@@miguelarribas9990 Much better. As a retired professor, I take offense with his/her remark. We should expect far better from our professors,... and, yes, from our public servants, too.
@@DowntunedDevil I agree. Taking offense at things that are true is quite common throughout history. They are not mutually exclusive. But the OP implied that ALL professors are that way, as if muddy thinking = professors. Someone recently said the inane statement that "Not everything is a conspiracy," to which I replied, "Not everything is chicken soup, either, but that doesn't make chicken soup suddenly a fantasy." *_See?_* Muddy thinking.
He was uncomfortable about it because it's a disgusting practice and indefensible. It's always terminating someone else's existence for selfish reasons.
@@jkleylein With various birth controls, plan B and other options, at least the number and rate is declining here in the U.S. It's still more than three quarters of a million per year or twice the Covid death rate.
A bit more like one thing being said was taken out of context. Like, suppose there is statistical study that shows white people are the most racist in america. You could use that as a factual claim. But now suppose that the context of the study actually looked at everything county and found that in every country whoever is the majority is the most racist. If you use that study to argue white people in America are racist, that’s kinda dishonest, isn’t it? Since you would know that isn’t really the conclusion, even if it was a factual statement.
@@ryonalionthunderbut your whites example is still a fact, and one that could validly support an argument in a debate. An effective counter to that point would be the opponent putting it in a wider international context as you suggest. But, it’s not up to someone on a single side of a debate to present every fact for and against their own argument - that isn’t their role. The remedy is to come well prepared and researched to a debate, ready to counter and support arguments with relevant statistics and facts. The guy could have made those points much more effectively if he had researched more and put together an argument that explained what Charlie was missing and why he was wrong, rather than crying ”it’s not fair that you don’t present facts and context to support my side of the argument too”.
@@samdam108 christ, it's been like 3 months... whatever this was about. It's a fact, but it also a lie by omision. The hypothetical debater KNOWS he's omitting information that would show his point is wrong. He's banking on the ignorance of his audience to convince them. It's intelectually dishonest at best. It's certainly not how we get to the truth of anything. "Oh, I just ignore the data that doesn't line up with my desired conclusion." Would be a laughable statement. (Setting aside for a moment the option that the debater might genuinely be unaware of this information. Possibly due to poor research. Since you seem to be argueing that is it okay to purposefully omit known information to stenghten your own position.)
@@ryonalionthunder “whatever this was about” [proceeds to write long and thoughtful response] So anyone that debates in favour of a particular ideology is not allowed to be aware of any evidence against what they have chosen to stand for? Or if they are, they are ethically bound to state everything they know about both sides of the argument, otherwise they are being dishonest? They are not allowed to have weighed up evidence and come to a balanced conclusion themselves on their beliefs? Then choose to debate and advocate for their chosen ideology, and cite the facts they have judged to support it best? It is a positive thing that he is aware of both sides of the argument but has made an informed choice on his stance. It is literally his role to cite facts that support his argument, and to omit those that counter it. You are arguing against the entire concept of a debate. If you don’t like debates, don’t watch them, and don’t respond at length to replies on your 3-month old comments.
@@samdam108 I don't remember at all who or what this is about. That doesn't mean I can't tell you in the abstract why you'd be a total piece of shit if you omitted facts you were aware of. No it's not a positive thing to be aware of facts against your position and to omit them to 'make a stronger case' that is fucking retarded. If you have to lie or omit the facts to make a stronger case, your case is dogshit to begin with. Simple as. Was this about a debate or about a presentation with a student question at the end? Because hey, I'll give you this. If it was a debate it's reasonable to wait for your opponent to raise a point and then present your counter argument. If a debate is lying your ass off to 'win' then yeah I'm against that.
I am afraid that people on our side who are unable to recognize that somebody on the other side may sometimes have a point are a pretty significant problem as well.
He is actually not too bad I would say. He is better than 90% of the leftards I know. I can totally see if time permits there could be some very interesting discussions with him.
All he had to say was that he thinks Charlie cherry picks some statistics and he doesn't like it, by cherry picking a couple of Charlie's facts from his 300 hours of debate 😂
He couldn't say that. Cherry picking is when you select facts based upon your agenda not the overall facts themselves. It's easy to do when someone is dishonest. Polls are purposely designed to push an agenda. Go back to the cities thing. I live near Dallas and we went through the BLM thing early. BLM is not BLM in Dallas it is something like New Age Action Committee. Well they were protesting a police shooting in another city and the DPD, was escorting. The Dallas city council actually defunded the DPD years before the Dem cities did. Anyway a gunman took that opportunity to ambush the police killing 5 of them. Three were Hispanic, I believe the shooter wanted to kill white police officers so he either didn't care or misidentified them. Anyway, the State of Texas did not allow the Dallas mayor and city council at the time to surrender to the New Age Action Committee when the George Floyd riots occurred. They were allowed to protest. Anyway to finish up our new mayor last week switched parties to become Republican even though no party affiliation is required. We still have a Soros backed DA whose big programs are NOT prosecuting crime but with a new mayor and a new police chief crime in Dallas has been brought down. How bad was it? It was awful. The press only complained because we had one guy purposely murdering Trans women. What they didn't tell you was that these women were engaged in prostitution as actual women. Certainly they didn't deserve to die, it's just extremely dangerous and risky behavior. The suspect was caught and the press' interest in higher murder rates went away.They had hired a problematic black woman from Detroit and the council ended up blaming her, but she only did what they wanted her to.
@x5j94 True, but the problem was instead of debating Kirk with such facts in hand, he criticizes Kirk for not presenting the facts that he uncovered. He has a point but it would have been much more effective to simply present his counter arguments to some of the claims that Kirk has presented. As they said at the end, rather than just doing that, he droned on and on about how Kirk didn't present or misrepresented facts. In all honesty I was getting tired of the guy talking. Make your point effectively and with brevity. "You said A. Well actually the truth is B and here are my sources." Don't give us a whole monologue about Kirks political and psychological motives.
@@johnow7 Besides, everyone cherry-picks when debating. It's how debate is done. You NEVER have the time to present every single relevant statistic, so you choose the ones that support your case the most. Meanwhile the other guy is doing the same thing. If I wasted half my time being "fair" and giving counterpoints to myself, then that means the other guy just gets freebies to win the debate. Don't give information to undermine yourself, that's the other guy's job. Instead, think about how you are going to undermine HIS points. That is how you win debates.
This is the perfect example of how our universities have failed our society. A wise man once said, "I'll never let my schooling get in the way of my education." Samuel Clemens
No. It's a perfect example of why you cannot just import foreigners and call them British and have them do as well as the natives. No matter how much money, education, and free passes you give them.
I get it. He basically want's fair and balanced news. Prove your point on all levels, just present the whole truth from all sides. However the other side doesn't do that either so it's not feasible or smart to attempt to do that. You can't play by ones set of rules if the other side refused to do so.
@@fenrifegads5571 You didn’t criticise him, you just made a fool out of yourself. This guy may have other options, but he’s much smarter than an imbecile racist.
@x5j94 I watched the entire lecture and Q&A. I responded to your comment that the top ten cities are democrats. That isn't true at all. A prime example of the Big business owned or funded politician's and media's blatent plan to Divide and Conquer.
