Live debate is tricky, so I won't be too critical, but I will say he violated one big cardinal rule...never interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake.
When she started saying 'maybe that teacher had a child who...' he should have let her continue, or even asked her to continue. There's no way that was going anywhere good, and chances are she would have dunked on herself - either through some insane statement, or having to sputter to a stop - harder than Tim ever could have. Let this creep talk!
And then when she said she wasn't saying children need Grindr, he again should have let her continue, or asked what she was saying.
Don't get me wrong, he dunked on this bitch pretty damn bad, but there was also a ton of wasted potential. This person was primed to make an absolute fool of themselves, and Tim insisted on doing it for her instead, which is nowhere near as effective. Just give her enough rope to hang herself (in this case it looks like she brought it herself!), and let it play out.
Also, that was great at the end, where she was saying he was "picking specific examples." It's never alright for a teacher to do this bullshit. A specific example is great, because it shows it's happening.
The only flaw I've seen with that approach is that Leftists are so dishonest that sometimes you need to intentionally interrupt their mistake because it's bait to make you derail your own argument. I'll give you my Reddit conversation I had with a Leftist over Juneteenth here
"UniqueUsername" here must have tried every fucking deflection in the book to get away from my single, repetitive, falsifiable, demand: Give me a picture of this very well known holiday that's been continuously celebrated across the US for 157 years. Which he even had to go so far as to do the "Educate yourself" excuse because he knew that he can't.
Many of the deflections look like intentional mistakes. Unforced errors. But in military tactics (which is all talking with a Leftist ever is: rhetorical warfare against a sophist) these serve as nothing more than a feigned retreat to get you to attack a different direction, because the position you are on is actually effective, and their deflections aren't working. If you want your enemy to attack in a specific direction, then you have to present him with an opportunity.
Instead of giving me photos from Juneteenth, now we're arguing about Emancipation Day, or we're arguing about Saturnalium versus Christmas, or we're arguing about Father's Day, or we're arguing about how a holiday originates, or we're arguing about Easter, or we're arguing about whether or not there can be photographs from the 1800. These aren't honest mistakes, they're not even dishonest mistakes. They are feigns to derail the conversation onto a different topic. They can't win the battle the ground they are on, so they start at different battle somewhere else. I admit to falling for this too many times because sometimes people say really stupid shit that baits too hard.
At a certain point, you really need to corner them, and just pound the hell out of their position so that no one will take it back up. That guarantees that the other positions they tried to distract you with aren't going to be addressed; but you purpose is to do so much permanent damage to this position, that they can't take it back up for a while; and that no "Useful Idiot" watching will take it at all. Rhetorical scorched Earth. Don't worry about those other positions, you'll have a fight tomorrow on them if they need to be taken.
I’d say it’s more that we’ve let a grim caricature of female nature take over in an effort to not be mean, and we need a return to masculinity as far as leadership and values go. Right now we’re being run by hysterical female values to appeal to hysterical female women because they’re one of the biggest voting demos you can swing.
Live debate is tricky, so I won't be too critical, but I will say he violated one big cardinal rule...never interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake.
When she started saying 'maybe that teacher had a child who...' he should have let her continue, or even asked her to continue. There's no way that was going anywhere good, and chances are she would have dunked on herself - either through some insane statement, or having to sputter to a stop - harder than Tim ever could have. Let this creep talk!
And then when she said she wasn't saying children need Grindr, he again should have let her continue, or asked what she was saying.
Don't get me wrong, he dunked on this bitch pretty damn bad, but there was also a ton of wasted potential. This person was primed to make an absolute fool of themselves, and Tim insisted on doing it for her instead, which is nowhere near as effective. Just give her enough rope to hang herself (in this case it looks like she brought it herself!), and let it play out.
Also, that was great at the end, where she was saying he was "picking specific examples." It's never alright for a teacher to do this bullshit. A specific example is great, because it shows it's happening.
The only flaw I've seen with that approach is that Leftists are so dishonest that sometimes you need to intentionally interrupt their mistake because it's bait to make you derail your own argument. I'll give you my Reddit conversation I had with a Leftist over Juneteenth here
"UniqueUsername" here must have tried every fucking deflection in the book to get away from my single, repetitive, falsifiable, demand: Give me a picture of this very well known holiday that's been continuously celebrated across the US for 157 years. Which he even had to go so far as to do the "Educate yourself" excuse because he knew that he can't.
Many of the deflections look like intentional mistakes. Unforced errors. But in military tactics (which is all talking with a Leftist ever is: rhetorical warfare against a sophist) these serve as nothing more than a feigned retreat to get you to attack a different direction, because the position you are on is actually effective, and their deflections aren't working. If you want your enemy to attack in a specific direction, then you have to present him with an opportunity.
Instead of giving me photos from Juneteenth, now we're arguing about Emancipation Day, or we're arguing about Saturnalium versus Christmas, or we're arguing about Father's Day, or we're arguing about how a holiday originates, or we're arguing about Easter, or we're arguing about whether or not there can be photographs from the 1800. These aren't honest mistakes, they're not even dishonest mistakes. They are feigns to derail the conversation onto a different topic. They can't win the battle the ground they are on, so they start at different battle somewhere else. I admit to falling for this too many times because sometimes people say really stupid shit that baits too hard.
At a certain point, you really need to corner them, and just pound the hell out of their position so that no one will take it back up. That guarantees that the other positions they tried to distract you with aren't going to be addressed; but you purpose is to do so much permanent damage to this position, that they can't take it back up for a while; and that no "Useful Idiot" watching will take it at all. Rhetorical scorched Earth. Don't worry about those other positions, you'll have a fight tomorrow on them if they need to be taken.
It's amazing how often leftist tactics mirror those of women, lol.
Our particular system of authoritarianism cultivates feminine power pathologies because it's geared toward recruiting women as a power block.
I’d say it’s more that we’ve let a grim caricature of female nature take over in an effort to not be mean, and we need a return to masculinity as far as leadership and values go. Right now we’re being run by hysterical female values to appeal to hysterical female women because they’re one of the biggest voting demos you can swing.