Monday, May 05, 2014

College Wins US Debate Championship By Repeating the N-Word Over and Over, Speaking Incomprehensibly

On March 24, Towson University won the 2014 Cross Examination Debate Association's national championship. Towson defeated the University of Oklahoma. What was Towson's strategy? Inexplicably using the N-word over and over again in an incomprehensible tirade.

Here is an actual excerpt (with profanity redacted). See if you are able to tell what Towson is arguing in favor or against:
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.

Have no idea what the person was arguing? Here, maybe another real excerpt will help you:
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!

Again, this is a national championship. The organization that holds the debate was founded over 40 years ago and has held national debate tournaments for decades.

[caption id="attachment_25941" align="alignnone" width="960"]The Champions The Champions[/caption]

Here is another real excerpt from the debate:
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.

One last excerpt from the winners:
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!

By the way, they were debating the WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.

If you are able to handle the quotes above, you might find watching the actual excerpts interesting. You can find that in the video below.

Update: The previous video, which contained excerpts from the debate, was taken down by YouTube. However, you can see the entirety of the 4-hour ordeal in the video below. The second quote starts at the 1:08:12 mark:


Update #2: Someone re-uploaded the video I had originally embedded, which included the excerpts I quoted above. You can watch it below:

160 comments:

  1. Um.......these were the two finalists? Sad.....very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gotta love Government Schools. This is what we get.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With Common Core you can expect even dumber Children.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All this "Self Esteem" above substance yields such stupidity. They are real confident and happy about how stupid they are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. mmercier0921@gmail.comMay 5, 2014 at 11:37 AM

    Scary... just... scary.

    ReplyDelete
  6. mmercier0921@gmail.comMay 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

    In the end, the most considered competent, promote the least.

    It is the natural order of devolution.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What the Hell are they saying? How did they win? In Debate, you're supposed to lose points for "Uh".

    ReplyDelete
  8. What really?! I am speechless this makes me beyond angry I feel like this has to be a joke. The very idea that they would win by using such racist responses that honestly seem to have nothing to do with the topic. And that they were not disqualified for said racist words.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unbelievable...they should have been disqualified...when I helped to run a debate team we would have never ....this is a disgrace...the coach should be ashamed....how could the school or the kids be proud of that win.....they put no effort forward and won by reciting gibberish....smh

    ReplyDelete
  10. how the hell can anyone understand this, let alone torture themselves to sit thru even a minute of it?? I thought debating was talking your memorized poiunts, not random babbling while reading a computer screen. A 6 yr old can do that......
    PATHETIC.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I watched the entire video and am a stupid person for for even doing so. I have never seen so many angry misguided babbling ranting incoherently about nothing. My god our schools are failing terribly and the parental guidance lacking. The operators of this Debate should be embarrassed. We need laptops to debate?? WTH. The ability for these participant to even speak the English language is terrible. SO Sad!!!!! An example of what my kids will not act like.

    ReplyDelete
  12. With all due respect Joe, exactly HOW the F*** could debate possibly get any dumber??

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excuuuuse my black a**, but when the F- did HBO's Slamfest or some garbage performance art piece take the place of debate? As I'm famous for opining, "Loud does not always equal passion. Noise does not always equal eloquence." Gee, I guess that scholarship that I won to Seton Hall Preparatory School was wasted on me, when I could have attended a crappy Newark public school and learn how (not) to speak with clarity and purpose and win awards...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Are we sure this isn't a Saturday Night Live skit???

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, just who "judged" this debate anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is a winning debate? Man they will hand out awards for anything these days. What a pile of garbage. This performance deserves worse than an F. It is crap.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Welcome to "The Brave Texting New World" I tip my old grammatically correct, but outdated hat to you GK. These are our futures gatekeepers? yikes

    ReplyDelete
  18. So everyone here is an idiot. The "uh" that you guys are stating is "incrompehensble" is people breathing. I bet you a million dollars that if everyone hating on this posting had a copy of the actual speeches (which would not include the frequent pauses to BREATH) you would probably gauge this debate a little differently. White liberals are IDIOTS. The presentation of knowledge is not OWNED by any one style.

    ReplyDelete
  19. WOW! This nation truly IS in trouble!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I will discourage any possible student from those schools. My kids will have NO PART of this disgrace in the guise of education.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Giving these low achieving illiterates the award not only cheats those who should have gotten the award but, like affirmative action, does nothing but minimize the opportunities of those black people who do strive, and who are talented and intelligent. This is pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Haywood JablowmeMay 7, 2014 at 6:55 PM

    Not even a pause for a baffroom break?

    ReplyDelete
  23. no sir, you are an idiot. you have never done policy debate before, so you do not understand the debate sphere or the context of this debate. in fact, this type of debate is probably out of your intellectual capacity to comprehend. please educate yourself as we do not need another idiot to tip the scale in this comment section

    ReplyDelete
  24. For all of you saying that this debate is awful, please take the time to understand Policy (CX) debate before you denigrate it.

    For those of you thinking that debates are exactly like what goes on in Presidential (TV-broadcasted) debates, you guys are idiots. This type of debate requires actual critical thinking and understanding of complex topics that most of you haven't even heard of.

    This debate is actually about race relations within the debate sphere.

    The debaters use computers because they have a massive database of information that they use, skillfully, during the debate. If they were to use paper, they'd probably have over 10,000 sheets of evidence.

