I wouldn't say that, at first, it did seem like Schulz was getting the better of Tariq then it went downhill quick and he then started trolling like a little bytch.
Tariq Nasheed vs Andrew Schulz on The Brilliant Idiots...VIDEO ADDED
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
What did he say to "get the better" of dude? Name one valid point that the white boy made. You can't. What's wrong with you people?
This was trash. Tariq tried to be too nice and didn't really go in since Shultz verbal salad, verbal gymastic, statistic ass idiocy wouldn't let Tariq complete a sentence. Deflecting and low key jerking himself to his homoerotic fantasies.
I keep seeing someone say "Shulz was getting the better of Tariq early on in the debate". Where? No one can seem to point this out. Please can anyone explain specifically where in this debate where Shulz was even remotely winning?
The lies Shultz was saying was insane
The lies Shultz was saying was insane
Shultz was debunking every instance of TN claiming something was being simply moved by agents of Anglo Sup... TN was spewing stuff without concrete evidence.
Give one example of the white boy "debunking" anything.
Exactly like I thought.
GreenGhxst
Veteran
Had to take a break, shyt is annoying because Andrew isn't acknowledging shyt and constant straw man arguments
I'll come back to the shyt later, maybe it will improve, got 30 mins in and I tapped
I'll come back to the shyt later, maybe it will improve, got 30 mins in and I tapped
because there's no excuse for you to be so stupid, that's why.
Tariq Nasheed creates are nearly fail proof argument. However, no matter how nonsensical the argument is, he places the burden of proof on the person who he's debating. If you can't proof what he says is false, then it must be true; it should be if HE can't prove what he says is true, then it must be false.
He also used all encompassing words, and phrases to further prove his points. If one puts the burden of proof back in Tariq, by not letting him answer a question with a question, ask him for proof of said allegations and not just use all-inclusive phrases, You'll win the debate.
He also used all encompassing words, and phrases to further prove his points. If one puts the burden of proof back in Tariq, by not letting him answer a question with a question, ask him for proof of said allegations and not just use all-inclusive phrases, You'll win the debate.
Last edited:
AJaRuleStan
All Star
How the hell did ppl manage to listen to this whole thing? I tried again today to see if I could go further than 10 mins in, and I just had to turn it off when TN starts making assertions about Bill Cosby's downfall being engineered by nefarious white overlords without a single speck of evidence to instantiate any of it. Like, he is literally making shyt up to reinforce his world-view. And what's even more startling is that Schulz didn't demand any kind of proof when he said all that - makes me wonder if this shyt was a work.
I found it funny that when Tariq said that the original Celts were black, and cited a white man for that information, but when Shultz said something while citing a black man, Tariq dismissed it immediately.
Tariq got caught up in that "he's white and he said so" shyt.
Last edited: