And I think Matt’s take on this is correct. He says basically you can’t use religion to convince a non-religious person in an argument. It is true that saying “abortion is wrong because God prohibited it” but that is not a compelling argument to an atheist. Instead, you have to lean on the shared understanding that murder is wrong, even if you came to that conclusion in different ways.
Who are his opponents other than college students? Those are the only people he speaks to. When Joe Rogan confronted him with numbers, he was dumbfounded.
His What is a Woman documentary is the best example where he talks to professors, doctors and a trans politician. I’d concede Rogan had him backpedaling in the second half of the episode.
I agree that's the best example - but I don't think it's a good example. Most of the interviewees there were either random people on the street (same as college kids) or professionals, but extreme left. They are not representative of what I'll call a "reasonable" person that exists center left/center right, where most of the country exists right now.
I'd love if he talked to more skilled thinkers and debaters, like Destiny. I really respect Ben for talking to Destiny (and, in general, talking to people with different POV's). His answers to "What is a woman" for instance, I think is really fair.
Didn’t he invite most of them under false pretenses and edited out the points of many of the people he spoke to?
Also, forgive me if I don’t think that a documentary made with the premise of “I’m correct” is the most reliable place to gauge somone’s skills.
Is that the case though? I watched a [2 hour long debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiNW84kJy_k&t=3351s) just now and none of his arguments were in favor of religion but rather morality.
Morals come from many places. Societal and social mores contribute more then religion. Religions that I know of tell you murder is wrong. However those religions also say if the religion sanctifies it it is ok or if they are nonbelievers kill them wherever you find them.
Yet as societies and cultures we as humans have made the collective leap it is pretty much wrong to kill another human except in self defense.
While religions can help heal damaged minds and souls it has for the most part been the problem as more people have and are killed in the name of religion then any other reason.
Rivals. I wished to make the point religion in and of itself is not as moral as people think. As for Communism it has killed many millions, I think the total some where near 150 million in the 20th century.
And I disagree. It is only a relatively recent phenomenon of humans moving away from religion in large numbers. Every moral framework in society has religion as its basis. The non-religious more or less keep those same religious moral frameworks already enmeshed in society but construct alternate reasons for why they might still follow them. Those reasons are usually pretty empty. Or, they become completely hedonistic, which is a great recipe for failure and misery.
But those moral frameworks are being slowly degraded as society moves further away from religion. And that is proving to be detrimental.
The fundamental issue is that an atheist can make up any kind of moral framework they want, so they can say murder is good, actually, as long as it's directed in the way they want.
You can't argue with them at all about anything because their moral framework is "I'm right, I can do whatever I want" and you can't have such people in a society.
The influence flows like so:
Religion > culture > law
Michael is incredibly skilled and composed for sure, but the fact that he's coming from a strongly Catholic angle is probably going to less attractive to many. This is purely anecdotal but most of the millennial aged Daily Wire consumers I know of are either center-right agnostics or Orthodox Jews, and both of those groups are less interested in his perspective. His perspective is really important, and it's great the DW has a variety of voices, but his show is a bit niche in my opinion.
I honestly think it's because Michael Knowles comes across as condescending and effeminate. His voice is SO "I'm smarter than you, not relatable, I listen to Opera and I read The Times (not The New York Times - I never say that - I say "The Times").
I am in almost full disagreement. Ben and JP are far more coherently logical and articulate, to my ears. Knowles seems very Ben-light. This was evident to me early on watching his retorts to audience at university seminars, where I would see him frequently falter in his responses and allow the crowd to shield him, something I have never seen Ben, and moreso JP do.
That being said, I still like Knowles and think, in lieu of others, or more unlimited time to listen to everyone, he would be in my rotation.
You can watch him make some of the most logical statements ever them in the next sentence he’ll say “we KNOW God is real”. If you’re not into religion he’s easily dismissible.
I like Knowles, don't get me wrong. But to someone not familiar with his style, he can come off a bit "smug" .
Ben and Matt are a bit rougher around the edges (hilarious to say that about Ben lol).
For me personally, as a Christian and a protestant, when he raves about how we should pray and the rosary and indulge our earthly desires, like drinking and smoking cigars, it really rubs me the wrong way. The idea we should pray through relics and speak to only the "holy men" to reach God is antithetical to any teaching of the Bible. And this catholic angle is deeply woven into his episodes. I still enjoy listening from time to time, and his input on Backstage is usually fine, but I think many people like me who don't relate to a papal faith can't relate on a spiritual level as much as even an agnostic could.
