This is what I love about Piers Morgan

Encouraged wrote: »

From 4:28 on wards in this video, I love how he sticks with his point. I'd have stopped after 5:23, but Piers continues to use this point against the bloated American.

That's what one needs to do in an argument. If you feel your point is right, it's not enough just to take the view "oh I'm sure the audience sees my point". If the other party makes an attempt to dismiss your point, I think it's important keep using that argument against over and over unless they refute. In doing so you make them go around in circles, and thus they make a fool of themselves. And in truth the discussion can not develop until an agreement is made on such a point.

Once again at 5:55, just when I would have said to myself "okay that's enough", Piers continues to use his very own reply against him. This is so crucial to arguments. It's amazing the way people don't listen, or deflect. It's got a lot more to do with calling people out on their bull**** than it is to do with knowing your facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsZa4V9T4lg

Also, at 4:07 you can see the guns campaigner itch his ear as he is most likely lying. Though I'm not too sure of that having looked up a list of Australian massacres.

Yeah, he's kind of like Vincent Browne with the way he stays on the point and grills the guest, punishing them for waffling.

Here we see Piers in action again. But unfortunately what's happening with the guest in this debate is a thing that women can get away with so often. And that is, that if they start losing a debate to a man, they'll start laughing at him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUGCfj9eXBY

What we see is that she's trying to piss off Piers with that sarcastic smile she does. She does it at 1:43, at 2:22 and again at 2:41. She really lets herself down with it, but she knows she can get away with it.

And then she implements a manipulation tactic at 2:58, where she accuses him of silencing her when he clearly hadn't been. In any healthy debate there has to be a certain amount of interrupting. He only interrupted her anyway to seek clarity on something she said. But she's trying to make him afraid to interrupt her. These aren't things the audience would really notice. But I think this manipulation tactic of her's might have worked... because watch at 3:58 and see how he doesn't interrupt the other host where he usually would. What I would have done there is I would have interrupted and said "no no, I wasn't holding her accountable, I was simply asking her if she condemned it".

Piers actually goes on to point out that he agrees with her on many issues, but she throws it right back in his face. Towards the end we see that after the other host backed her up, she (the guest) rubs it in his with another laugh at 4:04. Just watch it - it's almost as if she's laughing because she knows her silencing tactic worked. So I think she was possibly the one silencing him. But if he pointed out how she was doing this, he'd look paranoid. So I admire Piers for standing up to her. So many hosts wouldn't.

She did trip up though at 3:50 where she say "you can say hateful things, but...". If I were in Piers' place I would have sarcastically said "oh so it's okay to say hateful thing as long as you don't act them out"

Woke Hogan wrote: »

The only way I would ever respect Piers Morgan is if he interrupted his programme to list and apologise for every single one of his indiscretions as a tabloid journalist before pulling a gun out and shooting himself. Or maybe he could perform harakiri since he is an anti gun advocate.

I think he's an easy target for people to hate. People wouldn't be as quick to hate, say Roy Keane, for his indiscretions. I think it's become popular, for some reason, to hate Piers Morgan.

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Love to see Piers getting owned especially in this interview.

Even if it means that the guy who won the argument was in the wrong? and as a result more guns will be sold around America.

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I presume you mean the Haaland incident, whose career wasn’t ended by Keane. It’s no wonder you’re here defending Morgan since you’re clearly not averse to spreading half-truths and falsehoods yourself.

But regardless of that, Keane had no reason to have it in for Haaland. What was it that happened originally?

To me it seemed that Keane dived and Haaland shouted at him while he was on the ground in annoyance. What's the big deal there? Unless he said something particularly insulting. But I could be wrong.