/lit/ - Literature

So what? A lot of people are smarter than me.

Now back to /pol/ with you.

>intelligent people don't go to prison

You dun fucked up there nigguh

I'm not sure if skill in policy debate is a great measure of intelligence.

Though, to be honest, they likely are more intelligent that I am.

>>7216675
>debate
>modern collegiate debate
No. When they beat the Harvard kids at Putnam Prize problems, then I'll be impressed. Debate is owned by the biggest left-wing, burn-it-all fanatics right now and this judgement, nay this entire event, was almost certainly motivated by the prospect of making viral social media posts about how prisoners are all good boys who dindu nuffin and college kids are all actual drooling retards getting by on unearned privilege.


>our best orators in action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

>these people are smarter than you
No black person is smarter than me. I am smarter than all blacks

>>7216707

let's see

define smart

>>7216675
>>7216706
and yes, rhetoric is absolutely literature related. Dominate rhetorical methods are inseparable from an era's literature. We're seeing changes in how rhetoric is used and perceived, and these are absolutely worth talking about for people interested in contemporary literature.

>>7216706
This debate wasn't the same style/rules as the one you linked, and even the Harvard team conceded that were out-matched and hadn't though of rebuttals to a few specific points.

But keep up your superiority complex and delusions. I'm sure they help you be a productive and happy person.

>>7216706
They're alright, but you know who the greatest debater of all time was? Yeah, that's right. It was Christopher "The Hitch" Hitchens.

>>7216706
Came to this thread to post that video. Fucking retards. So sad my school shares the same beltway with them.

>>7216720
>the Harvard team conceded they were out-matched
You know it's commonly considered terrible sportsmanship and overall shitty not to concede that your opponent beat you fair and square in a contest. Even if they did stumble, if you've never hung around Harvard you have no idea how sharp those students really are, so I'd have a hard time saying it's all about one team being smarter than the other.
>superiority complex and delusions
I've been involved in plenty of debate competition, actually. Judging is subject to all sorts of vagaries. I think this is one instance where judges had motivation to lean one way.

PS I know you're just calling me a racist there.

>>7216721
I dunno, was he?

>>7216706

>that video

Good God...

>>7216739
Why do you think judges "had motivation to lean one way" besides being a racist? As if the use of "dindu" wasn't enough. Fuck off back to /pol/ with the other bitter dickheads.

Who /parli/ here?

>>7216706
this video isn't weird if you've seen any college style debate ever. it seems insane because college debates seem insane by any normal standard of communication

the white people who do these debates sound just as weird. this video gets shared a lot because people are racist and love to have their biases confirmed

>>7216706
This tbh. The entire story feels like it was manufactured by progressives and progressive media outlets to repeat their doctrine to their followers. The debate was held at a prison, the audience was made up almost entirely of the Bard Prison Initiative participants, the judges were made up of PhD students in "gender and politics"... I mean come on, this was hardly an objective analysis of the prisoners' debating skills. I find it a little bit too Disney to be factual.

>>7216742
It's not racist to perceive self-styled half-asses anti-racism as trendy right now. Doing stuff like this doesn't actually convince anyone of anything they didn't already believe.

>as if using dindu wasn't enough
I'll use hyperbole and net jargon if I feel like it. Considering it's the (probably white) organizers who I'm framing as using "dindu thinking" then that's arguably different from putting that word in the mouth of a black person and makes a statement about why the word "dindu" caught on so well. Stay basic.

>>7216754
Why is it so implausible that educated prisoners could win in a debate against 18-22 year olds? These guys have nothing to do all day but study, and they're obviously bright and very motivated because they're choosing to get college degrees despite being in a shit situation.

Not everything's a conspiracy. Sometimes black people are better than white people, get over it.

