AJW vs Cypher Crime Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лис 2023
- My Live Debate with CSP Cypher On whether or not the left is soft on crime
Website: www.actualjusticewarrior.com/
linktr.ee/ActualJustice
Odysee: odysee.com/@actualjusticewarr...
Rumble: rumble.com/ActualJusticeWarrior
Instagram NEW: / actualjustice
Twitch: / actualjusticewarrior
Utreon: utreon.com/c/ActualJusticeWar...
2nd Channel: / ajw2dreamscometrue
TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/actualju...
New Store: actualjusticewarrior.myspread...
Gettr: gettr.com/user/iamsean90
Parler: parler.com/profile/Actualjust...
www.minds.com/actualjusticewa...
Support me on Patreon: / seanfitzgerald
Paypal: www.paypal.me/Iamsean90
Venmo: venmo.com/iamsean90
Support me on Subscribe Star: www.subscribestar.com/seanfit...
Gab: gab.com/Iamsean90
Twitter / iamsean90
Backup Twitter / ajwsean
Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/actualjustic...
Discord: / discord
3rd: / dudemonkeyhq
Get Storable Food: www.preparewithajw.com
Get Pocketnet: pocketnet.app/actualjusticewa...
Podcast Links:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/1o0q86A...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google Podcast: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
Modern Day Debates: ua-cam.com/users/livers_fR6PA...
#Crime #Debate #IamSean90
FAIR USE NOTICE
This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting which constitute the 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright. - Комедії
It is very humorous that Cypher says the left isn't soft on crime but then opens the debate about why its good to be soft on crime.
He was having a completely different debate. He kept referring to leftist policies as being "smart on crime" (spoiler alert, they aren't), not tough on crime, and at one point he even mentioned "tough on crime" policies as being something different from the policies proposed by the left. So yeah, he wants to argue that the left isn't soft on crime while also trying to distance the left from tough on crime policies.
@@Moohasha1 Would you agree to settle on the left is "creative" on crime? All the BS ideas or mental gymnastics just to change the criminal landscape.
The "It's not happening but if it was the it would be good" argument
Aka they piss on your face but tell you it's raining
These people lack self awareness
I thought the same thing
30:48 "By not charging people with crimes, we reduced crime."
A very "educated" way of looking at the issue.
Seem to be the only approch the left has when it comes to crime.
"The crime rate will drop if we stop charging criminals"
"educated"= deluded
Sean looks so annoyed by this fool
Hilariously it’s the opposite, once usa got more strict with crime and corruption, crime rate went down. This is why so many people are in prison.
2+2+5
Being poor doesnt force you to commit crime. I was poor my whole life and never stole or injured anyone because of it.
Exactly. I grew up poor and was poor for most of my young adult life. You can be clean while being poor and you can be a law abiding citizen while being poor. There’s no excuse for either.
Growing up I didn’t steal because I feared the police. I didn’t steal because I feared my parents and my god.
It depends on the situation, if you were so poor and hungry it might make you steal a bag of chips at the corner store
@@ellisthejerk8018 In times of financial struggle rice is a cheap albeit bland go to. Its 25 for 50 lbs, no need to steal. Dash of bouillon goes a long way.
That narrative that poverty is the cause of críme, especially víolent críme, is absurd. There are plenty of very poor places in the world that are completely safe. The issue is of cułture and more specifically culturał values.
“Yes we are soft on crime, and here’s why that is a good thing. Also, crime isn’t the fault of the criminals, it’s actually your fault.”
This guy literally thinks that republicans believe "tough on crime" means "giving people speeding tickets".
Speeding tickets for 5 over maybe pointless but high rates of speed are dangerous and deadly.
Who would be surprised that with the partial abolition of policing, and the idea that a disparity in traffic stops is nothing more than a deceptive tool to propagate racism under another name, the traffic death numbers in the black community suddenly skyrocketed? Or that the Left DOESN'T CARE?
Within the last few months, I'm aware of two major Urban car wrecks, at very high speeds, which resulted in multiple deaths. In one, FIVE young Somali women were killed, and I think two were sisters. One added irony is that ilhan Omar is effectively siding with the criminal who killed five innocent Somali women, and claiming that right wing bigots don't care about Black Lives.
If any form of the police needs to be defended, its the traffic pirates.
@@puddles609 Road/traffic pirates is the stupidest term ever created. Do "ocean pirates" leave people alone if they sail under a certain number of knots? Did black beard leave people alone because they paid a fee to the crown and flew a certain flag and had a license to sail? No, pirates attacked anyone they thought was a good enough target. Get that crap outa here. You sovtards are all the same. Stupid. Being tough on crime means enforcement of laws and/or harsher punishment for breaking the law. Not necessarily making new or stricter laws. You could make the fine for speeding 1 million dollars and 30 years in prison but it has zero effect on someone who simply drives slower.
But god forbid you defend your self from an home invasion or a rapist then you will go to jail with the most severe punishment from the law
Dude was literally arguing that police and society holding people accountable for their actions is being tough on crime...
My sister is a methamphetamine addict on the street in Ontario Canada and the conversation about street people ABSOLUTELY INFURIATED me. Sean is right. When you have no teeth, had fingers amputated and OFTEN pee & defecate on the street - liberty means absolutely nothing to you. She CAN NOT DECIDE TO MAKE BETTER CHOICES! She needs to be handled by someone - no matter what she has to say about it. 🤷🏼♀️ Long haired boy’s philosophy is KILLING my sister. By the way, she gets welfare every month. I am funding, under penalty of PRISON, my sister’s slow suicide.
