Americans certainly don't view it as retarded: Source: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-democrats-should-embrace-a-federal-jobs-guarantee/
What's funny is, if I tried to argue that Trump should debate Michael Avenatti on live tv, Merica would say that's preposterous.
If she’s smart she should be able to make that clear to everyone. If she doesn’t want to debate the dude that’s fine but don’t be shocked when people continue to call her out on it after he straight up asked her to debate him.
it actually reminds me of like when bad guy wrestlers would taunt the champ, hoping he would give them a shot at the title
I think you should debate shu on the topic of underwater cities. Btw you're a pussy if you choose not to.
It's just such an obviously absurd demand. And of course, Merica thinks it's not only perfectly reasonable but a black mark on AOC if she doesn't agree to it. Merica, do you like Clay Travis now too?
This is like some alt righter saying fake news when they don’t like something they hear. He’d beat the hell out of her in a debate, and that’s why you and all these people don’t want the debate to happen.
Jesus Christ, man, get a fucking grip. Having surveyed Shapiro’s work, and pointed out the various ways in which he is not terribly logical, not terribly consistent, and not terribly well-informed (in addition to being not terribly humane), it is worth asking why so many people think of him as a “principled” and “brilliant” dismantler of arguments. The answer, it seems to me, is largely that Shapiro is a very confident person who speaks quickly. If he weren’t either of these things, he wouldn’t seem nearly as intelligent. Because he doesn’t care about whether he’s right, but about whether he destroys you, he uses a few effective lawyerly tricks: insist that there’s “no evidence whatsoever” something is true, demand the other side produce such evidence, and when they stammer “Buh-buh-buh” for two seconds, quickly interrupt with “See? What did I tell you? No evidence.” Or, just pluck some random numbers from a study, even if they’re totally false or misleading, e.g. “40% of transgender people commit suicide and the risk doesn’t go down if they are treated better,” which was nonsense but sounded good. Cross-examine people with aggressive questions that confuse them: Are you a moose? I said: are you a moose?No? I didn’t think so. I rest my case. Use shifting burdens of proof: demand a wealth of statistical evidence before you will admit that black people face any unique hardships, but respond to every criticism of the Israeli government by calling the speaker a “proven” and “undeniable” anti-Semite. Disregard all facts that contradict your case, but insist constantly that the other side despises facts and can’t handle the truth. Call your opponents “nasty,” “evil,” “brainless” “jackasses.” All of these techniques work very well, and with them, you, too, can soon be Owning and Destroying your political opponents on camera. (I would probably lose a debate with Ben Shapiro quite badly, as my instinct in public conversations is to try to listen to people.) The New York Times actually quoted a sensible-sounding ex-Shapiro fan, who said he realized over time that Shapiro was just concerned with convincing other people he was right, rather than actually being right. https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher
He was literally the editor in chief of the place that started the alt right. And yea he might beat her in a debate to the same people that thought Trump beat anyone besides Ben Carson in a debate.
Couldn't we just have started with this instead of all the bullshit obfuscation of what you really wanted to say from the start?
This is like that moment at the end of Pleasantville where the bad guy sees himself in the mirror and realizes he's no longer black and white
But she should win to you and at least this thread if she’s so obviously superior. Jesus what a defeatist attitude. Who would you be excited / confident if he debated your point of view?
I would love to see AOC body that manlet in a debate, but I assumed it was obvious that the prospect of said debate is utterly ridiculous
It's a long article from several months ago, but I find myself reviewing it whenever some asshat comes out of the woodwork and tells me I need to listen to what this fool has to say. He has no business being on the same stage with any legit political candidate who wants to have a meaningful discussion of issues. Professional provocateurs should not be legitimized.
I would be excited to see him debate anyone because I find that dog and pony show quite hilarious on its own...but I certainly wouldn’t ever take him seriously because he isn’t a serious person. Sean Hannity is pretty fucking hilarious too.
I'm no absolutist, but I'm pretty close to saying there's 0.0% chance (repeating, of course) that Merica responds to this. If he does, it will be with a patented non sequitur or cherry picking some silly little thing that matters not.
And again, how do you decry identity politics, and then demand a You Got Served format smack off with a politician and an alt right troll?
It’s impressive you were able to type this with your nose buried so far up Ben Shapiro’s ass. I demand Ben Shapiro debate me. If he doesn’t do it, it’s because he’s scared and knows I’d beat the hell out of him in a debate. And that’s why you don’t want want the Ben Shapiro vs Facts debate to happen. You can’t handle seeing your hero get publicly cucked by me. He’s right about one thing though - I don’t give a fuck about his feelings.