Steven Crowder by associating with racists and white supremacists has endorsed those views

Sorry to hear that. I would create the debate again but I got other stuff to do.

I tried to juggle too many things in my life at once.

What happened?

Dang it.

" I am sure I can eventually make him look like a dumb dumb."

Press X to doubt

>> But I've heard Steven Crowder say that he never edits or take out things in his videos and that everything is 100% there.

Have you watched his Change My Mind? He fast-forwards them to the parts that have people talking. I think he sits there for a couple of hours so if he actually did release the full video unedited it would be a couple of hours.

>>Wouldn't you think it'd be some kind of challenge debating him since he's very smart (it seems) he knows his stuff, talks really fast and has his sources right on the spot. Dunno, perhaps it's an intimidation tactic but he's very well spoken

Yes he knows the facts that in the folder but that doesn't actually mean he is smart. If he cheats and changes definitions around then I can complain about that but if he works with my definitions then he can't win.

>> there are some things I agree with him on in certain Change my mind segments, like the Abortion ones. (Pro-Life) and of course I definitely agree with him and I'm on his side of there are only 2 genders.

Okay but doubtful Steven has a better argument than I and since I haven't seen him just leave a debate. I am sure I can eventually make him look like a dumb dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pP7GhiCqmA

Watch this, the vox adpocalypse is a disaster, Crowder doesn't hate gays

bmd ~ Yeah it means queer, pretty sure. It's just the "G" part that gets paid attention to the most. The gay slurs such as fag can be offensive but I am unsure if Steven said fag. Either way, it was made apparent that he said slurs.

"Why should it matter if people get offended?" - Well simply, because it's offensive

"They don't have to watch his content." - But what if a gay fan supported him and watched him all the time? And now this happened & at this point, yes they can choose not to watch him *anymore*

omar ~ But I've heard Steven Crowder say that he never edits or take out things in his videos and that everything is 100% there. Wouldn't you think it'd be some kind of challenge debating him since he's very smart (it seems) he knows his stuff, talks really fast and has his sources right on the spot. Dunno, perhaps it's an intimidation tactic but he's very well spoken and there are some things I agree with him on in certain Change my mind segments, like the Abortion ones. (Pro-Life) and of course I definitely agree with him and I'm on his side of there are only 2 genders.

You have 9 days so more than a week.

I'm working too much this week, can't commit to a debate right now

Queer isn't a slur. Isn't that what the Q im LGBTQ stands for? I could be wrong.

Why should it matter if people get offended? They don't have to watch his content.

Can't prove someone's intentions. I don't know why he was not gay Jarrod. I'm assuming they knew a gay Jarrod and it was some kind of inside joke.

It is doubtful he would put me in the final cut. He does kind of remove content from the Change My Mind segments so if I really made him look bad. I think he would not even show it so I would be hoping someone records me beating him with whatever topic or I just get someone to record it.

I wish I could actually see you and Steven Crowder sit down and have a Change My Mind segment in a video on YouTube, that would be interesting

I understand he's a comedian, but certain lines shouldn't be crossed especially when it comes to race or homophobic slurs. The LGBT is a very sensitive community. It wasn't like Steven beat around the bush with what he said, but it was in your face and he let it be known how he feels. I'm sure many people who are gay would be offended by that. I do like Steven Crowder but I won't be that bias to ignore some wrong things that he does. Even so, I still watch him. Now if he says the N word that wouldn't be right because it would offend me since I am black. "He also adds "not gay" "half asian" before his employees' names sometimes." Why though? What if some of his employees are gay? Makes me question if he really is against gays. It's as if "not gay" = "thank god my employee isn't gay" in his mind.

But hey if I'm looking to deep into it and if these allegations aren't true against him and if he's somehow sincerely joking, let me know and explain more.

Countless examples...provides none. I'm cool with ending this squabble.

:D

>>Could you perhaps name a few outrageous claims of mine so that I can defend them?

No you should have done that when you made the claim. I am not going to find countless examples you didn't substantiate instead I rather not spend more of my time discussing this.

Do you want to end this without ad-hominems or name-calling or can you not help yourself?

Let's agree to disagree until you decide to create a debate that I would accept or you accept a debate that I created.

I haven't personally heard claims of Crowder being racist outside of the normal mindless slurs against all conservatives. I need to see why he is claiming this

Could you perhaps name a few outrageous claims of mine so that I can defend them?

Where was the research shown by your claims? Oh wait there wasn't any.

I don't have an ego more so a standard you don't follow. You make claims that don't make sense and are not supported.

