Charlie Kirk shot and killed (updated)

The difference here is that you know as well as I, at least I think you do, that university professors develop their own reputations. You can choose their class or not. When someone comes to campus and draws hundreds of students because the've been listening to his "show", students ay be curious or want to debate him when they are not fully capable to do so; even if they think they can.

 

Is that not an opportunity for them to learn from their mistakes? How is this not productive?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

What was their mistake? Not being familiar enough with rhetorical tricks or getting through school yet? Pretty much all of our study has concluded that people don't change their minds based on encounters like this. There is certainly an art of persuasion, but "debate me bro" culture isn't the format for that. Like the best case is the kid who gets "owned" gets better at not being "owned" in combative rhetoric lol.

 

Perhaps…..but, doesn’t seem like the point you were intending to make. You were suggesting more of a conversion to his point of view imo. If I inferred incorrectly, my bad.

 

The comment I was responding to referenced being emotional about their positions (this can lead to being distracted when presenting your views), and it also referred to "logical gaps."

I'm not sure what study you are referring to, but I've seen it and experienced it. Anybody who is admitting to never having changed their mind after having debated many times in their life is acknowledging a personal flaw (my opinion, of course). It's important to note that changing your mind does not require you to agree with the person you were debating with, but it might be as simple as simply recognizing vulnerabilities in your own take; having certainties where they should not exist.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I don't think you're referencing me; I don't believe I have expressed that at all. If anything, I would simply hope that it would encourage people to seek out more information about where another is coming from.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Yeah, the longer you debate the better you get at it. But typically people just learn how to not expose their own vulnerabilities/uncertainties while emphasizing those of their opponent. That's what they are learning. It becomes if they mention "A," I counter with "B" and if they reply with "C," I pivot to "D." I think people are more persuaded by their peers and people in their lives they consider authoritative than encountering someone in a "debate" format. As I said earlier public debates are basically just infotainment and content generation for people to create more content about, not a high minded civic virtue. Kinda reduces politics to a game with winners and losers, which with the decline of discussion and reading, substitutes for those things in a dumbed down culture.

 

I was referencing you. Again, my bad if I misread the suggestion of your comments.
In reference to the quoted statement of yours above, I couldn’t agree more.

 

So don’t try and debate because you imply they’re not mature enough? Don’t even try than? Academia is a profession who believe and been told they have all the answers. Truly entitled. The bar scene from Goodwill hunting comes to mind. They aren’t original just capable of spouting impractical stupidity while being enamored by easily manipulated students for achieving no real relevance in the real world because it’s somebody else’s fault I’m a loser.

I’ll give the ones an A for effort that come to the mike and try. He exchanged/challenged their ideas or his where exposed through talk. Whether you liked him doing it or not. Not shouting and name calling, screaming, etc.

 

So talking is useless. Check. Identifying and assuming people only have a set response for set questions. Check. If you’re not as agile as some can be it’s not surprising your unoriginal boxed gift set responses. Wes’s response was good. To paraphrase, you don’t have to agree with them. Being dismissive is lazy thinking so is rigidity.

Politics is a game with winners and losers. Much like life I guess.

 

Also, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong about being "emotional" about a position. Not everything is reducible to logic, or the so-called 'logic' is in service of downright evil. You could use "logic" to say gay people shouldn't marry because they cant have procreative sex. That isn't really logic though, its just papering over your bigotry with more acceptable discourse in the type of culture that values "reason" (manly) over "emotion" (gay, feminine) - everyone thinks they are the logical ones and the other person is emotional.

 

As I said earlier "discussion" is not the same thing as "debate." In the debates I've seen people arent 'talking' to each other, they are barely listening. They are just waiting to get their canned response/zinger in or they are trying to talk over the other person. But as I said, discussion and talking are in decline. Everything is just social media in real life now.

 

Okay it’s splitting hairs but that’s what I expected.

 

Earlier you said all debate was entertainment. Does that mean that you don't believe it's worth people challenging their peers and people in their lives? It's the referenced influence here that makes debate that much more important from my perspective.

Is it possible you are just down on the idea of posting snippets for public consumption rather than down on the event as a whole? Each of these things spawns side discussions and debates, and they will also persist after people have left the event. To me there's so much more to it than a snippet that gets posted online (which likely leaves all of us wanting to see the bigger picture and follow-up and what not).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Emotion can sometimes help in a debate (as you allude to, not all resolutions can be discovered by logic alone), but I took the comment as the emotion potentially being a distraction to better presenting one's own view. Emotion can also inhibit us from having a willingness to listen to what the other side is trying to communicate.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

True academicians know they don't have all the answers. That's why they work in academia! College students, on the other hand, often believe they already have all the answers. And that's why they often make good marks for persons like Kirk, who if you notice, never debated professors.

And debate is a loaded word. In academia, debates have rules. Ask anyone who has ever been in debate club or on a debate team. Kirk's debates had no structure, and Kirk often used debate tricks to steer conversations the way he wanted with nobody like a moderator to keep things on track. Kirk was very well practiced and prepared, and when he would debate against unprepared college students, Kirk was almost always in control. But when he tried to debate prepared Oxford students, it was a much different story.

 

I'm talking about "debate" as a format: i.e. two people arguing intended for an audience, whether its the presidential debates or a youtube clip

 

Evidence? Perhaps more than an anecdote from a movie?

Quick: As a group of people, who do you think are most qualified to produce and encourage original, creative, independent, and reflective thought? While you are at it, did you earn a college degree? If yes, why?

 

The guy in the scene from GWH wasnt even a professor ... he was an obnoxious grad student lol (also Will's snappy dismissal mentions Howard Zinn and Gordon Wood, who while academics, are more known for writing popular history, and probably wouldnt be what a grad student would be reading, but that's what happens when a script is written by guys who arent academics themselves)

 

Hahahahaha what a jokester!!! Trump dodged the bullet meant for him and Charlie Kirk didn't!! Can you believe this guy?