They also are going in skilled at public debate and picking fights with the unskilled. They’re media trained, and you probably aren’t. They get to cut the video and decide if they post it. They’re fighting dirty, but they’re doing it in a game they rigged before the first fight.
Comment on average red state university
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 17 hours agoThis is pretty much prime territory for the same methods Kirk used for “debate”.
Gish gallop, butwhatabout, moving gailposts, exhausting the opponent with bs, etc.
They’re all the same, they’re not there for any honest conversation. There is absolutely no way to “win” with them because no matter what objective and truthful information you offer it will be rejected or you’ll be asked to “prove” something that cannot be done in any manner acceptable to the asker.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Not only that but both of them, Kirk and WBC, were experienced. Not at being good debators but at shutting down people who tried to prove them wrong. Even if they were wrong. They had months if not years built around defending a flawed view and shutting down naysayers. They regularly practiced all their tactics so most of the people they debated (regular students who had an opinion) weren’t ready for their tactics. You don’t have to outsmart your opponent or be correct, you just have to trip them up and make them publicly look foolish. These guys travel the country ragebaiting and begging people to call them out daily, they know how to dodge and redirect and speak over.
Once you stoop to their level, they beat you with experience. It doesn’t make them right.
Also I’m pretty sure half of WBCs old tactic was saying stuff that would get them punched and then suing.