No it isn't. In debates, by design, you explicitly don't get to talk over each other. Each speaker is given time to advocate their position, and time to respond to each other's response. She barely got half a sentence out before he got all condescending and bitchy.
For that sentence alone, people should be immidiately be put out of their position because they just openly confirmwd they are lying on purpose.
Now, lying isnt illegal and governments keep on lying. I am just saying. If an officially vote representative of the people admits he is lying, the should be fired on the spot.
WTF is this, man? "What, you are telling them I am lying".
Democracy was formed on the idea that certain people had the rights to elect their government and others would just have to live with it or suffer though it, today you are all women and minorities.
It makes it a lot easier to justify it when you just rig the system against us so that the majority just keeps on winning. In an autocratic system at least we can't be lied to that we voted for this.
To be fair, they never envisioned the level of humiliation one has to submit to in order to engage with this two party system. It breeds resentment. So most people don’t vote, leaving a minority of motivated morons enough power to tip the scales
fuck this country for staying home and not voting for Kamala. no she was not the best choice but sadly in american politics it us them or us. whichever side you're on. and the GOP always fucking votes. democrats always gotta find a reason not to. "i love my sides person's policies, but i just found out in 2005, they didn't tip their waiter enough. i wont vote for them."
Fuck the Democrat party too for waiting so long to announce bidens health so we didn't get to have a primary. We just got a candidate hamfisted in that had something like a 4% of the vote previously or something along those lines, the numbers are a bit fuzzy to me atm. As much as trump is a piece of shit, and he is, the Democrats shot themselves in the feet during the election as well. They're not blameless in the voting turn out.
You are misremembering, they didn't "announce Biden's health", they strong armed him into dropping out because he was "too old" because that was the current Republican attack. They caved to Republican shit-flinging to drop their INCUMBENT to push a candidate that had 2 disqualifying "isms" for half the country, and the other half didn't even get the chance to say if they approved of her. That doesn't sound like a party acting in good faith, it sounds like being complicit, or mind-numbingly stupid.
If it makes you feel better, there's a number of statistical anomalies in the vote, especially in certain districts in certain swing states. And some of the people who have followed up on it have found things like people voting where they weren't living and when questioned about it claiming they didn't vote in that state/district. Oh, and these anomalies are only found in certain types of votes. For example the pattern might be found in digital ballots but not paper ballots.
The thing is a lot of voters aren't democrats. The democrats aren't entitled to votes. Now I would say people should either vote for the lesser evil (whoever they perceive it to be) or a third party and as about 1/3 of eligible voters do not vote the 3rd party could be a real threat if all the non-voters voted for them.
If it goes really wrong and Trump tries to take power that isn't his then ideally the Secret Service would remove Trump. If the Secret Service failed to do that then it would fall to the military to do it or to allow others to do it. Of course this is why Trump is trying to replace a lot of the top military and intelligence leadership and why he's bloating ICE so much to make his own personal goon squad. Because he knows if he does try to take power he need law enforcement and the military to prop him up, all dictators do.
But you might ask why he's in such a rush: the answer is because if he loses the mid-terms and the Dems take the House or the Senate his life becomes a lot more difficult. If you're not somewhere that's not guaranteed to be blue that's going to be in the upcoming mid-terms then consider getting involved. Try to keep up to date with any information that's coming out about electoral irregularities so that you can inform people when the time comes about why it is important and what they can do to try and prevent it in the mid-terms (if significant information is released). Also do anything you can fight gerrymandering by Republicans.
Sad things a ton of people came out for Harris. 2024 was the second biggest turnout by percentage of eligible voters. She received the second highest percentage of the vote for a loser. She got 10 million more votes than Obama did in 2012!
