What do you think? Is Socialism immoral? Where do you draw the line? And thanks to everyone who showed up! Standing in the mud for hours just to watch two people disagree. Was an awesome experience. Next time, we’ll bring the whole shebang!
1.7M subscribers, man I remember when it was less than 100K, crazy how popular you have become in so little time, keep up the great work, it's really paying off!
And who cares if he did? Crowder insulted him over and over. He even called him stupid toward the end. Phrasing it in terms like "I wouldn't say you're ... " is still insulting him, we're all smart enough to see that.
Jeremy Thomas Totally agree man. I noticed Crowded kept rephrasing the point Yousef meant. I think this was to give him time to think of a response. I still enjoy Crowder and acknowledge he's way smarter than I am but I would have like to have seen this go the distance
no shit, he profits off the ideas he espouses because it serves as a source of confirmation for those that hold the same belief. Why would he be open to adopting a stance that doesn't align with his audience's beliefs regardless of the veracity of the beliefs? This is the same tactic that fox news (Tucker Carlson specifically) adopts. It's all about the $$$ not truth.
I like how he expects simple answers to complex questions and when yusuf starts explaining what he means Crowder immediately changes the subject and says he isn't sticking to topic. Its sad.
I agree, but at the same time the whole show got railroaded by the School. So in lieu of the proper show, I liked it; understanding however that the proper live show would have been better.
damn crowder actually accused the kid of "trying to sound smart by talking in paragraphs" but he is talking way longer on each point, kept interrupting him, accused him of indecent speech and behavior, and used crowd bullying tactics to own the situation without actually putting out valid counter arguments.
Yeah the whole pretense of these events is he's there to have his mind changed, but it's a false pretense because he's completely uninterested in hearing what the person has to say.
Yusuf got him on this one tbh. If it is 'Change My Mind' then you have be open to the slight possibility of that happening. Rather than digging in, cutting him off, or getting unnecessarily defensive about a word like 'autistic'. It's ok to concede sometimes. Just my feedback. Great series!
Yep i used to agree in some Steven Subjects, but ge got rekt it was clearly that he was not willing to change his mind even if he could not explain himself properly in that instance. He even got triggered when he always complain about "leftards sensitive people".
I don’t think it’s about who “got” who, or who won the debate. It mostly boils down to fundamental beliefs. I agree he doesn’t really seem willing to change his mind even if he says he is. However, in the end, this is a conversation. And I think if Yusuf changed our mind, that’s great! If Steven changed your mind, that’s great! But I think the point of the video is to clearly state both viewpoints. If you think Yusuf won the debate, then I think the video served it purpose lol I guess my point is, this isn’t a win or lose debate. It’s supposed to be a civil conversation about opposing views, even if this convo kind of went uncivil rather quickly haha
How was Yusef rude? You were never rude to your guests no matter how offensive or rude they were to you up until this point. He's holding his own ground. He barely interrupted you and he gave you the same patience and courtesy you've given your previous guests. You don't have to call him out on being a dick or being rude to you, giving off such distasteful body language, and picking at his vocabulary which wasn't even directed to offend you personally. When you have a discussion with someone who has a different view point from yours, you already risk being offended and I thought you of all people would know that and would have kept it 'civil,' as you always had. I share a lot of your view points and I don't fully understand all these concepts, which is why I like watching your debates because you're thorough in your opinions, but this was terrible to watch.
He actually stated a person who uses logic is autistic as if logic didn't lead to truth when it's by definition a method of analysis of the truth value of sentences.
The evil CCP has murdered 80 million of its own people since 1949. It is now torturing, organ harvesting and executing the 100 million Falun Gong who live in China, pure godless evil. The problem is that Wall Street spells human right$ like that, never exposing the true nature of the Satanic CCP.
@@Wopedomernah usually most of the people he encounters are idiots. I think in general he does a good job at exposing people for having straw man opinions. However, its frustrating that when someone comes along who has good intellect and reasoning, he wont give them their fair shot. Its clear he wants to grab the most amount of idiots from the left possible to make himself look better because those are usually the people triggered by the signs. In reality, this video topic is not one many blue haired morons are gonna get triggered by. Someone who disagrees with him is actually gonna have some facts behind what they say
Yusef was a stone cold, well spoken, terminator. He owned Crowder, BADLY. Crowder had a meltdown at 23:03 that he should not have let happen. 'Shill' was an embarrassing word to be triggered by and suggesting Yusef was being rude... focusing way too much on trivial words like that in his emotional tirade. Even having to debrief the crowd afterwards to try and recover. Cringe! Change his mind or not, Yusef obliterated!
@@fallenxangel105 no...you thought he won. But he didn't actually address the argument. He would make a fallacy then change subjects and went on long winded rants that were not about the debate issue.
@@infopocalypse5006 How did he go on "long winded rants" when crowder barely would let him finish a sentence before pulling the mic away. Lol. You are literally describing the actions of the person you are trying to defend. Projection at its finest
John Adams said " "Avarice will break this Constitution like a whale breaks through a net" and he said "This Constitution (or government, can't remember which right now) is only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other". Morality and self-sacrifice can't be legislated and forced through socialism because it always ends up worse, sometimes MUCH WORSE; so we've got to figure out how to influence people to change in order to save the Republic.
The part where Yusef the Autistic shill tries to propose Sweden, Norway and Denmark as examples of Socialist countries that work? Only that the PM of Denmark corrected Bernie Sanders in saying that they AREN’T a socialist country? Or where Sweden uses school vouchers but Yusef the Austist doesn’t like that idea? Or where he doesn’t support an increase in taxes on the middle class and lower class, which is exactly what these socialist countries he tries to use as good example of socialism do? When confronted with the reality of what they actually do, he says they “should change it”.... He also doesn’t support decreasing the corporate tax, which again is what they do in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. So at what point did he make any good statements that don’t contradict himself? He literally had NO argument of supportive facts. He disagreed with the policies of these “socialist” countries he propped up as examples. Even though they aren’t socialist countries to begin with... haha And you still wonder why Crowder had to end it after all this kid’s backtracking and name calling? J_Smith-26
That was awful, lost the first debate and removed the kid. There is no point of the show if you're reluctant to changing your mind or accepting the other persons views
James Ghazanfar no shit, he profits of the ideas he espouses because it serves as a source of confirmation for those that hold the same belief. Why would he be open to adopting a stance that doesn't align with his audience's beliefs?
Mate its called change my mind he can chat whatever crud he wants but if hes not 'open' to others opinions in the aim to have his mind changed then why even bother with the show and its name.
Because that's what he promotes. Open conversations, attaining the possibility to adopt another stance, are what he claims the 'change my mind' series is about.
I was actually at this event. I remember leaving with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. This was the day when I realized just how weak most of Stephen’s arguments were. It started me on a long road of learning how to critically think, how to accept nuance, and to recognize bad arguments and logical fallacies.
The evil CCP has murdered 80 million of its own people since 1949. It is now torturing, organ harvesting and executing the 100 million Falun Gong who live in China, pure godless evil. The problem is that Wall Street spells human right$ like that, never exposing the true nature of the Satanic CCP.
Holy crap Crowder... LET YUSEF SPEAK. You interrupted him every time the kid tried to make a point. You get 6 inches away from his face, wave your hand around and you were the one that played to the crowd. You really came off as condescending and you had the balls to tell him that he was being disrespectful? Also, he wasn’t saying that you were autistic... He was saying a certain idea was autistic. Instead of tying who you are with what you believe and getting offended (which is the way someone you usually make fun of would act like) you actually listen and take in what the person talking was saying like a REAL CONVERSATION. You were the one that was acting like you were in a big crowd of people, not him. You constantly steered the conversation the way that you wanted it and the way you were prepared for. If this would have been in a fair environment where BOTH people had a microphone then I wonder if you would have came out on top of this argument. I’ve been a fan for a long time, but this is the lowest I’ve ever thought of you. #BringBackYusef
Seriously! I'm a fan but Crowder was very aggressive, almost trying to intimidate. Also the way he used the word "autistic" wasn't as an insult, but as a synonym for pedantic. #BringBackYousef
How does exactly idea of libertariaism is related to this medical condition? Let's face it, Crowder wasn't polite, but Yusef hadn't had any good idea worth listening to in the first place.
@@magnusmoty well Steven never gave him a chance. Steven was prepared, yet he was shocked by the kids level of general Intelligence. Say what you want, but you can hear it when someone is sharp. And this kid was. Defined terms on the fly, held on to ideas Crowder had touched on and was able to redirect Crowder back to a point Crowder had made that he wanted to explore more. Caught Steven on his failure to distinguish between public good and commodity in his original definition of Socialism. A very good point, seeing as Steven was the one who wanted to be particular about defining everything. Steven was shook all through the discussion, and wasn't able to follow his script. That's why he feigned being insulted and then proceeded to insult the kid multiple times. Yet the kid did not respond in kind. Except calling him out for being mad coz he was losing the debate.
@@diranshouse7061 Okay, Crowder didn't let him speak and this is bad. But I wonder, if Yusef's pro-socialist rhetoric is so good, why do we never see it anywhere else? Why don't socialists generally engage in debates, if there is this holy graal of real socialistic truth? Why don't socialists sit somewhere with banner saying "Socialism is good, change my mind" and gather views by debunking capitalists' viewpoints?
I am a strong conservative, that being said. I really liked how Yusef presented himself. I think Crowder was overwhelmed by this young mans confidence in his beliefs. Yusef was articulate, calm and quite frankly, enjoyable to watch. On the other side, Crowder came off as flustered and impatient.
He was impatient because Yuesef agreed the the debate question, then at every rebuttal he tried to change the premise of the debate. It is like stating upfront that this is a cat to argue for or against pet ownership, and stating that retrievers are better at fetching.
I totally disagree with Yusef, but he was definitely disrespected. Steven is correct in saying Denmark et cetera is not socialist, but he should have actually engaged him. In his later episodes doing this he is much more relaxed and respectful. I'm willing to grant stage fright for this one, but he definitely could have done a lot better.
@@grega2362 Sorry my friend. I just can't grasp what your trying to say. If your saying Crowder was. patient and not flustered or had a reason to be. That's cool, we all have opinions. And in this case, you can't change my opinion.
Crowder wasn't overwhelmed by confidence - he was overwhelmed because he couldn't refute Yusef's points. He deflected, interrupted, and belittled Yusef in an attempt to cover this up.
Steven is the kind of intelligent man that takes words by their definition. Yusuf seems like the type of child to TRY to get away with calling you names without you realizing. He was clearly embarrassed when he got called out for calling Steven autistic. He says things that are interesting but does any of it hold water? I would suspect that Yusuf looks intelligent to stupid people. Evident after Yusuf put out his highly edited version, then all you people started commenting.
Crowder is resorting to bullying tactics because that Yusef dude is actually well-informed and isn't the SJW snowflake he is used to. Poor show man, I had more respect for him before this.
Honestly, I have no idea how can anyone respect Crowder in a first place. His whole strategy is cherry-picking teenagers or people in their early 20's who know jackshit about economics and social dogmas to appear superior in comparison. This kid is certainly bright, but he is still an intellectual light-weight (no doubt he will become much better with age tho), and it was already enough to showcase how silly Crowder is in reality. He wouldn't last 5 seconds against actual left-wing intellectuals.
@@mansfield360 you don't know that there are left-wing intellectuals? In what kind of echo chamber do you live in oO There are FAR more left-wing intellectuals than right-wing.
MrKosobi I think we should stop spending money on new military equipment and instead save the money up for a budget when we need it and start using money to research more advance technologies so when we go to war we can have a safety net of money we can use to build better equipment that will last longer I think clean energy and civil engineering is needed for future to be good but I don’t agree with globalization it would only slow us down in figuring out world problems same with micro aggressions and forcing equal demographics we should employ the best people not choose people based on their race progressives lately are doing the exact opposite
@@MrKosobi yusef may not be well known but he certainly didn't appear a lightweight. He correctly pointed out that if Crowder wanted to stick to his definition of evil, i.e. redistributing something not earned as morally reprehensible, any redistribution is immoral, no matter whether it's a good or a commodity. That is intellectually sharp for me. And frankly it left Crowder hiding for cover under misdirection.
@@skinnie2838He didn’t get cooked, he got destroyed. Particularly when he couldn’t defend the point that public roads, bridges, and highways are socialism. The fact that he’s prancing around college campuses looking for debates is already embarrassing enough on its own.
If you are going to compare you should compare everything. It is like saying a boat does not have a wing so why does an airplane need one. It is all about understanding what you are talking about. Unions in the US are weak, unions in Europe are much stronger. Also the things you can buy for the money you get matters. What other support exists, house rental support, child support and possibly others. In the end what matters is the net money you have in your pocket and what you can do with it. Also Germany is not really socialist, it is capitalist in most ways with maybe some socialist aspects. Basics in most European countries, the money you get from a 40 hour work week should be enough to live from no matter what work you do. Left wing parties in the US are also to eager to point to europe without context. I understand why, but you should first understand the full consequences, benefits and dependencies.
you flopped here steven.... I got excited and expected some really strong points but you played the person you always mock - the defensive and triggered kid
I agree, instead of gaining a clear understanding of what Steven actually believes, or countering the arguments of the participants, he gets bogged down in semantics which is a little less interesting to me.
Looked like Mr. Chowder regretted asking Yousef about examples of the rich paying to abuse the system and increase their wealth, seeing as how he never let Yousef finish. Yousef had plenty examples and counterarguments, he just wasn’t given the time to speak. Grow some balls Stephen. And the fact that Yousef called him a shill, clearly struck a nerve, probably because there is some truth to his insult.
I do think that Yosef has a point that big businesses hinder society, and that large economic inequality does provoke violence. I do think there is a solution that will help. That is to ban all lobbying. And prosecute lobbying. I don’t know if there are rules and laws that already do that in a sense. I am not educated in that area, except that in the book The Chickenshit Club, there is a grand historical documentation of corrupt leadership in our legal prosecution system, where the repetitive example is of the defense bar of the United States Lawyers Defense Bar Association ( I made that name to make it easy for people not educated in what a defense bar is) is retaliatory against the prosecuting Attorney General, or the lawyers who prosecute, every single time they went after executives of big businesses, and also when they prosecute their enablers (the certified public accountants, high level managers of banks overseeing transactions). The retaliation is so vast, that since the 90’s and early 2000’s, there has been widespread fear among the prosecutors (lawyers working for the government) that is they prosecute too hard, they lose their careers. Why is this obvious? That is easy; notice that these lawyers no longer prosecute the executives. The lawsuits of today’s big businesses prosecution is a fee that looks like a slap on the wrist, and even bailing out the guilty corporations. No executives go to prison today, in a practical and impactful leven that discourages stupidity like selling securities backed by crap mortgages. And this happens because the defense bar makes a profit from retaliating against the prosecution of big businesses, and so the Bar Associations is a puppet of large businesses with executives sticking their hands up the defense bar’s behinds and having them do their bidding. It comes down to the incredibly huge profits that corporations pay the defense lawyers. Prosecutors never come close to half a fraction of the income these defense lawyers make. Thus, the defense attorneys are overcompensated while the prosecution is under funded, underemployed, and low in morale. The bar association for lawyers have a huge influence on law, because though they don’t make them, they interpret them and choose how and what to enforce. As you can see, my answer is not socialist, but rather to support the objective role of the government under a capitalist nation. When organizations like Bar Associations for Attorneys is influenced by large businesses, it no longer is capable of objectivity. They are biased. Notice another example, which is large communication businesses moving to control and censor internet use by means of compensating or financially denying profits according to that businesses interest. You think the prosecuting attorneys can properly defend the people when there is a violation against citizens rights to access to information? Though some will argue that information is a privilege, not a right. How about the platform or the availability to information? Some may even argue that a platform for information is also a privilege. I disagree, and I bet the defense bar will agree. Further, the problem is that compensating defense lawyers isn’t known as lobbying. Lobbying is to pay for making or taking down laws. But few people see that paying for the interpretation and bias of prosecution or defense relating to this laws are also corporate influence. It is lot lobbying only because the definition in the dictionary doesn’t agree with it, but for practical purposes it is indeed lobbying. It is the corporate influence in how to and what to interpret of the law.
Gotta say, yusef won this and Chowder couldn't handle it, so he had to boot him and then push his argument to get the last word on a depricative joke. 0% class and 0% skill, utterly frustrated and let down that chowder acted so autistic and shill-like.
He was given the time to speak. He simply refused to cite specific examples because he kept vacillating on his own argument. Usually means he doesn't actually have any examples and that he's simply ranting.
The first kid was really bloody good. Crowder goes in there with a folder and is well prepared and even knows the subject which is going to be talked about. The kid went in blind.
@@Vance731 It's internet slang. In common or polite "normie" conversation that sounds bad, I agree, but it's a meme on the internet. My guess is that he is not used to debating people older than him in real life (who are more likely to be normies) so he didn't adjust his way of speaking. Although it wasn't a smart move, he was not prepared and he is not a politician, so I think it can be excused.
@@Vance731 You could definitely say that, but it's a kid, and that kind of language, respectful or not, comes up in regular conversation around him all the time due to kids just throwing in words for the sake of it. To hold against him that and one other slip up that came up in the heat of the moment especially when he was coming in blind and against the crowd is pretty messed up considering he was very concise with the rest of his words and had a legitimate argument. I feel like anyone with social skills and, hell, MOST LIKELY also had a phase of just throwing in certain words for no reason when they were younger, would clearly see that.
It is all quite simple really. When we are born our destiny has already been decided based upon our actions in our previous lives. Any interference by man, socialism, is interfering with God's will. There are exceptions, but very few. Mother Theresa once said, the more people that I help, the further from God I feel. Interesting, no?...........................Falun Dafa
What good points? I’m confused. He was deflecting with all these “ big words” and Crowder was making him explain it, because that’s the tactic of the left. They either scream and get emotional or use all these “ big words” to confuse people. A lot like politicians.
