How to Win a Political Debate in 5 Easy Steps | Joshua Thompson | TEDxWWU
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- This talk describes a scientific approach to debating politics with your friends and family based on theories in cognitive and social psychology as well as marketing. The relevant research, theories, and five step “strategy” is presented in the context of a recent political debate with an old friend. This friend is a conservative, evangelical Christian and slightly hostile toward marriage equality. I took a psychological approach in presenting my argument in favor of marriage equality and I eventually won the debate. The old friend acknowledged my point of view publicly…on Facebook.
The general purpose of the talk is to express the need to avoid the language of ideology and, instead, appeal to a person’s sense of morality when debating politics. The strategy is my own musings, but is based on psychology and supported by data. This includes data from my thesis and from my other research.
Joshua is currently completing a Master of Science in Experimental Psychology at Western. Along with Dr. Catherine Riordan, he leads the WWU Political Psychology Lab with a research focus on morality and political communication. Additionally, he has worked closely with Dr. Joseph Trimble and Dr. Jean Lau Chin (Adelphi University, Garden City, NY) with their research involving leadership and diversity. He has published in the areas of personality, leadership, and politics and his research has been presented at the Association for Psychological Science, American Psychological Association, and Western Psychological Association conferences.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
Are you ready for this? I'm going to State a fact that both liberals and conservatives can agree upon:
This presentation needs better audio
lmao burn
@Reuben Thomasson a comment a conservative would say
Reuben Thomasson libertarian socialist?? You’re joking right
Reuben Thomasson you’re completely right, I’ve just always found the two to be mutually exclusive to one degree or another. I suppose from an ideological point of view they can coexist but if implemented in policy I don’t see how they could work together.
Reuben Thomasson very interesting perspective! While I definitely don’t know how plausible that is I can see how both theoretically could exist in the same place
How do you ‘win’ a debate? It depends on the standards for victory are. If you’re goal is to convert others to your ideas, it involves a long suffering process of vetting the subject in your own mind, sharing it without fear, enduring ridicule of those who put very little thought into the topic, listening to criticism, and realizing ‘victory’ can be won only by the consent of others.
If your goal is cheap ‘burns’ designed to give you a dopamine rush and self affirmation; hashtags, meme images, and other forms of comforting reductionism will do fine.
Second sounds a lot like ben shapiro lol
@@soka227 u misspelled first
@yunusa2472 No, they spelled it right.
@@soka227 Sometimes, but better posterchildren for such things would be Colbert, Jon Stewart, and pretty much any left wing media influencer...
Trump : "I can't lose If I don't let him talk"
Learn how to spell lose
@@isabellagarza496 They did
@@isabellagarza496 umm thats embarassing....
@@Bambi-rz9kphe edited it
@@Speed001 they” as in two ppl lmao 😂
This is not "how to debate" , period. This is "how a liberal debates". This so called 5 step process to success is actually what keeps many failing in political debates. Sure you may add a fact in the beginning, but you destroy that when you go towards emotion, implying feelings are more important than facts. And here's a little fact to prove that: When the guy had a great title "How to win a political debate" , he decided to destroy it all by changing the title to "How to debate", because he knows his way will almost never work. The reason to debate is to show why your argument is better, making you the winner of the ultimate competition. To win a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward, is the real prize. The main point here is, people don't want to know how to debate (unless you haven't been through elementary school/ Or if you don't have a dictionary), but rather how to win one. That should have been the TED talk, not whatever *that* was.
+not to mention the misleading title.
NeetYeet YES
Yeah Ted Talks is like BuzzFeed. Liberal pandering bs
Time was wasted on you guys
What do you mean by 'win'? To humiliate your opponent and beat them into submission? Or to debate and counter on the merits of the argument in order to persuade your opponent?
To present facts, evidence is to teach. Learning is measured as a change in behavior or perception.
*Fast forward to 2020:*
"Oh, you disagree with me?" *Throws Molotov*
So true
*storms capital
@@mr.commenter1242 Capital incident was smoky but mostly peaceful
@@mr.commenter1242 *peaceful protest
@@magicalpizzafarts280 didn't know invading the capital building was "peaceful".
First of all, you have to be right to win.
Ok wanna debate?
