Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

BREAKING NEWS! Andrew Neil vs Alex Jones

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:49:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you don't know who these people are, you're missing out on one of the greatest political spectacles of the year so far. Alex Jones seems to be well known on this site, so I'll say quickly: the infowars quack*, and Andrew Neil, probably one of the greatest interviewers in British journalism, short of maybe of Eddy Mair.

In "Sunday Politics" due to Bilderberg, they had him and another male interviewee on who is against Bilderberg (the second individual being the classic interviewee on the show: calm, clear, and promoting transparency - not a conspiracy theorist to be clear).

So, what happened? Well, Andrew Neil and the second man interviewed Alex Jones. Alex Jones tried to claim the UK is a "police state", "nazi state", "liberal" (I don't think he knows what that word means), "1984", "Winston Smith [worked] in the BBC" (Again, I don't think he knows what these words mean), etc. just like against Piers Morgan.

The difference though is that Andrew Neil is a great interviewer. He, in the traditional British manner, shut down Alex Jones, whilst trying to interview the second interviewee (I'll try and get his name) laid into Alex Jones' conspiracy theories with repeating a line of "Why are you still alive?" when Jones said he was being attacked and attempted to be killed by "the state" (UK or US I have no idea, he swapped between the two but still used the singular).

Alex Jones then exploded. Not the controlled explosion that could actually make him seem like he cares about the issues like in the Piers Morgan interview, but uncontrolled chemical warfare (the chemicals being the spit flinging and frothing from his mouth) where you could only hear him screaming FREEEDOOOOOOM remniscient of Mel Gibson's Braveheart, and Andrew Neil doing some surprisingly great mimework, including "This guy is crazy", "He's hanging himself by his own noose", and "Hmm... I'm stuck in this hole... I know! I'll dig myself out!" Until he shouted his way to concluding the interview and moving to the next segment of the show.

I probably am failing to express how funny this was. Piers Morgan's was embarrassing for me watching it, but this interview... probably the funniest political I've seen this year. I cannot express how great this was.

And if anyone is not clear on the scoreboard, after a cracking 20 yard crack by Andrew Neil from an assist by his interviewee, it's Andrew Neil 1, Crackpot 0.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
* No, this is not an impartial account of the event.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:50:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I honestly do not know why Alex Jones decided the way to convince the "stiff upper lip", the "keep calm and carry on", the "Don't worry love" Britain, was to shout as loud as possible about liberty and freedom.

May work in America, but here we know a bit better that shouting these words isn't an argument, it's called madness.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:34:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:26:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:57:30 AM, Smithereens wrote:
This sounds more dramatic than it could possibly be. Have you tried your hand at novel writing?

It is dramatic for British politics, in fairness. And I am 'trying my hand' as it were at journalism, since you asked, rather than novel writing (though I have the latter a go, I never felt like I was going that far in it.)

http://www.fanfiction.net...

That's one I was writing, but I just couldn't figure out where I was going with it. Might give it another crack two years on though.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:46:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:34:08 AM, muzebreak wrote:
[Youtube video]

Great! Thanks for that video (though the comments prove ignorance by his followers - my favourite comment "I am writing after youA279; post this 29 minutes ago and still 301+ . suspicious". I love how people take ideas towards their own ends.

The quality is quite poor though. Jones' voice was a lot more rough than that. This video is of better quality (more like what I heard)

Also, the second interviewee is David Aaronovicth. Should've known that to be honest if only for university challenge, and skeptics in the Pub.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:49:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and if you don't know the three people at the end all typing away, they're the regular panellers, one liberal one conservative and one labour (I think, there's definitely a lib and a con). They are also 3 journalists. They've all published/publishing on the event, I would venture to say.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:05:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is this better than Alex vs Piers?

Alex Jones already destroyed a BBC reporter two days ago.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:34:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How does Alex Jones not look like a madman here?
How, or why, should anyone take him seriously, when he won't let the guy speak/finish his thoughts?
My work here is, finally, done.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Haha, I just watched that. Hilarious.

