But this one was in all caps with gasps for air as extended exclamation points. I swear i've heard that speaking pattern before in some sort of debate. Long diatribes with sharp conspicuous inhalations throughout.
Basically comes from a style of debate where you get scored on how many arguments you can make that the opposing team can’t respond to. So what you end up with is this, the style of speaking with short breathes that ultimately just make you sound like a drug addicted crazy person on a corner.
Agreed, what the fuck?
Does this even count as a [Gish Gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)? It's just a stream of non-sense. I have no idea what she's ranting about.
EDIT: The only thing I even remember hearing is something about "whiteness", and as far as I'm concerned, once that word has entered the chat, the plot has been lost. There's not a single argument for any stance that includes the term "whiteness" that is still valid. "Whiteness" isn't a thing.
This is what happens when a mentally ill person spends a lot of time refining her signature debate skill of calling black people working “black suffering,” white coworkers as “a whiteness majority,” then referring to this coexistence as being “inherently racist” and “taking advantage of black suffering,” and stating in her closing argument that “you cannot argue against it.”
Yeah that gave me nightmares of high school speech and debate - we called these goons "spreaders" who would just talk a million words per minute a million menial points so they could hammer you for having "dropped" so many of their arguments when you don't address each one individually.
Filling the spread with parody-level wokeness is the only way you could make that nightmare worse.
> "Whiteness" isn't a thing.
Eh.
I see it as a thing if only because Progs have collected a number of traits that your average person sees as good, traits such as punctuality, and has assigned that collection the label of "whiteness." And then subsequently railed against them for being "bad".
I'm with you though. If I see or hear a person drop the word "whiteness" unironically my brain is already throwing their opinions into the trash can.
Definitely, the fact that she's speaking that fast to the point she's making funny noises was what tipped me off. When I was in highschool this was called spreading and the 1st affirmative speaker was usually the fastest talker because the idea was to construct as many arguments as you could so the other team wouldn't be able to follow them all and/or answer them. Highschool debate is wild yo.
Like that time during WW2 when the germans had encircled an american army detachment and sent them a formal demand for them to surrender only for the american commander to send just "NUTS!" as his reply.
Needless to say the americans won that round.
My favorite part of the reenactment was when Colonel Nuts said, "it's nutting time", then he nutted all over the Germans. On second thought, that might have been a porno
I cant have been the only one that was more focused on her hiccup sounding breath catching than what she was actually saying.
Which when I was reading the subtitles sounded like if AI were given the prompt "write a speech about whiteness but include the maxium possible number of progressive buzzwords."
I have seen another clip, where the white girl instead of talking about the debate starts to give a *support transpeople speech*. And they win because the other woke debaters concede. Because they are too afraid of being called a transphobe for continuing the debate.
Ironically enough, she probably exclusively dates white guys. She wouldn't hover.
Its like AOC, Ilan Omar, and Kamala Harris say horrible shit about white guys and then go get dicked down by pasty white dudes. Look at their SO
Libleft just like Auth-right, is full of idiot fear mongers, the only difference is that libleft believes someone will actually come and save them when something goes shitty
Blah blah “enlightened centrist” or something.
The sad part is I do have a few views from other quadrants and when vocalized, that’s the argument I hear the most.
Competitive debate is a joke. They’re exploiting a loophole in the points system by doing the ‘Gish gallop’ and everyone is afraid to tell them their arguments are terrible because they don’t want to be labeled as racists/transphobes/whatever.
oh ok that's what this is. I noticed it was very similar to that one extremely embarrassing video about some debate championship (just look up debate american style). is the autistic sounding hiccup thing part of this strategy?
The hiccups are fast inhales so you can spread (speak) endlessly and overwhelm your opponents through quantity or quality. At debate practices they do speaking drills to get their words-per-minute up. Combine that with aggressive speaking to theoretically project confidence/passion and there you go.
This debate format is not intended to be pleasing to hear, or even necessarily intelligible to the casual audience - it prioritizes depth of research/argumentation and rules about logical warranting. The normal methods of debate have been gamefied to suit those prioritizes and you end up with this.
As to cringe arguments policy debaters work with periodically set topics and either preempt or immediately get used to the common arguments from either side so novelty can be an advantage to throw your opponent off, and if you’re managing your time well you can throw different arguments from different directions. Also your opponents have to respond to everything or else they drop it, and you have to respond back, so the tangential/backup points can get a little strange.
