Current Events > YouTubing white supremacist: 'Easily beat me in a debate? Not a chance.'

(+) Yeah! (+)

Evening_Dragon posted...

"Logic and rationality"

You're confusing debate with being inherently logical or rational.

Debate is tied to logic and rationality.

"We disagree so I'm going to:

1. Attack you.
2. Hide behind a crowd of people who agree with me and silence you
3. Talk to you about why we disagree and the reasoning behind how we got to our different thoughts.

Guess which one is rational

---

---

And beautiful unintentional case of proving my point.

The above picked #2 and will never grow as a human being.

---

Antifar posted...

Right wingers really overvalue formalized debate.

Agreed. It's totally unnecessary when they have such a stranglehold on memes.
---

damn, the thread updated but there's no new post. Weird.

Or there would have been if friendbuddypal didn't jump in :P
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Evening_Dragon posted...

"Logic and rationality"

You're confusing debate with being inherently logical or rational.

Debate is tied to logic and rationality.

"We disagree so I'm going to:

1. Attack you.
2. Hide behind a crowd of people who agree with me and silence you
3. Talk to you about why we disagree and the reasoning behind how we got to our different thoughts.

Guess which one is rational

You pointed out the futility of formalized debate in the Biden topic. His denture problem shouldnt weaken his arguments but you know it will in many peoples eyes.
---

Shablagoo posted...

You pointed out the futility of formalized debate in the Biden topic. His denture problem shouldnt weaken his arguments but you know it will in many peoples eyes.

That's a non-sequitur

"Debate doesn't work because people are going to say or do stupid things." isn't a coherant thought.

People being weirdly fetishistically obsessed with Joe Biden's mouth doesn't mean that violence and oppressing minorities is superior to discussion. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever


---

doesn't mean that violence and oppressing minorities is superior to discussion

Talk about a non-sequitur lol
---

The state of debate today is pretty sad, I'll give people that.

Dragonblade01 posted...

The state of debate today is pretty sad, I'll give people that.

Then muck in yourself and make it better

you're part of society my friend, it's only going to be as good as you make it

---

Is there something about the name Molyneux that makes the person inclined to unbelievable exaggeration?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

The state of debate today is pretty sad, I'll give people that.

Then muck in yourself and make it better

you're part of society my friend, it's only going to be as good as you make it

I do.

I thought Donald Trump winning would have been enough to disabuse people of the idea that debate matters
---

AlisLandale posted...

Is there something about the name Molyneux that makes the person inclined to unbelievable exaggeration?

Yes. It is an ancient curse. But Fable I & II were still great games at least; not sure what this Stefan has to offer.
---

Shablagoo posted...

Fable I & II were still great games at least;

Shablagoo posted...

Fable I & II were still great games at least;

ehhhhhhhhhhhhh

Populus and Powermonger were great

Fable 2 was good

Fable 1 and Black And White were okay

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Shablagoo posted...

Fable I & II were still great games at least;

Shablagoo posted...

Fable I & II were still great games at least;

ehhhhhhhhhhhhh

Populus and Powermonger were great

Fable 2 was good

Fable 1 and Black And White were okay

Fable received positive reviews from both audiences and critics. The original Xbox version of the game has an aggregate critic score of 90% at both Metacritic and GameRankings. The game won more than fifty awards, and became the Xbox's fastest-selling game up to that time.

Fable's combat was praised. Staff from 1UP.com complimented the multiple approaches to combat which the publication stated made the game more a mini-game of its own. "Combat becomes its own minigame, with the goal not solely to beat a foe, but to beat it with skill and get the most from every fight. Slaughter becomes irrelevant, and the fights never become tedious."

Though pointing out several flaws in the game such as bland character designs, Marc Saltzman of USAToday.com stated that the game "should satisfy you with its incredible depth, open-ended game play, and a solid story that gets even better about half-way through the adventure." Fable has been praised for its concept of free will and having consequences for the Hero's actions. Other aspects of the game positively received included the game's tongue-in-cheek characters and what The Observer called a "very British sense of humour, in the style of Monty Python or Douglas Adams".
---

A triple a game got good reviews by major outlets ?

What a shock

Next you'll tell me a movie about racism won an Oscar

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

A triple a game got good reviews by major outlets ?

What a shock

Next you'll tell me a movie about racism won an Oscar

Stop insulting my classic
---

shockthemonkey posted...

MC_BatCommander posted...

What's with crazy people on the right and their obsession with debates? A debate only demonstrates your ability to argue a point, that's it. You could lose a debate with 100% of the facts on your side, or win one with nothing but rhetoric and fallacies.

Because theyve decided theyre right and dont want to actually listen to the opposition. They just want to tell people how right they are and get them to agree based on rhetoric.

...what? if you didn't actually want to listen to the opposition, then the last thing you'd want to do is sit down and have to listen to and reply to the opposition (by having a debate).
---

Frogles posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

MC_BatCommander posted...