If you need to look at my claims before you accept the debate. That would mean you won't accept any debate because in order to see my claims you are required to accept my debate.

I discussed the "homophobia" issue with you and a couple of your irrelevant hypotheticals. I haven't accepted because I need to look into these claims of yours. Unlike you, I don't have an overinflated ego that would require me to accept after such insults. I research before I spout out ideas unlike you

I'll add that I have the burden of proof so that the opponent only needs to rebut my claims sufficiently.

That's understandable. I'll give BMD a chance first. I'll think about it, and check if I have time. Since its Con, there shouldn't be too much research involved for me to provide a decent challenge to your arguments.

>>I want someone like BMD

If he was going to accept the debate he would have done it by now.

>> I'm asking so its clear what it is that Con is signing up for.
>>Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?

I can argue both ways. I am sure not the answer you wanted but that is all I want to give and I don't want to change the title. I like it.

I don't want to waste my time with you imbecile

"If I answer that question would you accept the debate? If not why are you asking? "

I want someone like BMD to have the first shot over myself since I don't really watch the show and my history only goes back a couple of weeks. I'm asking so its clear what it is that Con is signing up for. It doesn't seem reasonable for me to accept on condition of finding out what I am accepting.

You are here still talking to me instead of accepting a debate thinking it would be an easy win.

What is your excuse? You like wasting your own time.

your not? your classic excuse is i don't want to waste my time BOOO HOOOO

Guess you are a coward and an admirer. I would be thankful but you are Dr.Franklin.

I don't want to Waste my time!

Ayyy remember that excuse

>>Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?

If I answer that question would you accept the debate? If not why are you asking?

If you both think you can win why aren't you accepting?

Is it because both of you are actually liars who don't actually back up their words with action?

Why would I use the facts that I possibly use in the debate?

Several ad hominems thrown by you yet you are too much of a coward to accept the debate.

Are you arguing that if he allows a known racist on his show, and both people end up not talking about race, that Steven Crowder would be endorsing racism?

If the debate is supposed to be centered around this

"Steven Crowder by associating with racists and white supremacists has endorsed those views"

Then some random joke should only be used as supporting evidence. I would think that Omar can be held to the burden to prove that A) Steven Crowder is associating with racists, and B) that the association with those racists constitutes an endorsement of racist views.

The thing is, Steven is a comedian, so Omar is just going to take some random quote way out of context (as he loves to do) and make wild claims about him. I don't expect this to be a wholesome debate.

We discussed other topics, of which he was blatantly wrong. I haven't done any research on Steven being a racist, but I might if I get bored.

easy win for Con

If you feel confident about the debate, accept the challenge.

You're trying to compare it to concentration camps just to try to demonize Republicans. Don't be so intellectually dishonest. Honestly, you're almost as narcissistic as Rational Madman:
Evidence:
"If you don't understand how Steven Crowder is propaganda I can't help you".
"I don't think I need to waste my time to show the statistics when I pretty sure I am right."
"I either get too frustrated with the awful arguments he makes mixed in with the bottom of the barrel jokes or stick till the end wondering where my brain cells have gone."

You sure are opinionated, but that is about all I can say. Never back anything up with facts, but you claim to rebut my points. Bravo, my dude, bravo.

I don't want to rebut your other points. I am going to stick to this. Try not to make this longer than it needs to be which is partly why I am got tired of responding to a debate.

>>Swear words are inherently bad

How?

Context matters when using certain words, so I don't know.

If you called yourself words, yes you should expect the same from others. If you can't respect yourself, why should anyone else?

Swear words are inherently bad, my dude. They are negative no matter what.

Ok, lemme fix the typo. Should have been obvious from the typo because I said that Autism was inherently bad without using connecting words like both x x and autism are bad.

Lemme find those statistics, and again: typo.

"Why do you care about what people do with their own time that isn't impacting others in a harmful way unless of course you harmed by Mexicans and gays being represented by media" you said I must be against their representation because i think it is somehow harmful to me. You ignored my point entirely, but okay

>>I guarantee you won't advocate for white people when they are a minority.

If they are being picked on the majority then yes. Do you actually have anything to guarantee I won't or isn't only your word?

>>You concede that these groups aren't oppressed, then you bring up the fact they are a minority.

Where did I concede anything? Them being a minority is important.

I said I won't waste my time with the concentration so I won't. It clear to see you don't know what you are talking about because you don't know what a concentration camp is and included a whataboutism in it as well.

>>Okay, inject your personal foolish opinion about Crowder without citing any examples. :)

How about supposed to educated a person who believe propaganda? If you don't understand how Steven Crowder is propaganda I can't help you. Why not accept my debate instead of debating me here?