>>7216758
dude you're racist, relax

>>7216675
>Being surprised by this
Harvard specializes in grade inflation not talent inflation

>>7216758
It's racist to assume that, without having seen the debate and with zero evidence, the black people didn't actually win. Any normal person understands that. But there's really no point in saying this to sheltered little /pol/fucks, you'll keep on believing in ridiculous shit to justify your loserdom anyway.

>>7216762
smart people don't end up in prison

>>7216706
Top kek I judge high school debate and the kids that wind up in final rounds are most definitely smarter than you.

>>7216785
What about weev, the patron saint of /pol/?

>>7216706
>uh nigga uh the uh nigga uh
Holy shit I'm dying

>>7216745
I was going to do parli for my uni but decided fuck it because no room for theory... Wish we had policy or LD

>>7216675
>libtards get devastated by people who are anti-immigration
Oh who would guess.

>>7216762
>Why is it so implausible that educated prisoners could win in a debate against 18-22 year olds?
Because the actual rigor of their education is unknown to me, and they're competing against the debate team of one of the best universities in the country (the National Champions, in fact). A debate team which regularly argues with top universities around the globe, not the country, and wins. What's more is that the Bard prisoners didn't have access to the internet and had nowhere near as much experience as Harvard. It's incredibly unrealistic that they would win if nobody knew anything about their background, but extremely realistic that a biased judge would award them a win if she thought it was the moral and progressive thing to do.

>>7216784
It's hard to objectively win a debate no matter who you are or who your opponent is, so saying they "legitimately won" is assuming they're the fucking all-time greatest at rhetoric. I find this unlikely and dislike how this event has been rubbed in my face like it means a lot. That this has been trotted out so aggressively is kinda annoying to me for whatever reason (prolly racism lol). I just don't like when people try so hard to manipulate me is all.

Like I said, train some prisoners for math Olympiad and see how it goes. I'll be very impressed when they beat Harvard.

>>7216809
>Because the actual rigor of their education is unknown to me

So everything you're posting is based on nothing but your likely false assumptions. Have you seen the debate? Do you know these people? Maybe the simple explanation that they worked hard and won makes more sense than bending over backwards to make up an elaborate conspiracy because you don't like black people.

>>7216810
You're annoyed by it because you're a loser and bitter about it, which is also why you're a racist.

>>7216822
How about you actually address my points instead of attacking my character? I'll give you a chance to recompose a proper response, but right now you're arguing like a Bard Prison Initiative member

>>7216802
>>7216752
>>7216741
>>7216724
Okay I'm the guy who posted that video. It's worth pointing out that their delivery style, while unsettling to the uninitiated, is not the problem here. If you read up on or watch the debate in full, you can see that their strategy was to avoid the official topic and argue that its framing is racist. I don't think the way they did it was very clever, and some of the points they raise are asinine. It's not the delivery though.

Holy shit OP thanks for making me discover this. Amerfats, explain yourselves!

Look at this shit : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKpXQIf9exA

The white kid just reads a wikipedia page as fast as he can and then the niggers respond by rapping. How the fuck is this a debate?

>>7216822

>>7216831
If I explained how I'm not a loser you'd just say I was lying, so have a nice day.

>>7216809
>tfw when /pol/cucks don't realize that a bunch of nigger criminals beating SWPL faggots from braindead Jew-run academia actually reinforces much of what they say rather than refutes it

>>7216837
>It's not the delivery though.
What? Delivery is essential for a debate! A debater is supposed to convince an audience, not speaking at 1000 words a minute.

I mean for fuck's sake imagine you're engaging in a REAL debate, like a presidential debate, you think you'd give off a good impression talking like that?

>>7216833
What points? You assume they are less intelligent, less educated, and less motivated based on...what? You assume the judges were in on some conspiracy to let them win based on...what?

There are no points to address. You're just making up shit, like most /pol/tards.

>>7216846
Not him, but do you honestly believe black convicts to be the intellectual equivalent of an average Harvard student? Speak truthfully

>>7216844
Still the same guy here.
We have different rulesets where persuasiveness is more important, such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas. Policy debate is more of a research contest, which has a legit place in debate.