As someone who also uses methamphetamine I am perplexed how this drug has such a drastic effect on some people while others can do it an you would have no idea they are on it. How in the world do you end up having your fingers amputated because of meth? An fingers as in more than one!? If I even came close to losing one fingered Id quit immediately lol.
@@maxferguson3021 She’s on the streets in Canada. It be COLD! Many of our homeless are amputees cuz winter causes the extremities to freeze and become gangrenous. The homelessness and the winter is the direct cause of her amputation but meth is the cause of the homelessness soooo 🤷🏼♀️ I do blame the drugs for her state.
I'm sorry to hear that man . I hope your story reaches as many as possible .
@@maxferguson3021give it time , you'll get there eventually . All drugs are fun at first . You just haven't done it long enough to see the downside . My drug was heroin .
@@Iidentifyascorrect In Canada, it won’t matter. Too many braindead TO/Quebec (who don’t even wanna be Canadian 🤦🏼♀️😡) assholes deciding elections- lib every time. I want out of this shitty, cold country full of dumb people SO BAD it’s unbelievable… I pray tht Americans can fend off the horrid mess that is European, Australian and Canadian liberalism…
This dude Cypher cant even get me to believe he is a proficient reader of his own writings...😂😂
I expected a debate and not a book reading. Also, this narrative that poverty is the cause of críme, especially víolent críme, is absurd. There are plenty of very poor places in the world that are completely safe. The issue is of cułture and more specifically culturał values.
This guy said that he doesn't think someone stealing a bottle of water for thier 3rd strike should go to jail for 20 years, but actually anybody with the lack of discipline who's impulse control is so low that they would risk 20 years behind bars to try and steal a bottle of water is the exact type of person that we shouldn't want out on the streets.
I guess he thinks you should get three strikes for every written crime. "Alright Johnny, you strangle one more person and you're going away! We're serious!"
3 strike rules refer to felons of the same or similar crimes. Ie robbery, burglary, theft, ect or assault, s&xual assault, battery ect
It has to be a felonies in the same category to get the strikes.
They'll get all the water they need in prison. seems like maybe some people are better off in prison.
If they're out early on some sort of good behaviour bond or similar, then heck yeah, lock them back up for stealing bottled water. They're showing very poor judgement, which will lead to worse crimes.
Q: "is the left soft on crime"?
A: "Yes"
Calling this a "debate" is giving Cypher way too much credit than he deserves...
I mean, this guy can’t even read his opening statement properly.
@@alejandroelicastillojimene6890I mean Sean is a Master deBater that makes leftists look like morons on the regular so he was probably shaking in his booties.
@@alejandroelicastillojimene6890Mr roboto
@@The1Waiter-gk4sznot maybe. Probably is the word you're looking for.
Leftist opening statement: "crime is caused by socio economic factors"
Leftist lying at 21:45 "i dont want to make this about capitalism"
Socioeconomic factors are part of it. But that's not an argument as to why we shouldn't be tough on crime.
@@M1sterE321a leftist would tell you being tough on crime is racist...
@@Shishomuru Yes. And I call that dangerous lunacy.
Lol Cypher tells on his side...
Guy jumps turn style, gets in trouble... Cypher characterizes this as "some Karen accosting him for existing as a teenager."
Sean points out that if he wants to avoid criminal consequences, he could just pay for the subway, and Cypher asks "with what money?"
His message is if you can't afford it, you get to steal it, but the left totally isn't soft on crime, guys.
And we all know his opinion would be different depending on the race of the offender.
There's already heavy discounts if your poor which since he's clearly never been poor he wouldn't know that.
The NYC subway costs taxpayers 10 billion dollars a year. Only 40% is covered by fares.
So, the state can rob you, at gunpoint, of like 40% of your income, to pay to transport poor people, but if poor people rob the state of 30¢, while using the transportation set up for them, well that's criminal.
Sounds retarded to me.
I'm not saying theft is ok. I'm saying it's really hypocritical to go "Someone used the shit I bought with stolen money without paying me! Get em!"
22:00 "...won't bring up capitalism..." yes,
because there are no poverty or crime in socialistic systems
Well, there's less private property theft when nobody owns anything 😂
The more these lefties try to gaslight me about crime, the more contempt o have for them. I will vote Republican down the line.
It's hard not to blame Republicans for letting it happen.
The RNC is absolutely just as corrupt though. These fools can’t even win elections for the past 5 cycles.
@@adoe2305 ? You blame them more than Dems? Why?
It sucks because the reasonable people among us who want reform are lumped in with these fools..
@adoe2305 If you're subverted and restricted at every turn, do you really "let" something happen?
This guy is hilarious. In like a 30 second span he walks back "Hands up don't shoot wasn't created because of Michael Brown" to "Yeah Michael Brown was a lie but it represents the truth that 250 unarmed uninvolved in conflict people killed by police" to "Ok maybe it's like 100" to "Ok but even the most (13 in a year) is too many"
And then bitches that police shouldn't be put enforcing speeding laws
Lmao yeah 😂😂
Im shocked Sean didn't push back on that more.
Such an insane number that guy threw out. 250.
there like 10 unarmed black people and 25 unarmed white people shot any year, its not even close to 250.
And he thinks that cops only pull over poor people, as if they would have any idea
"we need to integrate people from high crime areas with wealthy people..."
As if that would do anything other than give them more valuable targets.
