04-02-2024, 12:45 AM
It’s problematic for me because, from the very title on, his presentation is made as if he’s mowing down point after incontestable point.
But there is no point/counterpoint going on. Only him crafting his own questions and then ‘answering’ them in an ‘Ah ha! Gotcha!’ fashion. He’s debating phantoms. Citing facts not in evidence. Damning the ubiquitous “they” of unspecified anecdotal origin.
He asks broad, supposedly damning questions and providing his own answers as if they’re the only possible answers.
There are certainly cogent, considered, powerful ways to argue the points he makes, but his approach of right hand asking the questions, left hand providing the answers is far less than that, in my estimation. Closer to preaching to the choir, than an appeal to both hearts and minds.
But there is no point/counterpoint going on. Only him crafting his own questions and then ‘answering’ them in an ‘Ah ha! Gotcha!’ fashion. He’s debating phantoms. Citing facts not in evidence. Damning the ubiquitous “they” of unspecified anecdotal origin.
He asks broad, supposedly damning questions and providing his own answers as if they’re the only possible answers.
There are certainly cogent, considered, powerful ways to argue the points he makes, but his approach of right hand asking the questions, left hand providing the answers is far less than that, in my estimation. Closer to preaching to the choir, than an appeal to both hearts and minds.