Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Brace » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:38 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:46 pm UTC

And when Brace was making a counterpoint, he was actually making an apology and declaring me to be king of everything. I accept his (her?) fealty. My first command is to interpret someone's words in the most obvious manner.

My second command is more butter.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Brace » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:50 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:03 pm UTC

In the context of "these are things that can't be defended", I was explaining the difference between defending Socialism and Creationism. Creationism is flawed because it doesn't use sound logic and makes numerous assumptions that can't be justified, as well as being utterly useless to science. Socialism itself isn't flawed, but rather is 'right' or 'wrong' based on what moral system you adhere to.

You can fairly ask people to debate on sides they don't agree with so long as there is actually a sound argument behind both sides, but not things where one side is clearly indefensible. So Socialism vs Capitalism would be a fair thing for a debate club to debate. Creationism vs Evolution, no. Gun rights vs Gun Control, yes. Segregation vs Integration, no. Classical music vs Rockabilly, yes. Soylent Green vs Tofu, no.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Ormurinn » Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:40 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You can fairly ask people to debate on sides they don't agree with so long as there is actually a sound argument behind both sides, but not things where one side is clearly indefensible. So Socialism vs Capitalism would be a fair thing for a debate club to debate. Creationism vs Evolution, no. Gun rights vs Gun Control, yes. Segregation vs Integration, no. Classical music vs Rockabilly, yes. Soylent Green vs Tofu, no.


See bolded.

Aren't they two examples of the same thing? If Socialism can be justified if you weight rights differently, might segregation also be justified in the same fashion?

Socialism - The proletariat have more rights than the bourgeoisie.

Racialism - ethnic group (x) has more rights than ethnic group (y)
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby elasto » Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:53 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Socialism - The proletariat have more rights than the bourgeoisie.

Racialism - ethnic group (x) has more rights than ethnic group (y)

..?

Socialism doesn't assign more rights to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie... it says all people - rich or poor, black or white, man or woman - have an equal right to things like basic housing, healthcare and so on - and if they are unable to provide it for themselves then the state will do so.

It's possible you're confusing Socialism with Communism - but even there I don't know if there's any part of it that says one group of people have strictly less rights than another.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:11 pm UTC

Actually, that's welfare, not socialism. Socialism itself just means employees have a significant say in how the businesses are run. Pure socialism is where all businesses are run like co-ops. It usually goes hand and hand with welfare, but it's not a requirement.

Welfare is where basic services are provided to people. It's not exclusive to socialism or capitalism. Welfare capitalism is where companies take care of their employees via health insurance, pensions, etc, and pay them above market wages. In truth, most of the Western world is Welfare Capitalist rather than "Socialist".

Communism is where everything is owned by "everyone" (i.e., the State) and all profits are assigned to people based on what they "need" (whatever the state says they need). It has never worked. Ever. Marx himself was never clear how this was supposed to occur, as he left a lot of his works unfinished. For someone who was sooo scientific, his followers have consistently ignored Empiricism. If the flaw in your Utopia is Human Nature, it's your Utopia that's flawed.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Ormurinn » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:26 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Socialism - The proletariat have more rights than the bourgeoisie.

Racialism - ethnic group (x) has more rights than ethnic group (y)

..?

Socialism doesn't assign more rights to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie... it says all people - rich or poor, black or white, man or woman - have an equal right to things like basic housing, healthcare and so on - and if they are unable to provide it for themselves then the state will do so.

It's possible you're confusing Socialism with Communism - but even there I don't know if there's any part of it that says one group of people have strictly less rights than another.


wiki wrote:Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy


Now you can argue that that's just saying that all people have an equal level of rights (i.e no right whatsoever) to trade freely with one another and operate their own businesses with their own property. In practice that's just like the state forbidding both the rich and poor equally from sleeping under bridges, to paraphrase some French dude.

If I'm a greengrocer or an entrepreneur, socialism absolutely does discriminate against me relative to a welder or a doctor.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:30 pm UTC

Under socialism, you aren't a greengrocer, your employees are.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby elasto » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:50 pm UTC

Also, under CU's definition of socialism (which I accept is more correct than mine) I don't see anything barring sole-traders from operating. So anyone could set up a greengrocer shop and sell fruit/veg just as now.

It just seems to imply that, if there is a business with more than one employee, that all employees have a say in how the business is run instead of just those injecting the capital (hence the name Capitalism I assume!)

Some provide the capital, some provide the labor, those providing the capital get a portion of the profits, those providing the labor get a portion of the profits, but all have a say on the direction the business goes. Doesn't seem like an obviously horrific model to me.