I wonder if listening to Alex Jones works as a substitute for heavy metal.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:42:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wow, the OP had me thinking that Alex may have actually lost a debate for the first time where his opponent managed to debunk his claims. WRONG.

Alex Jones destroyed the idiot skeptic, the host and the entire BBC, AGAIN! Hahaha, retards. "Conspiracy theory, you're crazy" etc. etc. His opponent conceded the argument in his opening statement. What a fail.

It's almost disappointing that no one has ever been able to mount a solid argument against Alex Jones. Every single time his opponents appeal to ridicule rather than give nuanced critiques or solid defenses of the programs Alex Jones exposed.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:52:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wow, Geo had me thinking that Alex may have actually won a debate for the first time where he managed to debunk others claims. WRONG.

Alex Jones the idiot skeptic got destroyed by the host and the entire BBC, AGAIN! Hahaha, retard. "Conspiracy theory, you're crazy" etc. etc. He conceded the argument in his opening statement. What a fail.

It's almost disappointing that Alex Jones has never been able to mount a solid argument against anyone. Every single time he appeals to screaming rather than give nuanced critiques or solid defenses of the programs he supposedly exposed.

(Geo, thats what you sound like)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:52:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alex Jones bombards BBC journalist with facts.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:05:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:42:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wow, the OP had me thinking that Alex may have actually lost a debate for the first time where his opponent managed to debunk his claims. WRONG.

Alex Jones destroyed the idiot skeptic, the host and the entire BBC, AGAIN! Hahaha, retards. "Conspiracy theory, you're crazy" etc. etc. His opponent conceded the argument in his opening statement. What a fail.

It's almost disappointing that no one has ever been able to mount a solid argument against Alex Jones. Every single time his opponents appeal to ridicule rather than give nuanced critiques or solid defenses of the programs Alex Jones exposed.

You realize that he has the burden of proof, right? Jones just pulls 'facts' out of his @ss, not backing them up with any form of reliable evidence. His opponents don't need to do anything.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:26:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
My primary issue with Alex Jones is not so much that his arguments are inaccurate, but that his presentation is a rhetorical trainwreck. He's careless, loud, his voice is grating and obnoxious--like he's been smoking and drinking gin straight for 20 years--and he's not particularly polite. His flamboyant, sensational style is a good attention-grabber, and his obstinacy could be compelling to a certain demographic, but the attention is almost entirely negative/dismissive and those attracted by his vitriolic lifestyle are likely the weakest possible defenders on account of the ease with which they're persuaded by forceful, passionate, heavily-handed language. The fact that he takes many opportunities to plug Infowars makes the whole thing sound like an extended advertisement for some infotainment program, not a serious discussion.

Listening to this interview, I would certainly say his argumentative carelessness is what turns me off most to him. For instance, in his brief statement about the purpose of the EU being domination through control of currency, he analogizes it to a Nazi plan to do something very similar. What is problematic here is that he situates the Euro in a pejorative context by associating it with Nazism, which is not merely shallow, but deceptive. There are both better arguments to be made, on the one hand, and things with which the Nazis associated themselves, on the other, like traditional forms of art and music, which are not evil or insidious merely on account of the Nazis' disposition toward them.

Two, I've done a fair amount of formal debate, and I've participated in university and its culture to an adequate extent to recognize when people are self-assured to the point of being pompous. Alex Jones' body language, his intonation--it all comes across as precisely this. He's frantic, he parrots his interlocutors--"Why am I alive? Why am I alive?"--as if their questions aren't worth the time of day. Even if they aren't, it is bad form to treat people that way if your goal is to be persuasive.