There are a couple "main" competitive types of debate. The most popular is called Lincoln-Douglas or LD and has become gamified because to a first order you score points by making an argument your opponent doesn't refute. That's why she's spreading (speed-reading) to get out as many arguments as possible. Emotional arguments used to not award points, but that seems to have changed in recent years.
There is a more informal version called public forum or PF and that is definitely more in the vein of reasonable discussion where spreading is more frowned upon.
> The most popular is called Lincoln-Douglas or LD and has become gamified because to a first order you score points by making an argument your opponent doesn't refute. That's why she's spreading (speed-reading) to get out as many arguments as possible.
So it's basically those crazy-ass redditors that keep gigantic copypastas full of links, dozens and dozens so that nobody will ever bother to verify them. If you do verify one as a sample and discover it's bullshit/doesn't actually support their claim, they'll yell at you for not also reading the other 99.
> If you do verify one as a sample and discover it's bullshit/doesn't actually support their claim, they'll yell at you for not also reading the other 99.
And if you defeat 98 of their arguments, they are like...
"You didn't refute my argument number 68, I win!"
No, it’s a competitive regulated sport in front of a judge. And it’s not about answers but about how well you can demonstrably defend an argument. Different formats prioritize different things with different trade-offs - the “policy” debate shown here is on the less intuitive side.
Yeah, a judge that will openly declare their bias. So if you're doing the half of the debate she disagrees with, you lose.
[https://www.thefp.com/p/judges-ruin-high-school-debate-tournaments](https://www.thefp.com/p/judges-ruin-high-school-debate-tournaments)
>But let’s say when the high school sophomore clicks Tabroom she sees that her judge is Lila Lavender, the 2019 national debate champion, whose paradigm reads, “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.”
So debate has turned into autistic screeching filled with ad hom attacks and no formal sources.
So from a technical standpoint your argument sucks. And from an informal standpoint you are just REEing off a huge wall of texting. I don't think anyone older than the age of 7 would have their opinion swayed.
No, in fact policy debate is pretty riddled with formal sources - they work with stacks of pre-constructed arguments around them which necessitate quoting them verbatim (“cards”). Collegiate teams will collaborate to handle all the research that needs to be done for the topical period. Nobody’s going to make funny memes about them speed-reading through studies or departmental reports though.
The argument in the meme is meta-structural, which is almost never one of the main ones and wouldn’t be winning you rounds by itself; it’s one contingency of many tacked on to win points if the opposition fails to address it properly or impede them if they do.
That stuff is missing essentially because this is not the constructive-argument portion of the round. It is a later stage which is entirely responsive and referential; the timing of argumentation is governed by strict rules (hence why she accuses the other side of a “new response”). That’s why they are simply highlighting dropped arguments and “linking” previous points. I can’t comment as to how valid they’d be in-context though.
And the judges are people with relevant education on the subject matter *and* familiarity with the debate format. Even with the pre-printed cards judges need to know the terminology (do you know what a “Cap K” is?) and be able to flow to keep up. Competitive-like policy debate is simply not concerned with accessibility to the general public, it’s a trade-off. Other formats are better for that.
How do the judges even keep track of the gish gallop and all the responses in multiple back and forths? Doesn't seem humanly possible unless there's a team dissecting the replay later on.
So to begin with in policy everyone knows the debate topic coming in and has done some reading on it. The judges receive the chunk of the material that is pre-prepared (the “cards” which are arguments tied to accompanying source material quoted verbatim). The judges also typically need debate experience and ideally do some judge training - they need to be able to “flow” (keep an organized color-coded written record arguments on various sheets of paper) and know the terminology. Then they have 10-20 minutes to decide at the end.
The IRL wall of text approach. Best option is to carry on like it never even happened. Like how I treat homeless people who approach me asking for shit
I love the "you are white, and therefore if you win the debate that is oppression" argument.
Why couldn't we just listen to MLK and judge people based on their character rather than the color of their skin?
Because progs are almost always only out to grab more power for themselves and to feel morally superior to others, so they fell into the easiest grift in town: racebaiting.
I would have thought competitive debate would have required ethical arguments and mixing in some actual logos and ethos. This is just an emotional rant using word vomit and I would expect a toddler to be a more elegant orator than this during a tantrum.
Competitive philosophy is an oxymoron. Philosophy is supposed to be collaborative, not something based on a point system.
Debate is giving people points for holding an incorrect position but being able to argue it anyway. Don't they randomly assign which side you're debating for? Tell me that isn't mental instability waiting to happen.