I recently retired from a top university . I picked up a notebook that one of the graduating seniors left in his classroom. I was shocked at what I read. It was a senior writing class. On the front of his notebook it said "WRITEING CLASS".
Hats off if that person is taking the course because she/he has dyslexia and desperately needs to learn to write better as well as getting strategies to improve her/his spelling...
"I Google'd it and Google gave me the most reasonable response" - Yes, Silicon Valley big tech, the arbiter of neutrality and truth, completely not saturated by ideology.
@@wlonsdale1 *"Google is not your friend. Google searches based on your personal biases"* Google bends searches on a political basis too. It was drawn to my attention in 2015 if you tried to Google negative things about Hillary, then did a non Google search the results were very different.
Mostly the opposition are ill prepared , generally they are ideologically driven, they could turn up with fact supporting their viewpoint , but Instead prefer emotional statements like " you stole my childhood"
Debate is unfair so they censor. Due process is unfair because the people who they think are their constituents get convicted and the people they want convicted font get convicted unless it is one of their radical judges. Similarly I reject Climate Change because the programs they claim will end it won't work. Destroying the economy would make it impossible to pay for green energy which isn't so green after all.
The legal term for Charlie's tactics is a lie of omission. People who debate topics while misrepresenting data, aren't helping anyone, but rather misguiding them. They are just shady. And questioning such maneuvers isn't leftist behavior. It is moderate behavior. The panel's weak stance was demonstrated quite clearly by the four of them ensuring that no idea from the inquiring party was ever allowed to by delivered in its entirety. He was shouted down and interrupted throughout the entire exchange. In fact, the panel members went as far as to use the Cathy Newman tactic (which she attempted against Jordan Peterson) of attacking the inquiring individual with the "what you are saying is" line, then filling in their own narrative of what he allegedly said - even though he had not said that at all whatsoever - in order to attempt to discredit him and to obscure the topic. He protested, but was drowned out by their noise and what they said was made to come across as if he had said it.
What he's trying to say is I can't beat your argument so your logic based on facts and logic are wrong, he's a bloody twerp in the first degree, imagine if he was a doctor and doesn't believe facts, we're doomed.
@@utasia7086 He isn't misrepresenting data. The intent of the study is delivered in Charlie's answer. The onus is on the person across the table to present the alternative facts that debunk, or weaken, Charlie's statement. Once the facts are laid out from both sides, they are discussed and the listeners form their opinion based on what each side had to say. This is called a debate. I learned this in high school. Also, it is only legally a "lie of omission" when we are talking in legal terms. There is also a legal term, slander, that is utilized in debate tactics, especially from the left, that have never been prosecuted. So legalese has no place in a debate, because it isn't illegal to entirely lie in a debate so your legal terminology is no good here. But I didn't present your side of this discussion for you, so you'll probably be upset and say I'm lying through omission.
@@rogernicholls2079 No, what he is trying - admittedly, rather inartfully - to say is that an undisputable fact, when taken out of context, may be an invalid, and generally speaking potentially misleading. And in one of his examples, the one with the cities, he has a valid point: If top ten cities are run by Democrats and majority of cities are run by Democrats, then the fact that the bottom ten cities are run by Democrats has no relevance to the issue what governance, whether Dem or Rep, is better.
I once had an Argument with someone on the left about a New York Times article , and I showed him a video of the event that showed it to be false and he said to me if this video was real the New York Times reporter would never have written the article, 3 months later I showed him the retraction by the New York Times and he still believed the original article. The point I’m making is people have beliefs and if those beliefs are shown to be wrong they would rather chose to ignore the facts than change those beliefs
@@jamespeters8601 I don't think you understand the meaning of the word argument. You are confusing argumentative with argument. An argument is the logical structure presented from separate viewpoints. A discussion is not necessarily divergent in viewpoints and in no way indicates a logical structure. In the context of democrat and other you denote that the view points are opposing in nature, thus it is an argument not merely a discussion.
Yeah abortion makes me uncomfortable as well. Not the taking about it but the fact that the abortionist literally separate a babies limbs and head from his or hers Body in the womb makes me sick and angry
I assume you're saying that the leftist is one of these people but the irony is that in this clip, Charlie is the only person that statement applies to. The leftist asked Charlie if it was fair to claim "The 10 worst cities are run by Democrats" when the same stat Charlie cited ALSO says the majority of cities are run by Democrats. Think of it this way- it's easy to find stats which say most oilfield workers are men, so if I said "Most deaths in the Oil industry are of men", the stat would be true, but it wouldn't be substantial. It wouldn't suggest that the industry is sexist towards men and intentionally puts them in more dangerous jobs, it's just an obvious extension of the fact that most of them are already men. Charlie makes this claim and ignores the leftist's suggestion that it's disingenuous to say something like that, and everyone on stage started to dogpile on him so he couldn't speak anymore. If you have a problem with people wanting to be right more than spreading the truth, you should have much more of a problem with the conservatives in this clip than anyone.
Clear words are a sign of a clear mind. If someone is struggling to articulate a topic, he probably didn't understand it in it's full capacity. That's why kids used to learn in school to describe a topic in their own words. Because we comprehend reality with words and terms. That's why the left is so eager to manipulate and censor language. Words and terms are the tools to construct, analyze and understand the perception of reality in our minds.
I don't think he really had a point. Basically, Charlie presents an argument and the young man is saying he is not covering it as he wants it explained. He is saying Charlie should argue both for and against his points to present a whole argument. Well, that's what I got out of this.
yep.... only the facts that destroy their positions. And then they want you to phrase them in a way that doesn't make their positions looks bad. sounds like he's used to talking to people who are trying to make everyone feel good about their opinions. especially when they are stupid. he wants a participation trophy for having his opinions. because everyones opinion is valid.... don't you know
@@eneveasi Not equally, and if you think the two major parties are equal in corruption and propaganda you are brainwashed. I don't like the Republicans, but at least they are not calling for the destruction of western civilization and the nonexistent patriarchy.
BASICALLY the audience member was saying that Charlie does not give people the full picture, knowing full well that most people just follow what sounds convincing and don’t bother challenge “facts” (as in asking for the whole picture of the fact) in order to validate his own agendas whatever they may be.