Three, perhaps this is attributable to my expectations about how refined someone's use of language should be prior to participating seriously in discussions on certain topics, but the way that he describes the operation of global government/New World Order/whatever we prefer to call it is incredibly sloppy. There are differences between authoritarianism, fascism, totalitarianism, the police state, and so on, and chaining a bunch of frightening buzzwords together, like terming the regime "a police state; it's 1984" shortly after calling it Nazism. Concerning the kind of information Jones claims to want to expose, no serious scholar, given this kind of presentation, would have reason to seek him out to discover it. When there are so many negatively-connotated labels being used to tag and harass the global regime, we lose what Foucault terms the specificity of analysis, losing our capacity really to know the features, identity, and nature of that which governs and oppresses. If a nuanced counterargument is really what is desired, it may prove fruitful for him first to make his case lucidly, rigorously, and carefully. This certainly cannot be accomplished by screaming about freedom and republicanism. Shouting at people, interrupting and patronizing them, tossing around emotionally-charged abstractions--these are the tools of a demagogue, not of a genuine revolutionary (I assume, and hope, that these two are not completely coincident).

If this kind of display is actually what is required to persuade the broader part of our species--if this is what really moves the masses--then I think what is truly in question, making the liberal supposition that Jones commits not one factual error, is whether political practice, or, more fundamentally, the species served by it, is even worth saving.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:32:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 12:26:50 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Listening to this interview, I would certainly say his argumentative carelessness is what turns me off most to him. For instance, in his brief statement about the purpose of the Euro being domination through control of currency, he analogizes it to a Nazi plan to do something very similar.

Not EU.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:35:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 12:26:50 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There are differences between authoritarianism, fascism, totalitarianism, the police state, and so on, and chaining a bunch of frightening buzzwords together, like terming the regime "a police state; it's 1984" shortly after calling it Nazism is compelling evidence of a lack of understanding of the nuance of different species of power and government.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:37:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 12:35:17 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/10/2013 12:26:50 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There are differences between authoritarianism, fascism, totalitarianism, the police state, and so on, and chaining a bunch of frightening buzzwords together, like terming the regime "a police state; it's 1984" shortly after calling it Nazism is compelling evidence of a lack of understanding of the nuance of different species of power and government.

Amen. I hate when people say "totalitarian" and they clearly know nothing about what the definition actually is.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:38:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pretty much what Cody said. (nice detailed analysis btw)

I'm content to say that the guy comes off as a nutcase. Anything he says, even "water is good for you", should be scrutinized skeptically because it's coming from someone who seems completely irrational. If he was calm and collected I'd give him the time to explain some of these hard to believe things. But as it is, he comes off as just as crazy as the types of things he ultimately wants me to believe. I'm sure there is someone who can rationally explain these things without resorting to calling skeptics retards and fools, or screaming like a maniac, but Alex Jones isn't one of them.
Debate.org Moderator
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:41:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alex Jones admits that his show is a "trainwreck spectacle." His personality is his personality and he's being himself. He is energized and bombastic and when he's calm, he's actually a great debater. I suggest watching his debate against the Zeitgeist creator, Peter Joseph or David de Rothschild.

If people understand where he's coming from, it would be understandable as to why he acts the way he does. He's been arrested by George W. Bush, he's been punched by Obamabots and his megaphone snipped, he's had provocateur agents set him up (on camera, the provocateur was blatant and exposed), he's seen Bilderberg members face to face, he's been threatened by multiple Federal agencies, he's been bullied by police, he's been assaulted by Michael Moore's body guards, he's had his name and his website defamed time and time again, he's been harassed at TSA checkpoints, and the list goes on. He also is long time friends with Charlie Sheen and Joe Rogan. But just look at 22 year-old Alex Jones and how he was.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:42:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:42:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It's almost disappointing that no one has ever been able to mount a solid argument against Alex Jones.
His claims are like water -- they'll just shape into fitting whatever response there is. You debunk his 9/11 claims, he'll just add salt to his claim and form entirely new arguments. You can't argue with those kind of people.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:46:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 12:37:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Amen. I hate when people say "totalitarian" and they clearly know nothing about what the definition actually is.

Alex Jones was addicted to reading history books in Middle School. This is a guy who has read hundreds of history books, has read 400 books written by the elites, a man who associates with and hangs with the likes of Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Webster Tarpley, Max Keiser, etc. lots of credible political economic experts.

