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

I'm not a scientist either....that was my point. Holding a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering doesn't make someone a "scientist".

In the very thing you posted he's talking about agreeing to debate creationism with Kirk Cameron....which Cameron backed out. The reason he agreed to it was because he'd have wiped the floor with his opponent. The reason he normally would refuse such a thing is because it's not the best position being an agnostic being forced to argue atheism...a position you know is a weak one. Also, it's a much different kind of debate in that you are arguing something that cannot be proven one way or the other. It's just a completely different situation than a socialist debating a capitalist.

Congressmen and women go on Tucker Carlson's show to debate issues with him all the time and there's many, many other shows that do similar. For the most part politicians like getting their message out and using the platform to reach people and gain publicity.....and they aren't even paid for it.

It's a very similar situation. In the debate you are trying to make your position clear and defend them against those who would poke holes in your ideology. I think your opinion on debates has to do with you always supporting people who get destroyed in them....and I guess I can understand that. Bad ideas will never stand up to the scrutiny of a debate and you are a socialist after all.....pretty much the worst idea in the last 200 years or so.

I do hope you are intelligent enough to know why debating economic systems is different than debating creationism. I'm not going to assume that you are, I'm just going to say that I hope you are.

Well there's 2 sides of this,

1. You are a much bigger fan of identitarian politics than I am, so maybe that's why you think he wins debates.
2. If you only watch him debate really stupid people, like other identitarians, then maybe you'd see him "win" by default.

I don't personally count those types of debates. I've watched Spencer debate legitimately intelligent people and he gets crushed every single time that happens.

That's not really true, it just wouldn't do anything good for her because she's mentally deficient and her ideas are bad.

It wouldn't be the first Cenk debate I've seen and he's terrible at them, not to mention he'd be debating someone clearly better and more intelligent than him. It would be like hearing a high school basketball team took on the Rockets....even if you didn't see, would you assume the Rockets won?

LOL, that's a hilarious, but unsubstantiated hot take.

LOL, give me a break, I know for a fact you don't believe that. If you did, you'd want the debate to happen, instead you know he'd expose her as a simpleton.

 

https://t.co/cgpyxY7z1g

Alexandria Osario Cortez on the American budget for war vs Medicare, education and other priorities.

 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined cost less than 2 trillion dollars in the 15 years since they began, her "free" health care idea would cost over 32 trillion dollars for just the first 10 years which would effectively make it like having to pay for the most expensive year of WW2 (based on percentage of GDP) every single year forever.

This is another reason why she doesn't debate, saying something stupid like that would get you dunked on.

 

It makes them pocesses scientific knowledge. Bill Nye isn't a scientist and never claimed to be l. He taught basic scientific princioles to children. The point of a 5 year engineering curriculum is to leanr andvanced science and mathmatics knowledge and learn to use it in a design process.

 

Okay...I think we can all agree that Candice Owens is not the intellectual crown of the right. She was absolutely embarrassing herself in her Joe Rogan interview.

I think it's a more rational conclusion that Cortez doesn't see any merit to debate celebrity social media trolls like Candice Owens rather than fearing there "intelectual merit" seeing as that she had no fear in running against the 4th ranked establishment Democrat in Congress.

 

Your argument makes no sense


My point is if you have people watching, if it’s true then people will accept it if it’s not that obviously not going to be accepted by the viewer

Also if they were to debate I’m going to assume it’s on her beliefs and if she doesn’t know about her beliefs enough to defend them she has no business in that position

 

He's done much more than that. You said that he was as much a scientist as you, you should just admit you are wrong here.

Why do you twist things?

He says he was going on Maher's show and was told Cameron would be there and if that was alright, he said it was, and then Cameron backed out. He said he usually doesn't do this and then he explained why it was a bad idea debating these ideas.

This wasn't a debate he sought out and he said he departed on his usual rule and basically went 'F it, sure.

Appearing on Carlson's show is not a debate. It is not close to being the same format which Shapiro requests.

blah blah blah, my point wasn't even countered here

You just proved your own bias by "I ALWAYS SUPPORT THE WINNING SIDE!"

Whatever big fella, have at it.

Meanwhile I will realize that the reason science relies on papers and journals is so that points can be thoroughly addressed.

You sure do throw out a lot of intelligence insults, it's really not a good look, makes you seem very small minded and insecure about your own intelligence.

Again, I said that he wins because it gives him a platform to legitimize his views and make his views seem like something that is worth debating. This is the VERY same logic Dawkins used when he said that debating these things can be harmful.

Mmkay, another "Ideas are bad, she's stupid," thing. Nothing to respond to there.

You really are obsessed with grading other's intelligence...

Yes, mr "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue."

Is certainly not at all racist...surprised you'd excuse this blatant racism.

Ok.

I honestly don't know why you want to go back and fourth on this. I found it more interesting in talking about the usefulness in debates and not "MY GUY WOULD TOTALLY WIN!" This is the reason I don't post in general sports forums because that gets boring.

 

So, even though we have film, photographs, live color television and reams of data proving we went to the moon, people don't accept it.

