This is really, really, really bad. @HeatherEHeying @BretWeinsteinhttps://twitter.com/michaelmoreno2k/status/1188175155240947712 …
1:10
Show this thread
-
If that's what it is, then the professor is loosely playing the role of an opposing team, advancing arguments his students might face. He uses some terms that suggest that's what's going on. That said, the exercise feels way off target, but 'off target' isn't the same as bigoted.
"Off target" or even "bigoted" seem sort of beside the point, except on an exceedingly tilted playing field — the arguments are *really weak.* Is that not enough, in the context of formal debate?
-
-
As to the narrower point I think you are asking about, a transparently weak argument is not likely to be a winner, BUT obvious sophistry can be, and often is, in a formal academic debate.
-
I guess I'm still left wondering why we're making a subsidized, trophied event of creating Terrible People.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I guess my take is that if we're teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts like this, nobody should be surprised when Voldemort keeps rising
-
Yes, and I suspect this is the real story we can't see from the outside. "Debate" is sure to be a mess at the moment for the same reason everything else is. We have just peered into a deranged debate class.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The arguments suck, and the student has no trouble showing that in real time. But if a debate-prof offers painfully lousy arguments as examples, and a student secretly records them and portrays them on the internet as the prof's perspective, where is a reasonable person to stand?
-
This student quit the team — after, among other things, the prof suggested he was in no position to keep asking these questions
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.