They already do that, its usually called "burglary"
So stupiddddd. These ppl have no common sense. All feelings and ridiculous "theories" to fit their feels
That would be what we like to call "wealth redistribution".
Ah like the break in across the street from me in my Parkland house. Or when I was up at 5am and witnessed a gang of blacks trying to break into everyones cars in my neighborhood. That kind of "integration". Integrating themselves with our car doors
Yeah uh... I'm not rich but I got out of the lower class crime areas where I grew up. I'm already seeing this happen in my town and it's destroying our community. I literally worked my ass off losing everything I had over and over just to escape it and have it follow me to the other side. Hard pass on integration. There are solutions to helping those crime ridden communities but integration is not the solution.
Edit: it doesn't always moralize people prone to crime. It demoralizes the decent people in your community starting with their youth. It introduces drugs and gang violence to them and rots your community. The solution is stricter policing in those crime ridden communities. A real sweep at the drugs and gangs. Harsher sentences. Removing the poison from the well. Only then can those communities heal and they will branch out and begin to integrate in a healthy way.
Cypher - "the left isnt soft on crime."
Also Cypher - let me tell you why the lefts soft approach to criminals is actually a good thing.
I live in a rural white county where crime as far as theft, rapes, murder etc is very low, but drugs, particularly meth is very prevalent. The problem was getting out of hand because law enforcement was ignoring it. Then a few years ago we got a new sheriff who got really tough on it. He created a task force and made it a major priority to crack down on it. And guess what? The problem greatly diminished and now druggies know not to come to this county, it is not tolerated here!
It’s a strange contrast that low income white areas are mainly drug crimes while low income black areas are violent.
"if laws are not enforced fairly, justice isn't administered fairly" i think his problem is that the laws HAVE BEEN enforced fairly, everything was working fine, resulting in a lot of arrests and incarcerations of people who commit crimes. he just doesn't like that it happens to affect certain people, that being those who commit more crimes.
I live in Portland. Because of this. I can say with 100% confidence these convoluted “progressive” ideas about crime are utter horseshit.
Know what erodes public trust? Not believing that the law is gonna be there when you need it. Not believing that crime results in punishment. It’s seriously not that f*ng complicated.
Why not just break the rules yourself? What are you, some kind of sucker? Why wait for this red light, anyway? Why did I ever wait for this red light?
While we’re at it, you know what? People seem kinda sh*tty, now that I think about it. They’re messy and inconsiderate and break stuff all the time. Easy to see now that things never get fixed.
Why am I paying taxes, again? Never really thought about that, but now I do. Seems like a rip-off.
Yup, they'll say anything it takes not to accept the fact that some subcultures are more likely to produce criminals than others. How can anyone be surprised that a kid who grows up in a subculture that glorifies drug dealers, gangs, and shooting people who disrespect you ends up being more crime-prone than a kid who didn't. it's not predestination, mind you, but it is an incredibly relevant contributing factor. And yet, the current zeitgeist is that you can't even hint that one's subculture plays a role because it might hurt someone's feelings...
Just looking at the opening you can tell who is knowledgeable and who is an activist. One has no notes, knows the content of his debate, doesn’t make mistakes with his statement, and speaks confidently. The other starts by flattering the host, relying on notes, focusing on his laptop to the extent that he messes up and apologizes multiple times when he looks away or starts reading faster than he is speaking, and has an unnatural speech pattern. Just 7 minutes in, this distinction is painfully and obviously noticeable.
Did that MF's SERIOUSLY just insinuate that detaining a kiosk jumper and checking to see if they had any outstanding felony warrants was being 'accosted' (to approach boldly and aggressively)? 😂 Dude, I don't care if you get picked up for shoplifting or speeding, they aren't going to offer you tea and crumpets. What an ass... 🤣
I mean he also dishonestly took the claim on 1-in-7 had felony warrants as the rest didn't have any crimes to their name.
If someone has 2 strikes and they are told, in no uncertain terms, that any subsequent crime of any nature could land them in prison for 25 years, and then they decide to roll those dice on a fking water bottle, then yeah... They're telling you they don't give a sht about consequences, they don't regret their actions, and they have no interest in changing. Fk 'em.
That sounds like he was taking it out context. I heard the third strike for stealing a pizza story and there it was an armed robbery.
No, this was a common thing that happened in the 90s and early 2000s that would add an additional charge of habitual when the person committed a 3rd crime regardless of it's severity@@emberfist8347
If you CHANGE the definition of what a serious crime IS you will lower the serious crime statistics. That is not being tough on crime, that is moving the goal posts to make it LOOK like you're tough on crime. It's a slight of hand, plain and simple that accomplished nothing to address the real issues.
This is the left's one trick. Redefine things until the outcome fits their narrative.
This is typical of the left that generally seem to believe that changing definitions somehow changes reality.
That is exactly what the left does.
Standard leftist bullshit tbh, change the definition of the problem so the statistics change, then declare victory for fixing the problem while the actual problem runs amok.
i think AJW killed it in his opening statement, there really is no debate here
I kinda forgot Sean's opening statement because Cypher went on for so long....and I don't even remember what he was talking about 😂
I think AJW wasn't good here. He let that other guy interrupt him far to much. He moved the goalposts and/or changed into a different topic repeatedly, and without Sean doing anything about accept for a few times.
When he on occasion did stop the interruption, the lefty still succeed in getting Sean to not finish his point but instead go after what Lefty said in the interruption.
I don't get it.
Why Sean does this when he clearly has a the counter arguments. He often just don't seem bothered to point out the wrongs.