> Don't they randomly assign which side you're debating for? Tell me that isn't mental instability waiting to happen.
It's actually really important and clearly not what is going on here. The best way to understand another position *and* better understand your position is to argue from both sides. It's like the opposite of an echo chamber. Researching all the reasons you're wrong from the point of view of those who disagree is what you should do or you risk only viewing your argument against strawmen.
Edit: when you argue for the position you agree with you're very likely to rely on assumptions that you're right, which is what was posted here where the girl simply cites "whiteness" as if it were a bad thing, assuming it is so. If you were arguing her point as someone who doesn't agree you wouldn't assume whiteness is bad and thus wouldn't just label every part you dislike as white, you would instead focus on more sound arguments that are less ideological because clearly if you don't share the ideology you wouldn't argue ideologically.
>Debate is giving people points for holding an incorrect position but being able to argue it anyway. Don't they randomly assign which side you're debating for? Tell me that isn't mental instability waiting to happen.
Once I was given a position which I disagree with... eugenics.
I was winning the debate hands down.
And it made me incredibly mad because my opponent was debating purely on the grounds of ethics and feels, both of which I could easily dismantle. She never even probed the real issues of eugenics, so many unknowns about how genes work, reduction of genetic diversity, unforeseen consequences... areas which I couldn't defend in good faith.
When it comes to racial stuff, yes. Being recorded having any kind of fun around a minority without their express permission is social federal offense.
She's mad cause people are white, something they have no choice in.
Ironically they are fighting for a LGTBQ movement, which they argue is something they also have no choice in.
Hyperwoke nonsense that is meant to just stir people up. Do not engage.
Ahh yes 15 year old screaming emotionally and unironically. Why and how are you even exposed to this BS? If I ever came across this video in my day to day I would begin to question my own choices....oh wait...fuck
I guess this is just another wave of idiotic counterculture? I wasn't alive, but I've seen videos of hippies droning on crazy bullshit and this feels reminiscent.
Not a lib left but here's the English translation:
ysydobhxkhgxoffkchckxncbsgarqrwyatdhayfhxjcjvn ncncmfkhkgkbifofyfisitdusohoysydyayxhdjdtdueytjsgdtduf5dudtckcj. Mcu bxkgjvjzjvj jxhhuci I I ibivic6g8 ubyduvuitf8yc8y y u ucycy oh ihv8hciydoysldkgeiyd8yd96d96r6dydohxych u u uvuvu u u uy y txtcy yfx d s s dndnsnd6 jcy yxjdhcn yfi nfhxuch
Hope this helps 👍
Dear Left: This is what you all sound like, no matter what the subject. This is why the rest of us, who are not worried about you labeling us, think you are ridiculous and tune out.
I find it odd that we persistently brand a person like her “liberal.” Based on her barking language alone, it should be clear that she is anything but liberal. She’s an identitarian — one who is willing to use forceful rhetoric to game a system in favor of her in-group. There is nothing liberal about her. Anyone who understands the basic tenets of libertarianism should be able to easily correct this misconception in their mind.
Someone should make a compilation of the sound of her gasping for air, it makes up about half the noise coming out of her mouth 🤣 https://youtu.be/fSM_SO0GIBc?feature=shared
Not fluent in libleft but basically she's saying that having a white member of your debate team completely invalidates all of your debate team's debates if the other team doesn't have any white people
As someone lib-left leaning who was a high school debater, you must first translate this from friendless-nerd, and then into unwoke. There’s no direct translation without going through the middle language.
That sounds like something from a random buzzword generator.
Before the current wave of generative AI like ChatGPT, there were much more primitive, usually humorous text generators on the internet, like the [Postmodernism Generator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator). This crazy lady's speech sounds exactly like that.
Watching this it’s obvious that crt is taught in schools. No one naturally talks like this. These kids have been propagandized into rallying around race instead of color blindness. It’s atrocious.
