Remove the “De” and the Title is Correct

When 10 men tell you you‘re drunk, it’s time to lay down. That seems to be the consensus about the so-called debate between Andrew Wilson and Candace Owens concerning the death of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point, an organization to inform young people about politics and moral and ethical values. Since Mr. Kirks untimely death, there have been a number of people questioning the official account, the most prolific and most widely viewed over the Internet being Candace Owens. Andrew Wilson, a self proclaimed Master Debater, challenged Ms. Owens to a debate to prove, once and for all, the state of Utahs evidence against the accused killer versus her thoughts and opinions about said evidence. The outcome was surprising to some, but not to most.

Continue reading

It Was a Fug

Was The Debate a really big event? I don’t know, I didn’t watch it mainly because a) I don’t care, and b) I can waste 3 or so hours of my day doing something else. I may be alone in my assessment of something I didn’t rearrange my day to be a passive participant in, but I haven’t been that interested in the whole topic, ever. I did, however, watch a few different reaction videos based on some posts I saw on X.

Continue reading

The Great (Grate?) Debate

Is anyone planning on watching the lie debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson concerning the Charlie Kirk murder and those responsible for it or not? Personally, I don’t;t plan wasting 3 or more hours of my time listening to something that is probably less a debate and more of a scream fest (at least from one side) and even though it’s been hyped like the Event of the Century, it’s not. A debate is characterized by a proposition presented, with at least two views :, one of which is against the proposition. Most of what I’ve witnessed in my ife as debates wouldn’t come close to qualifying as such and even more, the people invlved are less qualified to speak for or against whatever the topic may be /9think of political “debates”). This one, comng soon to an Internet channel near you, will probably grate at each side without ever answering the proposition. And what will the proposition be? OF course, at the end, each “side” will claim victory because, unlike an actual debate, there won’t be anyone (independent) there to judge which facts are legitimate and which aren’t. wel, at least it will raise the profile of at least one of the participants. Or lower it.

Poignant Debate/Discussion.

Want to see a decent debate over the weekend? You should try this. Yes, I know a lot of people don’t care for Piers Morgan. I do. I like the panels (well, most of them) that he assembles for his shows. This one I think is especially poignant. It’s less than an hour.

Debate Any One? No Thanks.

I almost never debate Christians about their faith or my lack thereof. Why? It’s because when I ask for objective proof of what they say, I receive the same old evidence: The Bible Tells Me So. Of course, some use other sources, but those sources they quote are mostly apologists, people paid to reconcile faith with fact (poorly) and for those that need to justify their faith. Other sources they use, to their benefit are scientific: archeology mainly, but then, non one is arguing that Babylon didn’t exist, or that Nazareth didn’t exist. what we’re discussing is the idea of a god, and in particular, Jesus.

Continue reading