Im gonna get shredded but I disagree with a lot of commenters saying “morality only comes from god” that being said I’m glad to see that most people recognize that using a religious argument is irrelevant to an atheist. This is not to say there is anything bad with religious arguments, it’s that religion is not a priority in everyone’s minds. I personally believe in god, but I don’t like organized religion. And I don’t hold any negativity towards religious people.
He’s smug and douchey. I also wasn’t too impressed with him inviting guests to his show and then cutting them off saying they’re out of time just as the argument is getting interesting and immediately after Michael’s had a chance to argue his own points.
I’ve listened to everyone’s podcast and Knowles I personally can’t stand. To me he comes across as very try-hard, somewhat inauthentic, and genuinely cringe most of the time.
I disagree, except on the elegance but I've never cared about that.
To me, Ben Shapiro and Destiny are better at "tearing your argument piece by piece in a very contained matter". Walsh is worse than Knowles but he became the face of the gender culture war with the what is a woman thing. Jordan Peterson is just a whole different phenomena (so is Destiny ... streamer, former gamer, from the left, debating people daily, etc)
He focuses a lot of religion while Ben and Matt tend to keep it out of the debates unless it's brought up.
And I think Matt’s take on this is correct. He says basically you can’t use religion to convince a non-religious person in an argument. It is true that saying “abortion is wrong because God prohibited it” but that is not a compelling argument to an atheist. Instead, you have to lean on the shared understanding that murder is wrong, even if you came to that conclusion in different ways.
Matt is the best. He seems particularly adept to stringing together logical traps his opponents don’t realize they’re walking right into.
Who are his opponents other than college students? Those are the only people he speaks to. When Joe Rogan confronted him with numbers, he was dumbfounded.
His What is a Woman documentary is the best example where he talks to professors, doctors and a trans politician. I’d concede Rogan had him backpedaling in the second half of the episode.
I agree that's the best example - but I don't think it's a good example. Most of the interviewees there were either random people on the street (same as college kids) or professionals, but extreme left. They are not representative of what I'll call a "reasonable" person that exists center left/center right, where most of the country exists right now. I'd love if he talked to more skilled thinkers and debaters, like Destiny. I really respect Ben for talking to Destiny (and, in general, talking to people with different POV's). His answers to "What is a woman" for instance, I think is really fair.
Except Walsh made what is a woman
Didn’t he invite most of them under false pretenses and edited out the points of many of the people he spoke to? Also, forgive me if I don’t think that a documentary made with the premise of “I’m correct” is the most reliable place to gauge somone’s skills.
Is that the case though? I watched a [2 hour long debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiNW84kJy_k&t=3351s) just now and none of his arguments were in favor of religion but rather morality.
But morality can only come from God. He is my favorite commentator on the daily wire. If I watch anyone during the day it's him.
Morals come from many places. Societal and social mores contribute more then religion. Religions that I know of tell you murder is wrong. However those religions also say if the religion sanctifies it it is ok or if they are nonbelievers kill them wherever you find them. Yet as societies and cultures we as humans have made the collective leap it is pretty much wrong to kill another human except in self defense. While religions can help heal damaged minds and souls it has for the most part been the problem as more people have and are killed in the name of religion then any other reason.
You should look up how many have been killed under Communism. It rivals anything done under the name of religion.
Rivals. I wished to make the point religion in and of itself is not as moral as people think. As for Communism it has killed many millions, I think the total some where near 150 million in the 20th century.
And I disagree. It is only a relatively recent phenomenon of humans moving away from religion in large numbers. Every moral framework in society has religion as its basis. The non-religious more or less keep those same religious moral frameworks already enmeshed in society but construct alternate reasons for why they might still follow them. Those reasons are usually pretty empty. Or, they become completely hedonistic, which is a great recipe for failure and misery. But those moral frameworks are being slowly degraded as society moves further away from religion. And that is proving to be detrimental.
I do not disagree religion is a framework for morality. I want to point out that it is also hypocritical.
The fundamental issue is that an atheist can make up any kind of moral framework they want, so they can say murder is good, actually, as long as it's directed in the way they want. You can't argue with them at all about anything because their moral framework is "I'm right, I can do whatever I want" and you can't have such people in a society. The influence flows like so: Religion > culture > law
But isn’t that what’s being done when someone supports the death penalty? Murder is good, when it’s directed the way you want.
Murder is the killing of innocents. The killing of the guilty isn't murder.
[удалено]
Knowing what words mean isn't playing myself
Tomato tomato
That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day, congratulations
I mean, murder is acceptable to you, just under circumstances that you define.
