40 Replies to “This Is A Real Headline”

  1. And your goal was to verbally defeat him. So what’s your point?
    “In a good faith debate, the final goal is to reach consensus. If that doesn’t happen, then a lot of academics would consider it to be an exercise in futility.” — rubbish. In a good faith debate the aim is to discover the truth. In a debating competition the aim is to win against your opponent.

    1. Your ideas are far too civilized to be understood by a brain-washed, leftist university student. Any leftist for that matter. I am so sick of them, their ignorance, hate and stupidity.

    2. Absolutely. Since when did ‘coming to a consensus’ become the goal of a debate? Maybe at at the same time everyone started getting participation ribbons at sports day?

      1. When they use the word concensus, it means accepting their point of view and stifling any apprehension against socialism.

      1. Gee Kenji, here’s what ConservativeTreehouse you keep slandering with lies actually believes:

        “Democrats cheered as government collaborated with tech donors to diminish their opposition, while simultaneously they affirmed some of the evilest enterprises around DEI, TOXIC ADVOCACY FOR TRANSGENDER AND LGBTQ+ IDEOLOGY, THE MUTILATION OF CHILDREN AND FAR WORSE.  Socially their policies became increasingly toxic and ridiculous. ”
        (Bold mine)

        You were obviously banned there because you were a persistent and obnoxious pest.

        1. Our public schools should NOT be teaching 11yo boys how to sukk cawk as part of their LGBTQueer-mutant indoctrination. What’s offensive, or obnoxious about those phonetically spelled words? “Sukk cawk”? Yet the textbooks I was commenting about were far more graphic than those ‘words’ … that ‘rhetoric’. My words were carefully chosen to describe the foul, age-inappropriate, act depicted graphically in our children’s textbooks.

          ‘Sundance’ and his fellow gay editors don’t want TRUTH be told. Not conservative. Not Truthful.

          1. “But, but, but, but, I am Saint Kenji, I am here to deliver the word and I am never wrong, sukk cawk disbelievers”

  2. Oh come on. This is the guardian where they can honestly say that when they print something several words are perfectly true.

    1. Yes….and the great challenge is to try to determine WHICH of the words are true. It’s kind of a version of “Where’s Waldo”.

  3. You know, as recently as a generation ago the purpose of a headline like this would have (rightly) been to mock and belittle the pathetic drips.

  4. Jeezuz. What a bunch of whiny little pussies who never won a thing but only rec’d participation trophies their entire meaningless lives.

  5. 1960: “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
    2020: “Words are violence!”

    In totalitarian regimes, dissent is sabotage: speech is violence against the state.
    The people who believe Charlie’s goal was to verbally defeat them are totalitarians.

  6. “I don’t think Charlie entered debates to come to a common consensus or to discover the truth,” said Mason, a 26-year-old graduate student who debated with Kirk on the YouTube show Surrounded last fall. “I think Charlie came to debates to verbally beat his opponents.”

    The most surprising thing about this quote is that Mason is a 26 year old graduate student and not a 12 year old playing in a sandbox.

    However, if I’m being charitable, his words do mirror those of a longtime Vancouver friend of mine, now in his early 50’s. My friend is frequently insistent that “we must always achieve middle of the road consensus”. That’s a nice slogan but when the opposing view is bat sh#t crazy, why would you possibly want to concede anything to it?!?

    1. “we must always achieve middle of the road consensus” — It’s reminiscent of Thomas Sowell’s point about doing what sounds nice versus doing what works. I’d be curious to know what he feels the “middle of the road consensus” would have been between the Inquisition’s insistence that the earth was the centre of the solar system, indeed the universe, and Gallileo’s insistence that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. Could they have compromised at Jupiter being at the centre?

    2. But, but, but Robert! Obamakkare has infantilzed this 26yo boy. He is still eligible to be carried on his mommy and daddy’s Medical … because he is an ‘artist’ … still studying his ‘art’ or something. Sorry … but this boy is officially, legally, governmentally … nothing more than a 12yo.

  7. personally *l* could never debate Charlie seeing as from what lve seen so far we’se on the same side. more an exercise in compring notes, exploring our individual journeys, finding overlap and consensus that way.
    p.s., in chess matches, isnt the goal to prove via competition whose ideas are correct? in that case by winning the match? is thus losing not a good thing in a way since it is a learning experience? the shared experience thus lasts far longer than just the match or tournament? has anyone ever been shot in the neck prior to any match beginning?
    wtFFFFFFFF is wrong with these people? constantly ‘picking away’ now apparently his entire ‘supposed’ style and motive??

  9. Truth starts and ends with GOD’s holy word, the bible, both the old and new testaments.

    Covers everything, not just the commandments, marriage, gender, life, death, it’s all in there.

    Avoid the maker’s owner’s manual at your own peril.

  12. “Verbally” defeat us. Do you mean, like, literally?

    How the eff else was he supposed to do it in a debate? Physically?

    Wanna bet this Mason guy talks vocal fry?

  13. Consensus and compromise with batsh*t crazy loons as the goal of a debate? Now they would really like that, wouldn’t they?

    As a wise woman once said – pleasing your enemies does not make them your friends.

    RNrn

  15. Just reading the article, without any prejudice, I thought it reported exactly what it was describing without endorsing it.
    I think it’s very important to report the various points of view and although I’m not a huge fan of The Guardian I thought this article was honest.
    As for whether Charlie was there to defeat people, that’s an interesting question. He was definitely there to defeat a lot of their *ideas* and it seems he was successful.
    Of course he had the bully pulpit, but in clips that I saw, he did not abuse it and was respectful to the people who came up to the mic, if not to their ideas.
    After all, nobody had to go up to challenge him, and most of the crowd didn’t.

