Folks, you know how the left operates by now. IowaHawk laid it out in the days before he decided to mostly Tweet about old timey cars (seriously, dude, come back to politics—we miss you):
1. Target a respected institution
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 25, 2016
2. Kill & clean it
3. Wear it as a skin suit, while demanding respect
And the latest to get this treatment (besides Indiana Jones and Lucasfilm in general), is the National Speech and Debate Society. Over at The Free Press, James Fishback has covered how high school debates are being corrupted by leftists. He discusses the problem in this video:
"At the end of the day, open debate and free speech made this country great."
— James Fishback (@j_fishback) July 2, 2023
Earlier today, I spoke with @LidiaNews about my article on the hijacking of high school debate in @TheFP: https://t.co/sAVuubMVeY pic.twitter.com/I7SSCFpqk2
We have tracked down this debate ‘judge’s’ website where she announces her disclosure rules and the screenshot (with the offending passage highlighted) has more punch than their discussion of it.
(Embiggen as necessary.)
Fishback’s Tweet links to an article, and that article in turn links to a prior article on the topic. Both have gems such as a judge announcing on a website that she will not judge things neutrally:
Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. . . . I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging. . . . I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. . . . Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc.
Of course, saying you follow Mao, in a sane world, would be like saying you follow Hitler. Mao murdered tens of millions of Chinese by consigning them to starvation in the Great Leap Forward, among other horrific human rights violations. It quotes two judges claiming that if you point out that some immigration is illegal, you will automatically lose, one even claiming that these peaceful words can make things ‘unsafe.’ In addition to ideological discrimination, there is even racial discrimination. You have already seen the screen shot describing the advantages given to black debaters. In addition to that, one judge announces:
‘[I]f you are white, don’t run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC [people of color]. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.’
So, we guess if you are white you aren’t allowed to argue that the Harvard’s affirmative action program harmed Asian-Amercians, but if you are literally any other race, you can. This author is white and married to an Asian-American woman. If we were blessed with children, would they be allowed to bring this up? Would they perhaps be able to bring it up only half the time?
And would Elizabeth Warren be considered a Native-American in these situations? Are we going by the old white supremacist ‘one drop’ theory in this?
They like to think they are not racist, but in fact they are super-racist.
Also, for the record, this means that as long as this kind of open viewpoint and racial discrimination is tolerated—especially the racial discrimination—no state governmental institution (such as a public school) can lawfully use the National Speech and Debate Association any more than it could team up with the KKK. In all frankness, a conservative or at least neutral public interest law firm should get involved and sue to prevent this from happening.
And we are not done yet. They also allow for ad hominem attacks now:
In his final round of the two-day tournament, Matthew was shocked to hear the opposing team levy a personal attack against him as their central argument. The opposing team argued: ‘This debate is more than just about the debate—it’s about protecting the individuals in the community from people who proliferate hatred and make this community unsafe.’
Then they pulled up a screenshot of a tweet from earlier that month, which Matthew had responded to.
The tweet read: ‘Name one thing that you, personally, feel is morally disgusting, but that you think, rationally, should be legal and accepted by society.’ Matthew had replied: ‘Calling people racial or homophobic slurs.’
Suddenly, Matthew’s six-word tweet and an accompanying Discord message became the focus of the round, U.S. water policy be damned. You can read his opponents’ entire argument—a rambling 25-page treatise in a multi-font format with no real mention of U.S. water policy—here. [link removed]
But what is most incredible is that this argument actually won Matthew’s opponents the round.
In his written decision, Judge Jacob Wilkus explained his reasoning for giving Matthew’s opponents the win. ‘A debate space where racist or violent people are not allowed is preferable to one where they are,’ he wrote, adding that ‘the ballot has a transformative power to challenge white debate norms where it is okay to just let racist or violent activity slide.’
Matthew, who considers himself a progressive, told me he had misread the tweet, and thought it was prompting comments only on what ‘should be legal’ not ‘accepted by society.’ He had made a mistake. But that’s beside the point.
