[HN Gopher] Critical theory is radicalizing high school debate ___________________________________________________________________ Critical theory is radicalizing high school debate Author : taeric Score : 111 points Date : 2023-07-29 14:18 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.slowboring.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.slowboring.com) | throwawayqqq11 wrote: | Did i read it correctly? The main problem is the lack of good | responses? | | The debate landscape wouldn't change with good rebuttals. | api wrote: | It reminds me a bit of when a new class of exploit is discovered, | like in the early Internet when buffer overflows became popular. | You have a period where the exploit gets abused widely until | countermeasures are developed and deployed. | | In this case it seems to be out of context use of cultural | critique as a way to throw off the opponent and change the | subject. If the debate were actually about these topics that | would be another story. | | This one must be more popular in academic settings. Online the | most popular exploit I see is the "Gish gallop." | | I only regard debate as having much value when both sides are | debating in good faith. Use of thought stopping tactics reduces | the whole thing to a mere sophistry contest with no value beyond | testing how powerful the LLM is between each debater's ears. | dgs_sgd wrote: | To question the premises of the debate topic rather than support | a side seems like a huge cop-out. You don't have to do your | research to support evidence based arguments and your opponent | who may have done their research to support their arguments now | has to argue against a completely different position for which | their evidence is useless. | | What is going to happen when these people wield actual power in | politics and public policy and the conclusion policy debates is | "society is rotten to the core" (example Kritik from the | article). | dundarious wrote: | There is an argument that "debate" in the manner performed by | these clubs primarily trains people to think _only_ in the | ideological terms /framing given to them by their "betters". | "Debate" in this sense is intellectually impoverished. Call it | "rhetorics" if that's all you want -- it's useful, but it is | more akin to Toastmasters than politics or political debate. | | If there is to be any actual political thinking involved, then | some challenge to the given framing must be allowed, or the | framing must be capaciously defined. But it will still be | mostly a lesson in rhetoric. | cratermoon wrote: | > To question the premises of the debate rather than support a | side seems like a huge cop-out | | No, in fact it is the beginning of wisdom. Contrary to your | assertion that you don't have to do research, the ability to | question the premises begins with understanding not only your | argument but many other arguments as well. | zdragnar wrote: | In my experience, it was a cop-out. In my day, it was usually | centered on some grammatical error that turned into a game of | semantics. | | The whole point is to catch your opponent off guard and | reframe the topic into an arena they hadn't prepared for. | Debate rounds don't really allow time for thoughtful | contemplation; you typically have at most a minute of prep | time between speeches within the round. | cratermoon wrote: | Well, nobody ever accused high school debate teams as being | founts of wisdom. | oofta-boofta wrote: | [dead] | woah wrote: | They aren't going to wield power because "talk fast and derail | the entire conversation with unrelated arguments that appeal to | far-left college students" isn't going to convince any normal | people of anything and is not a useful rhetorical technique. | The most this style of debate might do is to cause left wing | political cause to shoot themselves in the foot. | dgb23 wrote: | This article reads like satire. | | The prerogative of the young is to question the status quo in | fundamental ways. | | They aren't yet restricted by responsibility and dependents. They | haven't become numb yet. Let them be sharp and radical. | | Does the author prefer control and indoctrination? | | Positive cultural change can't happen if we force the young and | the free into a box. All of the freedoms we have have been fought | against the mainstream and against established power. | | We will always need radical and critical ideas to move forward. | We need young people to be able to say that our questions and | subjects are fundamentally wrong. | almost_usual wrote: | I agree this is really nothing new. | scarmig wrote: | One of the points Yglesias makes is that judges prejudge | certain arguments to be wrong. For instance, one judge says | | > 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. | | At this point, the status quo (at least in debate, but also | more broadly) is simply mouthing liberal pieties. Repeating | "Black Lives Matter" a thousand times is neither sharp nor | radical, and it's funny to see people whose ideas are | incredibly conventional think of themselves as a rebel. | dragonwriter wrote: | > At this point, the status quo (at least in debate, but also | more broadly) is simply mouthing liberal pieties | | A single example chosen specifically because it is extreme | isn't the status quo, and Maoism isn't (and is opposed to) | liberalism. | scarmig wrote: | There's liberalism as a political theory (with all its | variations, from classical to Rawlsian), which is admirable | and distinct from Maoism. But