*I actually agree with the premise of the gentleman’s observation to Charlie. He is actually making a **_non-partisan logical observation, not rooted in any political bias._** Obscuring a fact, telling a half truth, intentionally omitting information (which is a **_lie by omission)_** to present a study / citation as a **_fact_** to support your talking points is dishonest at best, and malicious at worst. How people can’t grasp this concept shows how many of you are indeed stupid. Including the panel hosts.* *It’s like when Christians have discussions with Muslims who cite Luke 19:27 and say “look, Jesus tells people to bring his enemies to him and slaughter them!” This is factually true, if you read verse 27 in isolation, Jesus does indeed say “bring them here and slaughter them in my presence”. But this is a disingenuous quote, because should you have read from verse 11; you’d have known Jesus was telling a parable, and in this parable, **_the character of noblemen_** who Jesus is narrating is the one telling his followers to bring his enemies and slaughter them in his presence.* *I understand the point he is making, that obscuring and omitting key parts of the same evidence you are relying on for a talking point is indeed problematic. Anyone who can’t acknowledge this is frankly **_stupid_** or intentionally ignorant to support a particular political narrative.* *Also for Candace to attempt to surmise the gentleman and say “I understand what you’re saying” as well as the others on the panel - then proceed to patronise him, doing so without truly understanding the point he is making is pathetic. They honestly look idiotic but masquerade and posture as if they actually know what they’re talking about. STUPIDITY AT ITS FINEST!*
@@eldotjay I was beginning to think it was only me seeing that too. They sound like the rights version of the left. The first issue, is when talking about Cuba & some statistics were mentioned. Dude said, I believe the stats are false... Sorry NOPE! Just like the left, I don't give a damn about your views. I look at facts. Wrong or rite, they are using the lefts tactics. Half truths, implied outcomes, dismissing what doesn't fit their "message". I see this way to often & this guy called him out for it. Instead of being calm & addressing the issue themselves, he automatically went on the defensive & wanted to "redeem" himself so he attacked point by point, with a guy that is not there to debate & has little knowledge of the specifics, he's just pointing something they do. When the exchange starts down this road, the person on stage, stops being a person debating issues & becomes a person trying to convince you. Facts don't need defending, if you feel you do need to defend them, then your are unsure of them & are trying to convince. I know this was just a small clip but it made me think of a high school debate team. Questioner was not prepared to debate the issues but that's not what he's there for. Dude on stage is there to debate but wasn't much, if at all, better prepared than guy simply pointing out what he sees.
@@eldotjay simply it is not his job to help you defend himself he speaks the facts and it's your job to counter his facts it is not his job to be objective his job to present his side of the argument it's like when my son was attacked at school and the principal had my son apologize for defending himself that was creepy
No he literally is saying he should state the whole statistic positives and negatives because the person he’s debating doesn’t know the statistic or the logistics on it and Charlie knows it… how is that hard to understand ??
They both act like they are on a speed talking, people bashing mission! Candace and Charlie should pick a College and take a course that will teach them how to debate with logic not stupidity.
@@ms.d8336 Apparently your idea of a debate is to let the person who is not in any way knowledgeable on anything ramble on and on whilst accusing their opponents of 'interrupting'. By ANY measure, this guy is an idiot.
i agree with charlie on a lot of stuff, but the dude was right, at least a bit. If you find a statistic that says 80% of horses kick and then ssay horses are really dangerous while also leaving out the fact that 99% of their kicks are just kicks in the air and the 1% never end deadly (just an example) then your (and this is the important word the dude left out) INTERPRETATION of the statistic is wrong or at least very controversial. Its the same process the left uses: Black people on average are less wealthy than white people, therefore black people experience racism, while leaving out all the factors that lead to this disparaty, or saying a lot of black people were killed by police so they are all racists while leaving out that percentage wise the probability to be shot during a police encounter is higher for white people. I like charlie and i understand that it would be weird to dissect your own arguments but the kid has at least to some extent a valid point, your interpretation of a statistic might be debatable and you presenting your interpretation as fact isnt right, but then again its not charlies job to debate himself
@@jim7576 Is that what you took away? I would say most people, left or right care mostly about what their peers think and they get emotionally validated when reaffirming the beliefs of these social groups.
@@esbenrasmussen4289 Yes, Esben - Jim's statements are exactly what a lot of people take away from this clip. Liberal's problem with facts are exactly what Charlie presented. You can emotionally talk around whatever you like, but the facts are what they are. Factually, the largest flaws globally are with socialism/communism/leftist philosophies. In fact, the most oppressive tenets on humanity historically come from the Leftist positions. The Liberal, like this young man, are uncomfortable because their beliefs and brainwashing contradict what is factually proven.
@@jbacker1190 It sound like you are locked into this A or B kind of thinking. You are on team A so the problem is team B. I think the largest flaws globally is that we as humans do not act rationally in accordance with facts. Every problem will have a most optimal solution, some can be found on both sides and some we have yet to think of. Humans have a fondness of thinking that they already know, or that they are correct. Actually admitting to one self that that this is false is great relief and ones thinking will be better.
@@esbenrasmussen4289 You are correct - I am locked into an A or B type of thinking. However, it's probably not the "A" nor "B" you think. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a matter of the "ruling class" and the "ruled". I am vehemently opposed to people that want to suppress freedoms that we humans are entitled. I am opposed to people who implore "Believe the science", but have absolutely no scientific data or process to back it up. I am sick of the infringement on speech when it doesn't give someone the "feels". I, as an American citizen, am disgusted in what our political leaders have become. They are hell-bent on turning this country into everything we were escaping when we settled here, BOTH Republicans and Democrats. There are different solutions to different issues, but there should not be any solution that turns us from American Citizens to American Subjects... I will say it again. This left-leaning young man's argument was disingenuous at best. He would have used his data of the "10 best cities" data without citing the "10 worst cities" data to promote his liberal argument in a heartbeat. You cannot damn someone in the arena of debate when they use data to prove their point of view. Otherwise, it's best not to debate them because, obviously, you do not have the facts or don't know how to effectively convey them.
@@jbacker1190 I didn't think it was anything specific, I always operate on the assumption that I don't know. It just seems to me as if you perceive yourself to have figured it out. The world is a complex place, and believing you understand it is dangerous, because it primes you to doubt, and knowledge stems from doubt. I think we would all be better off if we had some humility, and listened to what others are saying and looking for what they mean, instead of how we can interpret it to fit our own world view.
It’s adorable when young children say things like “why can’t we just give everyone in the world one million dollars so that no one is homeless and hungry?” It comes from an innocent place. It comes from innocent ignorance. It’s pure because children just want to be helpful and they can’t understand complex adult issues. They can’t understand economics. They can’t understand policies. It’s just pathetic when adults do that.
It would be the quickest way to make the poor, poorer and the cost of things skyrocket. They might feel good for a week and then worse for the rest of their shortened life.
here's the funny part. we could give everyone on the planet a million dollars the only problem for socialists is the praeter rule will come into play and all those millions will eventually pool in the 20% (or less)
@@pulpy87 Hell, look what those people do when tax refunds roll in, the shootings and killings robbing each other for the refund money. Saw one video where the girl is live streaming flashing this big wad of refund money as she's sitting in her car, guy runs past and grabbed the money out of her hand through her open window.🤣
He's trying to make a point but doesn't understand that it's not up to the debater to come up with counterpoints to his arguments. That's the job of the other debater.
He wasn't "hurt" from the facts. It's kind of embarrassing that's the takeaway you guys got from what he was saying. His point was that they take a statistic and do exactly what MSM did with Trump saying "there were good people on both sides" - aka they slice off the edges of the statistic to only keep the part that sounds bad. If most cities are democrat run, why would the top 10 worst cities being democrat run be a shocking statistic? It wouldn't, but Turning Point omits the part that most of the cities are run by democrats.
What the guy is missing is ... just because he sincerely believes his "facts" should be given equal weight and equal authority, doesn't make it true or give them validity.
