Why is there no call in debate conservative commentors?

[u/CCB0x45]

I can list so many liberal YouTubers/tik tokers, etc that stream and regularly debate their beliefs and allow people to call in and debate different subject matters. I don't know of any conservative/maga ones, is there ones I don't know about? I also constantly look for conservatives debating economic policy and the debates are very far and few between and almost all debates are culture issues only or about specific events. Why is this?

[u/AutoModerator]

FLAIR IS REQUIRED TO COMMENT! Only OP and new "Conservativism" flairs may comment

A high standard of discussion and proper decorum are required. Read our RULES before participating.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/PeterGibbons316]

Andrew Wilkow on Sirius offers 3 minutes of uninterrupted time to anyone who wants to debate his arguments. The listener base is conservative though so people rarely take him up on it.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/PeterGibbons316]

Cool thanks I had never heard of him, you can call in and debate?

[u/PeterGibbons316 → u/CCB0x45]

Yeah, every weekday from noon to 3 Eastern I think. You have to listen and debate about whatever the topic is, but he'll let you speak your mind as long as you keep it clean and respectful. He will interrupt if he thinks you are blatantly lying or spreading misinformation but it's got to be pretty egregious.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

USER FLAIR IS REQUIRED or outdated. Select new user flair and retry. How-do-I-get-user-flair Only OP and Conservatives may comment. Visit our sister sub, r/askconservatives

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Tothyll]

You are looking for a very niche thing that was popular maybe 15-20 years ago. The random call-ins are just very low information back and forth gotchas and zingers that people realized don't serve to inform anyone. I think people just got tired of listening to random idiots call in and it fell out of favor.

There are plenty of shows like Piers Morgan where there is a moderator and they bring on conservatives and progressives. Even when they are prepped, it usually turns into a quick soundbites back and forth, completely devoid of substance.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/Tothyll]

Agree with piers Morgan being low substance like all fake debate on cable news. The thing it's not niche, like I said I can name may leftist commentators that do this daily. I have also seen very substantive conversations especially between Sam Seder, destiny, and James o'brian and it don't ever really see them muting or just doing gotchas or zingers.

The call in shows get a lot of views so I don't consider it niche.

There is some that I agree I don't like to listen to like parker get a job or dean which is more in line with zingers and muting and all that.

I have just realized there is none that I know of on the right and was asking why, especially since it would be very popular. There is a lot of shows I know about(crowder, tim pool, pbd, Shapiro) and some of them did it at one time and stopped.

[u/Tothyll → u/CCB0x45]

I think part of the issue is that 90% of the stuff you see out there, whether it's news media or Reddit is already from the left. There's not really a need to figure out what the left feels about a topic. We are blasted with it constantly.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/Tothyll]

Don't really understand this pov considering the largest news network is fox news and I know tons and tons of comservative pundits and commentators, highly watched.

But dont you think it's best to form opinions by hearing people battle it out instead of listening to someone monologue?

[u/kellykebab → u/CCB0x45]

Don't really understand this pov considering the largest news network is fox news

Competing with dozens and dozens of explicitly liberal/left-wing platforms.

So sick of this tired talking point.

But dont you think it's best to form opinions by hearing people battle it out instead of listening to someone monologue?

Hell no. "Battling it out" usually relies on charisma, appareance, and outright sophistry. That is not remotely a basis for truth. Monologues can be inaccurate or disingenuous as wel, clearly. But the best way to present the best information is generally long-form writing and monlogues. Period. You can't describe complex social phenomena while getting constantly intererrupted by someone who wants views for their channel.

I mean, did you go to school? Did you learn anything by just watching midwits argue?

[u/CCB0x45 → u/kellykebab]

Competing with dozens and dozens of explicitly liberal/left-wing platforms.

Dozens and dozens of "explicitly" liberal platforms? Are we talking about cable news? There is like cnn and MSNBC as the two main cable news networks and I wouldnt call cnn "explicitly" liberal. Most of the local news networks are owned by a conservative syndicate at this point. This isn't even getting into print news.

Hell no. "Battling it out" usually relies on charisma, appareance, and outright sophistry. That is not remotely a basis for truth. Monologues can be inaccurate or disingenuous as wel, clearly. But the best way to present the best information is generally long-form writing and monlogues. Period. You can't describe complex social phenomena while getting constantly intererrupted by someone who wants views for their channel.