    The talk incredibly fast because they need to get their points (contentions/arguments) in a limited time span, and in addition to their opponent's arguments and responses, and a summary to conclude the speech. I have 3 years of experience in this debate, and it takes a trained ear to understand this debate. I could perfectly understand what was going on in this debate. This type of debate is not for the general public. The only reason this writer made this a story is because this is so shocking to the public.

    But you want to know what is really shocking? What's shocking is how many people in this country actually engage in intellectual conversations and think critically. Talking about new home, how much money you've earned in the past year, your coworkers, your vacation, or love life is nice, but it seems that is what the average American mind comes down to. What's really shocking is how many of you live inside your bubble, your own isolated life, and think that society is okay or that will fix itself without your help.

    For those of you that understand this, thank you. For those that don't, mock me, i don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  25. THANK YOU! Although it seems our contestation against the haterade rampant in this thread is in vain as most of the people who are in agreement with the articles framing of these debaters seem really conservative and really white. Not that being white automatically rules one out from understanding or aligning themselves with the BRILLIANT champions on this video.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Perhaps the printed form of the words would express differently. Maybe even eloquently in some parts. But the way it came across (at least with the one guy) was with a degree of arrogance and posturing, which he learned from an inner-city culture. In the end, if such behavior and rambling gets him what he wants in life, great. But more likely, this behavior will serve little purpose in the real world outside of "the street."

    The part where the guy leans his upper torso back with his arms crossed and the typical arrogant facial expression is nothing more than an oblivious child trapped in an adult's body.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If it takes a trained ear to understand any debate, it only proves those debating are doing a poor job. The truest and purest of any concepts are simple and uncomplicated, and so too, is the method of delivery.

    ReplyDelete
  28. When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail…

    When all you have is racism, everyone is white.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Uh... what the heck did I just watch?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well, no. You're taking this type of debate out of context. This type of debate is focused on policy-making. It encourages debaters to critically think about issues. Although, you may wonder: "They aren't even talking about policies; they're just mumbling racist things! Herp derp." But, they are tackling a social issue, specifically the black body (black people, descendants from the slaves of the African Diaspora), and identifying it as a problem in policy-making. Essentially, their argument is: we cannot engage in policy debate because from the very beginning we have no real voice in the real world. We are disadvantaged.

    This type of debate is focused more on the debaters themselves than presenting a speech to a wide audience. This is not Fox News where you see Malcolm X and Bill O'Reilly simply hashing it out for everyone to simply consume their points as truth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you probably have no understanding of the debate sphere. You probably think debate and speeches are one and the same.

    In theory, sure concepts are supposed to be simple. But to say they are not complicated, I guess you have no idea what you're talking about. Also, in practice, it is never simple and uncomplicated. That is why debate is crucial in finding out the best side through thoughtful dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't know where the writers of this article got the idea the debate was about the War Powers Act,,,, but it isn't the topic. The debaters are trying to get as much information on the books as possible. That is why they are going so fast and are so hard to understand. To get as much of their argument out there in the allotted time. The 2 gentlemen on the left during the debate are from Oklahoma and lost AND used the 'N' word more in their argument then the winners,,, the girls on the right.

    But hey,,, the article served its purpose. Made a bunch of people think some black kids got some preferential treatment and won something they didn't actually earn.

    ReplyDelete
  32. They lost. The guys on the left are from Oklahoma and lost the debate. The 2 girls on the right won...

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have not listened to the clip. It seems that my ears would not pick up the actual words. Now, here is what I think--my two cents, per se. I don't care your format. The purpose of debate/ writing/ any form of communication is to inform or transmit information. HOW are you accomplishing this if the average person cannot understand you because you are talking so fast as to escape comprehension? Even this competitive format, shouldn't clear enunciation be a bonus?
    To say that the audience is at fault and overly simplistic in their interpretation of the issue is arrogant at best. Teach me. Whether you have what would be 10,000 pages of information is irrelevant if you cannot distill the information gained into a format that can be transmitted with at least minimal clarity.I would suggest a change in format to these debate competitions. The idea is laudable.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You can never validate the word "Nigga" to me. I don't care what color you are. If black people use the word, they win a trophy? If I use the word, I lose my job. It's a double standard in this country, and it is wrong. After watching and reading the excerpts from the so-called "debate" I still cannot determine the intended topic. Whatever "style" it is, it is a shame and a waste of my time.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 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 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.

    Above excerpts from:
    Hacking Traditional College Debate's White-Privilege Problem
    JESSICA CAREW KRAFT APR 16 2014,
    The Atlantic

    So the "winners" decided to ignore the stated topic and pick their own! Instead of debating the subject matter they chose to turn the focus on something else entirely... and for that they were rewarded?

    Just how does this work in the real world? Can you go about ignoring the stated needs or objective of a business that employs you, without ramification? Can you join the governing board of a child advocacy agency and decide you think unemployment is more important and demand that agency change it's focus? Can a football team show up to a basketball game and compete in that basketball game using the rules of football, and somehow the referees ignore the rules of basketball and declare the football team the champions of basketball?

    I watched quite a bit of this debate. Both teams argue and support their premise well. The thing I don't understand is why aren't they competing in a "open" topic competition? Why are they rewarded for ignoring the stated topic and substituting their own?

    It is also interesting that further into the article cited above it is noted that many of the traditional debate teams that object to the "Hacking" strategy attempted to organize a separate competition "...to create a “policy only” space in which traditional standards for debate will be enforced.", for which they were attacked and labeled racists and the competition didn't happen. Note, they weren't wanting to force the existing organizations (CEDA and NDT) to adhere to their own stated rules and standards, which are being ignored, they were attempting to establish another competition that would require participants to follow the stated rules of the competition.

