Social The destruction of critical thinking in higher education

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

It is becoming exceedingly rare that I’ve seen a debate or argument coming from an institute of higher education on a controversial topic that isn’t driven by emotion rather than intelligence.

The video below is Ben Shapiro arguing with college students at Oxford over the latest Israel-Palestine conflict. Although, it’s just one example, it feels wide spread in debates I’ve seen across college campuses where emotional arguments is the driving force, where arguments are outcome focused rather than principled.

I’m not even a Ben Shapiro fan but he argued these college idiots into oblivion. Since when did debates at education institutes become this shitty.

 

[Sinister]

Okay so I'm supposed to conclude that a media-trained, wealthy donor-funded guy (meaning lots of resources) who most often targets young people who havent even completed their education getting better of them in debates is indicative that the problem is Colleges? There's a reason he, Walsh, Crowder, all those guys specifically targeted these audiences and often only engage at their own events where they have crowd support and control (they can and often do elect to move on from a point when they're getting tooled by suggesting it's someone else's turn to speak).

There is an attack on critical thinking, it's coming in the form of book bans and threats to curriculum at the grade school level.

 

[Source]

Ben Shapiro is the last guy on the planet anyone should use as a positive example of critical thinking.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

Okay so I'm supposed to conclude that a media-trained, wealthy donor-funded guy (meaning lots of resources) who most often targets young people who havent even completed their education getting better of them in debates is indicative that the problem is Colleges? There's a reason he, Walsh, Crowder, all those guys specifically targeted these audiences and often only engage at their own events where they have crowd support and control (they can and often do elect to move on from a point when they're getting tooled by suggesting it's someone else's turn to speak).

There is an attack on critical thinking, it's coming in the form of book bans and threats to curriculum at the grade school level.

Very few literature books are effective at teaching actual critical thinking. If anything math is probably the best base for deductive, rational, critical thinking.

And yes, these people are young, but also incredibly stupid. I don’t recall being this unable to logically argue a position even when I was 17.

And yes crowder does go on college campuses to specifically pick on students cause they can’t argue but the point being they don’t know how to debate or intelligently express a point.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

Ben Shapiro is the last guy on the planet anyone should use as a positive example of critical thinking.

I don’t agree with many of his positions but he knows how to debate and make a point.

 

[Sinister]

Very few literature books are effective at teaching actual critical thinking. If anything math is probably the best base for deductive, rational, critical thinking.

And yes, these people are young, but also incredibly stupid. I don’t recall being this unable to logically argue a position even when I was 17.

And yes crowder does go on college campuses to specifically pick on students cause they can’t argue but the point being they don’t know how to debate or intelligently express a point.

Again, you're comparing these 17 year-olds to a media trained guy with endless resources. Critical thinking in formative education doesnt ONLY come from books, or math. It also comes from teachers who know how to challenge subjects. The kinds of teachers more likely to resign over book bans.

Also Ben Shapiro makes plenty of emotional appeals, he's just good at disguising them as logic until you think about them for more than 5 seconds. Because critical thinking.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

Again, you're comparing these 17 year-olds to a media trained guy with endless resources. Critical thinking in formative education doesnt ONLY come from books, or math. It also comes from teachers who know how to challenge subjects. The kinds of teachers more likely to resign over book bans.

Also Ben Shapiro makes plenty of emotional appeals, he's just good at disguising them as logic until you think about them for more than 5 seconds. Because critical thinking.

All humans make emotional appeals including Shapiro, it’s a matter of degree. And emotional appeals aren’t in and of itself bad, but I don’t think it should ever be the main point of an argument.

In terms of resources, I’m not even talking about informational resources such as actual historical facts (such as one student that asserts the British didn’t bomb German civilians during WW2). I’m talking about basic logic.

I doubt these students would even understand a simple logical statement like: if all of x are y and all of y are t, are all of x t?

Also… I see so many college students engage in petty insults in debates now, in university sponsored debates nonetheless.

 

[AWilder]

Whiney manlet screaming right wing whataboutisms = masterfully debating children and critical thinking.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

Whiney manlet screaming right wing whataboutisms = masterfully debating children and critical thinking.

A lot of ad hominem attacks there sir, a very typical logical fallacy, which college students seem to use a lot these days.

Although me pointing out your ad hominem is an ad hominem fallacy in and of itself. Damnit I lowered myself.

 

[Flower2dPeople]

A lot of ad hominem attacks there sir, a very typical logical fallacy, which college students seem to use a lot these days.

Although me pointing out your ad hominem is an ad hominem fallacy in and of itself. Damnit I lowered myself.

Guy makes sense but guy criticizes my tribe so fuck him.

 

[jx820]

This isn't a lack of critical thinking. It's perhaps a lack of debate prep, technique and method.

An experienced debater with (let's call it) subject matter expertise making a fool of an inexperienced dabater with no subject matter expertise says nothing about the state of higher education, or even the inexperienced debater's critical thinking.

It's good TV, or in Ben's case good youtube clips, but it's nothing more than that. If a 20 year old with little to no prep can hold their own in a debate with you, in your area of expertise, you're probably not actually a subject matter expert.

 

[Sinister]

All humans make emotional appeals including Shapiro, it’s a matter of degree. And emotional appeals aren’t in and of itself bad, but I don’t think it should ever be the main point of an argument.

In terms of resources, I’m not even talking about informational resources such as actual historical facts (such as one student that asserts the British didn’t bomb German civilians during WW2). I’m talking about basic logic.

