Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Racism! Of course!





Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/20/prepare-for-outrage-far-left-judges-allow-destruction-of-college-debate-clubs-because-racism/#ixzz3nudW6NLK
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/20/prepare-for-outrage-far-left-judges-allow-destruction-of-college-debate-clubs-because-racism/#ixzz3nudJLkm0

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/20/prepare-for-outrage-far-left-judges-allow-destruction-of-college-debate-clubs-because-racism/#ixzz3nuc6OYdc

Long pig--getting angry over things that don't impact him since 2003.

Ever since Ush backhanded LP across his mouth with cutting the "libbo" comments out, he's been on a "get the liberals!" fury.

It's funny and sad seeing what is supposed to be a grown man crumble over nothing.

LOUUUUDDD NOOOIIIISEEEEESSSS!!!!

As someone who just got back from a political debate at my school, I can testify to the embarrassing state they are in.

We were debating maternity leave as a fundamental human right.

I wasn't given a rebuttal outside of standard slurs.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
As someone who just got back from a political debate at my school, I can testify to the embarrassing state they are in.

We were debating maternity leave as a fundamental human right.

I wasn't given a rebuttal outside of standard slurs.

Shut up gayfag

Lol, I like that "f*ck the time!" and "f*ck the rules" basically. Once they decide something is white privilege you best let them act any way they want..lest they decide to call you racist.

If these kids can't follow the rules..get rid of them. I'm sure they'd cry white privilege and all that, but oh well.

Originally posted by jaden101
Shut up gayfag actually, they aren't that creative. More the standard "no uterus, no opinion" and "mansplaining" and I'm just sitting there wanting to say "no business, no opinion" but that's probably hate speech.

Obviously long pigs source is a biased hack-job, but the linked piece in The Atlantic is actually fascinating. Illuminating both sides of the discussion.

http://theatln.tc/1Los1pg





Found this interesting, I does sound like part of the reason why this change is not that well liked is because it gives other, smaller, not-tradittionally successful outfits a chance to compete better. At any rate it's a more complicated topic than the initial post makes it seem.

Were they or were they not told to debate a certain topic and then just decided "nope, I'm gonna talk about something else" ? Did they or did they not violate numerous rules in these debates and yet still somehow get awarded victory?

Originally posted by Surtur
Were they or were they not told to debate a certain topic and then just decided "nope, I'm gonna talk about something else" ? Did they or did they not violate numerous rules in these debates and yet still somehow get awarded victory?
You can just read the article. Apparently they used the premise as a jumping off point for a meta-debate. The article references the "**** the time" incident, but doesn't go into details either.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can just read the article. Apparently they used the premise as a jumping off point for a meta-debate. The article references the "**** the time" incident, but doesn't go into details either.
Meta debate lol

Maybe in the LGBT/european community Meta debate is saying "I ain't gotsta follow no cracks ass rules you racist honkey!", but here its just ignorant thugs talking jive.

Originally posted by long pig
Meta debate lol

Maybe in the LGBT/european community Meta debate is saying "I ain't gotsta follow no cracks ass rules you racist honkey!", but here its just ignorant thugs talking jive.

It seems that the preeminent debating societies of America disagree with your assessment.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It seems that the preeminent debating societies of America disagree with your assessment.
Which most likely means I'm correct.

Originally posted by long pig
Which most likely means I'm correct.

Not about how debates are performed and judged in the US though...

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can just read the article. Apparently they used the premise as a jumping off point for a meta-debate. The article references the "**** the time" incident, but doesn't go into details either.

The article also said that doing such things were a violation of the rules.

Originally posted by Surtur
The article also said that doing such things were a violation of the rules.

I believe the Atlantic article does not state that. Rather it talks about how their are different interpretations of the rules, and apparently the organisations and judges seem to favour the new style vs. the traditional style. Sadly neither sides argument is very well made in the article, I think, so I'm still unsure about a lot of the points. Ostensibly I think there should be a place for traditional style debates, however it does have the risk of being exclusionary.

Originally posted by Surtur
The article also said that doing such things were a violation of the rules.
I just watched a two time national debate champs argue that the rules were made for white men and therefore they don't need to follow them. They went on to say black women built America, basically twerked on stave and rap battled each other while screaming racist remarks.

They won.

So there is an interpretation of the rule that allows for one to begin a "meta" debate?

I also can't help but wonder how people would react is white people had been going around and turning debates into debates about the problems within the black community and such.

You have a link? Sounds like it would be really relevant to the thread, and give us a better understanding of what is discussed in the articles.

I had assumed what he said was a joke. Surely..it must be a joke.

It sounds like misrepresentation of what likely really happened, but it seems to be based on the articles in part. So probably a "joke", but somewhat related to his misinformed, racist opinion on the topic.

I just find it hard to believe people could legitimately say "these rules were made for white men and don't apply" and then actually win.

Hmm, do you think the premise that these rules are made for white men is incorrect? Or are you saying, even though they are made for white men, the rules are the rules, and you shouldn't win if you don't stick by them?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have a link? Sounds like it would be really relevant to the thread, and give us a better understanding of what is discussed in the articles. http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-debate-team-wins-national-championship-with-gratuitous-use-of-the-n-word
Heres a clip of the captain of the debate squad getting her team ready for the state debate finals.

http://www.jamspreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/tumblr_m8ctrtPgsi1r19qf1.gif

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, do you think the premise that these rules are made for white men is incorrect? Or are you saying, even though they are made for white men, the rules are the rules, and you shouldn't win if you don't stick by them?

The rules are made for anyone deciding to enter. If they want to take the "well these things only apply to white men" to it's logical conclusion why do I get the feeling they wouldn't be too happy about it?

I'm saying if you join up you agree to follow the rules. If you can't do something that simple no you shouldn't win.

Originally posted by Surtur
The rules are made for anyone deciding to enter. If they want to take the "well these things only apply to white men" to it's logical conclusion why do I get the feeling they wouldn't be too happy about it?

I'm saying if you join up you agree to follow the rules. If you can't do something that simple no you shouldn't win.

Well, it seems like they are generally following the rules, but rather than traditional formats choose different methods to make their points.

Where does "the rules don't apply to us" fall into all that?

I'm quoting the long pig quote you originally asked the question of "You have a link? Sounds like it would be relevant" . I guess they didn't specifically say "the rules don't apply to us" but rather that they don't need to follow the rules because they were made for white men.

I did see your other post, but the link does not work.

Well the more I read about it, it doesn't even seem like they are breaking rules at all (apparently certain minor violations are being amplified by right wing sources to make it appear like they are breaking rules, when really they are breaking traditional styles).

And yeah, KMC seems to have problems with certain special characters after the server move. Here's the link to the Salon article. http://bit.ly/1L2cVsi

Oh, and here's also a link to the full debate in question (rather than some cut up parts to make it look particularly bad).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY

the atlantic article says they decided to change the topic of the debate to something completely different from the topic they were assigned.... how the **** is that within the rules? lol

honestly, if i didn't know better i would assume that atlantic article is satire. my respect for the academic elite is dwindling by the day.

dead @ "they discussed such matters as 'nigga authenticity' "

how the **** is this not satire?

Originally posted by red g jacks
dead @ "they discussed such matters as 'nigga authenticity' "

how the **** is this not satire?
Nappy headed hood rats gonna nappy headed hood rat.