    Working for change in our society is to be complimented. Making up your own rules and standards as you go along doesn't create change, it just creates chaos.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  36. However, the presentation of knowledge needs to be understandable....and calling people of any color names is so childish....congratulations for making yourself look so intelligent.....

    ReplyDelete
  37. Stupid is as stupid does, and this is flat out ignorant! The word should NEVER be utilized in any debate, anywhere , anytime! If it was a white debate team that did this, the nutjobs Jackson and Sharpton would be calling for them to be publicly executed!! Wrong in all aspects!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Grreat Honk!!! Whatever happened to the debate standards/procedures/ability to think quickly and cogently, etc. that I learned and loved in college way back in the prehistoric times - the 1940s. Just home from WWII and the chance to engage in such a challenging pursuit. What a great time. Trash is trash is trash.
    cummerj@bellsouth.net
    .

    ReplyDelete
  39. You are the village idiot. We understand far too well the debate sphere presented. Failing to comprehend, hence failing to the address the topic that was assigned is always a losing proposition. That the alternative topic of more victimology and racial whining was employed merely makes the "debate" more intellectually painful. Virtually everyone in any society can look at contemporaries and find their personal circumstances less than ideal. However, foolish ranting about perceived "power structures" and bogus "privilege" will only reinforce the vitim mentality, and spread more misery among those who feed into this psychobabble.

    The idea that racism is unique to white people and seemingly an American phenomenon(based upon the "debaters"), I can only conclude they do not have a clue about life outside their own little piece of real estate. Racism is not only prevalent in virtually every continent, but the racism one finds amongst "people of color" in parts of Africa and Asia make 1964 Mississippi appear to be a paragon of tolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Please. Justify within your own little world all you want. You may get institutional enablers to tell you how wonderful this is, but go ahead and try to get a job with these "skills" in the real world. This is performance art at best,not debating. Good luck living off the teat of the state for the rest of your life.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Could not have express my feelings about this "debate" better.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ignorance and the demise of academia!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Vet eran (HwyFuzz)May 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM

    Credibility impeached at, "[...] you guys are idiots."

    ReplyDelete
  44. Vet eran (HwyFuzz)May 8, 2014 at 9:27 AM

    Well Stated!

    ReplyDelete
  45. The "presentation of 'knowledge'" is delivered in machine gun fire rapid rambling in such a way that the loud "breath" pauses / squeaks are extremely disruptive to attempting to follow the rabbit bramble. The vocalization of *SQUEAK, UH UH* isn't necessary to breathe and wastes breath. Didn't these debaters even practice their pre-written elements? Have they taken debate classes? Have to stare at the screen while delivering their vocal machine gun fire? Most of what I was able to glean from this: white culture is evil and oppressive. As to the knowledge, what does it have to do exactly with the "war powers resolution"? What place does the "f word" and others have in a professional environment. Though clearly from the forum chosen for this "national competition" final round to the dress and demeanor of the contestants it is anything but professional, so I shouldn't be surprised that locker room language rules the day. White supremacy...Even though the guy on the other team raced through his diatribe about white supremacy without granting any pauses to actually process even momentarily what he said and even though he dropped his f bombs and ranted about "the death of n***as," he didn't vocalize the squeaks for breathing like the winner. Rants about capitalism and white society, which must equal capitalism... Slavery...Fbomb...tear it down... War powers? What about war powers and its appropriate use or abuse of power... At least he didn't have to read verbatim from a screen... Not that I can compare their positions on the war powers act because they aren't even clearly referencing it...

    This whole production is an embarrassment. If they had promoted it as a poetry slam or spoken word rant against white hegemony or neocolonialism or parallel topics, at least it would have been honestly titled and could be appreciated (or not) for what it actually was. Because this is not an academic debate on the war powers resolution. Then he goes on a rant about time limits being a constraint to break through... No right now wrong, no rules...no meaning to this trophy...

    ReplyDelete
  46. War powers is mentioned once... What good is presenting "facts" if you can't understand it. What is the point? They are both denouncing "white neocolonialist racist capitalist hegemony murders, so what is their dispute? Something about love and pain? Sometimes there is more power and truth in a handful of words than in a raging torrent of verbal confusion...

    ReplyDelete
  47. If they have to speak so fast that nothing makes sense, that they have to disrupt your listening with squeals and uh uh uhs than maybe they should choose their words carefully and think about how to best express their point of view using pertinent facts instead of spewing a jumbled torrent. How can you even debate someone when you don't even have a fraction of a second to process what you heard? There is beauty and power in being concise.

    What were the computers even needed for? They certainly weren't looking up facts or figures, merely painting emotional word pictures of "the violence that whiteness does." I could probably impromptu an emotional word stream denouncing white power structures and equating whiteness with death and racism.