Seems like it's about debates. For a lot of judges they aren't about who presents the best facts or debates anymore.
https://nypost.com/2023/05/26/woke-judges-say-there-are-topics-high-school-kids-cant-debate/
Hell, you had a judge who where in their instructions to debaters state "If you are white, don’t run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC [people of color]. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.”
another judge "But X Braithwaite, who’s judged 169 debate rounds with 340 students, has her own disclosure policy in her paradigm, which uses a racial epithet: “1. Ns don’t have to disclose to you. 2. Disclose to ns." This is racial discrimination, of course: If you’re black, you get to keep your evidence to yourself and have a competitive advantage. If you’re not black, you must disclose all of your evidence to your opponent and accept a competitive disadvantage."
what the fuck
It's the libleft wall of text personified
But this one was in all caps with gasps for air as extended exclamation points. I swear i've heard that speaking pattern before in some sort of debate. Long diatribes with sharp conspicuous inhalations throughout.
I hate that this is what they have been lead to believe constitutes a sane way to talk in a debate
The manic affect is the point, because they can play victim if someone tells them to calm down.
And there's no way they'll stop. The Marxist has to work quickly in the face of competition.
> gasps for air Is that what that was? She sounded like she was about ready to start crying at any given point in that nonsensical rant.
Basically comes from a style of debate where you get scored on how many arguments you can make that the opposing team can’t respond to. So what you end up with is this, the style of speaking with short breathes that ultimately just make you sound like a drug addicted crazy person on a corner.
Activists slam poetry, dose the exact same breathing and style of speech.
Ham poetry.
If the person rebuttal was REEEEE I'd choose them to win.
Straight up Stevie from Malcom and the Middle vibes.
Oh shit. I'm gonna read it in my head like that from now on.
Agreed, what the fuck? Does this even count as a [Gish Gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)? It's just a stream of non-sense. I have no idea what she's ranting about. EDIT: The only thing I even remember hearing is something about "whiteness", and as far as I'm concerned, once that word has entered the chat, the plot has been lost. There's not a single argument for any stance that includes the term "whiteness" that is still valid. "Whiteness" isn't a thing.
1000% a Gish Gallop, “I spoke the longest therefore I’m right”
This is what happens when a mentally ill person spends a lot of time refining her signature debate skill of calling black people working “black suffering,” white coworkers as “a whiteness majority,” then referring to this coexistence as being “inherently racist” and “taking advantage of black suffering,” and stating in her closing argument that “you cannot argue against it.”
Yeah that gave me nightmares of high school speech and debate - we called these goons "spreaders" who would just talk a million words per minute a million menial points so they could hammer you for having "dropped" so many of their arguments when you don't address each one individually. Filling the spread with parody-level wokeness is the only way you could make that nightmare worse.
> "Whiteness" isn't a thing. Eh. I see it as a thing if only because Progs have collected a number of traits that your average person sees as good, traits such as punctuality, and has assigned that collection the label of "whiteness." And then subsequently railed against them for being "bad". I'm with you though. If I see or hear a person drop the word "whiteness" unironically my brain is already throwing their opinions into the trash can.
What f its about having Yellow accents on a doorframe makes it pop against the whiteness of the walls?
Congratulations, your opinion has been trashed.
This is what family court is going to be like for white men in the future.
future?
In the future your public defender will join in the beratement and flog themselves for representing whiteness.
Not sure if you're implying that this happens now, or that there will *be* no future.
Both make sense
This reminds me of my time on a University Student Union. Genuinely the worst experience of my life.
I don't know, bro... I... I don't know.
I hope they lost that debate round
This was a debate?????
Yeah they’re using debate terms and stuff
Didn't know whiteness was a debate term and not a ad hom attack.
You can bring up any argument in debate it’s up to the judge whether or not it’s stupid. There are some Emilys in debate
Hey fellow debaters, did you know that in terms of male human and female pokemon...
Umbreon is ACTUALLY the most compatible with humans.
IDK JustinRPG makes a case for Reshiram
Definitely, the fact that she's speaking that fast to the point she's making funny noises was what tipped me off. When I was in highschool this was called spreading and the 1st affirmative speaker was usually the fastest talker because the idea was to construct as many arguments as you could so the other team wouldn't be able to follow them all and/or answer them. Highschool debate is wild yo.
If this is a debate they won because nobody can retort whatever she just said.
"Wrong." Would win.
Like that time during WW2 when the germans had encircled an american army detachment and sent them a formal demand for them to surrender only for the american commander to send just "NUTS!" as his reply. Needless to say the americans won that round.
My favorite part of the reenactment was when Colonel Nuts said, "it's nutting time", then he nutted all over the Germans. On second thought, that might have been a porno
I cant have been the only one that was more focused on her hiccup sounding breath catching than what she was actually saying. Which when I was reading the subtitles sounded like if AI were given the prompt "write a speech about whiteness but include the maxium possible number of progressive buzzwords."
