CDZ Common Core propaganda

[RandomPoster]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Common Core is pure socialist construct. It's purpose is to undo rational thinking and reasoning. It drives home feelings and emotion over reason and facts..

People who are driven by emotion do not think rationally and can easily be manipulated.. IE: The herd mentality..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

"Traditional debate and discourse"? If this forum shows anything, it's that "traditional debate and discourse" is insulting people.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

"Traditional debate and discourse"? If this forum shows anything, it's that "traditional debate and discourse" is insulting people.

Actually this form outs people who use Common core base principals. You for instance do not deal in facts. You deal in emotion and feelings. For example: you believe in AGW, yet when you are shown facts, that CO2 is incapable of causing the warming you fear, you run to emotion and what others have spoon feed you rather than looking at the facts and making an informed decision. Simply saying that the "majority of scientists say" is the herd mentality. Herds can be stampeded off cliffs by simply scaring them.. The herd is easily manipulated and why it is a socialist construct designed for populace control through fear.

 

[Muhammed]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Common Core is pure socialist construct. It's purpose is to undo rational thinking and reasoning. It drives home feelings and emotion over reason and facts..

People who are driven by emotion do not think rationally and can easily be manipulated.. IE: The herd mentality..

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Common core writing standards require students to make logical reasoned arguments based on evidence.

 

[Erinwltr]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Common Core is pure socialist construct. It's purpose is to undo rational thinking and reasoning. It drives home feelings and emotion over reason and facts..

People who are driven by emotion do not think rationally and can easily be manipulated.. IE: The herd mentality..

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Common core writing standards require students to make logical reasoned arguments based on evidence.

What evidence?

 

[RandomPoster]

Common Core must be repealed.

 

[Disir]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Opining as fact? No, traditional debate and discourse still exists.

Common Core was something that had been in the works and abandoned 12 years prior to it's push and implementation. It was initially a way to make direct comparisons between the states. If all of the kids were learning the same material then you could move from state to state and still be on the same page. Then it was rushed through when it was picked up by the corporate class. Some states actually had higher standards then what Common Core had.

You can't make a direct comparison between California and Louisiana. You can't say something like and "Florida is 46th in the nation in math skills" and be correct.

That's why PISA tests are a sham. You can't make direct comparisons with other countries. People who attempt to hold those testing scores up as the real deal have an ulterior motive.

 

[RandomPoster]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Opining as fact? No, traditional debate and discourse still exists.

Common Core was something that had been in the works and abandoned 12 years prior to it's push and implementation. It was initially a way to make direct comparisons between the states. If all of the kids were learning the same material then you could move from state to state and still be on the same page. Then it was rushed through when it was picked up by the corporate class. Some states actually had higher standards then what Common Core had.

You can't make a direct comparison between California and Louisiana. You can't say something like and "Florida is 46th in the nation in math skills" and be correct.

That's why PISA tests are a sham. You can't make direct comparisons with other countries. People who attempt to hold those testing scores up as the real deal have an ulterior motive.

The most eloquent debaters to be found on American college campuses can be seen in action in the video I linked. They won a National Collegiate Debating Championship. The push for the type of debating in academia comes from a certain segment of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

As far as the idea for national standards are concerned, they are good as long as they stick to the basics of traditional Western philosophy and have a primary emphasis on STEM. We need to get the teachers out of the process of drawing up the standards and have them drawn up by only STEM professors with conservative values. Teachers should not draw up the standards any more than a drill sergeant does in the Army. The teacher's job is to drill the students until they can pass the tests. We need to reintroduce discipline and decorum to the classroom and drill the students until they are ready to go out into society.

 

[Disir]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Opining as fact? No, traditional debate and discourse still exists.

Common Core was something that had been in the works and abandoned 12 years prior to it's push and implementation. It was initially a way to make direct comparisons between the states. If all of the kids were learning the same material then you could move from state to state and still be on the same page. Then it was rushed through when it was picked up by the corporate class. Some states actually had higher standards then what Common Core had.

You can't make a direct comparison between California and Louisiana. You can't say something like and "Florida is 46th in the nation in math skills" and be correct.

That's why PISA tests are a sham. You can't make direct comparisons with other countries. People who attempt to hold those testing scores up as the real deal have an ulterior motive.

The most eloquent debaters to be found on American college campuses can be seen in action in the video I linked. They won a National Collegiate Debating Championship. The push for the type of debating in academia comes from a certain segment of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

As far as the idea for national standards are concerned, they are good as long as they stick to the basics of traditional Western philosophy and have a primary emphasis on STEM. We need to get the teachers out of the process of drawing up the standards and have them drawn up by only STEM professors with conservative values. Teachers should not draw up the standards any more than a drill sergeant does in the Army. The teacher's job is to drill the students until they can pass the tests. We need to reintroduce discipline and decorum to the classroom and drill the students until they are ready to go out into society.

