The "Liberal brit" did not state that Charlie was incorrect, rather he was cherry picking evidence to fit his point. If you consider yourself an organization based on facts then it is important to give the situation context or else it will create misconceptions. I do not believe a human under the sun wants misunderstandings, but removing context from evidence when making a point may be an indicator that your goal is not the education of the people but rather to fit an agenda. (Yes all organization's have an "agenda" however stating that you hold truth to the highest point while having what some may call a bias is a clear indicator that you are not who you say you are) I hoped I cleared up any confusion.
It's not even hard... "It would still be a fetus. She's having a baby shower because she's GOING to have a baby. It's not a baby yet 🙃" I don't even believe that and I could argue it better than he did.
@@briancleveland6115 @1:17 was the question about abortion where he refused to answer. He's asked about a hypothetical baby shower and what the baby would be called if she had an abortion afterwards. If I were trying to argue his point, I'd say that presumably, if she's having a baby shower, then she intends to have the baby in a couple months or whatever. She's GOING to have a baby, it's not a baby yet. It's technically still a fetus at that point. So if she then has an abortion, it's called an aborted fetus.
No, his argument was "You cherry pick evidence and do not bring the full context of the situation, while parading around a so called 'lens of truth' which may lead to several misunderstandings and misconceptions." Taking away context from a statistic does not mean you are good at arguing, it means you have a bias.
@@theyelloworder2218 name all the successful socialist countries where anyone can start with dust in their pockets and become a millionaire. I’ll wait. We’ll all wait
@@theyelloworder2218 when you're arguing subjective measures, it makes zero sense to do what the kid was suggesting which essentially boils down to arguing against yourself. Nobody can objectively identify, e.g. what country on earth is "the best". How do you define "best"? Maybe my definition is different from yours. Charlie makes his cases for why he thinks his opinion is correct and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's not his job to counter argument himself - that's what his opponent is supposed to do.
No, he dislikes the fact that Charlie cherry picks evidence to fit a point, that does not mean you are good at debating, it means you have an agenda. BTW, I do agree with a lot of points that Charlie makes and I believe that he is good at debates, I just believe this may not have been his most "shinning" appearance. I hoped I cleared up any confusion.
Other than Charlie the others on the stage didn’t quite understand what the guy was saying, or if they did they just ignored it. Candice embarrassed herself tbh.
You are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
I find it interesting that those who promote socialism/communism state that every country that has embraced and failed at these concepts state that they haven’t been implemented properly. Yet, if it was adopted in the US, it would be practiced properly. SMFH
If a woman makes it through pregnancy all the way to the Baby Shower, which is typically thrown for her & the father in the 7 or 8th month and she then decides to have an abortion I’d call her a scammer! And a cruel one at that! I don’t understand 3rd trimester abortions! I don’t see the point of it.
His first mistake was using Google, which is known to misconstrue things by not bringing up certain search results. It doesn't always do that, because it would be so incredibly obvious, but it's there, it happens.
"I don't want to do this." So, he wants to cite things that Charlie says, and complain about them, but doesn't want to have to explain why/where Charlie is wrong. Oh, and it's not actually open for discussion. He's there to harangue, not debate. (insert eyeroll here)
I am a Texas Conservative and these titles/headlines are always embarrassing and cringey. It's why I skip the videos. Just make your point in the title with intelligence. You're not a super-hero to anyone and there is no need to "humiliate" anyone to build yourself up. It's weak.
He is trying to say that he does not like the way that Charlie cherry picks evidence to fit his point of view, this is because it can create misunderstandings and misconception and is the number one ingredient to an "echo chamber". Being able to disconnect context from facts and statistic does not mean that you are good at arguing, it means you have an agenda. I hoped I cleared up any confusion.
They would be able to argue for abortion a lot easier if they were willing to admit that it is indeed a child in the womb… even science agrees that it is a baby at that point
So he wants Charlie to debate by presenting facts that supports his view while at the same time he wants him to prove himself wrong, that defeats the purpose! It’s illogical! … smh
No, he does not want Charlie to cherry pick evidence and create misconceptions. your tearing context away from statics does not mean that you are better at debating, it means you hold an agenda. I hoped I cleared up any confusion.
Tbh, I kinda got where everybody was coming from. Obviiously I agree mostly with Charlie and his crew, but the bible character looking guy did have somewhat valid points……I think..
@@patmcbride9853 so probably more like 20 or so. Have you ever noticed that when you hear it and have it pointed out, the “Ums” are the only thing you hear?
After listening to this guy, I have no idea what his point is. It sounds to me, as the other gentleman on stage said: that you agree with Charlie, but you don't like the fact that he is well prepared. And his argument based on math tells me that he thinks that if the answer is close, then that's good enough.
omg... you can just tell how annoying the guy is just by his intro...."Sorry I'm not as articulate as I could be..." in that cool/bored attitude.... We are not worthy!!!
The second Charlie starts pushing back on him, he crumbles and nervously forces the movement to another topic in an effort to make Charlie look bad and stupid.
I’m slowly becoming a hardcore fan of this organization, the only thing I don’t like is the titles for these videos. Can’t you show the same respect in the titles that you show during the debates?
@@Sentinel82yes funny. I was more referring to democratic socialism that works with a smaller homogeneous population, but libs don’t like those data points.
He is trying to say Charlie is playing semantic word games by playing a semantic word game. I do agree Charlie's 'point' is sometimes a semantic point rather than having actually meat/evidence, but the side he is arguing in favor of is usually the one the is right based on the evidence anyways.
@@liarwithagun I disagree Charlie will explain his points pretty in depth most of the time in general but especially when someone asks him too lol that's kind of his thing
@@theyelloworder2218 I don't trust any search engines because I don't know what algorithms they use...so it is impossible to know if they are Left/Right or Center. Instead I look at all points of view and ask people what they know. Of course there are always books if I have the time.
He’s not saying Charlie should do the job of someone debating him he’s saying he should tell the whole story not just the part that works for his worldview especially if the rest of the facts Water down the point he’s trying to make. He’s also saying it’s not about a debate if one side is not being honest. The guy is completely right. It’s dishonest and manipulative to omit facts that relate to your argument and weaken it.
This guy was probably the best and most genuine speaker i've seen on a segment and this time it really seemed like you ganged up on him just to TRY humiliate him in an honest venue
He was just really bad at making his point, which I do agree with. He just needed to give one clear example, and he didn't have a si gle one ready before he started speaking.
@@liarwithagun true. speaking in front of a large group like this if you aren't experienced can ruin any planned points you may have. he was obviously nervous and having 4 "professionals" jump on you makes it worse. they had real chance to educate him in this case, but instead focused on ridicule. that was unfortunate for the entire audience imo.
I thought the “guy” was very clear with his question and it was very obvious what he was asking and yet the panel tried to twist it into communism. FYI I’m a conservative and the individuals on the panel do state facts whereas liberals are more about emotion but this guy’s question was fact based and I can totally understand his frustration after restating his case.
Yeah, I agree. I’m glad to have finally found a comment that didn’t just blindly agree with the misrepresentation of the panel. For the record I am a big fan of Charlie but this particular video disappointed me
I agree with the guy pointing out that Charlie does do semantic games. And I do think it does undermine his points some by doing those semantic gotchas instead of filling his points with actual meat and evidence. It doesn't help that this guy tries to use semantic games to say Charlie sometimes does semantic games, not having any self awareness that he is literally doing the exact thing he is accusing Charlie of doing.
I believe the questioner is trying to say the facts cited are correct but the conclusions are not. If we take 9 male pilots and 1 female pilot it would statistically be true that the best pilot would be a man. But it would also be true that with 9 female pilots and one male that the best pilot would be female. The larger the sample size the more distribution. So if the ten worst cities are democrat, but most cities are also democrat that doesn’t necessarily mean democrat is bad. The problem with the examples I gave is that there is nothing inherent in men or women that would make either sex better at flying. But democrat and republican philosophies are very different when implemented.
Yea I think Charlie actually answered his question in the beginning with the further clarification about how Republican control allows those cities to be better. It was when Candace started talking that everyone got confused on the point he tries to make. Maybe there is not enough clarification about Charlie’s purpose and whether it’s to educate/inform, debate or both. If it is to educate, there is truth to what the guy is saying and Charlie should explain an issue from multiple sides but Charlie has shifted to more of a debater
To be fair, the guys argument that the top 10 best cities are also democrat run is BS, as he is basing that on GDP in the study, which being a resident of California as I am, does not equate to a good city or better living. California has one of the GDP higher then most countries, yet leftist democrat policies also have created some of the highest crime, highest cost of living, unaffordable housing, low job creation, and largest homeless problems in the nation. California was a great state back in the 1980's and 1990's, but since democrats have taken over as governors over the past 30 years, have nosedived the state into one of the worst states to reside in today. So a city like Los Angeles will be listed as a great state for GDP, yet it is also one of the worst cities to live in due to cost of living, which does not correlate to being a positive for the American citizen. I hope this helps bring some clarity to why his argument is basically a strawman argument based off his data.
As a side note, if democrat cities and states were such good places, people would not be moving to red states in droves to escape democrat policies. Hell, California is treating illegal immigrants better the veterans these days and giving more taxpayer money to the illegals care then people who fought for this country. Sad reality
Men can problem solve quicker being far less likely to panic, have better hand eye coordination and better reflexes. There are good female pilots but I think men are more suited to be flying planes. If Katherine Wright’s brothers were never born do you think she would have invented the airplane?
@@FalconPunch1978 Perhaps I could have chosen a better example (I had piloting on my brain at the time) but the point was not that men and women are identical, it was that comparing a small sample size to a larger sample size the larger will tend to have greater distribution, higher highs and lower lows. That assumes the samples are not fundamentally different like democrat versus republican philosophy.
4 against 1, all spewing their speculated interpretations of the 1's views. I'm a fan of all these people. But this guy got ganged up on. I would have given up, a mic drop, and walked off.
“Baby” shower IS just linguistics and does not prove when it’s a human life. We also have bridal showers but it doesn’t make the woman a bride or guarantee she’ll get married-she is hoping to be a bride. I think both the left and the right fail with abortion conversations in the way they make it seem like it is so black and white. I personally overall agree with what Trump did-leave it up to each state, but allow for exceptions-regardless-in the case of rape, incest/molestation of a minor and substantial risk to the mother. I think religious zealots who would force a child to have a baby after being molested are just as crazy as those who see nothing wrong with an abortion at 5 months, when a baby is fully formed.
@@thedescendergrimoire7893 sins of the parent? Are you referring to rape? This is why I think it’s more nuanced. I personally think each state should decide for themselves, but I think there are exception. Yes rape is one of them, but I still think it should be limited to 6-8 weeks before heart beats and brain activity… Im not saying it’s ideal but in most cases (unless they are a child molester or Hitler) I will pick the ALREADY FORMED human being living’s health over a fetus…. No, not as plan b…. No, not 3 months in…. But a person who is ALREADY here, who is saying I cannot survive going through this trauma…. I think we should listen to that and instead of being weird about babies who will be put into foster care and have. High chance of turning to drugs and having terrible lives without parents and the burden of being a “rape baby”-yes, 100% I do think within the proper window of time, that woman should be able to have support to put her first rather than a fetus. A woman who is raped and then treated as lesser than her unborn baby is sick imo and not Christian at all. Some people are strong enough to go through it, and I love that there is support out there…. But if she can’t, she should have that option.
@@audreyxatomic"A woman who is raped and then treated as lesser than her unborn baby is sick imo and not Christian at all." So you mean it must the unborn must be treated less because they are made by rape? So, are they not equal to their mothers? " burden of being a “rape baby” Yes rape is one of them, but I still think it should be limited to 6-8 weeks before heartbeats and brain activity" What are you advocating? The baby also brings the burden of the sins of the rapist? Are you also punish them with the death penalty because they are “rape baby” Do you mean because the baby is being conceived by rape he/she is not innocent and have no human rights at all?
@@thedescendergrimoire7893 you are being willfully ignorant because you quoted my points…. I think EVEN with rape, there should be a cut-off of 6-8 weeks when heartbeat is found….or your comprehension is low-but I’m guessing you are choosing to not want to hear a different perspective. And like I literally said, I almost 100% yes will put the physical and mental health of a living person over a fetus. And clarified-I don’t think that for a grown woman that extends till 5 months…. Maybe 10 weeks absolute max-unless she is a child or she is at risk to giver birth.
Not everyone has seen every single video. I have watched a lot and have never seen this one. If you've seen it, close the video and move along instead of whining about it.
Charlie: "It's dark outside."
Liberal brit: "I don't understand why you just didn't say the sun is not up? Wouldn't that also be true?"
Haha!! Well said!