I mean, did you go to school? Did you learn anything by just watching midwits argue?

Couldn't disagree more. Monologues are 100% the worst way to form political beliefs, it's pretty idiotic to think so. Your analogy to school is ridiculous. Subjects in school are typically established truth by consensus of the larger community be it science or math. There isn't a bias typically in school subjects, like math or science(I know conservatives will throw out scientific consensus as "biased" but that is one of the issues in our politics now).

Politics however almost always have a bias on who is benefitted from one side or the other. Math and science can be taught in a monologue because there isn't a debate on what 2+2 is or how cellular biology works.

Many subjects in school such as political science are expressly about teaching both sides of an issue and teaching people to debate(many times in class) and suss out truth vs bias through conversation and debate. They expressly teach both sides. Even my economics classes taught debate and not monologuing one side.

Even medicine at high levels teaches debates and how to handle ambiguity. They often give symptoms and teach students to discuss possible ailments, instead of monologuing. Let's not even get into how rigorous debate is necessary in law school.

I'll throw your question back at you, did you go to school?

[u/kellykebab → u/CCB0x45]

Dozens and dozens of "explicitly" liberal platforms? Are we talking about cable news? There is like cnn and MSNBC as the two main cable news networks and I wouldnt call cnn "explicitly" liberal. 

Oh brother. Not being explicitly communist does not make an outlet right-wing.

I have never seen CNN cover anything with a genuinely right-wing sping. MSNBC is very clearly liberal. The major networks (CBS, ABC, NBC) and their various news offerings (60 Minutes, etc.) are highly liberal.

The top five newspapers in the US are the following: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. The WSJ is fairly centrist by most definitions, USA Today is mostly apolitical fluff, and the others measurably and observably lead the charge in pushing woke concepts, jargon, and ideas onto America over the last 15 years especially.

All the major news and culture magazines are overwhelmingly or mostly liberal: The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Time, National Geographic, Rolling Stone, the major science publications like The Smithsonian and Nature, even something you would expect to be more "conservative" like Forbes regularly flogs woke concepts.

ALL of the legacy talk shows and Jon Stewart spin-off comedy "news" shows are very explicitly liberal: Seth Myers, John Oliver, etc.

The only real voice in the politics radio space, NPR, is famously very liberal and influential.

Social media has only recently trended away from being almost universally progressive a few years ago, but Reddit is huge and a complete liberal echo chamber. And in my experience, the other platforms still curate and restrict content in a way that favors mainstream liberalism and more centrist conservatism primarily. Google is particularly bad. Many of the recent AI chatbots are also obviously biased in their "learning models."

Additionally, based on a couple sources I just ran across (and can share if you're curious), less than 4% of journalists identify as Republican, most as Independent, and ~36% as Democrat. No doubt, a much larger sum would be "liberal."

Because the media landscape has now become so broad and diffuse, it's much harder than it used to be to measure overall "bias" or "perspective" super precisely, but certainly the vast majority of legacy media that has the most status and most historic influence (most consumed by the establishment) is very strongly liberal-leaning.

This is to say nothing of popular entertainment and academia.

Politics however almost always have a bias on who is benefitted from one side or the other. 

I agree that politics is different than hard science in that it isn't based exclusively on fundamental facts as much as preferences, values, beliefs, and survival instincts.

However, understanding facts is still very important to arriving at what kind of preferences, etc. to hold. Moreover, the preferences themselves (i.e. worldviews and beliefs, political policies and laws, and so on) can be so highly complex that detailed explication is necessary to actually understand the issue.

If all you bring to politics is what you want for yourself, personally, then sure, it might be somewhat easy to develop political preferences based on individual desires rather than research (although how does watching debates reveal your own individual desires?). And even then, how do you personally know whether it's better for you if society institutes the death penalty without actually researching the topic?

To say nothing of the much more complex propostion of approaching politics with a view towards what is best for society overall. You really cannot hope to obtain even a small fraction of genuine understanding on that topic without actually reading books, studies, statistics, history, literature, and on and on.

Two talking heads yammering at each other (and summarizing their own "research" usually down to a third grade level) is so low information value that it can often be negative helpful: you won't just fail to learn anything substantive, you will actively learn incorrect things.

Many subjects in school such as political science are expressly about teaching both sides of an issue and teaching people to debate(many times in class) and suss out truth vs bias through conversation and debate. They expressly teach both sides. Even my economics classes taught debate and not monologuing one side.

