steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2
622 posts

steelersbyben2 retweetledi

@LEFalconsHoops @MartinRPI You guys illegally recruit and play big dawgs in the regular season and are put in such a weak division for you guys you just roll through it. But “enrollment size” Should definitely be D1 or D2
English

@MartinRPI We appreciate the comparison to Duke😎 if it was easy why are we the first to do it? We know the real reason why you and so many others are mad we are winning and it has nothing to do with basketball. Y’all appreciate us in the regular season but hate us in March smh
English

State Tourney Thoughts
D1: didn’t see any games
D2: Massillon so so impressive. True story of nobody picking them for a D2 title back in November and proving everyone wrong. What a comeback win over Westerville North.
D3: Santino Haney was one of my favorite players to watch this weekend. Trotwood has the best band in the state and I hope they make it to Dayton every year.
D4: Unreal how good Wyoming was. Idk how they lost any games this year.
D5: didn’t see any games
D6: Mark Schlabach has 22.2 wins per season since he started coaching. Guy runs a basketball factory at Hiland. Marion Local 20/43 from the FT line in the last two State Title games (10/25 vs Hiland).
D7: 300 boys basketball coaching wins for Coach Elwer. Cam finishes with 2,768 pts (6th) and a 91-14 record. DSJ one of the only teams this weekend who shot the ball really well. Can they repeat next year without Cam?
Also:
—Going from UD Arena to the Nutter Center is like going from the Taj Mahal to a JC Penney’s. Really hope all games are at UD next year.
—Crazy how differently the game is officiated in early December compared to Regionals & State. Guys were getting away with murder in a lot of games this weekend.
—Lutheran East first ever to 4 straight State Titles and now tied for 2nd most with 7 total. Duke would also win every NCAA Title if they played down in D3 come tourney time🤷🏻♂️

English
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi
steelersbyben2 retweetledi

@OrevaZSN “Phone works both ways.” Get the fuck out my face
English
steelersbyben2 retweetledi

@diced_gold Just take a tolerance break from weed for 2weeks
English
steelersbyben2 retweetledi

Here’s what probably went down. Frank been big chilling hunting and fishing enjoying retirement. They called him on Sunday “hey big dawg you still got snaps in you?” He said yeah then went out Monday to hit some sprints and his hamstring said “I’ll see you in Valhalla.”
Detroit Lions@Lions
Statement from the Detroit Lions
English
steelersbyben2 retweetledi

If you watch Charlie Kirk’s debates, there’s something you’ll see in almost all of them.
It’s easy to miss until it’s pointed out to you, but once you’re aware, you’ll notice every time.
Here’s the pattern I’ve observed:
1. His first mission is to establish clarity.
- Asks his opponent to state their argument
- Asks them to define terms
- If they struggle with either, he offers one to them and asks if it’s FAIR
2. His second (and most important) mission is to find something, no matter how small, on which he can say the magical phrase:
“I AGREE”
Human beings WANT to be agreed with. It’s a fundamental drive.
It establishes rapport, and helps us feel acknowledged and humanized.
Saying “I agree” or “we agree” lowers defenses. Which is THE KEY.
Because once defenses go up, communication stops.
Charlie knew this, and it was one of his biggest strengths and secret weapons.
But he never said it insincerely. That’s why his first step was CLARIFICATION.
In order to find a sincere point of agreement, you have to understand what the other person is trying to say.
This is a known debate tactic. But even though many skilled debaters use it, few wield it in quite the same way as he did.
Why?
Because Charlie wasn’t trying to just WIN.
He was trying to CONVINCE.
He wanted the person across from him to end up BESIDE him.
Humiliation wasn’t the goal. Because a person who is simply humiliated or defeated either doubles down or shuts down and walks away.
Which is why, if you watch, you’ll see how intently Charlie hunts for the moment he can say “I AGREE”… usually even before he begins his counterattack.
He lights up with excitement every time he finds it.
Because he knew that once their perspective was entirely dismantled, they’d find themselves floating in a sea of uncertainty… and he wanted them to have a life ring to hold onto.
One that was tethered to reason, truth, and a person with whom they knew they could AGREE.
Even if only about something small.
It’s how he managed to never close the door on someone.
It’s how he so beautifully built connection during—and even THROUGH—argument.
And it’s something I think we should all notice and study, when we watch him, so that we can do it too.
Real winning is about keeping the focus on what you’re fighting FOR, rather than who you’re fighting against.
Charlie knew that.
It’s become my favorite thing to look for in his debates.
And, the more I see it… the more I feel like it’s the real key to carrying on his legacy, and picking up his mic.

English






















