▶

00:00 / 00:00

⬇

Moderated by Patrick Bet David, the four-hour-long August 14 debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson has been viewed and heard by hundreds of millions of people.

For his argument, 'master debater' Andrew Wilson asserted that the evidence proving that Tyler Robinson was the lone gunman responsible for shooting Charlie Kirk, was "overwhelming."

In contrast, blogger and YouTuber Candace Owens argued that the probability of Robinson having shot Kirk was "zero," and that the evidence she had accumulated led her to infer that Robinson may have been a "patsy."

While there were no issues resolved in the determination of Robinson's role, what made the debate worthy of note had little to do with the merits of the Kirk assassination, but a lot about the terms of the debate itself.

Insisting that Candace should be strictly limited to questioning the official narrative and to refrain from inferring any other narrative, Wilson simply refused to accept any evidence presented by Owens, even when she herself was a first hand witness.

What was clear is that Candace Owens fully understood the context, legal issues, and relevant facts underlying the Utah preliminary hearings, while Wilson knew next to nothing. Most embarrassingly, he insisted that Candace remove evidence from her own investigative time line because it created a narrative that would refute the official one.

As YouTuber Lionel Nation framed it: "We have to realize that Candace is sort of a journalist. (Wilson) wants her to release what's on her time line because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't understand or grasp the essence of what this is all about."

In the absence of any knowledge regarding the subject, Wilson turned the debate into an argument over the nature of inferences, what constitutes hearsay, the use of intuition, the legitimacy of sources, and of course, his objection to Candace's timeline on the grounds that it isn't 'official.'

For Wilson, the debate was an exercise in what could be called 'masterdebation.' In this context, he certainly proved himself to be a Master Debater - the kind who doesn't really need an opponent.

To add insult to injury, the self-identified 'libertarian Christian ethicist' Wilson saw himself as a defender of the Right: "I was willing to pay three hundred thousand dollars for this debate to finally demand that Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making. Candace's investigations are indistinguishable from a Leftist operation. She couldn't be doing more damage to the Right if she were trying."

Sadly, throughout the entire debate, Andrew Wilson did not say a single thing or debate in a manner that could be considered Just Right in any sense of that term.