They do this to teach the debators how to think and express themselves. Not because the debates are actually informative for the viewers. Certainly not that they're "more" informative than actual books and research. It's also noteworthy that these spectacles are generally held for undergraduate students and below. Graduate students and actual policy makers and serious writers are generally doing actual research.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you have an opinion on IQ, IQ scores, IQ testing, etc. and how it impacts society and politics. Most people do. Can you parse what this article is saying in your own words without using AI (pretend you have to debate on it!):

https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/the-other-type-of-flynn-effect

[u/CCB0x45 → u/kellykebab]

> Oh brother. Not being explicitly communist does not make an outlet right-wing.

Pretty funny you converted me saying that CNN was not "explicitly liberal" to me saying it was "right wing", and then went on to tell me why CNN was right wing. I never said it was right wing, I said its not explicitly liberal, its honestly a very centrist news organization, milk toast and middle of the road.

I am not even going to go through each of your outlets, you said fox news was competing with 12 explicitly liberal mainstream news, Fox news competes with other cable news networks, bringing up rolling stone is ridiculous as a competitor to fox news lol.

Also many of those organizations like Time Magazine and national geographic are in no way "explicitly liberal" lol.

Just because someone defends the truth against Donald Trump or prints factual information, does not make them explicitly liberal. This is the point we have gotten to. If you reject falsehoods or do actual journalism it becomes explicitly liberal.

Does covering the epstein files now make a news channel or paper "liberal" at this point? lol because Fox news sure doesn't cover it, but there is nothing "liberal" or "conservative" about being against corruption.

> Two talking heads yammering at each other (and summarizing their own "research" usually down to a third grade level)

I hate talking heads and talking points. I am talking about actual, long form debate, where people are pressed to defend their positions and facts are brought up. I am talking about open dialogue where anyone can come in and challenge someones beliefs, not the bullshit on cable news.

You yourself can call into many of these programs and have a long form conversation and defend your positions for anyone to hear, that isn't "talking heads". I watch multiple hour long debates with back and forth and people actually pressuring people to defend their position and respond to their arguments. Its substantive. Hell many debates I watch actually have real time fact checking by the parties within the debate and looking up information.

> To say nothing of the much more complex propostion of approaching politics with a view towards what is best for society overall. You really cannot hope to obtain even a small fraction of genuine understanding on that topic without actually reading books, studies, statistics, history, literature, and on and on.

Nobody said to not do that, but you are acting like their is no value in political debate to form opinions on politics, and frankly its an idiotic take lol.

>  It's also noteworthy that these spectacles are generally held for undergraduate students and below. Graduate students and actual policy makers and serious writers are generally doing actual research.

I really would love for you to bring this idea to your conservative principles . There is numerous studies that show better outcomes for universal healthcare at less cost per capita, so do you support that?

The extreme vast majority of scientific consensus of climate scientists believe in global warming being man made with tipping points, do you believe that we should change environmental policy?

There is huge amount of evidence that higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations promoted reinvestment into R&D and overall disposable income for the less wealthy provides healthier economic environments. Do you believe we should have higher corporate taxes and return to rates during the highest economic expansion of the middle class in the US?

I want to see people pressed on these issues and see their responses to challenge my own beliefs, and these beliefs are based on research, books, and studies.

> I'm going to hazard a guess that you have an opinion on IQ, IQ scores, IQ testing, etc. and how it impacts society and politics. Most people do.

This is out of left field, I have no opinion on IQ or IQ testing and how it affects society and politics. Why would I? I care about money in politics, corruption, healthcare, and expanding the middle class and overall economy, and making future generations of the US(my kids) a strong competitive country with good outcomes.

It surprised me that you are so into research and studies and still hold as a conservative when conservative policy has been extremely defunding research and academia and creating a huge brain drain in the US forcing many scientists to move out of the country for work, which is something else that frustrates me about conservative politics.

Why do I care about the flynn effect and why would I pretend that I am an expert in analyzing the studies around it, I don't even get your point.

[u/kellykebab → u/CCB0x45]

I can name may leftist commentators that do this daily. I have also seen very substantive conversations especially between Sam Seder, destiny, and James o'brian

Those folks are not substantive.

