Leftist Student Insists Facts Are Unfair
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- For daily episodes, insight, and analysis like this, SUBSCRIBE to The Charlie Kirk Show TODAY: apple.co/2VCxGsh
And for EVEN MORE-tune in to The Charlie Kirk Show LIVE on Salem Radio Network affiliates across the country, 5 days a week from 12-3PM ET
For members-only content, exclusive interviews, my column, supporter zoom calls, and MORE, become a member at members.charliekirk.com today!
🇺🇸
#CharlieKirk
He's struggling to say he thinks you lie by omission. Like when a woman says, "He hit me." without mentioning she hit him 4 times before that.
The MSM does it all day, every day!
Yup, that's also what I understood, and to be fair, he may have a point, I'm not really familiar with the people on the chairs. What I do find weird tho is what the lady on the left uses as defense (the part about not using facts that could destroy his own argument because that would be the part of the other person in a debate). I would argue that this would be OK in a literal, educational debate where you get assigned one position and have to defend it for points or whatever, but in real life, if you have an opinion, and willingly ignore a fact that contradicts that opinion you would be kind of a douche to purposely ignore it, imo. Now, I don't say that the questioned dude on the left did that, but thats definetly how I understood as defense from the lady on the right.
@@Sp1tFire92I agree with you, and that's not what Charlie Kirk does.
terrible analogy
Yeah, this is exactly it. He's primarily trying to say that not telling the whole story is disingenuous if you care about arriving at the truth more than just winning debates.
It's like when Biden touts how his administration reduced the rate of inflation. Sure, technically true as of late, but he doesn't say a thing about how just insane the inflation was and under whose administration it occurred.
Yeah, in a debate, the onus is on your opponent to call out the downsides to your evidence, but I get the audience member's point: if your goal is to portray an accurate representation of the facts to make the listeners as well-informed as possible, you wouldn't leave out aspects of things that were inconvenient to your stance. That can quickly get into the weeds, though, as you address every other consequence of something and all its confounding variables. It's not appropriate for a debate situation specifically, but you would certainly like someone to have considered these things before picking a side.
This is what happens when you teach your kids that their feelings matter more than facts. Thanks Charlie.
They must be thinking (Facts) are like these "Majority Made Rules By People," guess what they're NOT, facts are based of proven things in life, it basically LOGIC, or even things like LAWS OF PHYSICS which would be the example, correct me if Im wrong.
What did we do before the internet? How did we argue facts before we could look them up on our phones in the library that is the interwebs? Kids think Google is the modern day Bible. It’s terrifying.
@@Diametricallyopposed00
It comes from a muddled mind.
Perfectly said!!!!!❤❤❤❤❤😂😂😂 these donkeys smh I swear
Actually the guy was telling a correct thing, he was talking about statistics manipulation: where you just mention the part of the facts that are supporting your idea while ignore all other facts.
What he is trying to impose on Charlie is so-called "cherry picking", but the way he does it is absolutely poor.
That's exactly what Charlie does. He cherry picks his facts and only presents what makes the Republicans agenda look good. And it works for him.
@@Depravineers-inc. It's not his fault that facts agree with him.
Compare that to the democrats that they need to create new buzzword and make statistics out of those buzzwords just to support their argument.
It doesn't mean that since democrats are shooting their own foot that republicans should do it as well.
@@Depravineers-inc. lol...just like the guy in video...at least you agree it is facts...(greatest comment every...cherry pick "facts" 🤣) damn those republicans...always using facts
@@Depravineers-inc.you are lost
@@kcck7588I agree with his points and can say he does that. It's very clear lol
As a Cuban American, I support Charlie's position on how untrustworthy Cuban government statistics submitted always are.
But where does Charlie get his stats on Cuba then?
@@babsywoman4212 As he said, from independent analysis done by other countries and health administrations from across the world that actually understand what actual quality of health and living is.
I’ve never seen a guy talk so much without saying anything…
You apparently haven't heard any Democrat politicians lately😂
I thought that too.
What he’s trying to say is, fact can hurt my feelings, please say it in a way that it will not hurt my feelings.
Then you werent listening properly. Fair enough. But he was right. Kirk cherry picks facts to suit his case, a good talker, fast on his feet but when confronted with another intellectual argument his own argument crumbles. Kirk argues on emotionalism, thats what draws the proles in. of course if there is a majority democrat government you are going to see more failed democratic states. But also successful ones as the guy points out. People here talk about facts but never present them with any evidence, like Kirk, but Kirk presents arguments without statistical fact. Im guessing the same people who support his unsubstantiated rhetoric support Trump. Am I right?
Have you heard kamala harris speak?
The “I don’t want to do this” when asked a question he couldn’t answer says it all.
it's not that he didn't want to, it was that it made him uncomfortable. In other words, even if he wanted to, he wouldn't be able to discuss it because of discomfort. 😂
@@asherhiggins7853He was likely uncomfortable about it because he didn't have a way to back up his argument.
Either way, Charlie definitely handled it well.
Exactly. Time to man up and show a little courage. If you can't deal with tough questions, your positions on issues are meaningless.
@@utubewillyman facts then he shouldn’t have been there to argue.
I highly disagree. He is a very smart person and he knows that kirk likes to trap people in discussions. He just didnt feel like it. He saw it and instead of defending him self for 5 minutes, he wanted kirk to answer the very thing that he was asking.
He just said google was backed up by facts and logic!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤧🤧🤧
Yeah I laughed my head off on that one! Anyone that trusts Google has no experience with Google
@@walterrankin200 "Anyone that trusts Google has no experience with Google"
That's the quote of the century.
This guy successfully talked for 11 minutes and said nothing
lmao, I give him credit for being curious, vs many young progressives that just start insulting and spewing emotionally laced illogical responses.
You weren't listening
You're deaf then cause he has a point, he just wasn't really articulating it to the degree he could have. This in part to Candace interjecting halfway through and being a huge bitch because she was offended that he didn't have a question for her dumbass
Hey Charlie tries
@@Robert-Downey-Syndrome Yeah, he's right. He said nothing. He just kept trying to assert himself and then fleeing when Charlie corrected him and refused to allow him to respond. And then he went off on some vapid spiel again.
"I don't want to do this." Sir you brought the point up
Perfect example of the soft man that creates hard times. He needs to learn that facts should trump feelings.
Why would you choose to use that vile word, "trump"? When there are hundreds of studies that show there are better words to help articulate your point. You're clearly trying to force your hidden biases
@@theoracle7175it’s a saying. Hard times creates hard men. Soft times creates soft men. Soft men creates hard times. It’s because soft men tend to focus more on unproductive and meaningless things which in turn makes society fall apart.