@@Ewil.Bluetooth As Napoleon would say: 'Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.'
As tempting as it would be to cut off Cypher when he does it to you, it's better to let him continue to say more things that can be disproven. Sean is letting the audience see how uncontrolled his opponent is. It's fun to do because you get to see why said person needs to cut you off because if you have facts that you know are true, everything else is just a wash. If that makes sense. But I understand your point though.
So his argument is “yes we’re soft on crime but it’s good”
His opening is pulling a "can you define 'is'?"
I knew immediately when he brought up "broken window policing" his argument would be torn down just based on what we see in major cities where they dont punish anything that's misdemeanor outside a slap on the wrist and what could have been prevented in any normal circumstances.
36:40 ‐ In one breath he says that police break social trust by policing because the police think its necessary, and then the next breath he says that police NOT policing as much as they think is necessary breaks social trust. Pick a fucking lane. You are swirving on a straight double line road.
This dude thinks YOU should have to 'absorb' *their* crime....How BACKWARDS can you possibly get things!?!
"As long as it's not in my neighborhood"
And he said if we move them into our neighborhoods we get the privilege of "lifting them up" ...as if them dragging us down isn't exactly what always happens
@@angelmartin7310
These people do not learn from the past and what often transpired when larger of certain demographics were permitted access to predominantly Whyte communities...
@@angelmartin7310how does that bring us down?
@crowdsourcedpolitics how does it drag us down to have people with what he described as poor social skills, generational poverty, 0 support system, etc inserted into our safe, functional communities? We just got done running a white trash drunk out of our neighborhood after he got a house for cheap in a foreclosure and immediately had cops coming all hours of the night, weeknight parties, etc. Oh and beating his wife/locking her out at 3am repeatedly, chaining puppies up outside all day with no water...we live where we live for a reason.
The bodega point was absolute gold. Keep the bodegas open so that they’re not running into each other at the gas station because while each gang turf has their own bodega, they don’t have their own gas station. This guy sounds like he’s had a lot first hand experience with the types that shoot up gas stations. Very ‘finger on the pulse’ hipster we got here. HAHAHAHAHA
It’s similar to the “let’s just block some streets with traffic barrels” approach to gun violence we saw here in Portland for a few years ago.
Yes let's be held hostage by & make policy based on what gangs might do & people who didn't get their disability check😂
Crazy that there has to be a legit debate about this when it feels like every single week some repeat defender goes out and does something terrible.
My thoughts exactly...
Well the goddamn bodega was closed wtf was he supposed to do?
I remember when jails and prisons were doing the early release program because of Covid and it seemed like every other week someone who wasn't supposed to be out on the streets killed someone or did something else horrible...
It's almost like pandering to violent criminals results in more violence and crime. Strange how when you allow and tolerate something like crime, criminals keep perpetrating it. It's almost like there is a correlation between crime and enforcing the law. Whodathunkit?!
This whole debate was "here are all this soft on crime things that I DECLARE to be hard on crime"😂😂😂 and Sean
Immediately from the question the guy asks “Os the left soft on crime?” I am sitting here like… “How is there a debate on this?”
Yeeeeeeah… this guy was not worth AJW’s time…
Because this lefty is a partisan hack
And at first the guy seemed like his debate tactic was to say if not ALL methods were soft, than the Left is not soft. Which does go with the Left's LOVE of Absolutism.
But then, the guy started some huge Lib Tar Ded crap for every policy.
To the point, where you WANT him and his ilk to live with all of their continuous policies. And just quit inflicting it on people that KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that it doesn't work.
It seems he gets most advice from the criminals?!? Like the one other guy that would rob people and banks, but go..."We've all done Bad things."
?!?
Farting and not saying excuse me is a lot different that a drug addiction in a group of guys robbing a woman thats pregnant with a gun pointed at her unborn child. But, if you take enough drugs, that last one can get you an immortalized Golden park bench you can put in the same town you robbed the woman for her kid to sit on...and remember the Good Ole Days.
But really. Bad for Bad? The guy first talks about how cops treated him bad. Then later talks about how many times he came back. That he wanted to come back more hard the latter time. And then later talks about the types of crimes...
Not mentioning you were a POS, is different than stealing a loaf of bread for your younger, orphaned sister. And the excuse of being poor, is a poor excuse that poor people don't usually use. It just justifies what you were doing and not being remorseful.
But thats what we see nowadays.
The dude that taped himself punch a guy from behind...say he makes mistakes...but say there's no video...but he hugged the old dude...
And now what? They play bridge. Have sleep overs. Read each other to sleep?...trick question. He dunt red.
AJW needs a better opponent
@@weslar7 or at least an honest one.
Most of the Left are grifters. Look at how thry live. Their bank accounts. They are Baby Bernies.
The argument kind of becomes ‘we are soft on criminals which we claim is hard on crime.’
He's confusing "soft on crime" with "correct policies on crime that happen to be soft"... He's not arguing that the left isnt soft on crime, he's arguing why they should be soft on crime.
Pretty much but he’s not able to recognize that
@@Lilliz91 Oh no he recognizes it, he just doesn't care the same as every other leftist. they don't have principles or morals they only have goals to achieve no matter the means.
