The debate "Tucker Carlson is the best debater in the world" was started by
March 30, 2017, 10:56 pm.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
mmjd14 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
mmjd14, Pnbshady, thereal, SirIntegra and 3 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, mb2798, TheExistentialist, ProfDoke, Jericho, Alex, JordDorrell, makson and 6 visitors disagree.
so no to watching each other's videos?
adolf hiltler was a public speaker not debater
Tucker Carlson is definitely not "the best debater in the world".
He frequently veils his arguments in appeals to emotion to illicit a retort rather than a response. He's also often quite ignorant of the facts and thus either spews talking points or misses opportunities to challenge points his opposition makes. I'd say he's good if you already agree with his position, as he's able to affirm those ideas through emotional reactions. however, he's not convincing for the opposition.
I'd say that the best debaters aren't very famous. go watch intelligence squared debates on YouTube or debates from the "festival of dangerous ideas" and you will immediately see much better debaters than Tucker Carlson.
Even on the Christian side, I find people like Peter Rollins much more interesting than any argument presented by Tucker. Even someone like William lane Craig has better thought out and constructed arguments and counter arguments than Carlson.
I'll watch the Carlson video of your choice if you watch this John Oliver segment:
he used people's anger. this is a dangerous game. either he does right and it cements people to the Republican party or he fails maybe even crosses the people he promised and he will be burned and the party will reform at best.
and I might point out that trump is a very passionate speaker that draws huge crowds. he too is a pretty terrible leader.
just because someone is eloquent or passionate and able to convince people, doesn't mean they're right.
Adolf Hitler was an extremely passionate public speaker and drew huge crowds to hear him speak. he was a disaster as a leader.
obviously Carlson is not Hitler. I'm just using it as an example of how being convincing is not in and of itself a reflection on the validity of what they are saying.
half the liberals should watch him might change their mind