[FEDERALIST] Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Could Be The Left’s Donald Trump

He was in the debate club in highschool and college. He is a subject matter expert in debate form. That is the one thing he is an expert on. He has no real world experience in anything else.

 

Good for you? But I'm pretty sure you understood the premise of my post.

I would rather Cortez have a healthy conversation with a subject matter expert in healthcare who is against socialzed medicine. Because they will have actual real world tangible reasons why they think it isn't pragamtic. Hell, it might be a learning experience for Cortez.

A Ben Shapiro debate would be pointless.

 

Pointless for someone who doesn’t want their side exposed sure.

Either you can back it up or you can’t. The president has to debate And be questioned why is this any different

Just because Ben is good at debating doesn’t mean anything he still has to bring substance or it’s irrelevant

I don’t see many examples where he’s just rambling?, he’s defiantly been wrong many times abd called out for it

 

Wiki...

Apparently, you have done anything similar?

Yes, learned men like Richard Dawkins are now stupid...

My question was when have you seen a politician debate a citizen? Or even a journalists? You did not answer my question.

Blah blah blah idiot...boring...

No, it is not similar at all since writing a paper means sitting down and making yourself and your positions clear. A debate is more about charisma than actual learned knowledge, many debate tactics are based around trapping an opponent in appearing to look stupid with gotcha questions.

This is why we don't debate creationists. When Nye did, the expected happened...

"Well...you can't DISPROVE that God didn't do this, can you?"
"Umm, no, but science never claims to know everything," Nye
"GOTCHA!"

This accomplished nothing.

Nope, you are wrong on this. I've seen Spencer debate people and he wins. You know why he wins? Because he legitimizes the idea of white nationalism, that it should be debated, that it is a reasonable thing that smart people should debate means that dumber people fall into thinking he's right.

WNs pass around the memes of him "DESTROYING SJW LIBTARD!" constantly whenever he's gotten a soapbox. Why do you think these people want to badly to hold these events? It legitimizes their views.

It doesn't matter if they are wrong or not, you can't debate dogma.

Shapiro vs Ocasio accomplishes nothing at all.

You are the exact example of why this is pointless.

I've seen the debate, you just admitted that you haven't, and yet...CENK STILL LOST.

You've already decided your winner without seeing the debate.

Everyone in these debates already have decided who has won and who has lost, little is accomplished. People on the left say Cenk DESTROYED Shapiro and people on the right say the opposite. So time wasted, unless you found the debate to be entertaining.

Shapiro is a racist hack anyway that does nothing but spread islamophobia.

It's just pointless, that's my position. She's not going to convince you or @cml750 of her views. Stop lying and telling me that she can convince you of anything, she can't. Why waste her time doing it?

She'd wipe the floor with Shaprio btw. she debated a lifer politician and simply won the debate by repeating "Free Healthcare, education, you are a corporate shill." and then went on to win her race.

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The right constantly flings insults at her. Obama spent 8 years taking that crap and it got him no favors with the right.

My only point was that she was not calling him sexist but doing a simple comparison, exaggerating how she was ignoring him. That's all.

 

You are backing a guy who knowingly tries to twist the facts just to win debates.



These are the facts according to Shapiro

 

Because the president's job relies on charisma, being a leader, being a public speaker...because in a room with other world leaders you want your president to be someone that can hold attention and not quiver and run at being challenged.

I said that debates are irrelevant to what the actual truth is, not that they are completely useless. This is no secret to debates. In fact, if you've ever had a debate class you'd know that two students will be ASSIGNED a position...you don't have to hold the position, of course, the whole point of it is to see if the student can debate the position.

Again, a flat earther could smack down high-school student in debate, it doesn't mean that flat earth theory is true. It doesn't mean the student didn't have facts on their side.

 

When did I ever saying he wasent biased?. He’s a Jew and very biased on that issue just like many people who are biased.

Also he can provide a lot of facts on that tweet but he’s obviously not looking at it as a whole which is ashame

Also I’m not really “backing” him I disagree with him on many things but I can respect his ability to debate anyone, admit he’s wrong and agree with peoplr

 

A flat earther cannot snack down anyone because he has no facts to back it up which is what debates consisted of. Anyone watching would be able to see what is actually true.