there's also the "liberalism" | that's more accurately described as "the set of cultural, | social, and political beliefs broadly held by the college | educated, urban, professional class." And professing | adherence to Maoism is entirely acceptable in that milieu, | in a way that professing adherence to e.g. the Religious | Right or Trumpism is not. (The fact that this judge's | commitment to Maoism is purely symbolic verbal signaling | and not linked to any actual activism is besides the | point.) | | Imagine a judge said he was a committed fascist who would | judge students on that basis, regardless of the quality of | their arguments. Would that be considered acceptable in the | same way the Maoist judge is? Just last night I had dinner | with a friend who was telling me about a family member's | encounter with Maoist justice: he was murdered by being | thrown down a well during the Cultural Revolution. | | Or, take the other angle. Suppose you had a staffer on Fox | News who spent his off hours writing racist screeds on | white supremacist forums (this has actually happened IIRC). | Would you take it as a single extreme example that's not | worth thinking about, or would you take it as indicative of | some deeply troubling aspects of the modern Right? | panarky wrote: | Then there's liberalism as a political tradition that | advocates free markets, laissez-faire economics, civil | liberties under the rule of law, and individual autonomy, | limited government, economic freedom, political freedom, | and freedom of speech. | | In liberal democracy, an elected government cannot | discriminate against specific individuals or groups when | it administers justice, protects basic rights such as | freedom of assembly and speech, provides for collective | security, or distributes economic and social benefits. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > A single example chosen specifically because it is | extreme isn't the status quo, | | This seems to be the lesson we're slow at learning. | | A steady diet of extreme examples tends to shift one's | perspective toward a bad position. The position is bad | because it struggles to discern reality well - because bad | inputs keep skewing the math. | cdtwigg wrote: | FYI this post was actually written by Maya the intern (Matt | only writes the weekday posts). | throw0101a wrote: | > _> [...] 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_ [...] | | Then why would you waste everyone's time, including yours, in | being a judge? It's like being a figuring skating judge and | saying " _I hate the cold and so think this sport done in a | cold environ is dumb so will give everyone a zero._ " | morelisp wrote: | Well, no, most debate topics are not "is political take X | good?" Policy questions could be affirmed by leftist | positions and argued against from other leftist positions. | I think the judge's stance is boring, but everyone seems to | be missing that _high school policy debate is not meant to | make an actual policy decision._ It 's meant to teach | students how to argue within a frame - which is how lots of | arguments necessarily happen! You just don't like this | judge's particular frame. | morelisp wrote: | This is the classic problem of education having to balance | expression and practice. Bringing a gun to a swordfight is | effective but if you're in a kendo class it's not especially | helpful. Such is the effect of kritik within policy debate. | People should learn kritik, I even agree with much of it, but | you also want to learn how to argue actual topics. And | especially as someone who often agrees with kritik, I would | rather the kids exercise that skill here where it doesn't | matter, than in the real world with real impacts. | dgb23 wrote: | Thank you for explaining this perspective. There's for sure a | balance here between playful education and actual, invested | debate. I was leaning too much on the latter, but the former | is just as valuable. | morelisp wrote: | I think your comment was fair; you also want them to learn | when to bring a gun! I also wholly agree with you that the | article's case as presented is quite weak. I read it hoping | to learn some kind of actual radicalization of policy | debate was happening, not the same pro-K vs. anti-K retread | we had 25 years ago but with artificial woke/anti-woke | flavor. The author did not develop the ability to frame | their arguments in a clear way so that even those who | disagree can engage with the ideas therein. (Which itself | is maybe the best argument against my defense of policy | debate; well, that's also why I left it my senior year in | favor of other events...) | RajT88 wrote: | This seems much better than the last article I read about trends | in high school debate, which basically was talking over the other | person and using the gish-gallop maneuver: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop | dadadad100 wrote: | Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a name for this | technique. If you listened to RFK jr on Lex recently you heard | many many examples. And also Trump. I've only heard it | described as "flood the zone with shit", which is a reference | to a football (American) tactic | tekla wrote: | A big point in debate is learning how to deal with gish-gallop. | That shit only works if you don't know how to deal with it. | AYBABTME wrote: | How do you deal with it? | morelisp wrote: | A gish gallop is an asymmetric attack. They can produce | nonsense faster than, say, a physicist can produce