Debate in uni

Go to bed, Jeb, you lost the nomination

slow and steady finishes the race.

I never understood how anybody could justify this. This can't be fucking real.

Universities are on the way out.

Not sure if they will be bankrupt, but If someone were to created a cheaper but just as meaningful form of accreditation the STEM subjects would flee.

there are already dedicated STEM universities and they do just fine.

>unironically thinking pure logic wins a debate
>acting as if the crowd wasn't a bunch of brainlets who 'think' with their feelings

>logic has no place in the "real world"
Logic was INVENTED to model what we believe to be unconditionally true. Why, then, are we not to use logic to argue a case? If A is A, then why the hell do you think that someone can argue "Not A," as long as they make it sound more appealing? Fuck off with your feels over reals bullshit.

>t. autist

Those who decide who wins are humans, humans are not computers and have feelings, therefore feelings/rethoric are an important part to win a debate.

>He's right, so let's repeat ourselves and call him an autist.

>Why, then, are we not to use logic to argue a case?

because we are human.

Humans invented logic. Exploitation of emotion is called control.

Presocratic Greece called and wanted its sophist shitflinging back

>Exploitation of emotion is called control.

only if you believe that emotion is the absolute ruler of human agency.

>I will totally evade reality

Keep being "logic" while Chad wins the debates spouting well crafted non-sense.

Enjoy being brainwashed by Chad. Your attitude enables him to manipulate you. Congratulations, you just admitted to being a spoon-fed brainlet.

>fuck off with your feels over reals bullshit
On a public debate, your only goal is to make the people watching think you are right. If you don't have rethoric, you lose, that's it. Fuck off with your ideals over reals bullshit.

This desu. If you can't blend rhetoric and facts together to form a convincing narrative you're the very definition of a brainlet.

>2017
>going to university

You should be preparing your body for the coming race war, user.

>>argue for my cause using top tier logic that would make stephen hawking jealous
Sure, user, sure.

I feel like OP lost fair and square and is just mad that a fat girl beat him.
>argue for my cause using top tier logic that would make stephen hawking jealous
I'm sure you did buddy.

here's some pointers for you op.
mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm

>"Be nice to women!"
>Society starts accommodating all women regardless of their contributions
>Being female is now a conduit for dumb people to enter otherwise off limits places
>"Men are a dime a dozen!"
>OP's life has been preparation and sacrifice
>Evolutionary pressure on men to improve or they won't succeed
>Over prepared male is on a debate stage with an idiot

What if I were to point out the opponent intention to use those tricks against me when I notice one and thus end up in questioning his/her argument only based on their display of poor intellectual honesty?

It's a trick in itself, but at least punishes the opponent for attempting to use feels over reals

Never took a debate but I have a question for you, OP

If you noticed the feminist was emotionally manipulating the crowd, couldn't you ask to interject to point out that she isn't addressing any of your points or not even debating at all - rather - she was clearly attempting to use feels? I guess pointing out she's cheating is also a bit cheating in itself, but that's her fault for starting it
Or you were expecting the crowd to laugh at her sob stories and make you win?

There is no objective reality user.

For you, university is a place only the brightest minds should be allowed to enter. You think of Dirac, Euler, van Neumann and countless other enlighted gentlemen meeting in a calm place to create the inventions of the modern world and explore the universe, enriching humanity as a byproduct.

Meanwhile, lots of normies think differntly. For some, it is just a place to hang out for ~years and not having to cook for themselves. For others (women) its a validation place and the perfect opportunity to snatch a beta provider after attending the cock festival. Others do it just for the resume, the diploma will make them stand out between the usual workers.

Unfortunatly, lots of capable bright young men hang out at home now. They have not yet understood that they shape society by their actions and inactions.

If you want change, start acting. Meet with others. Rent a clubhouse. Have a dresscode. Make your own exams that are so rediciously hard noone else but likeminded people will be able to join. Stop jerking off if you are a math major, a physics major, an engineer or whatever - it is all the same in contrast to the 85% of the general public. Stop being ultracompetitive - there is no price to win once you are employed, you will only be taken advantage of, as with any kind of employment. Make it official, have a brand. Publish in science magazines. Request government funding. You have a chance to shape history - why not go for it?