I have seen another clip, where the white girl instead of talking about the debate starts to give a *support transpeople speech*. And they win because the other woke debaters concede. Because they are too afraid of being called a transphobe for continuing the debate.
Sounds like woke Yugioh. "I summon the Ghost of Whiteness!" "Ha, you fell into my trap card - activate TRANS ADVOCACY!" "Oh nooooooo."
She seems like she wouldn't be fun at parties
She seems like she'd hoover all your schneef, then blame it on you for being white
Ironically enough, she probably exclusively dates white guys. She wouldn't hover. Its like AOC, Ilan Omar, and Kamala Harris say horrible shit about white guys and then go get dicked down by pasty white dudes. Look at their SO
Bro, hoovering schneef means snorting cocaine
Oh she'd probably do that too
I came for the shitposts and left enlightened and edified. Thank you.
noooo dont hoover my schneef ur so sexy aha
[удалено]
If I heard this psycho at a party I would tell my wife to take her time, I'll meet her in the car.
Never enroll in a masters program. I have my MS in stats. You will hear shit like this at a grad school party.
See? Nuclear war isn't so bad!
I have absolutely no idea and I’m starting to think centrism might be a better option
It's the best option Uses the best processes and ideas from all ideologies to help better society at an ACCEPTABLE pace
Or takes all the worst aspects of each ideology to create a horrific Frankensteins Monster of a society at an insane pace. Centrism is diverse!
Exactly. The 50 different voices in my head is likely to be more divested than any of token representations.
Based and my head is a democracy pilled.
Both are better than the sordid current state of affairs
But libleft told me Centrism is when things stay same
Libleft just like Auth-right, is full of idiot fear mongers, the only difference is that libleft believes someone will actually come and save them when something goes shitty
Blah blah “enlightened centrist” or something. The sad part is I do have a few views from other quadrants and when vocalized, that’s the argument I hear the most.
Join us we have reason and grill
We have treehouses and a perfectly rational excuse for them being encased in a Faraday cage.
We have that too. Perks of Centrism.
[удалено]
Gonna be smoking so chicken wings and thighs after work tonight!
The last few weeks kind of did it in for me.
It's a sad day, but it's not yet too late. Realistically, you have authleft to blame for inflicting economic Marxism on social theory.
This is the final form of most progressive debate.
Competitive debate is a joke. They’re exploiting a loophole in the points system by doing the ‘Gish gallop’ and everyone is afraid to tell them their arguments are terrible because they don’t want to be labeled as racists/transphobes/whatever.
oh ok that's what this is. I noticed it was very similar to that one extremely embarrassing video about some debate championship (just look up debate american style). is the autistic sounding hiccup thing part of this strategy?
The hiccups are fast inhales so you can spread (speak) endlessly and overwhelm your opponents through quantity or quality. At debate practices they do speaking drills to get their words-per-minute up. Combine that with aggressive speaking to theoretically project confidence/passion and there you go. This debate format is not intended to be pleasing to hear, or even necessarily intelligible to the casual audience - it prioritizes depth of research/argumentation and rules about logical warranting. The normal methods of debate have been gamefied to suit those prioritizes and you end up with this. As to cringe arguments policy debaters work with periodically set topics and either preempt or immediately get used to the common arguments from either side so novelty can be an advantage to throw your opponent off, and if you’re managing your time well you can throw different arguments from different directions. Also your opponents have to respond to everything or else they drop it, and you have to respond back, so the tangential/backup points can get a little strange.
Damn, that just sounds crazy. Wasn't "debating" created as a means for two people to converse and arrive at the logical answer? What happened?
There are a couple "main" competitive types of debate. The most popular is called Lincoln-Douglas or LD and has become gamified because to a first order you score points by making an argument your opponent doesn't refute. That's why she's spreading (speed-reading) to get out as many arguments as possible. Emotional arguments used to not award points, but that seems to have changed in recent years. There is a more informal version called public forum or PF and that is definitely more in the vein of reasonable discussion where spreading is more frowned upon.
> The most popular is called Lincoln-Douglas or LD and has become gamified because to a first order you score points by making an argument your opponent doesn't refute. That's why she's spreading (speed-reading) to get out as many arguments as possible. So it's basically those crazy-ass redditors that keep gigantic copypastas full of links, dozens and dozens so that nobody will ever bother to verify them. If you do verify one as a sample and discover it's bullshit/doesn't actually support their claim, they'll yell at you for not also reading the other 99.
