Forget Milo. Why Not Have Real Debates on College Campuses?

Sure, blame it on the ninjas. A speech by Milo Yiannopoulos had to be cancelled Wednesday night in Berkeley, California, because, according to a UC Berkeley spokesman, “This university was essentially invaded by more than 100 individuals clad in ninja-like uniforms who were armed and engaged in paramilitary tactics,” Mr. Dan Mogulof said. “They were implementing a very clear plan to engage in violence, disruption and property destruction.”

But the problem Wednesday night did not start with the ninjas. And it didn’t start with Milo either. It started with a university that does not support free speech. It started with an academic culture that believes whomever takes the deepest offense wins the argument. It started with a faculty who worry about microaggressions and administrators who take such concerns seriously. It started with adults who have failed to show kids how to engage in reasoned discussion.

A few years ago, I attended a debate sponsored by a group called Intelligence Squared. The group’s debates, which focus on public policy, culture, religion, science, and other hot-button topics, are notable for the big name debaters they attract. Malcolm Gladwell was one of the contenders I saw. But the most impressive part of the event was the end. The winner is determined by counting up the number of people who changed their mind during the course of the debate. When was the last time you saw someone listen to an argument and actually change his or her mind? In our polarized society, where we read, watch, and listen only to ideas from inside our chosen media bubbles, mind-changing is the stuff of myth. Indeed, many believe it is the stuff of cowardice.

But according to Intelligence Squared, which has 130 of these debates archived on its website, half of the people who watch these debates change their minds—which is precisely why I think public debate is the only way to change the atmosphere on college campuses these days.

It is fine for the College Republicans to invite Milo or Ann Coulter or some other inflammatory figure to campus in order to prove a point about how narrow-minded and uniformly liberal their campus is. But it would be a much more effective use of their money and a more productive use of everyone’s time if they sponsored campus debates. Maybe they could invite a conservative from the outside and get a professor to debate him or her. Maybe they could consult with the College Democrats to sponsor a joint event.

As things stand now, speakers are invited to campus and, if you agree with them, you will go to the auditorium to listen, and if you disagree, you will stand outside protesting. How much better would it be if students could see two adults take on each other’s arguments in calm, articulate, informed terms? Some of the most inflammatory speakers might not come. It’s so much easier, after all, to shout slogans than to be challenged by a smart person on the other side of the aisle. But if the track record of Intelligence Squared is any guide, at least some of our public intellectuals would rise to the occasion.

It might not make headlines like the bonfires prompted by Milo’s speech at Berkeley did this week, but last time I checked, higher education was supposed to be a training camp for young minds, not a training camp for ninjas.

  • 26
  • 26


90 responses to “Forget Milo. Why Not Have Real Debates on College Campuses?

  1. Here’s a debate topic I’d like to see. College Republicans are really really really bad people and there’s really really really something wrong with them. It’s basically impossible to argue the “no” side of that proposition in any kind of principled way. Republicans (and conservatives generally) are exclusively motivated by group identification and I have never seen a Republican or other conservative argue in favor of any clearly defined policy proposal. Take, for example, the proposal to eliminate the requirement that financial advisers act as fiduciaries to the people they’re advising. All the Republican arguments in favor of this proposal depend on hiding it in a fog of generalization.

      1. Hahaha, describe and defend one clearly defined conservative policy proposal. For example, what is the reason for allowing coal companies to discharge waste into public waterways?

        And let me ask you. Does disparaging liberals and misrepresenting their views improve your life in any way? Has it disabled the mirrors in your house?

        1. Are you at a university? You can choose the debate topic and I will provide the conservative point of view ? I am a sincere and reasonable professor .

          Let you and I start the ball rolling toward civilized debates.

          1. Debate Topic:

            Resolved: Coal companies should be allowed unrestricted dumping of waste into public waterways, without liability to downstream users.

            I’ll take no.

            Debate Topic:

            Liberal governance always fails, and the condition of Vienna is clear proof that the liberal governance of Austria has been a disaster for the Viennese people, as well as the rest of the people of Austria.

