2 ms·

Here's the American Debate Association's 2019 High School Championships: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqjHz9laqgU&t=368s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqj

Here's the American Debate Association's 2019 High School Championships: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqjHz9laqgU&t=368s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqjHz9laqgU&t=368s And debate between the Harvard Democrats and Republicans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYLcpQQCjLE&t=1655s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYLcpQQCjLE&t=1655s I've never seen or heard of a debate like the one in Peter Schiff's youtube channel there, and it is pretty obviously being shared on social media for emotional effect.

hairofadog 4y ago
I agree; the video in the comment above yours was edited specifically to focus hate on a couple of high school students. While I have to admit I'm not a fan of that debate style, if you want to know the context behind it, there's an episode of Radiolab on the topic: https://radiolab.org/episodes/debatable https://radiolab.org/episodes/debatable The short version is that it seems to have been a response and rebellion to what was already an arguably ridiculous style of competitive "debating": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPsEwWT6K0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPsEwWT6K0
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Yeah so it was essentially satire. You'd think that in a community of "hackers" that should value actual skepticism and subversion that people wouldn't fall so easily for obvious propaganda.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Defending their performance by arguing that it was rebellion or satire is pretty much admitting that the debate style (fast debating, AKA spreading [1]) is ridiculous and deserves rebellion or satire. And if this was an intentionally extreme example meant to demonstrate problems with the format, then sharing it and citing it here seems entirely appropriate and even expected. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      You know that wasn't why it was shared here, and it was deliberately edited to push people towards a completely different conclusion.

hairofadog 4y ago

I agree; the video in the comment above yours was edited specifically to focus hate on a couple of high school students. While I have to admit I'm not a fan of that debate style, if you want to know the context behind it, there's an episode of Radiolab on the topic: https://radiolab.org/episodes/debatable https://radiolab.org/episodes/debatable The short version is that it seems to have been a response and rebellion to what was already an arguably ridiculous style of competitive "debating": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPsEwWT6K0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPsEwWT6K0

lamontcg 4y ago
Yeah so it was essentially satire. You'd think that in a community of "hackers" that should value actual skepticism and subversion that people wouldn't fall so easily for obvious propaganda.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Defending their performance by arguing that it was rebellion or satire is pretty much admitting that the debate style (fast debating, AKA spreading [1]) is ridiculous and deserves rebellion or satire. And if this was an intentionally extreme example meant to demonstrate problems with the format, then sharing it and citing it here seems entirely appropriate and even expected. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    You know that wasn't why it was shared here, and it was deliberately edited to push people towards a completely different conclusion.