I never paid much attention to his debates, but from what little snippets I’ve seen, along with the “Prove Me Wrong” schtick seems to indicate he already decided he was right and others were wrong.
There’s plenty of rhetoric and memes already, I’d like to avoid more rhetoric and memes, and I ask this question with genuine curiosity and earnest desire for learning and understanding.
No. He operates as an Evangelical Apologist does. He makes arguments that sound logical and convincing enough, as long as you don’t think about or look into them that much.
I think at Stamford recently his whole argument against gay marriage was completely torn down, and he finally just said, he simply didn’t like it. I’ll look for the video.
He changed his mind to agree with Catholics about the Blessed Virgin Mary. That’s rare for an Evangelical.
So he supported the false intercessor in Mary? That sounds like worshiping the Image of the Beast (the idols the Pope set up) if you ask me.
Do you want a 30 years argument, bringing this up is how you get that
If Christians would go back to crusading against each other like the fourth crusade, the rest of us could maybe have some peace.
yeah too busy crusading against the middle east these days. evangelical interference keeps bibi in power.
Thanks for answering the question properly.
By “properly” you seem to mean “giving me the answer I wanted even if it’s wrong, without any evidence to support it”.
“properly” meaning avoiding meme answers and rhetoric like many other commenters have done, i.e.:
- Once and the message stuck with him for the rest of his life.
- Who cares? He’s dead now.
- I heard he started leaning left shortly before his death.
Lying isn’t any different to using a meme.
Lying isn’t the issue here. “He’s dead, who cares?” does absolutely nothing to answer my question.
Jokes about his death (leaning left, “once for the rest of his life”) does absolutely nothing to answer my question.
But lying does something to answer your question?
I asked for any times Charlie has had his mind changed after debating. Instead, certain individuals have done anything but that.
Why didn’t you answer the question, if you’re so sure every other one is wrong?
Anyone thinking that his mind was going to be changed about his beliefs missed the entire point of what he did. He used the “change my mind” platform almost exclusively to point out the absurdities, the hypocrisy, and the “misinformation” about points that he was an expert on, and where his mind could not possibly be changed because the alternative to his point of view is factually wrong.
When he spoke about abortion, he could never have his mind changed that is it “murder” because it is, unquestionably taking the life of a living thing intentionally. I am 10000% pro abortion, but I do not delude myself into thinking that it’s not the killing of an unborn baby. It is. Factually.
What he did was expose the hoops people jump through to come to their beliefs on very specific things.
If you took his premise as “he will surely change his mind about things that are fundamentally correct, even if you disagree with those fundamentals” then you completely misunderstand the premise. It was for him to try and change other people’s minds by making them try to change his mind and in doing so realise that what they have been brought up to believe is based on misinformation/lies/uninformed opinions.
It’s like if I did a “change my mind” post and said “freedom of speech means hearing things you don’t want to hear without murdering the person saying them” and people came up and tried to argue with me that someone should be murdered for saying they hate all black people, my mind can’t be changed because I am fundamentally and unquestionably right.
He was a very smart man, and he knew exactly what his limits were. Every single topic he brought to discussion was one he was passionate about, and almost too educated one. He could quote pretty much any part of any religious text off hand, laws, the constitition, etc. He would prepare meticulously and read every single piece of literature and study on the topics he was going to discuss so he knew what to argue. His entire career was talking to people about topics that he knew everything about.
Lastly not every minute or discussion with every person he ever spoke to at his events is recorded or available for us to watch. His channel, like every single other channel in existence, only showed the bits that make them look the best - and that was when he made other people change their minds, or when it showed them losing their minds at people daring to have a different view. He’s not going to post a video of him being “wrong”.
Is this satire? Please tell me this is satire
Leviticus 18:26 is the argument used against homosexuality, for it says (using YLT) “And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].”
“My favorite book said so”, isn’t an argument. It’s a delusion.
Who cares? He’s dead now.
The best thing that could possibly come of his death is if nobody ever spoke of him or thought of him again. These people’s power is entirely derived from people talking about them. If it continues long past their death, they may as well be immortal.
Give us a week or two to enjoy the schadenfreude first
Fair, fair
The funny thing is, he will be completely forgotten in a month, even by his putative supporters.
Who’s going around sad that Rush Limbaugh is dead?
He’s just useful to their sadistic cause. That’s it. No one is even sad that Charlie’s dead — but they are absolutely gleeful at the idea of attacking anyone left of Reagan in “revenge.”
