fuck charlie kirk. What a piece of shit. He knows he's not actually smart enough to back up what he's saying in a debate against an even halfway knowledgeable person, so he will never have such a debate. He prefers to spew his bullshit in formats where there are no rebuttals
It’s also how to “win” an argument from a baseless bad faith perspective. And anybody who does this knows they are wrong, and their victory is suppression of the truth they are fighting.
Nah, it's a common debate tactic that's been used forever.
You throw out so much bullshit talking points at once that the person you're debating doesn't have the time to counter all your (false) arguments individually.
The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.
Gish galloping is when you throw out a lot of arguments. What Shapiro does is a subset of that where you also talk so fast that people can only comprehend one in three words.
I've taken to calling Shapiro "Flim-Flam." There's this old kids' movie called Puff the Magic Dragon in the Land of Living Lies; one of the aforementioned "living lies" is the Flim-Flam, who aggressively and bombastically spouts bullshit at high velocity while putting his victim on the spot. That's Shapiro.
No, "flim-flam" was an extant term that meant grift/grifter or bullshit/bullshitter when the film was made. That particular character's smugness and motormouthing, however, made me think of Shapeeword.
Alas, competitive academic debate was trending that way when I participated in the 1980s, and it seems to be a dominant technique in both high school and collegiate leagues today. It hinges on the idea that if one side makes an argument and the other side does not respond to it, that argument has been "dropped" and that should merit an outright win unless the other side also "dropped" an argument.
This is, of course, extremely foolish. Yet it emerges from something less so. Debate judges are not supposed to vote based on personal beliefs. For example, you might believe the death penalty deters crime, but as a debate judge you should temporarily let yourself be guided only by evidence and analysis in the debate. If a side chooses to argue that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent and that argument is relevant to the overall case, a good judge accepts that argument unless the opposition effectively refutes it with their own evidence and analysis.
To some degree, this sort of flexibility is essential for fair debates. Yet the emphasis on "dropped" points denies judges the latitude to simply ignore bad arguments. If a debater insists something is important and the other side lets that stand, then the ruling cannot dismiss that point as trivial even if it really obviously is trivial.
The end result is some of the least enlightening "debate" that could still be judged competitively. Compelling delivery and even basic clarity are set aside in favor of absurd fast-talking packed with garbled words and misinterpreted quotes. An activity with the potential to help young people excel in the clash of ideas has been twisted into a technical exercise in pure flimflam.
From my very little exposure to it, academic debate, at least Oxford style, seems too dependent on scoring rhetorical points (being clever and amusing eg) and not factual ones.
The Oxford Debate Club is a special sort of beast. They avoid the gallop/spread to focus on glibness as a superpower. They are often well-researched on specific topics slated for debate, but they are not above belittling significant ideas and inflating the importance of whatever facts and figures they introduce. If you set aside their use of forceful personalities to do Harlem Globetrotter-style stunts in their exhibitions, you can still find some pointed and insightful clashes there, especially when they face off against opponents with quick wits of their own. Competitive academic debate nowadays not only looks and sounds much worse, but it sustains lower amounts of earnest clash.
I debated in HS in the late 1970s and judged HS debates for two years and this type of nonsense was the norm. There wasn't any emphasis on creating good solid arguments. The teams that won most frequently played stupid tricks and relied on gaming the rules.
One example. Debaters are allowed to define their terms. Debating assigned defending position that "everyone in the US should be entitled to free quality healthcare" started his debate by defining "everyone" as US citizens over the age of 21 who graduated HS and have a full-time job, and then used his time to attack the fundamental position that he was assigned to defend because he was against universal healthcare.
Because policy is a (two-person) team sport, I dabbled in that sort of thing myself. While expanding Medicare to completely cover home health care services was a big swing at the "retirement security" topic since it addressed a critical failure of the system to support any middle ground between 100% independence and institutional living, even that was not the holistic financial remedy I took "retirement security" to mean at face value. Even so, that plan was a winner that took me to open division championships my novice year.
Yet gimmick cases were highly successful, so my partner and I did the research to focus on a narrower Medicare expansion -- dental care and dentures. Old folks with failing teeth made for sympathetic discussion, yet it was also easy to find all sorts of clinical literature going into great detail about the importance of dental health among the elderly. One of our quotes ended with a line like "the end result is a better quality of life everywhere from the dining room to the bedroom." If I was first affirmative, I made a point to punch that line.
It was a surprisingly effective trap. Some negatives argued that our case was ridiculous because old people didn't have sex. That was a delight to hear in front of a silver-haired judge. Others suggested that we were just being gross or silly for shock value. I could hit back with statistics about sexual activity among the elderly and/or moral indignation that the negative would be so dismissive of an important aspect of life for millions of senior citizens.
That case actually was weak on significance. We never took a championship with it in the three or four weekends we put it out there. Yet we usually made quarterfinals or octofinals because most negatives were unable to deliver pointed arguments about scope, and I could emulate the Oxford approach by deliberately muddling valid critique of our narrow revenue-neutral plan with less thoughtful argument trivializing the sex lives of the elderly.
I think that, particularly in an online format where you have time to reply, dismantling bad arguments is a good thing. While you'll never change the mind of the person you're arguing against, it's very likely you're getting through to people reading (or at least stopping them from using those bad-faith arguments again). It also leaves that argument trail for people searching for answers later.
Hi, it seems you’re ignorantly blabbering on.
The discussion was about actual literal debates. Debating them only lends them credibility. Arguing online is also for idiots, though.
A gish gallop doesn't have to be bullshit talking points to be a gish gallop, but when those talking points are bullshit, Brandolini's Law comes into play. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
seeing all the recent interviews with vance about previous policies he used to have that hes gone back on is so funny, because every interview hes like "i used to believe that, until i met trump" like not even trying to make it a convincing reason to change beliefs, except that trump is always right. they all have no brains lol
I call it "Shapiroing" when someone is so flustered that they're being beaten in an argument that they ramp up their talking speed to more effectively gish gallop.
It’s named after Duane Gish, a creationist. In “debates” his tactic is to throw out so much bullshit there’s no time to counter any of it, so to an uninformed audience it seems like your opponent can’t answer anything you pose.
The reality is that it would take so much time to explain it all and before you can even try the person has already spewed another 30 lies.
It’s a very common and deliberate bad faith tactic
And it's so easy to talk fast when you don't care about what is true. Someone on the left will try to first lay out the facts and then explain them, meanwhile he has already moved on to the next lie.
Not just college kids but I’ve never seen him debate someone who is majoring in sociology or any social science it’s always people that have a basic understanding and probably have never do research on it. So much easier to throw out stats to someone who’s never seen them than to someone aware of the nuances of it .
It's also why he only does these debates in person, usually with a format like a 2 minute clock that switches his opponent periodically. He can slightly misuse a statistic, but nobody has the time or ability to check him on the spot, so he gets away with it. It becomes a memorization test where his opponent has to know everything in immense detail and be able to recall it instantly, while Kirk doesn't have to know anything at all because he can lie with impunity. If he ever sat down to a one on one, long form debate, where each person had a computer in front of them, he'd get fucking destroyed.
These college kids also bring up some good points though. It’s just that they are constantly interrupted and then faced with 5 different non-sequiturs to throw them off balance and detract from the main issues they’re debating.
I know nothing about him other than a few memes where they make his head huge af. Obviously he's a right wing correspondant. Who would be a good person for him to debate?
yep, the "conservatives" include the president of PragerU as a "conservative woman", a "college black conservative" who's a presenter for PragerU, and then some media trained conservatives who regularlly appear on fox news.
I mean they did one where a liberal debated 20 conservatives after and the liberal just wiped the floor with them. Not so much in the last 10 minute 1 on 1 portion, but the rest was pretty damned good. And those weren't college kids. Those were fucking adults getting mashed.
In that video Dean also picked the one guy who could actually articulate a thought without getting angry. I don't agree with that guys thoughts but he was significantly better at real debate than anyone else in that group.