Not OP but this is completely unrelated to the thread

He's just whining about debates not actually rewarding logic despite being advertised as such

While I agree with his complaints - I think he should man up a bit and call out the opponent for their bullshit instead of just hoping the crowd is smart enough. Public speeches require charisma to win, not only logic - it's wrong, but this is how it works and how you should deal with it to win
If you want change, you would need to change human weaknesses to feels - and that's pretty much impossible. Maybe you could debate the criteria of judgement though

Speaking fast in debates is basically required, it's called spreading. They're apparently not the best at it, given their lack of enunciation and pacing. Argument is a different story, but there's an explanation to how they're speaking for sure, not just chimping out.

spreading is a fucking joke, if you arguments are incomprehensible to the audience because you speak so fast then there is no point in a live debate. I know judges get a script, it makes the talk useless, just debate through the papers then, with a limited number of lines and other specifications.

>college is becoming a meme, I wouldn't be surprised if they start bankrupting in the next 10-20 years
With no more grads, I'll be able to demand outrageous pay. Works for me.

Humans were a mistake.
t. god

>implying god posts on this tibetan fingerpainting forum
>implying that if he did he would ever leave r9k

I feel sick

Many debates limit the amount of interjections, maybe even ban them. Which is a little retarded because whoever goes last always has the advantage even in a "A's opening statement->B's opening statement->A's retort, B's retort->A's retort retort->B's retort retort etc." model regardless of how many times you repeat the iteration. But it does keep things from just being a shouting match, although personally, I've seen a handful of refereed debates and many people having arguments about Veeky Forums shit, and the shouting matches easily are more entertaining to watch and generally cover the topic way more thoroughly.

Fuck off and false flag elsewhere /pol/lack

This BS doesnt even happen in fucking Sweden

>my way of debating is superior
>that's why I lost
>if you beat your opponents, they win

Honestly if you can't dismantle B's arguments by the second round, you deserve to lose. A proper debate is decided in the second round by how well A both defends his arguments from B's refutations and refutes any new points that B has discussed. If A has valid points, they'll know how to defend them from first level refutations. If they're a good debater, they'll refute future arguments before they start based on how B refuted them in the first round. Anything further than that is just circlejerking with "YUH HUH NUH UH YUH HUH NUH UH..."

>he's never had a tenured professor who was opinionated
Just two weeks ago my roommate watched as one of his professors called up a single student that supported Trump and had the entire class "debate" him at once by putting him up front and having people ask him questions and them refute his answers.

>refereed debates
Then I guess we need more of those if they don't allow interjections.
Otherwise it turns in what OP described

Also yeah, in every single system of course who goes last has more advantage, you cannot change it.
You could moderate the advantage though

Are you for real or just false flagging too?

>Are you for real or just false flagging too?
No matter what answer I give it won't affect your decision to believe me or not. If it does, you're an idiot.

You bunch of complacent armchair brainlets. You know precisely dick about formal debate. And I'm not just talking about user's blogpost.

First, let's talk about assumptions. Science is a discipline that perpetuates itself by being grounded on principles of uncertainty. For example, we used to think (by observing through empirical, albeit primitive, methods) that the earth was flat. But once we had access to more accurate means of observation, we came to accept that we were incorrect. By this humility we are able to expand and adjust the information we accept (for this particular moment) as correct.

So, science operates on *reasonable assumptions.

In the same way, debate is grounded on what is established as factual. Either party is expected to matterload (expand general knowledge to so they can call out bullshit; also there is a prep time for debaters once a motion--the statement to be debated about--is issued). So, there is a general understanding of what is correct, and this is the set of assumptions the discussion will operate with. Of course, not many motions will be so topical. Debaters can argue with knowledge that is a priori (corollaries to premises, by the rules of logic).

And appointed adjudicators are often debaters themselves. Else, how are they supposed to judge what they are not familiar with?

Now if the motion is a problem, you should know that there are many ways to solve a problem. An analogy: say you are solving an equation and someone else is saying their solution is better because it is more efficient (and that yours is brutish and bulky).

Same with debate, except the scope is larger. Additionally, logical fallacies (whether formal--flawed when reduced to logic statements--or nonformal, such as ad hominem or ad misericordia) will also be taken into consideration when assessing either side.

So quit shilling dumb assumptions about debate.

Nice blog post, faggot. Have you thought about getting a WordPress?

