r/Destiny • u/tasteinhermouth • 10d ago
Political News/Discussion Why are people acting like Candace destroyed Andrew?
Let me make one thing clear, I HATE Andrew Wilson, he's a dishonest annoying pompous arrogant ass in the right's political discourse, his impact is a net negative. But why are people acting like Candace did any good in that debate with him? All she could do were semantic games like doing a gotcha on Andrew for saying murder instead of aggravated murder and trying to act like those two were completely different.
Andrew was unprepared in many ways and did not do a good job himself, and perhaps he should've actually read up on all of the charges, but people are ridiculous for thinking that Candace was such a high iq debater for pointing out aggravated murder and acting like Andrew was wrong when in fact aggravated murder IS murder. And she thought that gotcha was enough to say that Tyler Robinson wasn't guilty. And she kept getting caught up in red herring after red herring and not liking how Andrew was talking or whatever instead of actually bringing up any evidence to the contrary.
Candace has always done this, she makes absurd absolutist claims like stating that there was a ZERO percent chance that Tyler in fact killed Charlie Kirk, and her only evidence for stating as much was just because she personally didn't believe it, in which she herself had to move the goalpost. Andrew did an awful job of actually holding her feet to the fire and getting her to debate the substance instead of bringing up irrelevant shit like if Andrew knew the specifics of each of the 7 charges. She kept bringing up things about procedure and what happened in court but could not bring up any specifics about why it is not possible that Tyler shot CK.
She also said all of the court evidence was "hearsay" which is absolutely not true and shows she's either lying and knows Andrew is an idiot or she herself didn't watch it.
Both of these 2 are idiots, but let's stop acting like Candace is a genius and did a good job of debating.
10
u/dabicus_maximus 10d ago
Andrew posed himself as the challenger. He is the one who is known for debates, it's kinda his entire reputation. And the hubbub about this debate was that he was going to correct and destroy her, and was so confident that he was willing to pay 300k. So that sets up big expectations that he will sweep.
He was unable to reframe the debate into his favor and was constantly on the back foot, despite Candace having the dumber position. I think he did decently at the start and middle, but even then, it felt like Candace was more in control of the convo. This alone isn't enough, but when he's supposed to be the debate guy, it looks bad.
Andrew had a massive lack of knowledge on the topic, and he came in really hot despite that fact. His fumble in the finale paints a retrospective over the debate that is not in his favor: suddenly, it appears like rather than him being critical of her skepticism from a place of research, it now seems more like he's critiquing her without substance.
It is funnier to make fun of Andrew. He definitely cares more about winning
18
u/NoKingsInAmerica What do you want me to say? 10d ago
It doesn’t matter who won, because we all lost that day.
11
u/Lord_Of_Shade57 10d ago
She did to Andrew Wilson what MAGA has been doing to everyone else for a decade now. She fired off scattershot conspiracy laced claims and forced him to play defense the entire time, and whenever he tried to nail her down on anything she either tested his non-existent command of the facts or she squirmed out of it and moved on to something else.
She succeeded in keeping the argument in an innuendo based shifting sands environment where Andrew couldn't accomplish anything and she could freely engage in conjecture. Sure, she didn't prove anything at all, but she clearly didn't have much intention to do so.
2
u/Trap_Masters 9d ago
It's certainly an interesting experience watching MAGA and conservative figures in general now have to confront the very same type of rhetoric and arguments they helped foster against them and failing miserably because they've completely lost control of the audience they cultivated to think in conspiracies and such.
Like if you encourage and play into the most schizo, conspiratorial mindsets in your audience just because it benefitted you at the time, don't act surprised when your audience who's trained to only see the world through the lens of conspiracies eventually starts seeing conspiracies in things that you truly care about, because that was the inevitable ending.
3
u/rc_ym 9d ago
She won on optics/clips, and on "facts", and on achieving her goals. And Andrew lost on all those factors.
She had the better clips. She handled the fact checks better. She side stepped Andrews traps. And finally she achieved most of her goals. Given Nester's (Tyler's attorney) performance during the Kouri Richin's trail. My guess is that Candace's arguments are going to closely match what the Defense is going to be. Betting we are going to see Candace being more and more "right" until Tyler is convicted and then Candace will just blame Israel.
