tumblr ‘debating’ isn’t real debating, and just reminds me of when my mum started her debate club at college. she was following on from a previously student lead club where the kids would go in the hall and yell at each other and insult each other and interrupt and be really nasty, and when the students who had attended that one came to my mums club they were so annoyed because her club was ACTUAL debating - as in british parliamentary debating with no interrupting and each person taking their turn to speak and only countering fact with fact and not opinion and needing to actually listen to the other side because you need to RESPOND to their point not just shove your own down their throat.
tumblr does the same as the student lead club, they excuse being a horrible person and viciously attacking someone and treating them like shit under the guise of it being a healthy ‘debate’, when its neither healthy nor a debate. debating is not just repeatedly disagreeing with someones opinion and standpoint, its countering it with evidence to support your own, not calling them abusing or any other insult you drag to mind just because you’re pissed that they dont agree with you.
newsflash, not everyone is going to have your opinion, and yelling at someone through an all caps rant isnt debating, and it isnt going to help them understand your view, and its certainly not gonna help you understand THEIRS and know where you need to come from in order to get your own views across. callout posts and shitty vague’s and being a stubborn and rude bitch just makes you a nasty person who’s point becomes irrelevant because you give the idea that you have no clue what youre talking about and can’t explain your point so you seemingly cover it up with insults.
which also, you know, makes you look completely thick.
this day in 1950, the Indian Constitution came into effect, thus
founding the Republic of India. The struggle for independence from
British colonial rule had been ongoing for many years, characterised by
the non-violent resistance led by Mohandas Gandhi. In 1947, these
efforts came to fruition, with the Partition of India creating the two
independent nations of India and Pakistan. However, the transition to
independence was not a smooth one, and religious violence was
commonplace in the years after partition. In an effort to stabilise the
new Indian state, the India Constituent Assembly adopted a new
constitution in 1949. It was decided that the constitution would be
enacted on January 26th to commemorate the 1930 Declaration of
Independence on the same day, which resolved the Indian parliament to
fight for self-rule. The 448-article document provided for a government
based on the British parliamentary system, with elections every five
years, and enshrined the principles of universal adult suffrage and
equality. Unlike Britain, India was to be a republic, with a President
holding a ceremonial head of state role. The new republic’s first
President was Rajendra Prasad. Jawaharlal Nehru served as Indian Prime
Minister until his death in 1964, having led the nation through a very
turbulent time, and was succeeded by Lal Bahadur Shastri. Nehru’s
daughter, the famous Indira Gandhi, went on to become a four-term Prime
Minister. This day is commemorated in India every year as Republic Day.
Brexit will see 1,000 new laws passed into British law with no parliamentary scrutiny
A thousand laws will be passed unilaterally and without parliamentary scrutiny when European law is transposed into British law under the Great Repeal Bill, the Brexit department has admitted.
Brexit Secretary David Davis has published a White Paper on the Bill, widely seen as the single most important act of parliament in the Brexit process.
But the document confirms its critics’ fears that the task of replacing huge numbers of laws and regulations will require hundreds of laws to be rewritten and then waived through parliament unscrutinised.
The Brexit Department has said that ‘corrections’ to EU laws will number between 800 and 1,000 and will be passed by statutory instrument, a legislative device that allows for laws to be made without a parliamentary vote.
The department said these laws will effect ‘mechanical changes’ to ensure laws function properly after the UK leaves the European Union.
Brexit Secretary David Davis said: “At the heart of the referendum decision was sovereignty. A strong, independent country needs control of its own laws. That process starts now.
"Converting EU law into UK law, and ending the supremacy of lawmakers in Brussels, is an important step in giving businesses, workers and consumers the certainty they need.
"And it will mean that as we seek a comprehensive new economic partnership with the EU, our allies will know that we start from a position where we have the same standards and rules.”
The White Paper, entitled ‘Legislating for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union’, will set out the details on the Government’s plans to correct what it calls a ‘signifcant proportion’ of EU legislation which ‘will not work’ after Brexit.
The number of statutory instruments is significantly less than the 5,000 or more that had been feared, but there are still concerns that these laws will be used to remove protections for workers.
Trades Union Congress Secretary General Frances O’Grady said the TUC would be “watching closely".
She said: “The Great Repeal Bill is the Prime Minister’s chance to make good on her promise to fully protect and maintain all workers’ rights that come from the EU.
“These are rights we all rely on – like rules to guarantee safe workplaces, equal pay for women, protection from excessive working hours, and rights to equal treatment for agency workers.
“The TUC will be watching closely to make sure that every workplace right that comes from the EU is protected – now and into the future.
“To honour her repeated public promise to protect workers’ rights, the Prime Minister should put a clause in the Bill that ensures that her government can’t use antiquated Henry VIII powers to go back and punch holes in worker protections on the quiet, without parliamentary scrutiny.”
I need to figure out this partner situation soon. I mean, I’ve had a terrific, super competitive year. But my partner just isn’t living up to his end of the deal, and I think I want out.
I didn’t even want to debate with him, originally–everything about him as a person rubs me the wrong way. I’m not a huge fan of having a relationship with my partner outside of debate–it gets really messy should things go bad in your partnership–but I also need to feel *some* sort of connection with my partner. With this guy, I feel like I’m fighting the urge to be intensely rude to him all. the. time. I just don’t like him.
Why am I his partner, you ask? I am his partner because the talent pool is incredibly small. I go to a tiny, tiny university. Even though roughly 10% of students participate in debate, few are upper-level debaters. Even fewer have the competitive drive that I do. So realistically, I had to settle for a less-than-ideal partner.
I tried making it work; I really did. But to be honest, we aren’t on the same level. He requires a lot of assistance, and I just can’t give it. I need someone who can hold his own, compensate for my weaknesses while playing to my strengths. This also works the other way around, but lately I’ve been doing all the compensating AND trying to work on my flaws as a speaker. It’s exhausting. I dread rounds. Prep time is the worst–have you ever had to come up with material for two speeches? It’s too much.
The worst part is in round, when he asks me to write down points of rebuttal for him. I am all for contributing to a shared rebuttal list. But I manage to write both my speech and my own rebuttal; surely he can do the same. Except oh, wait–he can’t.
That said, I here is my list of qualifications for a new partner:
1. He must be male. I will not compete with another girl ever again. It’s a sad truth, but girl-girl teams are judged by a very different rubric than guy-guy or mixed gender teams. Passion is mistaken for a loss of control, and you have a lot less leeway with your rhetoric. It’s sad, it’s sexist, and it’s true.
2. He must be an experienced debater. No novices, even if they’ve already broken. There’s a whole lot more to being a good debater than breaking.
3. He must be second speaker–DPM/DLO and whip. Extensions are my thing.
4. He must be decent-looking. I know this sounds really shallow, but my previous partner was unbelievably attractive. We made a fantastic team, and I like to think it’s because we’re so damn attractive. Also, eye candy during prep time is nice.
For all you non-debaters who are like, “What the fuck? Why does this even matter?”, here is some perspective: debating with someone is like dating them or, more commonly, marrying them. You spend many hours each week together, practicing and researching. You spend weekends in hotels, trying to muscle through yet another tournament. You learn each other’s quirks, like how one of you clicks his or her tongue when stressed. When you decide to end a partnership, it’s the debate equivalent of getting a divorce. It’s angry and messy and someone usually winds up taking it personally. You may even throw a trophy at someone’s head.