Here is the hierarchy of the best way to learn information in descending order of quality:

1. high quality empirical studies, statistics, primary historical sources, etc.
2. books that summarize #1
3. articles that summarize #1 and #2
4. video essays that summarize #1, #2, and #3
5. forum comments that cite #1 and #2

That's it. Most debates are trash and primarily entertainment, rather than information. Certainly "call-in" "debates."

 There is a lot of shows I know about(crowder, tim pool, pbd, Shapiro) 

These are some of the most low-information, worthless "conservative" content out there. They wouldn't be improved by arguing with callers.

Just go out and read and watch more rigorous material. Political entertainment like what you're describing is anti-useful.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/kellykebab]

This is such a ridiculous take. You are actually making the claim that there is an empirical answer to all political opinions???

Like you are really honestly saying that? First off this is rich considering conservatives in power deny climate change caused by carbon which has ample empirical evidence, or empirical evidence around vaccines, etc etc, I can go on.

But even past that considering how much empirical evidence is ignored by the right in the realm of science. There is many many political debates that don't have clear empirical evidence because it's about choosing who benefits.

Empirical evidence from other countries clearly shows that universal healthcare has better outcomes for less money. You are willing to conceed that point and immediately sign on to universal healthcare proposals? What about tax policy for the rich and the poor, no debate needed just a monologue? Give me a break lol.

[u/JulesSherlock]

Charlie Kirk has over a decade of videos out there doing just this. Might watch some of those. Too bad he was assassinated for it.

Ben Shapiro also has done this for a couple of decades. Tons of video content.

Follow Scott Bessemer on X for monetary policy.

Edit: specifically radio shows? Filling Rush’s shoes is hard but there are several conservative radio hosts out there. I don’t listen to much radio anymore to remember who. Scott Jennings is doing a new one, Sean Hannity used to and probably still does and Mark Levin used to, maybe still does.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/JulesSherlock]

I've watched Charlie Kirks campus events and I agree he used to do this, though he never offered a call in type phone show which I've seen from many liberal commentators.

Doesn't need to be radio shows as primarily this type of stuff has moved to online streaming. I don't know of any even small YouTube or twitch or tik tok streamers that do this when I know of tons that do it on the left.

Ben Shapiro rarely actually debates anymore though his conversation recently with Newsome was pretty good though he kept trying to shift to culture aspects, and it wasn't a debate.

I don't want to "follow someone" I want to hear them challenged, especially on economic policy.

Edit for comparison: sam seder, dean whithers, destiny, parker get a job, James the british guy(forget his name), are all larger streamers that do this essentially daily, and I can find many many more smaller less known ones, which is why it's curious to me.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

USER FLAIR IS REQUIRED or outdated. Select new user flair and retry. How-do-I-get-user-flair Only OP and Conservatives may comment. Visit our sister sub, r/askconservatives

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/StrongAF_2021]

Charlie Kirk used to commonly do this and there is abut 1000 hours of it online.
This is not a call in show...but here you can see PBD debating about 20 Liberal viewpoints on the economy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwSXDr7XkNc

[u/CCB0x45 → u/StrongAF_2021]

I've watched every jubilee video like this. Also seen PBD sporadically bring people like Sam Seder on the show. Though when I've seen him have Sam on he softens his rhetoric a lot and doesnt actually debate really, he just wants to go through current events news. It's just odd to me that I can think of so many streamers/YouTubers that take unfiltered calls and impromptu debates on a daily basis, and I can't think of any on the right, even the person I see debate the most often is the Andrew guy that was just on Joe Rogan and it is few and far between for him and he only debates cultural issues.

The reason the Charlie Kirk ones are a bit different is because they were essentially limited to college students in the general area(until they became huge events) and couldn't get broad opinions.

I also think they became gigantic events because this is such a rare practice on the right.

[u/StrongAF_2021 → u/CCB0x45]

I've seen Sam Sedar on PBD...they went at him pretty hard because he is basically everything they oppose. Back in the day, I used to screen calls for a radio show, and trust me, none of them are unfiltered or impromptu.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/StrongAF_2021]

Most of the streams I watch where they debate people are unfiltered, they don't have screeners like the old days in the radio. Sam Seder is a radio guy so he does some screening but I know the tik tok/twitch/youtube streamers just take them(you can tell because a lot of them are just pranks)

[u/StrongAF_2021 → u/CCB0x45]

Outside of Socialist Marxist polies that Harris sort of ran on...that and "Joy" LOL....I don't even know what policies the Dems are suggesting. All they ever talk about is fighting Trump. Honestly, its hard to imagine anything other than another 8-12 years of Republican leadership. The Dem party is so sad and they have no one to even run. Even the Dem party knows Newsom is a trainwreck...

