zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7? If so, why even target the poor guy? What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit? Either way, I hope he makes it, even though it looks like it was a fatal blow

>>vik0+66
I saw his videos occasionally on youtube/facebook. I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration most of the time, though I thought some of his other arguments on other topics were thought provoking at least, and I also thought it was cool that he always had an open mic for anyone that wanted to debate him. Seemed like he had an encyclopedic memory when it came to things like SCOTUS cases or historical events.

>>umvi+SF
Charlie didn't debate so much as followed a script and steered you towards his gotcha questions to create content for his show.

He recently went to Cambridge Univ and debated a student who actual knew his routine. It didn't go well for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0_2iACV-A

>>ourman+ZZ
Instead of linking to a one-sided reframing of the debate, here's the actual debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mvIktYig9Y

It seems to be a healthy debate for both sides.

>>toomim+sc1
That's a link to Charlie's own post of the debate.

It seems to be a healthy debate to someone who doesn't know Charlie's logical fallacies and scripted style.

>>ourman+md1
I watched the start of the debate, having never heard of Charlie before the shooting. His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on your career one.

>>tim333+eQ1
Aren't man also happier when they are married and have kids? So according to that logic also man should stop focusing on their career and instead get married and have kids.