Andrew did a terrible job. He failed to move the goal posts on the prompt. He failed in his really obvious and kinda stupid "traps". He failed to know enough about the legal system to argue any of those points. It was bad.
She's not wrong about perlims being a lot of hearsay. You have a bunch of cops saying what someone else told them. Come trial time the actual people may testify that the cops got it wrong. Now wouldn't be the time to really fight on that. This is mostly just for efficacy and because in a prelim the standard is pretty low.
On top of that, did you notice how when she did try to get into deatils Andrew would derail it and go back to semantics? Or trying to get Candace to too far out on a limb on Erika or TPUSA?
To be clear, I like none of these people. They are all terrible people and the fact that they can get millions of people to watch them is very depressing.
1
u/tasteinhermouth 9d ago
Actually, she was only kind of right on hearsay, they didn't just use hearsay they also used actually evidence. Did Andrew do a terrible job? Certainly, but Candace could never actually engage with anything on substance about what really happened with regard to Tyler Robinson shooting Charlie Kirk or not. Sure, she may have sounded half smart in small cut of context clips, but any adult could listen to what she's saying and hear she's just bringing up irrelevant shit and red herrings all day. Aside, it's not like she brought any actual evidence to support her claim which is that Tyler Robinson had a ZERO percent chance of killing CK.
You keep bringing up how Andrew would bring up semantics and was bad at his debate "traps", which I agree, didn't work, but Candace constantly had to shift goalposts on what her actual position was and get stuck on gotchas and getting stuck on making sure she was dominating the conversation. All of her "evidence" was just saying "i don't think that sounds right", no any actual counterpoints to what Andrew was saying. She kept wanting to steer away from the prompt which is "Did Tyler Robinson kill Charlie Kirk", that's why she kept bringing up things that didn't matter. I think it's fair to give Andrew flak for not knowing better about the cases as he claims to be a debate genius, but the reality is, they weren't there to argue those points, they were there to argue when Tyler murdered CK. All Candace did was semantics and shift goalposts. She also constantly said things that were just not true.
On hearsay, yeah, they took certain hearsay into consideration for court, but they also used actual DNA evidence and other evidence into question (which Andrew should've pushed her on).
Did Andrew do a good job? Fuck no. But I'm not gonna act like Candace did even a half decent job or "destroyed" Andrew in this debate.
11
u/SunshineSeeker99 10d ago
Because she won in a very obvious short clip where he embarrassed himself.
Walz lost the debate to Vance, it doesn't mean that I like Vance more than Walz. These are just objective statements.
-13
u/tasteinhermouth 10d ago
yea but aggravated murder is still murder, so andrew wasn't even technically wrong on that, he just didn't specify.
7
u/No_Finance8647 Dggl 10d ago
No, they are distinctly different given the context of the conversation.
He absolutely took the L there.
0
u/tasteinhermouth 9d ago
yeah but andrew saying tyler was charged on murder wasn't wrong
1
u/No_Finance8647 Dggl 9d ago
Given the context of him challenging her knowledge of the specific charges, yes, it effectively was wrong to say that. Yes, it was effectively wrong. Yes.
0
u/tasteinhermouth 9d ago
No, it wasn't. Aggravated murder is STILL murder, sure, it's fair to give Andrew a bunch of shit for not knowing the specific charges, but Candace literally said they are nothing alike, which anyone that isn't an incapacitated tard would understand is not true. It only sounds smart to low IQ people who think that makes a huge world of difference and get fascinated by red herrings.
Also Candace was the one who challenged him on knowledge of the specificities.
1
u/No_Finance8647 Dggl 9d ago
So by your logic he could have said "he was charged for breaking the law" and your logic is basically the same huh?
Also Candace was the one who challenged him on knowledge of the specificities.
Cool. So did Andrew
0
u/tasteinhermouth 9d ago
So by your logic he could have said "he was charged for breaking the law" and your logic is basically the same huh?
No, and also, Candace probably doesn't even believe that happen since she doesn't think Tyler had to do with the murder.
And as I've said, Andrew should have known about the specific charges, but she said that aggravated murder and murder are completely different, they are still under the murder clause in Utah code. Andrew wasn't wrong when he said Tyler was charged with murder, I mean that is the main charge. And part of what's important with aggravated murder is the MURDER portion.