He's basically saying that if there was an island of cannibals that also had plants that could cure cancer, Charlie might choose to argue about how great the island is bcuz of it's medicinal benefits, and mislead people into being eaten by cannibals for choosing to leave that bit out, even though Charlie knows full and well there are cannibals there... He makes a great point in the vein of wanting wats best for society so we need to talk about the full picture, and not just the parts that win a debate... Debate should b won on a full set of facts, not just who is best at getting them out, but that's not the world we live in, Charlie absolutely wouldn't tell us about the cannibals if his goal was to win the debate, but if he was trying to help figure out wat the best thing for everybody was, protecting all lives, and taking a moral approach, he would have to talk about the cannibals in order to have a full and honest discussion, the idea of winning a debate is far less valuable, and it's a poor argument to make, unless ur only trying to win a debate, damn being full and honest... Lying by omission is still lying...
But they're both right, just arguing different points... Charlie wants to win a debate, while the other guy prefers a discussion over any and all available information, I actually find the other guys proposition more useful
Since Charlie is also an advocate of the Second Amendment he could defend against the cannibals and get the plants that cure cancer. That was nice and easy. @@dr.evil2some847
@@dr.evil2some847Sorry bud he is not right. And neither is your analogy. The problem with what he saying is that in what he thinks in his opinion is the full set of truths and facts is actually just that, his opinion and not facts at all. He sited a stat that had to do with cities when Charlie and the others were talking about the correlation of Democrat leadership as opposed to republic leadership and the impact of difference it makes. Using the cities as an example, if you compare the cities to the entire state where there are Republican leaders then you would see even the best democrat run cities are horrible. To compare that to your island analogy. Charlie would be saying why go to that island at all when there is another island which has no cannibals but the same medical plants or he saying put a good leader in charge of going to the island to remove the threat and get the medicine safely. So what I'm saying is the guy misunderstood the point of what Charlie's message was and cited a statistic out of the context of what Charlie's message was which is ironically what he accused Charlie of doing. Then you backed him up and did the same thing. So what they were all saying was right and so was the original comment for this thread. Btw I'm not a big fan of Charlie Kirk but this guy is just crying hiding behind his bias against Charlie.
I think what he’s saying is that Charlie is debating to win the debate, but he’s not debating to discover the truth. And therefore it’s just a debate club.
Absolutely. And this is my issue with these content creator republicans. I admire a lot of their skill, bit it seems they are not comfortable being proven wrong - which ultimately leads to intellectual dishonesty. Owens suggested it would be ridiculous for to expect Shirley to play devils advocate against his own arguments but I don’t think that’s ridiculous at all I actually think that that is what you have to do to be intellectually honest in a debate. He’s in a totally different world but I find Jordan Peterson is a good example of someone at least attempting to do this with honesty it seems to me that Peterson is always keeping an eye on if he could disprove his own argument and it’s almost like Petersons ego is wrapped up in needing to make sure that he’s not tricking himself into finding convenient facts to back up his argument and that’s what I really like about him. this was dictated - apologies for grammatical errors
@@RelaxWithDog A nice dream of consciousness.
Counterpoint, the right is EXTREAMLY bad at proving a point without dancing around the issue.
@@MrWinstonSmith sorry I dont understand what you mean
You sound as stupid as the people Charlie is debating 😂
Wait, what?
So Charlie sited facts, statistics, and the studies to make his point. But didn't include the ones you wanted to site? Isn't that the job of the debate opponent?
What makes it worse is the FACT that he looked up Charlies studies and agreed with them.
This attitude makes debate completely and utterly pointless. Cherry Picking statistics that support your point and blatantly omitting others hoping that viewers are too dumb to look it up themselves is not debate. It is lying by omission. You are merely trying to convince someone to believe something, regardless of the truth. It is completely contrary to the socratic method and ultimately achieves nothing. If you have to deliberately leave facts out of your argument to win, then you know you are wrong and merely hope to get away with it. In this video Charlie agrees with the fella that the top ten best cities are democrats. Charlie even defends the man when Candace tries to ridicule him for it. This means Charlie was aware that he deliberately cherry picked and it completely undermines his whole argument. The point of debate is to say "Here are all the facts, and I think this means/indicates/implies X and that should result in Y"
It’s more that he’s purposefully leaving out information that wouldn’t make his presented fact as valid as it would’ve been by itself. There’s nothing wrong with presenting facts, but if he’s actually open to changing his mind then he should be willing to accept those facts about the best cities being democrat, even if that makes his position of the worst cities being democrat not as strong. Obviously Charlie can’t include every fact in his debate, but when it comes to closely related statistics he should know those things.
This man wasn’t really arguing a specific position, he was just asking Charlie to be more genuine about the facts he presented and not cherry pick for his already held beliefs
@@acetrainerarcane1755 so it sounds like if i want to debate someone i must not only present the facts that support my position in the debate but i must also present the facts that support the other persons position?... if so then what is the purpose of a debate?
@xessq1 congratulations, you have all the ability of a parrot. The guy's not wrong, and you're being intentionally obtuse 😂
My brain started to bleed after listening to this guy!!🤦♂️
Yes!🤣🤣😂👊🏻
i know kirk has that effect on me to and while im try to stop the brain bleed he is bleeding you cultist of your money oh a sucker born every minute
Liberal onset hemorrhage.
The struggle is real.
@@mdc439what did Kirk say that wasn’t true?
@@mdc439and you’re clearly the “sucker.” You want to see what a cultist looks like, pal? Look in the freakin mirror. You lead with your feelings. We lead with logic, reason and critical thought. We are NOT the same. 👌
I have never met a republican or a conservative who twisted and manipulated words and their definitions more than the left does. They literally give new meaning to words
I have and we all do, but unlike the lying left, fewer do so from absolute fairy spit and unicorn farts.
Really? Never? Then you haven't heard many republicans talk.
@@taffelost6221 i guess i haven’t
"Hate Speech" is a classic.... It used to require intent and hate speech can ben accidently and you're punished for it.
@@taffelost6221they're called RINOs
I agree with the dude that you can manipulate facts to portray a certain agenda. The media does it all the time, you can mislead and deceive without lying
The murder of millions of babies makes him uncomfortable. How do you think the babies felt?
Nothing
@@GCHandledead wrong 😮
There's scientific evidence against that. @@GCHandle
@@daveschorrtube there’s no scientific evidence for it either. Don’t get me wrong… I’m very against abortion, but Nobody can HONESTLY answer what they felt like in the womb.
@@jimclemmer1223 You can’t prove it one way or another. Don’t get me wrong… I am very against abortion, but there’s no scientific proof, one way or another. Even if there was… Nobody can tell you they remembered physically feeling it inside the room. There is no consciousness inside the room where somebody can sit back and say hey I remember exactly what was like.
I am pretty certain this young man felt that he was perfectly prepared to argue his case.
yea kirk a con artist and grifter
@@mdc439CON ARTIST?🤣🤣🤣🤣AND YOU PROBABLY"THINK"PEDOJOE IS A GOOD"PRESIDENT"....🤡🤡🤡
He actually presented his argument relatively well.
