Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

[Ron Mexico]

Like what? I think the last video I posted of Shapiro (besides the parody ones) was his speech at UC Berkeley.

I think you're just parroting what others have said or have a skewed perspective of Shapiro. The dude is beyond smart, informed, and funny. His tweet response was classic Shapiro - he basically used a leftist tactic.

There are plenty of things I don't agree with him on, just like anyone else, but he's not a bad guy and is mislabeled and lumped in with guys like Milo Yiannopoulos.

I'd love to see the debate. I've seen a few where Shapiro doesn't destroy his contestant, but for the most part, he walks circles around people. The dude can spew facts faster than the micro machine man can.

He might talk circles around people and spew facts but that doesn't mean it's good info.

Using poor logic from the other side against them doesnt suddenly make that for logic.

That tweet is a great example. He misconstrued words and change the conversation. If you use common logical fallacies then I don't trust your info. But if you use those and use lots of info you can probably debate well and get people to like your info, even though it's poor.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

That tweet interaction doesn't make Shapiro look great.

I don't know very little about these two but she owned him in those tweets.

With his poor twisted logic response I wouldn't want to debate him either.

You think he should just let her slander him as a sexist and shut up? IMO, her's was the "poor twisted logic response." He was right to call her out for slander, but I think he should have left the cowardice part out.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I found this video. Does he say anything in this video that's ludicrous?

I also found an article he wrote criticizing NYTs saying we should bomb Syria.

He doesn't seem to say at all what @Jazzta claimed he did, but maybe he said that stuff at some other time. I'm looking forward to seeing jazzta's evidence.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

He might talk circles around people and spew facts but that doesn't mean it's good info.

Using poor logic from the other side against them doesnt suddenly make that for logic.

That tweet is a great example. He misconstrued words and change the conversation. If you use common logical fallacies then I don't trust your info. But if you use those and use lots of info you can probably debate well and get people to like your info, even though it's poor.

Does your response even make sense to you? She clearly made a sexist accusation against him. He responded to it directly. What are you claiming that he misconstrued?

 

[Ron Mexico]

Does your response even make sense to you? She clearly made a sexist accusation against him. He responded to it directly. What are you claiming that he misconstrued?

She didn't call him sexist. She didn't say he was a cat caller. She did compare the behavior and it's accurate.

But I do assume he is sexist because it's safe to some men are sexist because our society is sexist.

It's also safe to assume he didn't want to help her by debating her so he did have bad intentions.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

She didn't call him sexist. She didn't say he was a cat caller. She did compare the behavior and it's accurate.

But I do assume he is sexist because it's safe to some men are sexist because our society is sexist.

It's also safe to assume he didn't want to help her by debating her so he did have bad intentions.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

 

[Jazzta]

It’s right here, I don’t have time now to determine the minute mark:



I do find the comment section comforting.

 

[RandyForRubio]

She didn't call him sexist. She didn't say he was a cat caller. She did compare the behavior and it's accurate.

But I do assume he is sexist because it's safe to some men are sexist because our society is sexist.

It's also safe to assume he didn't want to help her by debating her so he did have bad intentions.

He doesn’t want to help her by debating, so he had bad intentions?

Bro. You wanna talk false logic?C’mon.

1) You make this seem like a bad thing. In what debate from opposing parties do they want to help each other? Calling it bad intentions makes it seem worse though, and that is intentionally misleading.

2) She said conservatives are afraid to debate her. A conservative challenged her to a debate, while offering to donate to her political campaign. (Bad intentions tho). She then responded by comparing it to catcalling.

Soooo...when you challenge people, then respond to challengers by saying it’s similar to catcalling (which she only said bc Shapiro is a male), you come off looking dumb.

3) She doesn’t have to debate Shapiro. She shouldn’t debate him, tbh. But her response shows her immaturity and lack of wisdom.

 

[Zombie]

This whole thing is absurd. Political candidates don't generally engage in bad faith debates with partisan pundits.

Let's be real for a second, public debates are much more performance than they are substance. I'm sure with his experience Shapiro would probably 'win' a public debate with Ocasio Cortez. Not on the strength of his ideas, of course because they are terrible, but he's quite the gifted sophist, which tends to play well in those kinds of environments. There's really no upside for her to stoop (quite literally) to his level.

 

[Archie Moses]

He might talk circles around people and spew facts but that doesn't mean it's good info.

Using poor logic from the other side against them doesnt suddenly make that for logic.

That tweet is a great example. He misconstrued words and change the conversation. If you use common logical fallacies then I don't trust your info. But if you use those and use lots of info you can probably debate well and get people to like your info, even though it's poor.

What about her tweet though? I mean, she didn't even respond to Shapiro and made herself look like a victim while making a dumb, irrelevant comparison.

 

[Siro]

I don't think I've ever seen a single good debate between well know public figures. I've watched dozens. Maybe hundreds if you count debates between pop-atheists and religious apologists.

 

[Archie Moses]

He doesn't seem to say at all what @Jazzta claimed he did, but maybe he said that stuff at some other time. I'm looking forward to seeing jazzta's evidence.

The thing with Shapiro is so many people paint him to be something he's not, or twist his words, or label him alt-right or use fear mongering tactics and propaganda against him. I mean, he plays that game to a certain degree with the daily caller, but at the end of the day, Shapiro is pretty level headed. The controversial topics he discusses he at least shows evidence of why he believes that way whether you agree with his rhetoric or not.

I used to think a lot of ****** things about Tommy Robinson because if things I was reading online or hearing. I thought he was a white supremacist and the Brittish version of the alt, alt right. Then I started watching his own videos and listening to what he says, his opinions on things, and his agenda. I've also heard him distant himself from beliefs he had when he was younger and explain why in a way I find convincing and sincere, he felt that way and why he changed. Imo, Tommy Robinson isn't a bad guy. I disagree with some of what he says, but it's bizarre to see his treatment. There's this one interview he does online where the news host is just a jerk to him, but he keeps his cool. The one annoying thing about him is he can talk over just about anyone.

This is a pretty interesting conversation where two people who think something about others, from what they see online, sit down and have a conversation. Just think if more people in politics did this instead of ******** on others, the world would be a better place.