The one time an intelligent young man joined Crowder for discussion he completely panicked and ran him off the stage. He couldn’t get over it, constantly returning to his emotions and making remarks about yuseph.
Steven displayed his ignorance, stupidity and arrogance when harassing Yusef. This dude is clearly a very well educated and intelligent young man, Steven displayed his lack of formal education because he cannot grasp Yusef’s points. Steven was clearly outclassed.
Well, they both screwed up right at the beginning in regards to the definition of socialism. "Socialism is where the state redistributes wealth", is completely wrong. Those are social programs - kinda similar names, but very different. Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production - i.e. Private business is not allowed. You can have varying degrees of socialism - full socialism like in the USSR or North Korea where you can't even own your own lemonade stand, or partial socialism where the state owns key industries like oil, gas, heavy manufacturing, but private enterprise is still tolerated elsewhere. A lot of Western European countries tried that in the 60s and 70s. But socialism, both full and partial, has proven to be a disaster in every single country it has been tried in. It fails because a) government bureaucrats suck at managing businesses, b) government bureaucrats have a natural mindset that avoids change and improvements of products and services - a government car manufacturer will make the same car for 50 years unless forced to change, either by the threat of imports or simply the machine tooling wearing out. I saw a shoe factory in Bulgaria in around 1990, where the tooling for left foot shoes broke down. But they had quotas to meet, so they simply shipped thousands of pairs of shoes, and in each box were two shoes for the right foot. THAT is socialism.
I think Yusef was just too intelligent for Crowder, and I am a fan of his. Yousef was really out of Crowder's league here. Yusef did a really good job making his arguments and maintained a calm demeanor.
I'm not sure it's about winning or losing, I thought it was a pretty good debate...Crowder is a bit of a stirrer I think but a harmless one...and Canadian too.
Let's see you do better in his shoes. I mean everyone is criticizing him, but I don't think many would have been able to do differently if put in his place.
He didn't even lose though. Were you listening to what he was saying? Or are you just piggy backing because Yusef said he was winning and crowder said "that was fair? I don't know why people think Yusef won that argument, he didn't. Most of you didn't even understand his language. Having good articulation doesn't say you won an argument. He wasn't making points, he was just talking and talking without giving direct answers
That Yusuf kid was really smart. I felt like Steven was trying really hard to change Yusuf's mind, rather than the other way around. I don't like how Steven conducted the debate with him.
Matthew Forslund are you talking about when he said shill? Because if you were actually listening to Yousefs substantives then you must recognise he is far more knowledgable than most. It speaks for itself when Crowder literally ended the debate in fear and latched onto the use of the word “Autistic” instead of the actual arguments; no doubt because he knew he’d already lost.
I do think that Yosef has a point that big businesses hinder society, and that large economic inequality does provoke violence. I do think there is a solution that will help. That is to ban all lobbying. And prosecute lobbying. I don’t know if there are rules and laws that already do that in a sense. I am not educated in that area, except that in the book The Chickenshit Club, there is a grand historical documentation of corrupt leadership in our legal prosecution system, where the repetitive example is of the defense bar of the United States Lawyers Defense Bar Association ( I made that name to make it easy for people not educated in what a defense bar is) is retaliatory against the prosecuting Attorney General, or the lawyers who prosecute, every single time they went after executives of big businesses, and also when they prosecute their enablers (the certified public accountants, high level managers of banks overseeing transactions). The retaliation is so vast, that since the 90’s and early 2000’s, there has been widespread fear among the prosecutors (lawyers working for the government) that is they prosecute too hard, they lose their careers. Why is this obvious? That is easy; notice that these lawyers no longer prosecute the executives. The lawsuits of today’s big businesses prosecution is a fee that looks like a slap on the wrist, and even bailing out the guilty corporations. No executives go to prison today, in a practical and impactful leven that discourages stupidity like selling securities backed by crap mortgages. And this happens because the defense bar makes a profit from retaliating against the prosecution of big businesses, and so the Bar Associations is a puppet of large businesses with executives sticking their hands up the defense bar’s behinds and having them do their bidding. It comes down to the incredibly huge profits that corporations pay the defense lawyers. Prosecutors never come close to half a fraction of the income these defense lawyers make. Thus, the defense attorneys are overcompensated while the prosecution is under funded, underemployed, and low in morale. The bar association for lawyers have a huge influence on law, because though they don’t make them, they interpret them and choose how and what to enforce. As you can see, my answer is not socialist, but rather to support the objective role of the government under a capitalist nation. When organizations like Bar Associations for Attorneys is influenced by large businesses, it no longer is capable of objectivity. They are biased. Notice another example, which is large communication businesses moving to control and censor internet use by means of compensating or financially denying profits according to that businesses interest. You think the prosecuting attorneys can properly defend the people when there is a violation against citizens rights to access to information? Though some will argue that information is a privilege, not a right. How about the platform or the availability to information? Some may even argue that a platform for information is also a privilege. I disagree, and I bet the defense bar will agree. Further, the problem is that compensating defense lawyers isn’t known as lobbying. Lobbying is to pay for making or taking down laws. But few people see that paying for the interpretation and bias of prosecution or defense relating to this laws are also corporate influence. It is lot lobbying only because the definition in the dictionary doesn’t agree with it, but for practical purposes it is indeed lobbying. It is the corporate influence in how to and what to interpret of the law.
You can also tell how uncomfortable Steven is by the amount of times he turns around and interrupts to chat to the crowd as if they said something - but they didn't. He is trying to buy time to think....
@@prisonerohope6970 they did something, listen. Much of the time they are actually talking to him. I agree with you though, he is stopping and speaking slow and not very straight, keeps repeating things, I get it. It's okay to think though, but it's that he's doing so to come up with a way to win the argument not just talk about what the truth might be.
@@HelloThere..... God is so Good! Whatever we do, let's do it with Love, because of Love, and in Christ. Because, in the end it won't matter if we win arguments. It will matter if we Loved people and tried to send them Safely on their way to Confident Relationship with God: Because of The Sacrifice! Love and in All Sincerity, Shandalay
Could we have Yusef in another segment of change my mind and let him talk? Im a crowder fan don’t get me wrong but I kinda want to have someone that actually knows what their talking about on the other side of the mic.
Crowder wants you to only use the example of Venezuela as a socialist country as this plays into his argument. The moron doesn't want you to bring up the example of the UK having a minimum wage or free health and education. His entire argument is ideological and based on cherry picking facts.
@@sajO5754 If we defined socialism as taxes, then this would be a completely different argument. Higher minimum wages cause higher unemployment rates and fewer working hours, and free healthcare reduces the quality of healthcare. Take Canada as an example, when a Canadian needs treatment or surgery fast, they come to America as opposed to waiting weeks
This is why i dislike crowder. The moment he gets called out on his bullshit he acts like nothing happened. He has a big following so he will use them as a kob to attack his guests.
As a conservative, I found this very disappointing. He could have had an interesting and mutually beneficial discussion with the first participant. Wasted opportunity.
He really went against his own principles by steering the conversation away from the argument, and focusing on the small insult that kid made. In reality Steve was the one who was getting triggered.
If it wasn't for invading every opponents personal space, and literally shutting the discussion down when his points are dissolved into false premises. Yosef would have gone on to easily dissect the bad arguments crowder was making. Yousuf has substance, crowder is a sophist. Thus explains this debate
@@liamscott1905 Riiight, that's why he was repeatedly insulting him in the most passive-aggressive way saying shit like "someone like you would call you stupid", all over a light jab by Yosef. I could literally picture Ben Shapiro using those same types of insults, Yosef was just playing the same game as these right-wing entertainers, but when the roles reversed Crowder got triggered like a little bitch, so comical. This guy is a joke, his whole motive is to trigger college students for entertainment, and he got exposed here. If you couldn't see how obviously triggered Crowder got or how obviously rigged these "change my mind" bullshit debates are, I really don't know what to tell you.
Crowder knew what he meant by shill and autistic. Yusef plainly has a well thought out argument whether it's correct or incorrect and came at an angle Crowder wasn't ready for... Don't pick on the dude for being smart
Masta Killa crowder wanted to know if yuseph knew what those words meant. It was suppose to be civil. The fact that yuseph didnt even know what shill meant just goes to show you that he doesnt know what he is talking about. He is just spouting nonsense
Crowder getting hung up on the use of the word "autism" was so disengenous. Yusef obviously meant it as a synonym for "stupid", but Crowder decided to (ironically, quite autistically) steer the entire conversation away from socialism (conveniently when Yusef was making good points) and onto a semantic red herring. What annoyed me was that he tried to take some sort of moral high ground and then swing back later with "Now the thing you just said is what YOU might call autistic!" and "Wow, what you're saying now, is what YOU might call stupid!"
Crowder likely pushed him on the definitions to highlight the fact that name calling is a departure from the topic. The kid was tasked with proving Socialism is great and he failed to convince me for one. Name calling is the lower form of argument without question.
We get it Crowder, he called something 'autistic'. Yusef made an off-hand comment in a high pressure environment. He also tried to take accountability for his words, tried to redefine his words in a civil fashion after you claimed moral outrage, but you still let yourself repeatedly circle back to that original slight.
yeah that was pretty fucked. Honestly anyone in that kids position would definitely feel a tad' out of place. You'd expect someone like Crowder to let it go, but he kinda ran with it and honestly it took away from the total experience.
The point is for a civil discussion to happen, he shouldn't have made the comment in the first place. Instead of outright admitting his fault or at least apologizing, Yusef tried to lamely justify his use of "autistic." It's rather typical of leftists to issue an insult in civil discourse and then try to explain why they're right. Any attempt to defend Yusef's comment only demonstrates that those kind of people want to validate personal insults during an exchange of ideas and call it "civil." It simply doesn't work.
The amount of times crowder completely cut him off, absolutely changed the topic or asked a question to distract the fact that he was losing is absurd. The kid was making great points and Crowder knew he was losing so he kicked him. He also talked more than 3x the kid and made little to no good points.
@DeadlyNeedle ! Oh, so you are one of those (people who just can't seem to let go of a word, like Crowder, except he uses it to antagonize and continually insult his fellow debater). He never called Crowder autistic. Period. Now, again. If you really disagree on my view, it's totally ok. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Maybe not so in this case, because we are talking facts, but still, ultimately opinion are subjective. So even if most people would agree that Crowder lost the debate despite his continuous use of cheap tactics, you are free to go on and say "No. That's not what happened."
@@sergiobricenos You are straw-manning his position. DeadlyNeedle never said Yousef called Crowder autistic. You are literally arguing with a wall right now because that's not his position.
Yusef well done..Most people just say things without understanding what they are saying, you had an answer for every question and was calm and collected.
Jonas Andersen except the only points he brought up were hypothetical and philosophical. He never brought up any valid and practical points for socialism and just bashed capitalism
@@a7xdisturbed774 He actually did bring up some decent points. But he could hardly make any of them because Steven took the mic away before he could barely muster a sentence! One point he brought up was great, let me explain, I'll give you the definition of socialism "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Yusef brought up that government funding of things like the police force is inherently, as least a bit socialist. And Steven tried to debunk this by saying things like the police force are a social good, so it doesn't count. But there is no distinction in the true definition that makes any note of public goods or commodities. So here, Steven is kinda just pulling things out of his ass. The government simply taking, and redistributing is in fact, a socialist ideology, period. Welfare is 100% socialist, and it is necessary to a certain degree (people who are truly disabled, needy, temporarily unemployed/laid off) Steven is just nitpicking here and trying to make his own definitions for things. This young man isn't a socialist, he is just saying that not all parts of socialism is evil. Which I agree with. In a truly Capitalistic society you have a lot of problems, there is typically a huge divide between the poor and wealthy class, and virtually no middle class. And in a truly capitalistic society, your market will eventually crumble as the wealthy get too rich and greedy, the majority of poor cannot afford anything, and there is no wealth distribution. It causes everyone to go bankrupt almost immediately. The truth is, America is partially socialist in many ways. When you take a bowl of Capitalism, and sprinkle in just a bit of socialism, it works. Also, imagine a small indigenous tribe with 100 people or so. They will most likely be socialist by definition. They will be sharing things, distributing goods to each other, and helping one another out in order to survive as a whole. Anyone who takes too much and doesn't give anything back will probably be shunned. I don't think this is inherently evil. It is necessary for their survival. I think if Yusef was given a chance to talk, you would see that he isn't a socialist. He just believes some socialistic ideology is necessary. Steven also tried to put him in a box several times, berated him for using words like "chill" and "autistic" to disprove his entire points, which is something that the left love to do! Tried to create his own definitions, told Yusef that he talks in paragraphs (look how much Steven talks) and flat out lied many times (Germany has a minimum wage, and Norway does too, but in the form of negotiations made by trade unions)
@@a7xdisturbed774 You can't even judge Yusef's points because Crowder didn't give him enough time to substantiate any one of his arguments. Anyone uneducated would think Crowder 'won' this debate because he was always snatching the mic away from Yusef. Pathetic.
Melissa Morgan no crowder just realized that point wasn’t going to go anywhere. Anyone educated would know that the points he made were purely hypothetical with no practicality. Also Yusuf was extremely rude and pretentious towards crowder. Yusuf can be calm and use all the big words he wants but he still lost
Steven spent over twice as much time talking as Yusef did then unironically accused him of talking in paragraphs, AKA "you're not letting me control the conversation and dissect literally everything you say D:" Steven prepares for days for these "debates" and literally brought a binder full of resources (lol). Yet Yusef was polite and waited for his turn to talk, despite constantly being interrupted and not being allowed to speak. Then Steven gets triggered at him using the word autistic (which by the way he didn't actually call Steven autistic) You can really see how triggered Steven was towards the end when he seeks reassurance from the audience and starts trash talking back at Yusef before booting him. The point of these videos is to make Steven look "smart" and therefore correct, but the moment someone more intelligent than him arrives Steven cuts the debate because he knows he's losing. It was pathetic honestly.
PurpleFiiilth you can’t put quotes around a summary of what he said put in your words. Quotation marks mean that you are quoting someone, and you referenced Steven beforehand meaning you were quoting him. But he never said that. So you just put words in his mouth
I think that yusef did good but he failed a bit when started to use some more rude words, this let Crowder the opening to cut the conversation whenever he wants using "rudness" as an excuse. I think even that he could adjust a little his argument to make them stronger.
We definitely have progressive taxation in Denmark. Steven is using false arguments. You are not willing to change your mind. You simply just focus on every single word that is being said, and try to tear the arguments apart by finding small mistakes in the use of those words. So if a word is used incorrectly you’ll point it out even though it basically doesn’t matter. Truth is you are sounding very intelligent but sometimes just make things up on the way like saying we don’t have progressive taxation in Denmark which we do.
I think he does want to change his mind, but, at the same time, political beliefs basically define us. It takes someone who is more than human, IMO to really be open minded about those things.
@@radiofloyd2359 I don't think so. I think he's using this format to bait emotional, unprepared, and/or idotic people into a debate to bolster his ego and get a good laugh on their expense. If he would be interested in an honest debate, he wouldn't be moderator and debater in one person. That paired with the fact that he comes prepaired and his opponents don't, gives him all the control he needs.
Yeah there is no doubt that he takes advantage of people not having exact examples of everything they are arguing about. He just uses that he is dominating the discussion so that he can win the argument. If he was actually willing to change his mind he wouldn’t lie in his arguments. His only purpose is to make money by showing people getting destroyed in discussions that he has absolute control over....
Crowder, what the hell was this? I'm a fan of your show, but this was just poor. You came off as condescending and aggressive and not as arguing in good faith at all. You kept interrupting and being rude. Yusef won this one handily.
gomogo2000 No he doesn't. Where in the video does he say stealing money is moral? You can't assume things if he isn't allowed to argue his points before being thrown off by Crowder.
gomogo2000 Crowder thinks stealing money to fund a police and military is not immoral. Yusef thinks stealing money to fund healthcare is not immoral. It doesn't look like there's that much of a gap to me
LuckyLuk D Yes it is, because the workers get close to nothing by our standards but the truth is if those goods weren't produced there, they wouldn't even have that. They choose to work these jobs because the jobs make their lives better.
I like Crowders content, but he only moved on from Yousif because he couldn't handle him like he does most students who are usually overtly liberal and cannot back up what they say. Yousif was right, Crowder was losing.
I love how although many of the people in the comments respect Crowder, they’re not so blindly loyal to him that they won’t acknowledge what he did wrong to Yousef👏🏽
@@Del_1710 you're kidding us, right? I'm a loyal fan of Steven's and have been for years however, he's so used to debating people that lack knowledge on the topic of discussion that he'll let them talk for an hour. Yousef on the other hand was extremely knowledgeable and Steven wouldn't let him talk for more then 10 seconds without cutting him off and trying to sway the debate in the direction Steven wants it to go... If that's the case, then why is it "change my mind?" In all honesty, I truly believe Steven lost a lot of credibility on this video
@@mikeprez8880 because yousef wants to talk economics and he is having a debate on morality, is it good for country's economy? Maybe, but that's not the point of discussion the point of discussion is whether or not it's moral he says this in the "evil isn't harmful to society but morally reprehensible" And he stayed on the countries yousef brought up in his example his words turned out to be true those countries do in fact have no minimum wage and even when yousef asked why not and he didn't hear he still brought it back up and answered, so what's the problem. The only problem here is yousef talks in paragraphs and Steven talks in points that's it
@@Del_1710 Think of it like medicine. In small doses at the right places it can cure disease & even save lives but if you dump too much into the body it becomes poison. It doesn't mean medicine is evil. In the same way saying "Socialism is evil" is reductive.
It takes a particularly motherfuckingly awful man to abuse his pregnant wife and abandon his children, not to mention the "worship" of freedom whilst yourself acts like a dictator, not to mention showing off your motherfucking penis to your employees
Agreed, he wasn't getting to finish as Crowder had the power of the mic and kept pulling it away. I think the guy was making solid points and Crowder kept changing direction.
Bare in mind, he has to make time for everyone. If he had all day and night I’m sure it would’ve been different. This was a spontaneous debate. He wasn’t exactly ready and had to adapt to the new environment of over 100 people with many wanting to sit down with him. No one in these comments are thinking about that
@@jacobwhelan45 he literally kicked him out because he lost. If he wanted to get things done why not just prove him wrong and end it. He was incredibly aggressive for no reason too. And began to insult yusef and say that the opposite was going on. He’s just as bad as the people he talks down to.. And I’m happy I can see that now .
@@jacobwhelan45 yeah I love crowder but he lost his cool and if youre a real crowder fan you can tell he completely changed his outward appearance with yousef
don't debate someone, kick them off, and then proceed to make more points after the fact where he can't respond to or rebuttal those claims. Kind of a cheap shot.
He allowed the people to make their points, and those points did not change his mind so yes, he threw them off of the panel and gave the audience his reasoning for why he still believes what he believes. You have to remember the premise of the show, which is to change his mind.
@@theetilesmith In most cases, yes. But with Yousef, Crowder got owned. Watch and pay close attention to the last five minutes or so of that conversation. Crowder kept cutting Yousef off before he could even finish most of his points, and he continually misrepresented what Yousef was actually saying. At the end, Crowder kicks him out and then Crowder continues making his point without Yousef there to rebute.
No, I believe Crowder was getting annoyed with him and that's why he kicked him off. Crowder definitely owned him and Josef was parroting what his professors talking points are for the argument of socialism. As most professors indoctrinate students with leftist and Marxist ideology that encourages socialism. Josef was stating things as facts when they certainly were not. He was trying to use big words to sound more intelligent and talk in circles with no actual facts. He did it with absolute confidence in attempt to win the argument that way. It is very obvious to me that he absolutely has leftist ideology as it was infused in all his talking points even though he claims he doesn't. He kept trying to use an argument about one politician to represent the whole Republican party bc the claim he made is the exact opposite of what the party's views are. He made vast generalizations and started an argument which was not about the topic at hand. He was trying to state "Equity" as one of his talking points which means everyone needs to have the same outcome. Which is absolutely impossible and dangerous ideology when everyone as an individual is different. "Equity" believes all racial disparities are only due to "systematic racism" whether it's income or academia inequalities. I put quotations because these are terms the left has created that hold no barring to actual facts and statistics. White supremacy is not embedded within our insitiutions and there are no policies to discriminate against POC. The environment you can grow up in or the culture you were raised in can definitely be an impact on your life economically. The left avoids anyone as an individual and pushes the mindset that your skin color is your identity. With capatalism, if you work hard, get an education, don't get pregnant before your married then you will most likely be able to be in the middle class. You'll have to start at low wages since you don't have skills and experience as of yet but you can personally advance throughout your career and increase your salary over the years. He tried to show socialism as an success to Scandinavian countries which that argument was false. Those countries, like Sweden, use a free market system but have a higher social net so they are not actual full socialist countries. Sweden did try to have a more socialist country in the 70s or so and they were not able to sustain their economy so they implemented free market. An actual full socialist country has never been successful and in most times it became communist. They couldn't survive economically and created mass genicides. No one can figure out how we, America, could sustain economically and where thst money would come from to actually support socialism long term. Eventually, everyone would be poor and remain poor. We would lose our place in the world and no one can prosper. We became one of the richest countries in the world because of capitalism. We also would loose innovation and the quality of our healthcare and all institutions etc. It is immoral because it takes away our rights as an individual. It forces us with massive governmental intervention who will force people to give their money to someone else who do anything to contribute to it. Which that is absolute theft and tyranny. He used poverty as a weak motivation for him wanting a full socialist country. We do have social nets for elders and people who are improverished or in need like medicaid, welfare money, food stamps, section 8, etc. Capitalism gives you the opportunity no matter what race or socioeconomical class you are to succeed and have the potential to become rich. You are able to have the fruits of your own labor. It's entirely up to the individual and the choices they make but with socialism you can never get ahead, everyone is the same financially, and hard work gets you nowhere, etc. So no, I don't think Josef owned the argument because he kind of talked semantics, presented falsehoods as facts, and tried to use big words to sound more articulate when he did not have the correct definition with some of the words he used.
Thomas Murphy True, agreed, however, at least he posted it. At least despite how triggered he got it's still in the video. Some icing on his shit cake first interview lol.
Interesting debate as in Steven talks for 30 seconds straight. Lets the kid have the mic near his mouth for about 3 seconds before he pulls it back to himself again in the middle of the kids sentence? Yeah real interesting debate....
@@ognir66 conservatives seem to spend all their time chasing morals, good and bad via theory and some dreamland utopia instead of striving to make good in the actuall world we live in.
@@ognir66 and the change my mind guy was wrong about Denmark's tax rate, so factually he is far from clean himself. That's what happens when you decide what you believe and then go looking for facts instead of learning about a subject and then forming an opinion. Then he would learn that Denmark has a flat regional tax and progressive(borderline exponential with a cap off) national tax.
lets be honest here Steven. You didn't like Yusef because he knew what he was talking about and was very articulate. The next individual came up and he was far less articulate and was easily swayed by minor points you made. Of course you thought Drew was a better debater because you never really had to debate him.
I love how steven calls yousef out on speaking in paragraphs just to make himself sound smarter, when he does the same thing. Also why was he was so bothered by the use of autistic when he always rants about the importance of free speech in comedy. What a baby
@@KaosSakana you gotta be pretty dense to say that steven doesn't crack any jokes during these debates. The kid cracked one joke and Steven couldn't let it go
@@modelorpheus the autistic line, whether it was intended as a joke or not, was a blatant insult that showed a lack of awareness for his environment and a lack of respect for the conversation. The conversation was meant to be a serious discussion. Quit bending over backwards to defend a degenerate.
I really like Crowder... but was disapponted by him in this one. Instead of listening to the first guy he was a sensitive triggered snowflacke... Sorry but the guy was right there: 23:24 . Steven got upset and that's not what change my mind should be. If you loose, you have to stand to it and not be an asshole
Hold on, I just want to make sure that we're on the same page. Can you please define to me "deflected". You're using those big liberal words that they like to use and I just need clarification that we have the same understanding as each other.
@@wupengu Yusef was addressing autistic liberalists, not calling Crowder autistic. Maybe if u actually bothered listening to his points you would have noticed that
@@wupengu Except the guy never actually called Stephen Crowder as autistic. He referred to a way of thinking as being "autistic libertarian" but didn't flat out make an attack at Crowder . . . even though Crowder did exactly that.
Here’s an argument I think Yusuf wanted to go to but was cut short. If Police, roads and firefighters are essential to a society’s continued prosperity, I would argue (and I think Yusuf would) that a healthy, educated population is as well. Which means making that a provided service for the population.
@@TXLionHeart Countries cannot go entirely socialist or entirely capitalist without turning into a melting pot of bad ideas. Do you want your house to burn down because you didn't pay the fire station a yearly fee? Do you want to be mugged because you couldn't afford protection money for the police? Do you want to die because you couldn't afford the hospital fee? Do you want to know nothing because you couldn't afford to go to school? These are industries that should be government funded. This sadly generates a few problems when they use their funding of the industry as an excuse to manipulate it but even private schools are being altered because of government-mandated courses for teachers to follow. What you can do instead is have a system like Singapore which is basically a mandatory medical savings account which upon use of that money is subsidized by the government it's a private health care which is publicly funded and medical costs can be spread between family members etc. pretty good if you ask me.
@@coreyfinn5532 I agree that Singapore has a good model, and just like some neighborhoods have mandatory HOA fees for certain things, they could add mandatory fees for private fire and security. At the end of the day, the people pay for everything anyway, and the private sector runs things better.
Yea, I think “change my mind” has gotten too big. Crowder isn’t just debating but he’s playing to the crowd too. It’s natural, but takes away from the vids
Love seeing Crowder get support, but I think I prefer the “Change My Mind” segments without a small mob of fans. Crowder tried to be a comedian more than a serious debater off and on and it kinda threw it off for me.
Crowder is an entertainer hence the 1.6million followers on YT and the explosive growth in mug club! I think he should let Ben Shapiro do the debating on his show!
Ashaley Boo Yeah I think the smaller ones are more productive in what they are meant to do. But it looks like instead it is just crowder feeding off of the audience and making fun of/being aggresive to the point where its not needed. (Coming from a fan btw.)
@@luckierloser The European Union did indeed usher a guideline on the use of the euro sign, stating it should be placed in front of the amount without any space in English, but after the amount in most other languages
Crowders topic wasn't "convert me from supporting Capitalism". the topic was "socialism is evil change my mind". Yousef does have great points on how Capitalism can be harmful for conservatives especially when you bring up the social media aspect. But Socialism is still evil because you are putting everyone on the same level no matter how hard they work by taking money from hard workers. I wish Crowder would have brought up the pick pocket thing with Yousef and I do wish he would have had him on longer. I think if Yousef can recognize that Illegal immigration is immoral for the working class, he can definitely recognize that taking money from people and giving it to others who did not earn it Is in fact immoral
True, but most people who debate the politics they think they know (brainwashed leftist girls in my school for example) are very impressionable when it comes to CNN etc. and ignorant to any view that’s not their own. That is to say, stupid. So it’s not unlikely that you are smarter if they’re a liberal.
@@billysinge8977 smart has nothing to do with political beliefs. You need to understand this as a political debater we all have different values and beliefs and it dose not make you smarter then anyone else because of it.
Boffano Olano precisely..if everyone put their bias aside, anyone with any critical thinking skills can see beyond his pseudointelligence... he's not as intellectual or articulate as he appears to some
You are all up in his face, stop. Sit back, please. And stop getting triggered and using the word "autistic" every single time you are losing, just because he said it once. Lol.
He shouldnt of said it at all. It was beneath them and petty. Directly aimed at Libertarians and making fun of autistic people. Thats not ok in a civil convo.
MagneticFlux if that’s the case then there have been moments where crowder has been insulting himself. Stop defending crowder as if he’s the god of reason and logic. He isn’t and never has been.
I love crowder but he wasnt ready for yusuf lol. He was reaching by impeading his free speech with crowd intimidation. Any person should be able to say autistic or retarded or anything that does not directly incite violence. Especially since crowder has used those words and much worse in his podcast. I think he was losing and couldnt recover and he lost his head for a second. He had to buy time and take a second to get his head out of it lol.
@@jared8019 he also, as I said above, would not shut up about him using the word 'autistic'. This was all completely out of his character. I love the man, he is a national treasure, but he was blind-sided on this one and did not handle this sort of complacent event very well..
Crowder borderline bullying his opponent when they bring up an interesting point, and the crowd that cheered and jeered at everything that was said, made this "discussion" resemble more of a half assed schoolyard fight.
Michael Tech He just spent like an hour actually explaining his point of view and why socialism isn’t morally wrong while Crowder straw manned him and dodged any meaningful discussion of his ideals to berate him. This is like the textbook example of the “Libtard epically DESTROYED” method of debate
Andres Rivera He called a set of ideals autistic, not even a person. And again, this was one offhand comment that Crowder had to make a big deal about and used to derail the actual debate at hand
Mr Bell Well, from the Jugian archetypal idea of microphones that conclusion could be drawn, but the correct answer isn’t so obvious! What constitutes a microphone in terms of utility is manifold, and the hierarchical structure of that utility would point towards the type of microphone that would be needed for both people in the conversation, or if two microphones were needed at all. At any rate, I don’t think the equal distribution of microphones is the solution to this problem.
I watch all of his change my mind videos, but disagree with his side of almost all of them, including this one to a degree, I really like him, but his relatively conservative opinions are completely against mine really.
Well, he should be happy to know that I am not a fan anymore. He insulted my state in episode 307 (right after this one) and tweeted a video mocking me wanting to debate him. I told his people to keep the mug and give me a full refund. I am the guy in the black hoodie by the way.
it standing rule for multi cons to put people that disagree to the front of the debate line. You want to fight the strongest stances in debate against your stance openly. Then it openly changes people views sometimes in mass. it also make for better debate and thus gets more views and coverage with open debate about it for the pop after. crowder / ben shipro have people with diff views to the front of line as a standing rule.
chris ellioitt Why would we assume the strongest stance is someone diametrically opposed rather than someone who might generally favor, but have quibbles with certain topics? Put another way, if the objective is to "Change my mind" wouldn't I be more receptive to someone who I like and agree with on a multitude of issues. I suppose it all depends what you mean by strongest. In my mind, that means the most well reasoned and likely to persuade, maybe you mean stark in comparison?
He was dealing with a gold digger who sneakily released an edited clip of a "fight" that barely registers as a 2 on a scale of 1-abuse. I have never gotten into his show because it tries to be funny when it just isnt but after all the leftist hate towards him this week im subbing and getting mug club. And Yusuf got owned in this debate.
@@we_are_so_back When he called Crowder a shill but couldnt define what a shill was I knew he was just another dummy acting like he knew what he was talking about
@@skinnie2838 crowder literally kept interrupting him and getting triggered the whole time. Crowder was completely unable to address Yusuf’s main argument that capitalism and conservatism are at odds.
Yusef is what happens when crowder debates an intelligent person that speaks with facts. He goes to these colleges to debate people that aren't even ready to have debates and speak off just emotion. You should have a FULL debat with Yusef just to see what happens. Also, you should debate Destiny (that's his UA-cam you should look him up Crowder and Co.) debate people that have the facts. I wonder if you'd be afraid of that.
@@TheJeevo92 what the fuck are you talking about? I was talking about debating crowder. He goes to these colleges to debate kids that aren't prepared for a full on debate but when he gets a kid that is, this is how he acts. The topic of this debate was not my point.
@Gregory Frowendown What he was saying is autistic is the idea that there can be this massive margin and division of wealth and no violent consequences. The french revolution is an easy example of the point Yusef is making.
@@bighands69 There goes a lot of things within the terms Socialism. I am from Denmark. A socialist inspired (inspired being a key word) system. It works a lot better than the system in the US (yes I have personal experience with the system). But there is absolutely bad and terrible parts of socialism. But Crowder definitely dropped the ball on this one. And I am almost always on his side.
@@Bilal-lq1nd No. Minimum wage is not socialist. It is not part of shared ownership. Taxation, healthcare, wage controls or even rent controls are not socialist. I am not saying they are good or bad just that they are not socialism.
@@christianolsen2388 You cannot just throw the term socialist around and bend it to mean different things. It is a philosophical term that revolves around complete population ownership. Denmark is nowhere near the living standards of the US.
This video was quite eye opening. Crowder fell in the leftist argumentation side. He used ad hominem (personal) attacks against opposers. He was bigoted, in which he would make arguments based on his ability to control who can speak as he has the mic and crowd fanbase. And he also tried to throw in sly delegitimizing comments like "first of all you speak in paragraphs"...as if to say your argument is better because its shorter. "Rock hurt" is not as effective "a rocks potential to do damage is based on the capability of its user and capacity to damage within the given context". Sorry Steven but you've definitely lost credibility in my mind after this.
For clarification, it's using highly emotive responses to an argument. Anger;raising of voice, shift of tone, hand gestures. Not to see this doesn't make your argument effective in all cases, but that you look silly when you keep saying the same thing and the only change when challenged is the brashness and loudness of the argument. I usually just call it being a snowflake tho :)
Maximilian Marcisz I agree, but I think you're rather fickle if you find just one single instance of him engaging in habits you dont like and suddenly consider him to be incredible.
I think fame is starting to go to Steven's head. He really took offence to the kids points so he moved into his space and subtly intimidated him. Be careful Stephen, remember the rules apply to everyone. Dont become what you despise.
this video is 2 years ago, Stevensaid that “earlier this year, i was an asshole”(while doing a different ‘ChangeMyMind’ video, if this video was before he himself stated that he was an asshole it’s possible he also looked back at this video and realized it. everyone with these recent comments need to stop jumping to conclusions. so what he did bad in this talk, it was 2 years ago and he may have reflected on it.
@Able Table If you think getting butthurt over someone using the word autistic in a contextual manner and not even directing it at you, then Steven is a very sensitive little snowflake and you're unable the form your own opinion without him spoonfeeding it to you
@@skinnie2838 Steven lost hard. He got upset & shut down the debate because he knew he was losing. "Change my mind"? Lol sure, he doesn't want his mind changed.
Not only that...he's making so many jokes relying on the crowd, getting into Yusufs face, shifting the mic away at his discretion, etc. Crowder acted like a big bitch here
@@hassu2149 100% agree. This is why I don't think this show is actually ever about changing his mind. He panics here - plays to the crowd, diverts the conversation constantly, etc. because he knew he was losing.
My word that first debate was hard to watch. I think the crowd played to Steven’s ego. The young man was very reasonable in his approach, whereas we saw a rather Cenk-ier side to Crowder. In the future I’d recommend a different approach, especially when you’re losing a debate.
Bintrux1 He wasn’t calling crowder or anyone else autistic, it’s just banter and crowder is internet savvy enough to know that. He only made a big deal of it to rally the crowd because he was having trouble addressing the kid’s arguments.
+Mk Sv Yeah I'm a huge Crowder fan actually, I just didn't like the deflection so much. I think the young man meant "rigid, unemotional and single-minded" when he used the word "autistic". There was little reason for Steven to be so offended.
I don't think you were particularly fair to Yusuf. It seems like you were looking for, as you point out with your pamphlet afterwards, the buzzwords so you could "point out" how his argument was faulty. Really, you just talked over him rather than listen to what he was actually saying. His argument was simply that your statement was faulty, there are degrees of socialism and to say ALL socialism is evil is like saying ALL capitalism is evil. But why listen when you can just look for perceived attacks on your character?
CLEARLY lost the first debate! Also not fair that he is the mediator and the debater at the same time. There needs to be a neutral party for a debate to take place. He has FULL control of the other person at all times and wont stop fidgeting with his water bottle when the other person is talking (which is extremely rude) You also lean into them physically which is not a proper debate forum. It is like an interrogation. He even leans into them when they have no personal space! ALSO he insults the kids haircut which is extremely rude. The kid did not even call him autistic. He said the idea had pieces of autism throughout. That is completely different. Crowder knew he lost.
This is what I don’t like about Crowder, he went for personal attacks against Yousef and gave him extremely little Mic time. Yousef had to just shake his head while Crowder filibustered on and on.
I feel that crowder usually takes all the mic time because he's absolutely schooling them, but this time he kept interrupting, and he got a little rude. he is still one of my favorite people to watch.
Steven filibusters, then Steven yet again contradicts himself by telling the guy he is talking in paragraphs. he did that today on a Trump debate; right after complaining about talking in paragraphs, he talks longer.
Friday Nights Out can u link a clip of him admitting he's wrong? he still distorts what net neutrality is so badly, he's against it for reasons that would make him support it if he knew what it was lol
I really like stephen but I agree that Yusuf got slammed here pretty hard for little reason. He's using words that probably shouldn't be used but I also don't see the huge deal.
Unfortunately, your debate was cowardly. I enjoy these debates for the ability to have our minds opened, but you seem more close-minded than most of your debaters. Several people you have spoken to aren't intelligent enough to debate with you, but this kid was. How do you handle it? Your approach is to talk over the person who is defeating your view and call them names. He never called you autistic and talking in paragraphs is how debates work. Don't belittle a kid for being intelligent. He deserved more of the mic and you removed it from him.
Crowder interrupted kindly and respectfully with the goal of confirming that they we're both on the same page and are "going one point at a time." That's not belittling, that's trying to set an equal stage for the both of them. He also never name-called, however, Yosef certainly was "belittling" certain ideologies and claiming that they we're "absurd" and in his view, essentially stupid. Crowder blatantly *encourages* intellectual discussions in the "Change My Mind" segment. I consider "removing the mic from him" as giving him no opportunity to speak on his ideologies and discuss them. Instead, Crowder gives him the same opportunity as everyone else to discuss with him their ideologies openly. If Crowder was so bigoted, he would refuse to do the segment and put his time and money/budget to researching, setting-up, and spending a day conversing with anyone who's willing too disagree with him openly.
For how sensitive Crowder got about the autistic comment, he was happy ragging on the crowd beforehand. Mean words shouldn't be said in a debate but you shouldn't be triggered by them either, which he was.
Crowder literally told the audience to not get distracted by words like “autistic” and “shill”, but that’s EXACTLY what he did. He pretended to be offended even though Yusuf did not use them as insults to him, and Steven kicked him out because he knows he was going to lose
@Wicked Jester I couldn't talk to Yusuf either, he wants to redistribute the money I earned by working hard to people who sit at home and didn't earn it.
@Harry Waddington I guess wouldn't would be more precise. I don't mind talking to people who disagree, but not on this subject. Crowder gets paid to do this, I don't have the time to discuss such nonsense. Get a job, work hard and earn your keep.
No, they kept talking about the same examples until Steven realized he just flat out doesn’t agree with Yousef, in my opinion I think Yousef was wrong for using Denmark and Sweden as good examples when he didn’t agree with things they shared
Abruptly ended it when he was in a bit of a spot, no less. Of course he had to give a lesson afterward where Yusuf was dismissed and couldn't challenge him any longer, lol!
Andrea Mendenhall you’re a fan lol hopefully you will be able to see past your own bias. You need to be able to look at things objectively not just because you like crowder. He looked like a complete ass hat here afraid of any actual intellectual challenge so he deflects. That’s the entire point of these change my mind videos to make him look good, why else would a grown man debate kids who haven’t even been able to fully establish their own sets of beliefs. Obviously the grown man who talks politics for a living is going to be more informed and more eloquent speaking in front of a camera lmfao it’s low hanging fruit, if he was really about a debate he would have other liberal talk show host on to change his mind but he won’t even do that at politcon lol
wow, let him talk, Steven, it's called change my mind not cut him off. you're being, dare I say, autistic about the autism remark. you say way worse all the time and that's fine too, it doesn't mean you don't have a point. I don't think you expected to talk to someone who is informed and somewhat eloquent and nuanced.
pure Justice without compassion splits the baby. Steven is a baby splitter. he already agreed implicitly that a state needs taxation because he supports government funding of public goods. and he keeps jabbing at the first guy by thanking the next speaker for not calling him retarded. though dost protest a bit too much, Steven!
+Walt Maisel he's only proving to me that this *is* a performance, which makes sense because for Steven to actually change his mind would undermine this whole business venture!
Whitey O'Banion the kid didn’t say anything of note. Partially I would imagine cause he has nothing to say and partially because crowder cut him off quite a bit. The autistic comment was clearly made out of habit by someone who spends a lot of time on the internet but nonetheless showed how childish he was. At no point did he ever argue for the moral superiority of socialism.
Yosef did really well on this. You got to give Steven credit for posting this. 99% of influencers would have deleted this and acted like it never happened.
CLEARLY lost the first debate! Also not fair that he is the mediator and the debater at the same time. There needs to be a neutral party for a debate to take place. He has FULL control of the other person at all times and wont stop fidgeting with his water bottle when the other person is talking (which is extremely rude) You also lean into them physically which is not a proper debate forum. It is like an interrogation. He even leans into them when they have no personal space! ALSO he insults the kids haircut which is extremely rude. The kid did not even call him autistic. He said the idea had pieces of autism throughout. That is completely different. Crowder knew he lost.
An idiot? Yusef was 100% correct and won the debate. Socialism is not evil, PEOPLE are. Fun fact: Yusef is a conservative just like Crowder. He was trolling Crowder.
I really like the “change my mind segment” but this time was really unnatural. Crowder was pretty aggressive with the first fellow, and seemed to be trying way too hard to control the flow of the conversation. The whole thing looks like a lecture to the crowd
It's because the guy didn't want to argue about whether or not socialism is evil. He wanted to argue for political policy, and not about ideology. Also, terms MUST have agreed upon definitions in order for any arguments to be constructive. I speak from experience.
Candy K I agree with you but I felt Crowder was more of Ben Shapiro type of guy. I thought Crowder didn't use these weak tactics on the opposition; rather he would use reasoning and logic. I don't know something about the first argument just didn't feel correct to me. I could be wrong since I'm very knew to this sort of stuff.
orochimarujes I know the first kid started it but for the sake of conversation I think Crowder should ignore it or just make a small remark and carry on, but he focused the whole point around the autism and shilling, which made it look like he didn't have any counter arguments to what Yusef was saying. When the first kid started talking I got excited because for the first time he had someone with a good understanding of the topic and what happened was that he booted him.
You've lost my respect on this one Steven. Someone competent came on and instead of engaging in a debate you kick him out and get triggered. You've portray yourself as someone who is open and logical but this first debate portrays you as childish and arrogant.
Yeah honestly, I would've liked to see him debate this kid for a full hour. I'm sick of watching him destroy libtards with ease. This guy knew what he was talking about and Crowder should've acknowledged that IMO and continued the discussion.
What do you think? Is Socialism immoral? Where do you draw the line? And thanks to everyone who showed up! Standing in the mud for hours just to watch two people disagree. Was an awesome experience. Next time, we’ll bring the whole shebang!
In a word, yes.
StevenCrowder i draw the line at dont steal my hard earned money that i had to work hard to get!!!
“The goal of socialism IS communism”
-Vladimir Lenin
The government can’t play robin hood. If it tries to then nobody can truly be successful.
1.7M subscribers, man I remember when it was less than 100K, crazy how popular you have become in so little time, keep up the great work, it's really paying off!
Crowder wtf man? Why did you stop the discussion with Yousef? This was one of your best opponents. He didn't insult you either.
And who cares if he did? Crowder insulted him over and over. He even called him stupid toward the end. Phrasing it in terms like "I wouldn't say you're ... " is still insulting him, we're all smart enough to see that.
Jeremy Thomas Totally agree man. I noticed Crowded kept rephrasing the point Yousef meant. I think this was to give him time to think of a response. I still enjoy Crowder and acknowledge he's way smarter than I am but I would have like to have seen this go the distance
Because views
no shit, he profits off the ideas he espouses because it serves as a source of confirmation for those that hold the same belief. Why would he be open to adopting a stance that doesn't align with his audience's beliefs regardless of the veracity of the beliefs? This is the same tactic that fox news (Tucker Carlson specifically) adopts. It's all about the $$$ not truth.
The Patriotic Nobody has
I like how Yusef would say like three words and Steven is like "whoa whoa slow down with your paragraphs trying to sound all smart"
He didn't prove socialism isny evil or change his mind that's the whole point
That only happened one time
it happened about 3 or 4 times
I like how he expects simple answers to complex questions and when yusuf starts explaining what he means Crowder immediately changes the subject and says he isn't sticking to topic. Its sad.
People just don’t understand socialism. We have socialism now except it goes to the people who don’t have jobs. Real socialism would help everyone
I feel like these are better without such big crowds..
Yeah the wooping really holds the actual discussions back.
Darius Gray The crowd was extremely annoying and tried to be funny but instead just ended up acting like a giant shadow of crowder
Darius Gray I agree, was not the same as the others and didn’t seem like “change my mind”
i dont think anyone actually thinks these are better with big crowds, as they said this wasnt planned.
I agree, but at the same time the whole show got railroaded by the School. So in lieu of the proper show, I liked it; understanding however that the proper live show would have been better.
damn crowder actually accused the kid of "trying to sound smart by talking in paragraphs" but he is talking way longer on each point, kept interrupting him, accused him of indecent speech and behavior, and used crowd bullying tactics to own the situation without actually putting out valid counter arguments.
This made me lose the respect i had for him. the kid actually had some interesting points
@@akantorsuka yeah mate same thing with me when I first watched this.
Crowder ✡️ fears a socialist that is a nationalist
Yeah the whole pretense of these events is he's there to have his mind changed, but it's a false pretense because he's completely uninterested in hearing what the person has to say.
interesting how youre bring up such an important topic 4 years later...i wonder why??
Yusuf got him on this one tbh. If it is 'Change My Mind' then you have be open to the slight possibility of that happening. Rather than digging in, cutting him off, or getting unnecessarily defensive about a word like 'autistic'. It's ok to concede sometimes.
Just my feedback. Great series!
Zuby this is a good and fair comment. Keeping it positive and relevant.
www.change.org/p/steven-crowder-get-yusef-back-on-youtube
Yep i used to agree in some Steven Subjects, but ge got rekt it was clearly that he was not willing to change his mind even if he could not explain himself properly in that instance. He even got triggered when he always complain about "leftards sensitive people".
True
I don’t think it’s about who “got” who, or who won the debate. It mostly boils down to fundamental beliefs. I agree he doesn’t really seem willing to change his mind even if he says he is. However, in the end, this is a conversation. And I think if Yusuf changed our mind, that’s great! If Steven changed your mind, that’s great! But I think the point of the video is to clearly state both viewpoints. If you think Yusuf won the debate, then I think the video served it purpose lol I guess my point is, this isn’t a win or lose debate. It’s supposed to be a civil conversation about opposing views, even if this convo kind of went uncivil rather quickly haha
How was Yusef rude? You were never rude to your guests no matter how offensive or rude they were to you up until this point. He's holding his own ground. He barely interrupted you and he gave you the same patience and courtesy you've given your previous guests. You don't have to call him out on being a dick or being rude to you, giving off such distasteful body language, and picking at his vocabulary which wasn't even directed to offend you personally. When you have a discussion with someone who has a different view point from yours, you already risk being offended and I thought you of all people would know that and would have kept it 'civil,' as you always had. I share a lot of your view points and I don't fully understand all these concepts, which is why I like watching your debates because you're thorough in your opinions, but this was terrible to watch.
y'all???? speak English
You've never heard of a contraction? Lmfao go back to 2nd grade
Regine Santiago I couldnt agree more. Whats ur IG??
the big Cartel how u got Ne-Yo as ur avi and criticize “yall”? meatwad
he was clearly rude lol... sly rudeness... smart guy with a plan coming in. cool to see bc crowder doesnt usually get those
Having a rant about the word autistic to dismiss another person's chance to speak. Not very admirable I think.
tariq In the informal early 20th century sense it’s “originally with reference to a condition in which fantasy dominates over reality”
The Truth of the Matter the term “autists” isn’t the proper name for people who have autism... it’s a slang word that’s meant as an offense
He honestly seems a little bit autistic. Barely made eye contact.
He actually stated a person who uses logic is autistic as if logic didn't lead to truth when it's by definition a method of analysis of the truth value of sentences.
Logic and rationalism lead to false conclusions all of the time. @@legendasbr3211
the saddest part, i was really into this discussion and learned more about the topic. suddenly you kicked him out. that was a very bad and sad move
The evil CCP has murdered 80 million of its own people since 1949. It is now torturing, organ harvesting and executing the 100 million Falun Gong who live in China, pure godless evil. The problem is that Wall Street spells human right$ like that, never exposing the true nature of the Satanic CCP.
His followers cant see he clearly isnt smart and cant handle someone smart that calls him out
This is his whole thing lol. If you can’t see that you haven’t been paying attention enough
@@Wopedomernah usually most of the people he encounters are idiots. I think in general he does a good job at exposing people for having straw man opinions.
However, its frustrating that when someone comes along who has good intellect and reasoning, he wont give them their fair shot. Its clear he wants to grab the most amount of idiots from the left possible to make himself look better because those are usually the people triggered by the signs.
In reality, this video topic is not one many blue haired morons are gonna get triggered by. Someone who disagrees with him is actually gonna have some facts behind what they say
Yusef got a taste of the "real" Crowder that Crowder's ex-wife knows.
Yusef was a stone cold, well spoken, terminator. He owned Crowder, BADLY. Crowder had a meltdown at 23:03 that he should not have let happen. 'Shill' was an embarrassing word to be triggered by and suggesting Yusef was being rude... focusing way too much on trivial words like that in his emotional tirade. Even having to debrief the crowd afterwards to try and recover. Cringe! Change his mind or not, Yusef obliterated!
@@fallenxangel105 no...you thought he won. But he didn't actually address the argument. He would make a fallacy then change subjects and went on long winded rants that were not about the debate issue.
@@infopocalypse5006 How did he go on "long winded rants" when crowder barely would let him finish a sentence before pulling the mic away. Lol. You are literally describing the actions of the person you are trying to defend. Projection at its finest
John Adams said " "Avarice will break this Constitution like a whale breaks through a net" and he said "This Constitution (or government, can't remember which right now) is only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other". Morality and self-sacrifice can't be legislated and forced through socialism because it always ends up worse, sometimes MUCH WORSE; so we've got to figure out how to influence people to change in order to save the Republic.
TheFirstCause ssssss
using the work 'autistic' to begin with is not very admirable.
Don’t like how Crowder handled Yousef saying autistic, he held it against him then cut him off with it. Sounded like a true offended SJW
J_Smith-26 do people not understand that Crowder is a right wing SJW. Talk about psychological projection with him
The part where Yusef the Autistic shill tries to propose Sweden, Norway and Denmark as examples of Socialist countries that work? Only that the PM of Denmark corrected Bernie Sanders in saying that they AREN’T a socialist country? Or where Sweden uses school vouchers but Yusef the Austist doesn’t like that idea? Or where he doesn’t support an increase in taxes on the middle class and lower class, which is exactly what these socialist countries he tries to use as good example of socialism do? When confronted with the reality of what they actually do, he says they “should change it”.... He also doesn’t support decreasing the corporate tax, which again is what they do in Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
So at what point did he make any good statements that don’t contradict himself? He literally had NO argument of supportive facts. He disagreed with the policies of these “socialist” countries he propped up as examples. Even though they aren’t socialist countries to begin with... haha
And you still wonder why Crowder had to end it after all this kid’s backtracking and name calling? J_Smith-26
Stephen Johnson dude shut your bitch ass up your boy got wrecked
Dylan Barlow L
@@harryc8184 Stephen Johnson brought up good points and all you have to say is "shut your bitch ass up." Great discussion.
That was awful, lost the first debate and removed the kid. There is no point of the show if you're reluctant to changing your mind or accepting the other persons views
James Ghazanfar no shit, he profits of the ideas he espouses because it serves as a source of confirmation for those that hold the same belief. Why would he be open to adopting a stance that doesn't align with his audience's beliefs?
Mate its called change my mind he can chat whatever crud he wants but if hes not 'open' to others opinions in the aim to have his mind changed then why even bother with the show and its name.
www.change.org/p/steven-crowder-get-yusef-back-on-youtube
Because that's what he promotes. Open conversations, attaining the possibility to adopt another stance, are what he claims the 'change my mind' series is about.
'The True Geordie'
I was actually at this event. I remember leaving with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. This was the day when I realized just how weak most of Stephen’s arguments were. It started me on a long road of learning how to critically think, how to accept nuance, and to recognize bad arguments and logical fallacies.
And leftism?
Riiiiight...
5 years ago, so I am assuming you are well into your career. How is life and can you pleases explain more?
thats because he was up against a national socialist. no one can beat a national socialist in debate
The evil CCP has murdered 80 million of its own people since 1949. It is now torturing, organ harvesting and executing the 100 million Falun Gong who live in China, pure godless evil. The problem is that Wall Street spells human right$ like that, never exposing the true nature of the Satanic CCP.
Holy crap Crowder... LET YUSEF SPEAK. You interrupted him every time the kid tried to make a point. You get 6 inches away from his face, wave your hand around and you were the one that played to the crowd. You really came off as condescending and you had the balls to tell him that he was being disrespectful?
Also, he wasn’t saying that you were autistic... He was saying a certain idea was autistic. Instead of tying who you are with what you believe and getting offended (which is the way someone you usually make fun of would act like) you actually listen and take in what the person talking was saying like a REAL CONVERSATION. You were the one that was acting like you were in a big crowd of people, not him.
You constantly steered the conversation the way that you wanted it and the way you were prepared for. If this would have been in a fair environment where BOTH people had a microphone then I wonder if you would have came out on top of this argument.
I’ve been a fan for a long time, but this is the lowest I’ve ever thought of you. #BringBackYusef
Seriously! I'm a fan but Crowder was very aggressive, almost trying to intimidate. Also the way he used the word "autistic" wasn't as an insult, but as a synonym for pedantic. #BringBackYousef
How does exactly idea of libertariaism is related to this medical condition? Let's face it, Crowder wasn't polite, but Yusef hadn't had any good idea worth listening to in the first place.
www.change.org/p/steven-crowder-get-yusef-back-on-youtube
@@magnusmoty well Steven never gave him a chance. Steven was prepared, yet he was shocked by the kids level of general Intelligence.
Say what you want, but you can hear it when someone is sharp. And this kid was. Defined terms on the fly, held on to ideas Crowder had touched on and was able to redirect Crowder back to a point Crowder had made that he wanted to explore more.
Caught Steven on his failure to distinguish between public good and commodity in his original definition of Socialism.
A very good point, seeing as Steven was the one who wanted to be particular about defining everything.
Steven was shook all through the discussion, and wasn't able to follow his script. That's why he feigned being insulted and then proceeded to insult the kid multiple times. Yet the kid did not respond in kind. Except calling him out for being mad coz he was losing the debate.
@@diranshouse7061 Okay, Crowder didn't let him speak and this is bad. But I wonder, if Yusef's pro-socialist rhetoric is so good, why do we never see it anywhere else? Why don't socialists generally engage in debates, if there is this holy graal of real socialistic truth? Why don't socialists sit somewhere with banner saying "Socialism is good, change my mind" and gather views by debunking capitalists' viewpoints?
I am a strong conservative, that being said. I really liked how Yusef presented himself. I think Crowder was overwhelmed by this young mans confidence in his beliefs. Yusef was articulate, calm and quite frankly, enjoyable to watch. On the other side, Crowder came off as flustered and impatient.
He was impatient because Yuesef agreed the the debate question, then at every rebuttal he tried to change the premise of the debate. It is like stating upfront that this is a cat to argue for or against pet ownership, and stating that retrievers are better at fetching.
I totally disagree with Yusef, but he was definitely disrespected. Steven is correct in saying Denmark et cetera is not socialist, but he should have actually engaged him. In his later episodes doing this he is much more relaxed and respectful. I'm willing to grant stage fright for this one, but he definitely could have done a lot better.
@@grega2362 Sorry my friend. I just can't grasp what your trying to say. If your saying Crowder was. patient and not flustered or had a reason to be. That's cool, we all have opinions. And in this case, you can't change my opinion.
Crowder wasn't overwhelmed by confidence - he was overwhelmed because he couldn't refute Yusef's points. He deflected, interrupted, and belittled Yusef in an attempt to cover this up.
Steven is the kind of intelligent man that takes words by their definition. Yusuf seems like the type of child to TRY to get away with calling you names without you realizing. He was clearly embarrassed when he got called out for calling Steven autistic. He says things that are interesting but does any of it hold water?
I would suspect that Yusuf looks intelligent to stupid people. Evident after Yusuf put out his highly edited version, then all you people started commenting.
Crowder is resorting to bullying tactics because that Yusef dude is actually well-informed and isn't the SJW snowflake he is used to. Poor show man, I had more respect for him before this.
Honestly, I have no idea how can anyone respect Crowder in a first place. His whole strategy is cherry-picking teenagers or people in their early 20's who know jackshit about economics and social dogmas to appear superior in comparison. This kid is certainly bright, but he is still an intellectual light-weight (no doubt he will become much better with age tho), and it was already enough to showcase how silly Crowder is in reality. He wouldn't last 5 seconds against actual left-wing intellectuals.
MrKosobi like who Bernie? 😂
@@mansfield360 you don't know that there are left-wing intellectuals? In what kind of echo chamber do you live in oO There are FAR more left-wing intellectuals than right-wing.
MrKosobi I think we should stop spending money on new military equipment and instead save the money up for a budget when we need it and start using money to research more advance technologies so when we go to war we can have a safety net of money we can use to build better equipment that will last longer I think clean energy and civil engineering is needed for future to be good but I don’t agree with globalization it would only slow us down in figuring out world problems same with micro aggressions and forcing equal demographics we should employ the best people not choose people based on their race progressives lately are doing the exact opposite
@@MrKosobi yusef may not be well known but he certainly didn't appear a lightweight. He correctly pointed out that if Crowder wanted to stick to his definition of evil, i.e. redistributing something not earned as morally reprehensible, any redistribution is immoral, no matter whether it's a good or a commodity. That is intellectually sharp for me. And frankly it left Crowder hiding for cover under misdirection.
Damn, I'm not even a socialist and even I have to admit that Yusuf simply destroyed Crowder in this exchange.
You must be high
@@skinnie2838 on da truth pills baybeee cuz it's true, Steven got cooked
@@emulatorisland7417 Crowder didnt get cooked here. Cope more.
@@skinnie2838He didn’t get cooked, he got destroyed. Particularly when he couldn’t defend the point that public roads, bridges, and highways are socialism. The fact that he’s prancing around college campuses looking for debates is already embarrassing enough on its own.
I’m a libertarian and I’m slightly autistic 🤷🏻♂️ I’d like to have a long form conversation as Yusif!
I'm a fan, but Germany DOES HAVE a minimum wage. It's is about 10$ an hour (≈8,50€). So he was wrong right at the beginning 😬
On the first of January 2019 it will become 9,19€. It´s currently at 8.84€. Just wanted to led you know=)
Emperor Maximilian The Great Exactly.
Denmark pretty much has minimum wage too (much higher than us too) and progressive tax.
Lol all the scandinavian countries also have a minimum wage + a welfare system
If you are going to compare you should compare everything. It is like saying a boat does not have a wing so why does an airplane need one. It is all about understanding what you are talking about.
Unions in the US are weak, unions in Europe are much stronger. Also the things you can buy for the money you get matters. What other support exists, house rental support, child support and possibly others.
In the end what matters is the net money you have in your pocket and what you can do with it.
Also Germany is not really socialist, it is capitalist in most ways with maybe some socialist aspects.
Basics in most European countries, the money you get from a 40 hour work week should be enough to live from no matter what work you do.
Left wing parties in the US are also to eager to point to europe without context. I understand why, but you should first understand the full consequences, benefits and dependencies.
you flopped here steven.... I got excited and expected some really strong points but you played the person you always mock - the defensive and triggered kid
Agree entirely. Disappointing "performance" by Steven.
I agree, instead of gaining a clear understanding of what Steven actually believes, or countering the arguments of the participants, he gets bogged down in semantics which is a little less interesting to me.
Dude got triggered over the word autistic then used himself. Then he gets even more triggered when he uses shrill like seriously dude.
www.change.org/p/steven-crowder-get-yusef-back-on-youtube
In a You
He didn't really seem triggered. He kinda laughed it off really
Looked like Mr. Chowder regretted asking Yousef about examples of the rich paying to abuse the system and increase their wealth, seeing as how he never let Yousef finish. Yousef had plenty examples and counterarguments, he just wasn’t given the time to speak. Grow some balls Stephen. And the fact that Yousef called him a shill, clearly struck a nerve, probably because there is some truth to his insult.
and then he goes on to shill his $6 pamphlets. he's a joke
I do think that Yosef has a point that big businesses hinder society, and that large economic inequality does provoke violence. I do think there is a solution that will help. That is to ban all lobbying. And prosecute lobbying. I don’t know if there are rules and laws that already do that in a sense. I am not educated in that area, except that in the book The Chickenshit Club, there is a grand historical documentation of corrupt leadership in our legal prosecution system, where the repetitive example is of the defense bar of the United States Lawyers Defense Bar Association ( I made that name to make it easy for people not educated in what a defense bar is) is retaliatory against the prosecuting Attorney General, or the lawyers who prosecute, every single time they went after executives of big businesses, and also when they prosecute their enablers (the certified public accountants, high level managers of banks overseeing transactions). The retaliation is so vast, that since the 90’s and early 2000’s, there has been widespread fear among the prosecutors (lawyers working for the government) that is they prosecute too hard, they lose their careers. Why is this obvious? That is easy; notice that these lawyers no longer prosecute the executives. The lawsuits of today’s big businesses prosecution is a fee that looks like a slap on the wrist, and even bailing out the guilty corporations. No executives go to prison today, in a practical and impactful leven that discourages stupidity like selling securities backed by crap mortgages. And this happens because the defense bar makes a profit from retaliating against the prosecution of big businesses, and so the Bar Associations is a puppet of large businesses with executives sticking their hands up the defense bar’s behinds and having them do their bidding. It comes down to the incredibly huge profits that corporations pay the defense lawyers. Prosecutors never come close to half a fraction of the income these defense lawyers make. Thus, the defense attorneys are overcompensated while the prosecution is under funded, underemployed, and low in morale. The bar association for lawyers have a huge influence on law, because though they don’t make them, they interpret them and choose how and what to enforce.
As you can see, my answer is not socialist, but rather to support the objective role of the government under a capitalist nation. When organizations like Bar Associations for Attorneys is influenced by large businesses, it no longer is capable of objectivity. They are biased.
Notice another example, which is large communication businesses moving to control and censor internet use by means of compensating or financially denying profits according to that businesses interest. You think the prosecuting attorneys can properly defend the people when there is a violation against citizens rights to access to information? Though some will argue that information is a privilege, not a right. How about the platform or the availability to information? Some may even argue that a platform for information is also a privilege. I disagree, and I bet the defense bar will agree.
Further, the problem is that compensating defense lawyers isn’t known as lobbying. Lobbying is to pay for making or taking down laws. But few people see that paying for the interpretation and bias of prosecution or defense relating to this laws are also corporate influence. It is lot lobbying only because the definition in the dictionary doesn’t agree with it, but for practical purposes it is indeed lobbying. It is the corporate influence in how to and what to interpret of the law.
Gotta say, yusef won this and Chowder couldn't handle it, so he had to boot him and then push his argument to get the last word on a depricative joke. 0% class and 0% skill, utterly frustrated and let down that chowder acted so autistic and shill-like.
He was given the time to speak. He simply refused to cite specific examples because he kept vacillating on his own argument. Usually means he doesn't actually have any examples and that he's simply ranting.
Even as a fan it seemed like Crowder just up and refused to listen to something that would actually change his mind or perspective. Makes you think...
The first kid was really bloody good. Crowder goes in there with a folder and is well prepared and even knows the subject which is going to be talked about. The kid went in blind.
The first kid seemed good, but the mid side of good. Especially the moment he used the term “autistic” as a derogatory way to say something is stupid
@@Vance731 It's internet slang. In common or polite "normie" conversation that sounds bad, I agree, but it's a meme on the internet. My guess is that he is not used to debating people older than him in real life (who are more likely to be normies) so he didn't adjust his way of speaking. Although it wasn't a smart move, he was not prepared and he is not a politician, so I think it can be excused.
@@Vance731 he didn’t use it as a sub for stupid. He was using it to essentially mean overly formal/logical/ philosophical/ pedantic
@@Vance731 You could definitely say that, but it's a kid, and that kind of language, respectful or not, comes up in regular conversation around him all the time due to kids just throwing in words for the sake of it. To hold against him that and one other slip up that came up in the heat of the moment especially when he was coming in blind and against the crowd is pretty messed up considering he was very concise with the rest of his words and had a legitimate argument. I feel like anyone with social skills and, hell, MOST LIKELY also had a phase of just throwing in certain words for no reason when they were younger, would clearly see that.
It is all quite simple really. When we are born our destiny has already been decided based upon our actions in our previous lives. Any interference by man, socialism, is interfering with God's will. There are exceptions, but very few. Mother Theresa once said, the more people that I help, the further from God I feel. Interesting, no?...........................Falun Dafa
Yusef: *Breathes*
Crowder: Hold on a second!
😂 yea crowder was a bit triggered in this one.
That's some good shit right there 😆
haha wait for the fanboy dick riders to come up with a reply. I bet they can't resist once they see at the top!
Quit it with those paragraphs!
Yusef: blinks
Crowder: whoaaa! do you even know what blinking means?! Give the exact definition of blinking smart guy!
I am a Crowder fan, but everytime Yusef tried to make a good point Steven would take the mic away.
Not true.
@@liamscott1905 You have convinced me.
@@liamscott1905 Good way to argue m8. Do you have a binder for your facts?
What good points? I’m confused. He was deflecting with all these “ big words” and Crowder was making him explain it, because that’s the tactic of the left. They either scream and get emotional or use all these “ big words” to confuse people. A lot like politicians.
What good points ?
The one time an intelligent young man joined Crowder for discussion he completely panicked and ran him off the stage. He couldn’t get over it, constantly returning to his emotions and making remarks about yuseph.
If you don’t debate the topic, and use what I’d call a rather disgusting insult. Fuck you.
@@KnockManJo killing millions of people isn’t nuanced. It’s wrong.
But I wouldn’t expect a socialist to understand that killing is wrong.
@@KnockManJo “if you use logic your autistic”
Fuck you.
Yeah this guy isn’t actually THAT good at debating there’s a lot of flaws in his arguments.
@@bodhitreesocial okay mr. Kill millions.
Go fuck yourself ya Nazi.
Steven displayed his ignorance, stupidity and arrogance when harassing Yusef. This dude is clearly a very well educated and intelligent young man, Steven displayed his lack of formal education because he cannot grasp Yusef’s points. Steven was clearly outclassed.
Well, they both screwed up right at the beginning in regards to the definition of socialism. "Socialism is where the state redistributes wealth", is completely wrong. Those are social programs - kinda similar names, but very different. Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production - i.e. Private business is not allowed. You can have varying degrees of socialism - full socialism like in the USSR or North Korea where you can't even own your own lemonade stand, or partial socialism where the state owns key industries like oil, gas, heavy manufacturing, but private enterprise is still tolerated elsewhere. A lot of Western European countries tried that in the 60s and 70s. But socialism, both full and partial, has proven to be a disaster in every single country it has been tried in. It fails because a) government bureaucrats suck at managing businesses, b) government bureaucrats have a natural mindset that avoids change and improvements of products and services - a government car manufacturer will make the same car for 50 years unless forced to change, either by the threat of imports or simply the machine tooling wearing out. I saw a shoe factory in Bulgaria in around 1990, where the tooling for left foot shoes broke down. But they had quotas to meet, so they simply shipped thousands of pairs of shoes, and in each box were two shoes for the right foot. THAT is socialism.
@@acfiv1421I'm not reading all that BS
@@Salisky Why advertise your ignorance? If you don't want to read it, simply don't read it and move on.
@@acfiv1421if it makes you feel better, I read it
@@acfiv1421 no, socialism is a classless and stateless society.
I think Yusef was just too intelligent for Crowder, and I am a fan of his. Yousef was really out of Crowder's league here. Yusef did a really good job making his arguments and maintained a calm demeanor.
yea bouy nope. I am a DIE HARD Ron Paul Republican. You know what they say about assuming?
Add a 'yeeeehaaawww' next time DeezNeez01
You're an idiot. #Cardcarryingidiot
Yusef and Ben Shapiro next! 👍
www.change.org/p/steven-crowder-get-yusef-back-on-youtube
When Crowder starts losing, he starts attacking the words of debator and starts back tracking, what a baby.
I'm not sure it's about winning or losing, I thought it was a pretty good debate...Crowder is a bit of a stirrer I think but a harmless one...and Canadian too.
He didn't prove socialism isnt evil or change his mind that's the whole point
Let's see you do better in his shoes. I mean everyone is criticizing him, but I don't think many would have been able to do differently if put in his place.
@@JitSlayer because crowder refuses that ,or why do u think he interrupts him multiple times
He didn't even lose though. Were you listening to what he was saying? Or are you just piggy backing because Yusef said he was winning and crowder said "that was fair? I don't know why people think Yusef won that argument, he didn't. Most of you didn't even understand his language. Having good articulation doesn't say you won an argument. He wasn't making points, he was just talking and talking without giving direct answers
That Yusuf kid was really smart. I felt like Steven was trying really hard to change Yusuf's mind, rather than the other way around. I don't like how Steven conducted the debate with him.
Steven immediately recognized he was intelectually outmatched big time. It was almost like he was looking for approval on this one.
What drugs are you on?
Matthew Forslund TLDR.
Learn to use a comma fuck stick
Matthew Forslund are you talking about when he said shill?
Because if you were actually listening to Yousefs substantives then you must recognise he is far more knowledgable than most.
It speaks for itself when Crowder literally ended the debate in fear and latched onto the use of the word “Autistic” instead of the actual arguments; no doubt because he knew he’d already lost.
I do think that Yosef has a point that big businesses hinder society, and that large economic inequality does provoke violence. I do think there is a solution that will help. That is to ban all lobbying. And prosecute lobbying. I don’t know if there are rules and laws that already do that in a sense. I am not educated in that area, except that in the book The Chickenshit Club, there is a grand historical documentation of corrupt leadership in our legal prosecution system, where the repetitive example is of the defense bar of the United States Lawyers Defense Bar Association ( I made that name to make it easy for people not educated in what a defense bar is) is retaliatory against the prosecuting Attorney General, or the lawyers who prosecute, every single time they went after executives of big businesses, and also when they prosecute their enablers (the certified public accountants, high level managers of banks overseeing transactions). The retaliation is so vast, that since the 90’s and early 2000’s, there has been widespread fear among the prosecutors (lawyers working for the government) that is they prosecute too hard, they lose their careers. Why is this obvious? That is easy; notice that these lawyers no longer prosecute the executives. The lawsuits of today’s big businesses prosecution is a fee that looks like a slap on the wrist, and even bailing out the guilty corporations. No executives go to prison today, in a practical and impactful leven that discourages stupidity like selling securities backed by crap mortgages. And this happens because the defense bar makes a profit from retaliating against the prosecution of big businesses, and so the Bar Associations is a puppet of large businesses with executives sticking their hands up the defense bar’s behinds and having them do their bidding. It comes down to the incredibly huge profits that corporations pay the defense lawyers. Prosecutors never come close to half a fraction of the income these defense lawyers make. Thus, the defense attorneys are overcompensated while the prosecution is under funded, underemployed, and low in morale. The bar association for lawyers have a huge influence on law, because though they don’t make them, they interpret them and choose how and what to enforce.
As you can see, my answer is not socialist, but rather to support the objective role of the government under a capitalist nation. When organizations like Bar Associations for Attorneys is influenced by large businesses, it no longer is capable of objectivity. They are biased.
Notice another example, which is large communication businesses moving to control and censor internet use by means of compensating or financially denying profits according to that businesses interest. You think the prosecuting attorneys can properly defend the people when there is a violation against citizens rights to access to information? Though some will argue that information is a privilege, not a right. How about the platform or the availability to information? Some may even argue that a platform for information is also a privilege. I disagree, and I bet the defense bar will agree.
Further, the problem is that compensating defense lawyers isn’t known as lobbying. Lobbying is to pay for making or taking down laws. But few people see that paying for the interpretation and bias of prosecution or defense relating to this laws are also corporate influence. It is lot lobbying only because the definition in the dictionary doesn’t agree with it, but for practical purposes it is indeed lobbying. It is the corporate influence in how to and what to interpret of the law.
You can also tell how uncomfortable Steven is by the amount of times he turns around and interrupts to chat to the crowd as if they said something - but they didn't. He is trying to buy time to think....
Lol
yuuuuuuuup
I'm surprised Crowder even had the guts to use this footage. He embarrassed himself.
@@prisonerohope6970 they did something, listen. Much of the time they are actually talking to him. I agree with you though, he is stopping and speaking slow and not very straight, keeps repeating things, I get it. It's okay to think though, but it's that he's doing so to come up with a way to win the argument not just talk about what the truth might be.
@@HelloThere..... God is so Good! Whatever we do, let's do it with Love, because of Love, and in Christ. Because, in the end it won't matter if we win arguments. It will matter if we Loved people and tried to send them Safely on their way to Confident Relationship with God: Because of The Sacrifice! Love and in All Sincerity, Shandalay
Distraction in order to knock a person off their focus.
Could we have Yusef in another segment of change my mind and let him talk? Im a crowder fan don’t get me wrong but I kinda want to have someone that actually knows what their talking about on the other side of the mic.
Crowder wants you to only use the example of Venezuela as a socialist country as this plays into his argument.
The moron doesn't want you to bring up the example of the UK having a minimum wage or free health and education.
His entire argument is ideological and based on cherry picking facts.
@@sajO5754 lmao the UK is not socialist buddy, he wants the example of Venezuela because it is one of few truly socialist countries.
@@georgeberes9899 So free education and health plus minimum wage is not socialism?
Keep moving the goalposts until it fits your argument.
@@sajO5754 If we defined socialism as taxes, then this would be a completely different argument. Higher minimum wages cause higher unemployment rates and fewer working hours, and free healthcare reduces the quality of healthcare. Take Canada as an example, when a Canadian needs treatment or surgery fast, they come to America as opposed to waiting weeks
@@georgeberes9899 not really a hard question to answer........would you "define" free healthcare-education- minimum wage as socialism or not.
I think when you’re losing a debate you pull the mic away and divert the conversation to something irrelevant.
This is why i dislike crowder. The moment he gets called out on his bullshit he acts like nothing happened. He has a big following so he will use them as a kob to attack his guests.
“This is a conversation.
Just you and me.”
Continuously answers to the crowd and reacts to their banter.
Laughable
Honestly though
🤷🏾♂️
Kid **breathes**
Crowder: "**you keep talking in paragraphs**"
As a conservative, I found this very disappointing. He could have had an interesting and mutually beneficial discussion with the first participant. Wasted opportunity.
Yosef the goat
He really went against his own principles by steering the conversation away from the argument, and focusing on the small insult that kid made. In reality Steve was the one who was getting triggered.
If it wasn't for invading every opponents personal space, and literally shutting the discussion down when his points are dissolved into false premises. Yosef would have gone on to easily dissect the bad arguments crowder was making.
Yousuf has substance, crowder is a sophist.
Thus explains this debate
@@skyhigh5317
No crowder was steering the conversation back ON topic, he’s literally doing the exact opposite of what you accuse him of.
@@liamscott1905 Riiight, that's why he was repeatedly insulting him in the most passive-aggressive way saying shit like "someone like you would call you stupid", all over a light jab by Yosef. I could literally picture Ben Shapiro using those same types of insults, Yosef was just playing the same game as these right-wing entertainers, but when the roles reversed Crowder got triggered like a little bitch, so comical. This guy is a joke, his whole motive is to trigger college students for entertainment, and he got exposed here. If you couldn't see how obviously triggered Crowder got or how obviously rigged these "change my mind" bullshit debates are, I really don't know what to tell you.
Crowder knew what he meant by shill and autistic. Yusef plainly has a well thought out argument whether it's correct or incorrect and came at an angle Crowder wasn't ready for... Don't pick on the dude for being smart
Ry Rez well dont throw out words like autistic and shill in a civil debate
Masta Killa crowder wanted to know if yuseph knew what those words meant. It was suppose to be civil. The fact that yuseph didnt even know what shill meant just goes to show you that he doesnt know what he is talking about. He is just spouting nonsense
Crowder getting hung up on the use of the word "autism" was so disengenous. Yusef obviously meant it as a synonym for "stupid", but Crowder decided to (ironically, quite autistically) steer the entire conversation away from socialism (conveniently when Yusef was making good points) and onto a semantic red herring.
What annoyed me was that he tried to take some sort of moral high ground and then swing back later with "Now the thing you just said is what YOU might call autistic!" and "Wow, what you're saying now, is what YOU might call stupid!"
Crowder likely pushed him on the definitions to highlight the fact that name calling is a departure from the topic. The kid was tasked with proving Socialism is great and he failed to convince me for one. Name calling is the lower form of argument without question.
well, Yusef obviously used the wrong synonym for stupid.
We get it Crowder, he called something 'autistic'.
Yusef made an off-hand comment in a high pressure environment. He also tried to take accountability for his words, tried to redefine his words in a civil fashion after you claimed moral outrage, but you still let yourself repeatedly circle back to that original slight.
yeah that was pretty fucked. Honestly anyone in that kids position would definitely feel a tad' out of place. You'd expect someone like Crowder to let it go, but he kinda ran with it and honestly it took away from the total experience.
The point is for a civil discussion to happen, he shouldn't have made the comment in the first place. Instead of outright admitting his fault or at least apologizing, Yusef tried to lamely justify his use of "autistic." It's rather typical of leftists to issue an insult in civil discourse and then try to explain why they're right.
Any attempt to defend Yusef's comment only demonstrates that those kind of people want to validate personal insults during an exchange of ideas and call it "civil." It simply doesn't work.
AdderTude Why do you think everyone advocating for some from of socialism is necessarily a leftist?
What manner of logic had you extrapolate a claim I never explicitly made?
AdderTude "it's rather typical of leftists to issue an insult in civil discourse"
You think Yusuf is a leftist. What is the basis of that assumption?
The amount of times crowder completely cut him off, absolutely changed the topic or asked a question to distract the fact that he was losing is absurd. The kid was making great points and Crowder knew he was losing so he kicked him. He also talked more than 3x the kid and made little to no good points.
Crowder goes on for like 10 minutes.
Crowder: "...Correct?"
Yousef: "Not exac-"
Crowder: "You seem to like to talk in longer paragraphs."
@DeadlyNeedle ! He didn't call him autistic. Watch the video again.
@DeadlyNeedle ! Oh, so you are one of those (people who just can't seem to let go of a word, like Crowder, except he uses it to antagonize and continually insult his fellow debater). He never called Crowder autistic. Period.
Now, again. If you really disagree on my view, it's totally ok. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Maybe not so in this case, because we are talking facts, but still, ultimately opinion are subjective. So even if most people would agree that Crowder lost the debate despite his continuous use of cheap tactics, you are free to go on and say "No. That's not what happened."
@@sergiobricenos You are straw-manning his position. DeadlyNeedle never said Yousef called Crowder autistic. You are literally arguing with a wall right now because that's not his position.
@@dec5847 I think I have been arguing with a wall the whole time since my first response.
@@sergiobricenos You would be correct. Since your first response you have misrepresented his position. Thanks for admitting to being an idiot.
Yusef well done..Most people just say things without understanding what they are saying, you had an answer for every question and was calm and collected.
Jonas Andersen except the only points he brought up were hypothetical and philosophical. He never brought up any valid and practical points for socialism and just bashed capitalism
@@a7xdisturbed774 Thats technicaly enough.
@@a7xdisturbed774 He actually did bring up some decent points. But he could hardly make any of them because Steven took the mic away before he could barely muster a sentence! One point he brought up was great, let me explain, I'll give you the definition of socialism "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Yusef brought up that government funding of things like the police force is inherently, as least a bit socialist. And Steven tried to debunk this by saying things like the police force are a social good, so it doesn't count. But there is no distinction in the true definition that makes any note of public goods or commodities. So here, Steven is kinda just pulling things out of his ass.
The government simply taking, and redistributing is in fact, a socialist ideology, period. Welfare is 100% socialist, and it is necessary to a certain degree (people who are truly disabled, needy, temporarily unemployed/laid off) Steven is just nitpicking here and trying to make his own definitions for things. This young man isn't a socialist, he is just saying that not all parts of socialism is evil. Which I agree with.
In a truly Capitalistic society you have a lot of problems, there is typically a huge divide between the poor and wealthy class, and virtually no middle class. And in a truly capitalistic society, your market will eventually crumble as the wealthy get too rich and greedy, the majority of poor cannot afford anything, and there is no wealth distribution. It causes everyone to go bankrupt almost immediately.
The truth is, America is partially socialist in many ways. When you take a bowl of Capitalism, and sprinkle in just a bit of socialism, it works.
Also, imagine a small indigenous tribe with 100 people or so. They will most likely be socialist by definition. They will be sharing things, distributing goods to each other, and helping one another out in order to survive as a whole. Anyone who takes too much and doesn't give anything back will probably be shunned. I don't think this is inherently evil. It is necessary for their survival.
I think if Yusef was given a chance to talk, you would see that he isn't a socialist. He just believes some socialistic ideology is necessary. Steven also tried to put him in a box several times, berated him for using words like "chill" and "autistic" to disprove his entire points, which is something that the left love to do! Tried to create his own definitions, told Yusef that he talks in paragraphs (look how much Steven talks) and flat out lied many times (Germany has a minimum wage, and Norway does too, but in the form of negotiations made by trade unions)
@@a7xdisturbed774 You can't even judge Yusef's points because Crowder didn't give him enough time to substantiate any one of his arguments. Anyone uneducated would think Crowder 'won' this debate because he was always snatching the mic away from Yusef. Pathetic.
Melissa Morgan no crowder just realized that point wasn’t going to go anywhere. Anyone educated would know that the points he made were purely hypothetical with no practicality. Also Yusuf was extremely rude and pretentious towards crowder. Yusuf can be calm and use all the big words he wants but he still lost
Steven spent over twice as much time talking as Yusef did then unironically accused him of talking in paragraphs, AKA "you're not letting me control the conversation and dissect literally everything you say D:" Steven prepares for days for these "debates" and literally brought a binder full of resources (lol). Yet Yusef was polite and waited for his turn to talk, despite constantly being interrupted and not being allowed to speak. Then Steven gets triggered at him using the word autistic (which by the way he didn't actually call Steven autistic) You can really see how triggered Steven was towards the end when he seeks reassurance from the audience and starts trash talking back at Yusef before booting him. The point of these videos is to make Steven look "smart" and therefore correct, but the moment someone more intelligent than him arrives Steven cuts the debate because he knows he's losing. It was pathetic honestly.
Well said
I think he was more mad about it being the first guy stepping up proving him wrong 💀😂
It’s be great if someone actually recorded each of their time spent
PurpleFiiilth you can’t put quotes around a summary of what he said put in your words. Quotation marks mean that you are quoting someone, and you referenced Steven beforehand meaning you were quoting him. But he never said that. So you just put words in his mouth
I think that yusef did good but he failed a bit when started to use some more rude words, this let Crowder the opening to cut the conversation whenever he wants using "rudness" as an excuse. I think even that he could adjust a little his argument to make them stronger.
"I think you are getting mad because you are loosing a debate." Destruction.
>misspelling an easy word like "losing"
DeStRuCtIoN.
@@AppleOfThineEyeu mad lollll
@@PontiacSunfires Why would I be mad at someone that incompetent?
LoLlLlL
@@AppleOfThineEye idk im sorry 🥺 i didnt mean to offend u im sorry it wont happen again ill be quiet now 🥺🥺
@@PontiacSunfires You wish you had the power to offend so easily.
🥺🥺🥺🥺
We definitely have progressive taxation in Denmark. Steven is using false arguments. You are not willing to change your mind. You simply just focus on every single word that is being said, and try to tear the arguments apart by finding small mistakes in the use of those words. So if a word is used incorrectly you’ll point it out even though it basically doesn’t matter. Truth is you are sounding very intelligent but sometimes just make things up on the way like saying we don’t have progressive taxation in Denmark which we do.
I think he does want to change his mind, but, at the same time, political beliefs basically define us. It takes someone who is more than human, IMO to really be open minded about those things.
@@radiofloyd2359 I don't think so. I think he's using this format to bait emotional, unprepared, and/or idotic people into a debate to bolster his ego and get a good laugh on their expense. If he would be interested in an honest debate, he wouldn't be moderator and debater in one person. That paired with the fact that he comes prepaired and his opponents don't, gives him all the control he needs.
@@Baptopful I guess you could say so... I still think he's more than anything trying to start a discussion, but that's my own biases.
Yeah there is no doubt that he takes advantage of people not having exact examples of everything they are arguing about. He just uses that he is dominating the discussion so that he can win the argument. If he was actually willing to change his mind he wouldn’t lie in his arguments. His only purpose is to make money by showing people getting destroyed in discussions that he has absolute control over....
@Andrea Mendenhall Denmark is a country... Unless you were rebutting? If so, sorry, I guess.
Crowder, what the hell was this?
I'm a fan of your show, but this was just poor. You came off as condescending and aggressive and not as arguing in good faith at all. You kept interrupting and being rude. Yusef won this one handily.
sir kamyk How could Yousef have won? He thinks stealing money is moral.
gomogo2000 No he doesn't. Where in the video does he say stealing money is moral? You can't assume things if he isn't allowed to argue his points before being thrown off by Crowder.
gomogo2000 And producing goods in poor countrys, where the workers get close to nothing is moral ?
gomogo2000 Crowder thinks stealing money to fund a police and military is not immoral. Yusef thinks stealing money to fund healthcare is not immoral. It doesn't look like there's that much of a gap to me
LuckyLuk D Yes it is, because the workers get close to nothing by our standards but the truth is if those goods weren't produced there, they wouldn't even have that. They choose to work these jobs because the jobs make their lives better.
"This isn't a performance, this a conversation between us"
*Continues to look at crowd for support*
LOL exactly crowder is a bigger hypocrite than the libertards he hates so much.
billy phillips Why are you tripping so hard? The dude is trying to win a debate. The crowd needs to be on your side to do so
Because he is talking to the crowd! Like Jesus Christ... some people 🙈🥴
@@tylerkrepps1530 He's trying to win over his watchers in the crowd and the video and he can't do it without having complete control of the argument
you are IQ sub 50
yousif really did great , what a young well spoken fellow.
He’s highly intelligent. He speaks with confidence because he knows his stuff.
I like Crowders content, but he only moved on from Yousif because he couldn't handle him like he does most students who are usually overtly liberal and cannot back up what they say. Yousif was right, Crowder was losing.
On what point was Yousif correct? I'll save you the time, none. But feel free to try.
@@robjones3528 You sound like a catty school girl lmao
@@taylorwilliams9694 Ah, you couldn't present an argument. So cute.
If the first kid couldn’t change his mind I don’t think the point of this exercise is honest.
exactly he doesnt want his mind changed
He would rather fly across 2 universes and back before he changes his mind.
@@musicdiary5768 the kid didn’t say anything convincing...
@Ryan Quinn Given the 2 seconds that he was allowed at a time I think he did a pretty good job.
Yeah because he proved Socialism isn't evil but it'd be embarrassing to admit infront of his crowd of fans.
I love how although many of the people in the comments respect Crowder, they’re not so blindly loyal to him that they won’t acknowledge what he did wrong to Yousef👏🏽
What did he do wrong?
@@Del_1710 you're kidding us, right? I'm a loyal fan of Steven's and have been for years however, he's so used to debating people that lack knowledge on the topic of discussion that he'll let them talk for an hour. Yousef on the other hand was extremely knowledgeable and Steven wouldn't let him talk for more then 10 seconds without cutting him off and trying to sway the debate in the direction Steven wants it to go... If that's the case, then why is it "change my mind?"
In all honesty, I truly believe Steven lost a lot of credibility on this video
@@mikeprez8880 because yousef wants to talk economics and he is having a debate on morality, is it good for country's economy? Maybe, but that's not the point of discussion the point of discussion is whether or not it's moral he says this in the "evil isn't harmful to society but morally reprehensible" And he stayed on the countries yousef brought up in his example his words turned out to be true those countries do in fact have no minimum wage and even when yousef asked why not and he didn't hear he still brought it back up and answered, so what's the problem. The only problem here is yousef talks in paragraphs and Steven talks in points that's it
Yeah I love Steven crowder and think he’s a smart guy but I immediately recognized this going on. This is definitely not Stevens strongest moment.
@@Del_1710 Think of it like medicine. In small doses at the right places it can cure disease & even save lives but if you dump too much into the body it becomes poison.
It doesn't mean medicine is evil. In the same way saying "Socialism is evil" is reductive.