@@soka227 What topic/subject? Politics is smoke and mirrors. The world is a stage. Politicians are nothing more than actors. We live in a dictatorship under the guise of a democracy. Bills are passed without amyone even present. They don't count our votes. Elections are an illusion of choice. The powers that be place into office whoever they choose. Trump and Hillary play for the same team. They pretend to play for different teams. All "world leaders" are in cahoots. There's a one world government. A conjoined effort to manipulate and control the masses. War is really just population control. Most things you see and hear in the media is fake. Genocides are carried out to destroy true history. They then reprogram the youth with Any version of history they so choose. If You control the past you control the present and control the future outcome. George Orwell 1984. Animal Farm.
It's all about divide and conquer. Power and control. We are all slaves.
not necessarily, people walk away from debates all of the time with a win all the time when they shouldn’t have, simply bc their opponent had no idea how to debate
r/technicallythetruth
Watch this guy, then go watch a video of Christopher Hitchens debate and you tell me which one has your confidence.
Hello everyone, I'm from Turkey and I wanna say something about Turkish people, which is we love talking about politics. I mean everywhere, cafes, bars (after the normal limit of alcohol), family or friend meetings, even in toilet (with the guy who is peeing just next to you). So politics is almost in every dialog in Turkey. I wish someone not from Turkey would thought about this topic under Turkish conditions...
Lol cnn watched this and made a new business model
Fox News watched this and said “maybe we should stop showing the fakest news possible”
Leftwinghypehouse TM they’re literally the least biased mainstream news source
@Tom Cizzle Um guys can we not call people 'commie filth' for having differing political views. It's important to understand that everyone has a right to free association, and even though we all may agree to disagree with each other on certain things, we should remain civil and respectful in our debates and discussions.
Tom Cizzle literally just because someone has a different opinion than you, doesn’t mean you have the right to call them a name. Also why tf would assume that they riot just bc u disagree on one subject.
Kidvaush TM they’re the most reliable mainstream news source, they’re 52% right and 48% left. cnn is 94% left, 6% right.
These are the real 5 steps:
1. Uppercut
2. Knee in the testicles
3. Trip
4. Butthead in stomach
5. Dance 💃🏻 💃🏻 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳😛😛😛😋😋😛😛😛😛😛😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😂😂😂😂🙃🙃🙃🙃🤯🙃🙃🤬🤬🤯🤯🤬🥰😳🥰😳😳😳😳
I gotta call BS on this one, only because this has not been my experience. People on Facebook do not change minds no matter how understanding, logical and compassionate you are.
Facebook is pretty much all old conservatives who refuse to make different view points so I can see why
well.. that right there is one of the issues. You're trying to convert people and feel entitled to it, because of the way you approached them.
The description says " a scientific approach.... " where is the scientific part ?????
A book about argumentation and reasoning is a million times better than this B.S
Well said. Like 99% of Ted talks - it's VERY weak & shallow.
I agree 🌟
The Scientific part is approacing an argument with social psychology in mind. While I disagree with the presenter over the effectivness of his strategy; psychology is a promising way of conducting and argument.
why does the crowd have better audio then the speaker???
Step 2... the step no liberal has ever done.
i once beat him in a debate
It is so unfortunate that people just yearn to trounce someone all the time.
Canned laughter? Canned laughter.
To whom do I report Word abuse?
Good Job Cousin.....very proud of you.
Christopher Kocincki shouldn't be
I'm totally offended that he didn't include the Q and + crowd, only LGBT people....
“Do you see CNN as fair an honest?” If they say yes, just ignore them they aren’t worth ya time
Same goes for Fox News lol
Liberal or conservative?
Flu3nt 916 I lean liberal.
@@georgequilitz8530 3 years later, Conservative.
There was a Trump masterclass last night... ‘bludgeoning’ seems quite an effective approach.
no way you win a argument with a liberal going at them with this lol
Stephen R this is how a liberal would go after a conservative
why do you think you know what all liberals are like?
Ironed Sandwich because that’s how they ALL behave!!
Inwardly liberal, outwardly conservative. This is the subconscious mantra, unsuccessfully suppressed by the outward conservative.
@@annieruiz3317 you just literally repeated what you said before, literally zero reasoning
Seems legit
Yoo i wanna debate this guy
Morality 👏🏻
The whole idea that you can engender a logical discussion by first insulting the other party to elicit an emotional response is preposterous. I am now questioning TEDx and their integrity as an intellectual platform.
His response was not insulting. He gave two hashtags. One stating that "love won" and the other one was just a facepalm -Which essentially the equivalent of using an emoji. No one was insulted. It was just to elicit a response.
Sam Hyde was better.
These ideas are so factually inaccurate I'm going to just point out my favorite 2 to save time.
1. EMOTIONS are not the first thing you have after an outward experience. The first thing reaction you have is a THOUGHT. This thought then determines which emotion it is that you'll have. This guy doesn't like to think that a thought comes before an emotion because he prefers to believe that it's our emotions that form the base of our cognitive makeup, when in reality it's our thoughts which are.
2. The BINDING FOUNDATIONS that are supposed to describe rightist leanings can apply to both ends of the political spectrum. Liberals are just as easily swayed by a political or kingly demigod that's enforced on their minds so by the oldest of fake news, propaganda. Fairness and reciprocity which he tries to say are purely liberal values, fall away when despite getting taxed an equal amount as the left, conservatives still stay more likely to give to charity than people of the same income on the left. They're more likely to prefer keeping their extra money for themselves than give it away. Also the in-group loyalty is far more exemplified by the left now than is to be found in the right, who believes in the supreme being of the individual rights for each person. Look at the parroting chants at a liberal rally to tell you that everyone there only ever feels accepted when they've first made their opinions to be in uniform synchronicity with their peers. Internal debate on the left hurts.
How to win a political debate? Be a conservative.
@Stojboj just what i said...liberals are all about how you feel. Conservatives are all about facts
Global warming exist, covid 19 is real
this guy cant see his hypocrisy
имба
Great ideas 👌, thank you
Snore
1.He didnt explane it well.
2.He will never win a political debate.
yeah......no
explain*
How does this guy get to talk at this thing? He's terrible at arguing...
This is a farcical talk
He gives a misleading representation of liberal vs conservative. He may know about psychology but he certainly failed to learn the fundamentals of politics.
Mocking praying? Huh?
Me looking for the libs:👁👄👁
How to win a TH-cam comment debate:-
Spek rong england
Debete mi😎
This is the reason politics causes so much harm, that being right is more important than the truth.
But the truth is different for different people, unless supported by facts instead of supposition. That's where people go terribly wrong is stating supposition as fact.
@@SinnerSince1962 But then that doesn't work these days either ( for many people at least) You can present a facts to people in the form of links that include references and citations to sources, but their response will be: "That's fake news". How do you get through these people?
That's just a quality of debates in general, to be good at debates you have to be right in the eyes of the bystanders not right from an objective perspective
@@wisphen Why should winning a debate be more important than finding what is actually true?
@@imagoportraits562 idk why, but this is the general flow of debates
5 steps
1) push buttons i.e emotions
2) logical & fact base argument
3) make it personal
4) appeal morality
5) authentic,honest & open mind
@Maaz Mohammed - 1 step:
1) *FACTS in a LOGICAL* argument......
You can't argue facts, and logic will make those facts make sense.......Emotions are for *Liberals* in the political arena.
Ask a court of law... Facts Trump Emotions...
Using emotion is a logical fallacy
Mvp brother 🙌🇦🇺
@@k1tozen668 Well sure, in a fact based argument appealing to emotion is fallacious, but emotions should still be considered.
Internet is toxic. The crowd is having a great time. Everyone relax
Is it now? Especially in America
@@goldenspeedguyyt3633 really
@@danielkunzure231 I meant that you can't relax, words matter, and we saw this anger let loose on January 6
the toxic internet crowd having a great time! It's like a party where everyone's having fun spreading negativity and toxicity. Who needs positivity and kindness when you can just relax and enjoy the chaos, right? Let's all just kick back, grab some popcorn, and watch the drama unfold online!
facts don't care about your feelings
speaker DESTROYED by HONEST youtube comment
Not even sure if this comment is ironical by this point.
Nikita Petersen does 2+2=4, or are you using the strawman argument against yourself to distort your reality?
@@Deniz-bz8sy If anything, the comment is reinforcing what the speaker is saying. The speaker goes in depth about giving facts VERSUS "FaceBook Guy's" feelings.
Ben Shapiro talks like a robot with a doctor for a wife
No clue who this guy is or how he got a speaking gig at all (let alone Tedx) but you absolutely SHOULD NOT engage folks in this way.
This is not in any way how you 'win a debate' or 'how to debate'.
He's missing the greater point. Social media discussions (arguments) are NOT about the person you are talking to. They are about the thousands and thousands of eyeballs on the debate. Win the hearts of the people watching, and there too, will be your victory.
I literally laughed out loud for his last step (be open minded) when he CLEARLY was not open minded to the beliefs of 'Little Facebook Guy'.
He just erased everything he said prior in showing that he couldn't adhere to his own rules of engagement.
