate was too dangerous to public health.

So that's the thing, their own minds are not open to honest thinking. It's not just a matter of lying to others but they lie to themselves. They'll think one way about one issue if they think that being true -- and everyone believing that is true -- will help them with some other separate issue. To use an analogy, it's kind of like an angry woman in a relationship working herself up, already angry at her husband so her mind wanting to come up with any more excuses to be more angry at him, even if it isn't really justified. She's just trying to work up her mind and emotions to direct more anger at him.

(wanted to add that to last post, but the edit time had expired)

 

The thing is, however, illegals are a thing. I'd even say it's likely that there are more illegals than there are people who have come legally. Regardless, you seem to be bending yourself into a pretzel trying to justify this crap. Why?

 

Institutionalized censorship is the correct phrase for what DeSantis and a few other governors are doing in public schools. Banning books is censorship. Demanding that teachers describe slavery as a benefit to the slaves, or any other twisting of our history, is censorship.

Telling debaters that they must know their topic enough to avoid buzzwords and emotionally charged descriptions is guidance, not censorship.

 

"Free speech" has never, ever existed in HS debates. Ever. There have always been restrictions. Competitive debate can't exist without it.

 

Of course you're ok with this, you're pro censorship.

 

All sponsored debates, especially academic, involve some kind of censorship.

 

They want to control far more than just High School debate clubs.

U. of Minnesota "Professor" Praises the Terrorism of 10/7, Calls for Violent "Decolonization" of America

Internet nobodies on the right can't question the 2020 election, but elite figures on the left can call for violent revolution and probably get endorsement deals with Nike and Apple.

Notice how @Alwayssa puts "free speech" in quotes. And of course punishing a high school debater for calling an illegal alien and illegal alien is just fine as well.

 

Care to justify your claim? Of course not.

 

Not really. They are allowed, but if they say it, more than likely they won't win the debate or get good scores. This is not some political game they are playing. Debate is a competition in which logical arguments win the day, not buzzwords or phrases that are popular on the internet.

 

yes, they are. But if someone says that immigrants are illegals, then are they also saying that LPRs, who are also immigrants, are illegal too? This is the problem with grandiose statements such as "immigrants are illegals" or "Mexicans are rapists, murderers, and criminals." Or blacks are just lazy. Or any number of grandiose statements. If someone in the Debate forum makes those types of statements, it tells me they didn't research the topic very well and thus made gross assumptions. Not researching the topic, in my book, gets them an F grade. That's their problem, no one else. Need to take responsibility instead of trying to make this about a faux "culture war."

 

They broke the law. Some assaulted police officers. Some stole government property. Some made threats such as "hang Nanci Pelosi" or "Hang Mike Pence." Some orchestrated the whole affair with the goal of not allowing Congress to certify the election. Again, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

 

High school and college debate is a competition. You can say these things, but the chances are very high that you will not win the debate whatsoever. YOu are graded on a variety of factors, if the responses change your argument, if you thought things through, etc. It is not about internet buzzwords and phrases of a political nature per se. Even if the question is "capitalism is bad for the economy" I don't want a debater making a grandiose statement that "capitalism exploits everyone" type of argument. To me, that is an F grade in my book just as much as "immigrants are illegal." They can make it, if they wish, but it won't win them the argument.

When it comes to high school and college debates, I expect logical arguments, not reactionary, or emotional arguments at all, no matter what the topic or question is for the debate.

 

High school and college debate competitions tend to have them debate on the hot button issues, but the point is to present a logical, dispassionate argument, not something full of emotionalism with grandiose assumptions. Again, to me, if one does that, it tells me they have not researched the issue entirely and want to rely on emotionalism to win. That is never a win in any debate competition. Sorry.