I am not replying to anymore comments. It is a waste of my time. I have already rebutted your claims and like your other rebuttals they were insufficient.

>>I generally don't support using the n-word.

Not answering the question again.

>>Carlos is a self describes "queer". Check his Twitter.

If I call myself the n-word should you call me by that?

>>Saying something isn't inherently bad means: there is nothing negative about it

Where did you get this. If something isn't inherently bad then it would mean in circumstances it can be used in a bad or good way.
Not inherently bad = nothing negative does not follow. Is the n-word inherently bad? No. It is due to the context. If there wasn't any slavery the n-word wouldn't as bad as it is now. You even mentioning inherently bad goes to show what you don't know because not a single word ever is inherently bad.

>>thanks for quoting me and proving I'm telling the truth.

"Ok, being gay and Mexican are inherently bad." I thought you would understand what you said. You are saying being gay and Mexican are inherently bad. Can you not read or something? I am proving you think being gay and Mexican are inherently bad then you contradict yourself later on.

>>I challenge you to evaluate hate crime per capita statistics.

per capita? I don't think I need to waste my time to show the statistics when I pretty sure I am right. This might not be enough for you but please go try and find statistics of your own. Make sure it is per capita.

>>Cite exactly where I said Mexicans and gays being represented by the media hurt me or anyone.

Quote me saying that. All I see is you saying being Mexican and gay are inherently bad.

I guarantee you won't advocate for white people when they are a minority. You concede that these groups aren't oppressed, then you bring up the fact they are a minority. So what?.....

I think it is funny that you bring up obama-era "concentration camps" and blame it on republicans. However, they aren't concentration camps. There is no slave labor or genocide going on there. Just detaining people who sneak into our country illegally and try to siphon off of our strong economy and take advantage of our generous social safety net. Detaining criminals...

Okay, inject your personal foolish opinion about Crowder without citing any examples. :)

I generally don't support using the n-word.

Carlos is a self describes "queer". Check his Twitter.

Saying something isn't inherently bad means: there is nothing negative about it.... that is my position, thanks for quoting me and proving I'm telling the truth.

Being white doesn't mean I'm less likely to be treated bad based on my race. I challenge you to evaluate hate crime per capita statistics.

Boy, you like to put words in people's mouths and be deceptive, don't You? Cite exactly where I said Mexicans and gays being represented by the media hurt me or anyone. I'll be waiting...

Omar : "I am guessing you are talking about the gene that influences skin color. Yes they are brown and from Mexico. The Mexico part is all that is needed to call them Mexican since the definition does state a race can be a grouping based on shared social qualities. Shared social quality can be geographical location. "

I'm not referring to anything in particular, but I would assume that someone is referring to an underlying biological distinction as being the source of shared social qualities, if that is how race is constructed.

Mexicans are all sorts of colors, like Americans are

>>Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
I think there is a biological element that should be mentioned, and if its not rigorously defined, I would assume race to be a sort of social construct with a biological connotation or a genetic factor. I assume when someone says "Mexican" they are referring to an ethnicity or nationality, and if there is a racial element, that would in all likelihood be multiracial.

I am guessing you are talking about the gene that influences skin color. Yes they are brown and from Mexico. The Mexico part is all that is needed to call them Mexican since the definition does state a race can be a grouping based on shared social qualities. Shared social quality can be geographical location.

>>These people aren't in a cultural that oppressed them today

They are still a minority.

Republicans are deporting family they care about while using concentration camps (don't actually contest with this because I can't actually take you seriously because a sliver of research into concentration camps would yield you the knowledge that in fact US are using concentration camps).

I can make more examples for blacks and I haven't done the research to see if those very arguments are true for Mexicans as well. I think they are but that is just my opinion.

>>I think that Carlos is trying to play the victim to get his political enemy banned.

Think what you want. YouTube say what he did and acted upon it.

>>They debunk a lot of his videos.

When watching Steven Crowder now. I either get too frustrated with the awful arguments he makes mixed in with the bottom of the barrel jokes or stick till the end wondering where my brain cells have gone. It is like watching other propaganda channels. You learn less about the specific thing when the video is over if you take them seriously.

Race: A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

I think there is a biological element that should be mentioned or implied as underlying the physical or social qualities, and if its not rigorously defined, I would assume race to be a sort of social construct with a biological connotation or a genetic factor. I assume when someone says "Mexican" they are referring to an ethnicity or nationality, and if there is a racial element, that would in all likelihood be multiracial.