physics | or a mathematician proofs; and usually have nothing else to | do with their time. But in a policy debate framework both | sides have equal time, neither is doing original research | and both are expected to cite qualified evidence, the judge | understands the structural flow of the arguments, and you | can say "this is nonsense" faster than they can "explain" | the point. | | Or as Wikipedia even says: _Generally, it is more difficult | to use the Gish gallop in a structured debate than a free- | form one._ | zbentley wrote: | Careful note taking, keeping your head and identifying | contingent and similar arguments such that you don't have | to spend tons of time on each counterpoint, prioritizing | offensive ("your claim X actually supports my side, not | yours, because Y", aka. turns) rebuttals over defensive | ones, and not spending undue time on weaker claims that the | judge is likely to doubt as well. | | There's a lot more you can do, but those are some pretty | uncontentious strategies. | | Source: debated for 8 years in school. | morelisp wrote: | I can see why speed debate can seem like a gish gallop, but | it's not. And the way policy is structured it's definitely not | talking over anyone (except I suppose in some of the absolutely | radical Ks that attempt to destroy the policy format, and even | K-friendly judges hate those). | RajT88 wrote: | Trying to find the article now. I am pretty sure that they | were not misunderstanding the dynamics of speed debate, and | kids were actually using the gish gallop. | yieldcrv wrote: | I think this is a useful form of thinking, while exhausting for | actually attending a debate competition. | | Much of the world doesn't operate in affirmation and negations. | | And even most of American's political divisions only masquerade | as opposites, but if you listen - which neither 'side' does - | you'll see they aren't opposites except in result. While other | results are possible that do possibly bridge consensus. | guerrilla wrote: | I can't stand the actual examples here (which reek of low quality | Continental philosophy and dogmatic nonsense) but rejecting and | questioning premises is definitely something I support, | especially for young people. | binary132 wrote: | this is bait. | dang wrote: | It does contain ideological flamebait but the details around | high school debating are interesting and uncorrelated with any | common topic here. That makes it a good candidate for an HN | thread. As many commenters have been adding their own | interesting experience with high school debates, I think HN is | 'winning' this one so far (i.e. there are more thoughtful | comments than flamewars). | onychomys wrote: | My partner and I went 36-4 in our senior year* in policy debate | because we continually argued that the federal government was | inefficient and corrupt and we should instead just give block | grants to the states. In the mid 1990s in Montana, that was a | nearly unbeatable strategy. It's always been about finding the | one argument that the judge will be unable to ignore instead of | about the actual evidence you have for all the rest of it. | | *we lost the state championship to a team from Hardin, MT, | population about 4000 and guess where the state championship was | held that year? | [deleted] | tekla wrote: | These alt debates were well around 20 years ago. It was | incredibly rare that they succeeded because: | | a) most judges didn't really like it when the debate becomes some | weird meta thing. | | b) most teams that ran this were NOT good at debate. | | What seems new is Judges completely throwing out the substance of | the debate and relying on their own political views for the | round. | morelisp wrote: | > b) most teams that ran this were NOT good at debate. | | Yep. Everyone on my team who ran Ks, especially neg, were the | people too lazy to do actual research against multiple plans. | kurthr wrote: | If, by political views, you mean boredom with a well worn | artificial meta argument that makes a farce of whatever rules | do exist in debate. It was funny/interesting once. | projektfu wrote: | Now that you say that, it reminds me that there was a term for | it at least 25 years ago. Something like "dark policy"... | klooney wrote: | This was ubiquitous back when I was doing debate, around 20 years | ago. The ship sailed long ago. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | I never debated, but it was explained to me that a key aspect | was talking as fast as you can to introduce as much | argumentation to your point as possible (newspaper scoring, | kind of). | | "I guess misdirection from deconstructionistism would be an | entertaining alternate tactic. Yes you have introduced 122 | points in your favor, but alas the very foundation of your | arguments is undermined by my simple deconstruction." | | The world/life is insane. It is far too large to understand, | and even if you did, so unpredictable to be predicted anyway. | Thus logical argumentation is subject to nihilistic | nullification by a sufficiently skilled / pedantic debater? | imbnwa wrote: | In the 00s alone, I can remember: Fort Hays State winning CEDA | Nationals on engaging indigenous rather than Western thought; | New York University winning CEDA Nationals on Zizek's 'letter | of the law' paradox as a warrant to trying George W Bush at the | International Criminal Court for war crimes; Kentucky- | Louisville winning CEDA Nationals on the racial and class bias | of policy debate. I can't recall if a Kritik ever