Interesting debate between Hasan and Andrew Tate.

[Danioover9000]

   Very interesting debate, I'll share my thoughts below, and I suggest you watch it in full and post your thoughts:

   My rough thoughts on this argument and debate from Andrew Tate. I think he has made several mistake, a a few blunders that not only costed him this debate, but made him do damage control afterwards. I've watched a few debate videos from Andrew Tate and in some of them he does keep a cool head, but I don't know the meta conversation between Hasan and Andrew Tate to have pissed him off on the later parts of this debate, it may have have to do with his arguing with that other pink haired old guy, but moving on.

   Since Andrew is such a proponent of the red pill, and first person experiences, he should have stayed largely consistent with this logic structure, that first person, subjective experiences are more important than numbers, facts and statistics, and 'internet science'. However, in order for him to do so, puts him also at a higher risk of losing a few argument points as well, such as the male/female car driving example, were he explains that in his personal experiences, women tend to drive worse than men, that the earth is round because he flew to the moon, and failing the emotional management control check when Hasan threw sneaky rhetorical attacks on his character. Now, one of the fewer ways of getting an attacking advantage, is that if you are gonna stay true to the first person experiences over facts, own it. For example, when Hasan says and puts him on the spot, he should have just owned the L, and do what Eminem does: flip it back on the opponent. If this was Slim Shady, or me in a dark mood, I would just quickly own it, mimic the schooling tonality, and explain to Hasan, that yes, ultimately to remain logically consistent, as a debate bro, makes me look like a sexist or Misogynist, own this part quickly, then flip it to him and say something like "However, to also use your logic structure and stay true to your framework, worldview and position of this debate, I would ultimately have to accept the position that facts are far more important over feelings, that subjectivity is below objective reality, therefore, when my close friend betrays me, all feelings of hurt, guilt, shame, embarrassment, are also invalid compared to the statistics and probabilities of a friendship ending badly. I also must extend this to positive feelings I would have felt when growing up in some thrid world country, fantasizing of living the American dream, that it was purely just the lucky numbers on my side, nothing to do with my obsession of living the dream, nothing to do with my lack of masculinity, while virtue signaling, while hating America while living the material success" say this while plowing through Hasan's statements too. I think doing it this way would have been an amazing attack from Andrew Tate, because I don't think Hasan could handle such a sneaky attack on his personal relationship with Destiny's 'betrayal', and being pointed out as a fucking hypocrite. I think that would have made this debate extremely heated, and as long as Andrew held his cool he would have looked beautifully in control of the frame work rhetorically speaking. Any other responses, Andrew could just reframe as him being more of a real man, owning both outcomes and especially feelings, as facts are over feelings, facts need feelings. Any attempt of Hasan to avoid and gallop away, Andrew could point out that he's being logically inconsistent, as he can't deny his lived experience of getting burned by Destiny, and betraying his home country. It's to me a fucking vicious trap, any almost any rebuttal to it, Andrew could just say that he's just demonstrating what a real man is, and even offers to guide him through owning his hypocrisy, like " Okay, Hasan repeat after me: 'Hi, my name is, my name is, my name is, Hasan, that man that got backstabbed, by Destiny, my best man. Also, I am a traitor too, takes one to know one, betrayed my Turkey too, quit cold Turkey, too hot for me, the eagle's better, also quack out virtue signals too.", and take the humorous lead.

   What are your thoughts about this debate, and Hasan's potential rhetoric to save face? Is my take on Tate's improved attacking too brutal? Also Tate could word it in a way that brings Destiny into the fucking drama too, so it's just interesting to me how this would have unfolded in the larger online community going forward.

[Carl-Richard]

Such a shit debate lol. I'll sum it up in one ginormous sentence: the language of Tate's past statements is way too imprecise for the debate bro space, which makes him come off as making universal truth claims about women, when in reality he is just talking about how he lives his life, and Tate spends the entire discussion failing to make Hasan acknowledge this distinction, partially because Hasan is just a dense motherfucker, and partially because Hasan is being too sarcastic and unserious.

[Raptorsin7]

I give credit to Hasan for having the balls to debate Tate. But he's retarded if he believes he came out looking intelligent in this debate. Anyone with 2 brain cells can understand the point Tate was making.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Such a shit debate lol. I'll sum it up in one ginormous sentence: the language of Tate's past statements is way too imprecise for the debate bro space, which makes him come off as making universal truth claims about women, when in reality he is just talking about how he lives his life, and Tate spends the entire discussion failing to make Hasan acknowledge this distinction, partially because Hasan is just a dense motherfucker, and partially because Hasan is being too sarcastic and unserious.

   Yes, Hasan has the debate bro bubble guard up, not allowing an open discussion Mr. Girl style. I just, it's just me, but I just found a few ways that Tate could have man handled Hasan into a very heated debate.

   Update: I realized that Hasan is also the one entering into Tate's, or some other panelist's streaming, so actually Tate has the slight advantage of home turf if he did chose to escalate and flip the framing on top of Hasan's head, regardless of PR, and is obligated to defend himself. I mean he's the one doing the 'cold' approaching here 

[Danioover9000]

@Raptorsin7

26 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I give credit to Hasan for having the balls to debate Tate. But he's retarded if he believes he came out looking intelligent in this debate. Anyone with 2 brain cells can understand the point Tate was making.

   What do you mean anyone? as in anyone of the online streaming community, that are young and are left leaning, or some other community of different age and political leaning? I don't like to be a hypocrite here as I kind of agree that direct experience is very important in some context, but in this case when saying anyone it's too generalized and I don't know which group of people you are referring to. Since we are now referring to a medium to large group of people, on average, which have a demographic and psychograghic averages, because of the large numbers I'll need to know which average and of what kind of group are we referring to here. If it's just 1 or ten viewers I wouldn't mind, but this is 100's to 1000's and more views.

   Also, if I didn't know enough of Hasan and Tate, I have to say that rhetorically Hasan looks to be more calmer and in control of the discussion. That would be my first impression. For netting a first time viewer, Hasan slightly wins here. Only for those in the know, they really know what's up.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Danioover9000

[Raptorsin7]

@Danioover9000 My prediction is anyone with sense and wisdom can see Hasan's a fool and his arguments in the debate are worthless.

As far as optics, yeah, I can see how Hasan thinks he came out looking good, and I'm sure many of his fan boys will consider this a clear debate bro victory.

Show me a wise person with sense, and I'll either expose them as a fool or they will admit what's Tate's saying makes complete sense and Hasan is a fool.

[Bobby_2021]

I couldn't get myself to watch this.. it's so shit lol..

Tate is not a great debater as he thinks he is. He can destroy normies, but not someone who has well prepared arguments. 

[Danioover9000]

@DefinitelyNotARobot

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

I think Tate is basically arguing for the validity of bias and personal, lived experience, while Hasan is arguing the importance of open mindedness and being able to change your perspectives (by outgrowing your biases).

Both are valid perspectives. You can make good points for both, but neither Tate nor Hasan are good at laying out arguments, probably because they haven't spend a lot of time investigating their own perspectives, and so they lack the nuance necessary to have such a conversation. I doubt that either one of them is truly living by the perspective they claim to be living by. Hasan did a better job than Tate imo, but he didn't really say anything mindblowing. Just simple, straight forward points. Tate made it a lot easier for Hasan as he made a few terrible points. 

I would like to see this discussion with people who're a little more competent than this.

   Both are still hungry and craving humble pies. One day it'll be available to them, one day.

   Now let's see if Destiny reaches out to contact Tate, or Mr. Girl.

[zurew]

31 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Now let's see if Destiny reaches out to contact Tate

Destiny will have a debate/convo with the hardcore redpill guys (fresh&fit) on Friday. It will be an interesting one. Those guys are representing the same value system and thoughtprocess what Tate has.

Edited August 11, 2022 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

53 minutes ago, zurew said:

Destiny will have a debate/convo with the hardcore redpill guys (fresh&fit) on Friday. It will be an interesting one. Those guys are representing the same value system and thoughtprocess what Tate has.

   Tee-hee-hee, can't wait. Ideally I'd like to see him convo with Tate. Imagine if Andrew Tate had taken my advice, it would have been very interesting.

   Also Mr. Girl, the elephant in the room, not just friendly neighborhood baby sitter, but personal rough trainer for women too.  That'll be crazy yo

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I couldn't get myself to watch this.. it's so shit lol..

Tate is not a great debater as he thinks he is. He can destroy normies, but not someone who has well prepared arguments. 

   I'll admit I'm not as great too, but I know a thing or two of flipping frames and putting pressure on debators thanks to me doing simple rapping. I guess it'll just take experiences and practice though fighting dirty like that, Hasan did have an advantage in that he's familiar and prepared for Tate, but Tate wasn't. GG Tate, 

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Also Mr. Girl, the elephant in the room, not just friendly neighborhood baby sitter, but personal rough trainer for women too.

???

[Danioover9000]

I have found the old man with the pink hair Andrew Tate was debating with before Hasan:

   It was almost a 180, like wow, how strange is it? I guess this is what had exhausted some of his mental energy. Tate looked in form here way more than with Hasan, I almost felt like I had to moderate this debate.

[Danioover9000]

   Here's another debate, and xgc still acting like Andrew Tate NTR'd him and toke his GF or something, but he's more subdued here, maybe on meds:

   Your thoughts?

[Jodistrict]

In the interaction with the pink-haired man, Tate ridicules his physical weakness and emphasizes the need for physical strength and the ability to fight.    However, practically speaking,  fighting in our society is a losing strategy.  Tate is himself an example of this.   His success comes from his gift for gab and not fighting.  Or look at someone like Trump.  Trump would lose a fight to a teenage girl he is so out of shape.  But he managed to become president of the United States.  The lesson learned from both is that teaching men to speak well is more likely to contribute to success.     

In Tate’s Hustler University, he promotes losing strategies for success like stock trading and options, providing worthless advise in these money losing areas.    