The "Liberal brit" did not state that Charlie was incorrect, rather he was cherry picking evidence to fit his point. If you consider yourself an organization based on facts then it is important to give the situation context or else it will create misconceptions. I do not believe a human under the sun wants misunderstandings, but removing context from evidence when making a point may be an indicator that your goal is not the education of the people but rather to fit an agenda. (Yes all organization's have an "agenda" however stating that you hold truth to the highest point while having what some may call a bias is a clear indicator that you are not who you say you are) I hoped I cleared up any confusion.
He was too cowardly to answer the question about the abortion
It's not even hard... "It would still be a fetus. She's having a baby shower because she's GOING to have a baby. It's not a baby yet 🙃" I don't even believe that and I could argue it better than he did.
He wasn't there to answer questions. He was there to complain that Charlie presents actual facts; but won't do his opponents' job for them.
@@fractal_3But it's not a going to be a baby shower..
@@briancleveland6115 @1:17 was the question about abortion where he refused to answer. He's asked about a hypothetical baby shower and what the baby would be called if she had an abortion afterwards. If I were trying to argue his point, I'd say that presumably, if she's having a baby shower, then she intends to have the baby in a couple months or whatever. She's GOING to have a baby, it's not a baby yet. It's technically still a fetus at that point. So if she then has an abortion, it's called an aborted fetus.
@@fractal_3 You missed the point, the point is that a fetus is a baby and a baby is a fetus and calling it a fetus doesn't make it not be a baby.
Dudes argument is literally "you present facts in an articulate manner and it's persuasive" 😂😂😂 Uh, yeah, EXACTLY 😅
💀💀💀💀
This is precisely why liberals have zero reason to ever run or lead anything
No, his argument was "You cherry pick evidence and do not bring the full context of the situation, while parading around a so called 'lens of truth' which may lead to several misunderstandings and misconceptions." Taking away context from a statistic does not mean you are good at arguing, it means you have a bias.
@@theyelloworder2218 name all the successful socialist countries where anyone can start with dust in their pockets and become a millionaire. I’ll wait. We’ll all wait
@@theyelloworder2218 when you're arguing subjective measures, it makes zero sense to do what the kid was suggesting which essentially boils down to arguing against yourself. Nobody can objectively identify, e.g. what country on earth is "the best". How do you define "best"? Maybe my definition is different from yours. Charlie makes his cases for why he thinks his opinion is correct and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's not his job to counter argument himself - that's what his opponent is supposed to do.
So he hates the fact Charlie is a good debater who brings facts to the debate.
Okay.
Facts are poison to the left.
No, he dislikes the fact that Charlie cherry picks evidence to fit a point, that does not mean you are good at debating, it means you have an agenda. BTW, I do agree with a lot of points that Charlie makes and I believe that he is good at debates, I just believe this may not have been his most "shinning" appearance. I hoped I cleared up any confusion.
@@theyelloworder2218 I mean, sure, I guess.
"You bring facts but you must bring all the facts." 😮
Basically he thinks they should debate themselves.
Other than Charlie the others on the stage didn’t quite understand what the guy was saying, or if they did they just ignored it. Candice embarrassed herself tbh.
i'm a big Candice fan, but she was very rude to him
Guys a headache.
As somebody who has mostly always agreed with Charlie Kirk, I hate the way they are running this guy around in circles.
He did it to himself.
What a Wally !
Wannabe dollar store Karl Marx
You are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
I find it interesting that those who promote socialism/communism state that every country that has embraced and failed at these concepts state that they haven’t been implemented properly.
Yet, if it was adopted in the US, it would be practiced properly. SMFH
He must be single.
Or in open relationship
He’s still a virgin.
BIG OOF BOYS
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
These people just want to be noticed,they know they are wrong they think it's making them look smart.
After this, he may change that want.
Hearing these liberals give headaches
And hunger😂
He must be an absolute delight at Thanksgiving.
We don't do 'Thanksgiving' in the UK, thank goodness as these people would and it as 'White privilege'.
He's British and we don't celebrate that. But I know what you mean.
We would say: "I bet he's fun at parties".
This guy is a total airhead
I actually thought, he spoke, and articulated himself quite well.
My god what a waste if time that guy is
Jibberish
What a little 👸❄ not wanting to talk about the abortion topic.
That he brought up.
No one was humiliated.
Sounds like he needs to try composing his argument - assuming he has one.
His debate is he doesn’t like how he phrases things? What?
5 “ehms” in the first 10 seconds.
Nice one Charlie.
My goodness, this guy is showing his ridiculousness every time he opens his mouth!
If a woman makes it through pregnancy all the way to the Baby Shower, which is typically thrown for her & the father in the 7 or 8th month
and she then decides to have an abortion I’d call her a scammer! And a cruel one at that! I don’t understand 3rd trimester abortions! I don’t see the point of it.
His first mistake was using Google, which is known to misconstrue things by not bringing up certain search results. It doesn't always do that, because it would be so incredibly obvious, but it's there, it happens.
Facts don't care about your feelings.....Ben Shapiro
"I don't want to do this." So, he wants to cite things that Charlie says, and complain about them, but doesn't want to have to explain why/where Charlie is wrong. Oh, and it's not actually open for discussion. He's there to harangue, not debate. (insert eyeroll here)
This guy is the left in a nutshell.
British Wendigoon.
Thank God Wendigoon is based and not like this “guy”
Soy soy soy soy soy soy
Boi boi boi boi boi boi
When did canelo Alvarez start holding mics for Charlie kirk
Lmfao 😂 I didn’t notice that, I went back and took a look at him…. 😳😲. It does
I can't believe how to use guys survive
I am a Texas Conservative and these titles/headlines are always embarrassing and cringey. It's why I skip the videos. Just make your point in the title with intelligence. You're not a super-hero to anyone and there is no need to "humiliate" anyone to build yourself up. It's weak.
what is he even getting at......nothing cause these people cannot think logically
Exactly!
He is trying to say that he does not like the way that Charlie cherry picks evidence to fit his point of view, this is because it can create misunderstandings and misconception and is the number one ingredient to an "echo chamber". Being able to disconnect context from facts and statistic does not mean that you are good at arguing, it means you have an agenda. I hoped I cleared up any confusion.
@@theyelloworder2218 No confusion here. Just nothing of substance from any of the people he talks with.be
I don't understand, honestly, what he went up there to do....
British ...good grief
What does it profit to talk to leftists?
This kid just set him self up for absolute destruction XD I LOVE IT LOL! this panel wasn't there to play or be played!
They would be able to argue for abortion a lot easier if they were willing to admit that it is indeed a child in the womb… even science agrees that it is a baby at that point
This guy's got way too much time on his hands
I bet his parents were so happy when he finally moved out.
So he wants Charlie to debate by presenting facts that supports his view while at the same time he wants him to prove himself wrong, that defeats the purpose! It’s illogical! … smh
No, he does not want Charlie to cherry pick evidence and create misconceptions. your tearing context away from statics does not mean that you are better at debating, it means you hold an agenda. I hoped I cleared up any confusion.
This guy is a giant baby! WOOOW! This is pure comedy!
Tbh, I kinda got where everybody was coming from. Obviiously I agree mostly with Charlie and his crew, but the bible character looking guy did have somewhat valid points……I think..
This guy just wasted all our time. He wants a balanced opinion on a debate?
How would one phrase: “you can’t fix stupid”?
What's the total "um" count on this guy?
I bet he's not picky about the "facts" the people he agrees with are putting out.
I started counting from 3:40 when I saw your comment.
The answer: 1$
@@cpmow831 LOL!
@@patmcbride9853 so probably more like 20 or so. Have you ever noticed that when you hear it and have it pointed out, the “Ums” are the only thing you hear?
@@cpmow831 Um, yeah.
After listening to this guy, I have no idea what his point is. It sounds to me, as the other gentleman on stage said: that you agree with Charlie, but you don't like the fact that he is well prepared. And his argument based on math tells me that he thinks that if the answer is close, then that's good enough.
omg... you can just tell how annoying the guy is just by his intro...."Sorry I'm not as articulate as I could be..." in that cool/bored attitude.... We are not worthy!!!
The second Charlie starts pushing back on him, he crumbles and nervously forces the movement to another topic in an effort to make Charlie look bad and stupid.
I’m slowly becoming a hardcore fan of this organization, the only thing I don’t like is the titles for these videos. Can’t you show the same respect in the titles that you show during the debates?
Unchecked socialism does not work and unchecked capitalism does not work.
Checked socialism doesn't work either. 😂
@@Sentinel82yes funny. I was more referring to democratic socialism that works with a smaller homogeneous population, but libs don’t like those data points.
wtf did he even say
He is trying to say Charlie is playing semantic word games by playing a semantic word game. I do agree Charlie's 'point' is sometimes a semantic point rather than having actually meat/evidence, but the side he is arguing in favor of is usually the one the is right based on the evidence anyways.
