Biden's Latest Campaign Email Continues Dangerous Rhetoric, Calls Trump a Threat to Our...
Rep. Zoe Lofgren Attempts to Honor Sheila Jackson Lee But Other Democrats Lose...
Here's the Headline 14 Years After Biden and Dems Hailed Obama Signing the...
Jonah Goldberg Ratio'd Into ORBIT for Lame Attempt to Justify Biden Not Resigning...
Breaking: Israel Retaliates for Houthi Drone Strike
In the Latest Attempt to Gaslight His Staff, Biden Instructs Them Not to...
Looks Like the Biden Campaign Found a Celeb Fundraising Replacement for George Clooney
NY Times Seems to Hope Everybody's Forgotten About the 'Cheap Fakes' Cover Dems/Media...
Joe Biden's Account Trying to Debunk Trump's Speech 24 Hours Later Is a...
Sen. Josh Hawley Found Out What It Took to Draw Attention From Authorities...
WATCH: ‘Man’ Who Let Joe Biden Creep on His Daughter Goes the Full...
Now, It's Personal: Rachel Maddow Smears J.R.R. Tolkien and Lord of the Rings...
Former Gawker Writer Still Angry at Hulk Hogan for Fighting Back
You've Heard of 'Snakes on a Plane' ... Introducing the Far More Terrifying...
Mary Katharine Ham DROPS Yale Weirdo for Sharing Old College Pic to Shame...

WATCH: The National Speech and Debate Association has (sigh) gone woke, now tolerates open discrimination

Taken from @j_fishback Twitter account

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):

Advertisement

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:

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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:

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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!

Advertisement

Sponsored

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement