His debate strategies are designed for a debate judged by an audience jury as opposed to one on one, but they always try to frame it like it's the other way around. I enjoy them, but he's not in there to fight fair.
His appeal towards the audience is all he's usually after, as his tactics tend to stiffle his opponents instead of opening communication. He's in it for the last word, not for the exchange of ideas, but his success within it doesn't just show his talents, but also where we are as people in the modern era alongside other charismas that steal the show.
The points he makes by himself tend to be weaker, usually from putting a few research facts together before jumping to another conclusion that typically isn't fully backed by it. He offers interesting data for conversational styles, but he himself isn't as polished as he makes himself out to appear, and people seem oddly forgiving of his stutter.very perspicaciously and eruditely put my friend.
It really isn't, I even misused some words structurally (like 'charismas') and misspelled stifle.
How would you have said the same thing though?Wow, you misspelled and misused 2 words, aren't u so laid back and not even trying to be intellectual?
See though, it's hard to make points like that without it getting wordy.
We will make sure to treasure your contribution for future generations, thanks for the effort.
Who's "we" in this case?