When you say it is either true or not, I understand that position. However you have a problem of people not being able to travel back in time and teleport to the moon to see if Alan Shepard actually hit a gold ball with a modified tool up there or not. Most debates are arguing policy changes and if someone says "this would make a better future" you cannot say that isn't true flat out. We cannot pull a Dr. Strange and analyze a million different futures.

I agree on her beliefs she has no idea and has not really thought them out.

 

I just want to add I feel your pain. It should be the case that you could provide enough facts and detail and explanation that changes someones mind. It just isn't the case because humans are stupid and don't make decisions that way. Humans are not rational, we just have a sense we are.

 

Bobby is just trying to be pedantic. Technically he isn't wrong. Bill Nye isn't a "scientist". Scientists perform research. Engineers use the math and science they learned to design.

Bill Nye has scientific and mathmatics knowledge though, signficantly more than Bobby. Replace "scientist" with "scientific knowledge" and Bobby can't play his petty pedsntic game with you .

 

So your logic is “humans don’t know how to rationalize things, so we shouldn’t have debates on facts and policies and not let people decide what they think”

 

He's not a scientist, you likely looked up enough to know this now, why not just admit you were wrong so we can move on?

Refusal to debate issues is nothing more than intellectual cowardice. Make excuses for it if you like, use quotes by your favorite intellectual coward, but it'll change nothing.

It really is a debate though, you go on his show to debate an issue. It's not a formal debate, but that changes nothing. As to what Shapiro was requesting, he asked for a conversation about the issues that could be made into a debate if she wanted to.

Your "point" actually was counted, and was countered successfully, so much so that you have no real response. When it comes to science, I already pointed out that those "debates" tend to be written papers based on the amount of data and sourcing required for them to prove any point. It's still essentially the same thing.

So, again, this comes back to intellectual cowardice. You are afraid that people won't be able to make a better case than him so you fear it. That's a terrible look and only serves to make those you fear stronger.

Is that "racism"? Israilis do like building settlements, Palestinians do like bombing things and their living standards in Gaza are pretty terrible. On top of that, those statements aren't really based on race given that "Israeli" isn't a race, neither is "Arab".

I

 

I'm saying you can have debates all you want. They won't change peoples minds if your strategery is to explain the facts as clearly as you can. You likely won't be able to change minds at all.

It's long been known the media cannot change peoples minds on topics, they just change what topic we are all thinking and arguing about.

 

I'm not that pessimistic, there are people who can realize that they are wrong, even fundamentally wrong. I think the more ideas that people get exposed to, the better they are. The better ideas will win out in the end. Even Malcom X realized the error of his ways and stopped being a racist towards the end of his life.

 

I think thats your opinion and it’s wrong

I think it can defiantly change peoples minds because you can realize “wow this person doesn’t really know know how to back up there thoughts when tough questions are asked”

You live in a Debbie downer mindset “nothing will change people’s mindset”

Also a live debate is nothing like modern day cnn, Fox News crap media.

I’ve chsnged my mind many times based on debates and conversations. I used to be a full fledged liberal in college!.

Just because “mass groves” of people won’t doesn’t mean some will. Your thought process on the issue seems flawed

The facts still need to be discussed and the hard questions still need to be asked just because some people are hardened doesn’t mean it shouldn’t still be said

Like saying “debating against Hitler’s views it’s pointless because he’s got many followers” *fyi not comparing Cortez to hitler*

Conversation and debates should happen more often. The problem to me is we don’t have enough dialogue between parties and people

 

A character arc in your life that results in a change of principles isn't the same as someone winning out through convincing you with facts. I don't think anyone could have convinced denzel washington the NoL was a POS organization when he was in prison. No matter what facts he got.

 

It's a conclusion you disagree with. I base it on these facts. Humans constantly make irrational decisions despite almost all of us having access to a wealth of information at our fingertips.

Studies show the media doesn't change opinions on beliefs.

 

You are not grasping Bandwagoner's premise.

We are speaking of swaying opinions in a pure debate setting. In a live audience debate setting, the content is less important than style, confidence, posture and unfortunately looks. Notice how pundits concentrate their analysis of Presidential debates on "body language", appearance, charisma etc rather than content. Remember, laymen on the subject matter are watching the debate. They implicitly trust the more charismatic individual, not the individual with more "facts" on their side because if you are not a subject matter expert on the debate topic at hand, you don't know what the "facts" are to begin with thus you trust who ever sounds more right and sounding "right" and being "right" are two totally different things. Sounding "right" has more to do with how confident and charismatic the debater sound and whether the listener has a predisposed bias to the general ideology of the debater.

In today's politically charged climate, no one enters watching a debate to "obtain information". They watch a debate to root for a side and then search for videos that state "so and so OWNS so and so". If you are trying to obtain nuanced information on a subject matter through debates, you already lost. Read a book, attend a lecture on the subject matter, read case studies etc. Watching a debate is a practice of who you think sounds more "right" through charisma and predisposed biases.

 

Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t still occur, facts and policies should be discussed regardless if it doesn’t sway the masses