Hacker News Reader

Comment by scrumper | Hacker News Reader

There absolutely is when those 20+ seconds are jump cut in the middle of a calm interview.

The debate itself was far more than 20 seconds. It is entirely selective.

I clicked on the video because I was interested in an example of this high velocity, arcane, rule-optimized debate game that we're all talking about on this story. What I got instead was a video cutting the most shocking and ineffective parts of their performance in with them discussing their win on TV, done for effect. Come off it. I could record your next presentation and edit out all but the parts where you said "umm" and you'd look like a moron. Even more so if I then creatively cut that in with video of you explaining to your boss how you'd done a great job in the meeting. (I have no idea what you do; I am sure you can understand the analogy).

View on HN

I don't know how to make this any clearer, as you seem to have a vested interest in maintaining that the clips indicate nothing untoward about the competition.

A clip of ANY duration showing those behaviors bid competition is unnaceptable.

> Come off it. I could record your next presentation and edit out all but the parts where you said "umm" and you'd look like a moron. Even more so if I then creatively cut that in with video of you explaining to your boss how you'd done a great job in the meeting. (I have no idea what you do; I am sure you can understand the analogy).

Or, you could generate a single clip where I say "nigga" during a meeting and scream non-sequiturs as quickly as I could in order to get a point across, and I would be rightly fired for behaving like an animal. Regardless of whether the clip is 5 or 20 seconds long

The fact that something is selectively edited does not alone imply that it is biased or incorrect. The clips were more than enough to highlight the state to which modern debate has devolved. There are other, unedited examples of this inane style of "debate".

My point is that this style of debate activity itself is not in any way conducive to the exchange of ideas or advancement of understanding; the fact that they were given a trophy after spending ANY time debating in such a manner is an extremely poor reflection on the state of "debate" in our schools.

I completely agree, I don't even understand how this is not clear to others. It looks like taking a dump in the proverbial punch bowl (whatever the rest of the debate was).

A "vested interest"? You got me, I am a paid shill for Big Debate :)

There is a lot on this page about what modern debate is and isn't. It's not supposed to be a mechanism for the exchange of ideas or advancement of understating; it's a game, with rules, and players who optimize performance within those rules. This, here, now, is a forum for the exchange of ideas and the advancement of understanding. Notice that neither of us are hyperventilating while trying to score a victory.

I don't think the specific recording you posted is a fair representation of modern debate. Yes, the video presented modern debate in a terrible, terrible light. But, it was scant seconds of a performance which lasted how long? My point is that the material you posted to back up your opinion over-eggs the pudding to the extent that it undermines you. If you think modern debate is so bad, then an ordinary performance recording would make that point perfectly well, wouldn't it?

The Atlantic article posted somewhere close to our discussion here talks about how black students are challenging the rules within the framework of the competitions themselves. These Towson(sp?) ladies seem to be an example of that. I found it a thought-provoking read which didn't suggest any obvious self-evidently correct solution. What did you think?

These were national champions. The news cast was a clip from national championship debate. I don't think there is a better representation of a subject than a clip which literally shows winners competing seriously.

It is the first clip I found of what I remembered. I am using it as evidence of the state of modern debate, and I attest that it is typical championship behavior. I dont know what more evidence you need.

I'll say it, I think you are giving the champions an excessive benefit of doubt because they appear to be underprivileged minorities. I dont know where that Atlantic article is, but I have a haunch that the trouble comes from giving minorities social privilege because of the color of their skin, and in doing so, avoiding any challenge out if fear of being slandered as a racist.

Edit: I tracked the article down. It's even more absurd than the video, because it attempts to justify the degradation of debate, as though any change is good if brought about by black participants. That article is a joke. That whole tournament was a damn farce. The champions won by debating about something totally off topic. How is that acceptable? You think they would have won if they hadn't been black? Did you even read the article?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com