An open-forum debate hosted by Young Americans for Liberty last Tuesday experienced a major misstep: all of the people that showed up used it as an opportunity to voice the positive, caring feelings they felt for one another.
While the official purpose of the debate was to “show by example the virtues of free, unimpeded speech,” YAL member and owner of three church-going handguns, Martin Sarwark, admitted that this description was mostly for show. “What we’re really trying to do here is show how the Founding Fathers–yeah, I said Fathers; come at me, feminazis–intended free speech to be used when they wrote the Constitution. And it’s common knowledge that what they wanted was a bunch of people yelling at each other, forever.”
These ideals were not met at the meeting, however, as every opportunity for discussion only resulted in the attending students sharing their positive opinions of others.
“This could not have gone worse” said Sarwark. “They all completely missed the point… [this was] an opportunity [for people] to use their free speech as a vehicle for developing all the ways they disagree with one another. People don’t know how to do that anymore. We’re trying to break down the echo chambers, not reinforce them with affection. Just awful.”
This veritable flood of goodwill occurred despite the fact that YAL attempted to stir up discontent with leading questions, such as “What makes you angriest?” (To which a member of the crowd shouted: “When I don’t see my best friend Marcus every day. You light up my life, bro!”) and “What’s wrong with the world today?” (“The world just doesn’t appreciate Beverly enough. She’s the best!” “No, you’re the best!” “No, you’re the best!” etc.).
The most remarkable twist came later, when the members of the crowd were asked who they had voted for in the 2016 presidential election and why. Every single person signed up on the speakers list had written in “Henry T. Yang” on their ballot.