>>7216851
> Policy debate is more of a research contest, which has a legit place in debate.
I just found this transcript of the debate you linked to on the internet

>"They say the n*****s always already qu***, that’s exactly the point! It means the impact is that the that the is the impact term, uh, to the afraid, uh, the, that it is a case term to the affirmative because, we, uh, we’re saying that qu*** bodies are not able to survive the necessarily means of the body. Uh, uh, the n***** is not able to survive.

Uh, man’s sole “jabringing” object disfigure religion trauma and nubs, uh, the, inside the trauma of representation that turns into the black child devouring and identifying with the stories and into the white culture brought up, uh, de de de de de, dink, and add subjectively like a white man, the black man!

When the n*****, uh, sees these pains and suffering that he can only, uh, envision himself that he, uh, does not see another n***** that he, uh, can feel sympathy for or embrace, but rather, uh, that, a-bluh, that that otherness gets obliterated.

Uh, says that the the the way status co works is through, uh, whiteness allowing, uh, forcing other bodies to tell, uh, nearations of whiteness in, uh, the violences that whiteness does me, uh, say that that is the link that we will go for!"

Do you honestly believe that this is a cogent argument?

>>7216848
If they take time to study, sure. These guys are getting Bachelor's degrees, same as the Harvard students. Debate is more about preparing and hard work than being off-the-cuff intelligent.

>>7216848
I'd say it would depend on the individual convict and on the individual student.

A /lit/ poster should know better than to think that all Ivy League students really are the intellectual cream of the crop (keep in mind that most retarded leftist thought comes from these people, not niggers) or that all niggers are stupid.

>>7216858
No, I do not. I was just saying that a lot of people see that and focus on the rapid speech, vocalized pauses and noisy breathing, but all their opponents are doing that stuff. What's in that transcript is why I don't think they should have made it so far.

>>7216863
I think their opponents should have won because at least they had the decency to interrupt their incoherent jabber with some 2Pac.

>tfw this was a "policy debate" on presidential war powers

>>7216860
>If they take time to study, sure
I'm not talking about education, I'm talking about raw intellectual power.

>These guys are getting Bachelor's degrees, same as the Harvard students.
Harvard is one of the most selective schools in the world. Its student body is excellent. Not all universities are of the same quality.

>Debate is more about preparing and hard work than being off-the-cuff intelligent.
Well I'd argue that what separates the mere fact-repeater from the debater is the ability of the debater to intelligently respond to his opponent. If debate is only about research, you might as well substitute the debater with a computer screen where facts are displayed.

Oh but hey, we're actually debating right now. Should we switch to the other debating style? I'll try to write my previous paragraph in the CEDA debating style

>well nigga uh nigga the debater he a nigga if he holla up nigga if he only know shit like uh nigga if he know shit then you might nigga uh nigga replace him with a white man's computer uh nigga because a nigga need to know nigga uh how to respond nigga to uh to the other nigga uh

>>7216861
>I'd say it would depend on the individual convict and on the individual student.
Sure, but statistically speaking, it is highly improbable for a given convict to be more intelligent than the average harvard student.

>>7216843
I don't browse /pol/ and I generally like Jews. If you can't respond to the actual content of my argument then please don't reply to me

>>7216846
You're intentionally misinterpreting my argument, probably because it's much easier to call me a racist than actually refute me. I claimed that it is unrealistic that a group of violent criminals could defeat one the most experienced and awarded debate teams in all of America, as the prisoners have less experience, less education, and if studies linking violence and low intelligence are to be believed, a lower capacity for intellectual thought.