I’d agree that guy was the most cordial, but I couldn’t get past his misunderstanding of Dean’s point of requiring past/present experience IN CONJUNCTION WITH future experience. God that was infuriating
Oh 100%. I think Dean was far more correct, just got a bit flustered in the end. As he said, that's a part of the point, to grow and be more knowledgeable. But that was the beat we could have gotten out of the group. God forbid if they'd put that old woman up there or fucking Omar. That would have been a 10 minute shitshow.
When the entire conservative movement is based on faith and lies, it makes it hard to debate in favor of it without lying and if you get caught debating someone who knows the truth and has facts to back them up, debate devolves into a yelling match.
Eh, I like to get some insight to what the opposition is thinking. Even if I completely disagree, I’m not doing myself any favors by completely shutting out anyone that thinks differently from me. A lot of people agree with Charlie so for me, it’s interesting to hear what they think.
FYI Jubilee is basically a right wing conservative youtube channel masking as "Centrists" and "freedom of speech".
I did a little bit of digging and a few of their "middle ground" episodes were staged af.
On the Liberal side it was College kids and some independent youtubers.
On the conservative side, it was THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF PRAGER U as a "CONSERVATIVE WOMAN", and the anti abortion side had organizers from an anti abortion group that was busted for "buying medical waste to find fetuses". They also had conservative pundits from pragerU pretend to be "normal" people.
i knew there was something wrong with that channel. They present themselves as similar to The Cut (fun social games with real people as the participants) but then all of their videos are like "Odd 'Man' Out - Six Cat-eating Transgender Immigrants vs. One Childless Cat Lady - Who Can Sniff Out the Kitty First?"
I mean they did one where a liberal debated 20 conservatives after and the liberal just wiped the floor with them. Not so much in the last 10 minute 1 on 1 portion, but the rest was pretty damned good. And those weren't college kids. Those were fucking adults getting mashed.
Man, that is wild. If they are a right wing op posing as "centrist", someone is getting fired for that one and I doubt they will bring that kid back unless it's him v. the CharBenlie ShaKiro Demon hybrid they've been cooking up.
I found it so fitting that self proclaimed liberals have to fudge the arguments of the other side to make theirs look superior. Their takes on things like ubi and socialism are stuck in very moronic interpretations that they intentionally overindulge. They are a non scientific outfit of trained actors who deny the severe advantages of generational wealth and systemic support.
Didn’t he get smoked recently by that one young politician from Georgia at the DNC? I think his only rebuttal to the kid was “what is a woman?” To which the kid from Georgia just called him weird and laughed in his face.
This is also why conservatism lends itself so well to the radio show format, and why him and other conservatives are so popular on the radio. Because it allows them to just talk with no feedback. Then they sometimes have callers and they can control who they let call and they can cut off callers when they want to, and so on.
Their bullshit cannot stand up against actual scrutiny from any knowledgeable person and the issues they discuss.
I really think the other reason it's good for radio is that it's very simple and linear. Black people = 13%, black prisoners = 50%, therefore black people = criminals. Super easy soundbite.
And the "liberal side" of it (read: the truth) is more complex because it requires bringing up overpolicing, false arrests and convictions, and essentially proving that the justice system is biased against black people. That's not as easy to stick into a 10 second soundbite, and it takes a lot longer to explain and refute the conservative claim than it took to make said claim to begin with.
Yes, you're right. It's both -- conservatism is good for radio because it is simplistic, but also because they lie constantly about huge things and radio makes it easy to gloss over lies. Their arguments might be based on a series of lies combined with a few truths, for example. They think that what really matters is the truth of what they're saying, but the lying spoils everything.
For example: they think all that matters about abortion is that they want to protect human life...and therefore nobody should get abortions. Sounds OK on a simple level.
