4 ms·

They may have had a good argument, but articulating it well? They're just shooting out words in a flurry in order to "win" at debate; it's incredibly hard to co

by gareim 9y ago

They may have had a good argument, but articulating it well? They're just shooting out words in a flurry in order to "win" at debate; it's incredibly hard to comprehend without a transcript. And like the original article stated, this is pretty common. I remember my friend doing the same thing when he was in debate.

huac 9y ago
There's a reason the poster chose this video, rather than a video of two white guys talking really fast (and there are many multiples more of those).
- gareim 9y ago
  I mean, maybe that's true, but does that negate what I said? Also, if you could link more examples, I'd love to see them. I'm amused by the fast talking, but City Cleveland high school or whatever dominates the first few results on YouTube and jumping around, I see only a mild form of it. EDIT: actually, I just saw that 2 minutes ago someone posted another example! :)
- jackhack 9y ago
  I posted it, and your implication of some deeper reason is rubbish. Race or sex has zero to do with anything. The reason I chose this video is due to the stunning contrast between the news reporter describing the "debate" team's win as a high-brow achievement and a calm discussion of the merits of the debate along with the preparation, etc. which paint a picture of intellectual refinement, cut with the video full of racist n-words peppered with "uh uh uh" which exposes the event to be a sham. It is a sham. The video is a study in contrast. THAT is what made it effective to expose the absurdity of the "win", and probably why you don't like it. I notice you called it a "dog whistle" in a different comment, which I resent. That term seems to be a favorite term of the political left synonymous with "this doesn't agree with my worldview so I'm going to cast it as a racist viewpoint to shut down debate. I will insinuate racism where it doesn't exist."

by gareim 9y ago

huac 9y ago

There's a reason the poster chose this video, rather than a video of two white guys talking really fast (and there are many multiples more of those).

gareim 9y ago
I mean, maybe that's true, but does that negate what I said? Also, if you could link more examples, I'd love to see them. I'm amused by the fast talking, but City Cleveland high school or whatever dominates the first few results on YouTube and jumping around, I see only a mild form of it. EDIT: actually, I just saw that 2 minutes ago someone posted another example! :)
jackhack 9y ago
I posted it, and your implication of some deeper reason is rubbish. Race or sex has zero to do with anything. The reason I chose this video is due to the stunning contrast between the news reporter describing the "debate" team's win as a high-brow achievement and a calm discussion of the merits of the debate along with the preparation, etc. which paint a picture of intellectual refinement, cut with the video full of racist n-words peppered with "uh uh uh" which exposes the event to be a sham. It is a sham. The video is a study in contrast. THAT is what made it effective to expose the absurdity of the "win", and probably why you don't like it. I notice you called it a "dog whistle" in a different comment, which I resent. That term seems to be a favorite term of the political left synonymous with "this doesn't agree with my worldview so I'm going to cast it as a racist viewpoint to shut down debate. I will insinuate racism where it doesn't exist."