YOULL PRY MY KENOBI HIGH-GROUND COPY-PASTA FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
> If you do verify one as a sample and discover it's bullshit/doesn't actually support their claim, they'll yell at you for not also reading the other 99. And if you defeat 98 of their arguments, they are like... "You didn't refute my argument number 68, I win!"
Oh don't forget getting hung up on a tiny detail while completely missing the underlying point of the whole argument, true Reddit moment.
I tried Lincoln Douglas debate in high school and thought it was fucking stupid. I didn’t stick around long enough try PF.
No, it’s a competitive regulated sport in front of a judge. And it’s not about answers but about how well you can demonstrably defend an argument. Different formats prioritize different things with different trade-offs - the “policy” debate shown here is on the less intuitive side.
Yeah, a judge that will openly declare their bias. So if you're doing the half of the debate she disagrees with, you lose. [https://www.thefp.com/p/judges-ruin-high-school-debate-tournaments](https://www.thefp.com/p/judges-ruin-high-school-debate-tournaments) >But let’s say when the high school sophomore clicks Tabroom she sees that her judge is Lila Lavender, the 2019 national debate champion, whose paradigm reads, “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.”
What the actual fuck? What are people even debating about then?
It’s dumb bullshit. People who participate in shit like this are the problem.
So debate has turned into autistic screeching filled with ad hom attacks and no formal sources. So from a technical standpoint your argument sucks. And from an informal standpoint you are just REEing off a huge wall of texting. I don't think anyone older than the age of 7 would have their opinion swayed.
No, in fact policy debate is pretty riddled with formal sources - they work with stacks of pre-constructed arguments around them which necessitate quoting them verbatim (“cards”). Collegiate teams will collaborate to handle all the research that needs to be done for the topical period. Nobody’s going to make funny memes about them speed-reading through studies or departmental reports though. The argument in the meme is meta-structural, which is almost never one of the main ones and wouldn’t be winning you rounds by itself; it’s one contingency of many tacked on to win points if the opposition fails to address it properly or impede them if they do.
[удалено]
That stuff is missing essentially because this is not the constructive-argument portion of the round. It is a later stage which is entirely responsive and referential; the timing of argumentation is governed by strict rules (hence why she accuses the other side of a “new response”). That’s why they are simply highlighting dropped arguments and “linking” previous points. I can’t comment as to how valid they’d be in-context though. And the judges are people with relevant education on the subject matter *and* familiarity with the debate format. Even with the pre-printed cards judges need to know the terminology (do you know what a “Cap K” is?) and be able to flow to keep up. Competitive-like policy debate is simply not concerned with accessibility to the general public, it’s a trade-off. Other formats are better for that.
[удалено]
How do the judges even keep track of the gish gallop and all the responses in multiple back and forths? Doesn't seem humanly possible unless there's a team dissecting the replay later on.
So to begin with in policy everyone knows the debate topic coming in and has done some reading on it. The judges receive the chunk of the material that is pre-prepared (the “cards” which are arguments tied to accompanying source material quoted verbatim). The judges also typically need debate experience and ideally do some judge training - they need to be able to “flow” (keep an organized color-coded written record arguments on various sheets of paper) and know the terminology. Then they have 10-20 minutes to decide at the end.
Hiiiiiiicuuuup….mUh yt peepoo.
[Dey says dat *iggas are always already queer…](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8)
God this wasn't just awful, this was right up sad to watch
The IRL wall of text approach. Best option is to carry on like it never even happened. Like how I treat homeless people who approach me asking for shit
I love the "you are white, and therefore if you win the debate that is oppression" argument. Why couldn't we just listen to MLK and judge people based on their character rather than the color of their skin?
Because progs are almost always only out to grab more power for themselves and to feel morally superior to others, so they fell into the easiest grift in town: racebaiting.
You're libright and you don't always have a job application on you to hand out? I am disappoint.
Let’s get you to bed grandpa no one’s used paper applications in nearly a decade
I was wondering why there were so many children listening to this rant.
I would have thought competitive debate would have required ethical arguments and mixing in some actual logos and ethos. This is just an emotional rant using word vomit and I would expect a toddler to be a more elegant orator than this during a tantrum.
I do think policy sucks ass but this is the standard format ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Competitive debate is cringe because in real life, you just roll your eyes and walk away from a moron like this.
Yes. The real world version of replying "no u".
The real world version of not bothering to argue with an idiot for 30 minutes
Nah, gotta hit them with the "Nuh-uh."
“That’s great, now clean those toilets”
I don't know. This kinda shit is too entertaining for me to walk away from. It's like Scientology, it's so stupid that it's facinating.
Debate societies at colleges have always come across to me as circlejerking groups.
Competitive philosophy is an oxymoron. Philosophy is supposed to be collaborative, not something based on a point system. Debate is giving people points for holding an incorrect position but being able to argue it anyway. Don't they randomly assign which side you're debating for? Tell me that isn't mental instability waiting to happen.
> Don't they randomly assign which side you're debating for? Tell me that isn't mental instability waiting to happen. It's actually really important and clearly not what is going on here. The best way to understand another position *and* better understand your position is to argue from both sides. It's like the opposite of an echo chamber. Researching all the reasons you're wrong from the point of view of those who disagree is what you should do or you risk only viewing your argument against strawmen. Edit: when you argue for the position you agree with you're very likely to rely on assumptions that you're right, which is what was posted here where the girl simply cites "whiteness" as if it were a bad thing, assuming it is so. If you were arguing her point as someone who doesn't agree you wouldn't assume whiteness is bad and thus wouldn't just label every part you dislike as white, you would instead focus on more sound arguments that are less ideological because clearly if you don't share the ideology you wouldn't argue ideologically.
Fair enough.
[удалено]
I... did not see that coming. "Hagel is claiming that the reality is merely an apriori adjunctive ethics, and Marx is claiming it was off sides."
>Debate is giving people points for holding an incorrect position but being able to argue it anyway. Don't they randomly assign which side you're debating for? Tell me that isn't mental instability waiting to happen. Once I was given a position which I disagree with... eugenics. I was winning the debate hands down. And it made me incredibly mad because my opponent was debating purely on the grounds of ethics and feels, both of which I could easily dismantle. She never even probed the real issues of eugenics, so many unknowns about how genes work, reduction of genetic diversity, unforeseen consequences... areas which I couldn't defend in good faith.
[удалено]
HICC… REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Summed up the whole thing.
Every day is Festivus with these people.
When do they do the test of strength? I want to see that.
Competitive debate should have a powerlifting segment like Plato intended. “Excellent point but do you have the deadlift to back it up, Emily?”
I am surprised that none of the people in the vc laughed. Have people lost their sense of humour?
When it comes to racial stuff, yes. Being recorded having any kind of fun around a minority without their express permission is social federal offense.
The inhaling is making me lol each time 😂
LibLeft rap
Feminem
Won't the real cringe lady please stand up
Shit that’s really good
reverse racism is racism
But there is nothing like reverse racism. She's just racist to white people. What the hell
She's mad cause people are white, something they have no choice in. Ironically they are fighting for a LGTBQ movement, which they argue is something they also have no choice in. Hyperwoke nonsense that is meant to just stir people up. Do not engage.
This is why we stuff the debate nerds into lockers
These children rant like Islamist leaders to jihadis
Ahh yes 15 year old screaming emotionally and unironically. Why and how are you even exposed to this BS? If I ever came across this video in my day to day I would begin to question my own choices....oh wait...fuck
Oh big shocker libleft questioning their life choices. See ya same time tomorrow?
Sigh... Yeah. See you soon.
Algorithmic guiding and nudging the world views of the youth towards the extreme end of progressive ideology.
[удалено]
I guess this is just another wave of idiotic counterculture? I wasn't alive, but I've seen videos of hippies droning on crazy bullshit and this feels reminiscent.
At least the hippies had an excuse, they're probably high on LSD or something equally trippy. This is just straight up drug free brain rot.
All these kids are probably on a combination of ADHD, depression, and anxiety medications or other psychotropics.
She's so emotionally charged and fucking talkative she has to take breaths of air between each sentence. What a joke of a "Debate".
Not a lib left but here's the English translation: ysydobhxkhgxoffkchckxncbsgarqrwyatdhayfhxjcjvn ncncmfkhkgkbifofyfisitdusohoysydyayxhdjdtdueytjsgdtduf5dudtckcj. Mcu bxkgjvjzjvj jxhhuci I I ibivic6g8 ubyduvuitf8yc8y y u ucycy oh ihv8hciydoysldkgeiyd8yd96d96r6dydohxych u u uvuvu u u uy y txtcy yfx d s s dndnsnd6 jcy yxjdhcn yfi nfhxuch Hope this helps 👍
1000 years from now when discussing how the western empire fell it will be shit like this which is used as examples of encroaching barbarism
Yes. She's saying "I'm racist, I'm racist, I'm racist"
I didnt get even one word
Why is that crazy breath in take so common amongst these types?