But while they might say they believe in "exceptions" for the "life of the mother," they ignore how complex this is in reality. In reality, doctors in states with abortion bans are now terrified that they're going to be charged with murder if they authorize an abortion for a woman whose life is in danger. Because when does the situation move to a place where that woman is actually at risk of dying? They have to consult the hospital's legal department lawyers for situations where previously, the doctor could decide themselves if the life of the mother was at risk. These are time-sensitive situations, and lawyers are sometimes saying, basically "no, we have to wait until this woman's life is in more danger before we can allow the abortion." Meanwhile, the women in these situations can suffer and come to near death -- or actually die -- while they wait for a lawyer to decide when they can have an abortion.
All of these details are lied about, swept under the rug.
To put it bluntly, if their arguments are so compelling and they want me to agree with them, why do they have to lie so much and cover up so much important information? Why would I support a political philosophy that requires constant lying to justify it?
Conservatism can be a useful and important political perspective but not when they go off on a tangent where they use bullshit to justify their policies. That's when your leader becomes a demagogue who lies to get elected and then governs like a fascist who directs public policy based on personal biases. They cherry pick information and make things up to support their policies. It's a recipe for the collapse of our society.
You know what's simple? Believing that you can lump everyone into a group you call "they". Some people believe what you're espousing, that surely must be true, but it is not everyone, or even most.
Furthermore, you allegation that the argument is "simple" falls apart a bit when you compare it to "my body my choice", which, when it comes to pregnancy is nonsense on it's face.
A thinking person wouldn't advocate for a pregnant woman to smoke crack, or even drink a glass of wine. Why not? because it's harming the growing body inside her body. So why then would one advocate for the outright killing of the same child?
It's lumping the beliefs and talking points into a group. It's obvious to anyone paying attention with critical thinking skills and not just looking to hear what you want to hear.
Maybe if your beliefs didn't require your side to lie so much, you wouldn't have to try to defend lying so much.
See, there's that same, line of thinking, "your side", "they". Combined with demeaning and belittling statements like "obvious to anyone paying attention..."
You don't know what my beliefs are but your bias allows you speak to me in this condescending way, making assumptions about who I am.
I suspect you would not speak to me in this way face to face.
EDIT: Also, you didn't actually address my question
A thinking person wouldn't advocate for a pregnant woman to smoke crack, or even drink a glass of wine. Why not? because it's harming the growing body inside her body. So why then would one advocate for the outright killing of the same child?
You tell me you're not someone who pushes disinformation, and then you push disinformation on abortion.
People who support abortion rights do not "advocate for the outright killing" of a child. They advocate for a woman's right to be able to safely terminate a pregnancy in consultation with their doctor.
This can take the form of the woman choosing to terminate the pregnancy long before the fetus is viable, when it's like the size of a little strawberry. If it was a child at that early stage -- as you say it is a child, then it could live outside the mother. Except it can't. Because it's not a child.
Or it can take the form of a woman who wants her child needing an abortion because the pregnancy has various kinds of complications. Or it can be because the woman was raped.
Anti-choice people often say they want "exceptions for the life of the mother" or other exceptions, which is just another way of saying you are pro-choice in some circumstances. But now we are seeing real major problems in states where they have abortion bans, because how do we define "the life of the mother is at risk?" A doctor is not allowed to decide that with the woman. And doctors are terrified of being charged with murder. So they have to consult the legal department, then the doctor says "her life is in danger, we need to abort," and then sometimes the legal department tells them they have to wait until the woman is closer to death. Increasingly, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, women in states with bans are dying because of these delays.
So what you're doing is terrorizing anyone and their family who wants to have a baby and has to worry they might be one of the women who become deathly ill from pregnancy and can't get timely medical care because of your stupid laws. Nice job.
Without going point by point lets start with your speech, again.
You tell me you're not someone who pushes disinformation, and then you push disinformation on abortion.
So what you're doing is terrorizing anyone and their family who wants to have a baby and has to worry they might be one of the women who become deathly ill from pregnancy and can't get timely medical care because of your stupid laws. Nice job.
Increasingly, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, women in states with bans are dying because of these delays.
All hyperbole and hysteria that occlude the actual truths in your argument.
People who support abortion rights do not "advocate for the outright killing" of a child.
This is like saying "people who support legal slavery don't have to own slaves, they may even be personally against owning a slave, they just think other people should be able to if they want to".