The Greeks figured out before the birth of Christ that ad hominem arguments were invalid, but these morons haven’t pieced it together, yet.
Naturally there were reactions:
This…is…horrifying.
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 27, 2023
A complete abomination of debate.
The National Speech & Debate Association, which boasts TWO Supreme Court justices as alums, has been corrupted by judges making decisions based NOT on students’ performance—but on woke ideology. https://t.co/8O0Kptbn4m
High school debates are now adopting the same rules as left-wing media: if you say “capitalism can reduce poverty,” “Israel has a right to defend itself,” or “illegal immigrants,” you will lose. No questions asked. This is why young Americans are so lost.https://t.co/v9igIzYvte
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) May 25, 2023
When the ethos of "no debate" captures competitive debate itselfhttps://t.co/MxhVXblssj
— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) May 25, 2023
When I did high school debate (dinosaurs still roamed the Earth), we had to research & present convincing arguments without knowing which side we would represent.
— Soquel by the Creek (@SoquelCreek) May 25, 2023
Apparently, in some contests, it's a forgone conclusion given judges' Progressive biases.https://t.co/JqItS1somV pic.twitter.com/RyVDjTh3zX
For those who think student debate is alive and well in America's high schools, think again.
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) May 28, 2023
The professionals who judge these debates are truly frightening.
Don't just read the article – click the links to see what debate judges actually think. https://t.co/e0uFLEMd3x
What if national debate judges refuse to tolerate debate if it conflicts with their ideology?
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) May 25, 2023
If they can't tolerate debate, why are they allowed to judge?https://t.co/KFyue7BSkd
Remember: you can only debate using approved narratives. "Debate" itself becomes a self-selecting epistemology of exclusion -- which is then sold as "inclusivity." Leftism is a cancer.https://t.co/XMEW3OwLOL
— Mulder’s Long Fight for Account Reinstatement (@proteinwisdom) May 25, 2023
Policy debate was an important and formative experience for me. It makes me very sad to see it taken over by political posturing. Many young people will miss out on something very positive. https://t.co/XQGlbQXrex
— Lawrence H. Summers (@LHSummers) May 25, 2023
In the world of high school debate, judges have long been expected to rule independently of their own personal beliefs. That's still the formal rule, but many newer judges are now rejecting the principle [@j_fishback @TheFP] https://t.co/xqPlpxQEPF
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) May 25, 2023
What happened to free speech in high school debates?
— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) June 15, 2023
Join FIRE's @CTFitzpatrick and @incubatedebate founder @J_Fishback TONIGHT at 6 PM EST for a Twitter Space conversation following the bombshell @TheFP article on the state of high school debate.https://t.co/lwhTK8kOsh
Respectfully, FIRE, this is right up your alley. Don’t just denounce them. Sue to force them not to be able to operate in association with any public school.
More Cancel culture propaganda in schools
— Sandy Kristof (@KristofSandy) July 3, 2023
This is un-American.
— Comeau Brandon (@ComeauB36) July 2, 2023
This goes against the very fabric of America
I always thought that difficult topics were the point of debate club & class. Not giving debaters a choice of which side they were going to argue on. This forced people to view an issue from all sides and understand the reasoning for others' support of a particular line of logic.
— William Grimes (@William67689150) July 3, 2023
The idea that you can win a high school debate round by arguing that your opponent is personally evil—ignoring the actual policy resolution—is just so bleak.https://t.co/LkoTc85cYb pic.twitter.com/0QUyVst0fi
— Emma Camp (@emmma_camp_) June 26, 2023
Our nation's premiere debating society rewards students for ad hominem attacks.
— Nico Perrino (@NicoPerrino) June 26, 2023
A debate on water policy was won when debaters presented old tweets about their opponent unrelated to the debate, reports @j_fishback.https://t.co/pc2QKwCKzW @speechanddebate @TheFP
If you argue anything other than progressive dogma, you lose. The Left ruins everything it touches: https://t.co/VIVVKMeaFT
— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) May 25, 2023
It’s like a Midas touch, but involving feces instead of gold.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member