Comment

Charlie was not doing debates. He was a propagandist. What he did was performing in the shape of a debate, in front of an audience to spread his agenda, and he was very good at that. If you scrutinize his “debate” in terms of logical soundness or other things a good argument should have, he wouldn’t stand a chance. But that was not the point, nor would it matter.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I think his debates were actually very well done. It’s just that debates are not a good format to find truth. Charlie was one of the best at debates. Saying all that, we all should be better at being on other platforms and sniping these clips to highlight the hypocrisy and bullshit. I’m absolutely convinced that right wing groups convinced all of us to abandon all other social media so they can spread their ideas easier

source
- nialv7@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Depends on what you think debate is, I guess. After posting my comment I did realize people probably conceptualise “debate” differently. If you think debate is just a form of performance to influence people’s ideas, then sure. But if you think debate should be a form of intellectual conversation, a collaboration between two disagreeing parties in order to find truth, then what Charlie is doing couldn’t be further from that.
  
  source
  - Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    It’s both. But the techniques Charlie used were excellent. Debate should be done in good faith. He wasn’t debating in good faith. But the skills he had to still do what he did was phenomenal. I have no issue with his ability to use debate strategies. We could all learn something from watching him.
    
    source