>>248826
>were the 1v1 ones any good calculator coom?
For me they were interesting bickers I like Andrew's ability to communicate and argue and he did it with thots I was familiar with rather than unknown to me midwits. And I can learn his worldview better which is interesting for someone who was at best raised "culturally Christian" I guess you could say and who knows not much about Orthodoxy. He's better than a philosophy autist like Jay Dyer at communicating the worldview to layman like myself. And I usually don't like Whatever debates bickers it's usually Chase who is only interesting when trying to talk thots down from the porn/whore ledge or planks of wood like Michael Knowles.
>I saw the first one was with the confidently stupid blond college chick I dipped as I figured it would just be testing worldviews and philosophy shit.
Well Andrew was reined in from his usual blunt self, which was unusual and interesting to me, but not really sperg inducing. It wasn't deeply philosophical at least not the blonde. She came off better than on the show but revealed her elite commie woman worldview.
>The second one was with that hot hapa chick who was willing to engage in good faith but I figured it would be boring shit.
She tried to engage in good enough faith most of the way and then after basically losing and practically conceding everything, sperged out and pulled back on the whole argument and circled back to her starting points bickers she is mentally ill or deeply affected by her parents being divorced when she was little and showed what a selfish woman she is. She was actually more bad faith than the blonde ultimately. And her debate is more philosophical, although there were parts of the blonde I missed where the might have discussed philosophy. But the blonde was more political and the hapa was more "I'm Locke and Mills and Kant" smuckles deabte.