 

[RandomPoster]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Opining as fact? No, traditional debate and discourse still exists.

Common Core was something that had been in the works and abandoned 12 years prior to it's push and implementation. It was initially a way to make direct comparisons between the states. If all of the kids were learning the same material then you could move from state to state and still be on the same page. Then it was rushed through when it was picked up by the corporate class. Some states actually had higher standards then what Common Core had.

You can't make a direct comparison between California and Louisiana. You can't say something like and "Florida is 46th in the nation in math skills" and be correct.

That's why PISA tests are a sham. You can't make direct comparisons with other countries. People who attempt to hold those testing scores up as the real deal have an ulterior motive.

The most eloquent debaters to be found on American college campuses can be seen in action in the video I linked. They won a National Collegiate Debating Championship. The push for the type of debating in academia comes from a certain segment of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

As far as the idea for national standards are concerned, they are good as long as they stick to the basics of traditional Western philosophy and have a primary emphasis on STEM. We need to get the teachers out of the process of drawing up the standards and have them drawn up by only STEM professors with conservative values. Teachers should not draw up the standards any more than a drill sergeant does in the Army. The teacher's job is to drill the students until they can pass the tests. We need to reintroduce discipline and decorum to the classroom and drill the students until they are ready to go out into society.

All that proves is that the radical left hasn't succeeded in eradicating every last semblance of rational thought. They will continue to do their best unless the country sticks to their guns and maintains a zero-tolerance policy for any "progressive" viewpoints.

The fact that the first video even exists in the first place says more than any number of counterexamples ever could. The counterexamples should exist. The first video is an abomination to civilized discourse.

I maintain that teachers should not set the standards, practitioners in private industry should. Teachers are analogous to drill sergeants. They whip the troops into shape, beat the correct mindset into them, and send them out into the world to work, work, work.

 

[Disir]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Opining as fact? No, traditional debate and discourse still exists.

Common Core was something that had been in the works and abandoned 12 years prior to it's push and implementation. It was initially a way to make direct comparisons between the states. If all of the kids were learning the same material then you could move from state to state and still be on the same page. Then it was rushed through when it was picked up by the corporate class. Some states actually had higher standards then what Common Core had.

You can't make a direct comparison between California and Louisiana. You can't say something like and "Florida is 46th in the nation in math skills" and be correct.

That's why PISA tests are a sham. You can't make direct comparisons with other countries. People who attempt to hold those testing scores up as the real deal have an ulterior motive.

The most eloquent debaters to be found on American college campuses can be seen in action in the video I linked. They won a National Collegiate Debating Championship. The push for the type of debating in academia comes from a certain segment of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

As far as the idea for national standards are concerned, they are good as long as they stick to the basics of traditional Western philosophy and have a primary emphasis on STEM. We need to get the teachers out of the process of drawing up the standards and have them drawn up by only STEM professors with conservative values. Teachers should not draw up the standards any more than a drill sergeant does in the Army. The teacher's job is to drill the students until they can pass the tests. We need to reintroduce discipline and decorum to the classroom and drill the students until they are ready to go out into society.

All that proves is that the radical left hasn't succeeded in eradicating every last semblance of rational thought. They will continue to do their best unless the country sticks to their guns and maintains a zero-tolerance policy for any "progressive" viewpoints.

The fact that the first video even exists in the first place says more than any number of counterexamples ever could. The counterexamples should exist. The first video is an abomination to civilized discourse.

I maintain that teachers should not set the standards, practitioners in private industry should. Teachers are analogous to drill sergeants. They whip the troops into shape, beat the correct mindset into them, and send them out into the world to work, work, work.

Those are high school students. Debate is big stuff. They take that seriously.

Practitioners in private industry created Common Core.

 

[rightwinger]

Notice how Common Core paints persuasion as emotional and manipulative and argumentative as constructive and logical. I remember when calling some argumentative was a slur, a derisive term used to describe someone who can't win the debate with facts and logic, gets emotional and constantly yells and interrupts the other debater. The common saying was that such a person wasn't debating, they were simply arguing. Debate should be facts and logic over opinions, completely devoid of emotion, and persuasive. You persuade with facts and logic and a well articulated speech. Argumentative describes someone using cheap, childish tactics and trying to bully.

Another claim is that women in the past were dismissed as emotional when they shouted someone down, whereas men were seen as powerful. This is not true. Men who did that were seen as boorish and obviously unintelligent. The implication is that anyone doing so is less intelligent than the other person and has to try and "cheat". Everything they said, regardless of their gender, was dismissed with a "Look what he has to stoop to win an argument".

I feel there is a push in society to undo traditional debate and discourse.

Common Core is pure socialist construct. It's purpose is to undo rational thinking and reasoning. It drives home feelings and emotion over reason and facts..

People who are driven by emotion do not think rationally and can easily be manipulated.. IE: The herd mentality..

You have no idea what common core teaches