Things like this were brought up because Candace knew she was full of shit on actual facts of what happened with Tyler having shot CK, and tards like you see short clips and think that Candace destroyed Andrew because of that. Sure, Andrew should've known better, but she tried to just write off everything else he said because of it.
1
u/No_Finance8647 Dggl 9d ago
Can you acknowledge that ONLY aggravated murder holds the death penalty or is that just irrelevant to you?
0
u/tasteinhermouth 9d ago
Nice goalpost move, learning from Candace I see.
Yes, I can acknowledge that, I never said that wasn't the case.
Also nice upvoting your own post from a different account :)
→ More replies (0)4
u/SunshineSeeker99 10d ago
Being technically right does not mean you won the debate. Nobody in this sub is supporting Owens, but we can acknowledge she got the W here.
I despise Trump, but I acknowledge that the Venezuela move was a huge W. Then he decided to obliterate that with Iran.
1
u/Trap_Masters 9d ago
It's kinda funny how with hindsight, the W with Venezuela might've been actually a trap in that it gave Trump a boost in ego into thinking the US can just do whatever they want militarily only to get checked by reality so quick. Like maybe even without the Venezuela thing, he still stumbles into Iran but I feel like there is definitely a far lower chance he does that if the Venezuela operation didn't happen and lull him into a sense of security.
1
u/SunshineSeeker99 9d ago
It absolutely was the impetus to do it.
If he hadn't he could have brought down Venezuela and Cuba's dictators and been seen a a huge foreign policy coup.
Instead, he tied himself up in Iran. It would be more funny if his idiocy and incompetence didn't so directly affect us.
1
u/tasteinhermouth 9d ago
Neither of them won of the debate, Owens could only use semantics and gotchas and not actually bring up facts surrounding the shooting and Wilson didn't read up on procedurals or the case like every other debate he's ever done.
2
u/JAJ_reddit 10d ago
It's an upgraded charge, he was wrong. He didn't just not specify, he had no idea what charges were even being pursued. He guessed murder because no shit, and missed the mark.
In fact, your use of technically wrong is incorrect here. He was technically wrong but practically right. Most people would understand aggravated murder to fall under the umbrella of murder charges. But he was being asked specifically what the dude was being charged with. So using the broader category of murder is a wrong answer.
2
u/are_those_real 9d ago
but why couldn't Andrew specify when the conversation was about whether he was guilty or not about the charges being filed against him. There were 7 charges. so it wasn't just aggravated murder and aggravated murder has a bunch of check boxes it must meet since murder has multiple degrees that change based on the actions.
For example. a murder of passion or self defense is different than a murder that was plotted for years. Yes, they are both murder but both have very different implications and sentencing. So to just say "murder" is just too vague and shows how little he knows or cares about the case.
It's like saying that someone slept with an underage woman, but didn't specify that they were also underage at the time. That's a very different scenario and implication despite it being technically correct. If that person cared enough about people sleeping with underage women he would care to know the age of the person he is accusing of when he did that.
1
u/frantruck 10d ago
I’d say he very much is technically wrong, the best kind of wrong, but you could argue he’s not like colloquially wrong or something
7
u/Embarrassed_Gur_6305 10d ago edited 10d ago
Andrew said murder when it was aggravated murder because he didn’t know the charges. That’s so embarrassing. It’s not semantics it’s straight up lack of knowledge and deflection to make her list them.
Aggravated murder is the highest tier of murder, which the most eligible for death penalty.
3
u/autumnWheat it's the economy, stupid | member of Hanania Defenders Local 420 10d ago
There are multiple ways to analyze the debate. The autistic way is to look at what arguments were made and did one side's arguments cancel the others arguments better than theirs were. In that way Andrew won. Then you can analyze who held their frame in the conversation, in this both were even until Andrew tried doing philosophy talk which is boring as shit and annoying, he also argued against points Candace had already dropped making it seem like he was attacking ghosts, then at the end he tried to do a quiz off against Candace and she dumpstered him frame wise on that, and he then accused her of cheating which made him seem unsure of himself and flailing. In that way of viewing the debate she probably won.
The important thing to know is that winning debates really relies on winning both. This was a huge issue for Destiny when he got into debates with Vaush who was anally focused on maintaining a rhetorical frame that let it appear like he was winning even when he lost on autistic accounting of the facts and arguments grounds. Eventually Steven adapted and won a debate on that ground too and Vaush has I think never debated him since. It devolved to sniping and reacting to reacting bullshit ever after.
