Sargon of Akkad

[Martin Hash]

I could take Milo easily in a written forum but in live debate, his mind is too fascile.

[Speaker to Animals]

Really, Shapiro would technically lose to Spencer because a simultaneous defense of Israel and assault on white ethno-states constitutes an inherently contradictory worldview unless you admit the tribalism position of Alt-Right thought. If you want to argue some universal principle as a defense of that, then good luck, because you will come across as a hypocrite more likely than not. If you simply admit the contradiction arises from your own brand of tribalism, then point goes to Alt-Right by default. They want the same thing that Jews have. The only save is to go after them on their antisemitism, but Spencer is not so foolish to walk into that.

[Martin Hash]

I could take Shapiro on subjects I’m immersed in, but again, only written. Live, that guy’s a buzz saw.

[doc_loliday]

I could take Milo easily in a written forum but in live debate, his mind is too fascile.

Milo just picks low hanging fruit, is provocative, and gay. His shtick was funny for a bit, its just boring now.

[doc_loliday]

I could take Shapiro on subjects I’m immersed in, but again, only written. Live, that guy’s a buzz saw.

Shapiro is sharp for sure. He was just on Dave Rubin a week ago or so.

[Martin Hash]

I could take Milo easily in a written forum but in live debate, his mind is too fascile.

Milo just picks low hanging fruit, is provocative, and gay. His shtick was funny for a bit, its just boring now.

Two-thirds of a debate is entertainment. Milo doesn’t have to be right, he only has to be clever.

[Speaker to Animals]

Richard Spencer is actually very good at debate. There's not really any shame in losing a debate to somebody like that. Sargon is highly overrated. A more interesting debate would be between Peterson and Spencer.

Both Sargon and Peterson represent the last dying gasp of liberalism. Sargon is just a pleb, though. Peterson has some interesting ideas, but he tends to wander a lot. A debate with Spencer would be difficult for him. But that's the debate he needs to have if he wants to take this to the next level.

What would Peterson and Spencer debate...whether America should be a white nation again?

Peterson is trying to save liberalism (the Enlightenment project). Spencer is trying to kill it for the most part. Granted, the Marxists want to kill it too, and Peterson spends all his efforts fighting them, but they probably will not succeed, their continued antics only helps the Alt-Right, and only attacking them merely ushers more normies on over to (at least quietly) supporting some Alt-Right positions, if not the ideology.

If Peterson is to succeed (indeed, if Liberalism is to survive), then a solid defeat of the alternative right is required. It's not optional and you don't get to smear people and walk away as if that is victory.

[GloryofGreece]

Richard Spencer is actually very good at debate. There's not really any shame in losing a debate to somebody like that. Sargon is highly overrated. A more interesting debate would be between Peterson and Spencer.

Both Sargon and Peterson represent the last dying gasp of liberalism. Sargon is just a pleb, though. Peterson has some interesting ideas, but he tends to wander a lot. A debate with Spencer would be difficult for him. But that's the debate he needs to have if he wants to take this to the next level.

What would Peterson and Spencer debate...whether America should be a white nation again?

Peterson is trying to save liberalism (the Enlightenment project). Spencer is trying to kill it for the most part. Granted, the Marxists want to kill it too, and Peterson spends all his efforts fighting them, but they probably will not succeed, their continued antics only helps the Alt-Right, and only attacking them merely ushers more normies on over to (at least quietly) supporting some Alt-Right positions, if not the ideology.

If Peterson is to succeed (indeed, if Liberalism is to survive), then a solid defeat of the alternative right is required. It's not optional and you don't get to smear people and walk away as if that is victory.

So you think that Peterson want to save liberalism and by that do you mostly mean Republican form of government and a mostly capitalistic form of economy? Wouldn't his basic defense simply be its the best social system we've ever had (while far from perfect) so what makes Spencer think you can or should just wash it away and replace it with some form of a more collectivist Ethno State?

[pineapplemike]

I could take Shapiro on subjects I’m immersed in, but again, only written. Live, that guy’s a buzz saw.

Shapiro is sharp for sure. He was just on Dave Rubin a week ago or so.

His debate with Sam Harris a few weeks ago was worth a listen, pretty sure they discussed it on Rubin's show. I'm generally a fan of both and thought Shapiro outclassed Harris a few times. I suspect Harris felt the same way after listening to the intro of his podcast where he reflected on his role as a moderator and how much or how little he should involve himself in the debate. Meaning he could have involved himself further but chose not to to remain impartial, which he wasnt. Still thought he did a fine job as moderator though, even if Eric Weinstein was effectively the moderator during the second half.

[Okeefenokee]

Shapiro is normally pretty good, but did pretty bad when he debated Cenk, imo.

I didn't score it that way.