politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
He was an example of how dangerous "debate club culture" can be.
It teaches people that all that matters is how well you can attack/defend positions, it erases the line between right and wrong. And they carry that view into the real world and politics.
Ted Cruz was/is a master debater, because to be really good at it, you have to have a slinky in place of a spine. You have to be able to argue both sides of any issue as effectively as the opposite.
They're only say what the person in front of them wants to hear in the moment.
Kirk was never out to learn anything, he didn't even want to change anyone's minds.
He wanted to reinforce the existing beliefs of his followers.
He wasn't even that, just seemed to be if you weren't really paying attention. Hell, in his last words he got proven wrong on trans shooters, then pivoted to blaming gangs (aka black and brown people)
He told his followers exactly what they wanted to hear in response to every question, including the last two before he was shot.
It doesn't matter if he was right or wrong factually, he gave his followers warm and fuzzy feelings.
Exactly, and if you'd watched his long standing stuff it was always very much him debating to a crowd using bad faith arguments and taking advantage of the fact that he had a skill that's easy to not be aware of, is completely irrelevant to the stated goal (proving that one is correct) or implied goal (coming to mutual agreement), and that most people he debated lacked. Furthermore because he was the one recording any time he loses he can not publish it. He financially, professionally, and emotionally was never in a place conducive to productive debate and discussion. And I would argue he was in many ways antithetical to the concept of university.
Debate as a competition cannot be fair when it attempts to reflect healthy and positive debate because in that case the better side has an advantage unrelated to player skill. What Kirk was doing was a long campaign against consensus reality. He was particularly skilled at combining the Shapiro tactic (priming the audience by saying you've won by using facts and logic so that's what they see) alongside a belligerent strategy (ie constant advancement regardless of merit) and politely phrased incendiary ideas to tilt his opponents and make them lose their cool and seem overly emotional.
He was a rhetorical stage magician
A narcissistic con artist spewing hate for profit?
So every "conservative" politician, journalist, influencer, etc, etc...
I have a feeling this isn't the only exchange where reading comprehension has left you questioning what you just read...
You may be better off not trying to read into what someone might mean. And focus on what they actually said.
For example:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/
If Charlie Kirk could answer, he'd say this is just something we have to accept and not dwell on...
You can still ask him if you want, he just can't answer.
And according to his personally held opinions, no one should be concerned that he can't answer.