He kept it extremely respectful, he was well spoken, clear to the point, and didn't interrupt their responses. All the kid was saying is that Kirk presents numbers/statistics but not the entire data set or picture, effectively skewing datasets to fit his agenda or using half truths to paint a picture. It doesn't sound anywhere near as polarizing to say" both, the top 10 worst cities AND the top 10 best cities are Drmocrat-run." So, naturally, the talking head trying to create engagement from either side will obviously leave the former or later piece of information off.
All these people on stage are intelligent enough to completely understand what the kid is presenting. They gang up on him because it blatantly destroys their primary form(s) of creating engagement. There are no "facts" being debated or questioned here, Simply their delivery method.
@weirdmood8102 well put. I'm somewhat in-between/conservative and even I understood the kid.
Charlie mission is to debate. Even if he pulled 1 fact out of more available. The opposition is supposed to call him on that.
Kid wasn't saying he's lying, just not explaining the entire study he pulled 1 fact from.
Real Life will ruin all his dreams and slap him in the face with all those raw, emotionless facts very soon. His carrier will be circling between OnlyFans and TikTok. He will need some "adjustments" though.
When you bring facts to a debate, the liberals freak out. I used to live in Oregon and Lars Larson has a radio show where he debates liberals all day long and I noticed this phenomenon with leftists. As soon as you present hard data, they deflect and start name calling.
And then before they run away crying they call you a racist!!!
Been this way for years..for me since 2015
Or just say they don’t have time and walk away…
100% of the time!
@@plasmawarper5837 It has been tried, many times. In theory socialism sounds great. The only way it could ever work is if every single person involved was honest and responsible. Basically the only way is if we were all robots. When you add the human element with all its variables it falls apart.
Kudo's for the mans' bravery to ask the question - it was also a question I was wondering how Charlie phrased things, and it answered my wonderings. I did learn from both sides - always come prepared when speaking to Charlie. I also understand why and what the man is saying, and am glad Charlie is open to have a conversation with him, and opened to have anyone tackle facts with him.
This is amazing 👏.
Facts don't care about feelings.
While an emotional man melts down.
He only thinks that about topics where facts agree with him. When feelings disagree on topics like religion, he doesn’t care about the facts
Dude was like “Your honor, I OBJECT.” “ITS DEVASTATING TO MY CASE.”
How sad! 😅
Nice Liar Liar Reference!
"Over ruled." "GOOD CALL!" xD
"Im kicking my ass, do ya MIND!?"
OH COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The kid is actually not too bad at the arcane art of rapid goalpost shifting. Everytime Charlie knocks down one of his weak, superficial attempts at making a point, he moves a little to the side and tries to regroup his point with an extra minor concession. Charlie knocks it down again, he groups, moves the goal again ad infinitum.
No clue about the context of the democratic city part of his point but as is It seemed fairly valid. If most cities are demographic then most cities would be the worst cities ... and also the best. Again No idea of the context of that point but none of the panel seemed to address that as an error or anything.
@@ronpetersen2317 There have been some cities that the Republican Party gained control of the city and the city was rather rapidly cleaned up and improved, such as when Republican Rudy Giuliani served as Mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001when the crime rate dropped drastically and the filth on the streets, especially in Times Square, along with the moral filth of smut and along with it.
From the 1960s to the early 1990s, the seediness of the area, especially due to its go-go bars, sex shops, peep shows, and adult theaters, became an infamous symbol of the city's decline.[55]
In the mid-1990s, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani led an effort to clean up the area, security was increased, pornographic theatres were closed, and "undesirable" low-rent residents were pressured to relocate, and then more tourist-friendly attractions and upscale establishments were opened."
@higgme1ster that is irrelevant to the point. If he wants to use this as an example for his argument, then he should just say this. Not use misleading facts about the data of the cities.
Charlie actually did address that. In any place (city or state) where Republicans are in charge or their ideas prevalent; then those areas thrive. This is in stark contrast to Democratic ran areas, cities or states. This is why you have a mass exodus in California and New York, in both people and businesses; who are flocking to Republican or more conservative states/areas. I can only hope they leave their misconstrued voting habits back in the areas that they helped ruin.@@ronpetersen2317
@@haus119but he did …
Facts are unfair. This is a perfect opportunity for you to GROW UP!
The WORLD is unfair, I wish I could just imagine a more fair world and it would just magically appear just because I wished it.
What you say when you got flat tire? "I've got a flat tire." or "I have 3 good tires."? Charlie is choosing the 2nd option when he says: "Big cities run by Democrats have high crime rates." Technically it's true but it's also disinformation and manipulation b/c there are no big cities ran by Republicans.
So this guy is correct; it's not always about fact but also how those facts are presented. And Charlie is guilty oft he Gish gallop; dumping so many claims that there is no way to response to them in timely manner. And then, Charly announces his victory.... It's BS.
When you want them to be wrong but can't think of any reasons why
That's actually how they operate the guy on the panel functions exactly like that He's lying by omission and distortion it's like me telling you the answer to your problem is actually five you know it's five but you don't know why it's five I'm very good at math judo so I tell you well two plus two is four so I'm right five is wrong Yes but you're not discussing 2 + 2 but I make it sound like you are and technically two plus two does equal 4 but 2 + 2 = 4 is a lie because that's not what you're discussing lying is about intent not facts lying is not about giving someone wrong information lying is intentionally and knowingly giving someone wrong information.
If a person lives in a cave and is never seen a blue sky and I come in every day of their life and tell them the sky is red and you walk in and say hey what color is the sky and the guy responds red is he lying? No he's not he thinks the sky is red I have been feeding him false information I'm the one who's lying not him He's giving you incorrect information but there's no intent so there's no lie
The guy on the panel is distorting and omitting facts and relevance in order to make it sound like he's right there's no such thing as a Democrat City That's an oxymoron
Cities are liberal by the very nature of the fact of their cities all cities will always end up liberal if the nature of living on top of each other like that most rural areas will end up conservative because those are the kind of people who want to own their own land They don't want to live on top of other people in a close-knit community not the same way as a city
Cities are liberal Democrats in the past elected to align their political ideology with liberals
The kid in the audience is right you just doesn't know how to articulate it The guy on the panel is a liar but he's very good at word judo and he knows how to talk his way around the kid
I'm a very smart individual I don't care if you think I'm just tooting my own I don't care if you think I'm just tooting my own horn or just showing off on the internet I have an IQ of 172 that objectively makes me a genius even though I don't feel like one but that's another issue
Can I win an argument with a cop? If you want to talk about physics yes I'll spank his ass all day long if you want to talk about cop stuff? Not a chance I have no chance against that cop not one single chance whatsoever that cop has 20 maybe 30 years on the force manipulating bastardizing twisting distorting lying cheating hell he has most of that even if he's an honest to cop
How do you think they have signed confessions from completely innocent people not just suspected innocent objectively proven in his own people how do you get an innocent person to admit guilt? It's about social engineering it's about f****** with people's heads and cops are absolute experts at that I don't stand a chance against a cop The only correct move for me against a cop is the same that Wopr came up with The only way to win the game is to not play.
Because the moment I play I lose because no amount of intelligence in my head can ever compare with that cop's 30 years of experience at twisting things people say
You have the same situation here on these kinds of videos The person and the panel is a word judo artist They spin they twist they distort they omit they lie
Guy in the audience has a grain of truth he knows what the guy is saying is wrong but he lacks the experience and the skill to articulate what he knows and the guy on the panel knows it twists it distorts it and turns it around on him.
The guy on the panel an a****** and a liar.
@@nerys71 k
Honestly I see what he's trying to say. The internet and social media personalities make it easy for average people to get sucked into an echo chamber. Presenting an effective argument based on carefully picked facts is one thing, and I believe that people like Charlie can do that well. However, accepting nuance and taking the time to seriously consider some facts that might threaten your argument, and then proceeding to explain why your argument holds up despite those facts, is an essential pillar of reinforcing an argument and in turn changing someones mind on a given topic. life is not black & white. Certain topics deserve to be talked about in ways that respect and consider both sides.
I agree. If Candice had shut up for a minute, this kid and Charlie could have had a nice conversation. The city statistic is a perfect example of what I think this kid is talking about. Charlie says the worst cities are all democratic; the response should always be "So are the best cities", then you can narrow down from there. I wish debates were less about "owning" the other side, and more about solutions.
I get what he is saying also, this is that Charlie is essentially cherry picking out specific facts of the entire study to present his argument in the best way possible without actually citing the study as a whole.
yeah thats what he was saying, he was trying to get everyone to admit they are debaters, not really truth seekers (even tho in some ways debating is a kind of truth seeking). And theyre like "well yeah we are debaters this whole thing is a debate, whats your point?"
Ugh, you leftards. 😂
@waflikky2 I think you're absolutely right. However, I've heard Charlie and Candace say several times that all they care about is the truth as well. I like both Charlie and Candace, but the guy asking them both questions is not wrong. If you want to get to the truth, you have to take in facts that back your hypothesis AND facts that don't. You then have to weigh those facts against each other and produce a nuanced outlook that incorporates all the facts. If you choose to ignore certain facts, you arrive at an incomplete solution or explanation and that doesn't serve to get anyone to the truth.
"You cherry pick your facts and statistics to make your arguments and omit things that disagree with your point" is all the dummy needed to say...and he might have a point to some degree, but as Charlie said at the end, he welcomes anyone to come and refute his talking points...if he's being that misleading and his presentation of the facts are that out of whack with reality it shouldn't be too hard for someone to counter his arguments.
yeah cherry picking is pretty fine summary of what he is trying to say.
Exactly, he said nothing of value! And we the readers/ listeners have the right to except what we like and ignore the rest. Do the other side not do the same?
No. That literally isn't what the guy said. He was talking about how he overwhelms his opponents. With facts.
Too bad. Learn more. If you want to step up to the microphone then KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
@@OpenMawProductions He literally talk about how he cherry pick just part of the statistics which is convenient, the all democratic mayors in top and worse big cities as an example. Dont get me wrong i love facts and statistics, and i dont like wokes. But if you throw just convinient part of statistic it is sneaky way to debate. Online its not that bad coz you can google it and find whole picture. but face to face you cant. But yeah arther that than just feeling and emotions by woke freaks.
@OpenMawProductions lol no he is overwhelming his opponents with half truths that don't tell the whole story. What is the point of winning a debate off a lie? You guys really seem to like it when you're lied to for some reason, I don't understand
His point, from what I gathered, can be summed with 5 words "I don't like your tone." He didn't have an issue with the facts his issue was with how Charlie talks.
you're mistaken. his issue was cherry picking
When the facts burst your bubble, you don't like the facts! Facts don't have an agenda, but you do! Facts is just the truth and the truth hurts!
He wants Charlie to present both sides of the debate equally; which is not a debate.
No he doesn't. He wanted to know what the phenomenon is about not representing smt in its entirity. The answer is bc some part is irrelevent, even superficially looking, they might look the same. Charlie answered just well at 2:50 and after, even it is hardly understood. He says they belive in it! But it is not about what they belive and how it should be, but how those certian areas are, what r democrats as they r. And where there is republican rues, they change towards the positive quickly.
The thing he was saying is that he doesn't believe that Charlie was arguing in good faith. If the object of a debate is to win, there's nothing wrong with what Charlie did. If the object of a debate is to come to a greater understanding, then omitting facts that completely change the nature of a statistic is inexcusable. The guys mistake is not realizing that the people Charlie is dealing with are usually doing the same thing. These aren't talks between friends, and there's a ton of people out there just looking for a good sound bite to take completely out of context and ruin Charlie.
Correct
Sad, that kid is intelligent and completely propagandized.
No his point was legit and has nothing to do with propaganda. You just failed to comprehend what his point even was obviously.
Not about intelligence. It's about that he has no conscience and no respect for the pursuance of truth.
Nah, it's just brand new, never used.
@@mrwaterghost His whole point was that Charlie only get some part of the truth but not everything so it fits his narrative. Your comment make yourself like you never have had an own thought before 😂
@@HolyNarz Are you the leftist student from the video?
The guy is afraid of reality.
The student is trying to express that you're being disingenuous to the conversation by not including the entire facts of the study. He thinks you are pushing an agenda because of this phrasing. The student was looking for a conversation not a debate. That was the issue. The student wanted to have all the arguments laid on the table and discuss them. Charlie debates, which is arguing his chosen point.
Bingo this is how They work They are grandmaster at word judo he is a well-trained medieval knight
The student is absolutely correct and yet the student never stood a chance he is ill equipped not only does he lack both sword and shield but even if he had them he would have no clue how to use them while the piece of crap he's facing on that panel is an expert grandmaster he never stood a chance.
I had respect for that panel but, they lost some of that respect, by not being able or willing to state what you just said. Kandice especially.. loving it as game. All of this is quite important matters.
If one sees another as an opposition, one can still concede logical points on the merit that they may possess. If one can not do this, one's objective thinking process is not objective and it is tainted.
Given that, if they acknowledged the student's main quiry(Charlie kinda did) and then looked at the value of any specfic points and counter points, I would expect that student to become more understanding of the 'right'... and likely be more right leaning. He is not stupid and is questioning and seeking answers and potentially well balanced solutions.
The main reason I could never embrace the left is they do not do this.. but this student/inquirer is. I believe he sees Charlies points as valid and likely superior but may have needed to see that any potential postive truth of the counter arguments that he wants addressed are overshadowed and may be teriarily addressed and likely harmful to humans much more so, then the more immediatly addressed items/facts that Charlie is concerned with.
@@paulkaz2127 Very well stated!
@@nerys71 So you think Kirk is wrong by stating absolute facts, just because the kid doesn't know any? The kid is old enough that he should know at least a little bit, but he seems to be ignorant on everything.
@@paulkaz2127 But it's a fact that the counter arguments are lies. There's no logical reason for Kirk to bring them up.
Facts are unfair, because it does not allow lies to be the truth!