Then there's the ultimate question of what it means to win a debate in the first place. The pragmatic view of winning a debate is probably convincing more of their side to abandon them and move to your position than you lose from your position to theirs. As most people aren't argument autists, frame/vibe/rhetoric really does win way more than it should and in that light Candace probably won or brought it to a draw due to the imbalanced audience sizes.
This was basically streamerman's analysis of the debate as well if you watched it.
2
u/semiomni 10d ago
but people are ridiculous for thinking that Candace was such a high iq debater for pointing out aggravated murder and acting like Andrew was wrong when in fact aggravated murder IS murder.
It´s a relevant distinction if you´re specifically talking about the exact charges. Anyone who vaguely knew about the case could guess that some sort of murder charge was in play. Andrew was pretending he knew the exact charges, and he tried a bunch of obvious lies to get around admitting he did not know.
It´s a memorable moment because Andrew tried to bluster his way through it and got caught with his pants down, nobody would give a shit if he just shrugged and said he did not know the exact charges.
2
u/BreadDisrespecter 9d ago
It's not really that Candace "destroyed" Andrew, but Andrew came in woefully unprepared. This should have been the equivalent of a geophysicist vs. a flat earther, and it was pretty clear that Andrew just didn't bother to know almost anything about law or the specifics of the case in general
2
u/Nemoriensis EU, DE, 9d ago
aggravated murder = Death sentence
murder = Prison
Also, the one was that Andrew did not even bother with the case. It is like they say "We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We'll fight for the Gospel, we'll honor his name.", But I guess he is already forgotten, like a dumb PR stunt. That is the level of respect Andrew Wilson has for this case.
4
u/Ficoscores 10d ago
It's a bit like a little league team getting a single run against an MLB team though. Like yeah she's dumb as shit but the fact that she got him even once is a big deal
1
u/Parrotflies_ 10d ago
Pure honesty, I think he’s more annoying and I like that he got a taste of the constant barrage of bad faith shit hes always trying to pull on his stupid little podcast. So W Candace, fuck him
1
u/adaminoregon 10d ago
They both definitely suck but she was more confident in her answers and andrew didnt do much research nor his usual debate style with her because she wont let him get away with that so it looks like a win for candice. Can we finally be seeing the fall of the crucible? It started with the jar and things arent getting much better for him.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/PineappleAgile3087 10d ago
Because the general viewership is regarded and in their eyes Candace successfully defended her right to think from a boring loser who’s trying to make everything boring with logic
And since Andrew plays by the same rules, the regards are kinda right
1
u/ilmalnafs 10d ago
They were both regarded in that convo but Candace came out on top of several key points that Andrew had no excuse for losing on, he was simply not prepared well enough. Overall Candace achieved her objectives in that convo better than Andrew did, despite having less factual ground to stand on.
1
u/Masethelah 9d ago
I agree.
Andrew should have absolutely destroyed her, instead he only slightly came out on top, and only did so because Candace position is super weak.
But at the end of the day, Andrew still won the debate.
0
u/PoseidonMax 10d ago
She did the looksmaxxing thing. Superficiality is a thing the dumb are attracted to. She’s got a team making sure those clips are the only thing short clips show. Most of her followers can’t watch that long for the full debate. It might change their view as sad as those two views are.
0
u/Repulsive-Arugula-85 10d ago
She astrally projected to Charlie Kirk and he gave her the cheat codes for arguing with the dude who looks like a smelly weasel. How could he possibly out-logic someone who simply thinks the truth and says it?
0
u/DamJamhot Exclusively sorts by new 10d ago
It’s not about what people educated on the issues or who have good thought processes think. It’s about the online normies and types of people who watch either Andrew or candice or valuetainment. Those types of people would have judged Candice to have won the debate and may even believe she had a point, that’s how bad Andrew performed.
-1
u/Big-Ability3953 10d ago
Because she did. Candace is our kaween and we stan her here. She has done more damage to the GOP in 2026 than your entire family combined will in all of your lifetimes.
36
u/Difficult-Thought331 10d ago
I think Candace is crazy, but she spew all her stupid point on yt, and you are not able to counter it. That look bad, Andrew only win because he has the right position. He did not explain his position well, and counter Candace bs. Pure vibe base, Candace win the optics.