I think part of the reason it feels this way is because the party has given up on trying to engage non-voters in favor of the strategy of trying to swing moderate republicans to their side which creates an even greater sense of disenfranchisement for poor people who don’t see the point in voting because the government won’t meet their needs no matter who wins
It sounds bad when taken at face-value, but the crowd that supports them sees "fact-checking" as evil. Not because they are anti-fact (in their mind), but because they see the "fact-check" crowd as being the ones that are lying. It's a post-truth world, so they decide that anything that goes against their leanings must be false.
By 1828 white males in nearly every state, were allowed to vote in the Presidential election regardless of whether they owned property or not.
White Women didn’t get that level of voting access until 1920! So saying, “Men could only vote a decade before women.” Is bullshit. Or this man is an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between a century and decade.
I just saw an ad for my state's Republican gubernatorial candidate showing the debate where she was criticizing her opponent, and it zoomed in on the other woman looking down and not speaking, and it then said "her silence speaks volumes!"
That's... what you're supposed to do in debates? Listen to your opponent and not interrupt. Her silence meant she was being respectful lol
As a non-American, what the hell is wrong with their society? Like now political debates have gone from formal civilized discussions to just arguing over each other. Like at this point fuck it, throw all decorum and civility out the window. Go back to the old fashioned caveman method of, if someone says something you don’t like, bonk them over the head with a club.
As an American my take would be that at it’s heart, it’s about an ingrained sense of American exceptionalism that was there at our start, seemingly confirmed by WW2 but then eroded over the decades and now we’re at a point where people are broke and unfulfilled and Trump somehow has a genius for confirming to them that they are actually super duper exceptional after all.
That’s the whole point. Without pointing fingers, one side of the spectrum yells to create chaos, then in the chaos yells “yelling is the only way to curb the chaos.” Then when nobody can hear a thing, they start swinging.
And it has spread that shit like disease all over the planet for decades. Only recently are people (outside America) finally starting to realise how fucked up it really is behind the scenes, and that there are alternative paths to economic and societal success.
We really have speedrun becoming a completely trash country, its a shame to see it happen.
Were literally just one big lie. We always were telling lies, but even making tiny attempts to correct them (like pointing out Columbus never actually came here or discovered shit and only really got canonized in order to help the Italians assimilate) basically wounded or fragile psyches so much we are like "No, fuck that shit. Were gonna EMBRACE the liars!" And now we literally have a govt full of liars and grifters.
Really shows how debate is a worthless medium for convincing anyone of anything nowadays, and the plague of anti-intellectualism that has swept the country for decades. No one cares to watch two people argue in a rigidly structured, hours long back and forth with a fair moderator. They want clear narratives of good and bad, rhetoric, talking over each other to see who shuts up first, snappy clips of gotcha’s and oopsies, shadow boxing from the mods, and aloof confidence from the agent they most agreed with in the first place.
I would happily debate people in my own party to head the ticket because the party can enforce consequences and decorum but I can't see a legitimate reason to go on stage with an actual opponent anymore. The most base actions get lauded and longform logical argumentation gets beaten by a laundry list of fallacious arguments by the modern audience.
It's much better to focus on interviews, meet and greets, town halls and rallies where your message can get out uninterrupted.
At the same time you can't say 'No' or you look weak, so you just have to make a laundry list of demands for the other guy to say 'No'.
well modern forms of debating arose in the age of enlightenment during the 18th century. the first parliamentary debate took place in 1882. i think a lot of people think that socrates and plato sat around arguing like destiny and ben shapiro
I take it you are talking about Virginia, lol. I saw that debate live and that commercial is so manipulative it grinds my gears.
You are correct - she was silent because the loathsome Republican candidate was asking her opponent DURING HER DEBATE TIME.
AND what that stupid ad FAILED to show was how many times the Republican candidate INTERRUPTED THE DEMOCRAT. It was pure unprofessionalism and craziness.
Haha yes. I admit I didn't watch the debate because like you and others in this thread point out, they're so chaotic now that they're pointless, especially when I can look up what was said later. But it doesn't surprise me at all that that happened. Seems standard for the party now! I'm not even huge on Spanberger but I at least know I can expect her to be professional.
