Subscribe through my link https://ground.news/clint to stay informed on the latest in science and breaking news from around the world. Get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription this month.

Hey I'm a farmer. I've never seen a pig turn into a non pig. But I can say that I've seen farmers spray pesticide on weeds that reproduce sexually like male and female pigweed. And the billions of seeds they produce some of them that have a one in a billion mutation that is resistant to pesticide. Then those organisms reproduce and the new offspring are resistant to pesticides. I promise I watched it from start to finish. Non resistance to resistance.

Why people treat evolution like it’s Pokémon. You not going to see a salamander evolve into a Komodo’s dragon overnight.

I love watching Kent Hovind complain that we don't see evolution around us, specifically citing the profession that LITERALLY INVENTED man-made evolution.

As a farmer we DO see change over time our animals slowly do look different from their ancestors not radically different because that would take millions of years but changes do happen 0:17

"Why don't farmers see animals change over time" is ridiculous when domesticated animals ARE the result of animals changing over time.

The Standard Creationist Argument:
- "We don't see animals changing!"
- "What about the modifications in domesticated animals?"
- "You can't count that! I want to see dogs change into birds!"
- "But evolution doesn't say dogs will change into birds."
- "It's a religion!"
- "What"

I simply love that the "boneless dog" has to this point basically become a insider meme. 😂

Thank Clint for spreading the message that we need to talk and understand each other. In a world full of social media noise that's is trying to tell us that such and such side is wrong and evil, it's nice to see someone promoting that we need to talk and understand were we are all coming from. Love your content Clint.

Charlie Kirk did accurately state a steel man argument that Jackson was trying to make, but he never addressed it.  He just said that the percentage of single black mothers have increased over time and "it's not because of systemic racism".  He didn't make any argument at all, he stated Jacksons argument, then said "nuh uh".  He addressed ZERO of the points made in the argument as it was stated.
Being polite and restating the argument accurately is a trick to make him look honest, when he's just doing the same thing the others do in the end, and avoids actually addressing the strong argument.  Politely not addressing the steel man is not really different in the end, than addressing a straw man.
I'm sad that Clint didn't recognize this dishonest tactic.

I say this as someone with a history background. What Charlie Kirk did was manipulate Jackson’s argument and throw out many points that he was making, and Jackson was too nervous to notice. Jackson was trying to explain how systematic racism still persists into today, but Kirk twisted it to support a highly racist and erroneous argument. It isn’t building a steel man. It’s deliberate manipulation.

0:41  no he wasn't explaining why Farmers don't see animals change over time, he couldn't, because, of course, over long enough time, they sorta did, especially when breeding, but he just ignores this and claims they don't. Well, they do, end of case 😂

Thank you for probably the best intelligent rebuttal video I e ever seen. Fantastic work attacking the ideas alone and not the people espousing it!

The fact that he describes their arguments and lays out their reasoning is so refreshing, so many reaction videos like this just shut the other person down.

"Give a cow 1-5 seconds and they are still a cow, therefore, there is no such thing as evolution."
hahaha.

While Kirk's presentation made it SOUND like he was making a steelman, if you pay attention to what the guy was saying before Kirk stepped in, the argument was that systemic racism is still present and actively affecting people of every race. Kirk changed the argument to being that racism ended in the 60s, and while systemic racism persisted for a bit, every other race overcame it. This is just blatantly untrue. It wasn't a steelman, it was a manipulation of what Jackson said to gently shove aside the parts Kirk didn't like.

Such a clear & elegant breakdown of the claims, & the facts.
Thank you.
I have been subscribed for a while, because your content is so good, honest, & factual.
You rock !

Clint, I appreciate the work that you put in to promoting empathy and encouraging people to work towards understanding those who disagree with them. Approaching discussions with open minds and engaging others in good faith absolutely supports a more just and peaceful future. However, in my opinion the exchange between Charlie Kirk and Jackson does not illustrate this point.

While the interaction shown bears superficial hallmarks of productive and respectful dialogue, the situation as a whole favors Kirk. He is the more well known speaker, the person with the support of the crowd, and the one who has more experience and preparation going into the exchange. Kirk did not need to resort to ridicule or mockery in order to foster an image of superior composure.

Additionally, I believe that including Charlie Kirk’s argument in your video without pushing back on it comes across as tacit endorsement. I am not asserting that you intended to promote Kirk’s position. I am asserting that playing that clip does promote Kirk’s argument by showing it to people in a context that, as I described above, favors Kirk. Jackson does not counter Kirk’s argument in the clip shown. Therefore, Kirk has the last word about systemic racism as a concept.

I’ve been watching and enjoying your videos for a little over a year now, and been a patron for the last few months. I hope you will continue to approach every topic on your channel in good faith, and I hope that others follow your example. If everyone in the world maintained the approach that you describe to conflict and disagreement, I believe we would all be better off.

Charlie Kirk did not steel man Jackson. He used a weak debater to give a speech.

Notice that while he gave Jackson a moment to relax, he also interrupts him and completely takes over the discussion. He doesn't pause to ask if Jackson agrees to it, because he's taken control of the conversation. He goes on with why he thinks Jackson's position is wrong knowing the person across from him is unlikely to be able to push back against his point. He has the chance to give a speech here to support his own point without getting any meaningful pushback.

This is a man practiced in taking advantage of those who are not practiced public speakers, and does so in bad faith to push an agenda.

**EDIT: Putting it here so people can see it -- Clint did answer this in a recent post found here:

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxrkgLUkVEBi6SC3fQhHAGcnKQ5rBB24uC

I appreciate the added context!

Hi Clint, I've been listening to your channel for a while now and I think you're a very thoughtful guy and a superb instructor. The way you approach other people's arguments is, quite frankly, a model on how it ought to be done. To this end, though, as others have expressed, I'm a little confused by your inclusion of Charlie Kirk here. There are plenty of examples of him not doing what you see in the video and then going on to make quite dishonest arguments. I don't want to presume to know where you stand on things outside of what you've presented to the public.

All I would like to know is whether you intended to use this video as a specific example of 'steelmanning' in a debate as an isolated, singular example, or whether you mean to say Charlie Kirk was, in general, an example of a debate who embodied the principles you want to see people take forward when discussing and debating with others?