Zombie
Well-Known Member
Yeah the hole I see there is the living in sewage part. Arab leadership aren't the ones living in deplorable conditions.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
@shoshido I should have been more specific. Arabs who actively seek Israel's destruction and who aren't wealthy oil barons.
He tweeted this too with it.
That stuff about terrorist Palestinians is a lie as well. Israel is extremely safe, and the Israeli government will respond to the any provocation with extreme force, and with the mentality of inflicting severe collective punishment (for example, demolishing the neighborhood of a terrorist).
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Yeah, dude, I don't know. That tweet was from 2010 and long before I knew who he was. He did make several tweets after it trying to clear up what he meant (this was long before SJWs had mob mentality online too.)
If he said this about Arabs as a whole or anyone else today, I'd be the first to condemn it. I don't condone his tweet from 2010 either.
So I watched a good chunk of this. Shaprio seems to be very quick witted and smart. He is good at arguing. But he is definitely more of a lawyer. He is trying to convince the crowd to agree with him and confuse or twist up the other person. He isnt concerned with the truth or good logic.
I am not stating my opinions on these subjects or even that I disagree with either person just stating the problems with his logic.
His first argument is he uses the taking something to the extreme logical fallacy. Its a silly tactic that makes your opponent statement look bad. But that is changing the argument and taking it to the extreme so it is easy to knock down. He just keeps pushing the issue and talking fast with his strawman argument. His goal is never the truth or facts, just to mix up the other person.
Then he tries to change the subject once he feels like he has won. Again he isnt trying to convey good information or have a good debate about truth he is just trying to win the argument.
He uses the either or logical fallacy to try and win the argument. He basically uses every logical fallacy he can to try and win.
I personally dont have a lot of respect for these tactics in debating. He might win the debate in the crowds mind but its using bully tactics and poor logic. I think it makes him look bad to me. Thats not to say he isnt smart. He obviously is smart and knows that he is using these tactics to win the debate.
Cenk gets "beat" in the debate and flustered even though he is trying to talk about facts and use good logic for his argument. But he gets flustered by Shapiro and the crowd and then is an *** to the crowd. Cenk comes off looking really bad in this not because of losing the debate but because he is a douchebag to the crowd and belittles them. He has decent logic but isnt as quick with his thoughts and words and obviously isnt always aware of the logical fallacy tactics Shapiro is using. Cenk also falls into the category that many people do where he simply thinks and states that people who are opposed to him are dumb. I dislike that as well. Although almost everyone falls into that category at some point on some argument on both sides of every debate.
This video is also edited to show the good parts of Shapiro and cuts out Cenk if he makes any good points and leaves in when he doesnt make a good point.
The other problem with this debate is that both of these people are arguing for the their side (Republican or Democrat) being right and the other wrong. That automatically leads to a poor debate. No one should agree with Republicans or Democrats on every issue. If you do it probably means that you have given in to the propoganda of those parties. The creation of parties was and is to compromise on certain issues so that you can push the issues you really care about. For example the most important thing to you might be a human rights issue. An example of this would be if we all had to make a flag and had to pick the colors. If I care about the color black and love that color, I group up with people that care about the color blue and green so that those can be the 3 main colors. I might not like blue or green but I care enough about black that I am willing to group up with them so that black is one of the main colors. That gives all of us a higher chance of getting our color on the flag then if we just were organized with other people that only liked black.
That tactic is called the Gish Gallop. Basically, you blast out a ton of points, and if your opponent cannot answer every single one of them, you claim victory.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Ron said logic a bunch of times.
I hear it's a fallacy.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
But never mentioned any specifics to refer to. Apparently all of Shapiro's arguments are gish gallops (til gish gallop) and all of Cenk's were logical. USA - USA - USA.
It's a long rambling post. My best babe impression I guess. I said I would watch a couple videos on Shapiro, so y'all got my non stop thoughts live while watching it. Prolly should have edited, but that seems like a bigger waste of time.
Yeah Cenk the guy I called an asset hole, a douchebag, said lost the debate, and disliked him dismissing the other side as dumb. Go him!
There isn't much that Shapiro refers to as well. Just a lot of tactics to try and win the argument.
I am guessing I agree slightly more with Shapiro over Cenk on this subject. I tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to economics. Although I think there are problems with some things from both sides.
They both made correct statements at times but presented it in an either or fashion to try and price the other wrong. But some of them like what boosts the economy, middle class spending or rich people financing business isn't a mutual exclusive concept. They can can both be correct.
Shapiro from this reminds me of Hannity. He uses a lot of the same tactics. But Shapiro is much smarter and more quick witted.