What's with crazy people on the right and their obsession with debates? A debate only demonstrates your ability to argue a point, that's it. You could lose a debate with 100% of the facts on your side, or win one with nothing but rhetoric and fallacies.

Because theyve decided theyre right and dont want to actually listen to the opposition. They just want to tell people how right they are and get them to agree based on rhetoric.

...what? if you didn't actually want to listen to the opposition, then the last thing you'd want to do is sit down and have to listen to and reply to the opposition (by having a debate).

Have you ever seen Ben Shapiro debate anyone? That guy is not very open to having his mind changed.
---

The whole point of alt-right and alt-light figures "challenging" people to a debate is to get their awful ideas out there.

No thanks, not giving you guys a platform.
---

Shablagoo posted...

Stop insulting my classic

okay isn't an insult

Musourenka posted...

The whole point of civil right and civil light figures "challenging" people to a debate is to get their awful ideas out there.

No thanks, not giving you guys a platform.

That's what your grandfather or great grandfather said

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Shablagoo posted...

Stop insulting my classic

okay isn't an insult

Anything short of praise for the GOAT game shall be deemed punishable by death! But seriously, I probably have rose-colored glasses for it. Blew my mind when my big brother bought it for me. Next game to do that was MGS 3 or Fallout 3.

Id love to play it again today, but I havent had a working Microsoft system or PC in years.
---

Shablagoo posted...

Anything short of praise for the GOAT game shall be deemed punishable by death! But seriously, I probably have rose-colored glasses for it. Blew my mind when my big brother bought it for me. Next game to do that was MGS 3 or Fallout 3.

Id love to play it again today, but I havent had a working Microsoft system or PC in years.

don't play it again

Reality will just disappoint you
hold on to the nostalgia and play other games like This War of Mine

---

I actually do own This War of Mine on PS4. Never got that into it, maybe I should fire it up again.
---

Debates are treated like intellectual boxing matches, when in reality they're rhetorical boxing matches
---

"White people losing the majority will be a disaster for countries."

"That's racist."

"Ohohoho no real rebuttal? I win!"
---

hockeybub89 posted...

"White people losing the majority will be a disaster for countries."

"That's racist."

"Ohohoho no real rebuttal? I win!"

in a debate setting that's correct

point out the reasons he is wrong. Don't just insult him.

You're acting like childishly insulting people is superior to rational thought

---

Lol @ bragging about sixth place.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

point out the reasons he is wrong. Don't just insult him.

Being racist is the reason it's wrong. It's telling that you see "racist" in that context as an insult, and not an accurate descriptor of the ideology being expressed.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

"White people losing the majority will be a disaster for countries."

"That's racist."

"Ohohoho no real rebuttal? I win!"

in a debate setting that's correct

point out the reasons he is wrong. Don't just insult him.

What a telling fucking response.
---

Antifar posted...

Being racist is the reason it's wrong. It's telling that you see "racist" in that context as an insult, and not an accurate descriptor of the ideology being expressed.

that's not good enough for a debate setting

You need to explain yourself. Think of it like an exam

If the question Is like "Why did Nixon pull out of Vietnam?"

and you go "because it was the right thing to do you dipshit lololol,"

that's a terrible answer regardless of whether you think its ultimately correct

what's the rationality? the reasoning? what evidence are you basing it on?

Not understanding this is really worrying and implies you operate solely by emotion.

Look at post 911 America to see how dangerous that is.

"It doesn't make sense to go to Iraq, itll cost a fortune, we can't control it. there Is no proof of WMDs"

"That's cowardly!"

this sums it up well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60" data-time="

---

shockthemonkey posted...

UR is such a wonderful example of how debate does not produce intelligent discussion

"Its good to discuss things and exchange different thoughts and rationalities , not just insult people"

"You're unintelligent!"

yeah that about sums it up really

---

shockthemonkey posted...

UR is such a wonderful example of how debate does not produce intelligent discussion

Notice how, in the fictional scenario, he attacked the "That's racist" part because he sees it as a personal attack - not a factual observation, which it is (or at least is up for debate oh daaaamn) but feels it justifies Steven Baldyneux's "lol no real rebuttal, I win" response. The observation that he's being racist is just...an observation based on fact, and Stevie's response revealed him as not arguing in good faith and doing so for egotistical reasons. That, in UR's view of the debate-o-sphere, is a more valid approach than arguing whether or not saying something racist is racism. I'm pretty sure declaring yourself the winner because someone made an observation about your racism is frowned upon even in formal debate, at least, in theory.
---

The more we think of debates as things to win, the further we get from the point of debate.

Dragonblade01 posted...