May mean the person providing the capital might wish to choose those he is travelling on his journey with more carefully than at present, but that feels like something wise for him to do anyway.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Ormurinn » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Under socialism, you aren't a greengrocer, your employees are.


Turning that into a rights based statement;

Under socialism, you don't have property rights over the grocery store, your employees do

Which seems pretty analogous to

Under racialism, ethnicity(x) doesn't have civil rights over ethnicity(y)'s society, ethnic(y)'s do.

elasto wrote:Also, under CU's definition of socialism (which I accept is more correct than mine) I don't see anything barring sole-traders from operating. So anyone could set up a greengrocer shop and sell fruit/veg just as now.


Ok then, you're discriminating against all business owners bar sole proprietors. Seems like a pretty weak difference.

elasto wrote:It just seems to imply that, if there is a business with more than one employee, that all employees have a say in how the business is run instead of just those injecting the capital (hence the name Capitalism I assume!).


So you're violating the property rights of the latter former group in order to appease the former group.

elasto wrote:Some provide the capital, some provide the labor, those providing the capital get a portion of the profits, those providing the labor get a portion of the profits, but all have a say on the direction the business goes. Doesn't seem like an obviously horrific model to me.

May mean the person providing the capital might wish to choose those he is travelling on his journey with more carefully than at present, but that feels like something wise for him to do anyway.


Under socialism, those providing the capital get no share of the profits. The capital is either allocated by a nationwide vote (impractical and tyrannical) or by a central government (inefficient and tyrannical)

In your own model, the business you built with your own inspiration and hard work becomes less yours with every person you give a job to. Hire more than one person and you have minority control of your business. It's a system built on theft. That's what's obviously horrific about it. If you want a say on the direction your employer goes, work for a publically traded company and buy shares.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:36 pm UTC

Umm, Orm, there is no such thing as (major) property owners in Socialism. The workers collectively own the grocery store. You could open your own corner store butchery, but if you want to expand into a meat-packing factory you have "partners" instead of "employees".

There are problems with it, mainly because it doesn't work on a large scale and simply put, some employees are more valuable than others, but please don't argue against socialism with fallacious arguments.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Ormurinn » Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:44 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Umm, Orm, there is no such thing as (major) property owners in Socialism. The workers collectively own the grocery store. You could open your own corner store butchery, but if you want to expand into a meat-packing factory you have "partners" instead of "employees".

There are problems with it, mainly because it doesn't work on a large scale and simply put, some employees are more valuable than others, but please don't argue against socialism with fallacious arguments.


I'm not trying ( in my conversation with you) to argue against socialism per se. I'm arguing that there's no qualitative difference between socialism and segregationism such that one would be a legitimate debate topic and the other wouldnt
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:40 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:In the context of "these are things that can't be defended", I was explaining the difference between defending Socialism and Creationism. Creationism is flawed because it doesn't use sound logic and makes numerous assumptions that can't be justified, as well as being utterly useless to science. Socialism itself isn't flawed, but rather is 'right' or 'wrong' based on what moral system you adhere to.

You can fairly ask people to debate on sides they don't agree with so long as there is actually a sound argument behind both sides, but not things where one side is clearly indefensible. So Socialism vs Capitalism would be a fair thing for a debate club to debate. Creationism vs Evolution, no. Gun rights vs Gun Control, yes. Segregation vs Integration, no. Classical music vs Rockabilly, yes. Soylent Green vs Tofu, no.


Speaking strictly, those are not inherent flaws in creationism. Those are just flaws in the community that adheres to this idea nowadays.

You can argue creationism honestly, fairly, and logically. It's just that if you do so, and really are hunting for the truth, you end up...not a creationist. The data is simply overwelming.

Perhaps it will help to think of distant historical times, when evidence for evolution was not yet nearly so comprehensive as we have today, and several possible ideas were entertained.

Likewise, you can certainly debate about socialism.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Zamfir » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:07 pm UTC

Back to the OT

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby cphite » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:59 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I am getting so overwhelmed with this 'help help I'm being oppressed' bullshit Conservatives are screaming on the tops of their lungs in response to minorities fighting for equality.


How is changing the rules of formal debate "fighting for equality"? If the rules are applied to everyone the same way, that is equality. If the rules are to be changed to be less strict or whatever, as long as they're applied to everyone the same way, that too is equality. But how is changing the rules, in and of itself, a fight for equality?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:21 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I am getting so overwhelmed with this 'help help I'm being oppressed' bullshit Conservatives are screaming on the tops of their lungs in response to minorities fighting for equality.


How is changing the rules of formal debate "fighting for equality"? If the rules are applied to everyone the same way, that is equality. If the rules are to be changed to be less strict or whatever, as long as they're applied to everyone the same way, that too is equality. But how is changing the rules, in and of itself, a fight for equality?


It isn't. In fact, I don't think anyone here has even argued that it is. White people totally argue from anecdote all the time. The entire framing of this as a minority thing is, save for a few extreme examples, pretty questionable.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Cleverbeans » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:50 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:It's a system built on theft. That's what's obviously horrific about it. If you want a say on the direction your employer goes, work for a publically traded company and buy shares.


Hold up here tiger co-ops already exist and they're not stealing anything. The customers are the shareholder so it intrinsically ties the best interest of the customers to be the best interest of the employees.

I worked for an employee owned company once and it was also a great work environment because everyone had a vested interest in the outcome of the firm. I think this is a good transitional model from the current distribution of wealth and power where less than 20 people can decide the fate of a 10k+ workers.

And traditional debate does reinforce white privilege. The reality is that we tend to be raised by our own race and a lot of the skills used in debate are taught at home before someone does them at school. There is also the reality that as a pre-law discipline it required a strong understanding of English which is written at a relatively high level with a lot of annotation. I don't think anyone intentionally made debate a mostly white activity it's just a current reality. Maybe it's worth bringing back rhetoric as a discipline in it's own will help motivate something with less old white dust feel.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:22 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:And traditional debate does reinforce white privilege. The reality is that we tend to be raised by our own race and a lot of the skills used in debate are taught at home before someone does them at school. There is also the reality that as a pre-law discipline it required a strong understanding of English which is written at a relatively high level with a lot of annotation. I don't think anyone intentionally made debate a mostly white activity it's just a current reality. Maybe it's worth bringing back rhetoric as a discipline in it's own will help motivate something with less old white dust feel.


I don't think that "requires significant English knowledge" is the same as being biased towards white people. At least, not in any useful sense, since English knowledge is part of tons of stuff in any English speaking country...and the same is true in basically any country. Being more proficient at the language will be an advantage anywhere, regardless of skin color, and skin color does not determine proficiency.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:53 am UTC

[quote="Cleverbeans
I worked for an employee owned company once and it was also a great work environment because everyone had a vested interest in the outcome of the firm. I think this is a good transitional model from the current distribution of wealth and power where less than 20 people can decide the fate of a 10k+ workers.
[/quote]

Spoiler:
Why is 20 people deciding the fate of 10k workers bad?

Assuming business acumen (lets call this a hybrid of IQ, executive function, management experience and time preference - bIQ) follows a normal distribution, democratic determination of the businesses path is going to give you a decision made by the mean level of bIQ (which will also be the median). You only get better decisions made by workplace democracy if those 20 board members have below mean bIQ. That seems vanishingly unlikely, because those very board members positions select for a high bIQ.

There's also the issue that if you're only a shareholder in a company for the duration of your working there, your time preference shrinks to Shark Week of employment. That's around five years for the average employee. Contrast that with pension funds that invest on a hundred-year time horizon, or individals who invest on generation long timescales. You'll get a massive increase in short-termism
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:19 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
cphite wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I am getting so overwhelmed with this 'help help I'm being oppressed' bullshit Conservatives are screaming on the tops of their lungs in response to minorities fighting for equality.


How is changing the rules of formal debate "fighting for equality"? If the rules are applied to everyone the same way, that is equality. If the rules are to be changed to be less strict or whatever, as long as they're applied to everyone the same way, that too is equality. But how is changing the rules, in and of itself, a fight for equality?


It isn't. In fact, I don't think anyone here has even argued that it is. White people totally argue from anecdote all the time. The entire framing of this as a minority thing is, save for a few extreme examples, pretty questionable.

Yes. As a debate judge, people argue from personal experience and use foul language all the time. Most of the "outrage" in the article is really just shock at how racialized the final debate was. But reading the article and having a small knowledge of how these debates work makes it clear that there was no other option for the final debate.

Generally a team prepares an affirmative argument beforehand and then makes that argument repeatedly. The more off-the-wall the argument is, the better, because it's harder for the negative team to dismantle. The Towson team (2 black girls) came up with this rather interesting framing wherein they attacked the President's "War Powers" by speaking of the various "War Ons" and how they're affecting the black community. They got away with it (judged to be topical), and it sounds like they blindsided their opponents, who were unprepared to debate that specific point.

Now, in the finals, they're paired with the team from OU, who happened to be two black males. By this point the rumormill has certainly done its work and the OU team knows exactly what they're up against. So four black people walk into a room, two of them claim that the first black President's policies are harming black people. What the fuck do you think is going to happen at this point?

Of course it was a highly racialized debate with each team trying to establish themselves as the true representatives of the culture while tearing down the other side. That was the OU team's best defense. And after an hour of racial tirade, they almost certainly forgot about it, took a bunch of jello shots and tried to get into each others' pants, because College.

More black students are debating, but the general style of the debate is largely unchanged. The notion that every single one of the majority white judges will start awarding auto-wins to anyone who freestlyes during a debate based on this one fringe case is laughable.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby elasto » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:44 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Yes. As a debate judge, people argue from personal experience and use foul language all the time. Most of the "outrage" in the article is really just shock at how racialized the final debate was. But reading the article and having a small knowledge of how these debates work makes it clear that there was no other option for the final debate.

Generally a team prepares an affirmative argument beforehand and then makes that argument repeatedly. The more off-the-wall the argument is, the better, because it's harder for the negative team to dismantle. The Towson team (2 black girls) came up with this rather interesting framing wherein they attacked the President's "War Powers" by speaking of the various "War Ons" and how they're affecting the black community. They got away with it (judged to be topical), and it sounds like they blindsided their opponents, who were unprepared to debate that specific point.

Now, in the finals, they're paired with the team from OU, who happened to be two black males. By this point the rumormill has certainly done its work and the OU team knows exactly what they're up against. So four black people walk into a room, two of them claim that the first black President's policies are harming black people. What the fuck do you think is going to happen at this point?

Of course it was a highly racialized debate with each team trying to establish themselves as the true representatives of the culture while tearing down the other side. That was the OU team's best defense. And after an hour of racial tirade, they almost certainly forgot about it, took a bunch of jello shots and tried to get into each others' pants, because College.

More black students are debating, but the general style of the debate is largely unchanged. The notion that every single one of the majority white judges will start awarding auto-wins to anyone who freestlyes during a debate based on this one fringe case is laughable.


And this is why I like this set of forums so much: A high percentage of light vs heat.

Nice informative post ^^

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby sam_i_am » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:20 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Back to the OT


Can I take this to mean that you agree with the writer of the article about how debates should be conducted? I.E. On Topic

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Роберт » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:12 pm UTC

Brace wrote:
aoeu wrote:
Brace wrote:
aoeu wrote:
Brace wrote:...

The article says it clearly that this is a deviation from the trend.

Argument from authority, -98903245789 points

At least it's an argument.


Proof by assertion, straw man, moving the goalposts

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:13 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Why is 20 people deciding the fate of 10k workers bad?


Spoiler:
Because no matter how important those 20 people are they do the vast minority of the work in the company and the people doing the vast majority should get some say in how to cut costs too. At it's core it's an information packing problem. You have 100k employees you want to let 10% go now you have 20 people trying to represent 100k opinions without democratic process then you're not getting an accurate sample. Add to the fact those making the decisions often have incentives that go against the best interest of the workers means some balance of power should be put into place to prevent gross exploitation.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:37 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Why is 20 people deciding the fate of 10k workers bad?


Spoiler:
Because no matter how important those 20 people are they do the vast minority of the work in the company and the people doing the vast majority should get some say in how to cut costs too. At it's core it's an information packing problem. You have 100k employees you want to let 10% go now you have 20 people trying to represent 100k opinions without democratic process then you're not getting an accurate sample. Add to the fact those making the decisions often have incentives that go against the best interest of the workers means some balance of power should be put into place to prevent gross exploitation.


Spoiler:
A "Democratic process" doesn't produce an accurate sample - it just changes the terms of the decision. If you need to let 10% of the workforce go, and you are one of the 20 partners/majority shareholders/boardmembers you will do what's right for the company as a whole, and fire the least productive 10%. If firings are determined democratically it's just a popularity contest.

I don't see how workplace democracy is necessary to prevent exploitation either - we both live in nations with rule of law and extensive welfare states. Work or die isn't a thing, and neither is slavery. By definition you can't be exploited when you consent under no duress to an employment contract.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:30 pm UTC

Spoiler:
I don't have a problem with the 20 people saying "we aren't selling as much as we used to, we have to cut back on our workforce". What I have a problem with is when those 20 then turn around and give themselves raises for being so awesome.

When a company has to cut back it's workforce, it's a sign that the people at the top failed.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Chen » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:10 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Spoiler:
I don't have a problem with the 20 people saying "we aren't selling as much as we used to, we have to cut back on our workforce". What I have a problem with is when those 20 then turn around and give themselves raises for being so awesome.

When a company has to cut back it's workforce, it's a sign that the people at the top failed.


Spoiler:
This isn't necessarily true. 9/11 caused huge problems in the airline/aerospace industry. Problems that caused companies to have to downsize/close for no real fault of their own.

Giving raises based on performance is pretty standard. In the aforementioned situation, if management finds a way to only cut 2% of their employees instead of 5% via whatever means, does this not deserve recognition? If the company is running itself into the ground giving out executive raises, yes there's a problem. Giving executives raises because their performance is providing improving conditions is not a problem, even if the improving conditions are still negative, provided they're less negative than before.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:23 pm UTC

Spoiler:
The recognition for figuring out how to cut only 2% of employees rather than 5% should be only a 2% cut in pay rather than 5%.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:59 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Spoiler:
The recognition for figuring out how to cut only 2% of employees rather than 5% should be only a 2% cut in pay rather than 5%.


Spoiler:
You should get a 2% pay cut, even if you fire unproductive employees? What about roles that are automated away?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby elasto » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:07 pm UTC

Haha you guys should start a new thread (if you can work out what to title it). You might get others joining you - perhaps even me!

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:37 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Spoiler:
I don't have a problem with the 20 people saying "we aren't selling as much as we used to, we have to cut back on our workforce". What I have a problem with is when those 20 then turn around and give themselves raises for being so awesome.

When a company has to cut back it's workforce, it's a sign that the people at the top failed.


Would it be possible to just get a thread split? This is an awesome topic, but it is pretty far from the OT.

And no, cutting a workforce does not mean you have failed. Once upon a time, about half of the US was involved in food production. Farming and what not. Now, it's about half a percent of the population. This is not because we experienced a failure in farming, but because we got so efficient that many, many less people have to work in this sector to fill our needs. This is a smashing success from a social POV, because now people can go do things that are not plowing fields and so on. And, also, as a result, we're not a country that's terribly vulnerable to drought, food shortages, etc. We're not *entirely* immune, nobody is...but we have a remarkably varied, reliable, and plentiful food supply.

Labor is a cost. Cutting costs is something that overtly benefits businesses. Of *course* CEOs are going to be rewarded for that. It's only really a problem when long term outcomes are discounted too highly, and someone is rewarded for short term successes that threaten long term outcomes.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:46 pm UTC

Also, you know. There was that bit where a mod told you guys to shut up about it in this thread.

cf.

Zamfir wrote:Back to the OT
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26531
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:44 pm UTC

Ormurinn and Cleverbeans have been banned from N&A by me. They'll be restored access either in a week or whenever I, Zamfir or some other mod restores access.

Hey, turns out mods aren't kidding around when they say to get back on topic. Who knew? Oh, right.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Ormurinn » Tue May 06, 2014 8:22 am UTC

Found a video of the debate in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Heisenberg » Tue May 06, 2014 1:31 pm UTC

Yup, that's why most schools go for the more traditional parliamentary debate, rather than policy debate, which frequently devolves into who can yell the most in a limited time.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 14, 2014 1:34 am UTC

How sad to see
What used to be
A model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport: a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 14, 2014 1:13 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:A model of decorum and tranquility


Ehhh...stuff in the past is more like today than people often wish to admit. I submit that debate has basically ALWAYS been about rival ideologies slugging it out. Ideas as soldiers, not as something to be explored.

Now, I agree that this is not as it should be...but history offers us little hope that our era is unusual in this regard.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 15, 2014 4:26 am UTC

Society changes. People don't.

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Does traditional debate reinforce White Privilege?

Postby Minerva » Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:34 am UTC

I used to do debate, many years ago, in school. A little bit at university too. We were pretty good at it.

But one day I had an epiphany. This (debate) is bullshit, and I'm going to stop doing it.

You decide what's true on the toss of a coin, and you break out your whole arsenal of logical fallacies, persuasion and rhetoric to convince the audience that what you say is true.

What does this skillset accomplish for society? It only trains people for the next generation of Andrew Bolt, the next generation of Today Tonight, the next generation of Parliament question time. (Insert non-Australian specific similar cultural references here for international readers.)

It might be sensible for a completely abstract point of discussion of theology or philosophy, but for any kind of real-world science or policy that should be informed by facts and evidence, it's rubbish.

It is the complete opposite of patiently researching and presenting high-quality source material and references and fact-derived conclusions in a sober way without rhetoric or manipulative language, without logical fallacies.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests