So, that happened.
The debate between Matt Binder (from the Majority Report) and Paul Elam (from A Pile of Money for Paul Elam) went off yesterday. I can’t say it went off without a hitch, because it was actually quite hitch-full. Indeed, it was kind of a disaster — at least for one Paul Elam.
Paul’s the one who wanted the debate. He chose the topic, he chose the format, he controlled the venue. And he lost the debate rather spectacularly, grimly reading a succession of prepared statements while Binder shot down his arguments with common-sensical one-lines and raised issues that Elam didn’t or couldn’t address.
Binder rattled Elam early by presenting him with an unattributed quote that sounded virtually identical to Elliot Rodger’s misogynistic rants and which Elam dismissed as something that no MRA would ever say; Binder then revealed that it was a quote from Stefan Molyneux, the MRA “philosopher” who was one of the featured speakers at AVFM’s recent conference. (Indeed, it was a quote that I highlighted in my first Misogyny Theater videos on Mr. M.)
Then, after Elam read off a list of all the various women who have associated themselves in some way with AVFM, Binder knocked the wind out of him by asking, quite simply, so what?
The most surreal moment, in a debate full of surreal moments, came 39 minutes into the debate. Binder had spent much of his previous two segments discussing an assortment of issues that the Men’s Rights movement largely ignores, even though they primarily affect men, and men of color in particular — from stop and frisk policies in major cities to the deaths of American soldiers in wars overseas.
But instead of answering Binder’s question –why hasn’t the Men’s Rights movement actually tried to do something about these problems? — Elam instead read his prepared “closing statement,” responding not to anything Binder had argued but to the arguments Elam, writing the statement before the debate, had assumed he would make.
And so, after hearing Binder passionately argue that the MRM needs to fight for the rights of men in prison and for the lives of men sent to fight and possibly die in wars, we heard Elam beating away on a straw man, declaring — after calling him a bigot — that Binder
has been led to believe, quite falsely, that gender justice mandates the summary rejection of all men’s problems in favor of a view that can only see men as the problem.
The debate, such as it was, lurched to its conclusion in an assortment of miscues and technical glitches a few minutes later. Dean Esmay, the incompetent and often ineffectual “moderator” of the debate, rocking back and forth on his chair in a darkened room, eyes mostly closed, plaintively asked Binder to send him “that particular story” on stop and frisk in New York city that Binder had referred to earlier in the debate. Esmay, defensive and exasperated, explained that
we are an all-volunteer organization and we don’t see every story. I’d like to see that story from Matt, please do send it to me.
Binder, incredulous, pointed out that stop and frisk has been in the headlines for years, as Esmay, visible in a small box at the bottom of the screen, rubbed his head as though he were developing a migraine. Esmay repeated his request, saying that
we cover a lot of stories; I’m just asking for you to send me that.
There were then a few uncomfortable moments as Esmay and Elam tried to figure out how to close down the Google Hangout that was hosting the debate.
Esmay: “Are we off?”
Binder: “Still says ‘live’ for me.”
Esmay: “Paul?”
Elam: “Yeah, I’m still having problem with the button.”
Esmay laughs.
Elam: “Isn’t that wonderful?”
Long silence. Esmay rocks back and forth on his chair.
Esmay: “Just close the window.”
A few moments later, he did.
I think we may need to have another AVFM graphics contest, incorporating what I think should be AVFM’s new slogans:
“I’m still having problem with the button.”
“We are an all-volunteer organization and we don’t see every story.”
A Voice for Men is clearly not ready for its closeup.
I’m not sure it’s even fair to say that Paul showed up to the debate. As many others have pointed out, he was not debating; he was reciting.
He gets marks for attendance but not for participation.
@Robenric999
Are you an adult who is familiar with real advocacy groups at all? AVfM is a terrible source for information about the issues they nominally discuss. Esmay even sort of admitted as much in a letter to a young feminist earlier this year.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/02/22/5-arguments-least-likely-to-convince-a-young-woman-that-a-voice-for-men-isnt-a-misogynistic-hate-site/comment-page-2/#comments
This was back in February but I remember it well because it inspired me to check out their wiki, which is mess and I critiqued their bungled stats on prison rape in a comment. The DV wiki Esmay recommends Binder has a couple of short, poorly written paragraphs and an annotated working bibliography they simply copied wholesale, with permission, from a academic. Real advocacy groups don’t have random volunteers with no credentials sound off on issues while repurposing info and statistics they cull from the internet and then call that a fact sheet.