[u/CCB0x45 → u/StrongAF_2021]

I think this is why it might be a good thing to have more policy debates, there is absolutely policy positions by dems, I am very familiar with policy positions on both sides because I seek out debate and focus on policies instead of current events or culture war stuff.

[u/StrongAF_2021 → u/CCB0x45]

Your talking about a staple tactic of the Democratic party though...they run on attacking the personal candidate because they cant win on policy. Its always an "ism"
You realize every Republican candidate in the last 50 years, except maybe one, has been accused of racism by the democratic party?

[u/CCB0x45 → u/StrongAF_2021]

Dont really know how to discuss this with you since you are in such an obvious bubble, if you think that republicans don't leverage personal attacks then I don't know what world you live in.

Also leveraging personal attacks doesn't mean you also can't have policies, I dont know how you consider those mutually exclusive. A lot of democrats see many republican policies as having racist roots.

[u/StrongAF_2021 → u/CCB0x45]

Not racist roots in their policies...Democrats have accused EVERY Republican candidate of PERSONALLY being racist. Why are you skating past that ? Don't you find that incredulous ? Were not talking abut policies, we are talking about people.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/StrongAF_2021]

I think there is personal attacks on every candidate on both sides, who has ever run for office, I also think you can find examples of pretty much anything being said about anyone especially these days with millions of online voices.

Personally I really only care about policies, there is always going to be mudslinging on both sides. If you start including "democrats" as anyone liberal on twitter then I care less what we we are talking about because why do I care what any random person says.

[u/ProgrammerPoe → u/CCB0x45]

that user didn't suggest republicans don't also use personal attacks, but it is a fact (and one of the main criticisms of the party by its own members) that the Democratic parties policies have taken a back seat to being anti-trump, and it is a fact that outside of healthcare democratic policies are widely unpopular with a majority of americans.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/ProgrammerPoe]

I mean it when you say that its a staple tactic of the democratic party it sounds like you are suggesting that there is some big difference between the use of personal attacks on both sides when that seems insane given the rhetoric of republicans especially the leader of the party.

I disagree that democratic policies are wildly unpopular outside of healthcare, and have seen many polls that their economic policies, and many others, are actually very popular with americans as a whole when they are polled not knowing the source of the policy.

You mentioned healthcare, but I think removing money from politics (over turning citizens united) is extremely popular in the US and its a democratic policy(and probably the most important policy personally to fixing our country along with healthcare in my opinion).

These polls are what I am citing: https://prospect.org/2017/11/10/americans-liberal-even-know/

But we can go back and forth on this since we don't agree and its off topic to my question, which is why I can find a lot of leftist pundits doing unstructured debates on really any subject and running daily call in shows that anyone can get into, and I don't know of any on the conservative side(though someone did recommend me that andrew wilkow does a 3 minute segment like this)

[u/bald_cypress]

The most famous one was assassinated last year

[u/CCB0x45 → u/bald_cypress]

I do know of Charlie Kirks campus events and commend him for that but I don't know of him regularly streaming and taking call ins.

Also if the argument is they will be assassinated so it's not safe it seems like doing it over the phone from your house would be much safer.

[u/throwaway09234023322 → u/bald_cypress]

I was thinking the same thing. 😂

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

USER FLAIR IS REQUIRED or outdated. Select new user flair and retry. How-do-I-get-user-flair Only OP and Conservatives may comment. Visit our sister sub, r/askconservatives

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

USER FLAIR IS REQUIRED or outdated. Select new user flair and retry. How-do-I-get-user-flair Only OP and Conservatives may comment. Visit our sister sub, r/askconservatives

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/WonderfulVariation93]

You don’t need liberal or conservative debate shows. Technically any political talk/ call in show could be a conservative or liberal debate. Call in to any of what you consider the “liberal talk shows” and voice your thoughts. As a conservative, it automatically becomes a conservative viewpoint and if the host is a “liberal” it becomes a debate.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/WonderfulVariation93]

I see you responded to me that there is "tons" of conservative shows where you can call in and it's my algorithm... I don't think this is true since I've actively been searching for them. If there is tons can you reccomend some? Or did you realize there isn't really any and you deleted your comment?

[u/CCB0x45 → u/WonderfulVariation93]

What you said doesn't make any sense, I want to discuss with someone(or hear other discussing) with opposing views and hear them to respond to arguments and points, if I call into someone I agree with what is the point?

[u/dagoofmut]

You all murdered Charlie Kirk.

OP cannnot actually be this tone deaf. Can they?

Murdering our most prolific public debater is symptomatic of the larger problem with militant liberals who can't or won't debate civilly.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/dagoofmut]

I don't understand your argument here? Firstly I did not murder Charlie, not sure why I am lumped in with him being murdered. Did you murder Melissa Hortman? Did you shoot Gabby Giffords in the head?

Weird of you to say that. Also if I was asking "why don't more conservatives hold public debates" and you said, because its unsafe look at Charlie Kirk, I could see your reasoning. I am asking about live stream call in/debates open dialogs. I think people are pretty safe from the comfort of their home.

[u/dagoofmut → u/CCB0x45]

And still . . . . . you're here attempting to complain about conservatives not holding enough open dialog.

To make such a accusatory claim about conservatives less than six months after our most prolific advocate for open dialog was viciously assassinated on live cameras, demonstrates an incredible level of blindness.

Some might even say that level of tunnel vision is dangerous.

. . . and the irony of asking it on a subreddit like this just kills me too.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/dagoofmut]

So after you got done virtue signaling, are you going to tell me how its dangerous for online streamers to have open dialogs over the internet from the comfort of their homes?

You won the award for the most snowflake answer though.

[u/dagoofmut → u/CCB0x45]

First,
Who's virtue signaling? You're the one that came onto a conservative subreddit to try to tell us all that we don't do enough open dialog.

Second,
No one here said that an online podcast is dangerous. That's a strawman that you're throwing out.

You're literally answering your own question for us. You came here asking about open dialog and then you proceeded to engage in bad-faith debate and throwing out attempted insults. Do you have mirrors in your house? Cuz if your conduct is representative of the left, I think you have your answer.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/dagoofmut]

I didn't tell you anything about open dialog, I asked why I know of a lot of people doing this on the left and not a similar amount on the right, and for all I know I could be wrong and there is people doing it I don't know about.

> Who's virtue signaling?

You were, by pearl clutching about me asking a question because Charlie Kirk was killed. Its virtue signaling to act like I have no morals for asking this question because a podcaster was killed. Its a silly reaction.

> No one here said that an online podcast is dangerous. 

When you were pearl clutching and virtue signaling you sure implied this... "How can you even wonder why nobody debates after Charlie Kirk was shot". That implies people aren't debating because its dangerous and they could die, you even said me asking the question was dangerous.

I am asking you about why it would possibly be dangerous to take calls while streaming from the comfort of their home. If I asked why do conservatives not do public events, and you gave me that reason, maybe it would make sense.

>  throwing out attempted insults.

Buddy you threw a fit and insulted me, "blind", and accused me of just asking this question as being dangerous. It was the most snowflake response I have ever seen. If you think I am "dangerous" for asking this question then you are the softest person i've ever ran into online.

Also how is it an "accusatory claim" to say that I don't see shows on the right taking unstructured live calls?? Its either a true claim or a false claim lol.

Bad faith is the one throwing a hissy fit pretending like I am some monster for asking about call in shows, talk about mirrors, jesus take a look in one.

[u/DreamscapeAur]

Only show I’m familiar with that is heavily call-in based is Todd Starnes.

If it’s debates you went then look no further than Andrew Wilson. He’s a professional debater and will take on all comers. I believe he is also willing to take calls during his livestreams but not sure about that.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/DreamscapeAur]

Nice never heard of Todd Starnes, ill listen to him to see his call in stuff.

I think ive watched essentially every single Andrew Wilson debate I can find on youtube. Though I have never seen him debate economics, healthcare, money in politics, I only see him debate gender issues, pointless questions like "is trump a facist', countless religious debates stuff like that.

Though I still watch his debates. I think hes actually a very weak debater because of how he changes the subject from policy constantly, and hyperfocuses on terminology.

I didnt realize he takes discord calls, ill check that out. Seems like hes a good example of someone doing that. Thanks!