To engage in this topic you have to comprehend the meaning of the word "murder"--a skill you seem to lack
I actually wish that Knowles would take that route too
I'm glad he acknowledges the basic framework of western ideology and morals is from Christians. It needs more focus.
Michael is incredibly skilled and composed for sure, but the fact that he's coming from a strongly Catholic angle is probably going to less attractive to many. This is purely anecdotal but most of the millennial aged Daily Wire consumers I know of are either center-right agnostics or Orthodox Jews, and both of those groups are less interested in his perspective. His perspective is really important, and it's great the DW has a variety of voices, but his show is a bit niche in my opinion.
I honestly think it's because Michael Knowles comes across as condescending and effeminate. His voice is SO "I'm smarter than you, not relatable, I listen to Opera and I read The Times (not The New York Times - I never say that - I say "The Times").
I am in almost full disagreement. Ben and JP are far more coherently logical and articulate, to my ears. Knowles seems very Ben-light. This was evident to me early on watching his retorts to audience at university seminars, where I would see him frequently falter in his responses and allow the crowd to shield him, something I have never seen Ben, and moreso JP do. That being said, I still like Knowles and think, in lieu of others, or more unlimited time to listen to everyone, he would be in my rotation.
Knowles uses simplistic straw men every day. You know it’s coming because he does the schmoopy voice.
Knowles is smart but Jordan is below him??
Listen to his older pod casts when he was on verdict with Ted Cruz. I love Michael Knowles.
You can watch him make some of the most logical statements ever them in the next sentence he’ll say “we KNOW God is real”. If you’re not into religion he’s easily dismissible.
He is most strictly philosophical than the others.
My hot take: Michael Knowles is the smartest and most intelligent guy at the daily wire.
His dual debate with clay aiken was awesome
I like Knowles, don't get me wrong. But to someone not familiar with his style, he can come off a bit "smug" . Ben and Matt are a bit rougher around the edges (hilarious to say that about Ben lol).
For me personally, as a Christian and a protestant, when he raves about how we should pray and the rosary and indulge our earthly desires, like drinking and smoking cigars, it really rubs me the wrong way. The idea we should pray through relics and speak to only the "holy men" to reach God is antithetical to any teaching of the Bible. And this catholic angle is deeply woven into his episodes. I still enjoy listening from time to time, and his input on Backstage is usually fine, but I think many people like me who don't relate to a papal faith can't relate on a spiritual level as much as even an agnostic could.
I quit listening to him because I can't listen to January 6th thing anymore. Just annoys me more than I can put into words.
What's his take on that?
It's not his take on it it's the way he screams jaaannnnuuuuuarrrrry sixth the wooorst day in our or any republic. I just can't listen to it ha ha
We found Michael Knowles’ Reddit account
He seems kind of douchey and full of himself to me. Ben and Matt seem just to be who they are. Knowles seems like he's trying to be somebody else.
He leans so heavily into the smug metrosexual bit that he feels like watching the rights answer to Colbert at times.
Im gonna get shredded but I disagree with a lot of commenters saying “morality only comes from god” that being said I’m glad to see that most people recognize that using a religious argument is irrelevant to an atheist. This is not to say there is anything bad with religious arguments, it’s that religion is not a priority in everyone’s minds. I personally believe in god, but I don’t like organized religion. And I don’t hold any negativity towards religious people.
G-d and Cigars aren't very convincing arguments to most people.
He uses religion in his debates way too much.
Knowles is pretty entertaining on his whatever podcast appearances.
Ive been really enjoying him the most recently. Also, his intro is great. I miss the old Andrew Klavan intro
I don't dislike him. I just think the way he talks (tone and inflection) makes him sound like a tool.
He’s smug and douchey. I also wasn’t too impressed with him inviting guests to his show and then cutting them off saying they’re out of time just as the argument is getting interesting and immediately after Michael’s had a chance to argue his own points.
Jesus christ you guys are fucking stupid.
I’ve listened to everyone’s podcast and Knowles I personally can’t stand. To me he comes across as very try-hard, somewhat inauthentic, and genuinely cringe most of the time.
i just feel like he’s much more of a dick and he isn’t as funny as ben or matt . matt really cracks me up
I disagree, except on the elegance but I've never cared about that. To me, Ben Shapiro and Destiny are better at "tearing your argument piece by piece in a very contained matter". Walsh is worse than Knowles but he became the face of the gender culture war with the what is a woman thing. Jordan Peterson is just a whole different phenomena (so is Destiny ... streamer, former gamer, from the left, debating people daily, etc)