            I’ll take no.

          2. Way to load the questions. In the first instance, the policy you want to debate is not a Republican or Conservative position, even if it supported by some people who happen to be Republican or Conseevative. A better framing would be, “Should pollution from mining be addressed by pervasive government regulation, or by some other means?”. The second question fails to define “Liberal Governance” and fails to explain why Vienna is the proper example versus, say, Detroit. Vienna is distant enough and off the common radar, so most Americans lack convenient access to real information about the actual state of affairs there as opposed to chamber-of-commerce-style boosterism. Detroit, on the other hand, is hard to overlook.

            Care to address the issues on those terms?

          3. Excellent response to a typical leftist ploy: Trap the responder into defending one side of a fundamentally invalid premise.

          4. What do you mean, “pervasive government regulation”? What’s the word “pervasive” doing in there?

            What do you say are the causes of the problems in Detroit, and how do they differ from the problems of conservative states?

          5. Those … those are not Conservative positions.

            You’ve never actually met a living breathing Conservative, have you?

            I’m actually curious because I understand that it’s a common belief among young Leftists – particularly those on college campuses – like yourself that;
            1. Republicans want to make rape legal.
            2. Republicans want to bring back slavery.
            3. Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps.

            Is this true? Do you believe this as well?

          6. “1. Republicans want to make rape legal.”

            What are the actual statements on which you are basing this characterization?

          7. Go to any major liberal blog or forum. It seems a very large number of Left-Wingers honestly believe Republicans want to decriminalize rape and re-institute slavery.

            And yes, you’d find many of the same people believing as you do that Republicans want industry to release toxic waste into the nation’s waterways – because Republicans revel in people falling sick and dying.

            Do you also believe this?

          8. I believe the the Congress revoked a regulation prohibiting coal companies from releasing waste into the nation’s waterways. They did this for some reason. I believe that a substantial part of the reason is that Republicans believe that their campaign contributors should be allowed to use or destroy public resources as they like. What do you see as the reason?

          9. I think the reason they rescinded the regulation was that it was, in part, a transparent attempt to hamstring the coal industry by the Obama Administration on its way out the door in order to sabotage the current President.

            First of all; environmental regulations at the local, state and federal level already existed governing the disposal of mining debris.

            Second, there was no evidence that the existing regulations were inefficient or that water was being contaminated from current practices.

            Third, the regulations’ cost would have shut down coal mining operations all over the country and put thousands of coal workers out of a job.

            Fourth, 33% of America’s electricity is generated from coal. Shutting down the coal mining industry would have put the nation in dire straits, and at best, sent energy costs for the average American through the stratosphere.

            Fifth, why did Obama wait until the last months of his Presidency to issue these regulations to govern the mining industry if this was such a clear and present danger?

          10. Coal is declining because natural gas has become cheaper – thanks to shale discoveries and improved extraction technologies (like fracking), which environmentalists hate.

            And if the situation were clear cut and dire, why did Obama wait until the tail end of his Presidency to issue this ’emergency’ regulation?

            PS: Vox?

          11. The link explains it all. What’s the matter with Vox? I know it’s not associated with the American Enterprise Institute or National Review or some other similar publication, but that increases its credibility; it doesn’t lessen it. And Vox’s credibility is not at issue; they make factual assertions. If you’re not lazy, you can follow up on the factual assertions and find out whether they’re true or not. Vox’s assertions fly in the face of conservative orthodoxy, but that tells us about conservative orthodoxy and about your own lack of personal integrity; it doesn’t tell us anything about Vox.

          12. Vox is every bit as partisan, error-prone and dishonest as its founder, Ezra Klein. It routinely publishes Left-wing opinion as fact (e.g. Obamacare is roaring popular success) and deliberately miscasts the arguments of the opposition.

            What’s even funnier is that you think it is perfectly acceptable to a priori dismiss Right-leaning publications – but that it betrays a “lack of personal integrity” for anyone to cast a similar jaundiced eye on Left-wing pseudo-news (‘explainer’) sites.

