• GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    10 months ago

    Trump doesn’t debate anyone ever. He shows up and steamrolls the other person with his version of reality.

    And when he’s done, he flips the table, shits on it, and then declares victory…

    …and his base fucking eats it up with a -smile.-

    It’s baffling.

    • Instigate@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      The kind of people that eat up his “debating” style are people who treat the idea of an open debate of concepts the same way - that is to say that they’d be flipping tables and shitting everywhere themselves. They’re uneducated and hold unqualified and unjustifiable positions, and the only way to maintain those positions is to simply ignore or reject all rhetoric to the contrary.

      They eat it up because that’s exactly how they’d act when faced with reason, logic, facts or statistics.

      • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s what really throws me for a loop. There are a lot of dumb people that think he’s smart, but there are also a lot of smart people that buy into it too… Is fear really that powerful? It is, I know… But damn…

      • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        But were they debates? Can we really call them that?

        I know that’s what the forum called for, but I saw zero debating.

        Jerry Springer episodes had more debating going on.

        • El Barto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I mean, that’s a nice opinion and all, but yeah. Technically yes, those were debates. That one of the debaters was poorly prepared is another thing.

          In a professional car race, if one of the drivers decides to hit reverse se whole time, is it fair to tell the one that plays by the rules “oh no, you don’t deserve the winner title because that wasn’t even a race”?

          • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            If there were only two cars would it have been a race?

            It was called a race, people expected to see a race, but no race took place.

            It was not a race.

            • El Barto@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yes. It would have been called a race.

              Let’s give you a better example, then. A boxing match.

              One of the boxers just runs around trying to touch the other contender’s butt.

              He gets disqualified.

              The other boxer wins the match.

              What the public (including you) thinks of it is irrelevant. The judges were there and ruled who won the match per the scenario presented.

              • GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                Let me try it this way…

                If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.

                Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.

                Which are you more likely to think? “What an interesting looking dog.” or “Sir, that is a cat.”

                He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn’t a dog.

                How about this scenario:

                You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.

                Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.

                You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.

                Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?

                Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.

                • El Barto@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it’s as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like “sir, this is a poker tournament.” So, no. Not the same.

                  The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn’t follow the usual rules, and it didn’t help him at all.

                • El Barto@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Well, like I said, that’s your opinion. A bit dense in my own opinion, but if it’s yours, it’s yours.