zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
The sad irony is that he's at a college campus debating/arguing with people. At their best that's what college campuses are for. I know they haven't been living up to it lately but seeing him gunned down feels like a metaphor.

I know he liked to publicize the exchanges where he got the best of someone, and bury the others, and that he was a far, far cry from a public intellectual. Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of.

That should be something that we strive for, but I fear we'll see it less and less. Who'se going to want to go around and argue with people now?

>>loughn+Bg1
It is a performance that appears as a debate.

>>passwo+OQ1
Is that relevant? Could be said about any public debate or speaker.

>>raxxor+XQ1
Of course it couldn't. Go and compare these two. You may as well compare fruit loops to wagyu beef.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAqMIZdX5g ("Charlie Kirk Hands Out L's")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4 ("Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice")

>>passwo+AS1
Charlie Kirk was a 30 year old political activist. You pick the finest minds of the last century, a famous debate between them, and somehow compare that to Kirk advocating whatever he advocates. It's like comparing a middle school math teacher against a college math teacher (professor) and their teaching styles.

>>yostro+Xd2
It is like comparing a mediocre magician who is ok at giving an illusion of a debate that gets a reaction from an audience vs people who give thought provoking points.

A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?".

The whole point is you either answer A) no, and get a reaction from the audience for looking bad cause hitler or B) yes, and now you have conceded.

It amounts to a party trick.

>>passwo+sf2
[flagged]

>>nailer+1n2
What part of trying to corner you using the reaction of the audience the moment you argue against objective morality the Socratic method? Obviously no one wants to appear as a Nazi sympathiser especially in public when that is not the point they are trying to make.

If he fails to corner you, then comes the escape hatch where he brings up God and how God defines morality. Now the debate is over because you either believe in God or you don't.

This is a script that turns the whole thing into a rigged game not a method for arguing.

>>passwo+up2
> What part is the Socratic method?

This part:

> A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?".

> B) yes, and now you have conceded.

Yes, it makes the person look silly because the only answer that seems correct is yes, because there is obviously objective evil.

>>nailer+5A3
That's not the trick here. The trick is that the format of his talks - and the typical lack of preparation on the part of the typical college student - prohibits nuanced answers.

The correct answer there (to someone who, unlike me, does not believe in objective morality) is something like "I oppose everything Hitler did and stood for. Notwithstanding that, your question is incoherent." What unprepared 20 year old comes up with that on the spot? Much less be prepared to back it up, only in sound bites (because that's what works in the format)?