Harvard University
Loeb Drama Center
April 28, 2021
Moderator: “Welcome to the Harvard-Yale debate. Tonight’s
format is different from past debates—not only due to the continuing special
pandemic rules-- but also in that it is the debut of both school’s ‘There Can
Be No Debate Teams.’ (Applause from the small, masked, socially-distanced
crowd.) That’s right, in this more enlightened time, Ivy League schools have
decided to judge these contests based on how effectively each team makes the
case that there can be no debate about a given topic. (More applause.) And
that is the correct decision, of that there can be no debate! (Chuckles.) See
what I did there? Anyway, let’s get started, shall we? Harvard, as the home
team, you get to pick if you wish to field the first question or if you defer
and wish Yale to go first. Captain Smith?”
Harvard’s Captain Smith: “We will go first.”
Moderator: “First topic: ‘Evidence exists that voter fraud
occurred in the last presidential election.’ Yes or no?” (Gasps from some in
the audience and a few on the teams.)
Captain Smith: (Briefly goes through the motions of
appearing to consult with teammates.) “There is absolutely no
evidence—whatsoever—of voter fraud in the past election. These wild-eyed
conspiracy theories of crazed, radical, right-wing lunatics have been
repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Courts across the nation, including the
Supreme Court, have systematically and permanently refuted these utterly
baseless charges. Of that there can be no debate!”
Moderator: “Yale, Captain Johnson, how do you respond?”
Yale’s Captain Johnson: “That is unassailably correct. Of
that there can be no debate!”
Moderator: “Very good. Nicely done, squads. Yale, next
topic: ‘Man-caused anthropogenic global warming, also known as climate change,
is an existential threat to planet Earth in the very near future.’ Yes or no?”
Yale’s Captain Johnson: (Briefly goes through the motions of
appearing to consult with teammates.) “Over one billion top climatologists and
meteorological experts say this is so. As does Greta Thunberg. No one even has
the right to infer otherwise. The science is settled. Of that there can be
no debate!”
Harvard: “Spot on. Deniers should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. Of that there can be no debate.”
Moderator: “Indeed. Harvard, next question: ‘Is the
scientific method as it has heretofore been characterized adequate to address
the challenges of the future…namely critical race theory and transgender
rights?’”
Harvard: “Absolutely not. The archaic six-step method is
utterly ill-suited to the needs of the progressive future. Those steps—1) Ask a
question, 2) Do research, 3) Generate a hypothesis, 4) Conduct experiments, 5)
Analyze data and 6) Either accept or reject your hypothesis (with an optional
seventh step of honestly reporting your findings) must be modified. The correct
sequence is: 1) Pronounce your narrative or belief, 2) Pretend to do
research, 3) Restate your narrative or belief, 4) Conduct experiments, 5)
Doctor the data so that it supports steps one and three, 6) Validate your
original notion and 7) Proudly proclaim to all that your original belief has
now been inalterably and unquestionably confirmed, validated and set in stone
for perpetuity.”
Moderator: “Yale, what say you?”
Yale: “We couldn’t agree more. In fact, we would say that anyone
who disagrees with this obvious truism is guilty of the most virulent form of
hate speech…and should be cancelled, imprisoned or...”
[fade]
No comments:
Post a Comment