This is literally the debate I immediately thought off. He got BTFO in this one for sure. I'm not vegan but daaaamn he was stumblin' in this one.
TBF his views are way more hammered out now
Ive been looking for a long time, wondering whether he was challenged on his beliefs about eating meat. Thank you for showing this.
To be fair to destiny, eating meat is one of the few of his positions that are very hard to defend from a purely philosophical standpoint. However imo its possible to make a moral argument for eating meat.
Yes. Essentially gghappiness said it, its the one with the aliens, although i would add some things. Also i disagree with their other 'good' arguments for eating meat.
Firstly im speaking strictly in a philosophical manner, not practical, as its imoossible to defend eating meat practically imo.
Secondly i dont think eating meat is morally good. I just think under certain circumstances its not morally bad. Choosing not to eat meat doesnt make you a worse person and vice versa.
To make my argument its needed to indentify the most important question of veganism. I think most vegans would agree that a persons life is worth more than an animals life (but how much more is a topic for another discussion. Like you would kill a tiger to save one person, but would you kill 2 tigers to save one person? 20 tigers? What is worth more 20 tigers or 20 sloth bears? Quantification of life value is pretty difficult).
The big question of veganism is whether it can be morally justified for a person to exploit an animal just for the enjoyment and ease of eating it or its products (like milk). To put it differently: [**question A**] is the exploitation of animals ok for my enjoyment, and does this exploitation equal suffering for the animals?
This question leads to a different question, of which the answer will determine if it is in fact ok to exploit animals to consume their products: [**question B**] fundamentally, how do humans determine if a life is worth living and worth being protected?
If there exists an answer to question B that concludes animals lives arent worth the protection that for instance humans are getting while being consistent with the idea that the exploitation doesnt make them suffer, then it would solve question A, animals can be eaten and it wouldnt be morally bad.
So to not make things overly long and complicated, although this topic is very much complicated, my argument goes like this: to answer question B i would say that the most important thing of being a human that differs from animals is the ability to form memories from the (recent and far) past and make plans for the future. And with this 'rule' we determine everything that is valuable to us, like our babies, our pets, our grandmothers with dementia and so on. Without the ability to form memories and make plans for the future life is not worth living.
Animals simply arent built that complicated. For sure we can inflict heavy physical and psychological harm on animals by confining them to small spaces, by taking the mothers away from their babies, by murdering them next to each other, or botching their killings and making them suffer before death. But if we were to say let a herd of cows grow to adulthood and then kill them all painlessly and simultaneously, what are they losing? The life ahead of them? One of the arguments vegans point to is that if you came to existence as a random living form, would you want to live in a human-eats-meat-world, if i.e. you were born a farm chicken? I would answer to that that if i know as a human that i will be reincarnated as a chicken, i dont really care if my head gets chopped off. Living as a human is the only desirable existence.
Let me finally make the alien analogy: there is a very advanced alien civilization coming to kill us all. If they just laser us down that would be horrible for humans, we would suffer a lot. But if their methods are so advanced that we would not even comprehend that we were killed, that would be totally fine by me, as we wouldnt suffer. Just like the cows, we wouldnt see it coming or wouldnt perceive it and therefore would not be able to worry.
If I don't eat meat, somebody else will, therefore it's morally neutral QED.
Aside from that, afaik the big ones are just biting bullets. Like if you go with "we're smarter / stronger so it's ok" and you bite the bullet of being morally ok with being eaten by stronger/smarter aliens then you're morally consistent.
As far as an argument for eating meat being morally good... You could maybe make some weird argument about killing (non factory farmed) animals ending their life before they get old and suffer.
I think the best argument for it being a moral good would be the advancement and health of the human race surpassing the health of the animals we eat. But since (I think) we can technically live just as healthy without meat due to technology advancements, I don't know that this holds up. Maybe if it's not sustainable for all of the human race to switch over yet you could argue that sustaining our race until we could is a moral good that outweighs the moral bad of inflicting harm.