Facts may be inconvenient but I think lies are far less fair for everyone over all. Equal opportunity shouldn't mean equal outcome. 👍
Politicians on the left have been trying to replace "facts" with "truth" (their "truth") lately.
But wouldn't that make it.......Fair?
Indeed. Truth "oppresses" lies.
Are you kidding me? All of the answers to the guy asking questions shot off him to create all sorts of major discourse from what EXACTLY the guy asking questions was trying to ask Charlie Kirk to answer, which he and his other speakers failed to address directly in any reasonable or fair capacity HONESTLY. You're obviously missing the reality here. The guy who came to ask the questions was actually very smart and I wish Charlie Kirk's extra stage people didn't keep interrupting him cause he actually made very good points for which I would have hoped for Charlie Kirk to address directly.
Charlie is right about Cuba. My husbands co-worker is from Cuba and their healthcare is atrocious. His mother had a yeast infection and was untreated for months because she couldn’t get medication. He actually flew down there just to give her meds.
Having traveled to Cuba I concur, I’ve never seen so many young people missing so many teeth. Top notch health care is a big propaganda lie about Cuba.
Only months?! That's far superior to Canadian healthcare.
That pretty much could be said about people in the USA!
@@dave_ecclecticNot even close to true. Poor people in the USA use emergency rooms for free healthcare all the time.
@@jpjp3873 Poor people in the USA also tell people not to call an ambulance for them when they've had an accident because they can't afford it.
These people base it on Feelings
In his talk about city mayors, look no further than Detroit In the 1950 and 60's under Republican Mayors, the city prospered. It was considered as a jewel of the west. Look at Detroit today after 30 years of Democrat rule.
"If you present the facts and they hurt my feelings, please say it in a different way so I can eat Pablum as an adult and suck my thumb forever. And, please, do not hurt my feelings as I cannot deal with truths as an adult." Social engineering has done it's job.
So have modern Universities , its frightening
No, honestly, all of the answers to the guy asking questions shot off him to create all sorts of major discourse from what EXACTLY the guy asking questions was trying to ask Charlie Kirk to answer, which he and his other speakers failed to address directly in any reasonable or fair capacity HONESTLY. You're obviously missing the reality here. The guy who came to ask the questions was actually very smart and I wish Charlie Kirk's extra stage people didn't keep interrupting him cause he actually made very good points for which I would have hoped for Charlie Kirk to address directly.
When you compare Finland and America, things like child mortality, life expectancy, and homelessness are far better in Finland. Yet many Americans would claim that Finland is too socialist, and its taxes are too high. So, this seems to contradict the premise made by this video, particularly when, if you include health insurance, Americans pay more for a poorer health care system than the Finnish do for their excellent system.
@@andrewthomas695 Finland would have your ass for claiming they are socialist. Do they have a nanny state? Sure, but they are diehard capitalist for the average person. That said, much of Finland's income comes from it's oil reserves in the North Sea. Every citizen gets paid from that as well, much like some states in the US do. Finland is also far more homogenized than the US where they don't have to have ER's being flooded nearly as much by gang violence.
@andrewthomas695 This is because our governing elite want more power & money. The more money they have, the more powerful they feel & often become.
These students are so unprepared for the real world it’s pathetic! Pray for them 🙏❤️
No don't pray that does nothing, better draft them to nam 1968 , & maybe they'll understand, all that talk crap won't save ur a.. when the VC have nothing better to then hunt ur American made self all day & night lol today kids are all wimps
I want to think kids were always like this, but man it's hard. They're so dumb.
Yup, been saying this since the "everyone gets a trophy" nonsense started.
This is such a braindead comment on so many levels. For one second just sit and think about what you just typed out. I hope you understand that the next generation of doctors and engineers and scientists are all currently students. This entire country is maintained and pushed forward by people just like this student. You may not agree with his views, but that doesn't make him unprepared for the real world. As a matter of fact, he looks to be an adult himself and is likely doing just fine in "the real world". Think about what you say before you say it.
@@malachic9149 You’re making my point , arrogance and ignorance is the biggest issue and that’s why the graduation rates of immigrants is higher. Gen needs to Grow up, quit overvaluing themselves and get a helmet
Homey's basically saying: "Your facts are just kicking my ass, and I can't come up with alternative facts that disprove yours". Well done. Brilliant, mate.
“You’re correct but please say it in a way that makes me sound right.”
"I pivoted away from abortion, not because I didn't want to talk about it, but because it made me uncomfortable to do so."
Another distinction without a difference...
Yeah... good point.
Dude is looping
I believe he was saying that he was not trying to have an argument for or against abortion, but that he was trying to use what had previously been said about abortion as an example of what he was trying to talk about.
I wrote this comment not because I wanted to, but because I was comfortable doing so.
Another person not quoting the entirety of what he said and taking things out of context to try to create a specific fact that is actually a lie by omission. Why not put his entire quote and keep it in context?
I understand what the guy was saying . He was suggesting charlie is so well versed and educated on so many topics through studies and other sources that when a particular topic is being discussed ,Charlie cherry picks the possitives from the study backing his belief system while not talking about say the 20% of the study that goes against what he is trying to articulate .and when he is debating with uninformed studends and others ,he only pushes his argument ,instead of also including the other side . He thought this was unfair and Charlie should be more forthcoming with all facts and not what he chooses . However , i believe most studies have a lot lower fraction of opposition than 20%. And I also think people should not debate someone on any topic unless they have enough research of their own done and be able to come to the table with that small percentage . Charlie does not need to debate himself because of hurt feelings and to be neutral. He has clearly chosen a side and has enough knowledge to stand his ground . They should too.
Yes, your assessment is accurate. But his argument or viewpoint falls extremely flat considering issues like "pro-choice" that actually does the thing he claims people like Charlie do but at far more deceptive levels when presenting "facts" about the science of what a human is from inception. Which is why I believe he ran from that conversation. No other group in history has indoctrinated young minds and promoted partial facts or skewed data more so than the leftist professors who have inserted themselves into the culture in academia. It is very much like socialism or even worse akin to communist Russia.
Yeah, these people always think the other person should argue both sides to be balanced, but they're never going to reciprocate that.
Well said!
It is like choosing something you liked from the first page on the menu and ordering, then complaining to the waitress that she didn't alert him there was a whole second page on his hands
I agree with what you're saying about understanding the guy. I had a friend that was well-versed in some relatively esoteric material that I was completely unaware of. Unfortunately, instead of trying to first explain this esoteric material to me so that I can at least be informed of what exactly he was talking about, he would essentially just tell me I'm an idiot and still not explain where it came from. He would then attribute beliefs to me that I didn't actually have whenever we would have discussions on topics that that information could play a role in. It felt like if you were walking down the street and someone starting fighting you and when you pull out a knife to defend yourself they call you crazy because , "It is only a prank." So I understand to a small degree with what the guy was saying even though I ultimately reject his reasoning.
