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
If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? Which choice is wrong and which is right? What makes it "objective"? Why did the Germans not all think that Hitler was "objectively evil" even though to us it seems obvious?

>>passwo+bF3
> If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion?

You don’t understand the discussion. Kirk is saying objectively morality exists. We can all agree that murdering a one month old child is objectively immoral. Not that all situations are objectively moral or immoral.

>>nailer+kK3
Your emotions on what feels obvious are not an argument for objective morality. Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating. The person in the video themselves answered A) no, which then led to the whole script about Charlie's beliefs of God and how God defines morality.

You yourself seem to be the one trying to bend what objective morality means by claiming it only applies sometimes.

If it were so obvious it would not be something worth debating in the first place which has been debated far better by far greater people. This is not a novel topic.

>>passwo+wE4
> Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating.

No but having the student admit objective morality exists is debating. You know this. I know you know this. You know the audience reaction is to the person losing the point too. You know you are being deceitful pretending the audience reaction is the debating technique not the actual technique that caused the reaction. I know you are being deceitful too. Stop posting, go outside.