Political debates

I've always thought that, when they happened outside the context of political campaigns, debates can be very interesting because opponents don't make promises they can't keep, dont try to pander their base, , they just share their position and explain why they think theirs are better than their opponent's positions on the issues that are being discussed.

That said, this week-end was Politicon 2017 and it hosted 3 political debates :


Hasan Pyker vs Charlie Kirk
Premium Media Content
Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Ann Coulter vs Ana Kasparian

Premium Media Content
Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread


Cenk Uygur vs Ben Shapiro
Premium Media Content
Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread


First, let's skip the part where conservatives say Charlie, Ann and Ben destoyed Hasan, Ana and Cenk while liberals say the very opposite. This kind of thing isn't constructive.

To be faire, I woud say :
- Hasan Pyker vs Charlie Kirk : Some people would say Charlie destroyed Hasan. That's not my take on this debate. In fact, Charlie didn't even had to destroyed Hasan 'cause Hasan went full kamikaze ands self destroyed. Terrible performance from him. Embarassing.
- Ana Kasparian vs Ann Coulter : I think it was a clear victory for Ana. I wouldn't say she destroyed Ann Coulter but she looked clearly ahead of her on most issues.
- Cenk vs Ben : It was a very close one but I would give Ben a slight advantage.

So in the end, for those who are counting I'd have to say conservatives won.
Conservatives : 2 - Progressives : 1
 

Premium Content

This thread contains exclusive content for our premium community members.

Already have an account?
✨ Unlock exclusive discussions and premium features
Premium Benefits:
Exclusive content • Priority support • Advanced features • Full thread access
Top