And, the research done on Community Policing and such programs, to the extent, the Giffords Law Center guarantees their success were researched at a time there was adequate policing. Vox was pushing this garbage making people believe it was new and had never been tried. Chicago has had such programs for over a decade. I remember during Covid and the lock downs how proponents of such programs were complaining that they couldn't get to their clients and Biden's ATF deployment was an obvious failure. But duh! Soros backed DA'S formally decided to not prosecute crime. I read alot about gun violence which is a misnomer, and most mass killings are a result of lack of enforcement. Parkland? The FBI received reports about Nicholas Cruz probably because Broward County did nothing and they refused to investigate. Paid around $25 million to the parents this year. Sutherland Springs Baptist Church, the USAF never reported his federal felony incarceration, so he passed the background check, they settled for near $125 million, of course there was the Buffalo grocery shooter, who police had arrested and sent for a mental evaluation, yet with all its gun control laws didn't stop him, the Maine shooter, the Pulse Nightclub shooter, had been reported by his coworker yet the FBI cleared him.
Tough sentencing does not deter crime? So places like Singapore with draconian penalties has rampant crime?? News to me!
[Vlad the impaler and his golden chalice has entered the chat]
el salvador proves everything you need to know, tough on crime is very effective when enforced properly
Correct. Tough sentencing doesn't deter crime. If you compare periods of draconian charges to other periods in history you see there isn't much of a difference. Most criminals don't think they'll be caught. That's why the sentencing doesn't really matter.
I think thats the problem. People are either mindlessly relying on ideology like a railroad track, or they are are being intentionally disingenuous because the real impacts of their policies are their desired outcome.
They've convinced the average person that the law was trapping people by inescapable punishment, without recognizing that true psychopaths do exist. Some people will never change, its not something you can fix with ideology.
Ideology doesn't have the nuance to differentiate between someone who will genuinely use the benefits to get ahead, and someone who will game the system.
@@cypherreportright, but going easy on said criminals kind of reinforces the behavior.
If they are that hopelessly stupid that punishments won't deterr them, then they kind of are not fit to be out on the lose.
Why do people love defending crime so much?
Empathy. The whole “well, if it was your dad/daughter/friend, would you want the book thrown at them?”
Call me callus, but I would absolutely say yes.
@@metroidhunter965If my family members kept getting let off from charges like Aggravated assault I’d absolutely tell him to get fucked
@metroidhunter965 If my father killed someone, I'd realize that he isn't the man I thought he was. I'd want him to have a fair trial but not to go out Scott free. Ignoring the victims of crimes isn't empathetic.
Because the criminals are the real victims giving the rest society their just deserts for all it's evil white racism.
@@metroidhunter965i am a bleeding heart myself, but it baffles me how so many only bleed for the criminal. Being soft on crime harms the victims further, and creates future victims.
Also where is the sense of justice?
In summary: Cypher tried to flip the script by saying 'soft on crime' policies are actually reducing crime and therefore 'hard on crime'. He didn't argue the question, he tried to reframe the question such that his policy prescription would be unfalsifiable.
Thanks for the summary.
“how do we fix the unemployment numbers?”-“just dont report them” -“Genius!!” - Actual conversation
The discussion about the chant “Hands up don’t shoot” was quite illuminating. Sean cogently explained where it came from and Cypher has some post-box rationalization about how now it means something different. I am curious if activists were polled how many would accurately know the Michael Brown story and what explanations they would give for chanting “Hands up don’t shoot”
The old "well it may have been a hoax but it started an important conversation" lol
@@CMP-st5whThat isn't really what I was saying. What I was saying is that the lack of trust in law enforcement made the narrative more believable
@@cypherreport And your opinion on why people lack trust was flat out wrong. They lack trust because of the false narratives, your side of the political aisle pushes. In legacy media, on college campuses, and from democratic politicians.
Maybe if you had the intellectual honesty to share actual facts and context about police shootings with the "black community", you wouldn't have rioting over false narratives.
But then you would lose political currency with them, wouldn't you?
No, I think the false narrative was believed because of an already lack of trust. I'm saying the lack of trust predates the Michael brown lie
@ 15:59. This in my opinion is Seans strongest argument. Anyone that actually grew up in poverty has witnessed crime drive out law abiding citizens. This consistently happens anytime a low income subdivision is built in a middle class district. People get tired of the crime coming out of the low income subdivision and leave.
The whole "there's a bigger support system in rich neighborhoods than poor ones" tells me he's never lived in a poor one. There's way more support for each other and helping each other than a rich one. I've lived in both and seen it.
@@debanydoombringer1385makes sense. People that have it figured out don't need the community support.
@@LunarLocust Everyone needs help once in a while. Life doesn't come with a manual.
That said, I think the point being made is that people understand the issues and can give helpful, useful advice, where the "low income in a high income town" crowd are going to be subject to whatever the trendy solutions are, and not what makes sense.
I get that for sure, people who never figure it out will never get out, but they're not gonna get out with help from disconnected idiots either. This is the specific reason left wing policies don't work.
Kind of puts an alternate spin on the redlining argument, an argument I’m pretty tired of hearing at this point TBH.
Were decisions based on race, or economics which just so happen to kinda sorta correlate with race? Were decisions made out of malice, or were they based on stuff like oh you know who was likely to spend/invest X number of dollars and where?
@@badmofauxBoth. Before we started denying the correlation between demographics and crime rates, one was a stand-in for the other.
The guy spent the whole time trying to explain why being soft on crime was good.
the debate was over after seans opening statement lol, to think the left isnt soft on crime is absolutely mind blowing
Of course. How is this a debate? It's like debating whether the sun is hot or cold.
He could've brought up the thousands of left wing rioters who got released without charges in the 2020 riots and it would've ended the debate right there.
