𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰

CENCAL PAPIST ⚡️ Passionate about the life of the mind because the pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty leads us to God and shapes the way we live.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner. 😞

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@paleochristcon @Dhtk_DHTK @RealCandaceO But he bounced because you insulted him, which is different than marshaling punishing arguments with premises that are more probable than their negations.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@Nixie_0489 @C2Antiquity

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

Dear Nick, I see that you blocked me.

Jay mentioned that he would discuss Vatican II, but that was not central to the topic of the debate. Cameron merely acknowledged that he understood Jay might raise the issue, which he eventually did, but those points were tangential at best and did not materially address the actual subject of the debate. And yes, imagine whatever you want. The fact remains that, in that debate, Jay eventually conceded the point and was relegated to sitting there in a vegetative state for nearly an hour with little substantive contribution. The only people insisting that Jay performed well seemed to be the internet orthodoxos who flooded the comments afterward. And yes, I’m glad you distinguish between the credentials and philosophical competence of the priests involved and Jay’s own abilities, which, at best, are sophomoric. He made a fool of himself, and anyone approaching the exchange from a serious philosophical perspective can see that. Trent is a well-known and respected analytic philosopher. That does not mean he is incapable of losing his temper or becoming impatient, but his frustration was hardly surprising given Jay’s repeated assertions and lack of philosophical rigor. If Jay had shown even a modicum of intellectual humility and abandoned some of his more dubious assertions, the debate could have been considerably more fruitful. Pray for your leader. He behaves like an unhinged and foolish man.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@realstewpeters I dated a few 25 year olds and almost lost my mind. 16 year old? This guy needs an exorcist 🤣

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@vegasjanelle @RealCandaceO Anonymous sources, while not dispositive, nonetheless count as evidence. Your leader should know that.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@jakeshieldsajj 🤣

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@jdmcody77 @paleochristcon “Christian ethicist”

🤣

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@FeserEdward Victor has lost his mind unfortunately.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@Kaizerrev He’s so jealous and pathetic.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

Andrew’s best chance of winning a debate against Candace is to gish-gallop through a series of statements she has allegedly made—possibly in haste or with more confidence than the evidence warranted—and focus on instances where she may have overstated a claim. He can then demand that she provide evidence for those claims, even if she no longer endorses them or never intended to present them as established facts. His strategy would be to portray her as intellectually careless or unreliable and thereby discredit her more broadly.

Candace’s best response, if she has in fact overstated something in the past, is simply to acknowledge it. She can then remind the audience that her larger project is not necessarily to prove any particular alternative hypothesis, but to challenge the claim that the evidence establishes Tyler’s guilt to the degree being asserted. She can also clarify that the alternative explanations she has raised should be understood as hypotheses worth investigating, not necessarily as conclusions to which she is committed. Some hypotheses may have considerably more evidential warrant than others without any of them being established as true.

That distinction is important. Andrew, by contrast, has made the much stronger claim that there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler is guilty. That is a claim he bears the burden of substantiating. If he cannot adequately establish that the evidence warrants such a high degree of confidence, then demonstrating that Candace has occasionally overstated or poorly articulated an alternative hypothesis does not, by itself, establish his conclusion. It merely exposes weaknesses in her presentation.

In other words, Candace does not need to prove an alternative theory in order to challenge the inference that the existing evidence establishes Tyler’s guilt. Andrew, however, does need to substantiate his affirmative claim that the evidence is overwhelming.

If she approaches the debate in this way, she’ll win and Andrew will look like a fool.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@IanCarrollShow @paleochristcon He won’t do that Ian because it didn’t work out well for him when he tried that with Stew.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@Brent_Mohrman @LionelMedia “Doesn’t work for”

But he has worked for them.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

Having reasons to think that a hypothesis has some degree of warrant or justification does not entail believing that the hypothesis is true—or even that it is probably true. A hypothesis can be rationally worth investigating without being something one is committed to affirming. I thought you Wilson followers were supposed to understand basic principles of reasoning.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

I pray Candace does not agree to defend, or fall into the trap of treating the alternative hypotheses she has proposed as established facts. She has raised them as possibilities worth investigating; she has not committed herself to any one of them as certainly or even probably true.

The intellectually responsible position for her, then, is something like this: “There is currently insufficient evidence to justify believing that Tyler Robinson is guilty. Because Charlie was assassinated, however, I am entirely within my epistemic rights to investigate alternative hypotheses about who may have killed him and how the assassination may have occurred.” That is a claim about the limits of our knowledge, not an assertion that any particular alternative hypothesis is true.

Andrew, by contrast, has made a much stronger claim. He has explicitly asserted that there is a mountain of evidence establishing that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk, and has expressed confidence that he can defeat anyone who disputes that conclusion. Once he makes that positive claim, the burden of proof is on him to substantiate it. The issue is no longer whether Candace can prove an alternative theory; it is whether Andrew has actually provided sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion he is asserting.

On these grounds, Andrew will lose.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@philosoroofer LOL

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

Exactly right. Which is why I pray Candace does not agree to defend, or fall into the trap of treating the alternative hypotheses she has proposed as established facts. She has raised them as possibilities worth investigating; she has not committed herself to any one of them as certainly or even probably true.

The intellectually responsible position for her, then, is something like this: “There is currently insufficient evidence to justify believing that Tyler Robinson is guilty. Because Charlie was assassinated, however, I am entirely within my epistemic rights to investigate alternative hypotheses about who may have killed him and how the assassination may have occurred.” That is a claim about the limits of our knowledge, not an assertion that any particular alternative hypothesis is true.

Andrew, by contrast, has made a much stronger claim. He has explicitly asserted that there is a mountain of evidence establishing that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk, and has expressed confidence that he can defeat anyone who disputes that conclusion. Once he makes that positive claim, the burden of proof is on him to substantiate it. The issue is no longer whether Candace can prove an alternative theory; it is whether Andrew has actually provided sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion he is asserting.

On these grounds, Andrew will lose.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

I pray Candace does not agree to defend, or fall into the trap of treating the alternative hypotheses she has proposed as established facts. She has raised them as possibilities worth investigating; she has not committed herself to any one of them as certainly or even probably true.

The intellectually responsible position for her, then, is something like this: “There is currently insufficient evidence to justify believing that Tyler Robinson is guilty. Because Charlie was assassinated, however, I am entirely within my epistemic rights to investigate alternative hypotheses about who may have killed him and how the assassination may have occurred.” That is a claim about the limits of our knowledge, not an assertion that any particular alternative hypothesis is true.

Andrew, by contrast, has made a much stronger claim. He has explicitly asserted that there is a mountain of evidence establishing that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk, and has expressed confidence that he can defeat anyone who disputes that conclusion. Once he makes that positive claim, the burden of proof is on him to substantiate it. The issue is no longer whether Candace can prove an alternative theory; it is whether Andrew has actually provided sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion he is asserting.

On these grounds, Andrew will lose.

[𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔦𝖓𝔤 𝔡𝖊𝔣𝖊𝔞𝖙𝔢𝖗𝔰 @properlybased]

@Onkruid71 @nosoup4knowles 🤣🤣