Steven got wrecked by Yousef. And he did not handle it gracefully, he instead showed his true colors and acted like everything he criticizes.
It takes a particularly motherfuckingly awful man to abuse his pregnant wife and abandon his children, not to mention the "worship" of freedom whilst yourself acts like a dictator, not to mention showing off your motherfucking penis to your employees
Yep
Exactly my thoughts
How. If the kid was right then the kid would be living his best life in a perfect socialist utopia
@@NMN4678 duct tape or electric tape when you tuck in the morning?
Yusef fucking wrecked him.
No
@@Penguinzero1 yes
@@TheJohnCooperShow no
@@zyradium yes
@@TheJohnCooperShow no
Poor form, Steven, Yusuf clearly won and cutting the fellow at every occasion showed you were rattled. Not a socialist btw.
ash trey he won using which arguments?
One thing I learned in my years is if someone has to tell me something like "I'm not lying" then 99% of the time they are lying.
Germany does have a minimum wage of 8,84 Euros since three years now.
Do your research Crowder... You already lost me at that point
www.change.org/p/steven-crowder-get-yusef-back-on-youtube
This really should be called, "I won't change my mind, even if you are right".
and Denmark does have progressive taxes according to google top results, this was no doubt stevens weakest Change my mind
I’m not a socialist but I’d like to hear more about Yusef
There’s a clip you can find on UA-cam from the Nick Fuentes show
Agreed, he wasn't getting to finish as Crowder had the power of the mic and kept pulling it away. I think the guy was making solid points and Crowder kept changing direction.
Bare in mind, he has to make time for everyone. If he had all day and night I’m sure it would’ve been different. This was a spontaneous debate. He wasn’t exactly ready and had to adapt to the new environment of over 100 people with many wanting to sit down with him. No one in these comments are thinking about that
@@jacobwhelan45 he literally kicked him out because he lost. If he wanted to get things done why not just prove him wrong and end it. He was incredibly aggressive for no reason too. And began to insult yusef and say that the opposite was going on. He’s just as bad as the people he talks down to.. And I’m happy I can see that now .
@@jacobwhelan45 yeah I love crowder but he lost his cool and if youre a real crowder fan you can tell he completely changed his outward appearance with yousef
don't debate someone, kick them off, and then proceed to make more points after the fact where he can't respond to or rebuttal those claims. Kind of a cheap shot.
He allowed the people to make their points, and those points did not change his mind so yes, he threw them off of the panel and gave the audience his reasoning for why he still believes what he believes. You have to remember the premise of the show, which is to change his mind.
@@theetilesmith In most cases, yes. But with Yousef, Crowder got owned. Watch and pay close attention to the last five minutes or so of that conversation. Crowder kept cutting Yousef off before he could even finish most of his points, and he continually misrepresented what Yousef was actually saying. At the end, Crowder kicks him out and then Crowder continues making his point without Yousef there to rebute.
@@EnigmaticAnamolyI see where you’re coming from but he actually didn’t.
@@Imrightandyourewrong you see where he’s coming from but at the same time he didn’t do it? What are you seeing then ?
No, I believe Crowder was getting annoyed with him and that's why he kicked him off. Crowder definitely owned him and Josef was parroting what his professors talking points are for the argument of socialism. As most professors indoctrinate students with leftist and Marxist ideology that encourages socialism. Josef was stating things as facts when they certainly were not. He was trying to use big words to sound more intelligent and talk in circles with no actual facts. He did it with absolute confidence in attempt to win the argument that way. It is very obvious to me that he absolutely has leftist ideology as it was infused in all his talking points even though he claims he doesn't.
He kept trying to use an argument about one politician to represent the whole Republican party bc the claim he made is the exact opposite of what the party's views are. He made vast generalizations and started an argument which was not about the topic at hand.
He was trying to state "Equity" as one of his talking points which means everyone needs to have the same outcome. Which is absolutely impossible and dangerous ideology when everyone as an individual is different. "Equity" believes all racial disparities are only due to "systematic racism" whether it's income or academia inequalities. I put quotations because these are terms the left has created that hold no barring to actual facts and statistics. White supremacy is not embedded within our insitiutions and there are no policies to discriminate against POC. The environment you can grow up in or the culture you were raised in can definitely be an impact on your life economically. The left avoids anyone as an individual and pushes the mindset that your skin color is your identity.
With capatalism, if you work hard, get an education, don't get pregnant before your married then you will most likely be able to be in the middle class. You'll have to start at low wages since you don't have skills and experience as of yet but you can personally advance throughout your career and increase your salary over the years.
He tried to show socialism as an success to Scandinavian countries which that argument was false. Those countries, like Sweden, use a free market system but have a higher social net so they are not actual full socialist countries. Sweden did try to have a more socialist country in the 70s or so and they were not able to sustain their economy so they implemented free market.
An actual full socialist country has never been successful and in most times it became communist. They couldn't survive economically and created mass genicides. No one can figure out how we, America, could sustain economically and where thst money would come from to actually support socialism long term. Eventually, everyone would be poor and remain poor. We would lose our place in the world and no one can prosper. We became one of the richest countries in the world because of capitalism. We also would loose innovation and the quality of our healthcare and all institutions etc. It is immoral because it takes away our rights as an individual. It forces us with massive governmental intervention who will force people to give their money to someone else who do anything to contribute to it. Which that is absolute theft and tyranny.
He used poverty as a weak motivation for him wanting a full socialist country. We do have social nets for elders and people who are improverished or in need like medicaid, welfare money, food stamps, section 8, etc. Capitalism gives you the opportunity no matter what race or socioeconomical class you are to succeed and have the potential to become rich. You are able to have the fruits of your own labor. It's entirely up to the individual and the choices they make but with socialism you can never get ahead, everyone is the same financially, and hard work gets you nowhere, etc.
So no, I don't think Josef owned the argument because he kind of talked semantics, presented falsehoods as facts, and tried to use big words to sound more articulate when he did not have the correct definition with some of the words he used.
I love Louder with crowder and all the great content they make, but the first interview was the lowest I have ever seen him.
Thomas Murphy yeah, poor performance
Thomas Murphy True, agreed, however, at least he posted it. At least despite how triggered he got it's still in the video. Some icing on his shit cake first interview lol.
Please get Yusef on the show again. Guy was smart and it would be such an interesting debate to hear again.
Interesting debate as in Steven talks for 30 seconds straight. Lets the kid have the mic near his mouth for about 3 seconds before he pulls it back to himself again in the middle of the kids sentence? Yeah real interesting debate....
The distinction is clear between an intellectual and a loud mouth.
I wonder what would happen if you were to fuse them. Would that grant infinite power?
@@slimonxviii3115 nah
@@godzpeedx7ii75 Thank you for letting me know. I will be able to sleep soundly now.
@@slimonxviii3115 "ego is inversely proportional to knowledge"
@@Proper_Time Epic Einstein qoute I think, I might be wrong.
Crowder is incredibly condescending
Kid: *breaths*
Crowder: *define breathing*
You have to get real specific with the Bernie Sanders crowd.
They spend a great deal of time in Fantasyland.
@@TheRayKid101 You seem to like to separate sentences with commas.
@@ognir66 conservatives seem to spend all their time chasing morals, good and bad via theory and some dreamland utopia instead of striving to make good in the actuall world we live in.
@@ognir66 and the change my mind guy was wrong about Denmark's tax rate, so factually he is far from clean himself. That's what happens when you decide what you believe and then go looking for facts instead of learning about a subject and then forming an opinion. Then he would learn that Denmark has a flat regional tax and progressive(borderline exponential with a cap off) national tax.
@@SicknastyFPS Thank you for noticing one of my scholarly traits. :)
lets be honest here Steven. You didn't like Yusef because he knew what he was talking about and was very articulate. The next individual came up and he was far less articulate and was easily swayed by minor points you made. Of course you thought Drew was a better debater because you never really had to debate him.
Agreed. Yousef was making good points. Crowder was getting mad cause he was getting beat by a pro socialist.
Steven wants them to be the Kipper to his Uncle Rico🤡
I love how steven calls yousef out on speaking in paragraphs just to make himself sound smarter, when he does the same thing. Also why was he was so bothered by the use of autistic when he always rants about the importance of free speech in comedy. What a baby
Free speech IN COMEDY! Steven doesn't bring that to serious debates. Degenerates do.
Holy shit the people in this comment section are stupid.
@@KaosSakana you gotta be pretty dense to say that steven doesn't crack any jokes during these debates. The kid cracked one joke and Steven couldn't let it go
@@modelorpheus you must be pretty dense if you think a joke and an insult are the same thing.
@@KaosSakana the autistic line, whether you found it funny or not, was intended as a joke
@@modelorpheus the autistic line, whether it was intended as a joke or not, was a blatant insult that showed a lack of awareness for his environment and a lack of respect for the conversation. The conversation was meant to be a serious discussion. Quit bending over backwards to defend a degenerate.
“The question isn’t do we have socialization, it’s how much”
I really like Crowder... but was disapponted by him in this one.
Instead of listening to the first guy he was a sensitive triggered snowflacke...
Sorry but the guy was right there: 23:24 . Steven got upset and that's not what change my mind should be. If you loose, you have to stand to it and not be an asshole
He never lost. The rules of engagement for a debate arnt to be rude. Keep it logical.
Telarius - Right, which is why it was a problem that Crowder was so rude and illogical here.
Yusef made some good points and whenever he made them Crowder either started making jokes or deflected.
Hold on, I just want to make sure that we're on the same page. Can you please define to me "deflected". You're using those big liberal words that they like to use and I just need clarification that we have the same understanding as each other.
Whenever Crowder tries to make a point in the show, people yell at him or call him autistic.
@@wupengu Yusef was addressing autistic liberalists, not calling Crowder autistic. Maybe if u actually bothered listening to his points you would have noticed that
@@wupengu Except the guy never actually called Stephen Crowder as autistic. He referred to a way of thinking as being "autistic libertarian" but didn't flat out make an attack at Crowder . . . even though Crowder did exactly that.
Nightx3aw Games Crowder would get rekt by Andrew Yang 😂
Crowder really got exposed in this video.
ally s , so he had to switch topics halfway thru. There were plenty of people itching to debate him on socialism.
How?
yea bouy are you Crowder's butt buddy? Always attacking anyone that points something negative about him hahaha
@@kwekstar44 you haven’t seen many of his videos? He has 1-2 topics normally.
@@smurfiennes yes used to watch him a lot 2 years ago. lol nice to hear from you. how are you?
Here’s an argument I think Yusuf wanted to go to but was cut short. If Police, roads and firefighters are essential to a society’s continued prosperity, I would argue (and I think Yusuf would) that a healthy, educated population is as well. Which means making that a provided service for the population.
And who would be better at providing healthcare and education? The government or the free market?
@@TXLionHeart Countries cannot go entirely socialist or entirely capitalist without turning into a melting pot of bad ideas. Do you want your house to burn down because you didn't pay the fire station a yearly fee? Do you want to be mugged because you couldn't afford protection money for the police? Do you want to die because you couldn't afford the hospital fee? Do you want to know nothing because you couldn't afford to go to school? These are industries that should be government funded. This sadly generates a few problems when they use their funding of the industry as an excuse to manipulate it but even private schools are being altered because of government-mandated courses for teachers to follow. What you can do instead is have a system like Singapore which is basically a mandatory medical savings account which upon use of that money is subsidized by the government it's a private health care which is publicly funded and medical costs can be spread between family members etc. pretty good if you ask me.
@@coreyfinn5532 I agree that Singapore has a good model, and just like some neighborhoods have mandatory HOA fees for certain things, they could add mandatory fees for private fire and security. At the end of the day, the people pay for everything anyway, and the private sector runs things better.
Man.. I would've loved to see where Yusef was going with that point. Too bad he was inturrupted 😕
Yusuf was embarrassing himself. Crowder did him a favor in stopping the embarrassment.
Would like a rematch between Steven and Yusef on a more neutral platform.
with a mod and a fact checker, Yousef would get another W for sure
@@HairyNippy lol what? Were you watching a different video?
Yea, I think “change my mind” has gotten too big. Crowder isn’t just debating but he’s playing to the crowd too. It’s natural, but takes away from the vids
@@formyownedification3879 Watch Destiny react to this video he explains it well
@@HairyNippy yeah he would sweep the floor with Crowder.
Love seeing Crowder get support, but I think I prefer the “Change My Mind” segments without a small mob of fans. Crowder tried to be a comedian more than a serious debater off and on and it kinda threw it off for me.
Crowder is an entertainer hence the 1.6million followers on YT and the explosive growth in mug club! I think he should let Ben Shapiro do the debating on his show!
Ashaley Boo Yeah I think the smaller ones are more productive in what they are meant to do. But it looks like instead it is just crowder feeding off of the audience and making fun of/being aggresive to the point where its not needed. (Coming from a fan btw.)
Germany has a minimum wage not sure if he doesn’t know or lying on purpose
€9.35
@@Victory987 just a small thing: you put the € after the number. (nitpick I know)
@Cameron Sole yes, obviously. But humor me and tell me why
Depends on country
@@luckierloser The European Union did indeed usher a guideline on the use of the euro sign, stating it should be placed in front of the amount without any space in English, but after the amount in most other languages
Came back to watch Yusef sh*t on Crowder again. Lmao
Crowders topic wasn't "convert me from supporting Capitalism". the topic was "socialism is evil change my mind". Yousef does have great points on how Capitalism can be harmful for conservatives especially when you bring up the social media aspect. But Socialism is still evil because you are putting everyone on the same level no matter how hard they work by taking money from hard workers. I wish Crowder would have brought up the pick pocket thing with Yousef and I do wish he would have had him on longer. I think if Yousef can recognize that Illegal immigration is immoral for the working class, he can definitely recognize that taking money from people and giving it to others who did not earn it Is in fact immoral
Believing you’re smarter then everyone is not a good trait for political debaters.
just like yelling over the other person you’re talking to does not mean you’re right
“Your losing this debate” this was literally a conversation.
You're talking about Crowder, right?
True, but most people who debate the politics they think they know (brainwashed leftist girls in my school for example) are very impressionable when it comes to CNN etc. and ignorant to any view that’s not their own. That is to say, stupid. So it’s not unlikely that you are smarter if they’re a liberal.
@@billysinge8977 smart has nothing to do with political beliefs. You need to understand this as a political debater we all have different values and beliefs and it dose not make you smarter then anyone else because of it.
What the hell does Crowder mean by "speaking in paragraphs"?
Dee Ef Sea that bothered me as well; Yusuf barely got a thought in 🤔 I guess Lowder wanted one word answers
Crowder got agitated because Yousef was using big words; Crowder's brain was confused and interpreted his words as paragraphs.
Boffano Olano precisely..if everyone put their bias aside, anyone with any critical thinking skills can see beyond his pseudointelligence... he's not as intellectual or articulate as he appears to some
Dee Ef Sea speaking in paragraphs.....your welcome :)
Crowder lost some respect from me on this one...
You are all up in his face, stop. Sit back, please. And stop getting triggered and using the word "autistic" every single time you are losing, just because he said it once. Lol.
He shouldnt of said it at all. It was beneath them and petty. Directly aimed at Libertarians and making fun of autistic people. Thats not ok in a civil convo.
MagneticFlux if that’s the case then there have been moments where crowder has been insulting himself. Stop defending crowder as if he’s the god of reason and logic. He isn’t and never has been.
I love crowder but he wasnt ready for yusuf lol. He was reaching by impeading his free speech with crowd intimidation. Any person should be able to say autistic or retarded or anything that does not directly incite violence. Especially since crowder has used those words and much worse in his podcast. I think he was losing and couldnt recover and he lost his head for a second. He had to buy time and take a second to get his head out of it lol.
Chill Chill Not Chill impeading his free speech? Please explain how crowder did not let the young man speak his mind for almost half an hour.
@@jared8019 he also, as I said above, would not shut up about him using the word 'autistic'. This was all completely out of his character. I love the man, he is a national treasure, but he was blind-sided on this one and did not handle this sort of complacent event very well..
Crowder doesn’t want his mind change. Not a good faith debate
Right, because calling your opposition "autistic" and "shill" is so good faith. 🙄
@gondar6181 Nope, kek
Crowder borderline bullying his opponent when they bring up an interesting point, and the crowd that cheered and jeered at everything that was said, made this "discussion" resemble more of a half assed schoolyard fight.
Maybe don't start a schoolyard fight by insulting you opponent then? Why blame Crowder when Yusuf started it?
Gebdoe what did yusuf start? He never directly called crowder a shill or autistic yet crowder kept pretending he did.
Michael Tech He just spent like an hour actually explaining his point of view and why socialism isn’t morally wrong while Crowder straw manned him and dodged any meaningful discussion of his ideals to berate him. This is like the textbook example of the “Libtard epically DESTROYED” method of debate
Oh like when he called someone "autistic"? Yeah you're right
Andres Rivera He called a set of ideals autistic, not even a person. And again, this was one offhand comment that Crowder had to make a big deal about and used to derail the actual debate at hand
This conversation would be different if there was two microphones. Change my mind
Flawess Grace Jordan Peterson: well, that depends on what you mean by microphone.
Mr Bell Well, from the Jugian archetypal idea of microphones that conclusion could be drawn, but the correct answer isn’t so obvious! What constitutes a microphone in terms of utility is manifold, and the hierarchical structure of that utility would point towards the type of microphone that would be needed for both people in the conversation, or if two microphones were needed at all. At any rate, I don’t think the equal distribution of microphones is the solution to this problem.
Painful to watch him abuse his position of Power holding the microphone. He just cannot shut up
alwins0n FACTS
@@outofthedumps *Grabs blunt* Can I have another, sir?
Not sure how kuch I agree with the idea of "if you're a fan you must already agree with me"
I watch all of his change my mind videos, but disagree with his side of almost all of them, including this one to a degree, I really like him, but his relatively conservative opinions are completely against mine really.
Well, he should be happy to know that I am not a fan anymore. He insulted my state in episode 307 (right after this one) and tweeted a video mocking me wanting to debate him. I told his people to keep the mug and give me a full refund. I am the guy in the black hoodie by the way.
www.change.org/p/steven-crowder-get-yusef-back-on-youtube
it standing rule for multi cons to put people that disagree to the front of the debate line. You want to fight the strongest stances in debate against your stance openly. Then it openly changes people views sometimes in mass. it also make for better debate and thus gets more views and coverage with open debate about it for the pop after.
crowder / ben shipro have people with diff views to the front of line as a standing rule.
chris ellioitt
Why would we assume the strongest stance is someone diametrically opposed rather than someone who might generally favor, but have quibbles with certain topics? Put another way, if the objective is to "Change my mind" wouldn't I be more receptive to someone who I like and agree with on a multitude of issues.
I suppose it all depends what you mean by strongest. In my mind, that means the most well reasoned and likely to persuade, maybe you mean stark in comparison?
Crowder lost harder than he lost his wife
hahahahaha
He was dealing with a gold digger who sneakily released an edited clip of a "fight" that barely registers as a 2 on a scale of 1-abuse. I have never gotten into his show because it tries to be funny when it just isnt but after all the leftist hate towards him this week im subbing and getting mug club. And Yusuf got owned in this debate.
@@skinnie2838 yeah i saw the vid was apparently edited as well. but please explain how Yusuf is the one who “got owned”?
@@we_are_so_back When he called Crowder a shill but couldnt define what a shill was I knew he was just another dummy acting like he knew what he was talking about
@@skinnie2838 crowder literally kept interrupting him and getting triggered the whole time. Crowder was completely unable to address Yusuf’s main argument that capitalism and conservatism are at odds.
Ehhhh Steven reminded me of a triggered feminist during the first debate
Yusef is what happens when crowder debates an intelligent person that speaks with facts. He goes to these colleges to debate people that aren't even ready to have debates and speak off just emotion. You should have a FULL debat with Yusef just to see what happens. Also, you should debate Destiny (that's his UA-cam you should look him up Crowder and Co.) debate people that have the facts. I wonder if you'd be afraid of that.
So...stealing from people and giving it to others is ok? Go to those countries if you want that bullshit.
@@TheJeevo92 what the fuck are you talking about? I was talking about debating crowder. He goes to these colleges to debate kids that aren't prepared for a full on debate but when he gets a kid that is, this is how he acts. The topic of this debate was not my point.
Please tell me his facts, that he couldn't provide.
@Gregory Frowendown What he was saying is autistic is the idea that there can be this massive margin and division of wealth and no violent consequences. The french revolution is an easy example of the point Yusef is making.
@@TheJeevo92 A level of socialism is required to safeguard society, just as with capitalism. Everyone benefits from this in the long run.
Steve kinda dropped the ball on Yusef. He could have had an actual conversation but was instead concerned about entertaining the crowd.
The problem Yusef had was his lack of understanding on socialism. Minimum wage has nothing to do with socialism.
@@bighands69 Price floors are socialist, stops process of free market
@@bighands69 There goes a lot of things within the terms Socialism. I am from Denmark. A socialist inspired (inspired being a key word) system. It works a lot better than the system in the US (yes I have personal experience with the system). But there is absolutely bad and terrible parts of socialism.
But Crowder definitely dropped the ball on this one. And I am almost always on his side.
@@Bilal-lq1nd
No.
Minimum wage is not socialist. It is not part of shared ownership. Taxation, healthcare, wage controls or even rent controls are not socialist. I am not saying they are good or bad just that they are not socialism.
@@christianolsen2388
You cannot just throw the term socialist around and bend it to mean different things. It is a philosophical term that revolves around complete population ownership.
Denmark is nowhere near the living standards of the US.
Yusef won this debate. been a fan for years, but this is a time i can confidently say you lost
BRING YUSEF BACK
Notice how Steven strategically takes away the mic whenever Yusuf was about to expound on his ideas?
The Truth of the Matter No
America
This video was quite eye opening. Crowder fell in the leftist argumentation side. He used ad hominem (personal) attacks against opposers. He was bigoted, in which he would make arguments based on his ability to control who can speak as he has the mic and crowd fanbase. And he also tried to throw in sly delegitimizing comments like "first of all you speak in paragraphs"...as if to say your argument is better because its shorter. "Rock hurt" is not as effective "a rocks potential to do damage is based on the capability of its user and capacity to damage within the given context". Sorry Steven but you've definitely lost credibility in my mind after this.
Maximilian Marcisz “Leftist argumentation side”? Please do not reproduce
For clarification, it's using highly emotive responses to an argument. Anger;raising of voice, shift of tone, hand gestures. Not to see this doesn't make your argument effective in all cases, but that you look silly when you keep saying the same thing and the only change when challenged is the brashness and loudness of the argument. I usually just call it being a snowflake tho :)
Maximilian Marcisz For clarification, generalizing millions of people as having cheap, petty argument tactics makes you fall into your own category.
Cam Jo I think your are missing the points. But thats okay 🤷♂️
Maximilian Marcisz I agree, but I think you're rather fickle if you find just one single instance of him engaging in habits you dont like and suddenly consider him to be incredible.
I think fame is starting to go to Steven's head. He really took offence to the kids points so he moved into his space and subtly intimidated him. Be careful Stephen, remember the rules apply to everyone. Dont become what you despise.
@@samanthacartwright3407
Intimidation my ass.
this video is 2 years ago, Stevensaid that “earlier this year, i was an asshole”(while doing a different ‘ChangeMyMind’ video, if this video was before he himself stated that he was an asshole it’s possible he also looked back at this video and realized it. everyone with these recent comments need to stop jumping to conclusions. so what he did bad in this talk, it was 2 years ago and he may have reflected on it.
@@hawaii7072 stfu bitch ass stop being a apologist Steven was gettin owned and got in the kids face tryna intimidate cause he was losing
@Able Table If you think getting butthurt over someone using the word autistic in a contextual manner and not even directing it at you, then Steven is a very sensitive little snowflake and you're unable the form your own opinion without him spoonfeeding it to you
@@tafaritaylor19 i dont think that was intimedation. He got in his face to play off the autism comment he made.
Steven got fucking cooked.
Cooked? Yusuf called him a shill and he couldnt even define what a shill was LMAO
@@skinnie2838 Nice whataboutism.
@@skinnie2838 Steven lost hard. He got upset & shut down the debate because he knew he was losing. "Change my mind"? Lol sure, he doesn't want his mind changed.
@@skinnie2838you're under every comment. stop glazing & meat riding
@@skinnie2838 he actually defined it
Crowder, bring Yusuf back on to redeem yourself. You kept cutting him off and forcing him to make YOUR arguments for you, against HIMSELF.
N E gij
he lost the debate for sure lmao
This debate should happen again out of fairness for Yusuf
Not only that...he's making so many jokes relying on the crowd, getting into Yusufs face, shifting the mic away at his discretion, etc.
Crowder acted like a big bitch here
@@hassu2149 100% agree. This is why I don't think this show is actually ever about changing his mind. He panics here - plays to the crowd, diverts the conversation constantly, etc. because he knew he was losing.
My word that first debate was hard to watch. I think the crowd played to Steven’s ego. The young man was very reasonable in his approach, whereas we saw a rather Cenk-ier side to Crowder. In the future I’d recommend a different approach, especially when you’re losing a debate.
Bintrux1 He wasn’t calling crowder or anyone else autistic, it’s just banter and crowder is internet savvy enough to know that. He only made a big deal of it to rally the crowd because he was having trouble addressing the kid’s arguments.
+Mk Sv Yeah I'm a huge Crowder fan actually, I just didn't like the deflection so much. I think the young man meant "rigid, unemotional and single-minded" when he used the word "autistic". There was little reason for Steven to be so offended.
I don't think you were particularly fair to Yusuf. It seems like you were looking for, as you point out with your pamphlet afterwards, the buzzwords so you could "point out" how his argument was faulty. Really, you just talked over him rather than listen to what he was actually saying. His argument was simply that your statement was faulty, there are degrees of socialism and to say ALL socialism is evil is like saying ALL capitalism is evil. But why listen when you can just look for perceived attacks on your character?
www.change.org/p/steven-crowder-get-yusef-back-on-youtube
Let’s be honest that first guy dodged a HUGE bullet not being allowed to participate
CLEARLY lost the first debate! Also not fair that he is the mediator and the debater at the same time. There needs to be a neutral party for a debate to take place. He has FULL control of the other person at all times and wont stop fidgeting with his water bottle when the other person is talking (which is extremely rude) You also lean into them physically which is not a proper debate forum. It is like an interrogation. He even leans into them when they have no personal space!
ALSO he insults the kids haircut which is extremely rude. The kid did not even call him autistic. He said the idea had pieces of autism throughout. That is completely different. Crowder knew he lost.
This is what I don’t like about Crowder, he went for personal attacks against Yousef and gave him extremely little Mic time. Yousef had to just shake his head while Crowder filibustered on and on.
I feel that crowder usually takes all the mic time because he's absolutely schooling them, but this time he kept interrupting, and he got a little rude. he is still one of my favorite people to watch.
Halfawake but they were minor and didn’t stray away from the point as Steven used it as a crutch to distract from where the conversation was going
Steven filibusters, then Steven yet again contradicts himself by telling the guy he is talking in paragraphs.
he did that today on a Trump debate; right after complaining about talking in paragraphs, he talks longer.
Ryan Shidyak usually when he is wrong he admits it, this time he got flat out raped and that is hard to admit
Friday Nights Out can u link a clip of him admitting he's wrong? he still distorts what net neutrality is so badly, he's against it for reasons that would make him support it if he knew what it was lol
Anyone else here felt bad for yusef?
He was the best one that handled listening and giving an opposing opinion yet feels like he was bullied a lil..
I really like stephen but I agree that Yusuf got slammed here pretty hard for little reason. He's using words that probably shouldn't be used but I also don't see the huge deal.
Pretty obvious to see most people in the comment section bitching about it, so yeah I think some people did.
Crowder is a complete bully. But he is very smart and charismatic.
@@brady2075 Explain how he's a bully
@@lukeo.1863 He uses the power he has to intimidate and coerce other people. A bully.
Unfortunately, your debate was cowardly. I enjoy these debates for the ability to have our minds opened, but you seem more close-minded than most of your debaters. Several people you have spoken to aren't intelligent enough to debate with you, but this kid was. How do you handle it? Your approach is to talk over the person who is defeating your view and call them names. He never called you autistic and talking in paragraphs is how debates work. Don't belittle a kid for being intelligent. He deserved more of the mic and you removed it from him.
When people get pressured or feel like they Are losing you see their true self ...
And Boy this guy's self was uglyy 😂
loper42 true indeed!!!
ralleks lol exactly!
Crowder interrupted kindly and respectfully with the goal of confirming that they we're both on the same page and are "going one point at a time." That's not belittling, that's trying to set an equal stage for the both of them. He also never name-called, however, Yosef certainly was "belittling" certain ideologies and claiming that they we're "absurd" and in his view, essentially stupid. Crowder blatantly *encourages* intellectual discussions in the "Change My Mind" segment. I consider "removing the mic from him" as giving him no opportunity to speak on his ideologies and discuss them. Instead, Crowder gives him the same opportunity as everyone else to discuss with him their ideologies openly.
If Crowder was so bigoted, he would refuse to do the segment and put his time and money/budget to researching, setting-up, and spending a day conversing with anyone who's willing too disagree with him openly.
For how sensitive Crowder got about the autistic comment, he was happy ragging on the crowd beforehand. Mean words shouldn't be said in a debate but you shouldn't be triggered by them either, which he was.
Crowder literally told the audience to not get distracted by words like “autistic” and “shill”, but that’s EXACTLY what he did. He pretended to be offended even though Yusuf did not use them as insults to him, and Steven kicked him out because he knows he was going to lose
Steven kicked Yousef out because he was actually started to change his mind.
@Wicked Jester I couldn't talk to Yusuf either, he wants to redistribute the money I earned by working hard to people who sit at home and didn't earn it.
@Harry Waddington I guess wouldn't would be more precise. I don't mind talking to people who disagree, but not on this subject. Crowder gets paid to do this, I don't have the time to discuss such nonsense. Get a job, work hard and earn your keep.
No, they kept talking about the same examples until Steven realized he just flat out doesn’t agree with Yousef, in my opinion I think Yousef was wrong for using Denmark and Sweden as good examples when he didn’t agree with things they shared
Has he ever admitted to having his mind changed before?
NO! You idiot
Abruptly ended the debate with that SMART guy, then had to give a lesson to the audience to try and recover from that L 😂😂
Abruptly ended it when he was in a bit of a spot, no less. Of course he had to give a lesson afterward where Yusuf was dismissed and couldn't challenge him any longer, lol!
Andrea Mendenhall crowders is a manipulative snowflake period
Andrea Mendenhall you’re a fan lol hopefully you will be able to see past your own bias. You need to be able to look at things objectively not just because you like crowder. He looked like a complete ass hat here afraid of any actual intellectual challenge so he deflects. That’s the entire point of these change my mind videos to make him look good, why else would a grown man debate kids who haven’t even been able to fully establish their own sets of beliefs. Obviously the grown man who talks politics for a living is going to be more informed and more eloquent speaking in front of a camera lmfao it’s low hanging fruit, if he was really about a debate he would have other liberal talk show host on to change his mind but he won’t even do that at politcon lol
Yes, because he realized his mind wouldn’t be changed, dumbass.
wow, let him talk, Steven, it's called change my mind not cut him off. you're being, dare I say, autistic about the autism remark. you say way worse all the time and that's fine too, it doesn't mean you don't have a point. I don't think you expected to talk to someone who is informed and somewhat eloquent and nuanced.
pure Justice without compassion splits the baby. Steven is a baby splitter. he already agreed implicitly that a state needs taxation because he supports government funding of public goods. and he keeps jabbing at the first guy by thanking the next speaker for not calling him retarded. though dost protest a bit too much, Steven!
+Walt Maisel he's only proving to me that this *is* a performance, which makes sense because for Steven to actually change his mind would undermine this whole business venture!
Walt Maisel comedy is different from a debate bro. This was a debate no room for insults.
Somewhat eloquent? This kid was great. He owned Crowder, I could only imagine what he'd do to the typical Crowder fanboy.
Whitey O'Banion the kid didn’t say anything of note. Partially I would imagine cause he has nothing to say and partially because crowder cut him off quite a bit. The autistic comment was clearly made out of habit by someone who spends a lot of time on the internet but nonetheless showed how childish he was. At no point did he ever argue for the moral superiority of socialism.
Yosef did really well on this. You got to give Steven credit for posting this. 99% of influencers would have deleted this and acted like it never happened.
lol what? this kid talked dumb. how low is your IQ that you can’t perceive this? He got insulting because he got check from every angle that he came
CLEARLY lost the first debate! Also not fair that he is the mediator and the debater at the same time. There needs to be a neutral party for a debate to take place. He has FULL control of the other person at all times and wont stop fidgeting with his water bottle when the other person is talking (which is extremely rude) You also lean into them physically which is not a proper debate forum. It is like an interrogation. He even leans into them when they have no personal space!
ALSO he insults the kids haircut which is extremely rude. The kid did not even call him autistic. He said the idea had pieces of autism throughout. That is completely different. Crowder knew he lost.
@@SutureEntertainment it’s his channel , cry
@@grungeface all I said was that steven lost the debate. not sure why you said "cry"? the internet is weird
@@SutureEntertainment appears like there was a lot more said than that.
Sounds like whining.
So, I said cry.
Incredibly disappointed with Steven here. It's worse that he hasn't commented on it or reached out to Yussef.
Reach out to a well spoken idiot? Why?
@@Leroy816 Yousef destroyed Steven in this debate. that's why.
Leroy816 Steven got raped
An idiot? Yusef was 100% correct and won the debate. Socialism is not evil, PEOPLE are. Fun fact: Yusef is a conservative just like Crowder. He was trolling Crowder.
@Whoopedy Doo Dooders
Yusef didnt even address the argument never mind actually "win" it, clear victory for crowder.
I really like the “change my mind segment” but this time was really unnatural. Crowder was pretty aggressive with the first fellow, and seemed to be trying way too hard to control the flow of the conversation. The whole thing looks like a lecture to the crowd
which is so fucking ironic after he literally opened the video by saying that he doesn't like lectures
Yeah, I didn't agree with what he did there.
It's because the guy didn't want to argue about whether or not socialism is evil. He wanted to argue for political policy, and not about ideology.
Also, terms MUST have agreed upon definitions in order for any arguments to be constructive. I speak from experience.
Candy K I agree with you but I felt Crowder was more of Ben Shapiro type of guy. I thought Crowder didn't use these weak tactics on the opposition; rather he would use reasoning and logic. I don't know something about the first argument just didn't feel correct to me. I could be wrong since I'm very knew to this sort of stuff.
orochimarujes I know the first kid started it but for the sake of conversation I think Crowder should ignore it or just make a small remark and carry on, but he focused the whole point around the autism and shilling, which made it look like he didn't have any counter arguments to what Yusef was saying.
When the first kid started talking I got excited because for the first time he had someone with a good understanding of the topic and what happened was that he booted him.
You've lost my respect on this one Steven. Someone competent came on and instead of engaging in a debate you kick him out and get triggered. You've portray yourself as someone who is open and logical but this first debate portrays you as childish and arrogant.
Jared Sherrard he's childish but he wasn't the one that called him autistic and a shill. Haha you people are unbelievable
Bobby Johnson no, but he did call the kid retarded and stupid. That's not nice either.
Yeah honestly, I would've liked to see him debate this kid for a full hour. I'm sick of watching him destroy libtards with ease. This guy knew what he was talking about and Crowder should've acknowledged that IMO and continued the discussion.
I mean really, getting mad over being called a "shill"?
Bobby Johnson He didn't call Crowder autistic or a shill, he called certain ideas autistic and republicans that aren't really republicans shills.