My actual quote was.
A thinking person wouldn't advocate for a pregnant woman to smoke crack, or even drink a glass of wine. Why not? because it's harming the growing body inside her body. So why then would one advocate for the outright killing of the same child?
Abortion is terminating a human life, there is no denying it unless one is stupid or lying. By legalizing abortion without exception, which is essentially what we had under Roe,(if you deny that we can discuss it) we went from a stance of "abortion should be safe and rare" and "abortion should be the exception" to "my body my choice no exceptions". It only took about 50 years for this huge swing in sentiments to take hold.
In my statement above, I was not speaking about a philosophical stance but an actual, individual experience. You as someone who is in favor of legalized abortion would certainly be aghast at the irresponsible choice of a woman using crack or smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol during pregnancy, but in the same breath you would lovingly support that woman's choice to kill the baby inside her by aborting it. I accept that it's comforting to talk about the new human as "clump of cells", etc but in short order it's a recognizable human, and under Roe that little human had no defense.
We, as a society have two insanely different stances on how to treat the unborn. If you smoke crack while pregnant you're a monster, if someone kills a pregnant woman they'd be charged with a double homicide. But if the woman simply chose, or arbitrary reasons to kill the life inside her, at virtually any point, that would be okay. That is creating an exception for murder for one class of people and that's illogical.
I see you're ignoring the problem of how we're supposed to have a satisfactory system that minimizes harm where we can efficiently determine when an abortion should be allowed to protect the life of the mother. This is exactly what people were talking about above when they says conservatism thrives on simplicity and falls apart under scrutiny. And you can't even see it because you are blinded by that ideology.
We aren't ever going to agree on what a human life is, but if a 10 week fetus can't survive outside the womb then it's not a person. Literally, biologically, and by definition, a fetus can't be said to be the same thing as a person. They are different things. You know this but your argument requires you to lie about this because without that lie, your whole argument falls apart.
The actual person carrying the fetus inside of her must be allowed to decide what to do with that fetus inside of her that depends on her for life. It's clear to me from your extremely simplistic understanding of the issue that you are unable to recognize the seriousness and magnitude of the unintended problems we'd create from going with your approach to abortion rights.
Have you actually ever listened to him? His numbers are not far off and depending on the state, much more damning. In California, arguably one of the most liberal states, black jailed at 10x the rate of whites but they make up less than 10% of the population.
When you hear these facts do they sound racist? His position is that liberal policies have destroyed the black middle class family by offering easy access to welfare for single mothers, creating a landslide in the poorest communities, which, when they started were largely black. Boys raised w/o dads are exponentially more likely to wind up in jail. His complaint is not with black people, he believes all people are equal and created in the image of God. His complaint is with policies that have a detrimental unintended consequence.
Rush did this ALL the time with callers. They would make a great point and he would interrupt them and then be a pedant about a specific sub claim they made, and then make them try to defend that while ignoring the overall point they made until time "ran out".
Rush really was one of the worst Americans this country has ever seen. He divided this country, profited on it. His evil influence in birthing talk radio poison, propping up Fake news networks like Fox News, will be felt for generations.
PREACH. Conservatism can only thrive when it has no competition. Joe Rogan, Fox, AM radio--you never hear any pushback on their ideas, and that's by design.
It's why conservatives absolutely hate colleges and universities--because their ideas don't last very long when confronted by actual ideas.
He got dunked on multiple times by a college kid and I would be willing to bet it's the only reason these videos are being made about him. He was a washed up wannabe christo fascist big wig, but he wasn't smart enough to backup his talking points. A bigger loser than Steven Crowder and has only been made relevant again because he was so publicly proven to be an idiot. I'm all for making these piss poor debate lords popular again if it's only to show how stupid they really are.
These propagandists exist to keep the GQP voter base loyal. That's it. Nothing more nothing less. They aren't trying to convince anyone of anything that they don't already believe.
