Ocasio Cortez compares debating to catcalling, refuses to debate Ben Shapiro.

[Madmick]

lol dude, you have a thing. And now I know why. It's ok. Root for the home team. Most people just live in the hometown when they do that.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Charming that you think you're talking about other people.

Cenk literally got so frustrated with how elegantly his points were being refuted that he began to insult the audience he was tasked with persuading. Nowhere in this drivel did you cite a single flaw in an actual argument he has forwarded: one of these "retarded rebuttals". Here, watch how this Redditor did it:

Tune into an Intelligence Squared debate sometime. The metric for deciding who wins isn't who carries the majority. 93/7 doesn't reflect partisan splits. Cenk lost hearts and minds. That was the same split as the PS4-vs-XboxOne Facebook beatdown prior to their launch in 2013 following a generation with a nearly even split of owners.

Here you come to tell the 93% what biased "hootin and hollering morons" they are for reacting to the proposed product launches with that sort of drift. You're sure to persuade as effectively as Cenk himself.

"How elegantly his points were refuted"


And none of the many Shapiro fangirls in here have pointed me to an actual good example of a good debate performance from him, or why exactly they felt he did so well against Cenk. Where did Cenk fail and "embarrass" himself? Im looking at the actual CONTENT of their words

In a later post I did bring up his tactic of bringing up tangential information to try and drive home a point that wasn't ever made, or mischaracterises his opponents argument. ( i talked about his comments on US healthcare ranking) Aside from him intentionally trying to mislead about health care, he had some moronic remarks about money being speech, and that he can do what "he damn well pleases" with his money were moronic and wrong. (And another of his forceful speaking tactics to get applause)

He tries to frame the argument in his own simplistic terms. Cenk brought up how conservatives only like small government when it's about shit they don't want the government meddling in...but wars, abortions. ..subsidies. .bring on big Gov.
Shapiro's reply was "well, overall, you want more government spending, and i want less"
You can't frame the conversation in that way and have a genuine discussion. Shapiro will make comments like this, and then say something snarky or sharp ("to say anything against this is a lie!") At the end for applause, and then he's crowned as the winner. Lol its absurd.

Shapiro's debating style is that of an immature adolescence..albeit an intelligent one.
They came there to debate politics, lol why did he come prepared with personal attacks ready to talk about Cenk's personal business and finances? He made a ridiculous comparison between Cenk's business getting an investment from a busiessman, as being the same, or similar to corporations giving money to politicians. It was a ridiculous comparison
Im sure there was other stuff that made me shake my head, but that's all I recall on the fly, or really care to talk about

I give him credit. He has a style that is popular . He is probably able to shut down a lot of people because he speaks a million miles a minute, and mixes in just enough facts and information to make you second guess yourself. And the cursing, snark, and personal attacks are what the majority of peabrains remember in a debate, and how they choose a 'winnerz'.
I don't think the guy is stupid, but as i keep saying, speaking fast and "eloquently" does not equal making good arguments.

That moderator should've been doing a lot more moderating
Your 93/7 score just shows that content doesn't matter. Whomever is the biggest, loudest asshole, wins
And to be clear, my argument isn't even "Cenk won". I was commenting on the ridiculous praise this guy was getting in this thread as some sort of genius debater. Yes, he would beat Ocasio in a debate, but it would have nothing to do with intelligence

 

[The XL]

Shapiro is a pseudo intellectual soy boy, but Cortez has a problem forming coherent sentences. Would be a shitshow for sure.

 

[HereticBD]

I think she absolutely should debate Ben Shapiro... if he is running for the same congressional seat as her.

Otherwise, I’m sorry, but what’s her (or his) legitimate interest?

I mean @PaulRyan still hasn’t accepted my Sherdog debate request. What’s up with that? I can’t even get @StephenCrowder to accept.

I'm sorry, but comparing some random, anonymous user on a forum(you) to a prolific political voice in the media, is just too stupid for words.

Anyways, it's not about her ducking him. It's how she ducked him. If that is the reasoning she came up with, you better believe it's in her best interest to stay the fuck away from any and all debates. She couldn't even bow out of a debate without making an ass out of herself. I can't imagine the inane shit that would come out of her mouth, when actually challenged on her political stances.

 

[Cirris]

Cruz actually embraced his inner troll and made a funny.

What is going on?

It's hilariously ironic when democrats are triggered by Ted Cruz's nice zinger. When Hillary/Obama/(insert quoted leftist here) does something similar, they all on their knees sucking off their genitals. Especially Hillary, when her comments aren't even that witty.

 

[luckyshot]

I'm sorry, but comparing some random, anonymous user on a forum(you) to a prolific political voice in the media, is just too stupid for words.

Anyways, it's not about her ducking him. It's how she ducked him. If that is the reasoning she came up with, you better believe it's in her best interest to stay the fuck away from any and all debates. She couldn't even bow out of a debate without making an ass out of herself. I can't imagine the inane shit that would come out of her mouth, when actually challenged on her political stances.

Yeah, but why won’t Crowder debate me, bro? Why’s he scared?

He does, but he hasn't visited since last October.

He's going through a crisis behind the scenes of his show with two of his on-screen employees leaving within 2 weeks. 'Sven the Computer,' who was a German migrant, was unceremoniously fired with no explanation to the loyal viewers. The other, NotGayJared, who has been with the show since the beginning, just announced he's leaving because his girlfriend is pregnant. No one quits a six-figure job because their girlfriend gets knocked up.

So, fans of his show aren't very happy right now.

But why won’t he debate me, bro?

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Honestly, I'm not sure she's actually off base with this. Do you think Ben has good intentions?

What does his intentions have to do with her equating a debate with CATCALLING and SEXISM. Put down the kool-aid and wake up.

The morons here saying he wouldnt debate a man, or blah label blah wouldnt know what a real debate looks like as all you know are the 6-14 people in small windows on your screen, screaming over each other since all you do is watch the media and your idea of an intellectual is someone like Michael Eric Dyson whose greatest accomplishment is studying a thesaurus yet now knowing what half the shit he says even means.

 

[Ripskater]

 

[GearSolidMetal]

On second thought, she might have a chance against Shapiro.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

But why won’t he debate me, bro

Tweet him.

He may invite you on.

You couldn't do worse than Christopher Titus.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Has she ever participated in a televised or recorded debate? I’d be curious to see how it went.

 

[Madmick]

"How elegantly his points were refuted"


And none of the many Shapiro fangirls in here have pointed me to an actual good example of a good debate performance from him, or why exactly they felt he did so well against Cenk. Where did Cenk fail and "embarrass" himself? Im looking at the actual CONTENT of their words

In a later post I did bring up his tactic of bringing up tangential information to try and drive home a point that wasn't ever made, or mischaracterises his opponents argument. ( i talked about his comments on US healthcare ranking) Aside from him intentionally trying to mislead about health care, he had some moronic remarks about money being speech, and that he can do what "he damn well pleases" with his money were moronic and wrong. (And another of his forceful speaking tactics to get applause)

He tries to frame the argument in his own simplistic terms. Cenk brought up how conservatives only like small government when it's about shit they don't want the government meddling in...but wars, abortions. ..subsidies. .bring on big Gov.
Shapiro's reply was "well, overall, you want more government spending, and i want less"
You can't frame the conversation in that way and have a genuine discussion. Shapiro will make comments like this, and then say something snarky or sharp ("to say anything against this is a lie!") At the end for applause, and then he's crowned as the winner. Lol its absurd.

Shapiro's debating style is that of an immature adolescence..albeit an intelligent one.
They came there to debate politics, lol why did he come prepared with personal attacks ready to talk about Cenk's personal business and finances? He made a ridiculous comparison between Cenk's business getting an investment from a busiessman, as being the same, or similar to corporations giving money to politicians. It was a ridiculous comparison
Im sure there was other stuff that made me shake my head, but that's all I recall on the fly, or really care to talk about

I give him credit. He has a style that is popular . He is probably able to shut down a lot of people because he speaks a million miles a minute, and mixes in just enough facts and information to make you second guess yourself. And the cursing, snark, and personal attacks are what the majority of peabrains remember in a debate, and how they choose a 'winnerz'.
I don't think the guy is stupid, but as i keep saying, speaking fast and "eloquently" does not equal making good arguments.

That moderator should've been doing a lot more moderating
Your 93/7 score just shows that content doesn't matter. Whomever is the biggest, loudest asshole, wins
And to be clear, my argument isn't even "Cenk won". I was commenting on the ridiculous praise this guy was getting in this thread as some sort of genius debater. Yes, he would beat Ocasio in a debate, but it would have nothing to do with intelligence

Classic example of you demonstrating your feeble grasp of concepts, and how you believe that Cenk performed well on the basis of him agreeing with you.