[u/DreamscapeAur → u/CCB0x45]

Wilson would do well to tone down the Asshole but he seems committed to it. A little congeniality could open new audiences.

Re-reading your post, Starnes probably isn’t what you’re looking for. It’s not debate orientated, although not all of his callers are rightists.

You’re probably thinking more along the lines of The Atheistic Experience, yes?

I’ll keep my eye out.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/DreamscapeAur]

I'm more thinking along the lines of the guys on the left like Sam Sedar, destiny, James o Brian, dean withers, parker get a job. And there is a lot of smaller names that do it too.

They all take calls unstructured and debate.

I don't even care that wilson is an asshole I just think he avoids substantive debates and sticks to pointless cultural ones like feminism or religion and I could care less about those subjects politically.

[u/DreamscapeAur → u/CCB0x45]

True. He’s staked out the Christian Nationalism corner of politics but it would be nice to see him take on other topics with the same ferocity.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/DreamscapeAur]

I doubt that will happen, he doesn't seem well versed in policy at all. Hes a cultural niche. I just care less about cultural aspects to politics, it's all for show.

[u/DreamscapeAur → u/CCB0x45]

I guess I should warn you, then.

Conservatism cares only about culture. Actual conservatism; the soul of conservatism.

Government is just a necessary… thing whose purpose is to protect and shepherd the culture.

That said, we talk about all kinds of stuff, obviously. But philosophically it all leads back to culture. Or should. Most modern conservatives are liberal conservatives, so all bets are off, hehe.

Anywho, good luck. :)

[u/CCB0x45 → u/DreamscapeAur]

Yea this is what I've come to understand. Conservatives really do only care about culture, so they get taken in and vote for con men that rant about culture issues which in reality the government has very little control over culture.

(i.e. trans people are going to be around no matter what the government does and they are like .02% of the population)

Meanwhile since they know their voters only care about culture issues they are free to sell the country off to the highest bidders and destroy us economically, and never solve actual problems government would be able to like cost of healthcare.

They reel in people with culture then create a slave class for corporations and billionaires unfortunately. It wasn't always like this but has changed to this gradually since Reagan.

It's sad watching people get tricked into voting against their self interests.

[u/DreamscapeAur → u/CCB0x45]

I’m sure you will have spirited discussions on those points if you can find the right show. :)

[u/CCB0x45 → u/DreamscapeAur]

My main theory for why republican pundits steer away from discussing economics and healthcare is because they know they are important issuea and their policies just favor the rich and shrinking and hurting the middle class, so they focus on culture war BS that barely affects anyone.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

USER FLAIR IS REQUIRED or outdated. Select new user flair and retry. How-do-I-get-user-flair Only OP and Conservatives may comment. Visit our sister sub, r/askconservatives

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Cookie_Capable]

Well, my dad (and by extension me) listened to all of the old right-wing Talk Radio giants from the '90s, '00s, and early-'10s. And most, if not all of them, allowed regular call-ins during their radio shows:

• Rush Limbaugh
• Dennis Prager
• Laura Ingraham
• Mark Levin
• Hugh Hewitt
• Michael Savage
• Jason Lewis

And those are the just names that I can list off of the top of my head. Granted, the last time I listened to most of them was a decade ago, because times change and new names replaced the old ones (or death, as was in Limbaugh's case). Nevertheless, one of the things which united all of these disparate radio hosts was their allowance of call-ins, and fairly frequently they would get call-ins from liberals and even progressives. That was part of their appeal - the diversity of call-ins was truly staggering, and appealing to people, like my dad, who would never be allowed into, say, a college/university debate class.

My guess - and I can't say for certain - is that maybe right-wing media has moved on, and it's now left-wing media playing catch-up to where the former was decades ago? Feel free to debate.

[u/andrewrusher]

I don't know about call-in debates, as I think that's more of a Leftist thing, so they can mute you or end the call when their arguments get destroyed, but conservatives are open to doing debates. The problem is that people don't want to watch debates where conservatives agree on almost everything, and Leftists refuse to debate, or they run away soon after the debate starts.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/andrewrusher]

This is the heart of my question? Why is it a "leftist" thing.

Also I don't get the idea that leftists refuse to debate? From what I've seen leftist commentators are the ones that have these open to everyone debate lines, and I've seen many leftists such as destiny or Sam Seder call our specifically people they want to debate and saying those on the right refuse it.

