According to The Free Press, a current college student has revealed that his opponent resurfaced an old tweet he wrote.
In a Sunday article published by The Free Press, Matthew Adelstein explained how his National Speech & Debate Association championship hopes had been dashed. Adelstein claimed that the opposing team in an April 2022 tournament of champions debate competition attacked his character after revealing a Tweet reply he made earlier that same month.
Geoffrey Miller, a professor of psychology, tweeted: “Name one thing you personally find morally disgusting but you believe, rationally speaking, should be accepted and legal by society.”
Adelstein’s response was “Calling people homophobic or racial slurs”, the outlet reported.
According to reports, the topic of debate – federal government’s influence on water resources – was sidelined. According to documents obtained by The Free Press, Adelstein’s opponent allegedly rambled on for 25 pages about topics that had nothing to do with the debate topic.
The outlet reported that the debate judge gave Adelstein’s opponents victory. He said, “[A] debate space in which racist or violent individuals are not permitted is preferable to a debate where they are,” it noted. He said that the ballot had the power to transform white debate norms, where it was okay to let racist and violent behavior slide.
The outlet reported that certain coaches punish students who engage in “antiblackness” or “transphobia.” In an earlier article, it was claimed that NSDA Judges had openly threatened students who argued in favor of Israel or capitalism.
According to the footage obtained by the outlet, Quest Sandel instructed students not to use gendered words.
I don’t like to hear anyone say Mr. or Miss. This would be very much appreciated as we strive to respect everyone’s differences.
Briana Whatley is a 15 year old debater who told the outlet that the competition did not reflect what debate should be.
Whatley stated, “At NSDA Tournaments, I am not guaranteed a victory based on the reasoning, facts or delivery of my arguments, but rather if i can reinforce my judge’s ideology throughout the discussion.” It’s the opposite of what open debate should be.