No, but he is right to point out woolly thinking and poor logic in Charlie’s arguments. That is precisely what dialogue is about. It will force Charlie to go back and re-examine his assumptions and eliminate weaknesses in his thinking.
The Truth has 0 authority anymore. Soon you'll be able to lie in front of a Judge then call him racist for finding you guilty... The retards in power are deliberately collapsing everything believing they'll be the safe one underground eventually... Can't wait to see all this lot swinging George Bush snr style
@@sirrathersplendid4825 It is still irrefutable that the worst cities in America are run by Democrats and it is a general trend that conditions that make a city worse improve when a Republican gets in power.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 ... "No, but he is right to point out woolly thinking and poor logic in Charlie’s arguments" But he did no such thing. He merely muddied the water with partially formed thoughts ... because he insisted on speaking instead of listening. Charlie got no benefit at all, any more than we did. The guy merely wasted everyone's time. He should have listened to Candace.
It is partly a fair point because you have no way of knowing if the stat someone produces is true or being presented truly - unless you can sit down and research it yourself - which you can't in a debate. Statistics and facts can be misused quite easily. Like the one about more white people being killed by US police than black people.
It depends entirely on the statistics you are using. If, like Charlie Kirk et al, you are using statistics to make a point without the full context and leaving significant points out, its "not really fair", and quite devious. Statistics can easily be manipulated to score political points. This guy is right, virtually all cities are run by Democrats, so to say "top 10 worst cities in America are democrat run" without the context of saying "nearly all cities in general are run by democrats, including the ten most successful and thriving cities of america" is highly misleading. The headline of this statistic is more shocking in isolation than the facts with full context.
@@lordmaximus780 i've been around the country yet to find a "good" democrat ran city, seen the worst of the worst and seen the best of the best which i would still list as very bad
@@justnsaliga8518 lol i dont think you like cities much in general by the sound of it! Running a city is not the same as running more rural areas. You cant apply the same rules and expect the same results. Chicago or NYC wouldnt transform into paradise if it went under republican control.
@@lordmaximus780 You are correct most large cities are run by Democrats. But that does not eliminate the fact that the 10 most dangerous or worst cities are democrat run. Just because a fact is not liked, does not make it less true.
*I actually agree with the premise of the gentleman’s observation to Charlie. He is actually making a **_non-partisan logical observation, not rooted in any political bias._** Obscuring a fact, telling a half truth, intentionally omitting information (which is a **_lie by omission)_** to present a study / citation as a **_fact_** to support your talking points is dishonest at best, and malicious at worst. How people can’t grasp this concept shows how many of you are indeed stupid. Including the panel hosts.* *It’s like when Christians have discussions with Muslims who cite Luke 19:27 and say “look, Jesus tells people to bring his enemies to him and slaughter them!” This is factually true, if you read verse 27 in isolation, Jesus does indeed say “bring them here and slaughter them in my presence”. But this is a disingenuous quote, because should you have read from verse 11; you’d have known Jesus was telling a parable, and in this parable, **_the character of noblemen_** who Jesus is narrating is the one telling his followers to bring his enemies and slaughter them in his presence.* *I understand the point he is making, that obscuring and omitting key parts of the same evidence you are relying on for a talking point is indeed problematic. Anyone who can’t acknowledge this is frankly **_stupid_** or intentionally ignorant to support a particular political narrative.* *Also for Candace to attempt to surmise the gentleman and say “I understand what you’re saying” as well as the others on the panel - then proceed to patronise him, doing so without truly understanding the point he is making is pathetic. They honestly look idiotic but masquerade and posture as if they actually know what they’re talking about. STUPIDITY AT ITS FINEST!*
@@eldotjay You are exactly correct. The questioner had a good point, I wish Charlie would have openly accepted that criticism, and I wish Candace could even understand what the criticism was.
@@eldotjay nonsense, here is a fact 'a pigeon has never lost a game of chess. another fact; a pigeon has never won a game of chess. both are 100% true. a pigeon has never been offended or misled by either fact. the inability of some humans to understand this is not any pigeon's fault.
@@victorhopper6774 your inability to understand what omission bias is is to your own detriment. That’s due to your own lack of intelligence to understand this fallacy.
@@jw6680 Misuse of statistics????? how is stating a fact in statistics be misused? and that is how you debate though, and yes he is not in debate now, but the student is referencing earlier debates, so Charlie is stating in the debate he had earlier, that using the stats is part of debate tactics. This all boils down to the ``informed voter``, Charlie gives stats and the opposition gives theirs, the voter then deciphers the given stats from both sides and makes their ``informed choice`` Its not Charlie's or any conservative's fault for the left not having favourable stats to offer.
According to Newsweek in 2022, life expectancy in the U.S. has dropped sharply in the last two years, to the point that now the average Cuban will live nearly three years more than the average American. The latest numbers released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that, in 2021, U.S. life expectancy at birth is now 76.1 years, dropping by nearly a full year from the 2020 figure. Life expectancy for men is now 73.2, and for women, it is 79.9. Senator Tom Harkin stated on January 29, 2014 in a press conference: Cuba has "a lower child mortality rate than ours. Their life expectancy
What is reality ? Is it yours ? are you awake or dreaming, You could all be a figment of my imagination and I am in a Coma and don't know :) Unless you can prove reality, it's very hard to state quotes that may or may not mean much. Considering She is no longer alive we can't even get her opinion on what she said and so have to go by the writings that her family or custodians gave out. I think you should try to come up with your own quotes as at least you may be alive . Then in the future hopefully while still alive, people may use your quotes ?
It's the old story that statistics can prove pretty much anything you want them to by selecting only the studies and presenting only the results that support your views. Kirk does this very well and very often, which makes him a good debater but does not necessarily make him correct. It also indicates that he is more interested in winning the debate than he is in promoting whats best. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics as the saying goes.
If that is the case isnt the left also doing that. I have not seen someone debating Charlie also present counter arguments to their own facts. So why are you not calling them out for that
@@thembinkosindabula6063 Absolutely the left also do this, and in my opinion they do it more often and more egregiously than even Kirk does. However my reaction to this video is that in this case it's Kirk doing it. Something that is lost at the moment, particularly in the USA it seems, is the ability to criticise those you may generally agree with. Just because you are a conservative for example does not mean you must automatically agree with every conservative point of view and disagree with every liberal.
Truth is "unfair" from the liar's perspective, just as facts are unfair from a criminal's perspective, while he stands in a courtroom about to be sentenced for his crimes.
Statistics are facts, however .. Statistics also have to be interpreted and how you do that is completely arbitrary. Therefor statistics are facts as long as they are just raw data. As soon as you interpret them to be your argument in a discussion, they're just an opinion. People who use a lot of interpreted statistics into their argument, usually use it dishonestly to overwhelm their oponent, falsely presenting their opiniated interpretation of the data as facts. Another often used technique is speaking really fast (like Ben Shapiro) so that opponents do not get the time to process. Both are examples of dishonest verbal trickery. Lets be honest, Charlie a very gifted talker. But being a good talker doesn't mean you're honest. Usually the opposite is true, cause why would you need verbal tricks to win an argument, if your points are solid.
