From this famous “leftist”:
Also:
Of course the Right had to get asinine and later demanded recognition that was not there, when Trump and the Republicans do not see how bad is for them when the murder of democratic congress people is not recognized as Charlie Kirk was.
Trolling. He’s trying to get a rise out of you.
This is not a good faith debate. He’ll play dumb when it suits him, he’ll make oblique references unsupported by any citations, and he’ll never acknowledge the rational arguments that you make.
It’s not worth it.
Right. Keep telling yourself that.
I’m curious, are you also part of the “I would crush Charlie Kirk in 10 seconds flat” SDMB debate team? You guys rock. You should get matching t-shirts. I’m swooning right now.
It’s not worth it if what you’re after is a good faith debate.
It is worth it if what you’re after is a history of trolling that the mods can be pointed to when the subject of banning arises.
and the sooner the better.
Actually, his act in colleges was the equivalent of “stealing candy from a kid”, It was a bit cowardly from him to constantly avoid picking “one of his own size.”
Here’s a good video - albeit presented in a silly way - deconstructing Kirk’s speaking style. It’s got good info about how to not be roped in by his slick presentation, or to help others from not being roped in too.
also Pedro,
You do not have to worry, I’m sure the report post button is burning up right now, even though I haven’t broken any board rules. They’ll find something eventually.
I already offered a good faith invitation to debate one Charlie Kirk quote. No takers so far.
It does not work that way, you have to initiate the topic, but thanks for showing all how useless you are.
You were given quotes. You refused to engage with them.
You were given video and text of those quotes. You refused to engage with them.
The only ‘no taker’ in this thread is you.
Oh Yee of Little ̶F̶a̶c̶e̶ Faith.
@Pedro , why not scroll up to my last post and debate any of the quotes I provided? State the quote. Say, “I agree with this quote because…”
As I suggested before, maybe you should do some research then before deciding you agree with him.
And here’s an idea for you from Locrian: "State the quote. Say, “I agree with this quote because…”
This, right here, is the proof that you are not engaging in good-faith debate. I’ll post a quick example from one of the people on his Professor Watchlist (Jonathan Katz - Professor Watchlist), the very existence of which should answer your no doubt genuine question.
(Edit: I’m pleased to see that one of my old professors, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, is on here. I took “Anthropology of AIDS” from her, which I’m sure would have upset Turning Point had it existed back then.)
Oh right. These are the goalposts then. “Here is the horrible rhetoric from Charlie Kirk”. Now justify it. And I’m the one who isn’t arguing in good faith? What’s your example anyway? Did I miss it?
And to everyone I learned enough about Charlie Kirk’s public speaking to say what I said before and I stand by it. That’s it. I do not care to indulge your boring nitpicking of the history of my Charlie Kirk knowledge beyond that.
Okay, let’s try this: Let’s pretend I have a podcast and I say, “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling people named Pedro go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more. “
I imagine a statement like that from anyone might be disagreeable to you. Of course, I don’t have a podcast nor do I believe it to be true.
But Charlie Kirk said:
Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
Do you agree with this statement from Charlie Kirk? You mentioned he aligned with some of your political ideals. Does this also align somehow? Now that you know he said this (I’ve provided three sources, two previous and one here), Is there maybe another quote from Charlie you DO agree with or perhaps admire?
Yes, you did. It is the existence of, and contents of, his Professor Watch List. I included the link to an individual on the Turning Point website, because I didn’t want to be accused of taking things out of context or a left-wing source.
I did this partly because I’m not going to sit here going through videos to find information that you know good and well is there, much of which has already been referenced (and ignored) in this thread.
I think we are done. I understand what your purpose is here now, and it does not interest me (though I’m always happy to learn the conservative perspective when people choose to provide it).