Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand because I don't have a college degree myself. Is that why it sounds stupid to me? Oh no wait. It's better I remain ignorant and don't understand them or I will understand why I'm suppose to kill myself to please these idiots.
IF anyone read the link - these are NOT "Harvard Students", they are a Debate Team from West Georgia University.
The Debate Competition was held at Harvard and the subject of the debate was supposed to be about renewable energy.
I guess Harvard provide a "Safe Space" for their Debate.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,735,309 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
IF anyone read the link - these are NOT "Harvard Students", they are a Debate Team from West Georgia University.
The Debate Competition was held at Harvard and the subject of the debate was supposed to be about renewable energy.
I guess Harvard provide a "Safe Space" for their Debate.
IF anyone read the link - these are NOT "Harvard Students", they are a Debate Team from West Georgia University.
The Debate Competition was held at Harvard and the subject of the debate was supposed to be about renewable energy.
I guess Harvard provide a "Safe Space" for their Debate.
The president of the University of West Georgia responds:
"...College debate programs operate in a manner similar to laboratories, where events like those depicted in the video are closely controlled and monitored. One team presents a position and the other responds, often using extreme arguments to show that a particular point is illogical.
In the case of the 2012 video, the debate centered on energy policy. The first team argued that white people embracing the location of wind turbines in their neighborhoods would be a way to address criticism that racism is inherent in the movement of white populations from urban areas. The former UWG students countered that argument by claiming that the extreme would not be for white people to locate themselves near wind turbines, but rather for white people to sacrifice themselves to remove racism altogether. The purpose of the statement was to show the absurdity of their opponents’ position.
Unfortunately, the purposefully-edited video posted this week does not capture the complete discussion. It includes less than a minute and a half of a debate that lasted more than an hour and a half. It does not show that the first team injected the element of racism. Ultimately, it focuses solely on the extreme points used by one of the UWG students to counter an argument in a sanctioned debate. When taken out of the context of a competition in which one team commonly uses extreme rhetoric to argue against an opponent’s extreme rhetoric, the scenes from the video are shocking. The fact that the debate was not halted and authorities were not notified shows the controlled environment in which the comments were made. ..."
If you look on YouTube, in the comments someone pasted an email that they received from the president of the university where the students had come from in regards to this video. First of all, it was from 2012. Second of all, he blames the white students.
Quote:
Dear Mr. Davis,
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to email me directly concerning the posting of this video clip. We understand the concern surrounding a video posted this week that includes comments made by two former University of West Georgia debate students. While these students participated in a nationally sanctioned debate event in 2012 representing UWG, their comments, or the comments made in any debate, do not reflect the University’s views or values.
We take diversity and inclusion very seriously. We work hard every day to ensure our students, faculty and staff from all backgrounds feel welcome and valued. Our top priority remains fostering the safest learning environment we can in which students can learn, grow and achieve.
As part of that commitment, UWG will not tolerate or allow comments or behavior that incite prejudice or violence against any individual or group. Any student who engages in such behavior will be investigated under the university’s student code of conduct, resulting in appropriate sanctions.
Comments made during debate training or debate events or theater rehearsals are rare exceptions to this policy. College debate programs operate in a manner similar to laboratories, where events like those depicted in the video are closely controlled and monitored. One team presents a position and the other responds, often using extreme arguments to show that a particular point is illogical.
In the case of the 2012 video, the debate centered on energy policy. The first team argued that white people embracing the location of wind turbines in their neighborhoods would be a way to address criticism that racism is inherent in the movement of white populations from urban areas. The former UWG students countered that argument by claiming that the extreme would not be for white people to locate themselves near wind turbines, but rather for white people to sacrifice themselves to remove racism altogether. The purpose of the statement was to show the absurdity of their opponents’ position.
Unfortunately, the purposefully-edited video posted this week does not capture the complete discussion. It includes less than a minute and a half of a debate that lasted more than an hour and a half. It does not show that the first team injected the element of racism. Ultimately, it focuses solely on the extreme points used by one of the UWG students to counter an argument in a sanctioned debate. When taken out of the context of a competition in which one team commonly uses extreme rhetoric to argue against an opponent’s extreme rhetoric, the scenes from the video are shocking. The fact that the debate was not halted and authorities were not notified shows the controlled environment in which the comments were made.
Again, the students’ comments included in the video do not reflect the values of our university. They do not represent beliefs or doctrines we teach to students.
I sincerely hope that by providing the context in which this video is depicted helps restore your faith in our university and in future generations of leaders.
Sincerely,
Kyle Marrero
The problem with this is, the video that is unedited has been but in "private" status so that no one can see it and determine for themselves exactly what happened leading up to this.
Naturally.
The fact is, telling white people to kill themselves is not an appropriate way to debate the "absurdities" of an argument about renewable energy. The fact that the student was obviously enraged is also the sign of an extremely unskilled debater who has lost the argument. In debate like this, you are to study both sides of the issue so that you are able to calmly dispute what the other team says with facts...not conjecture, opinions, and hate speech. The excuse making from this President is disturbing.
Here's more interesting...not sure what to call this and not get banned:
The president of the University of West Georgia responds:
"...College debate programs operate in a manner similar to laboratories, where events like those depicted in the video are closely controlled and monitored. One team presents a position and the other responds, often using extreme arguments to show that a particular point is illogical.
In the case of the 2012 video, the debate centered on energy policy. The first team argued that white people embracing the location of wind turbines in their neighborhoods would be a way to address criticism that racism is inherent in the movement of white populations from urban areas. The former UWG students countered that argument by claiming that the extreme would not be for white people to locate themselves near wind turbines, but rather for white people to sacrifice themselves to remove racism altogether. The purpose of the statement was to show the absurdity of their opponents’ position.
Unfortunately, the purposefully-edited video posted this week does not capture the complete discussion. It includes less than a minute and a half of a debate that lasted more than an hour and a half. It does not show that the first team injected the element of racism. Ultimately, it focuses solely on the extreme points used by one of the UWG students to counter an argument in a sanctioned debate. When taken out of the context of a competition in which one team commonly uses extreme rhetoric to argue against an opponent’s extreme rhetoric, the scenes from the video are shocking. The fact that the debate was not halted and authorities were not notified shows the controlled environment in which the comments were made. ..."
Hmmm Kind of interested to know how one could frame "kill white'y" and have it come out like flowers. Please do tell.
If you look on YouTube, in the comments someone pasted an email that they received from the president of the university where the students had come from in regards to this video. First of all, it was from 2012. Second of all, he blames the white students.
The problem with this is, the video that is unedited has been but in "private" status so that no one can see it and determine for themselves exactly what happened leading up to this.
Naturally.
The fact is, telling white people to kill themselves is not an appropriate way to debate the "absurdities" of an argument about renewable energy. The fact that the student was obviously enraged is also the sign of an extremely unskilled debater who has lost the argument. In debate like this, you are to study both sides of the issue so that you are able to calmly dispute what the other team says with facts...not conjecture, opinions, and hate speech. The excuse making from this President is disturbing.
Here's more interesting...not sure what to call this and not get banned:
Hmmm Kind of interested to know how one could frame "kill white'y" and have it come out like flowers. Please do tell.
I think the President stated, "The purpose of the statement was to show the absurdity of their opponents’ position."
Quote:
Reductio ad absurdum... is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kind of interested to know how one could frame "kill white'y" and have it come out like flowers. Please do tell.