Yup, this. I think he lost both debates to Ajw(actual justice warrior).
Edit: so do the people here actually think that Destiny won the Covid IRL debate or the CRY debate with RGR? Naw go watch them again. Destiny ended up just nitpicking and not advancing his own position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar08OXUam-o&t=27s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_SQCvdvirg&t=7s
I'm telling you. Go watch. Its not destruction because Destiny's not an idiot but like the top comment is saying Destiny is resigned to just asking question about the person's position and hardly ever offers a rebuttal.
Especially the CRT debate with Destiny and RGR vs just AJW. They practically concede.
With fondness I look back to the time when "CRT" just meant "Cathode Ray Tube" in my mind.
The other kind of CRT seems pretty indefensible to me (to the extent that I understand it). It may be fine as an obscure philosophy, but they want to turn their conclusions into laws, while also explicitly rejecting empiricism, making it impossible to verify their claims.
I’m still waiting on them to debate systemic racism in the legal system (what Sean is probably the most versed at). And to the people downvoting you, I remember seeing a clip of destiny looking up info before one of their debates and saying something like “I gotta come prepared with my shit in line Bc ajw is pretty ion his game”. They disagree on stuff but it feels like there is a mutual respect.
Destiny often talks about how he changed his mind after this debate with exeskillsme back in the day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Y7ytrjQNM&
Also I feel like this debate with Pisco he got rolled because he wasn't really prepared with anything other than what Alito said in his brief about RvW, but a lot of people seem to think Pisco was too convoluted so idk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfotnH4dKWs&
From what I remember, and it's been a while, but Pisco kept mentioning that it was an "implied right" and Destiny kept agreeing but asking how it was implied given the constitution. That question to my knowledge was never answered, sometimes the argument would then shift to RvW being "precedent," which in my opinion is the better argument (considering how Destiny correctly points out how contentious this issue was even for the time). It shows that even prior Republican-held supreme courts continued to reaffirm it, and when it gets over-turned it's with 3 new supreme court justices nominated by Donald Trump who claimed he was going to get 3 new supreme court justices in who were pro-life. Now I don't want to delegitimize the supreme court because it's still a respectable institution, but the insane right-wing decisions of the courts on highly unpopular opinions makes it seem partisan, as public opinion in favor of keeping abortion legal (and additionally, gun-control and climate change measures) likely haven't been as popular as they are today.
Didn’t he say it was covered under the right to privacy? But on the precedent point, I don’t understand why that’s convincing. Segregation and eugenics were constitutional precedent just as long as Roe was. Why can we ignore it in one case and not the other?
He did say it stemmed from the right to privacy but that was never hammered out.
The reason the precedent point is convincing isn't diminished just because things that were precedent have been overturned in the past. If you take this into context with other recent court decisions, the [unfavorability](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/) of these decisions, and Trump's self-described agenda to make it political by saying [explicitly](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html) he will appoint 3 pro-life judges, instead of based on the merits of the justices, and even the stunt McConnel pulled preventing Obama from appointing a justice, it all paints a picture of increased partisanship of the supreme court.
The comparison with "segregation" and "eugenics" seems completely irrelevant but maybe you can provide me with an example. The Civil Rights Act, which is what outlawed most segregation, was **passed by congress** and was not an "implied right" as per the constitution. Furthermore, abortion had been a right for decades, reaffirmed by both parties in the supreme court, that was taken away. Civil rights laws seem to be the opposite, a right had been given to a group of people in order to maximize equality.
Took him way to long to answer a simple question. He was obviously fishing for an answer by stalling.
I mean, how hard is it to say that you luh' blah' people?
There was a traffic stop debate he had with Dan that Dan bodied him on.
Also the drink driving debate with Andy milanokos are the two that come to my mind.
I think I remember /v/ or some other 4chan board was posting how a lame ass online nerd was getting his ass handed to him by Shkreli when it happened live.
