High School Students Disqualified From Debate After Quoting Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson

Sep 2015
13,774
5,000
Brown Township, Ohio
#11
See! Your quote from that little pissant reveals why the largest 'Christian' university in America also blocked Ben Shapiro! GCU...never heard of it before, but it apparently has a larger student body than Pat Robertson's clown college in Virginia or that equally crazy 'originalist' law school named after terrorist zealot - Patrick Henry, AND they also turned down a request from their branch of the Hitler Youth...also known as the Young America Foundation to pay Ben Shapiro to come there and give a lecture!

Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, Arizona, says it will not provide a venue for conservative pundit and Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro to speak on campus, The Daily Wire reported Friday, citing Young America’s Foundation.​
GCU is the largest Christian university in the country, recently surpassing Virginia’s Liberty University.​
Shapiro was invited to the university by the school’s Young America Foundation chapter, but the invitation was reportedly withdrawn by the university.​
According to YAF, school administrators gave three reasons for banning Shapiro from speaking on campus.​
“Allowing Shapiro on GCU’s campus would not be good for the school long-term,” the administration said, according to YAF.​
If it's a public school or a public state university, the conservative right can get up on their soapbox and blather on about LIEBERALS and Political Correctness, BUT what about when it's coming from a Christian Evangelical college?

Ben Shapiro and similar ilk, like the professed Catholic - Matt Walsh have found themselves under scrutiny from catholic and evangelical bloggers and writers who point out that 'a profession of faith does not prove the claimant is acting on that faith!'

I don't know anything else about Grand Canyon University aside from this story of the college administrators turning down their conservative student organization's request to have Ben Shapiro visit and distribute pearls of wisdom like you quoted above, BUT maybe I should give them credit for noticing that America is becoming increasingly vicious and divisive, and they should not assist or support agents like Shapiro who do not act in a way that Jesus did in the New Testament, but instead scorn the downtrodden for the conditions they are in and puff up the ego's of the rich and powerful!
I never heard of Grand Canyon University, is it accredited?
 
Dec 2016
4,808
2,470
Canada
#12
I'm not sure what that really has to do w/ anything
Really, or you just want cheap rhetorical points for you favorite youtubers!

You start a thread on some idiot broadcasting from his laptop, declaring that barring the comedy team of Shapiro and Peterson from speaking to high schoolers is an attack on freedom of speech, but you (and nobody else for that matter) wants to talk about why a Christian university is also disinviting them from appearing on their campus!
 
Likes: Lyzza
Dec 2013
32,715
19,078
Beware of watermelons
#14
Really, or you just want cheap rhetorical points for you favorite youtubers!

You start a thread on some idiot broadcasting from his laptop, declaring that barring the comedy team of Shapiro and Peterson from speaking to high schoolers is an attack on freedom of speech, but you (and nobody else for that matter) wants to talk about why a Christian university is also disinviting them from appearing on their campus!

Um, no. Its not about "freedom of speech" it is about a high school debate where the affirmative side used a poem as their opening argument and evidence. The negitive side said how do we debate against that then respond w/ quotes. The quotes were deemed racist and they lost the debate to a poem.

It is about a debate on a debate forum.
 
Likes: Jimmyb
Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#15
Jesus Christ that's a stupid article.
But it fits in with right-wing politics trying to pretend they are somehow being victimized... :rolleyes:

The two involved were not "disqualified". The article lies in the headline, which raises questions about the accuracy of the article.
The ONE JUDGE simply assessed that the two lost the debate. The article (in the text) even explicitly acknowledges that they lost the debate according to the judge.

Secondly, as somebody who has done high school debate there are several things I recognized about the description. (The below assumes that the article's description on some points are valid.)
First off, the "affirmative" team (the ones who supposedly won) presented a "squirrel". Instead of the typical standard "present a plan and defend it" action for the affirmative team, they presented something completely off the wall intended to try to throw things in their favor because the opposing team may not be prepared for it. Squirrels are not "illegal" but fairly risky.
Moreno and his partner responded by arguing the other team did not actually articulate a position. The structure of this debate allowed for the affirmative to propose a plan and then have the negative argue against that plan. Since the other team did not propose solutions to reduce restrictions on legal immigration, Moreno said, his team had nothing to argue against and claimed this was unfair.​
If I were the judge, Moreno and his team would have essentially won right there. The affirmative team failed to present a plan to address the debate resolution. As such, they lose.
To win, the affirmative team needs to present a plan that meets the meaning of the resolution for the debate, and then the affirmative team needs to successfully defend their plan (the need for it, does it cause more problems than it's worth, etc, etc) against the negative team's criticism.