The judges were probably biased to favor a progressive narrative rather than reaffirm the establishment. The principal judge who spoke to most media outlets is a gender and politics Ph.D student at Rutgers, which is not necessarily a good qualification for judging rhetoric but an excellent indicator of her assumed progressive bias. The setting and audience was in the prisoners' favor rather than that of the reigning National Champions. If the other judges were at all similar to Mary Nugent, then it is hardly a conspiracy theory to suggest that there may have been some bias in the 2-1 decision to support the prisoners over Harvard and make a statement about stereotypes instead of an attempt at an objective analysis of the debate.

>>7216863
>I was just saying that a lot of people see that and focus on the rapid speech, vocalized pauses and noisy breathing
And saying nigger! And inventing words!

How can you make excuses for something so fucking horrendous?

>>7216877
Oh god fuck off to /pol/

>>7216883
>If you can't respond to the actual content of my argument then please don't reply to me

>>7216876
>raw intellectual power

And how is that quantified? In debate? Because the team with supposedly more "raw intellectual power" lost.

>>7216876
>Sure, but statistically speaking, it is highly improbable for a given convict to be more intelligent than the average harvard student.

Have you ever heard of the statistician who drowned in a river that had an average depth of 3 feet?

SOMEONE POST A FUCKDAMN LINK TO THE PRISON VS HARVARD DEBATE VID

>>7216877
I'm not misrepresenting your "arguments". They are all assumptions and over-elaborate explanations based on your racist belief that a black prison team couldn't possibly win in a debate.

/pol/ btfo tbh

>>7216897
ITT are people who believe they can judge a debate, sight unseen, based on a description.

It's the /pol/lack version of Mary's Room.

>>7216888
>And how is that quantified?
Eloquence, not committing logical fallacies, and most importantly, being able to counter the opponent's argument.

Have you actually never watched a real debate? This is an example of what a real debate looks like, without the hooting and hollering : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-HAb8bxbOw

>>7216889
>Have you ever heard of the statistician who drowned in a river that had an average depth of 3 feet?
Statistically speaking, that event probably never happened.

No doubt there are smart people in prison. Heck Kaczinsky is in prison, and he's a fucking genius. But to think that a bunch of gangbangers won a "real" debate against a debate team from one of the best universities in the world is such a fantastical tale that even your average liberal would have trouble believing in it.

>>7216706
In regards to the video, I don't understand their argument in relation to the topic. Is there a full video of their debate?

Also that fast paced speaking completely throws everything is disarray. Debates are to present an argument with strong facts to settle a point in a clear and concise manner. Why is this seeming like a race to the finish?

>>7216873
Most discussions would benefit from occasional Tupac.

>>7216898
>boo hoo racist
Seriously, you are a trash debating partner. Yes they are assumptions, but that doesn't disprove my conclusions. These are realistic assumptions based upon studies linking violence to the lower cognitive abilities, the personal background of the judges, the setting of the debate, and manner in which the judges spoke to the media afterward. I have much more evidence for my assumptions than you have for my supposed racism (which even if it did exist would not refute my argument), and I am making a much greater effort than you to demonstrate how this evidence supports the veracity of my claims.

In your next post, please explain to me how I am wrong, in detail and with evidence. If you can't do this then I will consider your posts a tacit acknowledgement that you are incapable of refuting me

>>7216914
Here's the full video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY

Feast your eyes on America's oratorical elite

>>7216918
I want /pol/ to leave

We get it, you're mad that your aryan harvard debate team got btfo'd

>>7216918
>assumptions = evidence

Nope.

>>7216914
>Debates are to present an argument with strong facts to settle a point in a clear and concise manner. Why is this seeming like a race to the finish?

Because that's not the goal of policy debate. The goal is to cram as many points as possible in the time allotted.

>>7216928
I don't remember saying this. Could you please show me where I said this?

>>7216932
>The goal is to cram as many points as possible in the time allotted.
Could you please tell me what was the point of this excerpt from a debate transcript >>7216858 ?

>>7216922
All policy debate is like this, this one just had more usage of the word "nigger" (and had nothing to do with the actual topic they were supposed to be debating).

Policy debate is speed-talking bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPsEwWT6K0

>>7216934
You're presenting your assumptions as evidence for your conclusion. They aren't. Nor are they based on anything if you haven't even seen the debate. I'm going to assume the simple explanation, that the prison team won, until you present actual evidence that they didn't.

I'm honestly disturbed by all of the racist comments in this thread. Did /pol/ invade here?

>>7216879
I'm not making excuses for it. I think it's a travesty. I just want peoe to understand the real reason it's a travesty instead of focusing on the normal parts. Calm down.

>>7216932
I still don't see any points! Just buzzwords, identity politics and asmatic breathing

>>7216939
Wow that's a pretty autistic video

>>7216947
There is nothing normal about talking so fast. I think this is the most important part to address...

>>7216944
mention a black writer in any thread

>>7216944
nigger

>>7216944
Years ago, yes. This place has never been great for political discussions,but it became absolutely useless once /pol/ got big. I don't know if the same thing happened to other 4chan boards but I would not be surprised if it did.

>>7216943
For /pol/tards "all niggars r dum" is an axiomatic truth that makes actually seeing the debate unnecessary.

>>7216964
>that makes actually seeing the debate unnecessary.
As a /pol/tard, I'd be glad to see the debate. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been taped.

Judging on the other videos I've seen ITT, I'm pretty sure what to expect of the "debate"

>>7216943
I asked you to show me where I made this claim and you failed to do so. I'm going to respond to your post, but only to further embarrass you for my own personal pleasure

>You're presenting your assumptions as evidence for your conclusion.
Wrong again, I am presenting information on the judges, violent people, and the Harvard debating team as evidence for my assumption.
>Nor are they based on anything if you haven't even seen the debate.
Wrong one more time, my assumption is based upon publicly available information as seen in my above statement.
>I'm going to assume the simple explanation, that the prison team won, until you present actual evidence that they didn't.
Wrong three times in one post. I never said the prison team did not win; they obviously won, which is why we're even discussing them right now.

>>7216926
>If you can't respond to the actual content of my argument then please don't reply to me

>>7216972
oh my god if you are really so stupid not to understand what that guy is saying just leave

>>7216970
>Judging on the other videos I've seen ITT, I'm pretty sure what to expect of the "debate"

AFAIK, this debate was not a "policy debate" (the style of debate where you say shit really fast regardless of whether it makes sense or not), so it wouldn't have been like that.

>>7216972
Your "information" are generalities, presumptions, and meaninglessly large statistics - not information about the debate, not information about any of the participants, not even information about the degree program the prisoners were in.

Obviously the prison team won, I meant that your assumption is they didn't actually win. Nice reading comprehension.

Anyway thread reported for not literature.

>>7216988
It doesn't matter what type of debate it was. Everything they said was unintelligible. They don't deserve to win any debate

>>7216988
You're correct, it wasn't a policy debate. Which has already been said but people continue to ignore.

The Harvard team wasn't all white so much of this thread is bullshit. The Harvard team consisted of one white guy, a black chick, and some mystery meat brown girl (idk if she's a Latina or Indian or what).

Also, the inmates were arguing that public schools should be allowed to deny children of illegal immigrants enrollment, while the Harvard team was arguing that public schools didn't have that right.

If /pol/tards were smart they'd say the niggers won because the position they were defending is more logically defensible than the other, rather than construct a conspiracy theory.

Or they'd blame the two non-white girls on the Harvard team. That'd be very redpill because you could say that having 2/3rds of your debate team be women AND non-white is a greater disadvantage than having a team of three black guys.

>>7216985
>oh my god if you are really so stupid not to understand what that guy is saying just leave
Sorry, I really do not understand what you are trying to say right now. Can you rewrite this as a coherent sentence? Thanks

>>7216993
>I meant that your assumption is they didn't actually win. Nice reading comprehension.
I have excellent reading comprehension skills; sadly, you do not. My assumption is not that they didn't actually win, they did actually win (as I just stated), my assumption is that they did not deserve this win as based upon the personal background of the judges, "meaningless statistics" like those published by Rowell Huesmann, and the record and accomplishments of the Harvard debate team. All of this is information about the participants and about the debate, whether or not you choose to acknowledge the relation does not disprove its relevance.

