Let’s Call That A First Round Knockout.
If you want to see what the Mike Tyson vs Michael Spinks fight would look like if Mike Tyson were a petite but supremely intelligent brown-skinned woman and Michael Spinks were a leftist who think’s he’s a lot smarter than he really is this is what it would look like.
No related posts.
Category: Cool Columnists and Wicked Writers
Huh. I guess I missed the part of the fight where Spinks called Tyson a bunch of names and then ran away saying Tyson was “beneath” debating- I’m sorry, fighting.
That would have been after the fight, when Tyson beat Spinks so badly he nearly forgot his own name and was in danger of losing one of his two working brain cells.
Just for the record, though, I wouldn’t even debate Ezra Klein and I’m just some tail-rank blogger. I wouldn’t debate him any more than I’d engage in a discussion on early American speculative fiction with the naked guy on the corner wearing the sandwich board that reads “The End is Near”.
Some folks like the nice warm feeling that the words “Let’s have a debate” cause or the flashback they get to their college days when they were cool and relevant and unsullied by the real world and all those facts and substantive issues and other bothersome things. Others take debates seriously, which is why Malkin won’t debate Klein.
She’s the one that called out the liberal bloggers to debate her in good faith on the merits of policy.
Klein stepped up and she stepped off.
In her world, there are no liberal bloggers who can debate in good faith.
Let’s just call it a forfeit.
She already did that, considering that Klein has no interest in actually debating the program itself nor the falsehoods the Democrats, Klein included, have been telling about it.
Considering that he’s alraedy misrepresentes something she said once, it’s a good bet he’ll do it again. Ruile Number One of debating is, don’t debate with a prevaricator.
I think that’s a red herring.
Klein said he wanted to talk about SCHIP and only SCHIP, and specifically said that the debate would not concern the Frosts or the way right wing bloggers have tried to depict them as the 2007 version of Reagan’s “welfare queen”.
Instead of pointing to something dishonest that Klein said about actual SCHIP policy, she takes exception to Klein’s characterization of her attacks on the specifics of the Frosts’ case.
Now if Malkin wants to use that as a basis to refuse a debate with Klein, that’s her prerogative.
But then she has a huge glass houses problem *unless* she is squeaky clean in the good faith debate department.
And she’s just not.
“Considering that he’s alraedy misrepresentes something she said once, it’s a good bet he’ll do it again. Ruile Number One of debating is, don’t debate with a prevaricator.”
This is bone-headed, and no reasonable person can buy this.
The whole POINT of a debate is so that misrepresentations (prevarications, whatever you want to call them) can be CHALLENGED and EXPOSED.
It’s easy for both Klein and Malkin to discuss the merits or flaws of SCHIP when each lives in their own separate bubble. But Klein was ready to step into the ring and subject whatever he said to Malkin’s scrutiny, if she would willing to do the same. That, after all, is what a debate IS.
There was no “Round One”. Tyson refused to enter the ring because (s)he believed that Spinks wouldn’t fall down “in good faith” like he’s supposed to.
[...] appears to have dwindled to Captain Ed (who really doesn’t even mention it), Wake Up America, Jimmie at the Sundries Shack, and Dan [...]
[...] Let’s Call That A First Round Knockout. : The Sundries Shack [...]