According to the politicon organizers, and later Gavin McInnes.
I don't have to do "admit it was 50/50" because there wasn't even a debate. It was an unfunny internet comedian trolling a different unfunny internet comedian with the help of some youtube news anchor. Crowder made himself look awful. I'm not going to cut him slack because you like him.
If what Seder wants is attention and viewership, do you think he'd have gotten more of it through a boring 30 minute debate? Or a 30 minute shoutfest that instantly went viral? If his goal was to not give Seder attention, he did a pretty poor job of that as well. He challenged Ethan to a debate specifically because he knew Ethan was a dumbass that wasn't going to be able to defend a position coherently. The reason he was so pissed isn't because he was cleverly 5d chessing Seder out of what he wanted. The thing immediately went viral. How are you going to make the argument that this was somehow depriving Seder of the attention he was supposedly lusting for? I can guarantee that not as many people would've known about this going down and therefore known about Seder if they'd just had a reasonable 10 minute back and forth about the issues before Crowder tells him 'look, I didn't ask you to be here, you're kinda invading on my show, I'm going to need to stop this segment' or whatever.
That's all well and good, but his word doesn't matter. Yes these college kids go on this show because they're idiots who think they know more than they actually do. I never disputed that. I just don't think I need to respect Crowder for owning them when he prepares for these discussion through rehearsal of specific talking points that he always guides the discussion towards. As soon as you realize that he brings 5 or 6 specific rehearsed points that he then guides every single conversation of a segment towards, any illusion that these are good faith, spirited debates between two people wanting to exchange ideas disappears like Crowder does when he hears Seder's going to be in the same zipcode as him.
1) Politicon organizers? Some names would be nice, because otherwise it's just rumors. And it's really fucking hilarious that you would trust Gavin McInnes, but wouldn't give Crowder benefit of the doubt, that's RICH.
Either way, it's not even a question whether Crowder, among others, are avoiding Ceder - dude is like an obsessive stalker. His whole shtick is goading people who's more prominent than him into "debates", it's clear that no one should give this cuck a time of day.
It's the implied reason, that people who refuse to give him platform are supposedly "afraid" of "debating" him. All the while there's a different, completely justifiable reason as to why people don't want him around - he's a grifter, and ultimately not interested in any sort of good faith discussion. There's no point in giving him what he wants, as I said before. Best you can do is tell him to fuck off.
He challenged Ethan to a debate specifically because he knew Ethan was a dumbass that wasn't going to be able to defend a position coherently
"Challenged"? Interesting that you put everything in the adversarial context here. Ethan was invited to talk and sort out ongoing autistic feud like adults, giving him opportunity to defend his position. Instead he pulled this gay ass shit, and him being retarded does not justify it. He betrayed trust extended to him.
It's irrelevant whether Ethan is stupid or not, there was an agreement in place. He's an adult and was supposed to honor it.
To you Crowder's entire motivation seems to be to dunk on easy prey to impress
stupid conservatives, instead of a good faith discussion, and you view everything through that lens. It's your problem, honestly.
Ethan deserved ridicule he got over his stupid comments, and acted like a goddamn child since. He ain't a victim.
That's all well and good, but his word doesn't matter. Yes these college kids go on this show because they're idiots who think they know more than they actually do. I never disputed that. I just don't think I need to respect Crowder for owning them when he prepares for these discussion through rehearsal of specific talking points that he always guides the discussion towards. As soon as you realize that he brings 5 or 6 specific rehearsed points that he then guides every single conversation of a segment towards, any illusion that these are good faith, spirited debates between two people wanting to exchange ideas disappears like Crowder does when he hears Seder's going to be in the same zipcode as him.
This is just ridiculous. I've watched plenty of these, I don't remember Crowder high-fiving his crew over
owning some college students.
He just sits down and talks about specific topic. What you call "rehearsed specific talking points" is called an
argument, if you didn't know. You could argue whether they're wrong, but then you'll have to be specific. It's all conjecture on your part, you ascribe malicious intent while it's entirely plausible that there's none.
I've had enough of this shit. I don't like him as much to justify spending all this time defending him, and whatever you might think of me, I'm confident that I'm being fairly objective here.
I don't harbour animus toward him, that's about it.
Edit: Correction. Ethan was actually the one who reached out to Crowder, according to released emails.