>>7216972
>I'm going to respond to your post, but only to further embarrass you for my own personal pleasure

lol, is this satire?

>>7216848
Not him but sure, any convict has the potential to an intellectual equivalent of an average Harvard student.

>>7216911
> Eloquence, not committing logical fallacies

Those are about training, research and rehearsal much more than any kind of "raw intellectual power".

There is very little "raw intellectual power" (whatever it is) involved in those kind of debates anyway. What those guys are doing is little more than an educated conversation on a rather accessible topic. Anybody could do it, and almost anybody with a highschool education and a dozen hours of training and preparation could do it decently.

Just wanted to point that much you, it's not the only thing wrong with your arguments (or those of your opponents for that matter).

The quality of the argumentation itt is very low on both sides, btw. Even by /lit's standards, we're swimming in silly dichotomies and facile, unwarranted assumptions (not to mention the light trolling, but that at least is funny). I'd try to offer counterpoints, but that'd turn my 4chan hour into a 4chan evening.

I'm not even being condescending here, I just feels sad. You guys are obviously rather smart yet you get yourselves caught in silly arguments. I've done it a lot and I wish I hadn't.

Sage out of disgust and sadness.

>>7216988
>>7216999
How do you know this? Do you have a video of the debate?

>>7217046
That is blatantly false. The average convict lacks the intelligence to graduate high school.

>>7217053
>Just wanted to point that much you, it's not the only thing wrong with your arguments
It's wrong for me to expect a debater to be intelligible?

The only thing "wrong" about my argument is my assumption, which is obviously false, that debating is supposed to be about presenting convincing arguments in a clear way. Apparently, debating is googling facts on the internet and then repeating them as fast as you can. Thanks for clearing things up!

>>7217053
>everybody's stupid but me
>whoops gotta go

>>7217071
>How do you know this? Do you have a video of the debate?

Because some of the articles about the debate explicitly stated that it was not a policy debate.

>That is blatantly false. The average convict lacks the intelligence to graduate high school.

This assumes a lot.

>Apparently, debating is googling facts on the internet and then repeating them as fast as you can. Thanks for clearing things up!

Unfortunately, that's exactly what policy debate is about. That's not his fault.

>>7217085
I said I am stupid also.
But if you reread this thread and actually think for a minute you'll realize that is a good way of handling /lit.

Goddamn /lit you suck even at making fun of people.
I'm out and this time I'm disabling my computer.

>>7217071
>That is blatantly false. The average convict lacks the intelligence to graduate high school.
The massive implications in that statement aside,i said the potential to be, not that they already are

>>7217162
You can't change your intelligence...

>>7217071
>That is blatantly false. The average convict lacks the intelligence to graduate high school.
Do you have any evidence proving that the average convict lacks a high school degree.

Secondly, I honestly don't think lack of intelligence is the reason people don't finish high school in certain areas.

>>7216706
> Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.

>In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled. His partner Campbell, who won the top speaker award at the National Debate Tournament two weeks later, had been unfairly targeted by the police at the debate venue just days before, and cited this experience as evidence for his case against the government’s treatment of poor African-Americans.

>This year wasn’t the first time this had happened. In the 2013 championship, two men from Emporia State University, Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith, employed a similar style and became the first African-Americans to win two national debate tournaments. Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.

>>7216706
Look at all the white cucks coming in to defend these niggers.
College is dying lefties, killed by SJWs.

>>7217221
Look at this top cuck : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYm5GKA4vpY

>>7216939
We need a serious debate competition that's based on actual oratory skills and charisma. That would be useful, unlike this nonsense. In the real world you win a debate by being a better speaker, not by being right, and we should account for that so the kids actually learn useful skills for the real world.