            Physician – heal thyself.

          13. The article makes verifiable factual claims, and you haven’t pointed to any factual claim in the article that you say is false. You just wave your tiny hands and disparage Ezra Klein.

            You’re nothing but a dishonest, lazy, stupid slob, and defending the dumping of coal waste into waterways is not going to make you any less of a dishonest, lazy, stupid slob and is not going to make your failure in life any less abject.

            Nor is identifying yourself with somebody who allowed the Kremlin to choose the U.S. National Security Advisor. What supposed failing of Ezra Klein are you going to support in favor of letting Russia control U.S. foreign policy?

          14. {Shrug}

            Your opinion of me means less than nothing. After all, when so many of your fellow progressives believe Republicans as a whole want to commit genocide, bring back slavery, kill the sick, legalize rape, etc. how much more of a monster can you all fantasize me to be?

            PS: Why did Obama wait 8 long years before deciding to protect us from the supposed clear and present danger of coal waste supposedly being dumped willy-nilly into the nation’s water supply?

            PPS: I am pretty certain the Washington Post and the New York Times would be happy to publish your copy of the correspondence that conclusively shows that Putin ordered Trump to install Flynn (who must be a long-term covert Russian agent) as the NSA.

          15. I did not SAY that Republicans said they want to poison the nation’s water supply. I said they revoked a regulation prohibiting coal companies from dumping waste into public waterways.

            And your link is from 2011, and describes the writer’s view of what she sees as a narrowing of the definition of rape in providing for a rape exception to abortion prohibitions. I wouldn’t characterize that as “legalizing rape”; I would characterize it as “forcing a woman to bear a rapist’s baby.” But you had to reach back 7 years to find something to present as an example of what you say is a common view among liberals.

            As to Republicans and coal companies:


            I didn’t claim that they WANT to poison the nation’s waterways, but that (along with poisoning their constituents) is an inevitable result of their action.

          16. If it was so inevitable, why did Obama wait until the end of his 8 year term to enact the regulation you’re arguing is the only thing stopping coal companies from sickening us all?

          17. By the way, the issue is for you to simply answer the question.

            As a progressive, do you believe that;
            1. Republicans want to make rape legal?
            2. Republicans want to bring back slavery?
            3. Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps?

            Is this belief common among progressives?

          18. 1. No, but I can find a quote from one Republican (not a Republican officeholder or anything like that) that explicitly states that. Many, many Republican, including Republican office holders, believe that a woman should be forced to bear a rapist’s baby.

            2. No, although Mike Huckabee said in 2015 that the Dred Scot case is still valid law.

            3. No, but some people have pointed out statements like this one:

            The belief that these views are widely held by Republicans is not common among progressives.

            Is there a widely held view among Republicans that Trump is working diligently? What policy positions and actions that Trump has announced or performed since assuming the Presidency do Republicans widely support?

          19. 1. Many Conservatives genuinely see the unborn child as an innocent human life who had no say in how he or she was conceived and thus should not be deprived of the right to live.

            That’s very different in degree or in kind from the charge that Republicans want to legalize rape. In fact, I fail to see how they are in any way related.

            2. Now that’s taking distortion to truly ridiculous ends – sort of like Romney saying “binders full of women” was quickly transformed by liberals in to “Romney wants to put women in binders.”

            Huckabee was responding to liberals gloating about the SCOTUS Obergefell and Roe rulings being the “law of the land” and Conservatives should just give up. He rightfully points out that if the SCOTUS was the final word, then Dred Scott is also the “law of the land.”

            3. So? Is he a Republican? A member of the RNC? What significance is he?

            Would it interest you to know that Fred Phelps was a life long Democrat? That he ran for the Democrat nomination for Governor in Kansas numerous times and always won around 20-30% of the vote.

            If you think these views of Republicans are not held by vast numbers of progressives, you need to go these protests and step into a college campus.

          1. Instructing the ignorant is one of the spiritual works of mercy. You are storing up treasure in heaven, sir.

        2. “discharge waste into public waterways” …YEAH BABY! That’s what I’m talkin’ about.