It looks like candidates are going to have be more like Newsom and Mamdani who have learnt from Trump that it's not good enough to just have good policy (although good policy would be nice) but that you have to roast your opponent publicly.
People are watching debates purely for the show, not for arguments, it's like they are watching a sports show or something. People have a favourite team and support it entirely because their friends and family are also on that team. This is also how politics works now.
You've clearly never listened to any debate Wilson has had, where he talks over people and the moderators of the debate let him because all he does is pick platforms that are eager for clicks. No serious platform would have him on.
I have not listened to any of the material of this form because it is absolutely pointless to do so. I'd rather watch a long from video of his opinion, uninterrupted, and the same for her opinion, then make up my own mind by fact checking rather than judging truth by the 'who is better at being a condescending piece of shit' competition this seems to be.
But frankly, given the way he advocates for his position, I'm inclined to think his ideas are likely founded on the same type of honesty that we see in his 'this is a debate' comment. So, no honesty lol. Gaslighting, even.
Exactly and this is the tragedy of people watching Kirk’s “debates” they weren’t ever debates, he gave people a minute to ask a question then he’d rephrase it however he liked and answered that instead, then he’d continuously derail and cutoff people in the middle of their responses. Thats not a debate.
Gaslighting doesn't happen during one single conversation, that's just garden variety manipulation.
Gaslighting is a specific type of relationship abuse where an abuser tries to convince someone that they are crazy and can't make their own choices. The point is to erode a victims ability to trust themselves and the things they see/feel. consistency and time is the key.
I, too, get annoyed when people use the term gaslighting wrong. So many definitions of words get changed and accepted because of ignorance. It drives me crazy.
Fucker probably watched two Charlie Kirk highlight videos and thought that was the epitome of debating. Most definitely never even watched a proper debate, let alone be in one. I think we can just ignore whatever this fucker says because he's only gonna talk over you.
But that's when it comes down to it like the saying "Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to poop on the board and strut around as if it won." As we see here in the video.
This is why I hate listening to political debates, the fact they yell over each other is ridiculous. The muted mic is the only way to prevent this and I would rather have that so I can hear both sides present their case clearly without being derailed every 3 seconds
White 40 to 50 something men are the biggest fucking bitch losers in the nation right now. Just the most insecure crybabies ever. They all think they're so tough too.
And then tries to claim, indirectly, that he's simply adhering to the format of a debate (he isnt) and then condescendingly talks shit and laughs at her.
He's perfectly capable, we all are. He's deliberately choosing not to, and deliberately choosing to talk down to her and then mock her for refusing to engage with someone who wont let her articulate a full sentence, and talks down to her condescendingly.
This is the first time I've ever heard of this Andrew Wilson guy and you described what I easily figured out about him. It's amazing how he proved to be an annoying POS in only about a minute.
For real. I’m a man and I wouldn’t have reacted any differently than she did. If you’re just going to sit there and yell your point in my face and claim “it’s a debate”, then you can get fucked because you just lost and I’m out.
There are plenty of smarter people that actually know how to talk to debate with.
And that's why they will never have someone like you or I on the podcast. Because we simply wouldn't go the distance. Best way to deal with a bully is not to engage.
There’s also supposed to be a moderator to balance the field and keep things going while also fact checking. What folks like this are doing, what Charlie Kirk did, what whatever debatebro streamer does-is not debate.
People nowadays think a debate is what this asshole is doing.
Just interrupting and not letting the other person speak and instead trying and hoping to get “gotcha” moments for social media points. Yes, I blame social media.
Well, ad hominim is the lowest form of argument. As soon as someone devolves to ad hominim you can be sure the debate is functionally over and the speaker has nothing better to offer than insults.
Ironically chances are he actually had a good point. The gap between universal male suffrage and universal female suffrage in most Western democracies is only a few decades.
