Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "THE STEVEN CROWDER SAM SEDER DEBATE ft. H3H3" video.

@Sinvx While that might be true, this all begs the question: Crowder is marketing himself to fans based on his rhetorical skills... and not on the fact that his worldview is, you know. correct?
37
@Sinvx How exactly does that negate the need to discuss whether ideas are true? If anything, that uncertainty makes debate (for the sake of ideas, not debate itself) more necessary! None of what you said genuinely explained why Ethan having Sam debate was wrong. You just called it a bunch of names, but never logically explained what was wrong with the situation. "This was about Steven and Ethan".."this is just wrong".."this is an embarrassment"... I didn't hear any arguments in there, did you?
18
@Sinvx Are you trying to suggest that Crowder's fans know he's wrong, or just don't care— and they just like to hear him talk?? Fucking insane.
17
@Sinvx In the context of what Crowder does, and the purpose of his platform— it isn't unethical. He's a right-wing personality, debating people not for the sake of debate itself, but to promote his ideology. I can't recall when Crowder said he debates as an art form. So for a different person to debate the same exact topics, seems in line with what he'd have wanted to do with Ethan anyway. I don't see any breach here. What substantively changes? (Btw, I actually am debating for its own sake here, at least partially— and I have respect for you replying to all these comments. Thank you.)
12
@Sinvx I wasn't twisting words, I arrived at a conclusion based strictly on what you told me. Ofc no one's completely correct, but I was asking why Crowder wouldn't debate Seder— if he's advertising his ideology as true, 'rhetorical decency' shouldn't be an obstacle for him. His ideas (from his pov) are true, no matter who he's discussing with, right? So 'no one's view is 100% true' didn't answer whether Crowder was claiming to be ideologically correct, and shifted to whether it was genuinely true. Why do that instead of just addressing Crowder's flaw in his justification? That avoidance suggests either a misunderstanding of my original question, or intentional dodging— hence my conclusion, that you didn't object to my original assertion about Crowder not caring about truth but rhetoric instead, and just wanted to move on.
9