Source
r/KotakuInAction•
ddsasdd

[Misc.] I think a correction needs to be posted here about the Oxford Union Debate and Kate Brooks.

MISC.

EDIT: Mirror of the video that was removed so you know what I am talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk37avvERdI

This since removed video was posted all around the place and I feel like we need to make things right.

Apparently Kate Brooks doesn't believe all the things she was saying. Oxford was just in need of an extra debate against the right to offend. She was not aware that a video would go up online with her in it and I suspect this is why it has been removed.

She has reached out to a few people since such as Noel Plum. He also talks some thoughts on dogpiling and shaming.

Posted Oct 1, 2015, 11:48 PM UTC

3225
WydiOur Great Leader, the Wise Kim Jong Chu.•

Watch Noel's video before dismissing Kate's claim, everyone.

It makes a lot of sense, especially since the whole point of the Oxford Union is debating, which happens to need people opposing something (or at least pretending to do so).

I'm also relatively certain that Noel wouldn't lie about her giving him an honest and kind impression of herself and the devil's advocate thing explains why the Union removed the video now, so I'm willing to believe her.

But even if she was lying, she's apparently "enlightened" now. No reason to antagonize her any further.

11
TehRawk•

She was only pretending to be retarded? She is a good actress if so.

Funny how there are so many "I was only pretending to be retarded" retards over the last few days.

4
ddsasddOP•

Well she said she believes a lot of the things she said but that it isn't something you should legislate on or anything because it is too easy to abuse it. It must be said that that doesn't explain why she went on that tirade against Peter Hitchens (and in fact misrepresented him) but I feel like this still should get posted. She probably doesn't deserve all the hate she got for it.

5
FSMhelpusall•

I call bullshit. She was obviously driven with her arguments. This is backpedaling.

4
ac4l•

Said bullshit, got BTFO, tries to bury the evidence and say they didn't mean it?

What's it they always say? "Free speech is not freedom from consequences of that speech?"

3
CloudedGamer•

So SJWism isn't a real thing. It's just a bunch of people taking a retardedly indefensible position to practice their debating skills? Sounds Legit /not even being sarcastic

3
ddsasddOP•

Sounds like in her case, with at least what she said to Noel, that she doesn't believe the things she said so I'm inclined to believe it. Even if her excuse is bullshit it seems she changed her mind on it.

-1
mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield / https://i.imgur.com/6X3KtgD.jpg•

Archive links for this post:

I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

2
ddsasddOP•

Thanks. You're my only friend.

3
LunarArchivist•

Thanks. You're my only friend.

That makes me feel sad. :(

1
ddsasddOP•

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk37avvERdI Here is a mirror I found.

1
BandageBandolier•

Just going to copy paste what came up last time someone thought "I was just making a point" excuses that kind of behavior.

'devil's advocacy absolutely doesn't include making an argument that you already know to be logically flawed and ignoring the flaws. If you know an argument is flawed even before outside scrutiny, you don't make it, ever. It's dishonest, and what's more, counterproductive. It just wastes everyone's time rather than further testing the rigor of an idea ... Continuing despite that can easily appear as the result of prejudice and for their own integrity should be avoided at all costs.'

1
ddsasddOP•

Except you literally have to do this sometimes for University debates. In most of the debates I was involved our "sides" were auto assigned.

6
BandageBandolier•

No, you have to argue for things you don't believe in.

You don't have go around deliberately dropping fallacies until one sticks, and you should have had your ass handed to you if you did.

1
bigtallguy•

i used to do university debate. you need to argue your side with full conviction, and you can't have a debate without two sides. to shame her for what any self respecting debater would is messed up.

she may not have debated well, and her arguments may have been flawed, but that happens all the time in a university debate. and while her skill as a debater maybe called in question because of it, extending that to her character is ludicrous.

3
BandageBandolier•

Her ability to debate is precisely what I'd call into question first. But that there isn't room to question character based on that performance is an overreach.

Any self respecting debater would be ashamed themselves of those flawed arguments she made. If in every other instance she's shown to be a solid debater without a propensity for missing obvious flaws in her arguments, then it could be argued that she applied all those fallacies deliberately rather than in ignorance, counter to the spirit of good debate. As you say, university debate isn't always the most rigorous, and a convincing fallacy can be a pretty effective a rhetorical tool to convince onlookers if your opposition aren't on the ball enough to deconstruct it. So if the only legitimate arguments you can come up with are weak, and you cared more about affecting public opinion than the spirit of the debate (these Oxford debates get quite a lot of exposure), it would absolutely behoove you to go ahead and throw out as many impassioned but flawed arguments as you can get away with unchallenged. Thus drumming up more support for said viewpoint outside of the debate with your peers and the general public than weaker, more honest arguments.

Since ignorance is neither proven nor disproven at this stage, there still remains the possibility of bad character on her part.

1
kvxdev•

Are you kidding? We're pro free speech so we should bash on someone using free speech to defend the position we dislike? I play devil's advocate regularly with my business partner, always opposing his side and when I make him agree, I sometime take the other side as well. By thorough debating and covering as many arguments as we can think of, all our decisions are much better.

1
BandageBandolier•

No? That isn't what we should do.

The point is a million miles away from "people shouldn't debate for things we dislike". It's that devils advocate doesn't excuse you from being accused of having poor debating form; emotional appeals, deliberate fallacies, shouting over the opposition, etc.

That is the opposite of thorough debating that helps reach more informed decisions, it actively holds back the productive debate and is the equivalent of knocking the board over when you start losing. That's the behaviour I'm saying isn't so simply excused. Not talking about stuff I may not like, and I'm astonished you somehow gleaned that as the point of my comment.

1
kvxdev•

Your previous post does not have the edited star, and I can't make sense of my answer in its context. I stand for a proper form debate, not one filled with fallacies and hostilities. Sorry for the weird reply?

2
BandageBandolier•

No harm, you weren't the first to get that, so I guess either wider context at the time hinted at that somehow or the crowd opinion seeped into yours after a skim read of my comment. Thanks for being super courteous though. :)

2
Immahnoob•

'devil's advocacy absolutely doesn't include making an argument that you already know to be logically flawed and ignoring the flaws.

And where's your proof of this? This is merely your opinion.

0
[deleted]•

Just going to copy paste what came up last time someone thought "I was just making a point" excuses that kind of behavior.

Debate contests are exercises in rhetorical conflict. If you insist on sticking to your guns on this, you may as well just join in with the fucktards like Josh and start connecting video game violence to real-life violence.

-2
theroseandswords•

I really wish it had been made clear that she was playing "devil's advocate" from the beginning. Everyone thought that these were her actual viewpoints. I've made some harsh criticisms myself of her because I believed that she actual believed in what she was saying. Had I known that she was just advocating for the opposition while not actually believing in the argument, I would have been more fair.

Oxford Union really dropped the ball on this one.

1
bigtallguy•

even if they were actually her own actual views too many people felt too comfortable attking her as a person rather than the shitty arguments she made. supper annoying to see.

1
mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield / https://i.imgur.com/6X3KtgD.jpg•

Archive links for this discussion:

I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

1