Democrats fawn for war, too, so long as it is a Democratic President calling for it. Democrats enjoy no moral high ground as far as wanting smaller government when it comes to war. Abortion is an absurd issue to pin on conservatives as "wanting big government". The very point in contention with abortion is the question of life itself, as a matter of philosophy, so conservatives see themselves as preventing murder on par with how we outlaw that crime. Your belief that Cenk scores a point with that only indicates your confirmation bias, and not a deeper understanding of what is at stake with the issue. Finally, subsides are actually a much less invasive method of strengthening national markets than taxes themselves, and conservatives generally seek to limit them, so all that demonstrates is that conservatives aren't slaves to ideology, and are willing to offer some corrections (such as support of tariffs) while still supporting less invasive government.

Shapiro could nitpick the liberal platform for instances where they support smaller government, but this would contribute to a pointless exchange of squabbling over exceptions, and Shapiro, anticipating and comprehending this immediately, wastes no time in refuting Cenk's silly attempt to equivocate liberalism to conservatism as pillars of central government, and cuts right to the heart of it; Cenk want to swell its ranks and spending power. Here there is little doubt which side advocates for greater encroachment on the individual citizen. He zooms out to the big picture as not to get lost in the weeds on that point (Gary Johnson should take note that this is how it's done).

Shapiro's style of debate isn't immature; it's focused on defeating his opponent. Of course he isn't going to debate the issue the way' you think/want it to be debated. Why would he do that? That would be like fighting your opponent exactly as he trained in camp expecting you to fight. Your inability to identify this precludes comprehension of what he articulated by counterpunching in an unexpected fashion.

 

[Strategery]

On second thought, she might have a chance against Shapiro.

Please, please, any MSM outlet pick this up.

 

[Cirris]

On second thought, she might have a chance against Shapiro.

Bwahahaha.

 

[helltoupee]

so all that demonstrates is that conservatives aren't slaves to ideology, and are willing to offer some corrections (such as support of tariffs) while still supporting less invasive government.

I'm pretty sure that conservatism, by definition, invokes adherence to traditional, ideological virtues. There is a reason that academia is largely left-leaning. That would stem from the scientific revolution and the acceptance of the Latin injunction ignoramus. No concept, idea, or theory is sacred and beyond challenge. Conservatism has traditionally buried it's head in the sand when it comes to re-evaluating the core of their beliefs. Of course both sides get entrenched in dogma, and I am not one to commit to absolutes, but if we are playing the odds, conservatives would be ones more likely to cling to ideology. I'm not sure if this was a point made by you, or Shapiro, but it is a little confusing.

Here there is little doubt which side advocates for greater encroachment on the individual citizen

Conservatives want fewer intrusions on individuals applied by government, however this still paves the way for invasions by private citizens upon other citizens. So it goes both ways. If I didn't articulate that clearly, allow me to present an example. Regulation of the dumping of toxic waste could be seen as an affront to a chemical manufacturer's right to conduct business, and an invasion by big government. However, these type of statutes prevent the chemical mfg's freedom from encroaching on the freedom of the millions of people who might be affected by it.

I don't think there is "little doubt" at all who does or does not advocate for greater encroachment on the individual citizen - both do it for different reasons. It's the classic balancing act commonly illustrated in the sentiment "give the police too much power, and the police beat you up, give them too little power, and the thugs beat you up". Too often, it seems that Conservatives advocate for the freedom to organize capital and swing their arms in any direction they wish, but balk at the idea that people can equally organize and prevent those swinging arms from hitting them in the face. So it's a bit misleading to say that "conservatives advocate for less government", when less government might lead to more egregious curtailments of individual freedoms.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm pretty sure that conservatism, by definition, invokes adherence to traditional, ideological virtues. There is a reason that academia is largely left-leaning. That would stem from the scientific revolution and the acceptance of the Latin injunction ignoramus. No concept, idea, or theory is sacred and beyond challenge. Conservatism has traditionally buried it's head in the sand when it comes to re-evaluating the core of their beliefs. Of course both sides get entrenched in dogma, and I am not one to commit to absolutes, but if we are playing the odds, conservatives would be ones more likely to cling to ideology. I'm not sure if this was a point made by you, or Shapiro, but it is a little confusing.



Conservatives want fewer intrusions on individuals applied by government, however this still paves the way for invasions by private citizens upon other citizens. So it goes both ways. If I didn't articulate that clearly, allow me to present an example. Regulation of the dumping of toxic waste could be seen as an affront to a chemical manufacturer's right to conduct business, and an invasion by big government. However, these type of statutes prevent the chemical mfg's freedom from encroaching on the freedom of the millions of people who might be affected by it.

