The author runs a debate league in Florida where judges are recruited from "faith-based leaders." I'd like to see their paradigms. Funny how he doesn't share them for us to compare.
> Debate Judge Kriti Sharma concurs: under her list of “Things That Will Cause You To Automatically Lose,” number three is “Referring to immigrants as ‘illegal.’ ”<p>> Should a high school student automatically lose and be publicly humiliated for using a term that’s not only ubiquitous in media and politics, but accurate?<p>How is calling someone an 'illegal' accurate? Grammatical issues aside, a lot of people violate laws by speeding, jaywalking etc. on a constant basis. Are they 'illegals' by the same metric? Crossing the border without authorization is only a misdemeanor.<p>Plus, a lot of terms can be 'accurate' in the literal sense but because of the context in which they were used, they're no longer acceptable, like the N word and R word. I guess the author wants people using those words pejoratively to denigrate people to win debates.
Funny how these sorts of people <i>still</i> haven't forgiven Israel for abandoning communism. Agrarian communism and the Kibbutz system have totally failed, but were mostly abandoned before this turned into a total disaster.<p>Of course, if the "nature of debate itself" is bourgeoisie ... and you cannot deal with this WHY would you involve yourself with it?<p>Oh right. She wants money.<p>"... there would be a even higher chance of me getting struck out of the pool. Which in the practical sense is not a decision I can make, because as a result of US monopoly capitalist exploitation, I rely in-part on judging to eat and survive bourgeois class warfare otherwise."<p>That's, to put it mildly, disappointing.