You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 16340133? ago 

Name one time he used a fallacy.

0
0

[–] 16341908? ago 

"Facts don't matter".

0
0

[–] 16340957? ago 

Go through his debate videos. He has one where he's talking to some crazies about flat-earth and UFOs; and he uses the argument 'do you really think you are smarter than all these people who came before you'? (Appeal to authority). He also ridiculed the one guy for working in a warehouse and implied that due to his 'bad job' he should not think that he is intelligent or capable of making an argument (ad hominem). He regularly uses rhetorical devices to exploit his often awkward and nervous callers. There's a host of other things he does regularly as well that I am not bothered to list. I pointed this out in one of those videos (either the flat-earth or the UFO one; and no I am not a flat-earther, not that it should matter) and I got shadowbanned (and still am to this day) from his channel.

0
0

[–] 16340960? ago 

Moly certainly has his flaws, but the way you write this makes you seem like you're sad some retards got owned by some of the laziest/easiest methods of argumentation.

Arguing/debating is not always about arguing just the facts, sometimes it's about shaking someone out of their beliefs.

Yes, understanding logical fallacies is absolutely necessary when you're trying to have a productive conversation.

But when trying to change minds or undermine someone's beliefs, rhetoric is far more valuable.

When someone won't even consider the facts, because they're so embedded in their illogical beliefs, sometimes you have to employ rhetoric and a few logical fallacies in order to undermine their beliefs, before they're willing to look at the facts with an open mind.

Try going full autistic mode and just reciting facts to a person who is directly opposed to you. They'll play you and turn the crowd against you. Additionally, unless you're willing to get stuck in the mud of semantics, you're going to need to Google that shit each and every time they challenge a statistic you bring up.

Writing a book or giving an instructive speech is where you want to avoid logical fallacies and is where you have the chance to just bury people in facts and statistics, but when you're arguing it's far less solid ground and you need to be clever in hoe you avoid their debate traps, while catching them in your own.

Discussion, speeches, educational books/classes, etc; that's where being logical and succinct matters.

Debating? You're a moron if you think you're going to change any minds by rattling off stats.

0
0

[–] 16340951? ago 

Everytime he justifies jewish global power based on iq and christianity banning usury, without giving it the same investigation as he does say S Africa, which he incidentally completely omitted the role that jews played in apartheid, gold, diamonds and then the ripping apart of apartheid when it suited.