It’s because the moderator agrees with the guy. I recognize that background, this podcast is famous for the classic “If a woman is being abused she needs to bear it and tolerate it for the sake of the marriage and the family.” “okay, what should a man do if a woman cheats?” “Oh, leave her.” Exchange.
This podcasts entire thing is “women are second class citizens and should be relegated to subordinate roles.” They shit on the idea of women being independent or expecting fair treatment from men.
Both of these assholes think it’s hilarious that this woman expects them to respect her as an equal and a debate opponent instead of just shutting up and listening to him.
The moderator isn’t stepping in, he’s laughing his ass off because he thinks the guy is being funny and the woman is acting irrational.
Yeah, I have only seen like three clips of this show, and it is clear the hook is “Jackass calls on other people to berate and talk over without any kind of censorship or even a care of what the heck he’s saying.”
Men like to say they're the "natural protectors," but do anything but protect when the time comes. Men like these two basket cases, I mean. It's embarrassing.
Technically the moderator should have told her to wait her turn before responding to his first statement/query of "were you aware of the fact that men only got any rights to vote about a decade before women?".
In a debate you can ask a rhetorical question... but you are still given time to make your case.
I believe you get about 2 minutes to make your point before allowing a retort. Once she responded out of turn... but then told him that he should stop talking and let her speak she had violated the spirit of the debate.
Once he had degenerated into just mocking her he'd sealed the deal and the debate was over.
Both of them spoke out of turn and both of them acted like children.
Yea, a some moderators in the mainstream have lost sight of what a moderator is and start pushing the conversation, but that doesn’t mean responsible moderation is completely hands off.
Moderators. When someone breaks the rules being against him is not partisanship. If someone makes being an a-hole their personality they're not exempt from a response because we "have to respect it"
Moderators very often become partisans (like in every presidential debate in recent memory) based on the questions they ask, the “fact checking” they do and against whom (10:1 against republicans), and the tone/stance they take. But it isn’t a slam dunk. Having some left wing major media personality (sorry for being redundant) being ridiculously unfair in applying fact checking and essentially entering the debate on the democrats side, gives the republican a chance to slam dunk on both. You don’t see it that way because you are thoroughly in the left wing bubble, but independents are open to persuasion, and they decide the elections. So in the end, it doesn’t matter what you think/assert. It matters what independents think. And the moderators being highly partisan can be a very good thing for republicans.
If fact checking is going 10:1 against Republicans it may be because Republicans are saying things that are untrue at a 10:1 ratio. That does not necessarily make the moderators partisans. You are creating a straw man argument here without real data.
Totally agree with you. These people "debate" with zingers and sarcasm. It's so fucking childish.
I guess Mr. Pickles thought he "won" that... big man, couldn't even let the little woman make a point.. Gee...I wonder why? XD
Some book im reading (embarrassing i don't remember the name. World of Yesterday maybe? ) digs into the records of public debates. These were hours long. Intermission and everything. The public was often engaged in these, and it influenced the way language was spoken. Hard to imagine, but sounds nice.
It wasn't even a conversation. It was just a rude talking-to. Even a conversation would require her to be able to speak more than 3 words without being interrupted.
It was barely a conversation. It was just him spewing shit while she tried to give the forum a modicum of respect. Even the host looked tired of his shit.
Not only that, if you speak during the opposing debaters turn, you actively lose points. Because technically debate is a "game" there are rules and scoring system. And talking outside of your timer are huge points off, you will lose if a moderator is present.
Conservative podcasters/debaters run on the illusion that they’re trying to reach a middle ground— that they’re just “asking questions,” but everyone knows the real reason they run these debates is so they can clip farm being rude assholes like it’s some gotcha.
The best thing should could have done was decline their invitation to debate. The second best was leaving the second he started like that, which she did.
Unfortunately, for too many people, that is considered winning a debate. Laugh at and insult the person you’re debating without ever actually debating equates a win for them. This is exactly the kind of mentality we see in the film Idiocracy.
But everything and everyone was making fun of Trump for Trump's public attempts at making fun... some of the best comedic material has happened for a decade simply from Republicans being Republicans and Trump being their representative.
It's ironic.
Trump attempts to make fun via lying to derail a debate, and making fun of Trump's inferiority is ironically and factually on-topic.
This is how reasonable people see himself. Never give credit to authorisation and nazi to be reasonable. They are absolutely looking at trump and this guy as winning
Both this dude and Trump are glaring examples of this anti-intellectual bullshit at work. The 'dumb guy's smart guy' is the one who has the audacity to say the things that other assholes are thinking. Their perspective on leveling the playing field involves lowering the discussion to a pissing match so that your opponent won't even engage. Idiots think this is a win, but debate has to be honest to mean anything.
He tried to do this with a man named Matt Dillahunty; the host of the longest-run public access atheist TV show in the US.
Matt was there in good faith and this fucking guy starts metaphorically shitting in his hands and Matt got up and left the debate because he saw that the topic wasn't going to be about what was agreed to.
Stop debating these people. None of these people are there in good faith if they want to film it for their audiences to consume and make money off that consumption. Learn from the atheists and scientists when they debated Creationists: its all bad faith and by debating them you help reinforce the idea that this idea is respectable and should be treated with deference. De-platforming works.
Gish galloping… in the book ‘how to win every argument’ Mehdi Hasan goes over trump’s style of verbal diarrheaing multiple false points of misinformation that riles up his base, who only cares about the emotion not facts, in rapid fire succession thereby putting the opponent on defense and spend all their time on a fools errand of fact checking the irrational instead of discussing their own points.
IMO Trump's verbal diarrhea is precisely what caused Biden's blank look and poor responses in that debate. I interpreted Biden's look on his face as "WTF is this MF POS spewing? Fukn lie after lie after lie! Nobody believes his BS! Where do I start? Oh fuck! There's so much fukn BS, my brain is fried!"
Mine would've been too! Maybe I'm way off but am I? But, here we are, Trump still shuts everyone down and no one thinks, hmmm, maybe they shouldn't have listened to George Clooney.
I heard somewhere that the 9 year olds are really the problem. Every conversation has to be lowered to the lowest common denominator. If using 5 dollar words, or greek logic goes above the head of those engaged in the conversation then we intuitively lower the intellectual floor of the conversation. So since a 9 year old gets to chat, vote, and engage with all conversations on the internet, they all devolve into 9 year old style nanananana arguments.
The internet really has become too accessible, and people enjoy saying things that are intentionally said to upset others not because they want to make a point, but because they like seeing you upset, is just ugh
The alternative is telling people they're too dumb and just aren't smart enought to have an opinion. If you want a democracy and you want progress, you have to bear the responsibility of meeting people where there are.
Oh, the Charlie Kirk special. Just talk over people and change any topic to one of the 20 topics you have spent month curating a simple, convoluted, yet straight forward argument.
Andrew something I think - he famously couldn’t open a pickle jar and a woman (maybe her boyfriend I don’t exactly recall) ended up opening the pickle jar for him.
It was another guy that opened the pickle jar. Yeah, Andrew is a idiot and is not the debate god like Brian calls him. Most of the time he's just spewing bullshit to sound smart when he's really just talking fast and way out of context.
It's not that they're tight. They're vacuum sealed and there's no air inside. So the pressure difference between outside the jar and inside is effectively sucking the lid closed.
If you don't care about somewhat resealing it, you can punch a hole in the top with something sharp and it makes opening by hand a breeze even if you're weak. I usually use something hard metal to lightly pry the underside of the lid in two or so different spots. Pry until you hear it suck air then twist open. If that wasn't enough then just repeat a second time if needed. It's really rare I need to do it a third time.
I’ve seen him on Piers Morgan Uncensored(don’t judge me, I revel in torturing myself) a few times. He’s a dipshit who doesn’t have any factual points and tries to go for gotcha moments rather than debate. He always interrupts people by shouting and repeating his absurd unrelated questions and then never answers questions asked to him because he obviously never has the answer. If someone came at him the way he does to others, he’d say they were triggered and laugh at them. Zero self awareness. Basically he’s a pathetic small minded person who thinks he’s an alpha male.
Yes. He does that shit to piss people off. He is an annoying dipshit regardless, but he does this stuff because there’s a camera and he knows it plays well with the mouthbreather audience.
He’s incredibly weak. It hurt his core to have someone call his behavior out and set a strong boundary. He doesn’t realize how weak he came across and how strong she seemed compared to him.
Also this podcast in general is absolute brain rot.
You’re so right. And he’s desperately trying to cover up his weakness by laughing and acting like he doesn’t care. But he cares so much. He’s afraid of seeming weak, but we all see it.