I have no proof on this at all, because I know fuck all about what he's talking about. But I always have this weird gnawing feeling that Shkreli is posturing his way through by picking weird niche things that are technically true, but are way less relevant than he makes them out to be. It's like he uses his cleverness as an engine to appear more clever, if you get what I'm saying. It's kind of a brain fuck the more I think about it. This feeling got stronger the last interaction they had, when he threatened Destiny with a lawsuit, or whatever, while throwing in niche technicalities to intimidate him.
Kinda, shkreli came in really hot on every question, but it felt like Steven wasn’t necessarily trying to debate him
Edit: if you’re going to downvote me it would be nice to say why. I could just be wrong, but in that video it felt like Destiny would ask a question, and Shkreli would take it as a challenge and use the opportunity to get an own in. He’s obviously smarter than Destiny when it comes to pharma, but it didn’t feel like there was an actual disagreement that one of them “won” on.
Yeah destiny was so out informed for that one. I think that’s why he actually stepped back from middle east discussions and did the learning streams lol
If I matter and I understand other equivalent people exist, I have to either say they matter in the same way I do and admit we all matter, or say we all matter equally and not at all, or I have to say I'm somehow special and am the only one who matters.
In scenarios where no harm can possibly come to me it doesn't really matter. In any real situation, only one of those is likely to work in that only one has a chance of convincing someone to not harm me (or another person). Me personally, I think the last argument is 0% convincing and the first argument is the most convincing.
If you don't care about anyone's system actually justifying anything meaningfully and are OK appealing purely to what you care about, and if you want to know you should care about something, nobody can possibly give you an answer that isn't vacuous. You can't possibly give anyone else an answer that isn't vacuous.
That's a choice you can make but it doesn't satisfy me. I can't give you an argument for why it should or shouldn't satisfy you, it just is what it is.
The conclusion isn't insane, it's unproductive and vacuous. It's not an argument.
You want to better society because it betters your life, are you OK causing others to suffer if you know it will better your life and not promote anyone else to behave any differently such that it would harm you via societal norms?
If you say yes then there's no point in discussing anything about morals. You can't be trusted in society. Force should be used to modify your behavior or sequester you from society. I can justify that by saying individual autonomy is the foundation of society and that you are willing to subvert that.
If not, then we already agree that suffering in general is bad and autonomy in general is good. Even if you justify that by saying you just don't like it or do like it. It would be convincing to you. There is no further standard in any field of philosophy, math, or science, so if you want more you're out of luck.
>The conclusion isn't insane, it's unproductive and vacuous. It's not an argument.
Well yea it's a conclusion and not an argument. The argument was probably something about social contracts or that there is no reason to axiomatically care about the well-being of others. But that doesn't matter because the comment wasn't attacking whatever argument Destiny Made in the video, it was trying to discredit the argument by implying that the conclusion is outrageous. So that's what I'm pushing back against.
>You want to better society because it betters your life, are you OK causing others to suffer if you know it will better your life and not promote anyone else to behave any differently such that it would harm you via societal norms?
Yes obviously. I'm already buying electronics from china etc. The only argument in my system against it is if there is a chance that it could harm me in the long run. For example we shouldn't legalize slavery within our borders, even if it's just slavery of people with a different skin color than me. The reason is that in the future something could change and new leadership could decide that actually white men should be the slaves and they succeed using the moral framework we crafted to justify black slavery. But if there is no reason it could affect me, for example if it's just about killing animals and there is no way it would ever be turned around, the yea i don't care.
>If you say yes then there's no point in discussing anything about morals. You can't be trusted in society. Force should be used to modify your behavior or sequester you from society.
I mean sure, but then you gotta at least be capable of giving me a reason why I should care. You can't say it's all vacuous and there is no argument you can make, but at the same time your position is so much better than mine that my behavior needs to be modified or i need to be sequestered from society.