The National Conference on Ending Homelessness’s annual conference is being held later this month in Washington DC. It’s pricier than ICMI, but then again there’s food, training seminars and numerous workshops run by one of the premier non-profit advocacy groups in the country. Check out the impressive agenda and, keeping in mind it only costs $200 more, compare it to the unimpressive handful of lectures at a VFW hall that AVfM pretended was a conference.
http://help.endhomelessness.org/events/30#/events/30/agenda
I get how someone can like AVfM’s articles and it’s community’s enthusiastic anti-feminism, because there’s no accounting for taste. Just realize there is no reason for non-AVfM fanboys to take Elam and his motley crew seriously because they provide no real resources and fail to address any social issues in a competent manner. And if you sincerely believe Elam didn’t get his ass handed to him then you don’t know how debates work, even many AVfM posters admitted it was a disaster and prefer Elam leave future debating to his colleagues.
Actually making points and refuting claims is for amateurs. All you have to do to win a debate is convince that audience that you’re wise.
Robenric999, honey, the MRA trolls who crap up these comment boards almost always claim to not be a MRA and they do it in a failed attempt to position themselves as unbiased observers. They normally don’t painfully spell it out like you just did, but you’re not very bright even for a troll.
You don’t seem to realize that the only people aware of the debate are MRAs, their critics and Majority Report fans. It’s very unlikely anyone else has even heard about the it and if they did they sure as shit didn’t bother to watch the whole thing. You’re saying you’re not a MRA but you watched a 45 minute debate about MRAs on the internet. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Also, a person can be unbiased and still be completely wrong. I’ll take an intellectually honest, well-informed person with an vested interest over someone who won’t acknowledge that reading pre-written speeches during a debate is pathetic.
I’m not sure which group is sillier, the ones who pretend not to be MRAs or the ones who pretend to be women. In both cases they don’t seem to understand that misrepresenting the demographic that you belong to isn’t going to make fundamentally unpalatable ideas any more appealing to your audience.
Trial, yes. Error, yes. Failure, yes.
Success?
(crickets?)
Well, Pauly’s very successful at being a popping-eyed, rage-spittle-frothing hater and con artist, I’ll give him that much.
How does the debate put him in the public eye exactly? He’s on The Majority Report. You think taking part in a video debate featured on AVfM is going to raise his public profile? The only people who paid any attention to it are MRAs like yourself and people who enjoy chuckling at Elam’s sad antics.
Also, if you think Matt Binder is an academic then you don’t know what that word means. He’s a thoughtful guy, but he’s more of a techie and is one of the producers of The Majority Report.
Specific example of Paul’s “wisdom”? His being on the planet longer doesn’t really automatically win the debate.
Methinks that Robinric (like a large subsection of the US) does not know what a formal debate actually entails and approaches it from more of a horse race/nascar event stance.
Those of us who studied the art (uni debate team, ’94-’95) know that showing up with a prepared script is an automatic fail as it cannot possibly address one’s opponents assertions. Notes which one can refer to for relevant citations is one thing, a script is another matter completely.
The object is to make you own points, be able to back them up and then actively listen, engage and respond to one’s opponents points. Only then can one refute one’s opponent via pointing out logical fallacies or by making a counter claim with appropriate citations. This absolutely cannot be accomplished with a prepared script because it simply does not allow for appropriate refutation. Winning a debate involves careful listening, which Elam did not accomplish because his script did not allow for refuting Binder’s claims, which were supported by proper citations.
Elam engaged in name calling (argumentum ad hominem) which Binder appropriately pointed out. Elam refused to refute Binder’s claims and simply asserted his own claims without citation. Anyone trained in formal debate knows who won this round (hint: not Elam).
Furthermore, I will take issue with your own assertion that Elam ‘won’ due to wisdom attained by age. Wisdom is not always present in elders and it can be clearly demonstrated by those of a young age. Your assertion is ridiculous and ageist as well.
@Robenric999
From the Marriam-Webster Dictionary on the word “debate:”
I don’t see anything in there about being the oldest participant or about wisdom, but by the very definition of the word, Paul Elam was not debating.
No, just no.
Thanks for the positive feedback all. I only regret the typos. So many typos…
Cool story bro. We are a lot smarter than you think we are. We can spot an MRA pretending to be a neutral observer who just so happens to think we’re wrong and the MRAs might just have a point a mile away. You are aren’t the first one to try it. Try harder.
Considering that even several AVFM commenters knew Elam your condescension towards Binder here makes it pretty obvious that you do in fact have an allegiance.
@Robinric
Alright. What points did Paul Elam bring up that Matt Binder failed to address, or got wrong? What points did Matt Binder make that Paul Elam successfully answered?
If you don’t want to judge on facts (since there really wasn’t much back and forth), how about style? Who was the better debator? Why did Paul Elam come accross as more likable, or why did Matt Binder come accross as unlikable? I’ve seen many debates where the side I disagreed with “won” simply because a debate isn’t always about the facts, but about chrisma as well.