The debate judge appears to have been sympathetic to the affirmative team's nonsense and this happens. I don't know where this school got its debate judges from, but when I was in high school we had to rely a LOT on volunteers which included previous debate members who had graduated, faculty, parents, and just about anybody who was willing to do the job. We would explain the rules to the judges but inevitably it was on the judges to do their job and appealing to arguments the judge would have sympathy towards would help people win.
There is a term "jury nullification". To me, it explains a lot about what this ONE judge did... :rolleyes:

Finally, this was ONE JUDGE.
Later in the article, they talk about what the tournament directors had to say.
Moreno then spoke to the tournament directors, who both work for Arizona State University (The Daily Wire will not name them as they did not respond to a request for comment). These two affirmed that the team has a “legitimate gripe” over their treatment, but that Moreno and his partner were there to debate for that particular judge, and their arguments failed to persuade him, whether he was impartial or not.​
“I think you are totally right that [the judge] overstepped a little bit by stopping the debate and deciding, but I also think it’s incredibly obvious that – regardless of how many ways you try to couch this argument in front of that judge – the bar for the other team to respond to it was going to be so low that the argumentative content that you chose, the strategy that you chose, for that judge and for his stated philosophy, was a poor choice on your part,” one of the directors tells Moreno in the video.​
Trying to blame liberals or the education system for the action of one judge is stupid.
I have never come across this type of situation when helping my old school to set up a debate tournament. I have no idea how "legitimately" it could be addressed.
Beyond the "standard" rules, a lot of it comes down to swaying the judge. When arguing in a Catholic high school's tournament, I've heard team members briefly discuss how to possibly change their approach in order to be more sympathetic for Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2013
32,715
19,078
Beware of watermelons
#16
Jesus Christ that's a stupid article.
But it fits in with right-wing politics trying to pretend they are somehow being victimized... :rolleyes:

The two involved were not "disqualified". The article lies in the headline, which raises questions about the accuracy of the article.
The ONE JUDGE simply assessed that the two lost the debate. The article (in the text) even explicitly acknowledges that they lost the debate according to the judge.

Secondly, as somebody who has done high school debate there are several things I recognized about the description. (The below assumes that the article's description on some points are valid.)
First off, the "affirmative" team (the ones who supposedly won) presented a "squirrel". Instead of the typical standard "present a plan and defend it" action for the affirmative team, they presented something completely off the wall intended to try to throw things in their favor because the opposing team may not be prepared for it. Squirrels are not "illegal" but fairly risky.
Moreno and his partner responded by arguing the other team did not actually articulate a position. The structure of this debate allowed for the affirmative to propose a plan and then have the negative argue against that plan. Since the other team did not propose solutions to reduce restrictions on legal immigration, Moreno said, his team had nothing to argue against and claimed this was unfair.​
If I were the judge, Moreno and his team would have essentially won right there. The affirmative team failed to present a plan to address the debate resolution. As such, they lose.
To win, the affirmative team needs to present a plan that meets the meaning of the resolution for the debate, and then the affirmative team needs to successfully defend their plan (the need for it, does it cause more problems than it's worth, etc, etc) against the negative team's criticism.

The debate judge appears to have been sympathetic to the affirmative team's nonsense and this happens. I don't know where this school got its debate judges from, but when I was in high school we had to rely a LOT on volunteers which included previous debate members who had graduated, faculty, parents, and just about anybody who was willing to do the job. We would explain the rules to the judges but inevitably it was on the judges to do their job and appealing to arguments the judge would have sympathy towards would help people win.
There is a term "jury nullification". To me, it explains a lot about what this ONE judge did... :rolleyes:

Finally, this was ONE JUDGE.
Later in the article, they talk about what the tournament directors had to say.
Moreno then spoke to the tournament directors, who both work for Arizona State University (The Daily Wire will not name them as they did not respond to a request for comment). These two affirmed that the team has a “legitimate gripe” over their treatment, but that Moreno and his partner were there to debate for that particular judge, and their arguments failed to persuade him, whether he was impartial or not.​
“I think you are totally right that [the judge] overstepped a little bit by stopping the debate and deciding, but I also think it’s incredibly obvious that – regardless of how many ways you try to couch this argument in front of that judge – the bar for the other team to respond to it was going to be so low that the argumentative content that you chose, the strategy that you chose, for that judge and for his stated philosophy, was a poor choice on your part,” one of the directors tells Moreno in the video.​
Trying to blame liberals or the education system for the action of one judge is stupid.
I have never come across this type of situation when helping my old school to set up a debate tournament. I have no idea how "legitimately" it could be addressed.
Beyond the "standard" rules, a lot of it comes down to swaying the judge. When arguing in a Catholic high school's tournament, I've heard team members briefly discuss how to possibly change their approach in order to be more sympathetic for Catholics.

My guess is that they planned for the negative and if they drew the affirmative they were planning on utilizing the opportunity to grandstand and take the loss. Somehow or another they got "lucky" and drew a judge who was easily swayed by their silly little poem. But maybe not


Here is that kids response to all of the attention



And not sure if you watched it or not but the video that spurred it all


 
Dec 2016
4,808
2,470
Canada
#17
Um, no. Its not about "freedom of speech" it is about a high school debate where the affirmative side used a poem as their opening argument and evidence. The negitive side said how do we debate against that then respond w/ quotes. The quotes were deemed racist and they lost the debate to a poem.

It is about a debate on a debate forum.
In the first place, high school students are minors, so their freedoms are limited to start with. My guess is that your favorite fascism promoters want access to young, impressionable minds, so this very minor story is blown up to be a front page issue. If the debate team wanted to debate the issue of liquidating undesirable populations, would that also be allowed?
 
Likes: Lyzza
Dec 2016
4,808
2,470
Canada
#18
My guess is that they planned for the negative and if they drew the affirmative they were planning on utilizing the opportunity to grandstand and take the loss. Somehow or another they got "lucky" and drew a judge who was easily swayed by their silly little poem. But maybe not


Here is that kids response to all of the attention



And not sure if you watched it or not but the video that spurred it all


Why are 30 year olds in high school?
 
Nov 2005
7,850
2,415
California
#19
My guess is that they planned for the negative and if they drew the affirmative they were planning on utilizing the opportunity to grandstand and take the loss. Somehow or another they got "lucky" and drew a judge who was easily swayed by their silly little poem. But maybe not
I believe I read that the judge stated before the debate that the debaters should not to be racist.
Given that, if the affirmative team heard this before they started and they had this squirrel prepared as a possibility, they could have chosen to use the squirrel then (instead of another, not squirrely plan).
Just a thought...

Another thought...
I saw one of the videos including one of the guys "speed reading" his argument. I had to stop that video at that time cause it was annoying as hell. While the text of his statement was printed on the screen, if you didn't have the text of his argument before you, I think many would not be able to follow his comments.
The debater stated that there were various people who used such tactics and that the text of the statements were provided to others. When I was in debate, we didn't hand such information over to the opposing team nor to the judge. The judge and the opposing team needed to take notes as to the arguments presented, while at the same time preparing their own counter to those arguments.


In the first place, high school students are minors, so their freedoms are limited to start with. My guess is that your favorite fascism promoters want access to young, impressionable minds, so this very minor story is blown up to be a front page issue. If the debate team wanted to debate the issue of liquidating undesirable populations, would that also be allowed?
I typed out the below and then I realized my response was probably not addressing what your question was truly really aimed at...
If any affirmative plan involved "liquidating undesirable populations", most likely the school and/or debate coach would justifiably squash that plan and the students would be instructed to come up with another one. This would not be illegal because, as you observed, "their freedoms are limited to start with".
Moreover, "freedom of speech" typically guarantees people a capability to state something. It does not guarantee that the speaker can choose whatever venue he pleases (when the venue is run by somebody else) and demand to use that venue for his speech.


A lot of the basics of the debate structure seemed similar to what I experienced in high school.
There is a resolution that is adopted for the region. Here, it was: “Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce restrictions on legal immigration.”
The affirmative team prepares an approach which justifies the resolution (stating why it's necessary), prepares a plan which meets the resolution and addresses the provided reasons as to why it's necessary.
The negative team counters with various tactics like trying to show why it's not truly necessary, showing why the plan has disadvantages, showing why the affirmative team's approach does not satisfy the resolution, showing why the affirmative team's plan does not actually address the reasons why they claim it's necessary, etc. Any combination of arguments that fall into "stock issue" categories.
What you describe would easily fit into one of those categories where the negative team would simply point to existing law which opposed "liquidating undesirable populations" and documenting why circumventing this law (against murder / genocide) was a bad thing (which shouldn't be too hard).

In most school driven debates (at least in the area I am from), team members have to be able to argue both sides of the issue. They have to both prepare an "affirmative plan" and defend it when they are arguing as the "affirmative team", and they also have to prepare a wide variety of counter arguments which could be applied to any "affirmative plan" they encounter when they are chosen for the "negative team".
 
Likes: right to left
May 2018
2,841
1,996
USA
#20
LOL...another "fake news" article by Sabcat, using as proof a fake news site (Dailywire).



Virtually every story favors the right and denigrates the left. The Daily Wire has also published some false information such as these and this directly from Ben Shapiro. Further, a factual search reveals that the Daily Wire, on a whole, has a mixed track record with fact checkers.
 
Likes: Lyzza