As soon as he started using a "debate" on Facebook I was only going watch this as satire. You simply don't argue on Facebook the same way you debate in person. Most people are dogmatic keyboard warriors on the internet. I agree as well, I'm surprised that he got away with this...
I completely agree with your observations and conclusion. Interesting how a person who wants to be open minded and honest admitts to trolling someone on social media. Just another normal day for liberals I suppose.
I agree.
I am not sure if he even can win any debate.
Agree absolutely with you.
And how exactly was "Facebook Guy" open-minded?
People are afraid to talk about politics because they don't want to challenge their beliefs. They would rather stay in their own comfortable echo chamber
True, I like my comfort zone.
But I think another issue to address is people's sense of identity.
Who are you if you can see every side of every debate fairly?
That's something I often struggle with
annoyed it says WWU instead of UWU
Noticed that something like 84% of the people watching this video have clicked *LIKE* on it, yet the comments are just a conservative/right Echo chamber. It's just like Facebook. . Because of their algorithm, the most controversial comments will appear at the top of the page because many people have interacted with that particular post. It doesn't mean those people typing these things are the majority ( on the contrary) It's just that they are "shown".
The strategy of frustrating someone first may feel good, but usually makes them dig their toes in. I'd say to skip that part and use the rest of the video.
Echoing this a 100%. You run a risk of losing them at the very beginning. Not sure why he found the need to include this. The rest is great. I would actually start with "Making it personal" and then go to Facts.
If he said one thing the “opponent” actually said, “ya ya”. Maybe I’d believe his message more. He clearly was just speaking at him and not having a dialogue.
Ah, the classic "ya ya" test for credibility in a message. If only the opponent had thrown in a casual "ya ya," maybe they would have been taken more seriously. It's all about that dialogue, right? Who needs substance when you can just throw in a couple of "ya ya"s and call it a conversation? Maybe next time, they'll "ya ya" their way to a more convincing message!☇
He thinks the 2016 election was super controversial? Wait until the 2020 election. It gets worse
Wait til the first week of 2021...
1) Insult the other side
2) Selective and misleading "facts"
3) Appeal to emotion
4) Draw on morality, even though this opens up its own can of worms
5) Provide anecdotal account to back up position
Summary: yep...that's how you argue like a liberal...he's spot on.
Hahaha lol you act like all liberals do that. But forget when Trump argues or anything that comes out of his mouth is lie.
My Psy professor always uses these strategies 😂😂😂
@@g.a.b.e7085 1) You insulted the other side
2) You just did a completely misleading fact
3) You just appealed to people's emotions about Trump
4) You drew on morality, as you're talking about Trump which includes the border wall
5) You're a libtard.
How each side stereotypically debates
1) generalize/stereotype the opposing side (both sides generally)
2) find "facts", distort facts, warp facts to your opinion, make up facts, or ditch facts (both sides generally)
3) either appeal to emotion (stereotypical liberal) or ask for more detailed facts because "you didn't really use facts" (stereotypical conservative)
4) claim your side is moral and/or the other side is immoral (both)
5) claim to be open minded (liberal) or get offended that your opponent didn't listen to your "facts" despite knowing they wouldn't (conservative)
@@PrimeDiam I can't tell you how many times I wanted to like your comment.
Come to India Sir, here politics is in the air.
Don’t let your opponent talk
If they try, talk over them
Call them a liar
Continue not letting them talk
Have Chris Wallace propose a mute button
Repeat steps 1-5 over again.
Alright so all I gotta do is get Chris Wallace. Thanks,
"How to bully your less verbally articulate friends"
Socially sheltered friends***
@@CeeStyleDj both
If you want to have a debate with me just reply. Btw I’m republican/conservative
The Occulus i do
I think I might like to
The Occulus I do. Trump hasn’t overall improved any issue change my mind
Well this comment died
I am a conservative too. Quick note though I am not from the USA, so I may not be educated on any Trump topics. I would be open to a debate of anyone's choosing other than Trump for the reason I stated before. If anyone is interested @ me.
He said marriage is a human right... It's a religiously made, government recognized financial bond between two people for tax purposes. Why is government-recognized marriage a human right? Why isn't the physical bond?
Because he 'feels' this way, rather than thinking himself into any of his positions. You can't tell from the fact that 1. it's TED, 2. he has a lisp?
God you dudes are sad, get a life, and stop worrying who gets married
Okay, So with your argument a man and a woman shouldn't be government recognized either, correct? So everyone loses their benefits if they are married?