 

No this is a big problem with debates. I know a ton about moon landing and about moon hoax. An insane person with no understanding of science could beat me unless I prepared because their arguments are built to deceive.

People think they can debunk things like this but you should leave it to those well prepared. We live in a post fact world, no one gives a ****.

A huge factor is audience and circle jerk opinions. If you have a massive media or BBS where everyone is left, other arguments are much harder to make.

 

Exactly.

Let me be clear...in the case of Ocasio v Shapiro, I'm not saying that Shapiro's conservative ideas can be compared to conspiracy theories like the moon landing or flat earth. I'm not saying that his political ideas are that extreme, from what I understand...pass his extreme hate for Islam...he's not even that far right...but anyways...

I've only used Flat Earth to illustrate how debates are not always about facts. It's about creating a gotcha moment, about showing your charisma. It's not completely useless, it's useful for politicians. We want our leader to be able to outwit other leaders, to speak to other leaders in a clear and proud manner. I'm not saying that debate is useless. I'm saying that it is useless in determining the facts of any issue.

So the argument that Ocasio won't debate Shapiro because she doesn't have the facts behind her or a strong position I feel is wrong.

I think she won't debate him because there is 0 to gain. The only thing that can happen is she slips up, says something she doesn't mean, gets caught, and it goes in a political ad against her all while her opponent won't have to lift a finger.

I think it is a bad idea to try and determine facts by debates. It seems a lot of people do that though.

This is the trick that people like Spencer and other Race Realists use because they will cite studies and throw them at you...in the middle of a debate...and thus you can't respond to that UNLESS you have read the study cited...and thus you concede that he has said a 'fact' when in actuality he twisted a study to his bias.

Now, one could google said study and find out it wasn't supporting his position...but by then, it's too late. It's like the warriors getting away with a moving screen. Complain all you want about it, the 3 points counted, they aren't coming back, you can look at the video after and clearly see it was a moving screen but what does it matter now?

Ugh, I forget the term for this but it is a common tactic to just throw information at your opponent knowing that they don't have the will or time to actually discern and counter the information.

There are many sneaky tactics like this in debate, known tactics with names to them.

 

Her politics are not sound and were exposed by a very friendly interview. Shapiro would expose her even more. This is why she has nothing to gain. She is a horrible star of the democrats in a adversarial political system like we have. Bernie is willing to debate ted cruz when he had nothing to gain except put forth his ideas.

Shapiro would also likely hammer her on Israel.

 

I think you are reffering to gish galloping?

 

Can you be more precise? The only interview that "the right" refers to in terms of "bad appearances" is a interview question about Israel? I mean I don't think Israel is the be all end all subject matter to express whether single payer healthcare is viable or not.

 

I think she is young and her politics are not sound. She seems to repeat left talking points without a principled reasoning behind them or the base knowledge to go from her first principles to her policies she is advocating.

 

Don't be absurd it would be like having a climate scientist debating Trump or you on the environment.

 

Very very damaging but true.

 

Yep, that's it.

Shapiro is known for doing this as well.

I think there is something to gain from Cruz v Sanders, and you can't really say her ideas are not sound when Sanders is basically the more experienced version of her politics. They are campaigning together.

For Sanders v Cruz, these are both men who sought higher office and are campaigning. Shapiro is not that. He's just a commentator. Do you think Cruz would waste his time debating some liberal journalist? I don't think he would and I would not blame him for that.

I think Shapiro would hammer her on Israeal, but actually having seen her debate she would then just say that she's here to discuss issues that affect Americans, like Healthcare and Education. She's not a bad debater from what I've seen, she did away with a career politician that has been in politics for about as long as she's been alive just by focusing on the issues and calling him a corporate shill a few times for good measure. I think you all continue to underestimate her and she continues to grow her audience.

She's almost at 1 million followers for her twitter...and she's not even a member of congress, relatively speaking her popularity is pretty phenomenal.

 

Yep, this. Through overuse, "racist" is quickly losing any meaning. Increasingly, the word "racist" is nothing more than shaming phraseology the left uses when they are losing in the marketplace of ideas.

 

Nothing. But this is the logic of fourth wave feminism.