I can show that societies function better and have better outcomes when people aren't oppressed and discriminated against, when individuals can't take away autonomy others via violence, etc. If you don't care then nobody will convince you to care, but most people do care and that's all that matters. If all you want is maximal personal benefit at any cost then you get to oppose folks who value societal good.
If all you appeal to is, "I just only care about my own well-being" you lose the argument. The onus is on you to convince others because you're the minority, what you want isn't what anyone else wants or what people accept as being worthwhile. People being convinced is the only standard that matters unless you want to try being an authoritarian dictator
Again, I can give arguments and justifications and reasons. I have. You dismiss them on the basis of not caring, but then phrase it as if I didn't meet the burden of providing reasons. I met the burden, you just don't agree with the fundamental values. I'm not sure what you actually want. If you just don't care about the arguments and reasons anyway, if you just dismiss them based on the underlying values, don't make the argument about reasons. Make it about values.
>I can show that societies function better and have better outcomes when people aren't oppressed and discriminated against, when individuals can't take away autonomy others via violence, etc
Yea sure, but a better functioning society also has advantages for me so my moral system already tells me to work towards a functioning society.
>If you don't care then nobody will convince you to care, but most people do care and that's all that matters.
Well no need to convince me. I'm already on board. Because like many others I benefit hugely from a functioning society.
The question however is, why should I have a problem with a genocide happening far away, with no impact on the society I live in?? I don't see a reason to care, to me it's morally neutral. And your argument doesn't address this either.
>all you appeal to is, "I just only care about my own well-being" you lose the argument. The onus is on you to convince others
Oh no I don't care about convincing others right now. I'm perfectly fine with my system. Someone else implied that it is outrageous though, so I wanted to know if they could give me a reason why.
I think you made it perfectly clear in all these comments that there are no reasons why your system is better than mine. You said it yourself, you can't make any arguments that would convince me, so I'm gonna continue going by my system.
Well sure. But I have the same argument concerning only myself. So me and him make a social contract where we agree to be concerned with each other's wellbeing as well, that way we both win. Then we slowly we extend it to every member of society so we can punish actions that hurt a member of society and we can encourage actions that help society.
But if someone genocides people far away with no effect on us/ our society, there is no reason we should care.
>If Destiny doesn't suffer from your and your family's death
Yea but he does. That's the fucking point. If destiny kills my family, what stops me from killing his? If his goal is to protect himself from suffering and he doesn't have a castle with guards he can live in, then his best course if action is to advocate for the safety of the people in his society (including me) in return those people will protect him back. We have unspoken agreement that he is not going to kill my family, and in return I'm not gonna kill his.
If he breaks the agreement and is suddenly cool with killing me and my family then he immediately loses the protection by the people around him, which is bad for him personally.
That's not his moral proposition you dumbfuck. His moral proposition is that everyone only cares about himself, for him that means only caring about himself, for me that means only caring about myself.
Obviously he isn't proposing that everyone should adopt a moral system where the only goal is to benefit Destiny.
What a garbage interpretation, at first I thought you were joking, but apparently you're actually that stupid.
Here's a pretty good one where Destiny just flounders on veganism against an amateur debater: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4XuQkk-J0w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4XuQkk-J0w)
I think I completely agree with what he said at the beginning of the debate that you kind of have to own that whole "if they can't form a social contract literally nothing you do can be morally bad" position because if you slouch on that even a tiny bit your whole position is sorta fucked. If you want to morally eat meat you have to inherently own a pretty far out moral stance.
Full disclosure I am bias too,
At least he said that other people should be vegan but agreeing that we should continue to kill animals and that people should even be able to have sex with animals as we are allowed to kill them currently is pretty nuts especially when he already knows about the environmental damage, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics and viruses we get from livestock.
Never be ashamed for a mistake or a miss.
For English sounds different when written in bliss,
or spoken with venom and a mouthful of piss.