“The highly-skilled trades professor, supposedly hand-picked by Tate because of his knowledge, ability, and expertise, is an idiot. If you try to follow his weekly recommendations, you’ll most likely go broke within a month or two. For every ten recommendations, he makes, only one comes out the way it is supposed to. 

It seemed to me that he was clueless about what’s happening worldwide and how that affects the market. I’m not a great trader myself, but even I know there’s a vast difference between bull and bear markets. I think the guy was just used to trading in a bull market and forgot that we live in times when the economy is receding and where most, if not all, of the stocks are declining in value. “

https://deefunnels.com/hustlers-university-review-scam-or-legit/

If Tate is really pro male, why doesn’t he promote the dignity of a man having a trade, like auto mechanics or plumbing?  His emphasis is holding out the promise of easy money through internet scams or stock trading.   

Tate appeals to heterosexual young men who have grown up in an era of  angry feminism promoted by toxic progressives, particularly in America.  Many of these men grew up with single mothers.  They feel that they are marginalized by a progressive ideology that puts them down for being men and wanting to be masculine.  Heterosexual men are made to feel shame or guilt for being who they are.        

Tate’s solution to the toxic form of feminism promoted in the United States is to be a hustler and a high roller.  There is another alternative.  Walk through life as a man without apology.  Be a leader guided by your own intuition and not triggered by the worthless opinions of the surrounding toxic culture.         

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

In the interaction with the pink-haired man, Tate ridicules his physical weakness and emphasizes the need for physical strength and the ability to fight.    However, practically speaking,  fighting in our society is a losing strategy.

Being able to fight is a proxy for general resilience.

[Danioover9000]

@Jodistrict

3 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

In the interaction with the pink-haired man, Tate ridicules his physical weakness and emphasizes the need for physical strength and the ability to fight.    However, practically speaking,  fighting in our society is a losing strategy.  Tate is himself an example of this.   His success comes from his gift for gab and not fighting.  Or look at someone like Trump.  Trump would lose a fight to a teenage girl he is so out of shape.  But he managed to become president of the United States.  The lesson learned from both is that teaching men to speak well is more likely to contribute to success.     

In Tate’s Hustler University, he promotes losing strategies for success like stock trading and options, providing worthless advise in these money losing areas.    

“The highly-skilled trades professor, supposedly hand-picked by Tate because of his knowledge, ability, and expertise, is an idiot. If you try to follow his weekly recommendations, you’ll most likely go broke within a month or two. For every ten recommendations, he makes, only one comes out the way it is supposed to. 

It seemed to me that he was clueless about what’s happening worldwide and how that affects the market. I’m not a great trader myself, but even I know there’s a vast difference between bull and bear markets. I think the guy was just used to trading in a bull market and forgot that we live in times when the economy is receding and where most, if not all, of the stocks are declining in value. “

https://deefunnels.com/hustlers-university-review-scam-or-legit/

If Tate is really pro male, why doesn’t he promote the dignity of a man having a trade, like auto mechanics or plumbing?  His emphasis is holding out the promise of easy money through internet scams or stock trading.   

Tate appeals to heterosexual young men who have grown up in an era of  angry feminism promoted by toxic progressives, particularly in America.  Many of these men grew up with single mothers.  They feel that they are marginalized by a progressive ideology that puts them down for being men and wanting to be masculine.  Heterosexual men are made to feel shame or guilt for being who they are.        

Tate’s solution to the toxic form of feminism promoted in the United States is to be a hustler and a high roller.  There is another alternative.  Walk through life as a man without apology.  Be a leader guided by your own intuition and not triggered by the worthless opinions of the surrounding toxic culture.         

   Agreed that there are other ways of fighting and conflict management than what Andrew advocates.

   I don't know anything about his Hustler's university program so I can't comment on it's pros and cons.

   This'll sound like an Andrew Tate tactic, but in my personal experience, I sucked at trade activities and nearly lost my hand, so for me it's not my ideal work as a man, and because of that shock and bias against trades related jobs, I would generally not talk about them nor market and encourage other young men to go to trades related jobs. There are plenty of other ways to improve your masculinity as trades isn't the only thing men only excel at okay?

   Ideally, if Tate was being consistent he would be encouraging young men to pursue a martial arts, fitness, chess or some other field, because he's so big on personal experience he would promote what works and not promote what doesn't, that would have worked for him. He's way of marketing and promoting himself works, therefore he encourages his way of marketing. The logic sucks, but to Andrew Tate it makes sense.

   Yes, go walk through life as a man, as a leader guided by intuition and not care for other people's opinions about you, but what if he's doing that, but his way is to be a high roller and hustler? Yes, there are thousands of other manly paths, but to Andrew Tate the hustler is authentic to him, what then?

Also, a good video showing Andrew Tate's background, in Hasan's stream:

 

[zurew]

On 2022. 08. 12. at 1:01 AM, Danioover9000 said:

 Tee-hee-hee, can't wait

 

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

@zurew Oh shit, thank you! I was waiting for that one  

[zurew]

@Carl-Richard It was a fucking great debate/convo. I watched it live, its fucking 4 am here, but it was worth it .

Edited August 13, 2022 by zurew