Yes, he uses buzzwords but he knows what he's doing and in fact he actually can show the true links to the Nazis. Just look at Operation Paperclip where we actually shipped in dozens of Nazi scientists, look at Prescott Bush's contributions and aid to the Nazis, look at the Rothschilds/Rockefellers funding of the Nazis, look at the Nazi roots of the Skull & Bones secret society which has produced Bush and Kerry, look the Nazi origins of the Bilderberg.

So when Alex Jones uses the term "Nazi" he knows a lot more than you do about Nazi roots and history.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 12:59:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That was funny. Though it is sad that nutcases like that do get followings. Oh well, I suppose the guys that tell people to off themselves for the next coming of Christ get followings too.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 1:13:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:42:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wow, the OP had me thinking that Alex may have actually lost a debate for the first time where his opponent managed to debunk his claims. WRONG.

Alex Jones destroyed the idiot skeptic, the host and the entire BBC, AGAIN! Hahaha, retards. "Conspiracy theory, you're crazy" etc. etc. His opponent conceded the argument in his opening statement. What a fail.

It's almost disappointing that no one has ever been able to mount a solid argument against Alex Jones. Every single time his opponents appeal to ridicule rather than give nuanced critiques or solid defenses of the programs Alex Jones exposed.

Alex Jones couldn't even answer why he hasn't been targetted for death, then shouted over the other guy so another question couldn't be asked.

Why hasn't you been killed?
Because I would be a martyr.

Really? You've been doing this for 20 years and have many followers. Okay, you'd be a martyr. However, at what point were you a threat, and why weren't you killed at that point? Surely, you didn't have millions of followers then.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 1:45:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's be very clear, Alex Jones' opponents such as Piers Morgan or the BBC host, have no interest in real debate. Alex Jones knew before hand and had seen Piers' notecards and strategy prior to the interview so he just took the show over. And in this case at BBC, the reporter nor the skeptic had any interest in a real debate, only to sit aloof and to appear to be having a real debate and make Alex look unwilling to debate properly.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 2:00:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 12:41:45 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Alex Jones admits that his show is a "trainwreck spectacle." His personality is his personality and he's being himself. He is energized and bombastic and when he's calm, he's actually a great debater. I suggest watching his debate against the Zeitgeist creator, Peter Joseph or David de Rothschild.

If people understand where he's coming from, it would be understandable as to why he acts the way he does. He's been arrested by George W. Bush, he's been punched by Obamabots and his megaphone snipped, he's had provocateur agents set him up (on camera, the provocateur was blatant and exposed), he's seen Bilderberg members face to face, he's been threatened by multiple Federal agencies, he's been bullied by police, he's been assaulted by Michael Moore's body guards, he's had his name and his website defamed time and time again, he's been harassed at TSA checkpoints, and the list goes on. He also is long time friends with Charlie Sheen and Joe Rogan. But just look at 22 year-old Alex Jones and how he was.

You make it sound as though they're really beginning to wear on him. If it shows so clearly--to the extent that his demeanor can itself be weaponized--perhaps he is no longer up to the task. I am somewhat suspicious, further, of what is implied in the proposition that one who understands "where he is coming from" understands why he behaves in such a way. Unless we declare explicitly that the former is not bound up exclusively and inextricably with the latter, the implication is that our confusion or dismay at his behavior stems from a lack of understanding about his past. This is a dubious implication, though: one could imagine an indiscernible sort of dismay at Jones' behavior even given an understanding of the circumstances productive of it adequate to standards to which you and I (and, if you like, a disinterested third party) could agree. To this extent, I think we would have to agree that his behavior, even situated in the context of the tribulations he's endured, is not excusable from the point of view of stylistically dispassionate persuasion (which, given the aforementioned precarious threshold between demagoguery and revolutionary activity, is a point of view likely to our advantage to adopt), which is, I would argue, the condition of thinking a free, happy, yet non-reactionary political practice. On my estimation, the kind of practice Jones' style is likely to produce, considering in particular the sort of people and thinking he is likely to attract and encourage by employing his present methods, is not really so conducive to the release and new use of life. It is not, that is, a practice or a thought in which I am inclined to want to take part.