@@johncrow5552 According to Newsweek in 2022, life expectancy in the U.S. has dropped sharply in the last two years, to the point that now the average Cuban will live nearly three years more than the average American. The latest numbers released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that, in 2021, U.S. life expectancy at birth is now 76.1 years, dropping by nearly a full year from the 2020 figure. Life expectancy for men is now 73.2, and for women, it is 79.9. Senator Tom Harkin stated on January 29, 2014 in a press conference: Cuba has "a lower child mortality rate than ours. Their life expectancy
@@appleturnover519 Not good if you live in the USA however the point of this discussion is not how good/bad the USA is but rather how peeps should have robust debates.
I actually see that guys point. He doesnt care about debates or even if facts are true or not. I think hes saying that if you truly want to make the world better and persuade people of things then you shouldnt have to convince them by omitting or altering whatever facts you are presenting. In a debate setting,yeah that doesnt make sense, but from a humanatarian stand point it makes sense 100%
its more like.. completely idiotic, how can you trick a person with facts? facts are the same for everyone and real, they cannot deceive, to deceive someone you need to lie, or use "fake facts" not real ones.
Its a disgusting tactic, only a particular group or tribe of people talk that particular way and they've trained others to repeat their talking pointe.
Isn't that whats known as cherrypicking? It's like saying that men are 3,5 times more likely to kill themselves, which is factually true. But without also mentioning that Woman are more likely to attempt suicide. It's not telling the whole story.
@Tom toddle But are they out of context facts? His point was that the positive source for cuban health statistics is suspect. He wasn't dismissing data that disagrees with him. He was dismissing the source of data. To put it into terms a leftist can handle without it turning into a separate conversation. Cops. I actually agree with a lot of criticism of cops. They don't accurately track accuracy of drug dogs. They just pull random numbers out of their ass that this dog is reliable. When actually tracked, hard to do because cops are shockingly resistant to cooperating with actual data, the dogs are a joke. Separately a state had to pass a law forcing uncooperative police to track data on no knock raids. A a mid north state, but can't remember specifically which one unfortunately, the results were a 25% arrest and 10% conviction rate. Hence the resistance to hard data, as no sane person can ignore the clear signs of misusing the most violent police activity. It was no wonder they didn't want factual data. Statistical data that can't be reviewed or who's data sources are unreliable...isn't data at all.
"The Worst Day This Year with [9,300] Cases Confirmed",* * This was a headline from the BBC, although it's a new record with more tests having been carried out on said day. The Ms news has a very clear narrative. We all have a very serious problem round the corner and those currently complicit have one hell of a shock coming - of course, there are some that are well aware as to where things are headed.
The guy doesn't understand the concept of debating if the statistics aren't in his favor. It's as if he's saying the murder rate of blue cities should be ignored because they are some of the wealthiest. Good, then let HIM move to Chicago. SMH some people.
@Rose Anne Boushard Well the bloke does a poor job presenting his arguement. What is so hard in saying. He thinks Charlie is cherry picking his facts that supports his biases and intentionally avoid to mention other facts. If that could undermine his conclusions. Claiming at best its a "mistake" or its done maliciously. Seems like an attempt to potray charlie as disingenuous and dishonest. Rather then debating because he knows he doesnt have the knowledge to debate or that he would so soundly lose.
@Rose Anne Boushard The media is taking advantage of low IQ people by inferring that the cases are representing the total amount of people dying as opposed to the number of people living in spite of having Covit.
The kid was failing to understand is that it's not Charlie's duty to save humanity. His intent is to challenge what so many young people are being conditioned to think and say because of progressive professors and universities.
When you take a statistic from study to use as your argument where in the same study your argument fails that implies you are not doing your job poorly because that means your argument is easily disproven with in the same study you cited as your source. It's literally his job not to do that. 1 instance out of how many isn't a bad thing though it happens. If it happens a lot it's a pattern.
"I pivoted away from the abortion thing, not because I didn't want to talk about it, because it made me uncomfortable to do so" Bruh, that's what the fu@$ "not wanting to talk about it" means.......
abortion is an example he brought up to demonstrate how Charlie wasn't presenting the full story, he wasn't there to debate on the topic of abortion, but he did make his point using other example, about democrat run cities and poverty.
@@selvamthiagarajan8152 no he didn't. Charlie presents facts. It's the job of the person he's debating to prevent other facts. That's how debates work...
@@BB-pg5kl Charlie presents partial facts, that's the entire point of the young man's argument. You seem confused about what I am saying. I know how debate works.
@@selvamthiagarajan8152 what you mean is that the right must present facts that help both sides (Democrat cities) while the left can pull them out of thin air (Cuban health)?
@@thefreephilosopher7398 perhaps you should pay attention to what the kid is saying. It is about presenting the whole facts, not selective information that advances your argument. It shouldn't be about winning an argument, but arriving at the total truth. You don't seem to get it.
I think we all really get what he's going for. He's saying that if you really care about the truth, you're not going to say something that supports your idea and completely ignore things that don't, even if they would either prove you wrong or add nuance to your idea. His example was pretty good: "The top 10 worst cities are democrat ran, but you neglected to say the top 10 are also ran by democrats." While the dude is definitely missing some important details as to what "best" city actually means, he is trying to put a blanket over EVERYTHING Charlie has ever said as if he does this ALL the time, when in reality, it's primarily in debates where the object isn't to be openly factual about EVERYTHING, it's just to WIN the debate. The irony here is that these leftists only hold Republicans to this high of a standard, and not their own..
Well, may I please have that list of top 10 cities run by democrats? I still have not heard in any media people from republican-governed cities and even states to run to such under democratic control? What a bs are these leftist, really sad they will be probably ruining even more places in their future!
Thanks for spelling this out for me. I was going to, basically, say the same thing. Now I can get back to my Chef Jean Pierre YT video for making cranberry sauce! 😂
Don't blame the schools for their stupidity. They should have enough sense to use their eyes, ears, and brains to figure out through everyday living that what they teach them in the classroom is pure garbage. They need to be held accountable for their own ignorance. They choose what they want to believe or think. They are stupid because they choose to be stupid. It's easier to repeat what some jackass professor or teacher tries to teach them or what bullshit they read out of a book as opposed to actually figure anything out for themselves.
@@Jack-xr4ej so exactly where if not in school is it that they get to learn these insane opinions from left extremist teachers who can not distinguish between their own opinions and what they should be teaching these students
Not to worry. Google has stepped into the gap left open by schools to educate young minds about reality. And so has Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook and CNN. Fret not. Your children are in good hands.
And yet Charlie Kirk was not prepared to say where he got his numbers. Analysis? Or made up? Who knows, because while he made the claim, he didn't back it up.
He was accusing Charlie of cherry picking facts. Which is usually a very left wing thing to do. The kid may have been bad at articulating his point, but they should have known what he was trying to say. It was pretty obvious. Im not sure if that is what Charlie is doing, but it doesn't look good regardless because they basically just strawmanned the kid because he is young, inexperienced, and incapable of cohesively putting his argument together. Wether the kid is right or wrong the panel failed because they are supposed to exude wisdom and maturity, and they didn't. The kid is supposed to be young and stupid. It's possible they could have changed his mind. Now the kid is just gonna walk away further entrenched in his misguided stances.