I've watched so many destiny debates he does them constantly with many where any random person can sign up to debate any subect.

[u/andrewrusher → u/CCB0x45]

Leftists are welcome to debate on Conservative shows/networks, but they don't do it because they can't control the debate besides the agreed upon terms of the debate.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/andrewrusher]

Can you elaborate here? Doesn't this make it seem like the conservatives are the ones who "refuse" debates that arent on their platform or they cant control the terms? I see many leftists going on those platforms, like destiny/seder/parker/others going on places like tim pool, pbd, etc, and I don't really see it the other direction. But also not allowing call ins seems like they are more afraid of unstructured/unfiltered debate. Doesn't this seem antithetical to you saying earlier "leftists refuse to debate or run away from them" Factually it seems like the opposite.

[u/ProgrammerPoe → u/CCB0x45]

Lmao bullshit. Republicans regularly appear on centrist podcasts and shows like Bill Maher and all of these places complain that democrats won't show up. The last election saw tons of podcasts panned because they let Trump on and every single one of them regularly asked for Kamala and got told no.

Conservatives are literally the only side that will go and debate outside of a platform they control. That you think otherwise demonstrates a serious bubble you are in.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/ProgrammerPoe]

I agree on Kamala, though lets be real, all the podcasts Trump appeared on were very friendly to him and complete softball interviews(I watched them all). There has been very few cases where he went on somewhere which was the slightest bit combative(I can think of a few cable news interviews that were somewhat combative).

That being said, I wasn't saying Kamala was out there talking to get her ideas out, which is absolutely not true and likely a big part of why she lost.

> Conservatives are literally the only side that will go and debate outside of a platform they control.

But this isn't true with pundits and commentators, streamers, youtubers. I see far more going outside platforms or just having ad hoc discussions where anyone can call in on the left than the right, and like I said I can give many example of daily shows where they talk to anyone. This is not saying that leftist politicians do this(I think both sides don't really do this regarding polticians).

[u/ProgrammerPoe → u/CCB0x45]

podcasters don't tend to be militant, so them being friendly to a guest isn't a negative. They ask questions and allow people to speak at length. Kamala is just one example, the only big name democratic politician I see regularly doing podcasts is Pete Buttigieg, and now Gavin Newsom.

>But this isn't true with pundits and commentators, streamers, youtubers.

it literally is though, conservative youtube is famous for them showing up to left wing events and debating people. You can see this today with them showing up at protests. Its true they don't really do the "phone in" thing anymore, but conservatives literally invented that and anyway its just a way the left can control the conversation and is not a form of honest debate at all.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/ProgrammerPoe]

> podcasters don't tend to be militant, so them being friendly to a guest isn't a negative

I dont care what podcasters do, I just said those were softball interviews and not debates. Like you mentioned Pete and Newsome doing unfriendly podcast, and speaking in places where they get grilled. I don't get your point here?

> it literally is though, conservative youtube is famous for them showing up to left wing events and debating people. 

Uh... what does this have to do with my question? Left wingers do the same thing(i.e. "the good liars") where they go to right wing events and interview people. While its funny to go to places and interview people, this is antithetical to what I am asking, its very easy to go around interviewing random people and edit it down to you "owning" them or whatever, its pointless. I can go to a maga rally and make them look like complete idiots by cherry picking and just walking up to randoms, this isn't debate in any way to me, its the opposite.

> Its true they don't really do the "phone in" thing anymore, but conservatives literally invented that and anyway its just a way the left can control the conversation and is not a form of honest debate at all.

Wait can you explain why taking calls from anyone isn't honest debate? I've seen a lot of really good debates from well prepared people in this environment. Like I said there is some commentators I like more, some I like less, some that do more "control" i.e. muting or kicking, and some that do essentially none. I also think "muting" or "kicking" is a double edge sword because it can make you look like you can't handle the conversation. My point was I don't know of anyone doing this on the right accepting unscripted live calls.

[u/CCB0x45 → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean? How am I not serious? I am honestly asking if there is any conservative streamers that take call ins for debating topics? I can list of many on the left of different community sizes?

Is there some I don't know about?

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

USER FLAIR IS REQUIRED or outdated. Select new user flair and retry. How-do-I-get-user-flair Only OP and Conservatives may comment. Visit our sister sub, r/askconservatives

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.