How buttmad would you be if I told you I already do?

Now try getting up before a crowd and getting them to digest your wall of text while your opponent keeps cutting you off.

Kek. I was talking about formal debate a. You are not supposed to be interrupted unless you allow a POI (point of information) from an opponent.

>cutting off
back to the fucking cage with you

>if everyone debates in my way, this is how it should be done

In a real debate, you can't count on your opponent being civil. He's trying to convince the audience (not you) that he's right, and the only real rules are what the audience will tolerate. If he can fit a quip into your lengthy monologue, he will and the audience most likely won't give a shit that he spoke during your time. If he can change the topic to dodge a question or get a rouse out of the crowd, he will as long as he plays to the audience's sensibilities.

Debate is not about who's actually right, and it never was. I'm not logic is totally useless, but if you're standing up there laying out formal propositions and listing out every logical fallacy your opponent is committing like an autist, no one will take you seriously and you'll get rekt by your more charismatic opponent like OP did.

jesus, why are they all so ugly and fat? aren't all blacks poor? how come they are so fat without money to buy shit to eat?

By "real", you mean not an academic setting? Then of fucking course what I said doesn't apply. Again, I stress, I was talking about formal debate. But people ought to know that there is more to debate than just handwaving and melodramatic screeching. Especially you lot.

I'm going to assume you aren't being ironic. You're missing the point of my argument, here. If you can win a debate by spreading sugar-coated lies, then you are despicable, and those listening SHOULD be able to see right through it. The problem is that people don't always see right through it, so losers like you can keep bullshitting their way through life.

I'm perfectly fine with spreading in certain competitions where the goal is to handle as many incoming arguments, evidence, etc., as possible and still come out on top. It takes a lot of skill, thought, and work to succeed. Aesthetically, though, it sucks so I wouldn't want it at all competitions so people can practice oratory and rhetoric, but I acknowledge that it has its place in certain tournaments.

Did you actually watch the full video? Both teams curse out loud multiple times. Both teams literally talk about fucking nonsense. One team farted and then started rapping. That same team also had one teammate interject onto another teammate's speech when he was not supposed to. Nobody is even dressed as if they respect the competition. This shit was an absolute train-wreck from every dimension possible.

What you were calling "spreading" was really just a brain malfunction IMO, because that wasn't even fast enough to be considered spreading at a tournament. Believe me, spreading is the least of that tournament's problems.

>engage in a competition to convince idiots of your side
>w-well I didn't know they were idiots
Brainlet.

logic is only feels

Reality models logic. There is auto logic.

Psychology models reality, in dreams, symbols, and even feels.

On one hand we have shortsighted people who don't realize that perhaps these people will go home and give the debate a second thought; thus getting a grip on their bearings.

The other side doesn't realize that reality is in the eye of the beholder and cannot wield rhetoric. They do not have the determination nor the aptitude to win a debate.

>In a real debate, you can't count on your opponent being civil.
I always demand it upfront and warn people that I don't waste my time arguing with narcissistic shitters, who can't bring themselves to let someone else finish a sentence, when their talking point is being eroded. Of course I have to also play by my own rules.
I can't stand most TV talk shows because of this, people in them talk over each other and turn up the volume until someone finally gives up. It's disgusting, a fucking circus and the audience loves it and learns fucking nothing.

>Whoosh
You can't avoid it forever. Idiots are coddled and spoon-fed. If this didn't happen, we wouldn't have fucking idiots to worry about.

wow, this is some really creative astroturfing

> out of focus

>2017
>debating

>idiots exist
That's quite the point you've made.

Leave it to /b/ x-posters to misconstrue 3 sentences.

With debate skills like these I'm really surprised they didn't start sucking your dick right there.

I gave you an opportunity to reread what I last said, and to fix your interpretations. Instead, you've made another useless remark. I'll respond once you're willing to post at a level that meets the age requirements of this board.

I bet it went
>alright retards here's my point in esoteric jargon if you don't get it fuck you
And then her point was
>I am not as big a dick as that guy
And then she rightfully won.

You don't really get to call people crossboarders when you post things unrelated to STEM because you're a crossboarder who thinks Veeky Forums is just /college/.

care to elaborate?

probably butthurt humanity-fags shitposting to validate their inferior fields of study