Daelin saidyou really think so? I didn't watch the whole thing but from what I saw I think Dan was doing better. If you look at how the old conservative guy is talking it's just stupid. I was annoyed at the fact that when he was talking to Dan he didn't even look at him, he didn't let him finish when he wanted to answer questions and so on. Those are all signs of being the weakest person in a discussion. He clearly didn't have enough power to beat him with content so he didn't let him finish his sentences and tried to make him look less by not looking at him when he spoke. It's a childish way to get unintelligent people think you are winning an discussion while in reality you are making a fool out of yourself and losing the discussion.
While the elder conservative guy's speech certainly was affected, and I wouldn't be surprised if that would be a turn off for you, clearly he's the intelligence to pull it off. I much prefer that to, say, reading the affectations of some poster who hasn't the depth of mind and I tend to eventually, if not immediately, avert my eyes to that. It isn't the lack of depth that bugs me, it is the pretense.
It didn't strike me odd that the elder gent "didn't even look at him", as I could see him concentrating on his thinking--Savage seemed to be noticing the same thing, and, I'll add, seemed intimidated by it--and all the speakers were speaking not so much to each other, but, while addressing the comments of other speakers, speaking, actually, to the audience at large. This was not a conversation just between the egos of two people but in the forum of a greater consciousness.
In effecting that consciousness, not only does content count, but also presentation and for the 12 minutes I watched, I felt the elder conservative presented his ideas, even if I did not agree with them, better than did Savage present ideas that I might agree with. If you can not sway an audience, what good are your ideas even if they are correct?
I'd only before this seen Savage on stage by himself, never being directly confronted by an antagonist and while he seems composed on his own, his ability to interact seemed lacking, his thinking not up to speed. Thus, his own affectations when talking dick, which should have come across more naturally. If you are sure enough of your footing, you can step in shit and no one will notice.
Savage made some good points. I liked especially his idea of creating safe hit on spaces in a world which has been made safe from being hit on. And the conservative guy erred in his thinking when he mentioned a concept I've been championing in my own speech for years, particularly with regard to the anti pro-choice people, that our individual selves, our bodies are sovereign.
Where the conservative fucked up is in saying that sovereignty necessarily imbues selfishness but that isn't what being sovereign is about at all. Being sovereign does not negate responsibility towards each other. It doesn't mean that I shouldn't be concerned for you. It simply means that you have no rights over me.
But it takes more than being right to win an argument. And that's why, at least in the 12 minutes I watched, I thought Savage failed this particular encounter. Aside from that, I do support and appreciate him and his efforts.