Master Debaters

Am i supposed to know who these people are?

Ok all these are me. Having looked at your image for a while now my assessment is that it is utter shit and needs to be completely redone.

he's a presupper so he only uses philosophy as a weapon or a apologetic not as a metaphysical system, so basically a fideist.

Dawson is literally a fact regurgitator whose underlying ideology is just basic bitch libertarianism and Reddit atheism.
Watch his debate against Matt Dillahunty

You have Dyer upside down. He has great rhetorical skills and retarded beliefs.

His ideology is cringe but that’s not why anyone watches his videos. It’s his fact gathering rigor that makes him great.

Vee shouldn't be on the scale

His beliefs are retarded but rigorous. Rigor =\= correct. I pointed that out. He is autismo levels of rigor but an idiot, I agree

I... just don't know why having autismo mode is relevant in the first place.
Is this guy say some unrelated theology in the debate? Then he is just doing ignoratio elenchi.
Is this guy say quite related theology in the debate? Then he is doing proper refutation.
Like, I just don't get what rhetoric skill suppose to mean. That is just normal refutation.

Sorry man, I don't know what you mean. literally.
what is presupper? Why you say he only uses philosophy as a weapon when we talking about debate where everybody use philosophy as a weapon? Why fideist is related in any of this?

If you literally know nothing about theology/philosophy how are we supposed to explain anything to you? jfc. would you walk into a classroom teaching advanced mathematics when you only know arithmetic and expect everything to make sense right away?

the real version

Attached: 1568186188369.png (1510x1353, 242K)

It's a little confusing why you're angry.
I think that literal thing is the most important thing in rhetoric skill; stating facts. Stating theories. I don't know what you mean by saying he's bad while completely excluding that fruit of the tree.

I’m guessing you’re ESL, but this is still a hilariously stupid post

>retarded but rigorous. Rigor =\= correct.
So... you mean "He looks really rigorous in first listen but if you apply logic, then you can see that he is incredibly good at matching contractory things up around and make common sense on it"?

good bait
but fuck fuck fuck i cant take it why is destiny higher ranked in rigor than actual fucking phds arrrrrgh

No, I mean he is internally consistent and knows theology, but his basic worldview is stupid on the axiomatic level

he's not entirely wrong, there's nothing hilariously stupid there. don't let them get you down fallacychad

Ben Burgis is a PhD philosophy professor yet he got his shit pushed in by a gamer who reads Wikipedia articles. The absolute state of academia...

That is a complete slander. Philosophy(debate) cannot truly be that "mathematical." If such an "axioms," in other words Presupposition, is wrong, then you must argue on why that presupposition is wrong.
If you are not, then you're just committing ad hominem, or denying the very value of the debate itself.

...bruh...

Google "valid argument vs sound argument"
The same can apply to a worldview

I only recognize JP, Ben Shapiro, E. Michael Jones, the Fox News guy, Molyneux and Zizek; any brief explanation about the other guys? Is there anyone worth listening to?

Jorjani is the only one there that doesn’t fit at all. He’s not a debater, which is what the thread title suggest. There isn’t a single video of him doing a debate. He’s just an academic with some fairly “fringe” views. Very interesting guy imo

This thread is a crosspost from /pol/. If you're not interested in people arguing about fascism vs communism, then not really.

Any video you would suggest?
To be honest I don't care much about that; I'm also not american and can't relate for much of what they are discussing about.

jay dyer if you are interested in orthodox philosophy

Bruh I know it... I may look like a retard and in philosophy it is, but I've learned many of it. I've learned intuitionist logic in class.
You must argue, in this case, that why that case is unsound, only just valid. That is why I brought up presupposition.
Even Zeno's argument that moving objects do not move became a paradox because it was perfectly valid at that time. And this is always like this. that distinction itself is near meaningless if you look at philosophers in history.

Why is the 'Trump will complete the system of German Idealism' guy listed here?

>Molyneux
>Peterson
>philosophical rigor
lmao

this is pretty stupid and the only one who has anything interesting to say on the image is zizek

The finished political compass.

What do you guys think?

Attached: 1568192972593.jpg (2000x2177, 2.77M)

Anybody who gives a single fuck about ecelebs, especially "intellectual" ecelebs, should be publicly executed

Attached: 1370283727290.gif (245x188, 1.51M)

Why the hell did you put Jreg near the center.

The frequency with which one stutters should be of no relevance to philosophical debate. Zizek is an excellent speaker for the type of audience he has. He would not make a good politician, but that is entirely irrelevant. Also Will Buckley belongs at the far top right.

Didn't he almost win the presidency in his own country?

Jay Dyer is /ourguy/.

I didn't know that, but that sounds pretty amazing He certainly would do terribly in American politics.

master debaters often equals masturbators

Yeah he was in the election, and he almost won because during a debate the main candidate admitted that Zizek was smarter than him. After that Zizek's numbers shot up and he almost won I think. It was a long time ago, before he became famous in the West

Zero accuracy found

Jesus Christ, I guess this is what happens when the colossal nerd who wants to argue about which superhero could lift the biggest rock is also the shooter.

Where does he even belong?

it's all fucking wrong.
>metokur as further right and libertarian than owen benjamin
>varg: a fucking libertarian centrist
>justin murphy an authoritarian leftist

this is all a bit retarded.

Can't find Peterson

Where's Chomsky?

this

They're not engaged in debate, they're engaged in polemics.

In the serious play of questions and answers, in a debate, the rights of each person are immanent in the discussion. They depend on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the questions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of other. Questions and answers depend on a game — a game that is at once pleasant and difficult — in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue

The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied.
Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth....also half these cunts are yootoobers

autism