@@Breelik the Panel did exactly that. And every time they told him that that was his point, the guy would say no and then go in circles repeating himself with different words. The problem was the guy never phrased his argument in a clearl way and when the panel did it for him, he refuted them just for sake of refute them. And when they actually answered him thatt the answer to his implications was "no" he still refuted that those were his implications.
@@lloron6 The panel certainly didn't frame his argument accurately. The kid was clearly trying to accuse charlie of cherry picking information from his sources while conveniently ignoring other facts present bythe same sources he uses. I have no idea if kirk does this or not, but the panel never addressed this which seemed to be the kids main issue.
@@Breelik No, Charlie specifically said the he did NOT use Cubas statistics because they were not trustworthy yet the kid kept trying to drive it home about leaving out "facts" which were not necessarily facts, they were merely government provided statistics from a gov't that is not to be trusted. Not sure how much more reliable the WHO and the others are but Charlie did say of all the stats that he used, they all lined up with each other and only Cubas were out of line. The kid just could not get it thru his thick skull that he did that for that reason.
@@Breelik There were more people in the room than 'floppy fringe lad ' . He challenged , he was repulsed , the audience saw why , the job was a success . You will never convince a lefty with logic and facts , don't even bother trying . Living in the world defeats socialism .
I get his point. It’s the omission of a fully stated or referenced fact. Like, for example, what the media did for four years with Mr. Trump. Omitting his accomplishments, like low unemployment across the demographic spectrum, low gas prices, oil independence, etc. and bombarding air time with picayune nonsense, skews the mind of the receiver.
True but it's still, at best, a naive point. It's as if he's somehow disappointed that political activists aren't behaving like journalists are supposed to. Which I think is more like the opposite situation to the Trump analogy you gave.
@@realthings5821 not only that, the tactics is used by ANY person on this planet when you want to show people you're right. Some things are always omitted when taking otherwise you wouldn't be debating. That's a utopia, is like pretending that people never lie. let's say i make a gift to my mother, and she knew i had no money, so she ask me, "did you stole them?" No i went to work! And its in fact work, but you're omitting that you worked illegally (for example) And i could make 23463473473 billions examples like this, we ALL behave this way, who says the contrary is a fool and a liar. Also you would need a HUGE amount of knowledge to know ALL facts, related to what you're talking to, example: If we want to take the example the guy in the video take about, the 10 worst cities are democrats , then he should talk about ALL the cities that are under democrats, and what else? There could be another 10000 correlation to that, its not like the person debating can talk for 350 hours to tell EVERYTHING related to the argument he is presenting, that would be idiotic. At which point the guy that is talking in the video is happy? When EVERYTHING has been said? 40%? 80%? that's just stupid.
I'd agree with him if he was able to prove that Kirk's facts were not true.. but they were. His only one decent topic was the states but if he gave the proper scrutiny that he claims to have done, he'd realize that his point was a totally separate argument. That he could have actually brought up if he wasn't so determined to die on the sword that somehow Kirk is not saying facts by saying facts. And as far as the media goes, they don't just spin truth or the news, They completely fabricate shit. They are lying propagandists and that is why they are dying at an exponential rate
He’s actually doing what he’s accusing Charlie of doing. If he were actually honest and not biased himself he would have argued that Charlie was right.
The mistake he is making, is not accurately articulating what the left is thinking. And that is not Charlie's fault. For example, in the Abortion debate, the Right argues that abortion is wrong because it is murder. What the left fails to say, is that their position is that the woman's reproductive agenda is to make sure that her baby is with the particular man she wants to have it with, and under circumstances where she (or the state) can force a man to financially take care of it. To her, having a bayby and then giving it up for adoption is not a viable option. As in so many of the issues, the Left deftly omits its real agenda.
If I could ask them questions, they would be "Why is the most compelling conservative content always behind paywall, such as the movie 'Uncle Tom', while left-wing content is constantly in our faces? Why do conservatives never talk about farm subsidies -> higher food prices -> food stamps game which was created in order to gain votes by both farmers and poor people? " Why do conservatives say there is 'no systemic racism' and lose half of the people out there? Why not, instead, list the history of racism by the Democratic party, especially when people say "America was founded on Racism" say "No, the Democratic Party was founded on Racism". Why not talk about Trump's backing of Ice Cube's "Contract with Black America" while Biden dismissed him?
I would reconsider the argument that parties have been consistent throughout history in regards to their policies. Take a moment to remember that the phrase “Yellow dog Democrat” was used widely to describe Texans. This same party that was for slavery passed the civil rights act. This lead to the 80% ish support democrats get from Black people.
Demand vote requirements 1) tax return-pay taxes...pay taxes you get representation. The 20 percenters don't contribute 2) Dual citizenship restrict voting for 15 years after the age of 18...they have 15 years to contribute commit a x felony you get deported. Maybe Putin could wear a mustache and wig then get a drivers lisc and vote?
"I pivoted away from the abortion thing not because I didn't want to talk about it... because it made me uncomfortable to do so". That is what's called a distinction without a difference.
Yes, how dare you Charlie Kirk be able to articulate your thoughts on a subject, siting sources etc., into such succinct and elegant statements that can't be misinterpreted. Bravo Turning Point, keep up the great work and opening people's minds to new thoughts.
*I actually agree with the premise of the gentleman’s observation to Charlie. He is actually making a **_non-partisan logical observation, not rooted in any political bias._** Obscuring a fact, telling a half truth, intentionally omitting information (which is a **_lie by omission)_** to present a study / citation as a **_fact_** to support your talking points is dishonest at best, and malicious at worst. How people can’t grasp this concept shows how many of you are indeed stupid. Including the panel hosts.* *It’s like when Christians have discussions with Muslims who cite Luke 19:27 and say “look, Jesus tells people to bring his enemies to him and slaughter them!” This is factually true, if you read verse 27 in isolation, Jesus does indeed say “bring them here and slaughter them in my presence”. But this is a disingenuous quote, because should you have read from verse 11; you’d have known Jesus was telling a parable, and in this parable, **_the character of noblemen_** who Jesus is narrating is the one telling his followers to bring his enemies and slaughter them in his presence.* *I understand the point he is making, that obscuring and omitting key parts of the same evidence you are relying on for a talking point is indeed problematic. Anyone who can’t acknowledge this is frankly **_stupid_** or intentionally ignorant to support a particular political narrative.* *Also for Candace to attempt to surmise the gentleman and say “I understand what you’re saying” as well as the others on the panel - then proceed to patronise him, doing so without truly understanding the point he is making is pathetic. They honestly look idiotic but masquerade and posture as if they actually know what they’re talking about. STUPIDITY AT ITS FINEST!*
@@eldotjay You state lies were made, about what? What info did Charlie Kirk omit on what subject; do you have any examples? Justifying your stand with your religious ramblings when this was a calm peaceful exchange of ideas. The gist of what he said wasn't an "argument" it was a "complaint" by the person speaking to the panel. It was clear he was upset because he recognized his own lack of knowledge and/or understanding on the topics that were covered during that forum. He may have "felt" passionate about thinking the conversation isn't fair or slanted. Being sure is not the same as being right. If anything that gentleman learned to be better prepared when trying to articulate his thoughts prior to a microphone being put to his lips. Or perhaps research the subject so you can reply appropriately and knowledgeably. But i guess the above may be too calm of an approach for some, maybe just call everyone a liar and stupid like you did. Lets see how productive we can be then.