Is cypher seriously reading a pre-written statement as his opening? C'mon dude
His argument is weak. Him losing his place reading his statement and saying sorry repeatedly shows how weak his argument is.
Not even good at reading, dude is boring af
Well, it’s generally good to at least have an outline. Does it have to be word-for-word your opening? It’s probably not a good idea because you’ll sound like Cypher… I’ve tried both and learned that it’s better to write down your topics, points, and stats in chronological order-not to write a script.
@@ReynoldsGarrett or maybe just know what your talking about lol
Well to be fair, at some points he's struggling to read.
Destiny and this long haired guy in any discussion: "You have to take into account the gravitational pull of the sun and what toilet paper you use, trump is bad"
🤣🤣🤣
Omg I will use this from now on.
“This idea that being in poverty makes you of immoral character is not true, it’s actually more denigrating to the poor”
BOOM
24:30 as a near 40 year old California native who has an alcoholic father who loved drinking and driving, 3 strikes rule was referring to felonies. I remember learning about that somehow and being worried my idiot dad would get caught one more time (already had two severe DUIs) and he'd be locked up forever.
This guy lost in his opening statement. That was tough
Cypher lost me at his pre written opening ramble.
He lost me as soon as he showed his face on camera.
The guy isn’t debating he’s reading a novel of gibberish
Unfortunately, it's a best seller.
You crushed this debate, Sean.
This dude reading off his computer. This is gonna be a long debate
Hearing Cypher stumbling over his written opening statement was mildly entertaining
It seems every right/left issue comes down to: Are you pro-civilization or pro-barbarian?
It’s not really left vs. right anymore. It’s actually controlled vs. freedom.
I'm libertarian, basically I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't harm others, if it does then discretion to the harmed as to how they wish to repay the agressor
@_Circus_Clapped_ it's that way of thinking that has caused our nation to fall in the sh*there. You carelessly watch and standby as socialist run our economy, teachers gr**m our children, endless wars burden us, lgbt cintrols what we can and cannot say, corporations censor us, and violent crime is tolerated at all levels. THAT ASSUREDLY AFFECTS YOU MY GUY. wise up.
Societal subve rsion is their goal.
@@_Circus_Clapped_
That wouldn't work because many people on Cypher's side of the aisle would either prescribe a slap on the wrist, or let them walk.
Btw, these criminals are NOT afraid of cops - not even a little bit
They know if they are to shoot them, they get the first shot and believe they will win
The defendee is supposed defend his reasoning. Not debunk it within the first minute.
Listening to this cypher dudes opening statement was cringe enough without him losing his place every 30 seconds.
Soft on crime is an understatement. They flat out deny crime, insane.
How is this a debate when one person doesn't even know how to publicly speak? He sat there reading what he wrote instead of reading and summarizing his argument.
Yeah I noticed right away and was confused. GENUINELY expected that to be temporary but it's start-to-finish
Yup. Not a debate
One came to debate while the other came to read an essay. Wow....
definitely not on that guy's side, but it is extremely common to have prepared opening remarks that you read off. Opening remarks is not the same as the crossfire portion
@@jasensimedru3960 It doesn't matter if they aren't the same they are both considered public speaking. Even with an opening statement you are supposed to look at the audience and speak clearly with very little mistakes. It's a debate so even the opening statement needs to be professional to get your point across.
Buddys opening statement was 8 minutes. Like, this is literally the fantasy they have where theyd be able to be mugged, somehow articulate their entire opinion before their wallet is out of their hands, and the muggers going to think hes "one of the good ones" and pick a different target, or immediately repent at an atheist church lol.
These people think their opinion is so much more important than anyone elses.
You can thank Hollywood's depictions of the "criminal with a heart of gold" for that mindset.
Without watching this one, Sean, you obliterated Steven when you debated him. It was hard to watch how mad you made him and how cool you kept was a credit to how you engage yourself in these situations. You're winning.
I noticed AJW didn't post the video of him getting bodied by Destiny... smart move.
@@jackeagleeye3453 😭
@@jackeagleeye3453he did
@@jackeagleeye3453pretty sure he did but ok.
Not only did he post the video, I find it peculiar when you weirdos think Destiny "bodied" Sean. I can only assume you are a cuck like Destiny, and champion him for that reason alone. @@jackeagleeye3453
Dudes opening statement was a text book overview of a leftists talking point that was PAINFUL to hear stuttered out.
Imagine the folks who hear him and agree?? YIKES
He's a Human Bot 😂
Even more interesting - AJW is refusing to upload the video where he got bodied by Destiny.
@@savage75_ Most Leftists have no intrapersonal communication / inner dialogue and also have aphantasia. They are literal NPCs.
@@jackeagleeye3453id10t
Dude was trying to debate everything before it even started like not even just giving a quick summary of what he believes and why. He basically just said nothing for 10 minutes.
"The left is not soft on crime because the right is just hard on crime." -Cypher
"Create holistic centers where people can get the help they need"
That's just institutionalizing them without having to use the word "institutionalize".
Nah man, it’s “holistic.” That means it’s good no matter what they do
I do not understand how this is a question. Take a look at liberal areas, take a look at conservative areas, compare and contrast. It’s that simple. Good job wiping the floor with this dude Sean.
Idk. Poor midwest white republicans do NOT look so different from poor urban black democrats
@@arewestilldoingphrasing6490
Well for one, the murder rate is significantly decreased.
@@arewestilldoingphrasing6490Find me a poorwhite republican area with a high whitehomiciderate.
That's about demographics, not politics. Plenty of lily white liberal towns have low crime rates until the demographics start shifting...