The more we think of debates as things to win, the further we get from the point of debate.

agreed

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Notice how, in the fictional scenario, he attacked the "That's racist" part because he sees it as a personal attack - not a factual observation, which it is (or at least is up for debate oh daaaamn) but feels it justifies Steven Baldyneux's "lol no real rebuttal, I win" response. The observation that he's being racist is just...an observation based on fact, and Stevie's response revealed him as not arguing in good faith and doing so for egotistical reasons. That, in UR's view of the debate-o-sphere, is a more valid approach than arguing whether or not saying something racist is racism. I'm pretty sure declaring yourself the winner because someone made an observation about your racism is frowned upon even in formal debate, at least, in theory.

doesn't matter whether or not its "true" which Is subjective anyway

if Low Tier God went up to Boogie and said "you're fat and i think you're ugly , have terrible hair and i want you to die " that might be true to him but its still an insult

in a discussion or debate you need more than that. expand , make a point , have reasoning, have evidence

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

"Its good to discuss things and exchange different thoughts and rationalities , not just insult people"

everyone agrees with this, what they are saying is that formal debates are not a good format for "discussing things and exchanging different thoughts and rationalities"

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

in a discussion or debate you need more than that. expand , make a point , have reasoning, have evidence

for example you're dissembling here because it is true in a discussion that these things are possible, but there is nothing unique about a formal debate that makes it more likely there and there are elements of formal debates that incentivize winning over truthful discussion

---

for instance, Joe Biden just lied about his Iraq War vote in last night's debate. You can get away with that in a formal debate easily because there is no easy mechanism to fact check every statement, and by the time you get around to doing that after the fact many people have tuned out and been exposed to the lie without any way to counter balance it

even if another debater called him out for lying that itself could be a lie and the people watching wouldn't be able to discern the truth of the situation simply by listening to said formal debate

---

Balrog0 posted...

for example you're dissembling here because it is true in a discussion that these things are possible, but there is nothing unique about a formal debate that makes it more likely there and there are elements of formal debates that incentivize winning over truthful discussion

maybe but that still doesn't change that "omg that racist!" Is a poor response

you haven't made a case presented an argument or used reasoning. just insults and appeals to authority

doesn't matter If the other guy Is arguing in good faith or just trying to "win"

you still lost that exchange because you argued so poorly

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

you still lost that exchange because you argued so poorly

Me, personally, I would disagree that the non-racist in such a situation lost.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

if Low Tier God went up to Boogie and said "you're fat and i think you're ugly , have terrible hair and i want you to die " that might be true to him but its still an insult

We're already imagining something, so let's get back to that instead before we start imagining scenarios to justify our imaginary scenario to justify an imaginery scenario. I don't feel like Inception right now.

UnfairRepresent posted...

in a discussion or debate you need more than that. expand , make a point , have reasoning, have evidence

And Steven On-the-leux, in the imaginery scenario, provided evidence that he was being racist, and the conclusion that it was racist was reached by the other party. He then declared himself as the winner without any inquiry. One can deduce pretty easily from this that this debate isn't going to go anywhere because one of the participants doesn't want to be there longer than thirty seconds.
---

Antifar posted...

Me, personally, I would disagree that the non-racist in such a situation lost.

that's because you're arguing from emotion
not reason

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

We're already imagining something, so let's get back to that instead before we start imagining scenarios to justify our imaginary scenario to justify an imaginery scenario. I don't feel like Inception right now.

evasion
IShall_Run_Amok posted...

And Steven On-the-leux, in the imaginery scenario, provided evidence that he was being racist, and the conclusion that it was racist was reached by the other party. H

okthen explain why he is wrong

What is the evidence? you claim it's there so expose it

make a point

if he's racist that would be easy to do.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

"White people losing the majority will be a disaster for countries."

"That's racist."

"Ohohoho no real rebuttal? I win!"

in a debate setting that's correct

point out the reasons he is wrong. Don't just insult him.

You're acting like childishly insulting people is superior to rational thought

His response to being called racist for that in an informal setting is to demand a formal debate. Because he's one of the best in Canada, bro!

He's an idiot
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

evasion

Successfully, I might add. I'm not willing to let you change the discussion.

UnfairRepresent posted...

okthen explain why he is wrong

Uh, he declared himself the winner and left. Keep up dawg.
---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Successfully, I might add. I'm not willing to let you change the discussion.

not really since the discussion didn't change

insulting people is a bad retort whether or not you think its true
IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Uh, he declared himself the winner and left. Keep up dawg.

that doesn't explain how he was wrong

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

"doesn't matter what anyone says or argues. if I declare racism and make no points then I won and they lost. anyone who disagrees is racist "

and you wonder why Trump and the right wing grow unchallenged

anyone neutral who sees that will think the racist guy Is more reasonable

that's dangerous

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

anyone neutral who sees that will think the racist guy Is more reasonable

Anyone who is neutral on white genocide theory or who is swayed by the racist arguing more passionately was not neutral or non-racist.
---