Feb8 |
 |
If You Ever Wanted To See Stephen A. Smith Outdebate A Pulitzer Prize Winner And Some Idiot Blogger, Now Is Your ChanceHoly shit. Are sports commentators really that much better than regular commentators? I think my world just flipped upside down. |
|
|
|
So CNN thinks the most appropriate way to debate about atheism is to ask two Christians and a Jew what they think? Nice balance, CNN.
As for the “arguments,” I love how the Christian woman is upset that atheists want to take away her rights. Because atheists are always proposing laws against her praying, I assume. Or is she talking about her “rights” to live in a country where atheist children are forced to participate in teacher-led prayers in schools? Because I think there might be more than one person’s rights involved there.
Yeah, Stephen A. was shockingly the best debater in the group, but when a Pulitzer Prize winner’s best argument is “they need to shut up,” I guess it’s not so hard to come out on top.
Random theory:
The average American viewer pays better attention to the nuts, bolts, details and reality of sports than the details of politics. And, to be fair, it’s a lot easier to keep track of the details of sports.
So if a political commentator is full of it and routinely denies obvious realities, they can get away with that. But sports commentators learn to be somewehat fact-based. Because too many fans know exactly what the team’s record is, in gory detail, and they won’t listen to an excessively nonsense-laden argument. An inflammatory opinion, sure. But not a totally BS-based one.
So poor Stephen A. had no idea what he was getting into. He wasn’t standing up for atheists, he was standing up for, you know, reality. Which is taken for granted in sports but not in politics.
Tom said: The average American viewer pays better attention to the nuts.
Nuff said.
Whenever the “Pledge of Allegiance” argument comes up people act as though “under God” has been there since 1776. When in reality it was added in 1954 during a time when we were being scared to death by people like Joseph McCarthy.
Stephen A. Smith can probably argue a great case against anyone. I’m not sure why, but I’ve always liked him, and it’s good to see him perform so well.
The word “debate” shouldn’t been anywhere near that embarrassment. I can’t believe that shit like this is actually on television.
Ha. I think I agree, top secret athiest. Next time, I’ll use… ah, argument?
That blogger looks like what would happen if they took the DNA of Rachel Dratch and Nicole Sullivan and raised some kind of hybrid clone.