won the NDT, | but much like the TOC, the judging pool is much more a closed | loop of the inside circle the competition. | syndicatedjelly wrote: | [dead] | cushychicken wrote: | Same. The kritik and topicality argument forms were everywhere, | and typically pretty fucking boring. | | It was rare that any negative team would take the time to | present counterarguments to any discrete part of the | affirmative plan. | | These, plus the shotgun, rapidfire delivery style, dominated | policy debate, and made it pretty un-fun to participate in. | | I ended up switching to extemporaneous speaking and enjoying it | a lot more. | livinginfear wrote: | I remember seeing this video a while ago: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8 Is this actually | indicative of the kind of structured debate that happens in | colleges? | jasonhansel wrote: | > I've almost exclusively read variations of Marxism-Leninism- | Maoism | | Yikes. | syndicatedjelly wrote: | This has been going on for a long time. Im 15 years removed and | made a hard U turn back to STEM after high school, but nihilism | never left me. I blame some of it on debate, and some of it on | doing salvia (with people from debate) | ivraatiems wrote: | This article smacks of a classic bad-debater behavior: "I can't | win rhetorically on the power of my own argument so I'll attack | the people and techniques that are beating me instead of | addressing them substantively." | | The correct response to "the whole world is broken and we can't | debate X because it's stoppered by Y" is "the world is not broken | (enough) to not debate X because there are practical things we | can do about X." | | If that's a unpersuasive argument, well, then it's unpersuasive | and you ought to ask yourself why. It's always possible the | judges are biased in favor of one argument or another, but that's | how the game has always worked. | | There are lots of arguments against critical theory that have | merit and are useful in debate. "Boo hoo I don't like critical | theory" isn't one of them. | ink_13 wrote: | Formalized debating like this bears about as much resemblance | to persuasion as fencing does to actual sword fighting. That | is, the broad strokes are similar but ultimately it's highly | stylized and not actually the other thing. | rutierut wrote: | The whole debate format has been broken forever. Improving | people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't | believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. | | This stage seems like a marginal improvement, with the biggest | con being that it's more anti-rationalist. Rationalism isn't a | panacea, but one needs to master it in order to effectively argue | post-modern critical theories. | | Competitive debate has always sucked and apparently still sucks. | tekla wrote: | > Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things | they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. | | If you can't argue in the affirmative of the other side, you | probably don't actually understand the topic to being with, and | are probably not very good at critical thinking. | rutierut wrote: | I completely agree with this. If you're arguing against | trickle-down economics you should know where people arguing | for it are coming from and be able to phrase it in a manner | that its proponents agree with. | | This also happens to be one of the most (holistically) | effective techniques irl when "debating" with someone. | tsuujin wrote: | > Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things | they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. | | I disagree with this so very much. | | High school debate was foundational for my adult ability to | recognize that nuance exists. Arguing a position that you don't | personally believe in, and winning, is a massively useful tool | in understanding that for the majority of topics there are | reasonable, intelligent, and acceptable arguments for both | sides. | | This is a trait seeming missing from most other adults I | interact with. Too many people accept blindly that there is a | correct and incorrect position and no room in between. | rahimnathwani wrote: | "Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things | they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea." | | Why? One consequence might be to improve your ability to | steelman an argument with which you disagree. | rutierut wrote: | Fair point that is useful, but the majority of people never | steelman anything, a significant amount of people will even | refuse to steelman anything on moral grounds. Strawmanning on | the other hand... | goodpoint wrote: | Pushing for competition instead of rational thinking is bad. | Learning steelmanning is just one minor benefit. | ryuhhnn wrote: | Is critical theory a rhetorical dead-end if you want to seriously | debate something? Sure, but framing a debate and constricting it | to a dichotomy is no less radicalising than a critical theory | argument. I think people dislike critical theory so much because | they know that it shifts focus to the structures everyone knows | control society but nobody wants to acknowledge. Sure, it's lazy | to blindly advocate for revolution for the sake of revolution, | but it's also lazy to reject a line of philosophical inquiry just | because you don't like how it was presented. What should high | school debate even be for? Should we restrict it to rhetorical | sandboxes, or should we allow it to be a forum where ideas can be | put forth and debated? | taeric wrote: | I think the point is some view debate as a way to force folks | to consider views they might not fully agree with. The search | for common ground was the lesson. | | As this story is presented, a lot of these feel like non- | sequiturs. Not wrong, and not not worth discussing, but not in | the spirit of the debate. | agg23 wrote: | My high school Policy league (2010+) did not allow kritiks | essentially at all. It was an extremely rare occurrence to run a | negative plan (I'm not sure I ever saw it myself). An aff kritik | would absolutely not have been tolerated as we would ding them | significantly on Topicality (sticking to the required | resolution), which is voted on halfway through the round (so if | aff loses, the round is over). I was one of the most resolution | bending debators, with most of my aff plans going outside the | bounds of what everyone else thought of for that topic. | | I think my league was very abnormal however as we had a lot of | layman, parent judges that we had to teach rules to (and | sometimes the teams had conflicting interpretations), and we | didn't allow more abusive techniques such as speed and spread (a | common technique in Policy or Parli to present arguments as | quickly as possible to prevent the opposite team from being able | to address all of them, resulting in a de facto win). We would | never have allowed someone to judge with a bio of "I will no | longer evaluate and thus never vote for ... fascism good, | capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, | defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism", and it's | insane to me that this was allowed at a top end tournament. There | were certainly judges that brought their own priors (and we tried | to keep track of them to help the rest of our club out), but they | generally didn't announce it in such a damaging way. | proxiful-wash wrote: | Shameless reminder that this it Russian Chinese State that wants | every part of this argument in our society to do one thing. | Absolutely annihilate this west, this has been their plan for | well over twenty years: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics | projektfu wrote: | I debated in the Lincoln-Douglas format (policy wasn't big in my | area) and would sometimes try arguments from deconstructionist | points of view. The judges never really understood them and | without their understanding, the arguments couldn't remain | strong. In L-D having better analogies often was a stronger | method than being clever. | | I suppose that's something that was different in policy debate, | where as I understand it, nonsense can be debated so long as the | other side responds to it? Also, which approach leads to nuclear | war? Calling the frame of the debate legitimate or illegitimate? | [deleted] | popilewiz wrote: | [dead] | RugnirViking wrote: | Thats always been the problem with competetive debate - you're | supposed to argue a position that often has significant culutural | weight, meaning its unlikely anything you say will change anyones | mind. I was once asked to debate a pro slavery stance in debate | class despite obviously everyone being against it. I felt our | team did pretty well and the other team did barely anything and | yet everyone voted for the other side. Often the only way to | succeed is by reframing the stupid position you are supposed to | argue for entirely, which appears to be what this is talking | about. | AndrewKemendo wrote: | Genuinely, in non academic competition often the best way to | "beat" an opponent is to change the rules | | Examples of this that are well understood are regulatory | capture, where group A convinces a more powerful group B to | enforce a new constraint on all competitors to group A. | Generally the constraint is a marginal impediment to group A | and so "levels the playing field" *wink* | | So the idea that there's some pure form of rhetoric that is | actually worth practicing, given that human conflict (from the | minor to the major) is rarely to never solved via this | mechanism (even in formal legal proceedings) - it's not clear | what is actually being learned here | | Other than later in life realizing how formal debate has almost | no application and it's all about how you refine and evaluate | your own arguments. | mbg721 wrote: | Opponents of abortion would argue that the same "this isn't | really a human" tactics that the Nazis used are still alive; if | everyone is comfortable, it sounds like there's a lot of "at | least we're not the baddies" going on. | mikepurvis wrote: | You see that even on sites like this one (or reddit), where the | etiquette page beseeches everyone to vote for comments that are | useful, insightful, or well-argued, rather than just what they | agree with (especially _already_ agree with). | | But it never really seems to play out that way; it's always | pretty easy to farm karma by restating a popular opinion, | cracking a joke, or dunking on the target de jour. | Pannoniae wrote: | This website isn't even that bad compared to literally almost | anywhere on the internet. From what I've observed with my | comments, my "popular opinion" and "unpopular opinion" | comments aren't _that_ far apart in terms of comment karma. | | One-liner trivialisms and cheap baiting usually gets flagged | here, not upvoted regardless of the topic, which is a very | positive thing. I am very grateful to the site's admins and | users for this lovely place, it's truly a unique thing. | rahimnathwani wrote: | it's always pretty