I hate when people "show you how to do it", they're always showing you the back of their hand, like that's supposed to help.

How is this a personal weakness?

Wrong answers only, please.

That's how I was taught to debate.

Unless your positions are mutually exclusive, it's often possible for both parties to justify their position.

From my experience, the zero-sum I'm-right-you're-wrong style of debate started when we started televising them. You may disagree, but I think debate was more productive when we weren't incentivized to score points on each other.

If that's Hegelian dialectics, then I prefer that to what you call debate.

It was half-facetious, but I think a lot of conservatives hear the word "empathy" and think of means this. (Watch the first 60 seconds and tell me you didn't cringe.)

Empathize is a word. It means" to feel or experience empathy", or "to be understanding of".

When I say Charlie Kirk was arguing in bad faith, I'm saying he's he was pretending only the first definition exists and that it sounds like the Jubilee video, when most people use the second definition in real life.

...okay. I'm blocking you now, so I'm literally not including you anymore.

Did you stop reading after the first sentence?

On the one hand, I think everyone hates that person who pulls the "I'm an empath" card.

On the other hand, "empathy isn't real" is a bad faith attack on the concept of trying to emphasize or even understand people that are different from you.

That's what I got from every Charlie Kirk debate I ever saw: a machine gun of bad faith counterarguments.

Debate is about understanding where the other person is coming from, identifying weaknesses in each other's position, and working towards shared truths.

Since he couldn't empathize, Charlie couldn't debate. So he went with the modern debate strategy: I only win when someone else is losing.

How do you know?

I don't understand. The artist also has blue eyes.

Saving the planet doesn't make them obscenely, grossly wealthy.