@@liarwithagun I disagree Charlie will explain his points pretty in depth most of the time in general but especially when someone asks him too lol that's kind of his thing
This dude is wrong but I do wish Charlie linked his sources
Linked his sources while talking?
@@Frug4l no just in the descriptions. Or just on his website
Well, he did get the guy to do some research.
@@patmcbride9853 yeah that’s true but still it would be nice to inform your audience
(Leftist) Google chooses the most reasonable response backed up by facts and studies? How can someone be that ignorant?
What engine do you use to find more informed and credible statistics?
Google ain't no saint but I haven't found a better tool.
@@theyelloworder2218 I don't trust any search engines because I don't know what algorithms they use...so it is impossible to know if they are Left/Right or Center. Instead I look at all points of view and ask people what they know. Of course there are always books if I have the time.
@@beehive5835 Oh, I did not know that search engines use algorithms, I personally just try not to get stuck in an echo chamber. Thanks for responding!
He’s not saying Charlie should do the job of someone debating him he’s saying he should tell the whole story not just the part that works for his worldview especially if the rest of the facts Water down the point he’s trying to make. He’s also saying it’s not about a debate if one side is not being honest. The guy is completely right. It’s dishonest and manipulative to omit facts that relate to your argument and weaken it.
The four on stage seemed to have had their feelings hurt by what the guy was saying, which was… get this… FACTS. Lol.
Guy had a good point, but I agree with Candace, it would be better to get facts yourself to debate Charlie.
This guy was probably the best and most genuine speaker i've seen on a segment and this time it really seemed like you ganged up on him just to TRY humiliate him in an honest venue
He was just really bad at making his point, which I do agree with. He just needed to give one clear example, and he didn't have a si gle one ready before he started speaking.
@@liarwithagun true. speaking in front of a large group like this if you aren't experienced can ruin any planned points you may have. he was obviously nervous and having 4 "professionals" jump on you makes it worse. they had real chance to educate him in this case, but instead focused on ridicule. that was unfortunate for the entire audience imo.
I thought the “guy” was very clear with his question and it was very obvious what he was asking and yet the panel tried to twist it into communism. FYI I’m a conservative and the individuals on the panel do state facts whereas liberals are more about emotion but this guy’s question was fact based and I can totally understand his frustration after restating his case.
Yeah, I agree. I’m glad to have finally found a comment that didn’t just blindly agree with the misrepresentation of the panel. For the record I am a big fan of Charlie but this particular video disappointed me
I agree with the guy pointing out that Charlie does do semantic games. And I do think it does undermine his points some by doing those semantic gotchas instead of filling his points with actual meat and evidence.
It doesn't help that this guy tries to use semantic games to say Charlie sometimes does semantic games, not having any self awareness that he is literally doing the exact thing he is accusing Charlie of doing.
So the snowflake says CK is "mean" for presenting facts devoid of feelings........LOL!!!!!!!
Anyone know what event this was? Would love to watch the whole thing
I believe the questioner is trying to say the facts cited are correct but the conclusions are not. If we take 9 male pilots and 1 female pilot it would statistically be true that the best pilot would be a man. But it would also be true that with 9 female pilots and one male that the best pilot would be female. The larger the sample size the more distribution. So if the ten worst cities are democrat, but most cities are also democrat that doesn’t necessarily mean democrat is bad.
The problem with the examples I gave is that there is nothing inherent in men or women that would make either sex better at flying. But democrat and republican philosophies are very different when implemented.
Yea I think Charlie actually answered his question in the beginning with the further clarification about how Republican control allows those cities to be better. It was when Candace started talking that everyone got confused on the point he tries to make. Maybe there is not enough clarification about Charlie’s purpose and whether it’s to educate/inform, debate or both. If it is to educate, there is truth to what the guy is saying and Charlie should explain an issue from multiple sides but Charlie has shifted to more of a debater
To be fair, the guys argument that the top 10 best cities are also democrat run is BS, as he is basing that on GDP in the study, which being a resident of California as I am, does not equate to a good city or better living. California has one of the GDP higher then most countries, yet leftist democrat policies also have created some of the highest crime, highest cost of living, unaffordable housing, low job creation, and largest homeless problems in the nation. California was a great state back in the 1980's and 1990's, but since democrats have taken over as governors over the past 30 years, have nosedived the state into one of the worst states to reside in today. So a city like Los Angeles will be listed as a great state for GDP, yet it is also one of the worst cities to live in due to cost of living, which does not correlate to being a positive for the American citizen. I hope this helps bring some clarity to why his argument is basically a strawman argument based off his data.