easy to farm karma by restating a popular | opinion, cracking a joke, or dunking on the target de jour | | Interestingly, my most upvoted recent comment was one stating | a position that was opposed to ~all of the existing comments | on a thread. | AlbertCory wrote: | that could mean they were taking advantage of upvote | anonymity, and agreeing without having to put their name to | it. | rahimnathwani wrote: | Perhaps! But in this case it wasn't an opinion that could | cause embarrassment or cancellation. | threatofrain wrote: | If something is an interesting debate then most people don't | have the expertise to engage meaningfully with the facts and | arguments being put forward. Experts can bullshit you all day | and no amount of critical thinking is going to pull you out | of a deep well of ignorance. | gloryjulio wrote: | So called competitive debate is really just a joke about who | talk faster. There is no positive feedback loops where either | side should take a moment to think and gives feedback. | Sometimes agree to disagree is the best option. You learn | nothing from this. | | It's basically twitter debate before twitter exists where ppl | talking over each other | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > Often the only way to succeed is by reframing the stupid | position you are supposed to argue for entirely, which appears | to be what this is talking about. | | Winning seems like a low-value goal here. Classroom simulations | exist so students can be exposed to the reality of consequences | and outcomes. | | I feel better goals here would be how to immerse yourself in an | unfamiliar/unwanted position and how to understand the dynamics | of a scenario with competing, entrenched positions. | IshKebab wrote: | The one time I've been to a debate they asked everyone's | opinion on the topic before and after the debate, and then the | winners were the ones who persuaded the most people to change | their minds. So you can still win even if you're arguing for an | unpopular opinion. | | It was such an elegant metric I assumed all competitive debates | used it. From this article it sounds like they just have judges | that vote for the winner though? Crazy. | rqtwteye wrote: | Intelligence Squared does this but I think most debates suck | anyways. | CrazyPyroLinux wrote: | I think this is called an "Oxford style" debate. | | thesohoforum.org puts on a lot of good ones. | motohagiography wrote: | The problem with this type of theory is that you have to accept | that _everything_ is x-ist first, and then the speaker iterates | on logic that seems internally consistent, _after_ you have | accepted that the axioms (and conclusions) of their system of | reasoning are true. The problem is that since the axioms and | conclusions are negatively defined, any statement within it can | seem internally consistent, so it doesn 't matter they just run | down the clock and rope in the credulous. | | The legitimacy of these critical theories seems to rest on | Kripke's invention of so-called "modal logics," which I | understand were initially presented as a progressive reaction in | philosophy departments to the positive logics derived from maths. | The criteria for logic is that it "adds up," or more accurately, | our rules about logic and consistency (from Godel, Russell, and | others) were only deemed to represent reality if the logical | system could represent arithmetic. Kripke seemed to propose that | if you revisit and start with logics that cannot represent | arithmetic, you still get consistent logical forms, which are | sufficient for expressing a much larger range of phenomena. | Because sure, if you produce nonsense, nonsense can represent | anything. It's the definition of magical thinking, but within a | couple of decades, it was being presented as the "formal" logical | underpinnings for a variety of essentially marxist ideologies of | different intersectional flavours, where they produce the same | circular bullshit with only a few words changed, and with the | same object in mind: dissolution of meaning and the destruction | (neutralization) of discourse as a means to create chaos and to | seize power. | | It is a rhetorical system for protagonizing antagonists. We can | sythesize these ideologies pretty trivially and inject them into | naive minds that turn them into either activists, or neutralize | any resistance to them because they're just baffling gibberish | with the threat of political consequences. Nobody wants to admit | they have been fooled or taken, and its easier to attack the | people who point it out than to admit that you have been bullied | and hustled by highly trained pros. | | High school teachers judging middle school debate clubs aren't | equipped to handle this, but theory is teaching kids to rhyme out | ideologies that are entertaining, and even charismatic, but | they're nothing but the same old tropes of the 20th century and | its grisly consequences. | User23 wrote: | To me it sounds like you're just describing enthymemes[1]. You | don't need modal logic for that, just plain old Aristotelian | rhetoric. And rhetorically you can fly a whole lot of | ridiculous premise under the radar in the unstated leg so it's | a powerful technique. It works somewhat similarly to the | technique of "assuming the sale." | | I don't have much to say about CRT or whatever you want to call | that rhetorical program today, but it doesn't take any great | analytical ability to suss out the unstated premises. And if | you do it becomes pretty clear that the whole enterprise isn't | exactly intellectually honest. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme | motohagiography wrote: | Nobody needed modal logic, it was a scam to elevate synthetic | ideologies to pass them off as scholarly inquiry. Now we have | generations of indoctrinated kids who "problematize," things. | Scratching the surface of that at all brings the whole | edifice down. | cratermoon wrote: | An enthymeme is like saying "giving everyone free health care | would be socialism!", and leaving out the unstated premise | that socialism is bad. It's surprising how much garbage can | be shoveled into an argument if it's anchored on one premise | the audience believes without evidence. | Guvante wrote: | Isn't the entire point of debate to restrict how you can argue in | order to provide a similar creative structure to artists using | arbitrary rules? | | Doesn't allowing adhoc attacks on semi related structures | effectively bypass that structure? | | Also given the notes in the article it sounds like the judges are | too generous with blue sky proposals. "It would be neat if" does | not make good policy and shouldn't make good debate. | | Policy and by extension debate should focus on changes small | enough that the outcome of the change is predictable. "Capitalism | is terrible" is easy to show but an off ramp to anything else | requires more than an hour of explanation... | welshwelsh wrote: | Yes, but a more important function of debate in school is to | expose people to new ideas and to question assumptions. | Unfortunately, debates are often structured in a way that | forces students to accept some ideas and prevents them from | expressing others, which is a problem. | | For example, whether you argue to raise or lower the minimum | wage, either way you are still implicitly accepting the wage | system. By framing the debate in this way, the teachers prevent | students who oppose the wage system from having an opportunity | to express their views. | | Another example - as Noam Chomsky wrote about in "Manufacturing | Consent", after the Vietnam War, the New York Times discussed | many different theories for why the US didn't "win" the war. | But it never considered the obvious - that the war itself was a | mistake, and the US was wrong to be there in the first place. | Framing the debate in this way is a way of silencing the | opposition, by presenting two "sides" that are actually both on | the same side and only disagree about trivial details. | | If you opposed the Vietnam war, then it would be against your | interests to follow the rules of a "debate" about how to win | the war. The correct course of action in this scenario is to | take the opportunity to argue for what you believe and to | undermine the debate itself, even if it results in you "losing" | the debate. | morelisp wrote: | > Yes, but a more important function of debate in school is | to expose people to new ideas and to question assumptions. | | While this is definitely the overall goal of teaching debate, | it's not clear to me this is actually how policy debate in | school should _operate_ in order to teach that. For one | thing, I think other events (congressional is more persuasive | and iterative, group discussion more freeform and | collaborative, L-D more moralistic) have the potential to do | this better. Policy 's structure is really meant to force you | to defend an evidence-based position in depth. Basically | inherent the format is that at least 50% of the time you | won't agree with it. | [deleted] | JHorse wrote: | Good. | | This country has been in desperate need of revolutionaries for | far too long. | | Respecting the structures and rules of polite society let the | Climate Change "Debate" feed denialism that's literally burning | the world down around these kids right now. | | They're going to need to make some radical moves quickly once | they get to positions of influence, and it's heartening to know | that they're preparing for that. | [deleted] | prohobo wrote: | There was a period where people were claiming that critical | theory is being pushed in schools, while school board members | refuted the claim as nonsense. Then it became clear that the | students aren't being taught critical theory at all, but are | being subjected to critical pedagogy - ie. teaching methods | influenced by critical theory. | | So, the school board was correct! | morelisp wrote: | What? Especially ca. 2005 all the _coaches_ I knew hated Ks. | The influence was often from the _judges_ who were not | teachers, but former policy debate kids now at university. | runpommel wrote: | [flagged] | jsmcgd wrote: | Why do the debate organisers tolerate this? If the debate is X | versus Y, why allow someone to say we should really be discussing | Z? Imagine this in any other competitive arena like sport where | during a match some team starts playing another sport entirely. | There's nothing wrong with debating critical theory but not if | that's not what's being debated. It should be an automatic fail, | just as it would be if you're supposed to debating in a certain | language and you refuse to do so. This just seems like deliberate | sabotage/propaganda masquerading as sincere communication. As | much fault lies with the organisers as with those who wish to | deliberately pervert the debate. | kleinsch wrote: | The article explains it. Students like these formats bc they | fit with their interests and politics, students graduate, the | ones that were most active in debate become judges and | reinforce that these topics will be rewarded | aabhay wrote: | As a debate student that goes to dozens of tournaments a year, | arguing about the same policy topic over and over can get very | dry. When I was in high school debate, I found these diverse | literatures exciting and stimulating, which made my passion for | debate much stronger. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > As a debate student that goes to dozens of tournaments a | year, arguing about the same policy topic over and over can | get very dry. | | That brings up a good point. We probably need to | differentiate between a student debate as part of a class vs | extracurricular debating. | | Students participating in a classroom debate only get so many | minutes of exposure; each is valuable. Tighter boundaries | would seem to be called for there. | peterlk wrote: | This absolutely happens. Running a K (kritik) is a risk because | if the judge decides that you're full of shit, they can | basically just ignore your case. Your opponent can make an | argument to throw the kritik out, and then you're dead in the | water | AYBABTME wrote: | As a foreigner with kids growing up in the US, this crazy bias | toward critical-everything in the US education system makes me | worried that my kids will be indoctrinated in some weird | speculative theory instead of educated in normal fields in a | focused and rational manner. It leaves me wondering if I | shouldn't send them abroad to some school system that has | remained sane. | knewter wrote: | Homeschool your kids. No one else cares about them | mbg721 wrote: | In my area of the forgotten flyover country, the options are: | | 1) Public school for free for middle-of-the-road (in our | district) results, and be at the mercy of school-board | politics, | | 2) Do Catholic school, and we agree with the religious | particulars of the Catholic school near us, but it's | expensive and they may be weak in STEM and global social | studies, | | 3) Join a home-school co-op, and use the flexibility and | extra time to get it all right and fill in any gaps. | | I don't know what the right answer is, but 3 is looking | increasingly good. | skyechurch wrote: | As a public school teacher in the US, I would strongly suggest | you look into the real conditions at your public school and | weight those observations much more strongly than viral takes | in the outrage economy. | | (Not to suggest that there is or isn't nonsense going in in | your district - really do get involved - think of this a Kritik | of the very bad incentives which exist in substack world.) | drewrv wrote: | "Kids are doing something differently from how we used to do it" | is always a red flag for me. | | The fact that traditional high school debate produced leaders | such as Nixon, Pelosi, and Larry Summers is not the ringing | endorsement of the process that the author seems to think. | | I think this a compelling argument: "minimum wage is an | irrelevant debate in a country where basic necessities such as | housing, healthcare, and education are increasingly out of reach. | Structural reforms are needed, not minor adjustments to | regulations that often go ignored." | | If people don't think that's compelling, I'd love to hear that | argument! But the author's complaint is framed as "kids today are | doing it wrong" and it doesn't really counter the points the kids | are making. | aabhay wrote: | Interesting to hear that the high school debate world is just | like it was when I went to high school 20 years ago. | | I became somewhat radical and left wing through my debate | experience and then took action on it in college (participated in | lots of illegal/anti-cap collective actions at Berkeley) and | ultimately found that the entire revolutionary cause and | "movement" are intellectually bankrupt. It all certainly sounds | and feels very different when you can flit around the | intellectual landscape in a debate versus having to settle on a | real vindication and make your life out of it. | erulabs wrote: | Had a similar experience - I was exceedingly excited after | reading the communist manifesto, some Jorge Luis Borges, and a | number of other revolutionary texts as a kid. I searched high | and low for people to talk seriously about this with. It wasn't | until well into my late twenties I finally realized all the | pleasant, satisfying, productive conversations I'd had had been | with moderates or what I may have once foolishly called | "imperialists". | | I do love talking to bright young communists tho. It's | amazingly pleasing to introduce an ounce of doubt, or | conversely an ounce of appreciation for the world we inhabit. | bratgpttamer wrote: | > When debaters reject the topic and advocate for these critical | theories, they choose not to engage in pragmatic policy | discussions. Instead, they condemn American institutions and | society as rotten to the core. They conclude that reform is | hopeless and the only solution is to burn it all down. Even if | they're not advocating for kritiks, in order to succeed at the | national level, debaters have to learn how to respond critical | theory arguments without actually disagreeing with their radical | principles. | | Debating without actually disagreeing seems like an entirely | frivolous and self-gratifying activity. | | I dunno what the carbon footprint of a national-level debate is, | but maybe they could just see whose TikTok gets the most likes? | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-29 23:01 UTC)