    ReplyDelete
  48. What does being white have to do with being able to follow time constraints, be concise and speak clearly and avoid racist terminology? Anyone can create confusion in a multitude of profanity laced words. True brilliance would cut through the fog created here and present the most pertinent facts to support their arguments and counter the opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  49. If the premise is that they cannot engage in policy debate because they have no voice, then they lost a chance to clearly articulate and amplify their voices in a national debate contest. If you believe that, you take every opportunity you get to clearly amplify that message. Debate and persuasion are hand in hand. You find your facts, you describe those facts, you make your case, and you have ready answers for the most likely rebuttals, and you are invested in your topic such that you have a well from which to draw when someone brings an unexpected yet strong rebuttal. Concede where necessary and push forward hardest where your facts are strongest. Unless your goal is preaching to the choir, you frame your arguments in forms most likely to be understood by your target audience. How would a white person even be able to dialogue when one of the key elements being attacked is "whiteness"?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Actually, the debaters have just become experts in the field. They have absorbed enough information on their topic that they need to speak quickly to be able to speak very quickly to have an advantage over their opponent. Reffering to black folks as N*"***** so lightly is bothersome, and likely not justified (though it is often directly quoted from their evidence), but even esoterically charged language has meaning and value. I wouldn't give up on these kids so quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wow... that's what you got from that? You've obviously made no effort to understand policy debate. It is a language, a game, a separate form and unless you spend any time getting to know the lingo and rules (which your quote of "status co" proves you have not - "status quo" is actually quite common in most dialects, policy debate not excluded) you will not understand. Policy debate requires speed in delivery- it is not designed to be able to be understood by an off the street observer. Why? Because anyone can have a 2 hour conversation in 2 hours.
    Debaters must have an 8 hour conversation, a highly logic and evidentiary based conversation, in 90 minutes. It is the only forum I have ever seen that can accomplish the level and magnitude of high level thinking in this amount of time. Because of the amount of ground expected to be covered, and the speed required to cover it, there is a requirement of preexisting knowledge, language and concepts that is entirely missed in the presentation of this article.
    It comes across needlessly ignorant and offensive to pick out the least eloquent parts of her speech and provide a context-less transcript. I see you have articles here about Lynchburg- if you're local, I dare you to sit down with me and we will discuss what policy debate is and isn't. As it is this is an embarrassing excuse for journalism- please do research before speaking about a topic in a public forum such as this.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Deb- that makes a lot of sense. The problem here is that the purpose of policy debate is NOT to inform the general public. The purpose is to develop critical thinking and logic skills in a way so extreme and difficult that it makes conversation-speed rationality second nature.

    In the same way you'd practice scales on a piano over and over and over until it's habit you learn to stretch your mind in ways you couldn't imagine until that level of fast, difficult thinking on your feet grows your logical thinking skills. This makes it so you can go out on the street and have a highly reasoned conversation with a stranger at normal speed.

    This is the drill, the scales, the practice- this isn't the end result. You're peeking into the locker room planning session, this isn't for public consumption- the politicians, lobbyist, lawyers, academics and just well educated public participants in democracy are the end result- and you see a lot more of the fruits of policy debate in real life than you realize.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Yes, policy debate is supposed to be fast and academic and sacrificial of style in favor of content, but you must admit that the K debate has gotten pretty ridiculous over the years, and the fact that they won CEDA with this is evidence of that devolution. It is one thing to make an effort to understand a DA with reasonable incremental links and tangible impacts delivered at 300 wpm; it is something else to try to decipher a racism K about "trauma of representation" and "obliteration of otherness" delivered at 300 wpm.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Whatever you call this it is NOT debate. This is affirmative action and political correctness gone wild. None of the judges had any idea what the hell these aggressive, inarticulate, angry Townson chicks were saying or trying to say, but wouldn't dare just tell the truth because of their race. It is disgusting how society and academia has devolved. They had no points to make.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Spot on Stuart! Towson should be embarrassed. I suggest showing this video to a high school debate team for what NOT to do, say, emulate or look like. Angry black girls cursing, saying the "n" word.....no different than what happens everyday on the streets. This isn't debate, it's street jive.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jack, please identify the policy the angry black Townson chicks were debating exactly from their so-called "speech". Name the policy and their position from their rant. I understand the rules and parameters, their interpretation and that of the organizers is so far off that teams like these can merely go up there, rant incomprehensible jibberish, profanity and racist words and get a trophy.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Their presentation was horrible street jibberish. Basically using this to let the world know they are angry black girls that hate white people and feel entitled to reparations and welfare. Okay, we get that. Go home. Trophy undeserved.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Defend idiotic, ignorant and offensive jibberish all that you want to, because that level of non-discourse display of Tourette's should disqualify anyone in any real world debate.

    ReplyDelete
  59. A vulgar filibuster is *not* a "debate"… I don't care what your criteria is. :/

    ReplyDelete
  60. Somewhere there's an NBA owner being forced to sell his company for being a racist because he didn't want his girlfriend running around with black guys in public ( never once used a doragatory word ) and this gets a trophy, ,,, welcome to liberal America

    ReplyDelete
  61. Again, your definition of 'debate' is not the same as policy debate. It's evolving, and that always requires growing pains. The community has seen more than it's share this year- that's how things go. If you don't appreciate it... um... don't watch it? It's not happening in stadiums for just this reason. If you don't get it, it's not for you. You'll see these kids again in the House, the courthouse, the senate and the world. Don't worry if you miss them now.

    Jordan- I get that, there certainly are extremes. CEDA, however, has always been the more liberal forum, if there is a place for it it's certainly there. I don't think the Towson girls have handled everything perfectly, I've seen some things from them on social media that didn't impress me, but that is life- we fall down, get up, learn how to advocate and how not to. I probably wouldn't always impress them either :)

    ReplyDelete
  62. Holy cow. That was the most unintelligent, incomprehensible mess I've ever listened to. Half the time I couldn't even understand the words coming out of their mouths. Seriously if this is what academia has come down to then our society is truly doomed.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thanks for your intolerant ignorant attack. Typical of the satan freak democrats stupid enough to believe BenghaziObama's video lie.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Call it all you want. This is F'ing stupid. Debate that. F'ing stupid. How in the he!! does any of this relate to reality or the real world? It doesn't. It's stupid, asinine and a complete waste of any form of intellectual debate. Holy crap! Anyone participating in this and thinking they've accomplished something of worth is ill-informed, delusional and a borderline moron.