What do you mean by demographics?
Look at how nervous the guy on the left is. Needs to take another bump lol.
Just started and dude is reading from his laptop. Just wow.
“Sorry lost my place, oh sorry, sorry”
Just to clear things up a bit in regards to Anders Breivik - the mass shooter from Norway. Yes the maximum sentence there is 21 years but after that period expires they can extend it with 5 years unless he is considered absolutely rehabilitated which ofc will never happen. After those 5 years run out as well the same process repeats and I think it`s fair to assume that this will go on indefinitely until he dies in prison.
In Finland they let out a few crazy people like the cannibal.
The lefty is a sophist.
The bodega analogy is hilarious as it is boggles my mind on the whole turf fight. Close the gas station too the gangs have no where to hang out😂
The only way that poor guy could have been worse is if he had a PowerPoint......but at least I might have been able to follow it.......possibly.....
It is so hard to listen to him! I'm not trying to be mean but I just can't follow what he is saying, he mispronounces words, stutters, sounds jittery... just plain hard to listen to...
I remember growing up, I asked my mom for a candy cane from a dollar general, she said no. so I stole and hid it. I stupidly took it out in the car and was like look what i got. Instead of approval she turned the car around and made me put it back. I fully remember being embarrassed and uncomfortable but instead of coddling I was told to remember this emotion. This was one invaluable lesson that i learned and i remember to this day.
Hearing the term "soft" crime is stupid and tries to take away from the fact that its still a crime. Like some weird way to justify it or incentivize people not to care about it.
What's crazy is that Cypher's vote counts just as much as Sean's vote in every election.
What's crazy is that you think this comment is smart
@@cypherreport It's pointing out that an opinion based on data analysis and an actual understanding of the law can be negated by an opinion based on emotions and idealized hypothetical laws. It really doesn't matter if you think it's dumb because it's still true.
@@jobzzzz It isn't dumb or crazy that his vote counts that much. Every vote should count the same as everyone has their own blind-spots. Nobody is going to be an expert on everything so you shouldn't act like people who know about thing should have more influence. That is the logic that would cause national elections to only hit the major cities on the west and east and not swing states which also represent the American people.
@@emberfist8347 I'm not saying you should be an expert on everything. I'm saying you should have a basic idea of how the law works in order to vote on the law. It doesn't matter where you live.
Ummm I'm pretty sure I came with more data than Sean did@@jobzzzz
Post opening statement Chris here. It looks like Sean is gunna mop the floor with this poor guy. Sean obviously has far more experience in persuasive speaking, and it looks like Sean knows the material in question much better than his opposition.
Sean also comes off much more confident, direct and concise than his opponent. We'll see how this plays out but it's not looking great for the left already and we're just coming out of the gates.
Halfway point Chris here... I'm not going to lie there are a few points where I thought the left side was picking up a little bit of steam. He certainly managed to become a lot more comfortable, which is good. Unfortunately that's about the only thing going for him. All of his points are a lot more convoluted than Sean's.
Then the bodega conversation happened... Oof... I think his point was that if criminals have more places to hang out that they will be less likely to come into contact with each other and have conflict. I really don't see how he's going to be able to spin that as tough on crime.
This guy has such a rose colored view of gangs. I'm calling it for Sean now but I'll hang in there til the end.
At about an hour in, Sean really twists the knife.
Post debate chris here: as predicted this was a pretty one sided debate. Sean was by far the better and more convincing speaker imo and pretty much dominated the whole time.
Wasnt afraid to call out nonsense from his opposition and maintained perfect composure the whole time. Sean was clearly enjoying himself a bit.
As fun as it is to watch sean dunk on the competition, it was a little disappointing it was so one sided.
Good work sean.
This was a good narration.
And I do mean "Good" and then "narration"
No business owner or entrepreneur is going to risk capital by investing in an area where crime is high or above average…
Sean won the debate in his first statement lol
I love Sean trying his damndest not to start laughing at his opponent in the open seconds of his opponent's opening statement. Doing a bit of mind reading, I'm guessing the internal dialogue went something like this.
"God damn! You need to read this pre prepared statement off a computer? Can't you memorise this? Looks like I've won this and we've not even started yet".
I know I was watching his face too and he was trying very hard not to laugh
At 1:36:00 he starts smiling a bunch too and for sure I thought what was going through his head was "Midnight basketball! Midnight basketball!" 😄 But then I think it was probably because he saw Nuance Bro was in line 😁
The amound of times the guy on the left own-goaled. Holy hell
How is this a debate when the dude is just reading off of a script on his computer?
Sean went into as a debate. Cypher went into it with a script. There are scripts in debate known as talking points or notes with numbers.
Chill dude, it's only on opening statement
@nurrohmatadiputra5378 if you're going to debate someone, you should be confident in your opening, argument, and conclusion. Cypher had none of that. He lost me in his opening. It was weak and contained nothing of substance.
@@matthewthompson9902 remember how long cypher opening statement is? It is fine to have script ready for debate, not everyone is quick on the foot type like sean is. Why in pursuit of truth are being light footed better than making preparation beforehand, both have it's place obviously. I am not saying sean is light on preparation, but i am saying that there's nothing wrong with reading script especially if it's that long because most people don't have perfect memory to remember all that.
Remember opening statement is to make groundwork.
Sean opening statement is that the left policy prefer softer approach compared to jail time or worse death penalty which is very appropriate for the debate.
