Exposing Pseudo-Intellectual BS in Australian Debates

  • Thread starter Gelsamel Epsilon
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discussed a debate in an Australian debate class where the topic was "Sex should only be experienced in a permanent lifelong relationship." The affirmative team used ambiguous language to avoid discussing marriage and the negative team argued against applying biblical laws to everyone. The adjudicators, who were friends of the affirmative team and also agreed with the topic, gave the win to the affirmative team by one point. The speaker believes that this type of debating is biased and unfair, and that humans are not capable of rationally discussing subjective topics. They suggest sticking to objective subjects and keeping opinions to oneself.
  • #1
Gelsamel Epsilon
315
0
If anything pisses me off more then people bull****ting, it's when one, or both sides in a debate (Australian debate, which is a 3vs3 thing) spew psuedo-intellectual speculative garbage, and the adjudicators (sp?) are biased and stupid enough to believe it.

Today's topic was "Sex should only be experienced in a permenant lifelong relationship". Of course the topic has to be extremely abiguous since you can never tell when a relationship is lifelong until you die. Not only that but they use relationship so it's ambiguous enough not to use marriage as an extremely effective example but not too ambiguous so that you can refer to marriage in everything the affirmative says without actually saying it.

The affirmitive's first speaker basically stated that they were the affirmative side, it said about 3 sentences, the other 2 were condescendingly defining each word in the topic as if we didn't understand basic english. The 2nd Affirmative said the same and stumbled through a rebuttle using ambiguity, which should be extremely easy to do, but she still made a mess of it. The final speaker basically is an idiot, he begged the question by saying that the negative are idiots because they don't agree with their side. (When that was pointed out that they are AGAINST the topic he stumbled himself into mumbling and sat down)

The negative's first speaker was good, and got the best speaker award like he deserved, (which is good that it went to the right person instead of someone who read of a piece of paper for once). The 2nd speaker was really the joker of the class, so he made a farce of the topic and arguments really well actually, considering the topic itself is a farce. And the 3rd speaker basically rebutted the other team saying that not everyone is christian/catholic etc. so you can't apply bible laws to them. Talked about hedanists (sp?) etc.

As it turns out both adjudicators (sp again?) are friends of the affirmative team and are affirmative on the topic itself. The adjudicators said affirmative won by 1 point (a good tactic so it looks like you're not biased).

This happens multiple times in RE class during debates at least one team spews bull****, (usually the side which quotes the bible) and despite rebutting with segregation of church and state and the fact not everyone is christian the adjudicators (which are inevitably all christian) ignore the other teams arguments and give the points to their team.

Is it just my school or does everyone spew bull**** from their mouths?
Why do people BS?
Do people actually believe the psuedo-intellectual speculative BS that people say?


For details on Australian Debates;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debating#Australia-Asia_debating

Edit: As you can tell this type of debating is extremely prone to bias and is inherently unfair for the affirmative team since they go first and can't rebut the negatives last man.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's true. Stick to objective subjects. Keep your opinions to yourself. Humans are usually not capable of rationally discussing subjective things.
 
  • #3
Here is the US I was an interscholastic high school debate judge (my daughter was on the debate team so I got voluntered). The same group of judges nerver judge the same debaters during a debate tournament. Debators will often have to debate both sides of the same argument and be prepared with both arguments. At least that's how it's handled in this part of the US.
 

1. What is "Exposing Pseudo-Intellectual BS in Australian Debates"?

"Exposing Pseudo-Intellectual BS in Australian Debates" is a blog or project that aims to identify and call out false or misleading arguments and claims made in debates and discussions in Australia. It seeks to promote critical thinking and expose fallacies and flawed reasoning in order to encourage more informed and productive discussions.

2. Why is this project focused specifically on Australian debates?

The project is focused on Australian debates because it is based in Australia and the creator of the project is most familiar with the debates and discussions happening within the country. However, the principles and techniques used to identify pseudo-intellectualism and fallacies can apply to debates and discussions in any country.

3. How do you determine if something is "pseudo-intellectual" or not?

There are a few key characteristics that can indicate if something is pseudo-intellectual. These include a lack of evidence or logical reasoning to support claims, an overuse of jargon or complex language to appear more intelligent, and a reliance on emotional appeals rather than sound arguments. It is important to critically examine the evidence and reasoning behind any claims or arguments before accepting them as true.

4. Is the goal of this project to silence opposing viewpoints or promote a certain ideology?

No, the goal of this project is not to silence opposing viewpoints or promote a specific ideology. Instead, it seeks to promote critical thinking and encourage more productive and informed discussions. The project is not aligned with any specific political or ideological stance and aims to call out flaws in arguments from all sides of the debate.

5. How can individuals use this project to improve their own critical thinking skills?

Individuals can use this project as a resource to learn about common fallacies and flawed arguments, and how to identify them. By reading the analyses and explanations provided for various debates and discussions, individuals can improve their ability to think critically and avoid being swayed by pseudo-intellectualism. Additionally, individuals can use the project as a starting point for further research and examination of arguments and claims made in various debates.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top