This is weird – a debate team consisting entirely of incarcerated prisoners actually defeated the Harvard University debate team head-to-head.
Huh. Guess they’re smoother talkers than their lawyers were.
This is weird – a debate team consisting entirely of incarcerated prisoners actually defeated the Harvard University debate team head-to-head.
Huh. Guess they’re smoother talkers than their lawyers were.
They kept attacking the Harvard team’s premises. They couldn’t leave the premises alone.
Did one of the Harvard team make a “pros versus cons” joke? Probably got their *** kicked if they did.
Cool Hand Euclid
It’s because the Harvard team comes from Puffy Cloud Imaginary World and the convicts come from Extremely Really Real World. Our political class tends to come from PCI World, which explains a lot.
The Shawshank Reducio Ad Absurdum
Why didn’t the Harvard Team break out the microaggression warning card and demand a “safe” space be created for them? Works during their classes.
I suspect that being a sociopath would be a real boon to a debater. You’d have absolutely no qualms about espousing the most ridiculous or horrifying positions. You could engage in any sort of misdirection, manipulation, and outright falsity with all the (apparent) conviction (heh) of a true believer.
I’m not saying you have to be a sociopath to be a good debater – or that all sociopaths would be good debaters. But for those with and interest and talent for debate I think it would be a significant advantage.
…well to be fair, it’s not that hard to win an argument with a liberal if facts and logic count.
“I suspect that being a sociopath would be a real boon to a debater. You’d have absolutely no qualms about espousing the most ridiculous or horrifying positions. You could engage in any sort of misdirection, manipulation, and outright falsity with all the (apparent) conviction (heh) of a true believer.” Still doesn’t explain how Harvard lost. 🙂