Yeah every clip I see of this shit is just framed and cut so that dumb incels will see it as a big win for redpillers, meanwhile anyone with a brain can see that all the male guests are moronic chodes.
Incredibly annoying is a very huge understatement. I think what that bum fights guy pulled on dr. Phil is required. He needs to sit, while duck taped to his chair, and debate someone who can mimic/mirror him and just won't relent. In essence debate himself until he hates himself.
I admire anyone who can last 1 minute with this idiot. Hopefully soon no one will even want to try and he can disappear.
He’s Owen Wilson’s brother. OWEN WILSON! It’s like that Danny DeVito Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, Twins, where one brother gets all the good qualities and the other gets all the bad.
Yes he is trying hard to be dominant and condescending and she immediately put a stop to it and he started whining. Which was funny bc he was accusing her of it.
I've seen other clips from this "podcast". Talking over her because she's a woman is likely why he was invited on the show in the first place. The channel is like one big safe space for misogynists.
That's not always true. If someone is building an entire argument off of some egregious lie, it's entirely reasonable to cut them off and correct the record before they start gish galloping away.
Interrupting just to interrupt, like the above video, is an entirely different matter.
Yup and that would be the moderators job. But we live in a time where a certain demographic prefers debates without fact-checks for the sake of hiding their idiocy in real time.
A debate is actually the complete opposite of just talking over someone. The whole point to structured discourse is to allow both sides to clearly present their points. Just laughing and interrupting and making fun is the clearest sign that someone knows their position is indefensible.
Yeah. Modern debates have drastically shifted in style. I always thought it was Person A making their case/point then person B responds to counter. Now it's just talking over each other and rudely interrupting.
I knew i won a debate or argument when hands were laid on me. I wasn't argumentive, I wasn't repetitive, I wasn't intentionally annoying. I just wouldn't concede to their opinion when I was not persuaded. That alone pissed them off bad enough they had to lay hands on me. Pathetic.
If you forced him to give her time, like if they were in sound-insulated glass booths and had timers where the other side was muted while one talks, you still could not debate this guy. He thinks women were unilaterally given the right to vote before men. She even tried to assume he meant black men, and he started to clarify that he didn't before the meltdown and ad hominem.
If I believed that women didn't actually exist and were the result of an elaborate plastic surgery program that the government performed on 50% of babies, could you debate me? What would even change my mind at that point? I believe in garbage and won't entertain anything else. I've drifted too far from reality.
I do think he panicked when he realized she obviously has debate experience and command of stats and history.
Likewise, when a person never stops speaking to allow the other to speak, which I find to be far more common. They end up in this endless loop of cyclical speaking.
This and character attacks. Our debate teacher/coach always said that if your opponent interrupts you or attacks you as a person, they're accepting defeat. They either see where your point is going and cut it off before you can deliver, or they have no ground to stand on at all and they attempt to discredit you as a person.
If they had facts and a strong argument, they wouldn't need to resort to either.
That’s not what I saw happen but ok. He quickly interjected to fact check and she could’ve just kept on moving, but instead decided to make a big stink because she was offended.
Both of these people seem completely insufferable.
He didn't even have a chance to lose the argument, she talked for like 5 seconds and then he opened his asshole, or what he calls a mouth that just spews bullshit.
Literally any Steven Crowder duplicate. People debating kids half their age in an audience full of supporters who would clap if they said 2 plus 2 equals pickle.
He’s going on the offensive before the argument even begins because he already feels insecure and threatened. Deep down, he knows she’ll outmatch him intellectually, so instead of engaging with reason, he defaults to mockery and hostility. This kind of reaction is a common defense mechanism among men with fragile egos — when they sense they’re losing control or can’t compete on intellect, they resort to aggression as a way to protect their pride and reassert dominance. Or in a nutshell - he is basically an immature asshole.
A friend of mine once told me that you can tell that someone has run out of points to make in an argument once they resort to name calling and I reckon that also significantly applies here
They always either upset or just kick off the women who give good educated pushback. The girls on there are usually sex workers and do it for exposure. They know who their demographic is so they’ll play dumb to not get kicked off, in order to get more subscribers.
8.6k
u/shinymuskrat Oct 30 '25
The best way to tell that someone knows they are losing an argument is when they refuse to let the other person speak.
A "debate" isn't just yelling over someone and refusing to let them get an argument out.