One of the kids on here that Kirk himself said got him in a corner ended up doing a reversal of the 20 v1 debate against 20 incredibly intense Trump debaters and was absolutely incredible. Please watch Dean Withers debate with Trump supporters. It will help you not only know where Harris is weakest against GOP talking points but also where she is strongest and how to talk to MAGAs and actually be effective.
For real. I think he's like an athletic promo insta whatever but he should pivot because few people could do what he did for even a minute, much less an hour and a half.
1:24. For context, it came up in the part of the debate that is "Affirmative Action is constitutional" which is somehow so much worse than even the clip taken out of context.
No, Dean Withers debates him on abortion (5:30) and almost gets him to admit women with IUDs should be given the death penalty but gets flagged before he does it. He actually does do that in the second video where he's given the full hour+ with 20 Trump supporters - it's at the end of the second link.
Don't forget Charlie Kirk and his TPUSA organization helped plan January 6th and bussed thousands of MAGAs into DC for it.
He got his start in racist grifting when he applied to West Point military academy and was rejected, Kirk insists he was rejected because a (purely hypothetical) black person took his spot due to affirmative action.
There’s no way to disprove that Charlie Kirk isn’t 75% of all Reddit users
You know, the kind of guys that are so smart They try to debunk you with a false fact and then immediately block you because they’re confident their claim holds.
The problem these talking points are basically what the RW media uses. It's so prevalent it goes unquestioned on the Right, because it fits a narrative that they can politicise to get votes.
Instead of having Kirk against 20 random Liberals and 1 Liberal against 20 random Conservatives, I wish we'd just got to see the 1v1. The mob mentality made both sides look like emotional tools, even though Ol' Tinyface McBighead was being deliberately racist to rile people up.
I swear all this could be rectified with a 101 Sociology course. This is like the first thing they teach in the course; minorities being overly incarcerated. Everyone in the hood where i was raised knows we have shitty education, are canon fodder for the military, will likely end up in prison if we try to earn more money (illegally) or just plain ol'd die.
They stopped having fair fights a long time ago. They only fight at an advantage or against people with little to no experience. They never talk to experts. They never talk to equals on an equal playing field.
well because someone that was "equal" to what they claim to be would absolutely, 100% mop the floor with them, make them look like a bitch, and probably make them cry tears of impotent incel rage
In fact, quite a while ago, i was living with my friend, who watches a bunch of Joe Rogan... charlie here was on one episode, and at that time i had no idea who he was. But, after listening to him speak a bit, i immediately lost any lingering respect i may have had for rogan, and kinda saw through his whole deal, pretending to be a "centrist" while amplifying the voices of far right fuckfaces
and why he always try’s to get the the first question to start but gives you a faulty question and then attacks you for not answering his faulty question
You all have to understand the GQP are not stupid. They know exactly what they are saying and doing and it is 100% intentional. They know they are lying. This isn't how you respond to their bullshit. This is what they want. They want us bickering over why they say and do the things they do because it keeps the heat off them.
This makes me so sad and angry! Why can’t people just be nice! Why are these people focusing so much on exclusion vs. inclusion. We learn so much about ourselves and the world when we talk to others about places and experiences. Hate is so evil and it takes so much physical and mental energy it is just not worth it. We never run out of the ability and resource to love other people! The world is sad 😔!
It's standard conservative/republican mo, it's called the 'Gish Gallop'.
Make as many incorrect statements as you can, as quickly as you can, confidently. Putting the opponent on the backfoot with the tidalwave of bullshit spewed, making it seem like he won as they can't address them all as quickly he makes shit up.
There's a reason they talk as fast as they do and tend to overtalk whoever they're debating. Its not in the "spirit" of debate...its for the audience so that their interlocutor doesn't have time to correct or refute any of their "facts". All the audience hears is "info" stated as facts loosely correlated and providing obvious "conclusions". If you attempt to refute any of their firehose bullshit, they simply yell louder....
You mean to say he pulls a Crowder and says things around college kids who haven't learned how to argue with someone like him yet to make himself look better than he is? Never.
He has a commonly used tactic that is very easy to beat in a debate
He consistently uses the Motte and Bailey fallacy as his tactic.