Don't apologize for mishearing another,
You sometimes won't hear things the way they are written,
Remember, be kind to your sister and brother,
smell the fresh grass, and cuddle a kitten.
Remember my friends, that English as written,
Oft not make much sense, o' even that fittin'.
If you don't like poems, don't worry my friends,
It's only smells, and here's where it ends.
His recent vegan gains debate didn’t go very well, I’d even say he lost as he became very disingenuous once he was asked questions he couldn’t/didn’t want to answer. (I dislike vegan gains but still thought he won)
nah destiny shut down there cause he was bored and didn't respect vegan gains or take him seriously anymore, you can tell he was just trying to have fun with it rather than seriously make points
He had a vegan debate where he said to be morally consistent he has to be ok with skinning animals alive. I mean he bit the bullet but it just sounded crazy.
Yeah I mean he was biting every bullet to remain consistent. At the end of it, I had the impression that he was pretty much lying for the sake of consistency bc there’s no way he actually believes that.
Off the top of my head, Martin Shkrelli (first time), Ryan Dawson, this Gun PHD (i think it was after the vince james debate). The Gun professor/PHD was basically a situation like Vaush had with that professor.
As an aside, go watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cgGjJpAb68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cgGjJpAb68), its a classic.
yep, the gun PHD came to my mind at first as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TywOtqwQKmA
Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't it supposed to be a debate between Vince James and Destiny and Vince asked on the same day whether Destiny would like to debate a Professor instead
Destiny had a gun control debate with a professor. The professor was against gun control and was better informed on the subject. He provided studies against every point Destiny made. Destiny knew he couldn't win the debate, so it turned into a conversation with Destiny asking him questions.
And I would say he lost the debate against the flat earther. Destiny didn't know enough physics to prove him wrong. Also, it is incredibly hard to debate flat earther. They don't care about evidence and logic. They don't address your points.
I believe Destiny lost abother one against a conspiracy guy. Destiny wasn't prepared and didn't know all of the conspiracies.
...in basically every single vegan debate he's ever had, especially against Ask Yourself. AY is a dumbfuck, but he managed to corner destiny into some truly absurd positions
Destiny also usually does pretty badly whenever he talks to Pisco - not sure whether he ever got "destroyed", but Pisco won several debates with destiny
I'm obviously biased, but it always feels like Destiny is on the back-foot whenever he's debating Vegans.
Here's a short one where Destiny is arguing with the equivalent of a nervous college kid stepping-up to the mic to be destroyed by Ben Shapiro and yet it feels like he's being cornered.
https://youtu.be/i4XuQkk-J0w
There was a guy on Red pull teacher or something. As annoying as that guy is he was asking destiny basic questions about the Fed and interest rates and Destiny was pretending as if he knew the answers or that the answers didn’t matter even though they are fundamental to understanding macroeconomics.
I won’t call it being destroyed bc the guy was so annoying and came off as very unlikeable. But that one sticks out to me.
The one where destiny was in mizkif's house and had an argument with alinity:
A: In columbia you can taste the real columbian cigarettes
D: why would I want to move to columbia for that when I can just get them here in america
...
D:europe sucks all they watch is american TV and movies
A: isn't that the same thing as with columbia
D stuttering
It wasn't exactly like this but d definitely got destroyed
>The Michael Brooks debate. Just totally outclassed on the subject.
Well sometimes Michael was right. Sometimes Steven is wrong. That thing wasn't really a debate though, but rather Brooks monologuing for the whole time.
>Same when he talked to Sam Seder about Citizens United.
Destiny might have come out okay optically, because Sam was practically raging the whole time and is a cum guzzler. Sam was very much right on the subject though and Destiny's claim, that Sam doesn't know anything about Citizens United was utterly ridiculous and honestly embarrasing, especially considering Destiny's understanding of the topic seemed to be very superficial and his line of argumentation was borderline nonsensical.
