you exploded a D&D group over one of Gred's students refusing to debate anything but Israel-Palestine ?
strange but i commend your dedication to your friends
i played for many years with a guy who, about 6 years into playing together, became the coach of a major debate team in NYC. he refused to entertain that the "system bad and racist so i win debate" method was just avoiding actually representing a real answer to a question and a major cop out. it was allowed because the students initially employing it were minorities and no one wanted to seem like a racist for being like "hey, you didn't answer the question." just reducing the context of a question to a simple "racism bad so i win" is fucking infantile. i absolutely hate debate to begin with because it creates ben shapiro's but if you're going to do it, do it meaingfully. i called him a fucking pussy for refusing to teach people how to actually answer questions and to simply fall back on a universal "truism". he ragequit the group after everyone agreed with me. he quit drinking 5 months later and called me to apologize.
i'm out here saving the world.
is it worth saving
At least until we get season 2 of Severance
one day my distaste for Adam Scott will be overcome and i will watch
one day my disaste for humanity will be overcome and i will abandon the jelly overlords
that is one of my goated comedies so i guess his presence doesnt do that much damage
but i don't like his face, it makes me want to do things to it
I decided to write a book a couple weeks ago, now at over 120 pages.
I set a goal of adding 2-3 pages a day and being finished by January 25th.
Honestly, legitimately one of the reasons I transitioned back to doing debate is to push back against the influence of people like this.
The problem we have in debate is that people who debate the topic go on to have practical majors, then they leave the activity to pursue a successful career. People who want to demand that they win became they bring up some irrefutable truism (society is racist, America is founded on stolen land, etc.) invariably pursue some critical studies degree and end up trapped within the debate community because it is one of the places that values those degrees.
It creates a vicious cycle that radicalizes debate and, imo, literally threatens both the value and the viability of the activity. College debate programs are dying because schools don't see practical value in supporting it anymore when debate isn't churning out the polisci and economics majors who go on to be Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff, or Justice Breyer. College programs dying means there's less reason for high schoolers to do it, which is killing high school program support.
It's very sad imo and I hope that by building and sustaining schools like mine which are committed to debating around the topic, I'm doing some small part to improve the community standards and reverse these trends.
I will also admit that I have a very personal attachment to this dynamic because I relate it to the transition of FFXI from the 75 cap era to Abyssea. The people who want to cry racism are basically people objecting to the elitism of the system because wealthier well-funded programs (and thus disproportionately white students) do better in debates about the topic, just like how casuals hated HNMLS serving as the gatekeepers to BIS gear. Trying to make debate more "equitable" by allowing teams comprised of minority debaters to just dodge the topic, to me, is like trying to advocate for an Abyssea style board flip.
I hate it and will fight against it tooth and nail because the kids who put in the blood, sweat, and tears to get good at debating the way it is supposed to be should not have their skills and work invalidated by people who can't play the game the way it is designed. If they don't like the game, they should quit instead of ruining it for everyone else.
(And I'm considered racist/fascist by that part of the debate community because I'm willing to say things like those debaters should quit if they won't debate the traditional way.)
I never did debate team but I did Mock Trial in High School and then again in Law School and I can't imagine kids being allowed to just fall back on logical fallacies as if they were winning arguments.
Debate is really useful for law and I would argue it's actually way better prep than doing Mock Trial.
The research you learn to do in debate basically is better than the research you get in LWRAP (or whatever your law school calls the research and writing class for 1L). I ran circles around everyone in knowing how to use Lexis.
The way we argue is very similar to briefs. The affirmative team that proposes a change is basically like how an appellant argues for a specific interpretation. We use evidence and analysis to defend the change.
But that's all based on teams actually playing by the rules and debating the topic (this year is IP law) and coming up with some proposal. For example, a popular case this year is reversing the Alice Mayo framework for patents.
The people I am opposing will say stuff like IP law is something that only matters to rich white CEOs of the system and focusing on that sort of reform is a way to put black and brown communities on the back burner. Vote for us to reject that system and prioritize our pet issue.
It's nauseatingly self serving, but the people who won on it, got to college and got Black Studies degrees where they could reuse their debate whining as papers, are stuck in debate because they have no other opportunities, have fully drank the Kool-aid and say that expecting minority debaters to adhere to the rules is a micro aggression.