British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

Hi, I'm sorry if I'm not as eloquent as I could be. It's strange to see them in person. I'm a little interested in the pun, specifically Charlie, because I've seen most of you online, but also Candace. I'm afraid I don't have anything I like to ask, but specifically Charlie, um, a lot of the puns you use and a lot of the sources you turn to, like statistics, which you're very good at, like increasing stats. and launch. um, I was wondering where you collect your sources and if you make them easily accessible, of course, would you like to name an example that I can cite to you now, um, I don't question it.

The things you say are objective, it's more about how they are expressed and how they are presented to us. For example, what you just said now about abortion, could you quickly remind me, side businessman? I'm sure I'll do the first. one I say a celebration of a pregnancy, why do we call that event a baby shower and not a fetus shower? That in itself sounds like "Oh, sure, well, that means there's a cultural acceptance of the idea that it's a baby before birth, but that's just it." a linguistic and cultural way, that's what I call it, I'm pro-choice for example, but I would still call it a baby shower, that doesn't mean I culturally accept the idea that it's a baby, I'm just using a linguistic extension, there is a meaning deeper.

Let's play this, it's fun, so if the person having the baby shower decides to have an abortion right after the baby shower, what is that called inside her? I don't want to do this, if it's okay, I don't want to. to do it, see? obviously, can I use a different example? If the abortion is raising too much dust, say it again. Can I use a different example of a factor? Okay, so the first thing I saw with you was your politics. debate with hassan that was the first thing I saw of you um and you said uh you probably still remember it, but it was that the ten worst cities in America were run by Democrats, yes, the poorest, the most murderous, yes, of course, so I looked at it. above because I wanted to read about this and there was no source on the video mirror I had seen and that was correct but it was also correct that of the top 10 cities the majority were Democrat and across the board on average most cities they're democrats so the fact that you took it out of the totality of the fact that the majority is democrat the best city is democrat and the worst is democrat and you chose to just say the worst is is democrat the best cities are democrat so refers to the most prosperous refers to the richest in the same way that yes, so the city, the study that I found that reflected their statistics said that cities tend to be more urban, areas tend to be more left as it is, but when Republican mayors are actually allowed the opportunity to govern, the results are remarkable, um, so let's juxtapose cities versus states or even in the, if you want to extrapolate what my argument in the lab was really talking about.

In the theory of democracy, which we all believe in, it is when certain states are allowed to have juxtaposed policies and contrast them with each other. There are enormous differences, so the most prosperous, most job-creating and most entrepreneurial states are those with Republican governors and low-tax and low-regulation policies. and there's a correlation between the most murderous, the most dangerous, and the most sincerely desperate areas, and Candace grew up in one of those that was almost always dominated by Democrats, but when you allow those Republican policies to be instituted, those communities change pretty quickly, so that uh, and another one was that you said that I think it was that life expectancy in Cuba was 15 years less than in the United States, yes, if the government doesn't kill you, but well, I also looked for it and found it there.

There was no information on that and in fact, Google's definition which is based on uh, cites a lot of different studies, fills it all in and puts it all together, um and chooses the most reasonable answer that is backed by

facts

and logic. um, it said it was actually a year older than the US, so how do you do it, especially when you think it's called galloping when you're throwing around so many points in a debate? Don't you think it's

unfair

and unreasonable? and maybe at some points it's even manipulative to phrase things a certain way, which might be when, beyond scrutiny, I'm like me who had to Google all these statistics that turn out not to be as annoying and anti-left as you he says no.

I think that's at worst incompetent and at best incompetent and at worst malicious, so you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own

facts

, let's talk about the Cuban. I completely reject the health statistics of your own Cuban government and I totally, um, do not believe in the health statistics of the Cuban socialist governments that they present to the world health organization or the United Nations because the objective and independent analyzes of their own health standards are almost 20 to 30 years behind the life expectancy that their own government produces. What you are seeing is corroborated by people who want it to be true and we can have a 30 minute discussion about whether you believe Cuban health statistics, but the answer is show me another statistic of everything I have talked about. about the 300 hours that candace and I have done, you know, public speaking, everything I talk about, everything I do is based on years of research and backing and data, and I'm happy to talk about every specific topic that doesn't I want to monopolize. the moment here but I reject the premise and the insinuation that I am somehow being reckless um because the facts are not reckless in fact it is the basis of why we are here and why we believe uh you successfully departed from the intention of My question, it wasn't the factual nature of the statements you were saying, it's the way you phrase them, so I phrased them effectively and that should be a problem, no, it's not about effectiveness as you define it, since you turned quickly. away from the abortion thing, can I please finish my eh happy too?

Yes, I walked away from the abortion thing not because I didn't want to talk about it because it made me uncomfortable to do so. Do you think so? It's effective the way I worded it because maybe it made you think in a way you never had to think before. The point is that you could do this for every problem. I could do that for every problem. In fact, then you say, "Oh, we shouldn't trust." Cuban health statistics because they have an agenda to promote and that probably makes a lot of sense, but similarly there are people whose main objective, as if they are still trapped in McCarthyism, is to destroy any form of socialism and communism as an opposition to free market capitalism and similarly, in the same way that we should not trust the authorities in Cuba, okay, so this is the root of this is capitalism to socialism, is there an example where socialism is actually prospering? and it worked as a concept this is what I don't understand it's strange for me when people come to this discussion and it's like that deep down you are what you defend socialism you defend Cuba you defend what you are defending the root of my question, what you are saying is putting things in a way that maybe isn't fair because you might find something on the internet that maybe supports communism and socialism, that's essentially what you're saying, right, no, you're mischaracterizing me, okay?

How am I mischaracterizing you? You are mischaracterizing me because you have generalized what I am saying, meaning that I have researched the talking points that Charlie raised. I have found the exact things. Can? I found the exact studies that he is referencing and I know that they do because they actually reflect the things that he said word for word, which is why they are cited, so I use studies, that's what you're saying. I never said you didn't tell us, I'm not sure where. You come and that's why I say I'm not really mischaracterizing you, I understand what you're saying, you're saying

charlie

, he's saying you're saying facts, but there are also alternative facts that you would maybe present. socialism and communism in a better way, you are saying it is

unfair

because of the way he says them, not because from what I understand you are saying he has called a debate, yes, essentially what he is saying, he is too good at presenting his argument. because no, no, because you're saying no, let me finish, let me assume, Jose, you just said that you went and looked at the things that Charlie said, and you found that they were backed by studies, which would mean that they were factual, so he He's not lying. you're not mischaracterizing or using fat or using incorrect data let me finish let me finish you've been allowed to talk for a while now and then, but the way you present it in an argument when you say it's galloping can make your opponent afraid to do it. whether I speak or not, I don't know what it means, though, to argue with myself, but yes, the bottom line is that you are saying that Charlie is using facts.

I don't understand how that can be a disagreement. China uses facts and its arguments. you're saying that he's not representing other facts that would defeat his date, so you're basically saying that he should also do the job of

charlie

kirk

and whoever is debating him, which is at the same time, that's who I am, that is essentially what you're saying is that Charlie should say, "Okay, you should look at a socialist country and say that people in Venezuela are killing their pets for food, etc., however, in this situation they had very good weather and it was sunny, except I wasn't." I don't understand how you want it as a side of yes, gimme, I'm going to finish and, by the way, another good use of this time would have been if you actually had the alternative facts and just debated, just said yes while you were here like Opposes debate the concepts without getting the facts yourself to come and debate instead of saying you use the facts too well, yes, full stop and I'll let my lawyers answer the rest of the question again, you have mischaracterized who I really am.

What I'm saying here is that you're not genuinely trying to convince people of what you appear to be from the presentation of the facts I've given you as an example, expressing the truths in a very specific way and choosing to ignore the things that I've given you as an example. presented in a very specific way. more balanced in a more balanced way to basically fool people right, that's on no no no no no no no please let me finish please let me please please let me finish please let me finish please let the facts no They don't care about your feelings, the right facts are objective, the states are right, but the way you choose to present them correctly is like saying that if a statistic is 68 percent you can't just rearrange the 68 to say 86, hear me out because that's just lying. and you could rearrange it to say 32. no, you could rearrange it to say 32 backwards, they're both facts, what I'm saying is if you say six seconds, um, oh, right, um, the way you choose the way you choose to talk about statistics, the things that If you choose to neglect presenting things in a more balanced way indicates that your goal here is not to convince people based on the whole truth, but actually a game on people's inability to respond quickly by asking for sources as if I provided a source.

I'm struggling to articulate this, but it's just with the example I gave you about Democratic cities. It's a pretty damning statistic that the worst cities to sum up are mostly democratic. Yes, but you didn't present the whole statistic and that was a very decided choice if you're looking for that study that's not going to debate about itself, I don't understand it, it's very because it's not a game, Candice, isn't it?, but you just said when he goes to campuses and he debates with people who are not presenting facts that are that that would try to destroy the fact that he just gave his all like that that's not the same that's candace i don't see what you know that's why That's what the debate is called, it's because it's not about that.

That's the goal of a debate. If you care about humanity, if you care about improving people's well-being, you should avoid presenting objective facts based on independent studies and decisions, which is what Charlie does, but he chooses to neglect choosing to neglect the entirety of the factual statement, I think this is now turning into some sort of charlie

kirk

review and I don't understand it because he is an influential man and he and his practices and the everyone's practices and yours are semantically, I wish you'd actually done it. I wish you could debate Charlie. I think he would be more productive for everyone.

I appreciate you coming and saying this. I will issue a challenge to the world. Anyone can come prepared with hundreds of pages. of documents to discuss and I wish you the best thank you thank you