Does he? He was on Bill Maher's show the other day claiming that transgender men wanted to use the women's bathroom in order to assault women. He claimed statistics that transgender people are disproportionately involved in sex crimes. And that's true, they are......as the victims. In the entire world, there is only one known case of a transgender person attacking someone in a public bathroom.
The guy's full of shit and cites bullshit statistics that impress people who know fuck all about the subject. But that's the alt-right. Just lie and lie and lie, all the while shouting from the rooftops about the mainstream media lying.
I agree that those who play the man as opposed to the ball are not contributing to 'reasoned' debate. Ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy. However I would also say that those people who are willfully inflammatory in what they say are just as bad. Debate, like most things in life, is actually more constructive when both sides come from a position of mutual respect. I don't think Milo or his detractors, who you allege attack him rather then his argument, actually achieve anything productive in their debates when they come from purposefully antagonistic positions. To this end, I would question the motive for doing so, is it to actually further the debate, or is it simply to generate headlines, clicks and further ones own notoriety?
You assert that he backs up his opinions with data, facts, research and reasoning. That may be the case, but how selective is this data that he draws upon? How open is he to other points of view? Or rather is he simply focusing on what suits his arguments whilst ignoring that which doesn't? This is is the problem with data, it can easily be manipulated, taken out of context, or ignored to further your own particular agenda. "The Rags are XX games unbeaten in the league therefore this season is a success!" can easily be countered "Yeah, but they haven't moved from sixth in that time". You contend that he uses data to back his stance - then what does he do with regard to the overwhelming peer reviewed evidence which points to climate change being man made, which is counter to his opinion? Ignoring it does not exactly strike me as the actions of someone who is open to other points of view.
He goes out of his way to be inflammatory and to provoke his detractors, he is selective in his thinking, but most importantly he actually doesn't advance anything, apart from his own celebrity. A talking head who spouts sound bites aimed to pit people against each other, based on flawed reductionist logic, under the cult of personality of being a 'provocateur' or 'controversial figure' because he also likes to talk about how many cocks he's sucked. Give me a break. He's a bore.
A question I put to you - what has he actually achieved?
Why should we give this man the benefit of the doubt? You seem to be suggesting that Milo doesn't do all of the things you criticise his opponents of doing. When the facts don't support him, he resorts to personal attacks against the people he's debating. He regularly attacks the person and not the argument. And he freely admits that he's a troll. That he's someone who is not attempting to honestly debate his position. Therefore he will outright lie. He will refer to statistics that don't exist. And when he's called out on it and proven to be wrong, he'll resort to personal attacks. It's a complete waste of time debating someone like that.Bingo
Really excellent response and i appreciate the time you've taken answer, as you've pretty much shown what a reasoned debate should look like.
I think a lot of the stuff Milo says could be easily pulled apart by asking simple questions as you've highlighted.
The problem is most of his opponents don't do the above, as they've become used to shutting down any debate by using the racist, homophobic, PC cardsand therefore have problems conducting a 'reasoned' debate.
As for what he achieves?
As an example, one of his opinions, is that females in same sex relationships being allowed (or given priority) to adop kids is a bad idea. His argument for this is that domestic abuse in these type of 'family' units is a lot higher than in hetero family units, based on data/research.
Now the above could be total bollocks, but instead of putting his claims under scrutiny by looking at is he drawing the right conclusions from data/research? is he cherry picking to suit his argument? is there other research/data that rebuffs the stuff he is using? etc etc, his opponents mostly tend to play the man and not the ball, as you put it.
He could potentially be drawing attention to what could be a serious concern.
Therefore, unless subjects can be debated by both sides equally with all facts, data, research etc brought to the table, and emotions & feelings left at the door, i just don't believe that the best solutions to problems or conclusions etc can be found.
Now the above could be total bollocks, but instead of putting his claims under scrutiny by looking at is he drawing the right conclusions from data/research? is he cherry picking to suit his argument? is there other research/data that rebuffs the stuff he is using? etc etc, his opponents mostly tend to play the man and not the ball, as you put it.
Its clear from your post you have not seen much of Milo, his constant at these talks is "Do your own research" and that all sources have some slant.
Nor can you blame the guy for what his opponents dont do, he opens the floor up to questions and challenges them to back their view with facts or indeed counter his, yet this does not happen that I have seen or heard about, the very thing you want for open debate is available but do the left/liberals even try and debate rather than disrupt of try to ban the event ?.
Someone misusing facts to make an argument is the worst kind of debater as they can sound plausible by creating their own basis for argument, and logical debate goes out of the window.
Isn`t that exactly what the left has done for many years ?, they have refused debate because they simply can not back up their views so resort to violence, verbal and physical, rather than any facts.
Milo has a set stance on issues so its hardly difficult to bring a few facts to make your point or counter his.
it's very difficult to counter without an equal position from which to do so.
Again its the same answer, the left has done this for many years while using PC and branding to silence any reasonable debate, what has happend recently is people have become sick and tired of the crying wolf at everything.
People can see the effects of say mass immigration with their own eyes on the streets they live, they are feed up being told what they can think or say, and they are long passed being intimidated by branding because its been applied at the drop of a hat.