    1. Read VDH today … as it clearly lays out the MASSIVE swing in young voters to the Republican side between 2020 and 2024. Yes, Charlie WON the argument against decades of leftist ROT in the hearts and minds of young people. Spewing from the echo chamber of our colleges.

      Charlie made the 2024 election ‘too big to rig’. And for that … he was assassinated. The FBI needs to find the entire trail of this murder. As far as it extends.

  16. Notice the graphics they’ve used to illustrate this article. Pictures of Charlie looking angry, with red streaks across his face, juxtaposed with innocent- and friendly-looking students, free of red streaks.

    Says it all really.

  17. ((But his critics are taking issue with any version of his legacy that does not account for the bigoted nature of his arguments.))
    _________________________________

    So I pulled up the quotes that the Guardian considers bigoted. And, every single one of them is based on factual, substantiated truth. The majority deal with a question people have on competence based on the bar being lowered and recruitment being based on the melanin content or sex organs of the professional, and not the meritocracy concept. The positions he highlights are those reflecting risk not just to a single life, but many lives (such as airline pilots). There is absolutely NOTHING bigoted about his points. AND (this is important), there is nothing comfortable about recognizing these truths. This is where is Leftists get lost in the weeds.
    _________________________________________
    ((During one debate, Kirk insisted on the truthfulness of a racist hoax about Haitian immigrants eating their neighbors’ pets.))
    ________________________________________________

    There is a photograph of a Haitian walking down the street carrying a dead swan by the neck that was just procured at a pond in front of a Government building.
    ____________________________________________

    ((“At its core, debate is supposed to be an academic exercise, with the goal being to be forthright and genuine in the information you present,” said Trent Webb, a professor of writing studies and rhetoric and director of the speech and debate team at Hofstra University. “In a good faith debate, the final goal is to reach consensus. If that doesn’t happen, then a lot of academics would consider it to be an exercise in futility.”))
    ________________________________
    Behold “The Participant Class.” They are afraid of the real purpose of debate (which is to discover the truth and persuade ). It’s not an exercise. It’s not a formality. It is a FACT FINDING MISSION to approach the truth. If you want to know why Congress (or any representative government) is slow moving and lethargic, it’s related to a self-proclaimed academic type grasping the title of “expert” telling us that debate is meant to reach consensus regardless of the varying points of view. IOW, make everybody comfortable and avoid the uncomfortable truths. Allow the farcical, to avoid hurt feelings.

    “His goal was to Verbally defeat us.”

    Uh huh. And, he did time and time again. He highlighted errors in thinking, misrepresentation of supposed facts, and deeply held bias of his opponents. And, simply put, they couldn’t take it. The Guardian can’t take it. Because it was uncomfortable and beyond their ken to accept their own deep rooted failings at critical thought.

    1. A debate is where opponents do a battle of words, instead of force of arms in a jousting tournament.

  18. In other words, all our university and college professors in Canada and the US should be fired. All of their savings should be taken away to pay the current and former students they abused. They should be forced to work in the fields to replace the illegals.
    (I had some excellent STEM profs back in the early 80’s, from what I’ve seen lately, even those faculties are garbage)

  19. Generation Participation Trophy is World Class Unclear on the Concept, because they’ve been reared and socialized to believe that there are no losers in life.

    100 million people exterminated by Socialists and Communists in the 20th century show us otherwise.

  21. Are we sure it is not parody?
    Pathetic wee losers of the emoting kind.
    Charlie Kirk’s #1 crime was to hold up a mirror for those he debated to see themselves in.
    An excellent debater Charlie enjoyed what he did and young people gravitated to his honesty.
    The truth will always win.
    For truth is reality.

    Libtards do not live in truth or self honesty.
    Part of why they present as such vicious and pathetic people,always quick to assign the most vile motive to those who question their “wisdom”.

    A sane human has their self worth reinforced by truth.
    If you get the basics right,your reasoning can be reasonable accurate.

    If you insist impossible things must be true,nothing ever works out for you.
    All the “Old Wives Tales” , The children’s fables are cautions of where delusion might lead you..

    We are currently living The Emperor’s New Clothes, on so many levels.
    Yet the Politicians,Media (Govt funded branch) and intellectuals (So they say) insist on the warp ,weave and beauty of the fabrics they claim to wear.
    Yet all I see is naked fools and bandits.
    Ugly,bloated naked fools.
    With goose bumps.

    As they preen and strut, their perversion for all to admire.
    Feeling the cold winds of change,national impoverishment and disbelief sweeping in on them,they have doubled down,insisting they know best,as they demonstrate they know nothing of what is real.

    1. About two thousand years ago they got upset about a guy that pointed out how the high priests of a temple were getting a cut from the merchants selling the sacrificial livestock in the temple courtyard.
      I see a lot of similarities with the academic class of today.
      However I’ll also point out that Kirk was not Jesus Christ, but he did follow his lead.

  22. The idea that a debate isn’t about proving which idea is better than an opposing idea, but about diluting beliefs until everyone thinks the same are usually held by those that think Israel shouldn’t fight back when Hamas tries to kill them.

    1. That’s a good observation. The mentality of being wary of hurting someone’s feelings or outright patronization, at the cost of fact, truth, or even justice is a real problem on the Left. It seeps into all facets of life. Just look at how the justice system has been perverted in that regard. We jokingly ask if a certain criminal has been released on bail yet despite the severity of the crime just based on a photograph of the criminal. That is an example of a position on the Left that diametrically opposed by most on the Right and not one to be compromised.

      In a way, the want us to find common ground in a debate, when the position of the opposition is comparable to a spoiled toddler whose parent (singular on purpose) never told them “NO!” It’s time to start saying “no”, and abandon trying to make sense of or incorporate the Left’s view on a lot of issues.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation