you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]robo1p 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I think Allsup would be better without striker.

[–]bug-in-recovery[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I agree.

Striker's written pieces are great, but he is awful at debates.

Enoch and Allsup would be great.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Disagree. Striker's best at arguing rhetorically/polemically of anyone in our thing. It doesn't work against cynical irony-poisoned and nihilistic radlibs for obvious reasons. When he debates against anyone engaging in good faith he shines.

[–]bug-in-recovery[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That may be true.

I've only seen him debate lefties like these fags.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He usually does well with intelectually honest people, like he did with JF.

He sucked in this one, he's so easy to get dragged into their trickery.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Enoch is our best debater IMO. Striker is better at fiery speeches at rallies. Hopefully soon we can have some of those.

[–]Dashing-Dove 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. Against people who have such a vehement and instinctive bias against his positions, Striker's polemic is impotent. He's more effective with viewers who already accept some of his basic axioms. It's also difficult to finish a point when every sentence is cut short by haughty laughter from the other side, goading him like he's a bull. Allsup comes across as more moderate and wasn't baited into fiery but ultimately ineffectual responses as often.