He didn’t actually DO anything, just gabbed in the internet. That kind of influence does not last. But there will always be some hateful asshole to take his place.
Once and the message stuck with him for the rest of his life.
Can you provide a reference, please?
.30-06
that’s a lotta damage
I heard he started leaning left shortly before his death.
I think there was one event in Utah were somebody shot an argument about guns being bad, and he thought about it for the rest of his life. Not sure if it changed his mind
slowclap
He started noticing what the Israeli government was doing, and talked about it on the likes of Megyn Kelly’s show, Tucker Carlson’s show, and some others. This happened despite him being a staunch advocate for what was happening in Palestine (and the people thereof dying at the hands of the fake Khazar Jews, of which I’m a partial Khazar who doesn’t practice an Abrahamic religion). Let’s also mention the fact he was Calvary Chappel, and that he took the Mark of the Beast on the right hand (he obeyed the Pope, despite not being Catholic, though following what Rome’s bishop wanted). Not to mention too, while it’s absolutely abhorrent what happened to him, he had some views that would’ve gotten him sent to the lake of fire anyway (due to taking the Mark as I described).
This is all despite the fact he engaged in Socratic debate.
What do you mean obeyed the Pope? You realize I’ve of his last actions was to donate the popemobile as an aid vehicle for Gaza
If he was really going to do it, it wouldn’t be a Popemobile, as Unum Sanctum would be enforced on the Palestinians. They happened to be of the line of Jacob… not the Khazars as claimed by the mainstream.
Fascinating answer, thank you.
My producer (Neigsendoig, a.k.a. Sendo) and I had done some cursory numerology on it as well (we’re both numerologists by hobby), and our souls felt like they sank to the bottom of the ocean once we realized who planned it out.
I’d be happy to DM that if you’re interested.
wut
this sounds like the beginning of an ARG lol
Yeah - at the end, he ended up leaning pretty far to the left
You’re not the first person to make that joke here.
First time I heard it and I lolled
Just like he lolled
You made this?
I made this.
No, but he was rather conclusively proven wrong a couple days ago
Savage.
I hate that my macabre subconscious is trying to cook up a sick burn about bullet points.
What was he proven wrong about?
He lost the debate on gun violence pretty hard
He said some deaths were worth it. I think he made a pretty strong case.
This isn’t the place to get an unbiased actual real answer. No one here has watched anything beyond a clip out of context by a POS influencer.
Yeah, you’re probably right.
He was never in it for personal growth he was in it for financial gains. He was a mere grifter, his opinions were for sale. There is a lot of money in right wing grifting when you reach his level of notoriety. His personal beliefs conveniently always pointed in the direction of money. Worth about $12m when he was executed. He believed in his bank accounts.
indicate he already decided he was right and others were wrong.
That’s kind of a big part of debates, didn’t you do them in school?
You can change opinions over time but you’d lose a debate if you said the other side was right in the middle of it.
I think that’s a problem with debating classes in the US where people lost sight on why debates are useful in the first place.
It should be an exchange of ideas and views, an opportunity to learn, not a training in ways to just yell over your opponent so that then you can just claim you won something. Then again, writing this “out loud” makes me realize that that is the American way, no?
May e that’s where a lot of gains can be made for the next generation. Teach them how to debate with reason AND LISTEN TO YOUR OPPONENT.For fucking once, actually listen, and try to understand, and not stick with your guns even though you’re obviously in the wrong
I was listening to… CBC front burner podcast I think? And they mentioned that he has shifted his position on immigrants. He was quoted in the past saying any immigrant who graduated post secondary in the US should have a green card attached to the diploma.
Then some right wing nutjobs were mad about that and we’re targetting his events and harrassing him until he fell in line.
So yeah. He will change his mind, if he is bullies enough.
Also I think the group that were harassing his events was Nick Fuentas (spelling?) and now some of the coverage is indicating the shooter might have been a follower of Nick? I’m not sure how confirmed that is so do your own research.
But if it’s just right wing nutjobs killing slightly less to the right right wing nutjobs… Idk man.
The guy who killed Charlie was 100% a groyper (Nick Fuentes lackey). The news has been slow to pick up on it, but his socials were full of Pepe memes and he is fully a member of the alt-right. Kirk was killed for not being racist enough. Which is insane
Could also be Kirks sudden pivot to saying the Epstein files aren’t a big deal when Trump made it clear he didn’t want them released. Some might interpret that as aiding and abetting paedophile.