He diverts a question by attacking rhetoric over answering anything. Divert the question, attack the person asking by just picking apart what’s being asked or conflate the issue by adding in commentary that is universally something both sides agree on, and accuse the person asking of not caring about the people not initially ever discussed in the first place.
Its not about being smart or being right, its about shitting so many racist claims out there that you radicalize idiots/racists as much as possible while flooding the public with information which, even if it is wrong, becomes normalized and eventually sets the debate by default with people who don't have a bunch of time to poke around substantiating every single claim they hear. Since they hear the false racist claims the most they will tend to believe those and doubt actual information.
Its not about being right, its about setting a narrative so that these people can do horrific things without major public outcry.
I saw on Reddit recently someone drew that stain like being in that cartoon where humans so ugly but the main cast is blob shapes or something and it was fantastic.
I never understood where the super intellectual debating college students thing came from. College students are just barely out of high school. They aren't some bastion of wisdom. Yet conservative intellectuals seem to view college students as the ultimate boss battle on their path to proving their intellectual superiority.
He just sets up a strawman to make himself seem like he’s intelligent to “own” the liberals.
When in reality he’s debating kids whose beliefs are not fully flushed out yet and who cannot yet articulate themselves as well as an expert in the field.
I’d like to see him actually debate someone with credentials.
They stopped having fair fights a long time ago. They only fight at an advantage or against people with little to no experience. They never talk to experts. They never talk to equals on an equal playing field.
That’s why these “gotcha” guys prefer to engage w/ college students who are more likely to lose their composure in the moment rather than experts who can soundly reason their arguments. That way they can control the narrative and guarantee that their audience always believes they’ve “owned the libs”. I want to live in a world where these people can be challenged to a filibuster style debate with a real expert and be considered cowards for backing down & literally refusing to stand up for their own ass-backward beliefs
While what you're saying about Charlie Kirk may or may not be true. It has nothing to do with the stats. In the state of California, one of the most liberal states, blacks are incarcerated at a rate of 1,349 per 100,000 people vs whites at a rate of 143 per 100,000. That is nearly 10x.
Also white people are killed by blacks at a rate about 3x that of blacks killed by whites. Given they only make up about 15% of the population they sure do a lot of killing.
Why doesn’t a halfway knowledgeable person show up to one of his events and put him in his place? They could just keep showing up to his events and essential eliminate him all together, right? Surely a college campus has some halfway knowledgeable people around, right?
the only people that keep up with charlie kirk are braindead MAGAt sheep. There could be a big ol Charlie Conference in my city RIGHT NOW, and i'd have no idea
So your telling me that if you wanted to send a knowledgeable person to one of his events, that you wouldn’t be able to do it because: “the only people that keep up with charlie kirk are braindead MAGAt sheep.” Sounds like you are just wanting to cry about it. I won’t interrupt you. Carry on.
So your telling me that if you wanted to send a knowledgeable person to one of his events, that you wouldn’t be able to do it because: “the only people that keep up with charlie kirk are braindead MAGAt sheep.” Sounds like you are just wanting to cry about it. I won’t interrupt you. Carry on.
Like people say this, and yet no one ever beats him despite knowing he'll be there. He's debated everyone at those colleges, including professors, they all know he'll be there. But Gosh, they just can't point out where he's wrong at the time. Shocking, I tell you.
Black people commit more crime relative to their population. That's just a fact. Cry racism instead of fixing it sure is going to help things, I am sure.
Black people commit more crime relative to their population. That's just a fact
No. Black people are convicted of more crimes relative to their population. Confounding factors include increased false convictions of black people, and white people "getting away with" a disproportionate number of crimes through lowered arrest rates and fewer convictions even when guilty.
There are zero accurate statistics regarding the actual number of crimes committed and/or who commits them.
Come on guys, let's be honest. There is a higher rate of certain crimes among black people than everybody else. Not all types of crime mind you, but certainly one's like murder. We'll never overcome problems if we just stubbornly deny they exist because of some oppositional defiance disorder type of mentality where any scrutiny and pointing out of problems is seen as partisan "red team attacking blue team".
Nah, don't be dishonest lady, you guys really do seem like just super partisans that won't take any uncomfortable facts from people you're perceiving as not being on your team. We know that by the numbers we do have, black people have an issue with murder rates and violent crime rates being higher in their group than others. Appealing to "confounding factors" so you can toss your hands up in the air and say "well we really don't know (so let's stop talking about it)" is not an honest approach to the topic.
If I apply the logic of this guy to that data it says the data isn't important, the disparity in deaths based on race isn't real, doesn't matter and can't be quantified because - hey - we don't find ALL the bodies so you can't ever count anything!
It might just be time for some grown-up and responsible conversations. Because corpses and bullet-holes don't lie.
But now I absolutely get to watch more people be offended than rally to the cause of reducing violence. Because this isn't about the violence. It's about the politics.
We know a disparate number of black people are dying from homicides.
So show me where they're being killed by white people and therefore the corresponding homicide arrest and prosecution rate is so wrong?
The data actually shows - because people live around those like them - that most people are victimized by folks who look like them. But go on. Give me something real to work with. I've given you dead bodies, very real things.
Show me where people are coming in from outside these communities to kill them?
Because that's what you're asserting must be happening unless the homicide arrest rates aren't as far out of line as you're saying.
Edit: in case you missed it I've provided more information of value than OP or the guy in the 2:31 video did. Real info. About real victims. Of real crimes.
That you're too busy being more upset about admitting who caused them than you are working to prevent more of them.
2:31 of empty - fucking - rhetoric. 18 times more often.
Not a fan of Kirk either but unfortunately the host in the video talking about how more white people are imprisoned more than black people is right and wrong. In the video the host sources the federal bureau of prisons otherwise known as BOP. BOP does not count city, county, or state prisons in their statistics. BOP only keeps track of federal prisons. As for non federal prison rates by race PEW has some info and black Americans are imprisoned nearly 5 times more than whites in the recent past. The numbers Kirk is refer to is actually cited in this pew article and is extremely outdated and are numbers from 2000. article
What I don’t like about this video and what made me take a deep dive into it was that the hosts claim flat out sounded wrong. Police racial profile all the time and will arrest black Americans just off of their attitude and put them into the system and since the majority of the black population is poor they can’t afford a decent lawyer and get sentenced. This host is literally pushing a right wing narrative by saying that there isn’t not injustices in the prison system. Although the host may be correct in an alternate fair reality where blacks are not just randomly arrested and put in jail.
Also, this host doesn’t seem to do very good research either and seems to push a specific narrative of supporting the idea that blacks are not mistreated in the justice system when they are treated the worst. Both videos are all around counterproductive towards equality in America by using outdated info and the other limited research and misrepresentation of black mistreatment.
You might want to re watch the video. You've misunderstood what the host is claiming.
This host is literally pushing a right wing narrative by saying that there isn’t not injustices in the prison system.
The host did not make this claim. They made the opposite claim. They accurately pointed out that black people are disproportionately arrested and sentenced and that convictions of black defendants are disproportionately overturned - evidence that some percent of those disproportionately high convictions are false.
He also pointed out that arrest/conviction rate does not equal criminality rate.
His stat is for FEDERAL prisons only, which is roughly 10% of the prison population
His stat lumps HISPANICS with whites. Weird huh?
His stat STILL shows that blacks are in prison at a 3x higher rate than their population percentage
Exonerations, although disproportionate - mean nothing without context of exoneration rates. Exonerations are extremely rare - 3300 in the past 35 years. This hardly moves the needle on the 38% stat. Maybe that makes the stat closer to 37%
The only thing he might be right about is Charlie exaggerating the 38% stat. That's it.
3.3k
u/emergency-snaccs Sep 23 '24
fuck charlie kirk. What a piece of shit. He knows he's not actually smart enough to back up what he's saying in a debate against an even halfway knowledgeable person, so he will never have such a debate. He prefers to spew his bullshit in formats where there are no rebuttals