@@DK4bidd3n His point was simple. That Kirk is guilty of cherry picking data to suit his politically biased talking points. This is a logical fallacy called omission bias - lying by omission. Anyone who debates knows this is a logical fallacy. He then cited the example on the worst run cities in America being run by democrats. But further scrutiny of the same study from which Kirk cites also concludes that _the best cities in America are also run by democrats!_ So his challenge to Kirk is a non-partisan challenge. It is a challenge of adhering to logical consistency. To present all of the data so that people can then arrive to a conclusion based on the _truth_ rather then citing _half truths_ to support talking points. I agree with him. The same logic was being used by lefties with Kyle Rittenhouse saying “he killed two people” to cause mass hysteria. This is true. It is a fact he killed two people. But upon further scrutiny of _all the facts,_ we know the truth is he killed these two people in self defence. It helps to paint a different narrative. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is simply being intentionally disingenuous or just plain stupid.
Kid was right though. If he had prepped for the argument and made his point clearly, he probably would've demolished Kirk in this argument. A matter of experience though. Kirk is used to open debates and citing facts on command. This kid can't do that and so no matter how valid his point was, he never would have been able to convince the audience that he was right.
@@sailorvenus4471 No the lefty kid did have facts. Did you not listen to him? He just couldn't present them very well and got demolished because his social skills weren't up to par.
@@bakersmileyface this is just a whole other level of pathetic, they are mad because Charlie can articulate what he’s saying to destroy their arguments and they don’t like it. I can’t articulate like Charlie does but I know what he’s saying, same with Ben Shapiro, and both Charlie and Ben are right
@@alBngnnuyn8070 my point was that these students aren't educated but these colleges with leftist students pass them anyway as long as they get indoctrinated
@Poetik Justiz I know what you meant; no disrespect. You don't really need a college degree to debate, and that is true. I just have my high school diploma, and that is all.
Most liberals don't scream and chant in soundbites. They are human beings, they aren't all mentally ill. However, this guy made a dumb point backed by nothing but his feeling that he disagrees with Charlie because Charlie is right wing.
@@yeshuaislord6880 In every single protest for the last two years, liberal protesters have not only refused to talk to the media, the have openly attacked them. Whenever a conservative tries to establish a dialogue, they are screamed down and bullied by the left. I'm hard pressed to think of any other time I've seen a liberal proponent this rational and calm. I truly believe that this is in large part due to the fact that their arguments are based solely in emotional response and not any sort of logic that they are willing to advocate for. I find this particularly odd since 50 yrs ago, it was liberals who were sticking to the facts and conservatives that engaged the shouting, bullying tactics. It's been like watching the polarity shift 180 degrees.
This guy has an excellent point! Charlie never gave a proper response to his question on democrat states. He only included a part of the statistic and not the entire statics to further his agenda.
This kid said he was "uncomfortable" when they were talking about abortion, so he didn't want to talk about it anymore. That tells me everything I need to know about him. His premise of his argument is that he wants all debate to be comfortable and if Charlie talks facts that rip apart his beliefs, he will get uncomfortable. So, to make him comfortable, he is calling on Charlie to soften up on his debate, basically don't hurt him with facts. It is the same attitude as when my daughter was in high school, she played basketball. When I or the coach wanted to criticize the play of the female players, it was always better to tell her what she is doing good before telling her what she's doing bad. As opposed to the boy's team where the coach comes down hard on players, doesn't cater to their feelings. This kid is like the girls on the basketball team.
Actually he just meant he didnt want to go where Charlie wanted to take it. He didnt say he wanted to debate whether or not it was a baby or fetus, he was just wanted to focus on wording, and Charlie immediately took it to proving it's a baby. BTW, I do not agree with the guy.
@@tristondean6488 No, he said he pivoted away not because he didn't want to talk about it, but because it made him uncomfortable to do so. He ended the abortion debate by saying "it's kicking up too much dust". Uncomfortable and kicking up too much dust. It wasn't about the wording. He was uncomfortable, just as he said. You could tell by watching him when he says, "I don't want to do this", he gets emotional as do many people. The abortion debate is always emotional.
*I actually agree with the premise of the gentleman’s observation to Charlie. He is actually making a **_non-partisan logical observation, not rooted in any political bias._** Obscuring a fact, telling a half truth, intentionally omitting information (which is a **_lie by omission)_** to present a study / citation as a **_fact_** to support your talking points is dishonest at best, and malicious at worst. How people can’t grasp this concept shows how many of you are indeed stupid. Including the panel hosts.* *It’s like when Christians have discussions with Muslims who cite Luke 19:27 and say “look, Jesus tells people to bring his enemies to him and slaughter them!” This is factually true, if you read verse 27 in isolation, Jesus does indeed say “bring them here and slaughter them in my presence”. But this is a disingenuous quote, because should you have read from verse 11; you’d have known Jesus was telling a parable, and in this parable, **_the character of noblemen_** who Jesus is narrating is the one telling his followers to bring his enemies and slaughter them in his presence.* *I understand the point he is making, that obscuring and omitting key parts of the same evidence you are relying on for a talking point is indeed problematic. Anyone who can’t acknowledge this is frankly **_stupid_** or intentionally ignorant to support a particular political narrative.* *Also for Candace to attempt to surmise the gentleman and say “I understand what you’re saying” as well as the others on the panel - then proceed to patronise him, doing so without truly understanding the point he is making is pathetic. They honestly look idiotic but masquerade and posture as if they actually know what they’re talking about. STUPIDITY AT ITS FINEST!*
@@eldotjay Are you supposed to present facts that are indeed biased and help your argument, but then say, but you know, everyone does this or you know, it's all blah, blah, blah. The 10 worst cities are indeed run by democrats, but also the ten best are run by democrats. NO! Absolutely NOT! It's not Charlie's responsibility to say all the best 10 cities are democrat run also. Why? It seems like that would be fair right? But it's not. Sticking with the city example, saying that all the major cities are run by dems so it's automatic that the ten best as well as the ten worse are run by dems, so there is no point to pointing out the fact that the ten worse cities are all democrat run, right? It leaves no room for debate if you think of it that way. It leaves the democrats blameless for anything they do wrong and leaves them with all the praise when they do something right. The bias runs deep in this. A pro democrat can take all the praise for all the good things. He can make the very same argument you're making. On one hand say in response to the accusation that all the worse cities are democrat, the pro democrat can say, "well all major cities are run by dems, so...". Then flip when the best run cities are brought up. The tactic you're using is to shut up anyone like Charlie. Charlie is doing a service to debate. Bringing up the ten worse cities being run by dems demands some real, actual counter debate, but since it cannot be done, this tactic, that you're defending, is used. It's simple, it works, and it's used all the time. But there are those of us that don't fall for it.