I don't think there is "little doubt" at all who does or does not advocate for greater encroachment on the individual citizen - both do it for different reasons. It's the classic balancing act commonly illustrated in the sentiment "give the police too much power, and the police beat you up, give them too little power, and the thugs beat you up". Too often, it seems that Conservatives advocate for the freedom to organize capital and swing their arms in any direction they wish, but balk at the idea that people can equally organize and prevent those swinging arms from hitting them in the face. So it's a bit misleading to say that "conservatives advocate for less government", when less government might lead to more egregious curtailments of individual freedoms.

The prevention of local tyrannies by "big government" civil rights has done so much more for freedom and individual rights in this country than the locally tyrannical status quo could have dreamed of doing (not that it ever dreamed of doing that).

 

[ToxicShocker]

I was at a coffee shop this morning and overheard two old guys talking about her. One pulls out his phone and says "my friend sent me this. She says she wants to seize all guns, nationalize all businesses... We can't have her in power in this country!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again, fake news was invented by the right. Fear mongering, factless memes that get innocently passed around by email then facebook then text. I looked online and couldn't find a single source citing these purported statements.

I wonder if we will ever be able to return to political debate where we cover the policy points and not arbitrary false attacks.

Spoiler

I'm a democrat, but would never vote for anyone naive enough to adopt the socialist label.

 

[cincymma79]

I was at a coffee shop this morning and overheard two old guys talking about her. One pulls out his phone and says "my friend sent me this. She says she wants to seize all guns, nationalize all businesses... We can't have her in power in this country!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again, fake news was invented by the right. Fear mongering, factless memes that get innocently passed around by email then facebook then text. I looked online and couldn't find a single source citing these purported statements.

I wonder if we will ever be able to return to political debate where we cover the policy points and not arbitrary false attacks.

Spoiler

I'm a democrat, but would never vote for anyone naive enough to adopt the socialist label.

She has said she wants to eliminate he profit Motive

 

[Madmick]

I'm pretty sure that conservatism, by definition, invokes adherence to traditional, ideological virtues. There is a reason that academia is largely left-leaning. That would stem from the scientific revolution and the acceptance of the Latin injunction ignoramus. No concept, idea, or theory is sacred and beyond challenge. Conservatism has traditionally buried it's head in the sand when it comes to re-evaluating the core of their beliefs. Of course both sides get entrenched in dogma, and I am not one to commit to absolutes, but if we are playing the odds, conservatives would be ones more likely to cling to ideology. I'm not sure if this was a point made by you, or Shapiro, but it is a little confusing.

None beyond that which you have conceded yourself, nor is any further required.

Conservatives want fewer intrusions on individuals applied by government, however this still paves the way for invasions by private citizens upon other citizens. So it goes both ways. If I didn't articulate that clearly, allow me to present an example. Regulation of the dumping of toxic waste could be seen as an affront to a chemical manufacturer's right to conduct business, and an invasion by big government. However, these type of statutes prevent the chemical mfg's freedom from encroaching on the freedom of the millions of people who might be affected by it.

I don't think there is "little doubt" at all who does or does not advocate for greater encroachment on the individual citizen - both do it for different reasons. It's the classic balancing act commonly illustrated in the sentiment "give the police too much power, and the police beat you up, give them too little power, and the thugs beat you up". Too often, it seems that Conservatives advocate for the freedom to organize capital and swing their arms in any direction they wish, but balk at the idea that people can equally organize and prevent those swinging arms from hitting them in the face. So it's a bit misleading to say that "conservatives advocate for less government", when less government might lead to more egregious curtailments of individual freedoms.

Sneaky...I actually had two paragraphs written responding to this before I realized, "Why in the hell am I responding to this?" This isn't relevant to the point Cenk forwarded that I addressed, so I don't see what bearing it has on the debate, because it wasn't his argument. His argument was that conservatives don't meaningfully desire to reduce the reach of government, and as I stated, speaking as a generality, that is absolutely true. You only further confirm it with you attempt to justify swollen government as a counteraction to the power of individuals or corporations within the private sector.

 

[aitkenmike]

On second thought, she might have a chance against Shapiro.

Is there any context to this. Because without the context of the video, given the usual standard of trolling, I am going to assume that it is being used unfairly and it's meaning is being distorted.