>>7217248
We have that already. It's called parliamentary debate.

>>7217221
The niggers were arguing that public schools should be able to deny enrollment to children of illegal immigrants. They won.

Why are /pol/tards angry at this?

Does a point you agree with become invalid because a nigger defended it?

>>7217267
I think he was referring to the people in the video.

>>7217258
i youtubed parliamentary debate and i saw some guy in a bowl cut ending sentences with upwards intonation and doing that thing where you face your hands upward towards the audience in an exaggerated way when you make a point (universal sign of an amateur). either these guys aren't getting enough coaching or even that is nonsense

>>7217278
Where can one learn more about this?

>>7217271
I've seen no one ITT defend the "nigguh nigguh queer" team, except to point out that the weird speed talk was normal in policy debate (which is a joke anyway).

I think a lot of the /pol/tards are getting the Bard students mixed up with the team in that video.

>>7217278
>saw one youtube video
>now an expert

>picking on underprivileged minorities
ugh like really. gross. can you just like, go away? it's 2015 like, ugh. I can't even

>>7217311
>"Conceding that black convicts (defending a right wing belief) could beat a white man, a black woman, and some brown girl of unidentifiable race in a debate is literally supporting the terrorists and being a Tumblrina SJW!"

>>7217289
? parliamentary debate or the upward hand thing? i'm not sure if anyone talks about this but if you watch any high school/college kids giving a poor public speech they'll do it constantly. meanwhile if you watch someone like bill clinton who knows what he's doing speaking, he turns his hands upwards much more sparingly and does in a much more slow, restrained way then the amateurs. it's also followed by some other hand gesture, rather than the hand shrug upwards flip followed by a return to the arms at the sides.
it just seems like the universal sign of a new speaker.

compare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyb0TC_JGFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oRRaDwrBNU

>>7216798
Some edgy child? No thanks, weev is a bloody idiot.

>>7217340
picture

>>7217267
The way that these people were debating and how the whole "debate" system is set up which rewards this gasping Orwellian rapid speak is terrible.
What useful ideas or thoughts can be processed from it?

>>7217353
I'm talking about the debaters in OP, not the debaters in the video.

>>7216838
ayy
Is this how debates really work? I was never interested in the debate club during uni, don't have a clue.

>>7217367
Just policy debate.

>>7217390
Oh, I see. I guess it makes it less ridiculous.

Only an idiot cuck would believe that three niggers could defeat these three Aryan men in debate!

>>7217015
>x percentage of violent people have lower than average intelligence
>Assumption 1: These prisoners are in prison for violent crime
>Assumption 1a: The fact that these prisoners weren't chosen at random is irrelevant if the probability of random prisoners having lower intelligence is high

>I think that the judges might be biased in favor of granting the win to the inmates because it is progressive
>Assumption 2: These judges lean politically left

>Assumption 3: The accomplishments of X mean that they cannot lose to Y, with an unknown potential for accomplishment

>Conclusion: A debate team of inmates could not possibly have won against a team from Harvard

Do you see why your argument is bad, now?

>>7217431
>I think that the judges might be biased in favor of granting the win to the inmates because it is progressive
>Assumption 2: These judges lean politically left

What's funny about this (and what the /pol/tards seem unaware of) is that the Harvard team was defending the more left-leaning position while the prisoners were defending the more right-leaning position.

>>7217441

I wonder if that selection was intentional; the people who conservatives would like (Harvard grads) argue leftist positions and the people gender studies PhDs would sympathize with (prisoners) argue conservative standpoints.

>>7217431
The prisoners were in for manslaughter. 99.99999% chance every single judge was prog. The jail boys were arguing the republican side, so as long as it isn't about religion, there is a 95% chance that they had the correct argument and could have a steezy time shutting down the Harvard kids that have to argue for something that is incorrect.

