The article here takes a bit stronger stance than “losing debates because of tweets”:
The NSDA has allowed hundreds of judges with explicit left-wing bias to infiltrate the organization. These judges proudly display their ideological leanings in statements—or “paradigms”—on a public database maintained by the NSDA called Tabroom, where they declare that debaters who argue in favor of capitalism, or Israel, or the police, will lose the rounds they’re judging.
The article calls out five judges for being biased. The NSDA site shows 47,168 paradigms. So, while there may be an issue, there doesn’t seem to be much proof here. It could equally well be that the author is cherry-picking instances that fit his ideology.
Very good point - I think however it’s worth noting the lack of the NSDA’s addressing of the judges biases and the high levels of debate within that organization the specific people oversee.
Regardless, and to the authors point, if an alternative org is provided that people prefer, it will gain popularity.
Very good point - I think however it’s worth noting the lack of the NSDA’s addressing of the judges biases and the high levels of debate within that organization the specific people oversee.
to be honest though i’m not really sure how you can address human bias here, and i’m confident this was also a problem before people started complaining about wokeness like they are here. obviously in an ideal world you would have a system that can impartially adjudicate these things–but these debates are often on very real subjects that impact real people. (in a lot of cases, i’d argue there is even a correct answer to most of these debates that inevitably looms over them.) i suspect the easier route is to just bake in the reality that people will have biases and that’s a part of convincing them in the debate process.
The article here takes a bit stronger stance than “losing debates because of tweets”:
The article calls out five judges for being biased. The NSDA site shows 47,168 paradigms. So, while there may be an issue, there doesn’t seem to be much proof here. It could equally well be that the author is cherry-picking instances that fit his ideology.
Very good point - I think however it’s worth noting the lack of the NSDA’s addressing of the judges biases and the high levels of debate within that organization the specific people oversee.
Regardless, and to the authors point, if an alternative org is provided that people prefer, it will gain popularity.
to be honest though i’m not really sure how you can address human bias here, and i’m confident this was also a problem before people started complaining about wokeness like they are here. obviously in an ideal world you would have a system that can impartially adjudicate these things–but these debates are often on very real subjects that impact real people. (in a lot of cases, i’d argue there is even a correct answer to most of these debates that inevitably looms over them.) i suspect the easier route is to just bake in the reality that people will have biases and that’s a part of convincing them in the debate process.