@@eldotjay Good points. I agree in the main. However, with regard to stupidity/ idiocy, I think these people are well aware of the point that they are choosing to ignore, and yes, that does weaken them in the view of any serious minded people
most people in here are so high on their own agenda they can't comprehend this simple constructive criticism. Quite shameful honestly (even though I agree with lots of things kirk says usually)
Even if he cherry picks facts, it doesn't discredit other facts, That's the great thing about facts, they are very diverse, even on the same subject. But to analyse every aspect of a fact would keep him there all night.. The audience guy is just annoyed because he's having to address facts that he doesn't agree with, and is turning it into a debate on facts have feelings. It's tedious.
That guy would do well in the white house. Hes capable of saying a lot without saying anything and making no sense at the same time. Future Supreme court Judge right there.
This guy actually brings up a good point that the panel couldn’t really understand which made me laugh. His point wasn’t to debate it the facts but was trying to ask why charlie only brings half the fact and presents them as the whole fact
Mike I don't think you have thought it through either. Charlie is bring up fact that show negative reasons for the democrat rule Negative High crime rate Positive. good weather Ohhh geee, so sad, I don't care about the positive things about xxx city when the negatives are so bad because the positives would still be there in a republican administration. Charlie isn't a tourist agent and isn't promoting the area, city or town. He's just pointing out that democrats are doing a very shitty job a governing said city or town. Socialism doesn't work because human being aren't social creatures. Bees and ants are social creatures and it works fine for those being. Human beings are single entities who think of and for themselves, they congregate in social gatherings, not for the same reason ants and bees do but for the good of themselves. They don't naturally think what is good for society, but what is good for themselves.
I find it very interesting how both sides of the political aisle can use persuasive speech to attempt to prove their point, yet most fail when confronted with real facts!
That's because he didn't come to his conclusions by himself, his opinion was given to him. A person who really does form their own opinion can tell you almost step by step how they arrived at their conclusion. People who were told their opinion, led to it, call it what you will, can't. Because for them it simply isn't there.
For a lot of them they never intend to pay them off they want the government to pay it all for them they just don't understand where the government gets its money from
@@RU-vidviolatesmy1stamendment Agree Josh. 👍🏾 Or... this Free Tuition foolishness. So now my tax dollars have to pay for $500 "revised" textbooks (one revised sentence in the entire book) 700k tenured professors that work three days a week. Multi-million dollar campus landscaping bills Massive stadiums, marching bands... the list goes on and on and on...
He says he doesnt want to talk about abortion because it makes him feel uncomfortable, but HE is the one who brought up the subject, and states that he has views about it.
He is like a child who can’t comprehend that someone has a different view and is passionate about that view. He doesn’t seem to understand that real life is complex and multi faceted, he is frustrated that he can’t boil the argument down to good vs evil as if he has never progressed beyond Disney films.
*I actually agree with the premise of the gentleman’s observation to Charlie. He is actually making a **_non-partisan logical observation, not rooted in any political bias._** Obscuring a fact, telling a half truth, intentionally omitting information (which is a **_lie by omission)_** to present a study / citation as a **_fact_** to support your talking points is dishonest at best, and malicious at worst. How people can’t grasp this concept shows how many of you are indeed stupid. Including the panel hosts.* *It’s like when Christians have discussions with Muslims who cite Luke 19:27 and say “look, Jesus tells people to bring his enemies to him and slaughter them!” This is factually true, if you read verse 27 in isolation, Jesus does indeed say “bring them here and slaughter them in my presence”. But this is a disingenuous quote, because should you have read from verse 11; you’d have known Jesus was telling a parable, and in this parable, **_the character of noblemen_** who Jesus is narrating is the one telling his followers to bring his enemies and slaughter them in his presence.* *I understand the point he is making, that obscuring and omitting key parts of the same evidence you are relying on for a talking point is indeed problematic. Anyone who can’t acknowledge this is frankly **_stupid_** or intentionally ignorant to support a particular political narrative.* *Also for Candace to attempt to surmise the gentleman and say “I understand what you’re saying” as well as the others on the panel - then proceed to patronise him, doing so without truly understanding the point he is making is pathetic. They honestly look idiotic but masquerade and posture as if they actually know what they’re talking about. STUPIDITY AT ITS FINEST!*
@@eldotjay OK, perhaps I should expand more rather than leave a click bait type of comment; in my opinion it is acceptable to be selective with facts in a political debate. This needs to be quantified and is subjective as excessive selectivity does lead to deliberate misdirection. And I accept that Candace and group may have deliberately misled the audience since I don’t know enough of the underlying statistics. However, life is complex and full of contradictions where there will always be counter arguments and alternate perspectives and that making a single statement with good intention can always be viewed as misleading. You wish to make an analogy using the bible, I will use quantum physics: elementary particles can exist in two different quantum states at the same time. Quantum physics does not make sense, and yet that is the world we live in and observe. We must accept the contradiction as it exists and not deny or force any single view to dominate. I think life is similar, people view the same event differently. It does not mean your view is a lie or you are deliberately misleading me, you have just focused on different aspects of this imaginary event. Unfortunately politics has evolved to become bifurcated where there is little overlap. Go back to you and I observing an event; you may have picked up details I missed (perhaps important details) but we should agree on many aspects. Working together we get a better understanding of events. But to claim that the other person is wrong or lying simply because of different views is too extreme for me. Stop and try and understand their perspective. Finally, going back to the RU-vid video. I don’t agree with Candace and Charlie’s debating style but they do this for a living. They have facts and figures at hand. People like me are amateurs stumbling into the conversation. It is no surprise that it comes across as bullying. If I want to fight a professional boxer, I need to train and have the right skills. Why should debating be any different? Elevate yourself to a higher level and take on the fight rather than demanding they come down to just using gut feelings.
@@eldotjay I think theres a fundamental difference between a lie of omission like you state with your biblical example and the Cuban health statistics that were brought up. In your example you are deliberating eliminating context from the source in which your information came from to radically change the meaning of the statement. In the kids example Kirk chose to disregard a source he had a convincing arguement for why it was not trustworthy, in favor of independent sources that he believed are more accurate. The city arguement is a better example, but it misses the point of Kirk's argument. If your goal is to get people out of poverty, poverty rates and crime rates are the relevent statistics. Saying that high poverty democrat run cities also have extremely wealthy individuals and businesses just proves gross income inequality, which does nothing to address the fact that the poor are struggling in democrat run cities, it just proves the rich arent. Kirk doesn't mention it because its irrelevent to his arguement that the poor would be better with Republican policies, and conservatives in general dont demonize the rich. Mostly because they dont look at wealth as a zero sum game like most on the left. The kid makes a compelling arguement that wealthy people should support Democrat policy, kirk makes an arguement that poor people shouldnt. Kirk is advocating a very specific position when he makes these arguements. You can argue whether he is convincing in his arguement, but I dont think it's fair to ask him to introduce data that is irrelevent to claims he is making just because you want a different argument to be made.
Your right, they did say that, but it was in response to the fact this guy was unprepared to look up facts and statistics himself that might counter his own arguments, and yet expects people like Charlie and Candace to look for counter information for any facts they present. In other words this leech wants them to do his work for him instead of looking into the facts himself, because such info would countermind his own beliefs