Cypher on the other hand had to lay in the groundwork that while the left definitely prefer less punishment, but it is not because they want to be soft but rather because the left want to focus on 'the core' of the issue.
Now i agree with sean position, but even i can sympathise that it is a difficult question for cypher to not fall head first into a hole without removing the stigma of 'soft on crime' approach hence the longer opening statement.
Can't say the same about the debate itself though lol.
@@nurrohmatadiputra5378Even if you have it written at least you would just look at it once or twice and keep looking at the audience. There's no excuse to Cypher horrible performance there, I know High School students that present better than that.
48:00 according to the washington post, since 2015, a total of 517 unarmed individuals have been shot by police, making up only 6% of police shootings and is a far cry from the "250 unarmed people a year" claim cypher made.
Yea I must have been remembering a different stat
@@cypherreport won't lie wasn't expecting cypher to reply here, and well I got to say, props on you for acknowledging the error, rare to see these days but it's the only way we grow as people.
I'll admit when I was wrong. If I had to guess, in the moment I was confusing the number of black people in general killed by police and not the number of unarmed people.
All the same, thanks for pointing it out
@@cypherreport Even the cases that "unarmed" is dubious it doesn't mention a person beating someone to death with their fists (which statistically is used in more murders than guns) or trying to grab a weapon, or about run someone over all of which are justified homicides.
This was light work for you Sean, but I'm glad you always bring your "A" game. "Play like you practice and practice like you play".
I'm 30 mins in and surprised that Sean has allowed this guy to run sobfar with his "this is all trust" without requiring him to show his work on that. While at the same time the guy swats down seans points with "well how can we know holding criminals actually reduced crime, its all intertwined"
Amazing how no one stepped in when this guy constantly interrupted you. There were only a handful of times that you could make your point without multiple interruptions.
Interrupting and being disingenuous are the main tools of the effeminized leftists.
Really enjoyed this format compared to a traditional debate. It's nice when each person can respond to the other in real time.
I felt bad for this during the debate, but when it came to his bodega analogy he just lost me
I can give you a tedtalk link on it if you want
Im glad they had that friendly laugh at the end. To both your credits you were both willing to concede points, an incredibly rare occurrence in political conversations.
If the topic of the debate is something as obvious as 'Does 2+2 equal 4', you know your opponent is going to be the most disingenuous person on the planet. Time to see if I'm right and watch the debate.
EDIT: 30:25 my man literally arguing that allowing people to commit crimes without any punishment or consequences lowers crime...
Nah, Sean won't talk to Sam Seder. This guy is a distant second at best.
Do you want the study for nonprosecution, and how diversion reduces chances of re-offending by up to 30%?
@@TheMonk72 He already did talk to Sam.
@@Mortred99 yes. And it was even more of a crap show than this. And he's never talking to him again. I thought that was implicit in my earlier post.
"EDIT: 30:25 my man literally arguing that allowing people to commit crimes without any punishment or consequences lowers crime..."
That means they are hard on crime then xP
Has the hippie ever in his life allowed someone to complete a sentence?
His absurd ideas he tries to express in his bizarre bodega scenario and his mental health systems and handling of the homeless, and the ideas he has regarding poverty/racial groups/criminality are all ridiculous to the point of inducing anger in response to his smug assertions regarding them.
Dude knew he was on the losing end as soon as he started. From the word go, he started to reframe the entire debate and try to make it about something entirely different. I don't think he understood what the premise of the entire topic was
That was rough for your opponent. Almost like he wasn't prepared
Criminals wont ever think society is fair. This belief that that would stop people from crime is dumb.
This guy can’t make up his mind about what constitutes a statistically significant percentage. He claims the enforcement of subway fare catching 1 in 7 (14%) of felony warrant individual is not significant enough to justify a policy. Then 20 minutes later says 100 out of 1000 (10%)being unarmed people shot by cops is totally too much and justifies the mistrust of cops.
Good to see Sean realize this and call it out
Sean's smile when the other dude gave his opening words was my favorite part.
1:18:15
I actually appreciated this response. A lot of what this guy said was nonsense through the debate, but the Aladdin response was gold 😂
You can see Sean's eyes light up.
I love that the guy in a San Fran hat doesnt think the Left is soft on crime...
Is that irony? 🤔
jesus christ, that bodega argument was peak mental gymanstics.
Imagine if someone like Fetterman had a written opening statement that long-winded and rambling... it'd take damn near an hour to get through
Well done Sean. It really shows this is your field of expertise. This guy was nodding his head agreeing with 80% of what you said. Again well done.
The point of harsher sentencing is not to deter criminals, but to prevent recidivism.
And it doesn't work
CSP cypher would change his crime views drastically, if he was to live in a majority Black neighborhood for three months.
I'm not so sure. He's probably the type that would blame himself for being beaten and robbed.
Depends on whether the bodegas are open or not
I literally grew up in "the ghetto"
@@cypherreport Can you show us proof that you grew up in a majority Black neighborhood? And if you truly did grow up in the ghetto, and you hold these political views, then it makes your views on crimes even more insane.
What would you consider to be proof?
I grew up on the 10th street Indianapolis
Unintended affects of Democrat policies also cause more crime such as destruction of the nuclear family and taking fathers from the home. Sean you did well, I wish when you debate the other side wouldn’t just talk over you because they can’t stand that you might destroy their argument. You did well Sean!
Haha, at 10:40 sean checks his phone because thia man is putting everyone asleep by reading.
That opening statement from Cypher was fucking painful. "Well read?" Please.....
NuanceBro with the shoutout @ 44:44...respect