Candace Owens Debates Marc Lamont Hill On Her Show

Ukbrotha

Superstar
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
17,250
Reputation
1,763
Daps
41,117
Reppin
Naija, London, Earth
I watched this last night and you could see Hill was struggling in the first half because he was still stunned by her ignorance.

He completely dismantled her arguments in the 2nd half of the debates with which her response was "well, I havent seen those stats or studies you mentioned and they probably dont have any credibility anyway" :martin:

I dont really see a point in these debates with her though because there are people who are clearly working under an agenda that you just know they're not trying to open their minds to anything so to me this was a pointless exercise by Hill.
 

Ethnic Vagina Finder

The Great Paper Chaser
Bushed
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
55,563
Reputation
3,060
Daps
157,130
Reppin
North Jersey but I miss Cali :sadcam:
I agree 100%. I said something similar in the other thread on this.

But it also shows her logic is simplified and his is more complex and nuanced. He could used multiple types of ammunition and at times got caught up in picking which one to use. Owens on the other hand had 2 so she already knew what she was going to say no matter what.

It's easy to look confident when you already know what you're going to say. And sadly she came more prepared :snoop:


Dudes look at her as being a c00n, which she is. But that don't mean she can't hold her own in a convo/debate.
 

Amestafuu (Emeritus)

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
72,240
Reputation
14,532
Daps
305,408
Reppin
Toronto
Debating Candace makes us all look like fukking idiots..you're basically giving credence to her arguments by giving this stink ass bytch a platform..
Especially after he just threw a hissy fit about being on the same interview show as Russell Simmons. Copped all types of pleas only to go debate a traitor

Shook fakkit.
 

omnifax

All Star
Supporter
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,646
Reputation
1,111
Daps
10,120
Reppin
Kalamazoo, MI #ADOS
But it also shows her logic is simplified and his is more complex and nuanced. He could used multiple types of ammunition and at times got caught up in picking which one to use. Owens on the other hand had 2 so she already knew what she was going to say no matter what.

It's easy to look confident when you already know what you're going to say. And sadly she came more prepared :snoop:


Dudes look at her as being a c00n, which she is. But that don't mean she can't hold her own in a convo/debate.

Yeah, I said in the other thread that Marc Lamont Hill was unprepared. I think he didn't take it seriously because he figured based on a lot of her public bumbles (the nazi stuff she said in England comes to mind) it would be an easy win. Prager U prepped her very well for this interview/debate.

I think if she went up against someone who is knowledgeable about the subject matter she cannot hold her own. One of her go to tactics has been to quickly change the topic when she doesn't have an answer or retort. She did it a few times during the interview when Marc Lamont Hill tried to pin her down on specific statements. He didn't do a good job though because he could hardly recall the different studies he wanted to use to refute her arguments.
 

invalid

Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
20,481
Reputation
7,189
Daps
82,689
I'm not listening to this but I don't think Marc is very good at debating. He typically starts off strong but usually ends very lackluster.
 

bdkane

All Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
1,748
Reputation
430
Daps
6,290
Reppin
College Park by way of East Bmore
Yeah, I said in the other thread that Marc Lamont Hill was unprepared. I think he didn't take it seriously because he figured based on a lot of her public bumbles (the nazi stuff she said in England comes to mind) it would be an easy win. Prager U prepped her very well for this interview/debate.

I think if she went up against someone who is knowledgeable about the subject matter she cannot hold her own. One of her go to tactics has been to quickly change the topic when she doesn't have an answer or retort. She did it a few times during the interview when Marc Lamont Hill tried to pin her down on specific statements. He didn't do a good job though because he could hardly recall the different studies he wanted to use to refute her arguments.
But it's hard to debate someone who is immutable in their ignorance. Like Trump, they will stick to their bullshyt. The nuance and intellect of a wise man will get lost. Arguing with these types is pearls before swine. Don't waste your time. The problem is most onlookers are not smart enough to realize that just because someone is confident in their bullshyt, doesn't make them any less full of shyt.
 

Counter Racist Male

Retired poster and occasional lurker
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
10,359
Reputation
1,131
Daps
25,704
Reppin
MYSELF
Candace Owens is a product of think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, heritage foundation And American enterprise.

Every last one of her talking points comes from right wing think tank playbooks.
When I’m trying to make is they really not talking points that just meant to agitate Black people and make whites more susceptible of racial prejudice.
 

JLova

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
60,022
Reputation
4,612
Daps
182,274
I'm not listening to this but I don't think Marc is very good at debating. He typically starts off strong but usually ends very lackluster.

He is terrible and Candace and those of her ilk know it. They’re not going to bring on articulate black people that will shyt down every talking point she grows out there. This stuttering mafukka gives more validity to her arguments no matter how weak thry are.
 

invalid

Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
20,481
Reputation
7,189
Daps
82,689
He is terrible and Candace and those of her ilk know it. They’re not going to bring on articulate black people that will shyt down every talking point she grows out there. This stuttering mafukka gives more validity to her arguments no matter how weak thry are.

Just now reading the rest of the comments iit about Marc's performance, and yeah, same ol' Marc.

I didn't want to watch the video to spare myself the disappointment because I knew it would not end well for him which of course makes the other side look better.

People who are not great debaters need to know when they're not and put their ego aside and sit these things out otherwise they are abetting the other side, off rip, by making them look better.
 
Top