    ReplyDelete
  65. They didn't. The article made it's point. The whole CEDA debate is BS. All of it. What's the F'ing point of spewing a bunch of crap as fast as you can if no one can understand it anyways? Seriously. What's the point?

    ReplyDelete
  66. and still no one with a sound mind can figure out why either groups were up there.

    ReplyDelete
  67. again. Stupid. All of it. If someone cannot understand what is being said, what's the point? He!!, just print it out and hand it to the other team. At least then they might understand some of the BS being spewed.

    ReplyDelete
  68. maybe if we had a copy of the speeches we could actually understand WTF they were saying. Damn. Why debate anything if no one can understand you?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Amanda you have no sense of what brings value to this world. You are an elitist and no doubt a highly educated one, but one who has no wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Actually I'm 26 years old, and until recently a full time special needs nanny. I'm a portrait photographer, an information technology worker and an artist.

    I am, quite possibly, as far as you can get from 'highly educated wisdomless elitist' as possible. Please don't mistake intelligent language for ivory tower, they are not directly correlated.

    I find meaning in a lot of places, debate is one of them. Coincidentally, I don't go around telling you your places of meaning are valueless and shallow. I would appreciated the reciprocal as well.

    I'm honoring one ignorant and offensive response with an answer. If you continue to engage only in ad hom attacks I'll feel perfectly fine ignoring you.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Lol, what in the world is a 'satan freak'?

    ReplyDelete
  72. I like the way all of these people are defending the "style" of the debate. "You just don't understand." i don't care about the "style" of the debate, what i don't understand is how in the HELL they were allowed to repeatedly throw out anti white sentiment, repeatedly use the word nigga, talk about pussy, etc. and still have it defended by liberals as a "real" debate.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You are a pre-existing moron. Please don't try to sell anyone with two brain cells to put together with your ebonics jib-jab. Oh, by the way, if society keeps dumbing things down so minorities can catch-up, it will only get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Call me speechless....but I would have liked to hear the second place team so I could make a comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I don't care what you call the format; what happened in that video has no place in any venue that values clear thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  76. You understand this? Then by all means, transcribe and translate.

    ReplyDelete
  77. You should. It is called exercising judgement, the result is values.

    Not that I would expect a leftist to practice a moral principle openly (Because we both know you do, you just pretend otherwise).

    But if you do decide to try and actually live as you are advocating, please: Write a short book on it as I am sure it would be very entertaining for the short time you would survive.

    ReplyDelete
  78. […] how did Towson plead its case? Here’s a censored excerpt provided by Pundit […]

    ReplyDelete
  79. You want to understand education today? Watch the first twenty minutes of the movie Lean On Me (Not the You Tube version, the actual movie.) And read:

    Indoctrination U: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom and The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz

    The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers. (Go read the Preface on Amazon)

    And maybe pose the question why they're not debating "black mob violence". Or issues like "Black Thugs Target Innocent Whites in Knockout "Game".

    Ivory Towers On Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America by Martin Kramer

    ReplyDelete
  80. Oh yeah, read The Man by Irving Wallace.

    ReplyDelete
  81. What a disgrace. Comments had a good example of what used to be. If this "debate" isn't a symptom of this country's decline I don't know what is.


    Real Debate btwn James Baldwin and WF Buckley 1965 (I think I'll watch it.)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  82. TRUTH, it's a B*tchMay 14, 2014 at 1:59 PM

    You have no clue what you are talking about.
    Formal debates follows very specific rules, none of which were followed.
    You are making excuses for ignorance.. or simply put, protecting your own.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I hope your kidding Amanda.

    "Policy debate requires speed in delivery- it is not designed to be able to be understood by an off the street observer. Why? Because anyone can have a 2 hour conversation in 2 hours."

    While your words are far more coherent than those of the debate winners, your thought process is not. Words are meant to be understood, they are the means by which we communicate thought from one person to another, and in debate they are used around a specific point of discussion. While "speed" may count, clarity is essential too. "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!" is neither speed nor clarity and has no place in any conversation among equals in such a forum. It is a disgrace and an indictment of those who judged them as winners.

    That this is the winning team makes me wonder if the other side just stood there with vacant eyes, drooling their allotted time away through the onslaught.

    ReplyDelete
  84. And there you have it... The results of common core's critical thinking standard.

    ReplyDelete
  85. For a college level national debate, to speak like this no matter what the format, demonstrates the basic oral speaking skills. Apparently, this is lost on you as well, so I feel sorry for you and your excusing of this sham...

    ReplyDelete
  86. Yeah, Like obamas Nobel prize!
    Now go feel guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  87. This is just plain ignorance posing as "something". And elitists claiming YOU are just too uneducated to understand.
    Keep dumbing it down libs, they'll eventually catch up.

    ReplyDelete
  88. […] student goes on stage, reveals he has a disability and then blows peoples’ minds: YCCollege Wins US Debate Championship By Repeating the N-Word Over and Over: […]

    ReplyDelete
  89. If you believe this is a debate you need to seek psychiatric help.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

    ReplyDelete
  91. In the past, uttering repetitive profanity and going into gibberish would be considered conceding defeat. Now on Htrae, that is considered a win!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Cut to the chase! If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s*it.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Odd, that you would pull out obscure "policy debate" rules, to justify the validity of their presentation. If no line is drawn for "status-quo", and standards, then you open the door for the kind of tripe seen on this video. I didn't just watch the blurb, I spent considerable time combing through the 4 hour video to find anything of value. The only thing of 'value" I found is the knowledge that we are doomed as a country. If that is the state of our secondary education, of our centers for higher learning, the place where we send our youth to gain skills for the real world, I am stunned to my core. And what rocks my foundation even more is that you , Ms. Amanda Bass, can sit there, and use very proper English, and with what appears to be a clear conscience, defend that "style". I would be very curious to know where you went to college, and what your major was. I wonder how convincing in the court of law that young lady would be using that "style" ??