          If you’re concerned, get your state DEC to address coal ash.

          1. “If you’re concerned, get your state DEC to address coal ash.”

            How does this make any sense at all? Doesn’t that subject downstream states to the choices of the government of the state furthest upstream?

        3. Cut the corporate tax rate to encourage companies to do business in the US? Now I know I am a BAD PERSON for bringing that up, but it IS a general right of center position that Trump wants to enact. You know that right? Now please proceed with telling me how I am a BAD PERSON. Thanks!

          1. “Cut the corporate tax rate to encourage companies to do business in the US?”

            “to encourage companies to do business in the US” begs the question.

    1. Ah. You state out the gate that I am bad, wrong, unteachable and do not have a point.

      We have clearly defined proposals. You don’t like them. We want a Wall to inhibit immigration. We want to means test Medicare and Social Security. We want to make welfare very hard to enjoy because it is bad for people and the nation does not owe you anything except opportunity. Welfare reform, even it’s advocates admit, had a HUGE positive impact.

      That you do not like these programs does not make them invalid. It means you don’t like them.

      But to bolster your position, you double down on hatred and shutting down speech.

      So what you are doing is making yourself seem narrow minded, afraid and one not to be taken seriously. That Republicans don’t buy into whatever your little pet policy desire is doesn’t make them wrong, particularly when you are discussing value judgments.

      1. The Wall one is reasonably clearly defined, but its foolishness is manifest. Run the numbers and see what you get. It would be a disaster.

        The means testing Social Security and Medicare is at least an explicit statement, but it’s just foolish. It won’t save any money, because it will reduce the number of eligible people by a very small percentage. It also adds needless complexity. The way to means test things like that is by increasing overall taxation on higher incomes. Instead of introducing a complex system to reduce the population of recipients of a small benefit by a couple of percent, you collect much more money from a small population that have already reaped enormous benefits by (for example) being allowed to use federal land without paying for it. Or discharging coal waste into public waterways.

        “Make welfare very hard to enjoy because it is bad for people and the nation does not owe you anything except opportunity” is so poorly defined as to be meaningless.

        1. Yes. Is this from Krugman, the man who told Hillary to run the deficit credit card till it squealed in October and then told Trump that running deficits would be the ruin of the nation?

          I recall back in the 90’s, Liberals like you went on and on about how foolish Welfare reform was. “Experts” were clearly against it. Bill Clinton vetoed it several times (3?) But he liked being liked and he knew that the population actually thought it was a fair and equitable idea so he COMPROMISED (a word that the Harvard Educated Obama never seems to have learned…and you might have a word with your HS English teacher as well)
          And for the most part, welfare reformed worked stunningly well. You still have The Nation and The Village Voice finding some wispy cloud in the silver mine, but even welfare advocates were forced to admit that it had a mostly salubrious effect on the nation.

          A law which your side thought was ‘foolish’. Which your experts vilified.

          Well, your sides doesn’t matter right now. You have no power. The voters have spoken and said ‘no thanks’ to you in many elections. So we can try our ‘foolish’ ideas. Some of them will go swimmingly. Others will be utter failures (see Obamacare).
          But your opinion, while I am sure is well thought out, isn’t really relevant. Your experts are suspect and I don’t care about the media which tries to support you.

          Enjoy the next 100 days.

          1. No, welfare “reform” did not work “stunningly well.” But anyway, how does telling liberals that “our side doesn’t matter” benefit you in any way? Will it keep you and other Trump voters from dying when they lose insurance due to the planned ACA repeal (if it happens). Will it keep your water supply from being fouled by coal dust? Will it disable the mirrors in your house? Will it introduce any positive element into your bleak failure of a life?

            The Trump disasters will fall on you, the same as anybody, and your hatred of liberals won’t shield you from the catastrophe you voted for.

          2. Tell me about Flint’s water supply when you laud the wonderful job of the EPA.

            Obama weaponized tthe EPA to attack the industries of his perceived political enemies and that has consequences. Maybe if they actually FOCUSED on their JOB of air and water, Flint would have clean water and tons of pollution wouldn’t be released in the water.

            Nor did I trip over piles of corpses pre Obamacare. So I worry not about tripping over them after Obamacare is a footnote of a failed policy and use of political trickery in the history books.

            You are defending two extremely flawed institutions. That weakens your argument considerably.

          3. The Flint Water Crisis was caused by the criminal acts of emergency managers appointed by Rick Snyder. Flint had been getting its water from the Detroit water system until “emergency managers” appointed by Rick Snyder, Republican governor of Michigan, and other officials on the “emergency management” team decided that Flint should get its water from the Flint River. Corrosion of lead pipes contaminated the water and poisoned the people of flint. 13 criminal cases have been filed so far in connection with this.


            This has nothing to do with the EPA, and “Obama weaponizing the EPA” is just something you made up.

            Now, did you present a made-up storing instead of stating the real facts because you’re:

            Dishonest and lazy?
            Dishonest and stupid?
            Lazy and stupid?
            Or, dishonest lazy, and stupid?

            And, has blaming a public health crisis on Obama, when the crisis was caused by Republicans, improved your life in any way? Has it disabled the mirrors in your house? Caused you to find a friend? Caused dogs to quit slinking away when they see you? Or in any way made your failure in life any less abject?

          4. Here is the deal sparky. We now have no coal industry. YOU call it ‘making coal pay their (and I cannot put enough quotes around this) fair share‘. Of course ‘fair share’ means ‘whatever price it takes to put coal out of business’, because your side is full of environmental wackos (See California Energy Policy of expanding demand and destroying supply)

            I bet you still sit up at night, wondering why Pennsylvania voted for Trump. Coal Country. Obama and Hillary said they would destroy coal and coal miners believed them. (Granted, the gay loving, transgendered, anti gun BS certainly didn’t help)

            So to ‘make them pay their fair share’, you are destroying their communities.

            Well, good for you! I may be incorrect and lazy (not conceding it, but it certainly is possible). This is better than so self righteous, non-empathic and so lacking in self analysis that we have…well, we have YOU.

            So the last 4 elections haven’t taught you anything. I am guessing that next election will come as a big shock too.

            Now, I like clean water however, I think your side has gone off the deep end. Most of America agrees with ME and not YOU. So this is a problem, but it is distinctly YOUR problem.

          5. Actually, most of America agrees with me and not you. And the Flint water crisis was caused by Republican governance and had nothing to do with pollution in the water. It was caused by the hijacking of the Flint City government by Republican governor Rick Snyder. He installed his cronies as “emergency managers” and they decided that the city of Flint should get its water from the Flint River, using untreated lead pipes.

            Your laziness, stupidity, and dishonest is going to render your life a continuing failure, and having Trump installed as president will make it much worse.

          6. You have failed to convince me and your tone has put me off to your political side. I am not alone in both being unpersuaded by your ‘superiority’ and being put off by your arrogant tone.

            Even if (particularly if) the facts are on your side, being a jerk is still enough to remove any support you want to have. Not that I am conceding you are correct, but just pointing out something obvious to moderately aware teenagers.

            So enjoy your overweening sense of self righteousness. And thank you for your concerns about my future success. I actually am pretty content on a fiscal and personal level. I wish you a far better future financially than you actually expect. However, I wish you no success in your attempts at persuading people of your political philosophy, but you don’t need my ill wishes on this front. You are doing all that heavy lifting by yourself.

            Please stop writing to me. I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

          7. I’m not trying to convince you if you prefer to ignore plain facts. What I’m trying to do is slap down attempts by conservatives to silence others, and to try to discourage you from lying and belittling others for disputing your lies. You are not trying to tell the truth; you are trying to discourage truth that conflicts with your orthodoxy. But your orthodoxy kills people – you blame the EPA for poisoning the people of Flint, and you belittle people who point out the truth. You are a coward, a liar, and a failure, and will continue to be so until you place some value on truth.

          8. Just in case you missed it, bunky, but my side isn’t rioting to stop Liberal speakers from talking on campus, my side didn’t invent the ludicrous ‘safe space’ and ‘trigger word’ doctrine, my side didn’t remove male civil and criminal rights on campus and my side, when it doesn’t get it’s own way, doesn’t shut down cities and do millions in property damage.
            This would be YOUR side. You are engaging in The Big Lie. Go ahead and quote what facts you’d like. REAL facts are good. (Unlike so many of the ‘fake but true’ facts your side is wont to dispense)

            Your side only has moral authority inside that mental bubble you keep inside your head. For the rest of us, the egregious and undemocratic statements by your luminaries, some of whom call for revolution, coup and seceding the Union, has outlined exactly what kind of threat you are.

    2. Here’s a debate topic I’d like to see. College Republicans are really really really bad people and there’s really really really something wrong with them. It’s basically impossible to argue the “no” side of that proposition in any kind of principled way.

      That’s true, but not for the reason you think.

          1. Embarrassing how? Smallgloves authorized a raid without paying attention to what he was doing and killed a little girl. Let me ask you this. Does disparaging Democrats, and saying that Democrats are somehow responsible for Republican failures, improve your life in any way? Has it disabled the mirrors in your house? Made your life any less of a failure?

          2. Smallgloves authorized a raid without paying attention to what he was doing and killed a little girl. You say this is embarrassing for Democrats. First of all, embarrassing how? Second, what does that have to do with anything? You advocate a U.S. foreign policy directed toward making blunders that (in your imagination anyway) can be said to “embarrass Democrats”? How does this philosophy improve your life? Is your failure in life any less abject because of it?

          3. This is the normal sort of stuff that happens when you authorize raids. The fact that the Democrats are trying to get political mileage out of it just makes you look incompetent and indecisive, like Bill Clinton waiting too long to attack OBL.

          4. Let me see, let me see, who was President on September 11, 2001?

            Yes, this is the normal sort of stuff that happens when you try to compensate for your small hands by authorizing raids without knowing what you’re doing.

          5. Again, Clinton had the chance to kill bin Laden and he didn’t take it. There’s a risk either way, but he could have saved thousands of people had he acted with more alacrity. I know this is hard for you, but try to think.

          6. There were shots and misses, there were possible opportunities that were not taken because of the danger to noncombatants, there was a phony offer from Sudan that was not taken because (1) it was phony (2) it required the US to remove sanctions imposed on Sudan for its human rights violations. But when does responsibility attach to someone other than Clinton? Why don’t you ascribe any responsibility to Bush for sitting and doing nothing while Flight 77 was on its way to the Pentagon, Flight 93 wasn’t responding, and nobody knew if more planes had been hijacked or were about to be hijacked? Is Clinton responsible for Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? And how is it an embarrassment for Democrats that Smallgloves authorized a raid without paying attention to what he was doing? And even if it were embarrassing to Democrats, the mirrors in your house would still function.

    3. Replace “College Republicans” with “African Americans”. No don’t, because that would be prejudicial, ignorant and bigoted.

    4. So, your side has taken a beating around the country for the last several election cycles (I’m aware Obama was elected twice), Republicans voted in all over the country, I guess because all of us are just reeeeeeally bad people? 🙂

      1. You do have a rather novel debate tactic. Not only are we BAD PEOPLE, we do not even have policy proposals. We are just BAD. 🙂 . That’s pretty funny!

        1. the question on the financial advisor thing is, do we need a federal law on this? I honestly don’t know the answer. I tend to leans towards no generally, but I’d have to study it more. The argument against the law from what I read is that it can lead to a limiting of investment choices for the consumer.

          1. Hahahaha, yes, of course it leads to a limiting of investment choices for the consumer. It discourages the promotion of investments that pay a lot of money to the advisor but are bad for the consumer.

            And the answer to “do we need a federal law on this” is “yes.”

    5. Why debate? You obviously have your mind made up.

      Try listening to some serious talk radio, Hugh Hewitt perhaps.

  2. I agree. I hav tired to organize sucha debate but so far I can’t find anyone who is a full time professro wiling to do so.

    Has anyone anywhere found a professor willing to do so?

      1. You and I can pick the topic and see who salutes.

        1. Political Correctness .

        2. Fake news.

        3. Affirmative action.

        4. Resolved: There is no good reason to continue tenure.

        We can invite anyone who is running for office ( a tremendous opportunity for someone who doesn’t have much money )or in office.

        Let us do this. I have talked to a lot of univeristy officias and professors and so far no one has the guts to have one of these debates.


  3. You obviously have never encountered real campus radicals or committed communists. Most of these people are “red diaper babies” whose politics are their religion. To them, debate is a bourgeoisie exercise in mental onanism and a waste of time. The only thing that counts to “make the world a better place” is “action”. The very idea that the use of logic and dialectic can resolve political issues is also contra the dominant postmodern philosophers who reject logic.

  4. Wow you talk like no one’s tried that. I’ll cut to the chase: protesters will shut those down too, with faculty revolts earning a dishonorable mention. There’s a long and sordid history of recent examples.

    1. As I pointed out in a comment above, these ridiculous leagues are not the mainstream college debate circuits. They are those groups who couldn’t hack it in the real debate leagues — “white privilege” is just their excuse.

      1. Have to admit, I thought of that Peter Schiff video, too.

        It’s a relief to hear that regular forensics are nothing like that.

  5. If you have ever seen Milo answer the smug questions of the SJW you’d know. The left is not used to having their presumptions questioned (while the right is all the time). The result quickly turns into a debate of logic vs HITLER!

  6. If the student activity fee pays for the speaker you would be right to protest your money going to support an activist you think is on the wrong side.

    1. Your point about being forced to support ideas you abhor is valid in a Jeffersonian sense. Indeed, the line between campus and government has become as muddled as the line between “activity fees” and taxes.

      But I am not sure that the source of funding is what drives these particular protests. As the article notes, the problem starts with an “academic culture that believes whomever takes the deepest offense wins the argument”, and these protesters are offended by speech irrespective of funding.

    2. Then conservative groups need to fully sponsor these events, they pick the conservative, the university can choose the liberal, if they can get any liberals to debate a Mark Stein or Milo.

    1. My (black) daughter is a top university debater. The “mainstream” debate leagues are nothing like this. This is an offshoot started up because the major debate leagues focus too much on the actual quality of the arguments.

  7. I think the author missed the point of the American University system. Brainwashing cults don’t allow debate.

    If education were the aim of Universities there would already be debate, but instead, reeducation is the aim.

  8. I agree with you, and I watch IQ on line.

    One debated the question, is Western civilization superior to others. 80% disagreed with it coming in, and 85% agreed with it at the close.

    The reason the universities here won’t allow it is they know they would lose the debate.

  9. Evan Sayet’s famous Heritage Foundation speech explaining how liberal think, or don’t think.

  10. I am talking about having a debate on such topics as Political Correctness ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS ! The media would show up !

    Is anyone out there in a position to set up such a debate!

    Any takers ?

  11. average debates from the left amount to nothing but a buzzword salad combined with outright fraud, delivered so quickly and with so many tears that you cannot respond to all the lunacy in the time allotted, and instantly lose the debate.

    why even bother giving them the undeserved credibility by facing their arguments at all? it’s like arguing with a woman. as soon as an attempt is made, you have failed.

  12. kess inflammatory speakers were having problems too. I think that is why we ended up with the shock speakers… to make the problem more obvious.

  13. ” Maybe they could invite a conservative from the outside and get a professor to debate him or her. “
    You think they wouldn’t riot anyway? Just the idea of hearing a different opinion is cause for riots. They aren’t just freaking out about Milo, they are kicking out even mainstream voices.

  14. Reasoned debate accomplishes nothing with these people. They knowingly allow the “100 ninjas” to do their thing because they want debate silenced. The time for reasoning with these people is over.

Comments are closed.