| ▲ | yostrovs 5 days ago |
| Charlie Kirk was a 30 year old political activist. You pick the finest minds of the last century, a famous debate between them, and somehow compare that to Kirk advocating whatever he advocates. It's like comparing a middle school math teacher against a college math teacher (professor) and their teaching styles. |
|
| ▲ | password54321 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It is like comparing a mediocre magician who is ok at giving an illusion of a debate that gets a reaction from an audience vs people who give thought provoking points. A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?". The whole point is you either answer A) no, and get a reaction from the audience for looking bad cause hitler or B) yes, and now you have conceded. It amounts to a party trick. |
| |
| ▲ | nailer 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | password54321 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What part of trying to corner you using the reaction of the audience the moment you argue against objective morality the Socratic method? Obviously no one wants to appear as a Nazi sympathiser especially in public when that is not the point they are trying to make. If he fails to corner you, then comes the escape hatch where he brings up God and how God defines morality. Now the debate is over because you either believe in God or you don't. This is a script that turns the whole thing into a rigged game not a method for arguing. | | |
| ▲ | lern_too_spel 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem in his argument is not that there is objective morality. It's that whatever strain of Christianity he belongs to today is the source of objective morality. | |
| ▲ | nailer 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What part is the Socratic method? This part: > A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?". > B) yes, and now you have conceded. Yes, it makes the person look silly because the only answer that seems correct is yes, because there is obviously objective evil. | | |
| ▲ | amalcon 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not the trick here. The trick is that the format of his talks - and the typical lack of preparation on the part of the typical college student - prohibits nuanced answers. The correct answer there (to someone who, unlike me, does not believe in objective morality) is something like "I oppose everything Hitler did and stood for. Notwithstanding that, your question is incoherent." What unprepared 20 year old comes up with that on the spot? Much less be prepared to back it up, only in sound bites (because that's what works in the format)? | |
| ▲ | password54321 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? Which choice is wrong and which is right? What makes it "objective"? Why did the Germans not all think that Hitler was "objectively evil" even though to us it seems obvious? | | |
| ▲ | nailer 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? You don’t understand the discussion. Kirk is saying objectively morality exists. We can all agree that murdering a one month old child is objectively immoral. Not that all situations are objectively moral or immoral. | | |
| ▲ | password54321 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Your emotions on what feels obvious are not an argument for objective morality. Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating. The person in the video themselves answered A) no, which then led to the whole script about Charlie's beliefs of God and how God defines morality. You yourself seem to be the one trying to bend what objective morality means by claiming it only applies sometimes. If it were so obvious it would not be something worth debating in the first place which has been debated far better by far greater people. This is not a novel topic. | | |
| ▲ | nailer 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating. No but having the student admit objective morality exists is debating. You know this. I know you know this. You know the audience reaction is to the person losing the point too. You know you are being deceitful pretending the audience reaction is the debating technique not the actual technique that caused the reaction. I know you are being deceitful too. Stop posting, go outside. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cman1444 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Your comment seems to imply that Kirk was simply not as good at holding a good-faith debate as the "finest minds". It's not a question of skill or aptitude, but rather that he actively sought performative "owning the libs" arguments than genuine rigorous intellectual debate. |
| |
| ▲ | jennyholzer 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Kirk's operation was about giving bullying lessons (read: Republican talking points) to Young Republicans The point of his videos is to teach Young Republicans to identify weaker, more easily targeted members of the liberal tribe, alongside a set of disingenous talking points they could use to harass and ideally embarass those individuals. | | |
| ▲ | yostrovs 4 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | cman1444 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Of course there are instances of this on both sides. Kirk was just a prominent example of this on the right. I'm not sure books or blogs are a good example of this though. While they may contain lies or disingenuous talking points, they are quite different from the type of "debating" Kirk partook in on college campuses. Specifically, that strategy is characterized by speaking quickly and finding "gotcha" moments that play well on social media and short form video like reels or tiktok. Written material can still be harmful of course, but I feel that it lacks a certain infectious, viral aspect to it that is so politically divisive these days. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | antisthenes 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