    ReplyDelete
  94. […] College Wins US Debate Championship By Repeating the [bigger digger trigger] Over and Over, Speaking… […]

    ReplyDelete
  95. Cicero is turning in his grave. These videos show the end of civilization. Sad thing is, I'm sure these "students" have no idea how stupid and pathetic they sound.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I just don't buy this black victim game. How about if the "Imperialists" treated West Africans the way the Muslims did? Nobody was left alive, except the children, who were enslaved and most were not allowed to have children. Nobody lived to wail about it for 250 years. Muslims still take slaves; liberals and Blacks ignore it. Young black men commit rapes, robberies and murders in STAGGERING DISPROPORTION TO THE REST OF THE POPULATION.

    ReplyDelete
  97. So what? Didn't Joe Biden win his debate with Paul Ryan? How was that any different? It was just as incoherent as this. And, all Biden-- a white man-- had to do was belly laugh and roll his eyes and everyone praised his brilliance in debate and critical thinking.

    It's the new way of doing things and those who think differently need to move on...

    ReplyDelete
  98. unfortunately the debaters did not demonstrate critical thinking OR logic skills...so your comments and attempts at explanation are meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Well said Mr. Nix.

    ReplyDelete
  100. MikeAP, I rolled my eyes at Joe Biden, because he took his debate to a new low. Showing that he absolutely did not care to take seriously what was being said.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Well, I certainly like you Grandma Deb.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Unintelligent speech, poor use of grammar, derogatory terms, and vile language has no place in a debate of any kind. The fact that they won a championship from it truly shows how low our education system has fallen. If you agree with the participants and support their use of inappropriate language and complete utter nonsense then you are part of the problem as well.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Michael A. Weatherson, Ph.D.May 20, 2014 at 11:52 AM

    I debated in High School in 1970 and in college 1970-1974. In college won 26 awards. I went on to get my Ph.D. in Communication Studies and taught for 32 years. As a graduate student I was the assistant debate coach. Early in my career I coached the debate team for 9 years., If any of my students had sounded like this I would have dropped them from the debate team. I remember one team from Univ of Pittsburg that won many of the top national tournaments. They did not have to talk fast to significant arguments. Of course, they did not make any speaking errors and could cover more ground that some of the debaters that talked too fast (slow compared to what was on this tape). The evidence and arguments were better in the 70s than what I saw here. I am now retired, but have to admit that I am embarrassed by what I have viewed here and wonder what has happened to the field of debate. I have difficulty believing that anyone could justify this as having any redeeming values. If this is widespread in the debate world then this so-called "debate coaches" should read about Groupthink,

    ReplyDelete
  104. Michael WeathersonMay 20, 2014 at 12:57 PM

    As a retired professor with a Ph.D., in Communication Studies, I am amazed that you could make such an argument. I debated 6 years (2 in High School and 4 in College and won over 26 awards in college0. I also coached college debate for 9 years. The skills that my students learned in collegiate debate served them well in their future careers including law, politics, business and academic professions. However, I can find nothing redeeming or useful from the "specialized debate" to which you refer. In fact, I would not even call it debate. What I do view, is evidence of Groupthink. Based on what I viewed here, I am glad I am no longer part of the debate world. I knew Professor Howe, the founder of CEDA, personally, He would never have condoned this as a form of debate. The coaches of these teams should be embarrassed that this has become available on the internet. They should hope that their Dean, President or a promotion committee will not see this example of their teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Professor, you would not believe what goes on some of these alleged college campuses.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The second place team likely had no response since they were probably sitting there dumbfounded.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Negative. Mr. Silver just didn't want his girlfriend posting it on social media.
    He acknowledges that she was doing it and just pleaded with her not to advertise it.
    You are correct though because while doing so NEVER ONCE USED A DEROGATORY WORD.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Mr.Sterling.......Silver is his nemisis...... ironic, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  109. A strong and clear testimony to higher education

    ReplyDelete
  110. We used to have the finest higher education system in the world. Now look.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Not only does my head hurt, I think, I may have shat my pants, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Watch the first video around the 45 minute mark or the second around the 3 minute mark (the one that is the featured news story)... Both teams spewed incoherent anti-white, off-topic babble. Trust me, if you listened to the Towson folks, you heard both sides (just with a manlier voice coming from the other side).

    ReplyDelete
  113. The second place team was found to be equally as dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  114. @Eyyyyyy - wouldn't it behoove them to at least debate the actual topic? The War Powers Resolution was the topic - which, in and of itself, can serve a great policy debate without the overtly racial discussion - wouldn't you agree that any "racist" element of the WPR that may exist could really have been mentioned as a mere footnote within the debate in the context of the broader global topic.

    ReplyDelete
  115. This thing you call "policy debate" where no one understands you...has no place here on earth, it shall be removed.

    we dont need to cram 8 hours of talk in 90 mins...

    you wanna see a debate, go watch ken ham vs bill nye. that is EVERY form of debate should be, with visuals, with references, with sources... not some person talking incoherently.. especially not on the level of throwing in racists and homophobic comments.. a filibuster is not a debate. is a race to see who is more annoying and who can outlast.