I doubt these students would even understand a simple logical statement like: if all of x are y and all of y are t, are all of x t?

Also… I see so many college students engage in petty insults in debates now, in university sponsored debates nonetheless.

So at first emotional appeals signal an inability to logically substantiate a point. Except when Ben Shapiro does it. Emotional appeals are the main points of most of his content. He does a sh*tload of fear-mongering and pearl-clutching. You just seem to favor it because of his demeanor.

Resources means he comes to the debates well-prepared where students don't yet have the hang of that practice. The ones that have seemed to do so dont have a difficult time shredding the right wing debate Bros even among hostile crowds.

The assertion about their lack of logical ability is the kind of insult you criticize in the next statement. You dont know what their grades are like. Plenty of highly intelligent people are pretty terrible at debates. Hence, media training.

 

[jx820]

It is becoming exceedingly rare that I’ve seen a debate or argument coming from an institute of higher education on a controversial topic that isn’t driven by emotion rather than intelligence.

How often are you watching actual academic debates by the debate teams of these institutions? Cause if you're cherry picking "Jordan Peterson DeSTr0YS libtarded cuck" videos you're probably less likely to see a good debate.

Here's a couple of kids having a perfectly non-emotional and well thought out debate.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

it also comes from teachers who know how to challenge subjects. The kinds of teachers more likely to resign over book bans.

Source?

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

So at first emotional appeals signal an inability to logically substantiate a point. Except when Ben Shapiro does it. Emotional appeals are the main points of most of his content. He does a sh*tload of fear-mongering and pearl-clutching. You just seem to favor it because of his demeanor.

Resources means he comes to the debates well-prepared where students don't yet have the hang of that practice. The ones that have seemed to do so dont have a difficult time shredding the right wing debate Bros even among hostile crowds.

The assertion about their lack of logical ability is the kind of insult you criticize in the next statement. You dont know what their grades are like. Plenty of highly intelligent people are pretty terrible at debates. Hence, media training.

I don’t believe there was any goal post shifting but okay. And also I don’t agree with Shapiro’s view on Israel-Palestine as I actually believe there should be a ceasefire but he clearly emerges as a winner of the debates.

His arguments aren’t that emotional based, let’s take a simple point he makes, one that isn’t too complex in history.

Ben says Hamas is hiding in hospitals/among civilians, so civilian casualties are a necessary cost of war.

The student says, it’s wrong to kill civilians, it’s a genocide.

Ben says, if civilian casualties cannot happen, then Hamas receives immunity because you cannot fight them if they are using civilians as shields.

the student rather than responding to that point, parrots her previous statement of civilian casualties being wrong.

Ben created a logical fallacy that by creating a situation that suggests the only way to stop Hamas is through war at the cost of innocent lives, rather than pivot and argue alternatives to stopping Hamas, the student parrots a previous point.

I don’t agree with Shapiro, but these students can’t debate, and while there are other forms of intelligence, debate is necessary if you are going to be political active and express opinions.

 

[nostradumbass]

It's because leftism is a child's ideology. Most people start out on the left before they've ever worked or had any responsibility and everything is just theoretical, so universities are a great way to keep kids in a state of arrested development into their mid 20s. Actors, pop stars, people who spend 25+ years in school and get into the activism grift, basically whoever is most out of touch with reality and never had a regular work schedule is more likely to lean further left.

This is also why conservatives can go to college campuses and make them look silly, because the kids have been insulated from opposition and don't know how to respond to it.

 

[badascan]

As long as you don't ask questions about no no topics or challenge anyone's imaginary world view or hurt people's emotions then critical thinking still exists!

 

[AWilder]

I don’t believe there was any goal post shifting but okay. And also I don’t agree with Shapiro’s view on Israel-Palestine as I actually believe there should be a ceasefire but he clearly emerges as a winner of the debates.

His arguments aren’t that emotional based, let’s take a simple point he makes, one that isn’t too complex in history.

Ben says Hamas is hiding in hospitals/among civilians, so civilian casualties are a necessary cost of war.

The student says, it’s wrong to kill civilians, it’s a genocide.

Ben says, if civilian casualties cannot happen, then Hamas receives immunity because you cannot fight them if they are using civilians as shields.

the student rather than responding to that point, parrots her previous statement of civilian casualties being wrong.

Ben created a logical fallacy that by creating a situation that suggests the only way to stop Hamas is through war at the cost of innocent lives, rather than pivot and argue alternatives to stopping Hamas, the student parrots a previous point.

I don’t agree with Shapiro, but these students can’t debate, and while there are other forms of intelligence, debate is necessary if you are going to be political active and express opinions.

Do you think Ben would be so flippant about civilian losses if they were Israeli civilians?

 

[Spam On Rye]

College has been a racket for a long time. Especially the social sciences. There's still important work in stem but most is rotten with ideology and scientism. The place just breeds secular humanism. Learn a trade and study philosophy, theology, and history. You'll be a better man for it.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

Do you think Ben would be so flippant about civilian losses if they were Israeli civilians?

Whether he would be flippant or not I don’t know, but he at the very least was able to explain the difference.

Whether or not you agree with that difference, he can at least explain it, unlike the people he was debating against.

He said Hamas intentionally kills civilians, whereas Israel is killing civilians as a cost of war, rather than intentionally killing civilians such as Hamas. He said that is difference between the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians (intent).

He offers an explanation and is at least capable of trying to justify his position. These students don’t meet the bare minimum requirements of being able to argue 2 mins without engaging in all kinds of logical fallacies.