As a side note, if democrat cities and states were such good places, people would not be moving to red states in droves to escape democrat policies. Hell, California is treating illegal immigrants better the veterans these days and giving more taxpayer money to the illegals care then people who fought for this country. Sad reality
Men can problem solve quicker being far less likely to panic, have better hand eye coordination and better reflexes. There are good female pilots but I think men are more suited to be flying planes. If Katherine Wright’s brothers were never born do you think she would have invented the airplane?
@@FalconPunch1978 Perhaps I could have chosen a better example (I had piloting on my brain at the time) but the point was not that men and women are identical, it was that comparing a small sample size to a larger sample size the larger will tend to have greater distribution, higher highs and lower lows. That assumes the samples are not fundamentally different like democrat versus republican philosophy.
Why are you still posting this interaction? This happened years ago
4 against 1, all spewing their speculated interpretations of the 1's views. I'm a fan of all these people. But this guy got ganged up on. I would have given up, a mic drop, and walked off.
“Baby” shower IS just linguistics and does not prove when it’s a human life.
We also have bridal showers but it doesn’t make the woman a bride or guarantee she’ll get married-she is hoping to be a bride. I think both the left and the right fail with abortion conversations in the way they make it seem like it is so black and white.
I personally overall agree with what Trump did-leave it up to each state, but allow for exceptions-regardless-in the case of rape, incest/molestation of a minor and substantial risk to the mother. I think religious zealots who would force a child to have a baby after being molested are just as crazy as those who see nothing wrong with an abortion at 5 months, when a baby is fully formed.
really killing an innocent because of the sins of the parent.
is that your solution?
@@thedescendergrimoire7893 sins of the parent? Are you referring to rape?
This is why I think it’s more nuanced. I personally think each state should decide for themselves, but I think there are exception. Yes rape is one of them, but I still think it should be limited to 6-8 weeks before heart beats and brain activity… Im not saying it’s ideal but in most cases (unless they are a child molester or Hitler) I will pick the ALREADY FORMED human being living’s health over a fetus…. No, not as plan b…. No, not 3 months in…. But a person who is ALREADY here, who is saying I cannot survive going through this trauma…. I think we should listen to that and instead of being weird about babies who will be put into foster care and have. High chance of turning to drugs and having terrible lives without parents and the burden of being a “rape baby”-yes, 100% I do think within the proper window of time, that woman should be able to have support to put her first rather than a fetus.
A woman who is raped and then treated as lesser than her unborn baby is sick imo and not Christian at all. Some people are strong enough to go through it, and I love that there is support out there…. But if she can’t, she should have that option.
@@audreyxatomic"A woman who is raped and then treated as lesser than her unborn baby is sick imo and not Christian at all."
So you mean it must the unborn must be treated less because they are made by rape?
So, are they not equal to their mothers?
" burden of being a “rape baby”
Yes rape is one of them, but I still think it should be limited to 6-8 weeks before heartbeats and brain activity"
What are you advocating? The baby also brings the burden of the sins of the rapist?
Are you also punish them with the death penalty because they are “rape baby”
Do you mean because the baby is being conceived by rape he/she is not innocent and have no human rights at all?
@@thedescendergrimoire7893 you are being willfully ignorant because you quoted my points…. I think EVEN with rape, there should be a cut-off of 6-8 weeks when heartbeat is found….or your comprehension is low-but I’m guessing you are choosing to not want to hear a different perspective.
And like I literally said, I almost 100% yes will put the physical and mental health of a living person over a fetus. And clarified-I don’t think that for a grown woman that extends till 5 months…. Maybe 10 weeks absolute max-unless she is a child or she is at risk to giver birth.
@@thedescendergrimoire7893 you cannot claim to be about loving people and saving them if you do not try to save the souls already on earth.
Recycle old footage lol
Em...em...em....em...em. Yah buddy, you aren't articulate.
Do your fucking homework buddy
Old video.
Re-upload. 😬
Not everyone has seen every single video. I have watched a lot and have never seen this one. If you've seen it, close the video and move along instead of whining about it.
>listens to Hasan
Opinion immediately rejected
😂😂😂😂😂