What a waste of time.....typical liberal
His issue is his source is Google.
he is trying to make simple things difficult in order to appear learned....
No. He was right, the panelists were wrong and so are you. Don't be brainwashed. Just think for 5 seconds about his democratic cities example and you'll see he was right.
No he just wants people to stop acting like politics is a game of debate... When it is actually a hard discussion about how to live life.
Things dumb "educated" people try to do all the time. Sometimes the answer is just simple and thats it..
Many things about Charlie are amazing, the first I always notice he has statistics in numbers I have always been in awe of.....his public speaking is top notch I always dig hearing Charlie go up speaking to these leftists.....I never get tired of this.....he is the best!
don't be discouraged my man, you actually made a good point. lying by omission is still being dishonest.
He believes fundamentally that one side of the argument should have all of the answers if it is to be valid. He does not realize that mentality leads to absolute power; A power that corrupts absolutely. Our balance is the compromise of opposing sides found in debate. I don’t have all of the answers but I know for certain that neither do you. Those that claim to often cannot be negotiated with. They need to be challenged before they bring destruction to their surroundings, affecting other people. Preventing destruction is a daily task that usually goes unnoticed. Thank you for standing up.
The key word from this young gentleman is the use of the term "balanced". And he would insist upon it based on his subjective understanding of the world. He does want to hear and appreciates factual opinions based on data and statistics (or he's just trolling) however, he also wants the wiggle-room to steer clear of facts if it doesn't fit his subjective moral compass.
His whole point was that Charlie wasn't presenting ALL of the facts in the studies that he quotes. To use the ten worse cities are run by the blue team argument without including that most of the top ten cities are run by the blue team is manipulating the data to fit your narrative. It is the same logic as those who push for socialism using the few European countries that have it as why it can work without stating the extreme amount of failed attempts and the millions it has killed. It is the same as someone stating that electric cars are better for the environment without stating how much the lithium mines destroy the area and how poison the batteries are when disposed compared to regular car batteries. It is all manipulating the facts to fit your agenda.
@@Ironica82 you missed his point that the best dem cities had republicans running them at the time or just prior to them improving.. ie.. the improvements came from rep policies
@@taz6122 I did get that point. However, unless you know the fact that most of the top ten are also blue, he never states anything else except the bottom ten are blue. I have suggested somewhere else in this comment section that when he states the stats, it should go like this:
1) State the stat for the bottom ten cities (since that is your main point)
2) Mention the counter argument about the number of blue cities in the top ten
3) Show that the reason for part two is due to red people being in charge and that is why those blue cities are in the top ten.
Not only are you being faithful to the entire statistic but you are also answering the counterpoints as well as strengthening your position.
However, besides this one time, I do not recall him ever going beyond the first point.
How dare you use truth Charlie?
He was only using half truths, that was the entire point of the kids argument
@@shadowshatto But you’re not defending the kid, right?
@@GodBlessedAmericaI will. He was right. Charlie ignored the other half of the statistics to only paint a negative picture when it's not that simple because the best cities are democratic. So saying democrats ruin or make the cities the best aren't points that work by themselves in that context, which is the whole context, which everyone on stage ignored except for Charlie, to a point.
@@Dravianpn02 “the best cities are democratic”? Statistics say differently. Care to give an example of “half truth”?
@@Dravianpn02Funny how the kid picked the subject and then changed his mind after a simple question was asked.
"You just said he's too good at debating" LOL
Yep, he's too good at debating that uses that skill to manipulate people presenting nuance data
Fair play to him for being respectful throughout and presenting his point in a polite and calm manner. Although it was a case of 3 or 4 against one at one point.
He was talking rubbish …
so if you are talking rubbish and everyone dont understand you, its a case of the whole world against you? go fix your stupidity first
@@grahamjones5969 He was, but he was also respectful. Fair play.
How to have an argument without having an argument to argue.
i've never seen a person more eloquently debunk themselves
Rocks in a metal bucket. Nothing but noise
This guy is talking in circles. I believe what he was saying is that he needs to give the pros and cons of the discussed topic. That would defeat the point of a debate. The point of a debate is to win.
What the group is doing is not "TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU", but give you facts, and you can either believe them or go look it up for yourself, believe what you want, but facts are facts believed or not.
Or, recall Max Weber: "'To let the facts speak for themselves' is the most unfair way of putting over a political position..."
This guy relies on Google to present him with the truth. That's his first mistake!!! No small wonder he is so stupid.
Wanted to say a appreciate all the work you and the rest of your colleagues do. They remind me that there are still many people who appreciate common sense.
I would have told this young man that "I give my audience the benefit of not doubting their intelligence. That they understand givens are exactly that, givens. I'm not giving speeches but listening to their point of view and showing the differences. Hence it being called a debate.""
Because he backs up his own opinion instead of backing up everyone's opinion?
My brain hurts listening to this man explaining the way Charlie presents facts.
Truth hurts.
@@Rai2MIt dies, that's why that pansy was trying so hard to say "don't say truths and facts because it might hurt other people's feelings."
@@dubsspilly5864 you tried 👏👏🤣🤣
@@glitche2524 they made one spelling mistake dude... everything else they said was valid
@@SephirotOfTheFool in your opinion. 💛✌️
The student is giving you great advice if you can switch from debating/defending mode to educating mode. He’s basically indicating that you can make your arguments even stronger if you presented a more robust picture. He’s saying it appears your cherry-picking facts, which can happen in a debate, but if you truly want to help others believe your argument than you would fill in the holes for the less informed in this space. You’re hollowing out your own victory. PS…I’m a Friedman/Sowell kind of guy so trying to help here.
Totally agree. It’s hard to admit you are wrong in a public forum, but they missed an opportunity to earn a lot of trust by doing so. I think they missed his point because they are in debate mode and not find the truth mode.
“The student is giving you great advice”? Wow just wow, what planet do you live on? 🤡
I got the feeling that Charlie possibly wanted to reciprocate this guys impartiality but then Candace started getting in the middle and acting hostile like she often does.
The guy wasn’t even really hating on Charlie. It seemed like he was trying to be fair. After all, he said he discovered Charlie via watching the “debate” against Hasan which likely means he has a tilt towards agreeing with him.
Seems like this could have been a much more interesting conversation if it wasn’t awkwardly interrupted by Candace.
The charge was that Charlie states facts but uses misleading language and style to slant the argument like Micheal Moore does. So why didn't he cite examples of this? An example of this would be a news report about a mundane gang shooting that begins "Yet another victim of our obsession with guns". If Charlie actually does this, give examples. This guy just wanders in circles, which suggests to me he doesn't really understand what he's trying to say.
@@WilliamSpoehr To be fair, the guy did cite examples. In fact, he cited them more than once, so I’m not sure if you skipped through the video or simply stopped paying attention.
God help humanity when it’s these people who are running things.
It's already happened.