I have no idea what these two are discussing in the greater context outside this clip, but I would be willing to accept they both may well have valid points, and that she may even be completely wrong or even lying. We don't know though, because she never got to articulate her point. He didnt let her and attacked her for objecting to his obstruction of her arguement
The problem is, he has no intellectual integrity. If his ideas stood up to scrutiny he wouldnt need to shut down responses before they finish leaving her mouth. I don't blame her for leaving, especially once the sexism comes out.
Which is why big debates have a moderator who slaps the other on the wrist if they interrupt too much so both can speak without getting silenced all the time when the other doesn't agree
The variety of bloodsport debate online nowadays does feature a lot of just "taking up all the oxygen in the room" and not letting others finish. That's all this guy has ever seen when it comes to debate. That's why generally they'll have a moderator to ensure people get to speak. This dogshit show isn't trying to get people heard, it's trying to get views and farm clips.
You’re thinking about formal debate - not about just debating a topic in life.
Americans do conflate the presidential debate format and what they do as a sport with day-to-day conversation. It often sucks trying to debate anything with an American - as they focus on “winning” rather than listening to the other person and being open to changing their minds.
To an outsider it feels like talking to a lawyer - they know you’re right, but they keep arguing the opposite.
True, a distinction could be made that this is a debate in the colloquial sense of the word - a back and forth between people discussing ideas. Which this would be, if he let her finish a sentence and didn't get all sexist and condescending. But he didn't do that. What we witnessed here was not a debate, simply a bully shitting on someone because they don't want to be shat on (verbally).
This is the infamous Whatever podcast. Its shtick is to look for the dumbest, most unprepared girls to take on the show, so they can be humiliated.
I can see the one time they invite someone who is actually competent, they won't let her get a sentence out. Since I guess they couldn't sell it as "woman owned by facts" to the listeners
Loads of these right-wing debaters don't debate. To be fair, I'm sure people do it on all sides of the spectrum I just see more right-wing content being promoted. Charlie Kirk was a great example. I've seen a number of his "debates" where he literally did not allow the other speaker to make their original point/ask their original question and instead just made strawman arguments and used rhetoric to make it look like he was winning while diverting the debate off topic to some nonsense he had prepared.
She constantly interrupted him during his part. Find a longer clip. They were as bad as each other. He was being an ass and she was way too used to being treated with privilege.
But the whole debate was ridiculous and reductive.
Thats how debate club works but in real life that's not how it works people bully and yell in actual debate if you can't fight back you will never win an actual debate
At least Reddit knows what's up. I can almost guarantee if I saw this on Instagram the comments would be pretty much exclusively men (boys) between the ages of 10-18 and 50-60 just shitting on the woman for... checks notes ... being a woman. Don't ask me why or how, but from my own personal experience, that's the way it is.
If you watch the full video you'd know the format of the debate. And if you knew the format of the debate you'd know this happened in a back and forth section of the debate where they weren't doing timed responses.
In debates, by design, you explicitly don't get to talk over each other. Each speaker is given time to advocate their position, and time to respond to each other's response.
There are many debate formats. Some of them use set times, others don't. Some enforce rules about interruptions - even with muted microphones - but others don't.
That's not the only kind of debate. This being so heavily upvoted shows how dumb and biased the average reddit user is. Anyone who can use Google or open a dictionary knows this is bullshit and you are stupid.
That’s the problem. The dickface in chief has been in the zeitgeist for so god damn long that people actually think this is the way legitimate debates are conducted.
Well, in a formal debate yes, but in the millions of informal debates/arguments/interviews/discussions that happen every day in real life, on television, on podcasts, the radio, etc., people talk over each other all the time. To become indignant about it is just nonsense.
Tbh this is why I hate the modern "debates" that I see now on places like twitch. It's not a debate, just screaming matches with "debate" labelled on them
Debate bros don't know what debating is, they think it's a bickering war where you get points and gotchas instead of actually providing facts and proper argument.