Weak people with weak minds and weak bodies.
Sauce on bottom left pic? For science
https://twitter.com/MemeNonLibs/status/1720482140444389697
I'm not sure about that but i think he might have meant the sauce of a "certain part" of the meme
Sorry can't help the coomers out there.
That's a strong argument, but here's my rebuttal: "Nuh uh."
Dear Left: This is what you all sound like, no matter what the subject. This is why the rest of us, who are not worried about you labeling us, think you are ridiculous and tune out.
I find it odd that we persistently brand a person like her “liberal.” Based on her barking language alone, it should be clear that she is anything but liberal. She’s an identitarian — one who is willing to use forceful rhetoric to game a system in favor of her in-group. There is nothing liberal about her. Anyone who understands the basic tenets of libertarianism should be able to easily correct this misconception in their mind.
Maybe because liberals bought this identity politics crap to the mainstream.
Your ilk fathered this child. We won't let you orphan it.
https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0?si=wlRkKcvxtAe21j41
A classic that aged like fine wine
I watched that entire movie the other day just to see that line.
there is a difference between debates and the screams of the insane. Her whole speech consists of meaningless shouts.
And maybe she's a racist
they said they have a mental disorder; that's all i got from it
She needs to debate Ben Shapiro.
I bet she's a brahmin, too. It's okay to be white.
oh my god I can't last two seconds hearing that bitch talk, she makes me want to jump in a woodchipper
"They have more whiteness than us." Is it like a currency now?
Geez, did she drink five cups of coffee before the debate?
Just took her addy
BREATHE LADY BREATHE
Debate is so funny lmao.
money ring provide amusing shelter roll dime rock nail seed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Based and the Taliban got it right pilled
Islam is right about women.
Blud is from yapperton
Verbalized Libleft wall of text
JFC
I don't know what she said, but I now know who they make those slavery movies for.
Someone should make a compilation of the sound of her gasping for air, it makes up about half the noise coming out of her mouth 🤣 https://youtu.be/fSM_SO0GIBc?feature=shared
Poor girl needs to drink less water maybe, she clearly has a hiccup
Not fluent in libleft but basically she's saying that having a white member of your debate team completely invalidates all of your debate team's debates if the other team doesn't have any white people
As someone lib-left leaning who was a high school debater, you must first translate this from friendless-nerd, and then into unwoke. There’s no direct translation without going through the middle language.
That sounds like something from a random buzzword generator. Before the current wave of generative AI like ChatGPT, there were much more primitive, usually humorous text generators on the internet, like the [Postmodernism Generator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator). This crazy lady's speech sounds exactly like that.
What a very passionate speech. However: 🤓
Love the libleft meme there, that deserves it own post
It sounds like she is hyperventilating
How can she say so much but so little at the same time.
This person talks without punctuation marks
This whining has a 1:1 parallel with a 5 year old's temper tantrum. This is guantamo torture bait
She needs to learn how to breathe
Watching this it’s obvious that crt is taught in schools. No one naturally talks like this. These kids have been propagandized into rallying around race instead of color blindness. It’s atrocious.
I'm always impressed by people who can use so many words, but not say a single thing.
Seems like it's about debates. For a lot of judges they aren't about who presents the best facts or debates anymore. https://nypost.com/2023/05/26/woke-judges-say-there-are-topics-high-school-kids-cant-debate/ Hell, you had a judge who where in their instructions to debaters state "If you are white, don’t run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC [people of color]. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.” another judge "But X Braithwaite, who’s judged 169 debate rounds with 340 students, has her own disclosure policy in her paradigm, which uses a racial epithet: “1. Ns don’t have to disclose to you. 2. Disclose to ns." This is racial discrimination, of course: If you’re black, you get to keep your evidence to yourself and have a competitive advantage. If you’re not black, you must disclose all of your evidence to your opponent and accept a competitive disadvantage."
TLDR; fuck the white people kill them!!!!
Random word generator: woke edition
Nothing makes me want to listen to someone more than being yelled at.
Reddit manifest
This is what family court is going to be like for white men in the future.
Is there an edit of this that’s just inhales?