6 ms·

I dont know if it is acceptable to post YouTube links on HN, but here is a recording of recent national champions.[1] That it is even called debate is tragic.

by nnfy 9y ago

I dont know if it is acceptable to post YouTube links on HN, but here is a recording of recent national champions.[1] That it is even called debate is tragic. 1.https://youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

kelvin0 9y ago
Using the 'N' word in a debate competition? besides that it has more the allure of a verbal seizure ... as you said tragic.
scrumper 9y ago
That’s not really just a recording of the champions is it? It’s a selective edit of bits of the debate with a news interview with the winners. it’s intentionally jarring. Do you have a link to the actual recording? The owner of the clip you linked to removed his link to the actual debate recording after the poster of the original recording asked that this be taken down.
- nnfy 9y ago
  There is nothing selectively jarring about 20+ seconds of grown women hyperventilating and screaming "nigga" during a supposed national scholastic event.
  - scrumper 9y ago
    There absolutely is when those 20+ seconds are jump cut in the middle of a calm interview. The debate itself was far more than 20 seconds. It is entirely selective. I clicked on the video because I was interested in an example of this high velocity, arcane, rule-optimized debate game that we're all talking about on this story. What I got instead was a video cutting the most shocking and ineffective parts of their performance in with them discussing their win on TV, done for effect. Come off it. I could record your next presentation and edit out all but the parts where you said "umm" and you'd look like a moron. Even more so if I then creatively cut that in with video of you explaining to your boss how you'd done a great job in the meeting. (I have no idea what you do; I am sure you can understand the analogy).
    - nnfy 9y ago
      I don't know how to make this any clearer, as you seem to have a vested interest in maintaining that the clips indicate nothing untoward about the competition. A clip of ANY duration showing those behaviors bid competition is unnaceptable. > Come off it. I could record your next presentation and edit out all but the parts where you said "umm" and you'd look like a moron. Even more so if I then creatively cut that in with video of you explaining to your boss how you'd done a great job in the meeting. (I have no idea what you do; I am sure you can understand the analogy). Or, you could generate a single clip where I say "nigga" during a meeting and scream non-sequiturs as quickly as I could in order to get a point across, and I would be rightly fired for behaving like an animal. Regardless of whether the clip is 5 or 20 seconds long The fact that something is selectively edited does not alone imply that it is biased or incorrect. The clips were more than enough to highlight the state to which modern debate has devolved. There are other, unedited examples of this inane style of "debate". My point is that this style of debate activity itself is not in any way conducive to the exchange of ideas or advancement of understanding; the fact that they were given a trophy after spending ANY time debating in such a manner is an extremely poor reflection on the state of "debate" in our schools.
      - kelvin0 9y ago
        I completely agree, I don't even understand how this is not clear to others. It looks like taking a dump in the proverbial punch bowl (whatever the rest of the debate was).
      - scrumper 9y ago
        A "vested interest"? You got me, I am a paid shill for Big Debate :) There is a lot on this page about what modern debate is and isn't. It's not supposed to be a mechanism for the exchange of ideas or advancement of understating; it's a game, with rules, and players who optimize performance within those rules. This, here, now, is a forum for the exchange of ideas and the advancement of understanding. Notice that neither of us are hyperventilating while trying to score a victory. I don't think the specific recording you posted is a fair representation of modern debate. Yes, the video presented modern debate in a terrible, terrible light. But, it was scant seconds of a performance which lasted how long? My point is that the material you posted to back up your opinion over-eggs the pudding to the extent that it undermines you. If you think modern debate is so bad, then an ordinary performance recording would make that point perfectly well, wouldn't it? The Atlantic article posted somewhere close to our discussion here talks about how black students are challenging the rules within the framework of the competitions themselves. These Towson(sp?) ladies seem to be an example of that. I found it a thought-provoking read which didn't suggest any obvious self-evidently correct solution. What did you think?

by nnfy 9y ago

kelvin0 9y ago

Using the 'N' word in a debate competition? besides that it has more the allure of a verbal seizure ... as you said tragic.

scrumper 9y ago

That’s not really just a recording of the champions is it? It’s a selective edit of bits of the debate with a news interview with the winners. it’s intentionally jarring. Do you have a link to the actual recording? The owner of the clip you linked to removed his link to the actual debate recording after the poster of the original recording asked that this be taken down.

nnfy 9y ago
There is nothing selectively jarring about 20+ seconds of grown women hyperventilating and screaming "nigga" during a supposed national scholastic event.
- scrumper 9y ago
  There absolutely is when those 20+ seconds are jump cut in the middle of a calm interview. The debate itself was far more than 20 seconds. It is entirely selective. I clicked on the video because I was interested in an example of this high velocity, arcane, rule-optimized debate game that we're all talking about on this story. What I got instead was a video cutting the most shocking and ineffective parts of their performance in with them discussing their win on TV, done for effect. Come off it. I could record your next presentation and edit out all but the parts where you said "umm" and you'd look like a moron. Even more so if I then creatively cut that in with video of you explaining to your boss how you'd done a great job in the meeting. (I have no idea what you do; I am sure you can understand the analogy).
  - nnfy 9y ago
    I don't know how to make this any clearer, as you seem to have a vested interest in maintaining that the clips indicate nothing untoward about the competition. A clip of ANY duration showing those behaviors bid competition is unnaceptable. > Come off it. I could record your next presentation and edit out all but the parts where you said "umm" and you'd look like a moron. Even more so if I then creatively cut that in with video of you explaining to your boss how you'd done a great job in the meeting. (I have no idea what you do; I am sure you can understand the analogy). Or, you could generate a single clip where I say "nigga" during a meeting and scream non-sequiturs as quickly as I could in order to get a point across, and I would be rightly fired for behaving like an animal. Regardless of whether the clip is 5 or 20 seconds long The fact that something is selectively edited does not alone imply that it is biased or incorrect. The clips were more than enough to highlight the state to which modern debate has devolved. There are other, unedited examples of this inane style of "debate". My point is that this style of debate activity itself is not in any way conducive to the exchange of ideas or advancement of understanding; the fact that they were given a trophy after spending ANY time debating in such a manner is an extremely poor reflection on the state of "debate" in our schools.
    - kelvin0 9y ago
      I completely agree, I don't even understand how this is not clear to others. It looks like taking a dump in the proverbial punch bowl (whatever the rest of the debate was).
    - scrumper 9y ago
      A "vested interest"? You got me, I am a paid shill for Big Debate :) There is a lot on this page about what modern debate is and isn't. It's not supposed to be a mechanism for the exchange of ideas or advancement of understating; it's a game, with rules, and players who optimize performance within those rules. This, here, now, is a forum for the exchange of ideas and the advancement of understanding. Notice that neither of us are hyperventilating while trying to score a victory. I don't think the specific recording you posted is a fair representation of modern debate. Yes, the video presented modern debate in a terrible, terrible light. But, it was scant seconds of a performance which lasted how long? My point is that the material you posted to back up your opinion over-eggs the pudding to the extent that it undermines you. If you think modern debate is so bad, then an ordinary performance recording would make that point perfectly well, wouldn't it? The Atlantic article posted somewhere close to our discussion here talks about how black students are challenging the rules within the framework of the competitions themselves. These Towson(sp?) ladies seem to be an example of that. I found it a thought-provoking read which didn't suggest any obvious self-evidently correct solution. What did you think?