Why doesn’t this guy move to Cuba and see how it works out for him
Poor guy really thought he had something there. Charlie, Candace and the rest of the panel were correct. It is Charlie's job in a debate to give the facts supporting HIS opinions. His side of the debate backing up his statements. Not to give facts for the other side. That is literally what his opponent is there to do. That young man absolutely should have instead taken the time to learn said statistics. Then as they all said, actually debated Charlie using the statistics he thought pertinent or more important. That is indeed how a debate works after all.... Who'd a thunk it!!😅
The interesting thing is Candice hit the nail on the head. The guy wants to live in a Socialist Utopia and resents Charlie and others of his ilk telling people they will never live in a Socialist Utopia. He believes if he and his friends want it enough, it will happen. He believes only people like Charlie prevent us from living in an Utopia. He has the brain power of a four year old child.
I think I understand this kid's argument. He is saying that if you care for the truth, you should present both sides of the argument. the problem is that Charlie shouldn't have to present the case for his opponent. It is his opponent's job to point out that Charlie is cherry picking. But since the kid does not have any evidence to show that Charlie is cherry picking, he comes off as ignorant and unprepared.
I think the boy made a good point. All this really smart people would make a difference if they would present all the facts and then show people how to better assess them, why they conclude that some are more relevant than others, etc. In my view the goal should not be winning a debate but convincing the audience for the long run and that is difficult if they later find that you forgot to mention all the facts that may appear to contradict your position
yeah exactly. he just really sucked at saying such a simple thing lol. like all im saying bro, is there's more to the story and we want to see all of it. im no leftist or democrat at all but its all in the same energy of skepticism. like when there is a supposed police brutality case but the right thing to do is to wait for the police footage to see the whole story before saying it was or wasnt police brutality.
I disagree with the assertion that it's your opponent's responsibly to point out you are cherry picking data. That's only true if the purpose of a debate is to win. Meaning, you don't believe what you are saying, but are trying to win an argument. Charlie didn't say that. Charlie doesn't believe he is cherry picking data. If Charlie found data that contradicted his belief, he would change his belief. Charlie has reviewed the all of the data, and based on all of it, has come to a conclusion that informs his opinion. To Charlie's point in the video, he asked for specific examples, and showed why he left data out, for example, Charlie did not included data provided by the Cuban government because it could not be verified or corroborated.
So I believe that would be Charlie's point. If you believe Charlie left data out intentionally because it would defeat his argument, bring up that data so he can discuss it with you. I don't know about the other 3 on stage, but I don't think Charlie is there to "win debate points".
I'll just wait for every leftist to present a conservative argument then!!
I may be waiting a while!! 🤣🤣🤣
This kid did not look up the definition of debate before coming there. Debate is using facts to support your argument. He basically said I'm upset with you for not saying things I like to hear. You know ...the propaganda that I was told growing up. Because I believe it. It must be true.
I think what he was trying to say is, yes you present facts; HOWEVER you should present those facts in a way that makes me feel all better inside being nice to me and those like me
Using facts to trick people? Wtf is this guy doing. Is he trying to argue a democratic position. It seems they hate facts I guess
The insanity of believing the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
Compromise is the worst form of conflict resolution
truth and real facts do not need belief or believe.
You mean that the black-and-white approach is better?
@@Horsajka of course it is. Gray doesn’t exist without black and white as objective and opposite colors.
Charlie you are just that good! This guy is crazy
The guy isn't crazy he has raised a valid point. Wake up.
This guy was the opposite of crazy. I usually agree with what Candace says but this time she appeared to be the crazy one.
You're crazy. The guy was respectful, polite and calm. He had a good point and Charlie did pivot away with demagogic rhetoric. Quite a cheap way of arguing.
Scocilism is very successful in Europe.
All the "socialist" nations in Europe have 2 things in common: 1) they're capitalist and 2) their social programs are funded by the US DoD. The US is focusing more and more on war with China and the EU is scrambling to stand up an army that doesn't rely on US funds or manpower. They are discussing mandatory service and greater defense spending, which means higher taxes or cutting social programs.
He became uncomfortable because he was suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.
He legitimately gave up as soon as charlie asked him a question to clarify his point..." I don't wanna do this" 😂
He knows the abortion arguments won't give him a win. He thinks the other would. He was wrong. Charlie and the others study these subjects for hours, memorize statistics in order to prep for these debates. Why would they present things that some think undermine their arguments? These are debates. They aren't designed to come to a compromise. The guy wants them to move left. They won't.
The guy asking questions actually made very fair, legitimate, and truthful arguments. All of the answers to the guy asking questions shot off him to create all sorts of major discourse from what EXACTLY the guy asking questions was trying to ask Charlie Kirk to answer, which he and his other speakers failed to address directly in any reasonable or fair capacity HONESTLY. You're obviously missing the reality here. The guy who came to ask the questions was actually very smart and I wish Charlie Kirk's extra stage people didn't keep interrupting him cause he actually made very good points for which I would have hoped for Charlie Kirk to address directly.
Sure.....I'm positive he would be victorious in a one on one debate with Charlie Kirk.🙄
he was not there for a debate, he was there asking politians for more truths. And noone understood him, and i truly think that is sad and I am full blown conservative
This represents 99.9% of the online" debate"
No question at all in this word salad.
He did make one good point about how Charlie stated in a debate that the worst cities are run by democrats while intentionally omitting the fact that nearly all cities are run by dems, including the best ones, which is very disingenuous.
It was definitely more of a statement.
@@Dog_in_tree Idk "best cities" is very very subjective..
@VashStarwind yes, but there are objective measurements to judge a city by, such as crime rates, and nearly every city in this country is blue.
@@Dog_in_tree Oh no def. "Worst cities" is pretty objective ha.
Don’t pursue a battle of wits unarmed.
That's more true than you might realize although it sounds like you're making a derogatory statement and you shouldn't be
Because the guy on the panel is wrong and the student in the audience is right
The problem is the guy on the panel is a pro-word due to artist and the student is not The student was literally ill-equipped for this combat The guy on the panel beat the snot out of him not because he was right he wasn't he was wrong he beat the snot out of him because he was better at word judo and that's it
@@nerys71
Re-listened to this. I agree with you. I apologize.
This actually worked far better for the student when the panel, in desperation, tried to mob him when his argument started to undermine them regarding the possibility that capitalist sources are maybe as biased as Cuban ones. Candace particularly tries to interrupt and distract from opposing narrative when presented in a troubling way.
People are just down right stupid to ever question Charlie and his research and ability to quote statistics. Bro, you’re not going to win, so sit down.
That would be SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP😂
He didn't question Charlie's research or ability to quote statistics. He was questioning the ethics of misleading people by leaving out information.