Step 5 should be Step 1. Unless you share with the person a mutual curiosity there is no reason for conversation. Even if you win, you lose bc the other hardens themselves in their resolve and maybe even becomes more bitter. Mostly though, the idea that we should all talk politics is such bad advice. Instead, invest in the person in absentia of politics. Sew into them. Bless them where they are willing to be blessed. Buy them a beer or a coffee. Talk about anything else. When the person wants to scrutinize ideas they will come to you and you will have a much more firm foundation of friendship to do as much. Last, don't talk politics at the holidays. This used to go without saying. It used to be deemed impolite. Family time is blessed by peace. Lording your politics over others desire for peace and fellowship only makes people recoil from your position.
this really is awful woah i cant believe i even watched it as far as I did he really used 2 hashtags and acted like he won the world over lmfao
does anyone know what irony is?
Doesn't this sound more like DARVO advice rather than debate advice?
I'm not a churchgoer, but the jab about praying at the end...
He almost had me.
So he's admitting that it has an impact on his life, but the person is not smart enough to understand how? And that puts down his fact that no more is a fact. That's really cool how you represent a so called fact as a fact. Smart enough for a guy like you.
8 minutes I will never get back. Really disappointing talk from Tedx.
Instruction unclear I am now a political prisoner
This is a really bad presentation, like incredibly annoying
TEDx talks are always embarassingly horrible. He starts by saying it's not a game of "wins and loses" and then ends by saying you have to "win little battles."
What a fool.
>Whines about bullying
>Tries to bully someone while whining about bullying
>Typical TEDx viewer
Nice try tho, bro
I watched the whole video and paid attention the entire time. If the amount of disagreement (avoiding the nonsense that is anti-gay of course) in the comments is any indication it's that YOU didn't pay attention. You simply slapped whatever sticker of explanation on top of a, rather unintelligible, TEDx talk and are acting like it was half decent. His points are scattered and unclear. His general "purpose" to this talk is undefined. It's not my fault he decided to "wing it" and is getting blasted.
I bet you're the speaker and you're mad someone on the internet doesn't agree with you. lol
i will revoke my comments to end this petty argument.
I think I just won a "little battle," but I didn't win a battle 'cause it's not about winning.
lol... gg bro
If that's how you choose to interpret this
Not worth the time. Just a social justice warrior story.
marriage isn't a human right...
Sounds like you are making a debate on 🏳️🌈 more than political debates. Tedx is becoming lame…I’m sure you can do better than this guy.
This talk was fine for the substance but could have been better with less sneering in the earlier stages and more of Step 5. Made it look like a trick rather than a method.
Funny, conservatives aren't burning businesses down. As for submission to authority? Shall not comply is a favorite saying among constitutionalists. Out of our cold dead hands is another example. Now we do have a set of morals that we follow. For example stealing or violating someone's property rights is bad. Put yourself in the shoes of the victim.
I sometimes wonder if the guy im arguing online about some meaningless politics wether that person is about as old as him or looks like him.
This talk is terrible. This guys is such an elitist, how about you give a talk on how to exchange ideas in 5 easy steps. You could start with take the patronising tone out of your tone, then perhaps people might be open to be persuaded.
Omg I did not read the comments before I made my first
Comment now I can honestly say what a load of nonsense. Ever so disappointment. Waist of my time
When I saw the TED Talk recommendation with this title I never could have guessed the speaker's political beliefs...
same i had to exit
This is a very generic style for debating. Not going to work with all people... This speaker needs to learn general NLP concepts.
fredocorleone it was a 17 minute speech not a 3 hour dissertation. the title implies simplification ie "easy steps."
The victory in a debate is to give the other side to think about. It is to exchange information. 🤔😊🦉
This guy lost me when he spent less time on whatever the title of this presentation was, and more on his own issues.
just thinking of the myriad of ways Ben Shapiro would immolate Joshua Thompson.
Spoiler Alert: He's a progressive. Title should read: How to agitate and win an argument against crazy conservatives.
So you assume there are no crazy people on the other half, there are and way more than on the right
Politicians exploit our fear to the point of crazy. It’s not an accident that public and political discourse both have deteriorated.
The first step about arousal should never be by "attacking" the person or their beliefs. If someone feels attacked they dig in for war and often listening is out of the window for good.
That is a lot of energy and effort to expend on someone who at their core doesn’t give AF. At my core, I have better ways I’d like to spend my time.
In a room full of intellectuals and scholars he feels comfortable taking a liberal stance as an example of winning a debate. Let's all let this sink in, lol.
A room full of intellectuals and scholars? What? Lol
I'm curious to what you think "Facebook guy's" argument would actually be in the scenario presented.
Love wins?? No, rebellion against God wins...temporarily, that is. Appeal to their sense of morality?? Seriously?? Galatians 6:7,8 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."
Politics has always been something you were not to discuss (along with religion) as an employee of a business (started with bartenders-I believe). THAT somehow went away.....and it needs to return.
I think everyone should be able to marry and person they want. But the Supreme Court decision was Soooooooo illegal. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the right to deal with marriage, so the job falls to the states. So they stomped on states' rights.
Im “Very” interested in politics, I love to pick peoples brain, and debate “fundamental” issue, and yes, I would love to do this in a respectful manner, but we always come to a roadblock, but, believe it or not, We are on the same side, left vs right, it doesn’t matter , wether you agree or not, we are on the same side.
We have the same basic goals, example, we raise our kids, work, and want the best for our loved ones and friends, while having some fun along the way, then we grow old and pass along.
Now there are specific issues that “try to” separate us, wether you agree with abortion or gerrymandering, those random issues somehow separate us, or gun laws. And thats the part where we all can agree on this issue, like seat belts in cars, or alarms in our house, it basically means the same thing, Once your formally educated on anything, we are able to debate any item about anything, if your formally or properly educated and informed on that specific issue you are debating, you can have a respectful debate, but, and heres the kicker, when propaganda and misinformation are involved, that one sided party member, arguing nonsense is where this “roadblock” is coming from, and it ruined friendly debates, and makes it impossible to have a decent political conversation. Sadly, this misinformation tactic was started years ago, with Roger Ailes. (Known for helping Richard Nixon, spreading lies and in later years pushing propaganda)
Facts don't care about your feelings
6 minutes into it and it's just him sharing a troll post he made
God will have his victory over you and your beliefs along with everyone else who doesn't believe in God! Time is very short and all will know the truth in the comming years!
I might've missed it, but did he mention not believing in God?
Time is short and you have failed to consider the thousands of other gods you don’t believe in who could send you to eternal torment worse than being flayed alive and torn limb from limb for the sin of going to the wrong church. Not to mention the limitless fictional gods we have yet to create in addition to the Christian one.
@@DCrandomwords Nonsense, and you are not knowledgeable of what you are commenting about...
In reality you are only parroting assertions, in an attempt to make a psuedo philosophical argument.
You're just making your case, via informal fallacy, for your contempt for Jesus Christ... There are not a thousand gods, those are false gods... The Lord our God is one!
Jack Bailey Every religión to have existed claims the others are lying. For a religion to truly have factual basis to stand on, it would need to make claims which are consistently profound and accurate. The Bible delivers profound and accurate statements at a rate I would imagine is worse than random. The clearest example would be the creation myth which no sane rational person can be expected to believe with knowledge of modern science. Furthermore, there are dozens of instances within the Bible where it contradicts itself and if you’d like me to just list several, ask me and I can.
David C Okay David I'll bite, bring on your proof of contradictions in the Bible, I'll play along. I read your reference to facts and consistency, and somehow I'm suspicious that this means you, acting as the Arbiter.
My prediction is you will ascribe your interpretation of meaning to "facts", and reject what truth and reality are.
What a condescending speech. Essentially you claim to have an open mind, but decided that you needed to get his attention with a dramatic response, then talk about how superior your win was over his response that he was going to pray about it.
Nothing wrong with calling people out on their ignorance. You don't want to succumb to insults though.
noot noot
That walrus on the left could not keep up with the one on the right...
More like the other way around
bring on sargon
as a speaker pls
10 10 noted
3 minutes in and I this lefty already makes me wanna puke
7:28
This is why we don’t see any debates on Left vs Right. One of the sides (I won’t name which side), refuses to debate, and refuses the address facts & statistics
Both sides fairly equally refuse to debate and present facts a lot of the time. I’m a leftist btw.
Blizz
Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Brett Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, among many many many others have reached out countless times to many, many, many members of the Left for public discussions. Only to be rejected. Every time.
It is not equal.
@@thunderbirdizations oh brother, you’re a conservative. Hold up a sec.
Blizz
Only two or three of those names are conservatives. You just proved my point.
Blizz it’s nice to know your tone dramatically changes the INSTANT you know what side I’m in though 😒