Candace cited for example the fact that Robinson's prints were the most degraded amongst all fingerprints on the gun.
Her position was that there are too many suspicious things in the existing evidence, such that she thinks foul play is exceedingly likely.
I do think its weird that a gun shows up and Tyler Robinson's prints were the most degraded.
his prints were on the gun, degraded or not. and people know to wipe a gun after you use it, so that's quite possibly where the degradation is from. i feel like this would be a convincing point if he wasn't himself admitting that he did it
The point I was making is that despite how nutty Candace's views were she approached the debate by rooting her arguments in evidence. Clearly she doesnt know what shes talking about, but my main criticism of Andrew is that he completely failed to defend his own position or even attempt to discuss any evidence of his own at any length. In fact he refused to even define what was the evidence that convinced him, cause he was afraid of queries, which would show his ignorancd.
i don't know if we are talking about the same debate then, because as far as i know she had no positive evidence, only speculative claims such as the degraded prints. which in court would be a bust
when andrew asks her for the positive proof that israel killed charlie kirk, she says her positive proof is that israel positively did it, lol. out of curiosity, how do you think andrew watered down his claims
Andrew went from agreeing that his position in the debate was going to be "there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk" to "im about 70%-30% sure that he did it" and by overwhelming evidence he means he just thinks personally that Tyler did it. He did it in like the first 5 minutes of his opening.
It was the most blatant bait and switch ive ever seen. Super lame. Then he cowardly never bothered to defend his position because he frankly isnt familiar enough with the whole event. Instead he just attacked Candace over some clips his team had prepared. It should've been someone who knows what they're talking about demolishing Candace by walking the viewers through the evidence.
giving those degrees of confidence is being realistic about not having total omniscient knowledge. contrast that with candace saying she was 100% certain israel was behind it
that this is the level of critical analysis just goes to show how cooked people are. and that's not me stanning andrew either, he fumbled this debate by not understanding the objective. he was in there talking about "positive evidence"...you think that concept means anything to candace?
The objective shouldve been him laying out his own evidence and addressing Candace's. Yes Candace is never going to admit shes wrong, but the point is to convince the viewers and to educate people so they dont make stupid inferences.
many are agreeing he fumbled in this regard
That I agree, and the fact that Andrew did fumble the debate by essentially holding Candace to a standard he doesnt hold himself to and I think Candace demonstrated that. Andrew didn't offer any positive evidence himself or argue why its any better than what Candace presented.
And yes what Candace presented was not good enough to make her case. The problem with Andrew was that he apparently feared presenting any case at all. Go to the clip where hes asked one of his tweets that cited the evidence he found compelling - the footage of Tyler and a few other things. He then backtracks on it and refuses to cite any specific evidence. Instead he offers "its all the evidence". He refuses to defend his own thesis.
the purpose of debate itself was candace owens taking the positive position that tyler robinson did not kill charlie kirk. that's not really the place for andrew to explain all of the evidence for tyler robinson committing the crime—everyone had that information already. what was in dispute, was that candace insisted there was sufficient evidence that there was more to the story. specifically, the debate happened because candace has been dragging out speculation for months, and accusing kirk's wife and TPUSA of having killed kirk, etc.
That's my chief issue. We have a bunch of people who can speak to things like the physics of ballistics. People who've done this for 30 years. Invite those people.
might be half a mil for candace to do the next debate
It is the courtroom yes. But I think there is also a place for these things in the public discourse. I dont have as pessimistic a view as you seem to have with regard to public debate on important topics. I think that more public discourse is needed in legal matters, conspiracies, science, math, politics, religion, etc. Its imho much more productive than making the public discourse about... Celebrity gossip.
The experts need the public'a support to function and vice versa, we need experts. We funnel so much money into useless nonsense. Give it to people who do put their lives into public service instead, and promote that.
that would be great, if there wasn't a serious grifter problem. candace is actually doing serious damage to the future of this country by misleading people for her own economic gain
You dont think itll create problems if we have all our experts not communicating to the public about what they're actually doing?
after thinking about it more, there is a place for it. but they need to be platformed by someone who is able to maintain the flow of the conversation and keep it interesting. people come home from their 9-5 and they don't want to see dry material. but there is a place for experts in that framework, to get put on by people who know how to make the content digestible to the normies
Yeah we've come a full circle huh.
no bueno. but life and reality are always in flux, this is just the current iteration, i suppose