>>7217635
its a good argument now that you assumed some random numbers instead of just assuming facts

>>7217431
>>x percentage of violent people have lower than average intelligence
>>Assumption 1: These prisoners are in prison for violent crime
>>Assumption 1a: The fact that these prisoners weren't chosen at random is irrelevant if the probability of random prisoners having lower intelligence is high
Cute format, it certainly looks very serious and logical with your use of big boy numbers, letters and colons, but I never actually shared this hypothetical statistic you are attacking. You invented this fictional claim, and the subsequent assumptions that follow it. In the future, please refute my actual claims, not the imaginary ones that you have decided represent me. That is dishonest, inaccurate, and lazy thinking. I know it is much easier to criticize arguments that you have created yourself for the sole purpose of criticizing, but that is no excuse; you are supposed to be refuting ME right now, not your fictional representation of me. Don't do this again, it will fall just as flat as it did this time.

>>I think that the judges might be biased in favor of granting the win to the inmates because it is progressive
>>Assumption 2: These judges lean politically left
This is not an unrealistic assumption without evidence. One judge was PhD student studying gender and politics, and another studied Middle East politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. I would be flabbergasted if these judges with a sociological focus did not lean politically left, as that is practically a requirement for studying sociology

>>Assumption 3: The accomplishments of X mean that they cannot lose to Y, with an unknown potential for accomplishment
Wrong (again), the assumption is that the accomplishments of X (X being the experienced National Debate champions associated with a rigorous and prestigious university) make it extremely likely that they will not lose to Y (a group of violent prisoners with little experience).

>>Conclusion: A debate team of inmates could not possibly have won against a team from Harvard
Wrong (yet again!). The conclusion is that this particular debate team of inmates likely won against Harvard (for the third time now, they very obviously won) due to the progressive bias in the judges rather than their skill at rhetoric.

>Do you see why your argument is bad, now?
No, I don't. You invented a false claim for me, intentionally misinterpreted a claim after having it explained to you TWICE in my previous post, unintentionally misinterpreted my conclusion probably due to poor reading comprehension skills, and actually listed very good assumptions which supported said conclusion. You did not refute me, but you did embarrass yourself spectacularly, so kudos.

>>7218079
I would also like to add that the prisoners were in prison for violent crime, that is not an assumption. One is serving a term for manslaughter, another for assault. I share this to further highlight you complete ignorance of what you are discussing

>>7217652
>le assumptions make an argument wrong fallacy

This arrogant 15 yo thinks understanding logic puts him at the top of the intellectual pyramid (because le rationality is everything meme) but it only takes him 1 or 2 steps from the bottom. His belief that logic is the key to the universe may stop him from progressing any further. In fact, that belief is illogical.

>inb4 list of what I'm assuming

>>7218117
Are you familiar with the statistical concept of the null hypothesis?

>>7216810
preach

>>7217441
>>7217516

Who was arguing for what is completely irrelevant as to what the protestations to this video is about. The topic could have been about whether reanimating Ronald Reagan is a great idea or merely a good one, and the problem is that neither team can actually formulate a coherent sentence, and don't actually address the assigned topic, and get brownie points for refusing to actually talk about the topic because following the rules is white oppression.

>>7216798
>Cervantes, Dostoevsky, Wilde, More, Burroughs, Solzhenitsyn, Voltaire are all stupid

Kill yourself.

>>7219690
Meant to reply to
>>7216785

>>7219330
Those two posts were about the debate between the prisoners and the Harvard team, not the weird policy debate about presidential war powers where they keep talking about queer niggers.

>>7216675
The guy on the right is a jew. Probably the guy in the middle as well, but I care so little about this thread that I can't be bothered to look it up.

That was all i came to say.

(You know, like Obama, that is "black". Even though he's just as much white. It's not a very difficult concept).

>>7219747
>Even though he's just as much white. It's not a very difficult concept

And everybody on your favorite board calls him a nigger, strange, isn't it?