Exactly. Anyone can be questioned. Charlie has enough integrity to defend himself and his points. I think they just didn’t understand what the young man was trying to ask. It was a legitimate question
@@PortiaManteau It was, this is the issue with these kinds of events there are no experienced and researched orators of the other intellectual side to support these shy inexperienced students
To all us Charlie and Candace Fanboys, the questioner was prepared, I understood what he was saying but before Charlie could understand, Candace ruined the whole thing when she asked about capitalism vs communism.. completely of the mark either by ignorance or intent to steer the conversation away from his point. I love Charlie, Candace and the bunch, but they completely fell off on this one. Feel sorry for the questioner
Newspeak. He said "linguistic cultural acceptance". That means he was not wanting to look at facts, but that if he changes the words then that makes it ok to terminate a fetus instead of killing a baby.
So true. When Candice jumped in, it just fell apart.
He could have saved everyone time by just showing a clip of Jim Carry objecting to an argument because it was damaging to his case.
Charlie you're a class act. I admire your ability to stay calm, rational and to quote facts. You're an inspiration.
He came in with an opinion, but no clear, concise way to articulate his meaning. Clearly he was not prepared for this discussion. I will say, however that at least HE was polite and respectful.
He was prepared, I understood what he was saying but before Charlie could understand, Candace ruined the whole thing when she asked about capitalism vs communism.. completely of the mark either by ignorance or intent to steer the conversation away from his point. I love Charlie, Candace and the bunch, but they completely fell off on this one. Feel sorry for the questioner
@@PeerlessScarred01 I think Candace hopped in at the perfect time. A question should not be dragging on as long as it did and he clearly didnt come in with facts prepared to refute their points. Charlie completely won the moment he said "I'll be glad to debate you if you bring facts to argue." Just because somebody is trying to move the question line along doesnt mean they're deflecting, jesus christ.
Candace is the only hostile person in this video. But, that's her brand. Angry black woman telling you the business. Republicans are just as gimmicky as Democrats.
@peer He was prepared?! For what exactly, dinner? I am glad you understood what he was saying because he certainly didn’t. He spewed the usual delusional woke drivel but as some other people in the comments he did it with civility which marks an enormous change from the petulance normally on display from the wokerati.
@PeerlessScarred01 I do not mean this harsh or demeaning but I think you didn't underhand what the young man was asking or the reason why Candace responded the way she did. The man was not prepared.
How can ‘truth’ and facts trip people up
?
Facts aren't meant to be fair, they are measurements of reality.
His mind is scrambled with liberalism.
I suppose the man is simply asking ‘is it not misleading to those you’re influencing to present selective half-facts when you’re claiming to be an advocate of the full truth?’. Big fan of Charlie here but I do feel like I get what this man is saying. If you see debates as a sort of game to win, then absolutely be selective about which parts of a fact you bring up to prove your point - it’s misleading, yes, but that’s on your opponent to debunk. But if you’re claiming that what you say is the truth, and you’re influencing a great multitude of people, it’s stands to reason that you don’t use selective and misleading half-truths when presenting information, surely? - people like Candace scold left-wingers for doing just that, and characterise it as evil, but here she’s saying ‘that’s just debating’. The guy did bring a good one that he probably should’ve just debated- that the top cities are also democrat run and that generally most cities are democrat run. That’s worth a back and forth in and of itself and Charlie never really got chance to address this overturning of his initial stat. He could’ve done that and then said okay, so how many of the stats you throw out are actually just a part of a bigger picture that actually doesn’t aid your point?
I commented the same thing. Glad there is people that even through agree with charlie are able to at least question or use some critical thinking instead of just cheerlead charlie or insult the student. I also felt Candace and the panelists were a bit condescending with the student. They are intelligent enough to at least try to understand the student’s point of view who even presented data.
I can understand mockery of leftists that just scream and avoid engaging in dialogue which seems to be very common, but this was not the case.
Yes I feel the same as you do. Maybe Charlie could mention that about Democratic cities and then say that they can turn around pretty quickly if conservative policies are instituted as he did when this guy pressed him.
I agree. The student had some valid points worth debating, and I wish Charlie and others could take a more gentle approach in trying to hear out the point that the student was making instead of trying to destroy the students with "gotcha" moments. Yes, these students are clueless in many ways, but they are there to learn a thing or two, and I want to see them leaving with their minds enlightened rather than more hatred.
@@echoi23 Not what they were expecting or going to discuss.
What he should've said is the worst cities have the most blacks and hispanics. That is undeniable.
Fact are not unfair. Every topic has many facts and Charlie uses the ones that support his arguments. Watch Fox then MSNBC objectively they choose the facts of a situation that supports their arguments and if you analyze either side based on only what they said both sides have merit because they use the half truths that support their agenda. Charlie is a success because he brings data and he argues with those without data. .
"Watch Fox then MSNBC objectively they choose the facts of a situation that supports their arguments and if you analyze either side based on only what they said both sides have merit because they use the half truths that support their agenda."
BINGO! Unless this guy is willing to tell people he supports the same thing he just told Charlie, he needs to shut up. You can't tell only your opposition that they need to phrase things differently. "Hey, let's fight, but you need to use your bare hands, and I get to use this tank!"
MSNBC uses facts 😂😂
"Fact are not unfair. Every topic has many facts and Charlie uses the ones that support his arguments" Well that's what a sophism is. It's very easy with that kind of thinking to have a non causa pro causa ("Every time I fall asleep, the sun sets (fact). Therefore my sleep makes the sun go down (?)". You can also use the Texas sharpshooter fallacy or other kind of biases. If a debate is about "winning" based on sophisms, it's not useful, it's just a game of stupidity.
@nathanlunsford7110 If it happened, I hope someone recorded it on their DVR.
Watching and listening to Charlie Kirk causes me to wonder how very much he must be committed to opening the eyes of the horribly confused and I must admit that I wish I had the patience he exhibits in dealing with these poor unfortunate people who have never been taught to think or reason, but to only parrot whatever the popular majority is spouting in their non-stop verbal diarrhea discharges.
Finally, a guy off the street who can make an argument without crying or screaming. Agree or disagree but a cordial debate is so refreshing.
What argument did he make?
facts are facts
It's not about the facts it's about ommiting specific facts.
@@PeerlessScarred01 its nothing like you can pick and choose what to belive and the make other things up
If Cubans live longer and have a better life expectancy, then why do they come to America in inner tubes. canoes, bath tubs, and homemade boats?
Chuck adores ignorance.
Sounds like he's whining
Facts were hurting his feelings
If you believe that, then you completely missed his valid point.
@@Ironica82facts hurt Charlie feelings as well as the other panelists that had to bail him out
@@Therealstrikeforceyep
Did that guy basically tried to condemn people who actually try to win arguments?
I don’t like anything that upsets my fantasy
You guys missed his point. He was making a solid point you need to consider. His best point was...debates are not a game, but should be trying to reach truth.
This student was taught what to think, rather than how to think.
Great comment!!!
Seems quite the opposite - he's looking at the entire picture while Charlie is cherry picking the data to support his argument when the entire data set would actually debunk it entirely.
Nah. He was right. Leaving out all the data is misleading. His democratic cities example proves that. You're guilty of what you claim he is.
There are no “Safe Spaces” in a debate…..
There is no good city that’s democratic
A prime example of a pigeon playing chess.