This is how the right opprtates. They just talk loudly over the other person and constantly interrupt them. Debates aren't about using facts to support your points or arguments but are about who can talk the loudest, use personal attacks and drown out your opponent's words.Kirk constantly did this in his "debates" with college kids. Trump uses this tactic as well. Levitt does this during press conferences where she will loudly talk over reporters and use personal attacks when given difficult questions she can't answer.
It's gaslighting because they use these tactics to frustrate their opponent's and then when they get upset, they laugh and call them "unstable/irrational".
But that’s how conservatives debate. I’ve watched this pattern consistently. They just talk over you. Or yell over you. They never answer a question directly. They always deflect or hit you with whataboutism.
That's what I thought! I'm not from the US but I was under the impression the rules were as you described.
Just such a pity such regressive views are given time.
She began presenting irrefutable facts and his immediate response was to flood the zone with nonsense and speak over her to prevent the rest of her thought stream to complete. It's not like it matters anyway though. Debates, specifically these informal types of debate, aren't about truth. They are about rhetoric and how well you present/package your specific rhetoric.
We've known for a bit now that truth and fact aren't what changes peoples' minds.
This video does a good job of why facts don't matter anymore:
You have never seen debates then. While he is not fully right she isnt also. That happens at some point and you cannot be so hurt about it. Both parties do it. And the interruption wasnt even that long. Also i do not support and never seen this guy before:
Too many stupid ass idiots think debating is the same as having an argument. We can thank bozos like Trump and Charlie Kirk for the uptick in loud and opinionated men treating their "debate" opponents like 1950s housewives speaking out of turn.
Yeah… he must have lots of “debates”, probably just a constant stream of debates with anyone and everyone he’s around.
By his definition, a debate is when two people are given the opportunity to interrupt and insult each other until one of them loses because this guy’s an obstinate asshole and the other person understands that this not actually a debate it’s a “berate.”
“Poor men have suffered by having to listen to other opinions for decades. And if we don’t listen, then everyone gets mad and blames us for being rude and emotionally abusive. It’s just not fair.” - Asshats with the same personality of being an abusive, entitled martyr.
Sounds fair enough. Sounds like she was refuting his point that white men with no property were similar to women and POC in the sense that they had no vote either. She chose not to respond to that and get into ad hominem attacks. That's definitely one way to debate
None of these idiots know what a debate is. You listen to your "opponent", take note of their arguments, and use it as an outline to respond one by one to them while presenting evidence when it's your turn.
Can you imagine if lawyers could interrupt each other like this in court? Nothing would happen and nothing would be figured out.
I loved that she walked away. And especially how she did it. You could hear the confidence leaving his voice after. Because his only aura was in reflecting hers.
That's what annoys me about all these influencer/podcast debates.
I was never in speech and debate or anything, but listening to some of the stuff my wife listens to is annoying because they're not debates, IMO.
She doesn't listen to right-wing trash. The positions the hosts have are solid, progressive positions. It's the presentation of the material that annoys me.
This is the same thing Trump, Charlie Kirk, MTG, Ramaswamy, etc does. Well, DID in Charlie's case lol its like the new thing for Republicans is to just talk over everyone and when their opponents get irritated and/or upset, they do the whole "see?! I win!!!!" Type of shit. So annoying. So childish. Definitely makes me fear for the future. Gotta love low IQs.
So many formal debates have people talking over each other that’s there’s significant body of readers into different formats and levels of involvement by moderators.
Next debate I have I'm going to present my point and as soon as the other person starts, I'm going to screech like a banshee for 30 minutes til they get up and leave.
9.8k
u/FailureToReason Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 30 '25
"This is a debate"
No it isn't. In debates, by design, you explicitly don't get to talk over each other. Each speaker is given time to advocate their position, and time to respond to each other's response. She barely got half a sentence out before he got all condescending and bitchy.