Yes.
I'd watched it originally through the breakdown being made by 'Rationality Rules' during a binge of that channel, but after a tiny bit of it I went with watching the actual thing first without edits:
It exposes the differences between being a genuine debater, and that of a provocateur who tried to sell a 'best of' compilation as if that were the only thing going on.She's employed a tactic called a Gish Gallop. Overwhelming ones opponent with various information and a lot of it. Another word for that would be nagging. The tone of her voice, the tempo of her speech and of course, reading her script on her phone.
You thought she said a lot of information..?
You'd think the guy going across numerous campuses with potentially millions of "debates" under his belt would be prepared for points like these.
Lets just say there's a reason he went after teenagers far more often than adults via a mutual lack of debate literacy.
Charlie stayed calm and asked questions to better understand where she's coming from, and made valid points, western women, at the loud ones are the most unhappy women, even though they have more than other women in the world. None of his responses, makes him, as you say, a provocateur.
He couldn't stick to the topic, he instead listed off recycled talking points that both have statistical inaccuracies when researched and clearly didn't know what she was talking about. He often deflected points an opponent makes by throwing out other unrelated questions or focusing more on the opponent than their points being made.
The topic was: "What should women's role in public and private life look like?", and unlike what other more structured debaters might have done she took a page out of Mehdi Hasan's playbook and instead let him hang himself on his own arguments, which also made it harder for her to be labeled 'triggered' or the like over not speaking over him or trying to steer away from his preferred tangents. She'd respond to his points, and he'd change the topic over the inherent traps she reveals in his own logic.
For each of his points made, she had a response to them rather than redirecting the topic. When they discussed the happiness metric she schooled him on why that doesn't work. When he tried to spin it towards Islamophobia she took his words and fit it into a framework of saying there should be no religions in that scenario overall. He effectively had to tangent to new topics because his own logic cannot stand on it's own when confronted with someone who otherwise understands how debate works.
He got worked up enough to make it about her using her phone, attacking the debater rather than the points themselves. He wasn't really calm, he even stuttered at numerous portions and showed visible discomfort when the cheering was against him rather than for him, which isn't something he's usually seen doing in debate.
Again, the question was 'What should women's role in public and private life look like?', and he somehow found a way to spin it towards tons of other shit. When you compare this even to how he did on Jubilee's show 'Surrounded' or even examples on his own channel he's usually better at sticking to topic than this, but once his provocation strategies didn't work at Cambridge it showed a different side to him.
Fighting for women's rights in this day and age is beating a dead horse.
It's really not, if you actually engage with your opponent in the debate anyway instead of making it about mood and vibe.
As I say that some will see red and come charging the way you were wired to, but western women have it good. Just regularly unhappy and prone to regret later in life.
Did you just fall asleep during her point about the happiness metric? You're making the same error of judgement here.
What's ironic about feminism... It requires male blessings so much, it demands it endlessly.
Play Crusader Kings III or something, it illustrates quite well the issues with it as a matter of historical precedence and the required societal structures needed to maintain it.
The reason feminism benefits from male aid is mostly History's role in wealth distribution and the current structures of society. If we have enough time with Feminism as the norm, we'll see 'male privilege' begin to fizzle out.
Charlie Kirk was not about truth, he was about cherry picking farmed reactions to skew a narrative.
That's your opinion along with the types of people you're aligned with.
That's the opinion even of right wingers who otherwise care about debate structure. It's not just the left that has had problems with how he masks provocation as debate, there's plenty annoyed by it over how others could easily model off of it, bringing down debate literacy overall.
I don't care as much about if they argue terrible things, in fact arguing from a 'bad position' can even be admirable over the uphill it presents, but in Charlie Kirk's case he couldn't even stick to the topic. He at any point could have asked to have things repeated to him if he didn't understand it, but he didn't want to address the points at all, preferring to move on.*
Every Charlie Kirk event is recorded, and also the public records it from multiple angles. But I get it. You're upset that there aren't enough shorts of Charlie tolerating a nag, or something like that.
He doesn't show all of his conversations and debates, instead highlighting the ones who were the least capable of answering his questions to the point that people debating with him have had to record it on their own. Also most of his clout comes from Tiktok, and with it the Tiktok format. The video I linked in this case is arguably the exception over him having been informed that the campus was recording the debate, so he re-uploaded it himself and tried to steer the narrative in a neighboring video.