Who struck you as having made the best zingers, and what were they? Where did Elam succeed, where did Binder fall flat? Where did Binder stumble in an argument, and where did Elam make a very strong case?
In short, beyond some abstract “wisdom” you think Elam possesses because of being older, exactly why do you think he won?
(btw: love the fact that you called it an “interview” rather than a debate)
The sad thing is that Elam appears to have reached late middle age without acquiring any wisdom at all, which is far worse than lacking wisdom due to a lack of life experience.
Case in point that Elam lost and he knows it:
There has not been one single article to show up on AVFM about the debate after it happened. Paul has not spoken about it at all (other than a few passive-aggressive tweets).
As demonstrated by his attacks on journalists reporting on ICMI14, where he repeatedly calls out the same journalists for getting things “wrong,” Paul likes to follow up on things where he assumes he is clearly in the right (two J. Roy articles, so much stuff on Bucky Turco that I have lost count). Paul has a long history of beating the dead horse when he thinks he has bested it.
There is nothing–not a single thing–on AVFM about the debate with Matt Binder after the article where the debated was hosted. Not a single thing.
Paul doesn’t admit defeat. He just hides it under a pile of posts attacking other victims.
How on Earth would anyone think that Robenric999 lost this debate? If anything, Robenric999 was far more unbiased than any of you, and was able to soundly defend his stance because he said so. It’s clear that Robenric999 noticed one person was older than the other person. Wisdom can only be acquired by Robenric999 proclaiming you have it, and because we lack this at the given time, we lost this ‘debate’.
Well, I bet that I’m older than Robenric999, which means that I have more wisdom (it lives in white hairs, you see, even if you dye them). Thus, I am fully qualified to decide that he has lost this debate. The only way anyone can justifiably object to this conclusion is if they’re older than I am.
Also, why throw that little aside in? There’s no point to it except to question his sincerity.
I mean, assuming Robenric really believes what he just said, …
Back when I was teaching I volunteered to coach speech & debate as well. I’ve spent a lot of time judging debate rounds, both team policy and Lincoln Douglas. And quite honestly I’d have given Elam somewhat of a pass for his first round. Often times debaters will script their opening. Usually more in policy than LD (with this debate being far closer to the latter) but they do. I would have dinged him for his delivery which was terrible (too fast, little to no eye contact, overly verbose/ranty at the expense of making distinct and cogent points etc) but not for having it scripted.
On the other hand, having a fully written conclusion which didn’t reference any of the actual substance of what Binder said was inexcusable and would have cost him big time. And when he WAS extemporaneous he was poor as well. Stepping into the Rodgers/Molyneux trap was bad enough but the rest of his off the cuff comments saw him generally using condescension and deflection rather than actually addressing most points.
Was Binder a good debater? No, not really. He was meandering, allowed Paul to do too much talking during his time, took too long to get to his points and while better prepared than I expected, wasn’t as ready to go as he could be.
Still, in my mind he clearly won because he actually debated and simply won more rounds. He addressed his opponents arguments and countered them, something Elam really didn’t do at all.
I honestly expected Binder to fail. He was a guy with a passing knowledge of MRAs debating with arguably the figurehead of the men’s rights movement about the topic that Elam is dedicating his life to. And yet Paul couldn’t extemporaneously debate the merits of his movement with Matt.
Even when trying to paint the MRM as about equality and toning down the misogyny as much as he could Elam couldn’t even make his views seem reasonable when countered by a guy who probably only did an hour or two of prep and research for the debate. Pretty damning stuff.
Grumpycatsagirl,
I am convinced. 😀
@funkykingston–Thanks for the ear worm. = )
Thank you for mentioning this video, David.
I love the trap Matt set for Paul early in the debate regarding the Stefen & Elliot quotes. Elam couldn’t tell the difference, hence laughed (as usual) to cover his tracks. But he got exposed for the fool he is.
This is why some feminists claimed Elliot was an MRA. Even though he never said it himself, least in his manifesto, his shitty attitude towards women wasn’t far off the mark by other MRAs. And as much as Elam wants to protest that, he couldn’t tell apart the similarities between Stefen and Elliot.
It was a brilliant trap set by Matt, of which I told him in twitter, complimenting him. It was very well said! I could think of other quotes Elliot and MRAs have said that were similar, but I love how Matt staged Paul into a corner and owned his misogynist ass.
And then there were the examples of black men being targeted for frisking in New York city, of which Matt mention how Avfm isn’t talking about such discriminatory issues. He gave another example about prison rape… point is that he notice how Avfm isn’t really a men’s rights group, how most of their complaints are about feminists. As much as we all know that, it’s great to see Matt put it out there and have Paul fumble around trying to justify himself.