    ReplyDelete
  116. You're as dumb as they are if you think this crap has any redeeming value.

    ReplyDelete
  117. All you can knock this type of debate all you want. Sure it saddens me that you all are close-minded and will never understand how awesome Policy debate is, but I don't care anymore. It is what it is; I've done it for 3 years, and I can honestly say that I would not be a more coherent, level-headed, articulate, and confident person today without it. If any of you really care to find out about policy debate and why I defend it without question, look up the Houston Urban Debate League, or the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues.

    Support us and maybe even come down to one of our tournaments so that you may see the action for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  118. "The talk incredibly fast because they need to get their points (contentions/arguments) in a limited time span..."

    Wait a minute, there was a point?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Why would I? I can turn on any of the "urban" channels on Sirius or FM and hear the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  120. This leads to the House, Senate, courts? The very root of corruption and corrosion of values that put us into so much debt that the standard is in jeopardy, the division of citizens and races that puts this country's demise through implosion, or the collapse of the pillars of our Constitution justice system that thrusts us back into the Dark Ages of Europe where there contain two social classes: the rich elitist and the poor pauper. We all know where this all leads! How does the fast, highly reasoned debating skills help society? All this higher education is worth nothing if it benefits none but the individual wielding it! If this nonsense leads to government, than that is the very root of the problem!

    ReplyDelete
  121. Everyone is missing the point, debate means just what is implied, so this exercise should be called a debate if no one, including the other debating party can understand the other debating party. Forget everyone else hearing nothing but vulgar noise.

    ReplyDelete
  122. It hurt my hears and my head to listen to these people. I feel a little stupider after watching it... :(

    ReplyDelete
  123. I by no means am closed-minded. Perhaps you think you are a coherent, level-headed, articulate, and confident person today because you are submerged into a world or environment and don't see how "WTF" it is.

    I'm just throwing that out there ;)

    ReplyDelete
  124. other then the actual Professor up there, this has been the best point made in the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Yo, Eyyyyy, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time! One of the best videos of all time!.....

    This comment is about as relevant as this debate.

    If all this debate was saying is Change the World, Then start by changing the PUBLIC!

    One of this first civilizations, built of multinational and multicultural multitudes, the Roman Empire, used the people's, or MOBS, opinion to move forward. If you can't get to the majority you will end up no where.

    Look at our government, Democracy is a popularity contest, The green party never wins, only the rich popular kids. Bring it to high school levels. However, since there is small houses being paid out to get this higher education, why not use it?

    If I wanted to prove my point here, I'd rather listen to Lupe Fiasco make points that are valid and entertaining in under five minute portions, then these folks with college education blathering and possibly having asthma attacks for eight minutes a piece.

    Please use your defense responsibly, otherwise you lessen your credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I've watched plenty of CX debate in my day and judged many rounds. This was incomprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  127. So true, you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  128. More of the dumbing down of America, and you see this as progress ? This is nothing more than foolishness to make you think your doing something worth while, you're not, only making yourself look like a fool. Why do you buy into these lies. You think repeating a racial slur and talking incoherently makes you articulate and smarter ? Really, please explain. And you accuse us of being 'Closed minded" I think it's you who are deceiving yourself. You may not like the establishment society but that's the standard by which you will be judged, and speaking incoherently and running this ghetto slang only assures other's of the stereotype, that leaders like Rev. King tried to transcend. I can see that you are articulate and intelligent, but I think you're out in left field on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Lool OK. Think what you want, buddy. I'll live in this debate world. And you live in your own. Have fun.

    And if you're still concerned about Policy Debate being detrimental to education, go ask any elite university to take their program down. Let's see how that goes. Please do it, Mr Educated. Have the balls to prove me wrong.

    And before you judge me, realize I'm a high school senior with much of his life ahead.

    Your move.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Why would anyone want to learn more about that? That is not intelligence it is gibberish.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "It is the only forum I have ever seen that can accomplish the level and magnitude of high level thinking in this amount of time."

    I think we all agree with that sentence. Where we disagree is about the "level and magnitude." I guarantee the level I'm seeing is not the level you're seeing. To settle the dispute we would have to take this manner of discourse into the real world and see how it fares... say in a corporate boardroom, or a legislative hearing, or a weekly employee meeting, or a public school board meeting, or even at the order counter at your local MacDonald's. How do you think this sort of nonsense would fare? Hmm? You think you could even manage to order a cheeseburger talking like that, while sprinkling in all those racist buzzwords?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Wait, so this generation is dumbing down, yet you don't know how to write formally. OK?

    I assure you that they are not saying profanities for the sake of it or because they endorse using derogatory terms. They are black, oppressed in the political sphere. If you think minorities have a strong voice in politics, please enlighten me. I'm young and naive with no edumacation as everyone here puts out these debaters to be.

    But anyways, they examine parts of politics that no one ever does. People like so are so docile to what's happening in this country. You accept the system. Debate teaches you to think for yourself and find the best side, ESPECIALLY Policy debate. Everyone here thinks debate is a puppet game where you remember stuff and please the crowd. Of course I understand that speaking 300 words per minute will never be considered legitimate in the real world. But it's not for the real world; it's just for this debate. The benefits that I receive from this are endless. Realize that you will never understand this because you don't participate in it. It sucks that this debate is kind of exclusionary because of its complexity, but to me, participating in it is worth it.

    I'm sorry, but I don't have the patience to explain how everything functions in this debate format so you can just call it stupid in the end. Maybe go figure it out for yourself if you are really a humble human who is honestly curious as to whether this type of debate is beneficial. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  133. "They are black, oppressed in the political sphere?" Gee, you must have missed the last two presidential elections. And maybe you didn't notice the race of that scumball in the Attorney General's office. And who was that guy who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, writing the nation's tax laws at the same time he was cheating on his taxes? At some point, it's time to lay down your childish toys and stop pretending you're a victim.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Michael WeathersonMay 24, 2014 at 1:35 PM

    To suggest that it does not need to have an application to the real world is ridiculous. As I mentioned before I have over 15 years of experience as both a debater, coach and judge. I cannot justify this style (using the term loosely) of debate. It neither teaches students the art of argument, improves communication skills, or improves their critical thinking. I do not place any blame on the students participating in this event. However, I do blame the "coaches" and "judges" for reinforcing and teaching poor debate habits and poor communication skills. One of the reasons this style of debate was not tolerated in years past was because older faculty, lawyers and other notable professions often judged at collegiate tournaments. I speak from my own experience. As a young debater I tried to "spread" (speak quickly) in a semi-final round and was rated low by the judges and lost the round. I learned quickly that speaking fast and throwing out tons of arguments with little regard to the quality of those arguments or the analysis that made them more compelling was a poor strategy. Moreover, I also learned later that those so-called "techniques" were of no use in the real world. Fortunately in my day, when I tried the so-called "spread style" there was no internet. Thus, I did not have to worry about future employers finding this "embarrassing" style on the internet. As a student looking for a job you should be worried about this showing up on the internet. A very significant amount of employers, especially the Fortune 500, now do searches on the internet before hiring an individual. Therefore, what you do in collegiate debate does have a connection to the real world now. This chat is proof that it does matter. You should be concerned about the negative comments of professionals in the real world. After all, they are the ones that will be hiring you when and if you finish your college degree., I suggest that you should be much more concerned about how the real world sees collegiate debate. You should read Janis's work on Groupthink. Clearly, the current membership of the collegiate debate world is guilty of collective Groupthink. One last note, much of this knowledge I acquired after I left the debate world and was able to look back objectively at my experience as a collegiate debater. Michaeal Weatherson, Ph,D., former collegiate debater from the 70s and coach during thie 80s.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Michael Weatherson, Ph.D.May 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM

    A final note before I stop participating in this debate. I was alerted to this by a current university president who passed this along to my college debate coach. My debate coach was a student of Austin J. Freeley. In case you don't know, Freely is the author of one of the most popular argumentation texts during the 20th century. I imagine it is still being used by many professors today. One of the arguments that seems popular by current participants in this style of debate is that this style of debate is specialized and not relevant to real world opinions. Many of the individuals that alerted me to the availability of the final debate on the internet have suggested that if this is the typical style of debate occurring in competition, that they as alumni and emeritus faculty will no longer contribute or support debate programs at their respective universities. With less support there will be fewer travel funds available and fewer scholarships for students wanting to participate in debate. This sounds to me like there is a connection between the real world and collegiate debate. These programs require the support of university administrations, alumni, faculty and emeritus faculty. This would appear to be the strongest argument for supporting a higher quality of debate that does meet the standards of the "real world." After all, the funds that supports these programs comes from real world individuals. Alienate these supporters who want a more communicative form of debate and you will no longer have collegiate debate competition.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Michael WeathersonMay 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM

    A lesson in history: The "spread style" of debate (rapid speaking) first reared its ugly head in the early 1970s. Of course, by comparison of what is on the internet today that debate style appears rather slow. At that time one of the top debate programs was at Stanford, a small college that you might have heard of. The national finals were held there in the early 70s. The president of Stanford University attended the final round and he was so disturbed by the rapid style of debate that he saw that he withdrew funding for the debate program. In fact, one of the thoughts at the time was that having the national debate tournament at one's university could easily result in the loss of the program if a top administrator attended the final debate. My point: Funding for debate comes from "real world" individuals. Therefore, their opinions should carry great weight in the "debate world." So, if I were a coach in intercollegiate debate I would not want to bite the hand that feeds me. To put it in simple terms, if you want to continue having support for debate programs you better start encouraging a more communicative style of debate.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Yep, I knew everything when I was 17. Then I grew up. May you be as lucky.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Are you barking mad? The point was not that debates were bad things, the point was the 'debate' was an incomprehensible babble that meant NOTHING - except that, sprinkled with the N-word, the speakers could not lose without shrieking "RACISM!". And the judges knew it and threw in the towel. This whole thing was a triumph of politics and ego over reason.

    ReplyDelete
  139. You sound like a know-it-all douchebag.

    ReplyDelete
  140. @The Truth: and you, sir, sound like one of those 'debaters'.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Exactly. I saw how these excerpts were cherry picked and it made me immediately skeptical. Only someone with an axe to grind will resort to such tactics. Lame.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Cowardice and ignorance won't allow them to.

    ReplyDelete
  143. These people are a product of "no child left behind" Based on this mockery of true debate, they should have been left behind.
    This was a racially charged performance, not a debate!

    ReplyDelete
  144. How much does one have to know to guess what is meant by the term, "cross examination debate"? It's right there in the name of the organization which sponsored this hilarious shambles.

    Having commonly agreed-upon definitions of words is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  145. […] This recent debate at Towson University is an unbelievable example of agitation where reality has become “shaken and stirred” by the totally absurd! […]

    ReplyDelete