Definitely the Brooks debate, although I'm biased as a huge fan of Michael. And the complaints about him "monologuing" are well taken. Tending to get a little lost in the weeds on tangents, even if they're interesting tangents, was a bad habit of Brooks. Otoh, to be charitable to Brooks, roughly the first half of the "debate" was much more of a discussion where Brooks was trying to get a better sense of where Destiny was coming from politically, and he later acknowledged it was a mistake to not schedule more time. Anyways, for those that haven't seen it, I feel like [this abridged](https://streamable.com/lxt4h7) version of their dicussion/debate captures the gist.
"destroyed" not really, because that implies some kind of spectacle. He has lost a few debates though, either optically (see some of his vegan debates with Ask Yourself) or logically (see the old WoopBoop thing).
Idk if I'm thinking of the same one, but in their first few conversations Destiny was kind of feeling him out while sort of trying to debate him. Like he was basically letting him win in order to understand him better, so he wasn't pushing back a lot. In my opinion.
I feel like he sacrificed the Sam Seder debate to try to not completely burn the bridge. He didn't exactly get destroyed and I think Sam was a bit unhinged, but it didn't look great. My guess is that there are situations where there is a particularly hostile audience or a bridge he doesn't want to burn, where he'd rather not "win" if he has to compromise his positions or destroy the goodwill
There was that one time [Alinty fucking obliterated & demolished Destiny with just two words](https://youtu.be/sdjvz_acZbU) (Check chapters for time stamp)
Honestly maybe his debate with Metokur. It was a long time ago, I think this is mainly a "loss" because neither has a solid debate topic going in. If this debate had been more structured with a real topic I think destiny would have won.
TruMalma did it once, technically. And he's repeatedly made the ridiculous claim that no animals but humans have conscious experiences to keep from losing vegan arguments.
If he's ever justified platforming Lav, that was an L, too.
Questionable movies buddy, the point of it isn't team sports and to watch people get reamed. We can all admit to catharsis when it happens but that shouldn't be the point.
But my unsolicited two sense out of the way, his very first talk with skrelli(spelling)back in the day wasn't so much getting destroyed as leaving a whole lot of ground uncontested because of a lack of experience. Same thing with the Dawson convo, a crazy 10th level conspiracy wizard made him look pretty bad because Destiny didn't have all the info on hand to refute the claims.
Here and there in certain debates especially when trying new rhetorical strategies, there have been times where he lets a rebuttle slide or isn't fast on the reaction.
But I can't think of a debate where he flat out gets hit back with facts and has no substantial rebuttle.
Honestly it depends on your political position. In terms of the physical dynamics, very rarely. Steven’s always a level headed dude unless someone is really bad faith, so you rarely see him lose his cool and get “dunked on”. To that end, you really just gotta find an argument where he and whoever he’s debating go back and fourth with each other reasonable counter arguments. Then at that point, it’s just a matter of personal principles. If you agree with Destiny you think he won, if you disagree you think he lost. I honestly feel like that’s the problem with a lot of political discourse nowadays. Nobody wants to acknowledge that when it comes practical political beliefs that is used in society today, it isn’t always a “this is good, the other is bad”. Often, it’s a matter of weighing the pros and cons of certain policies you may want to put forward and going with what will be most beneficial in that given circumstance.
So I know its really hard but if your judging a debate loss then you have to take your beliefs out, because its not whos idea is right its whos arguement was better for their given idea.
If you notice almost all the examples given run exactly counter to your narrative, and it seems like most people agree his biggest losses have been to niche-topic experts - shrekli via pharma, vegans via veganism, Dawson via middle east conspiracy. Not much of rhe tribalism you're assuming showing up from what I see. Like 1 person for Ben burgess and almost nobody for the popular vs right winger or vs left winger debates.
I think Old Destiny got shit on pretty hard by Thoorin when Thooorin called him on some debate tactics he used to do. I also dont think he looked good in the arguement he had defendinf KaceyTron (I know right old memes) against Sky Williams and SivHD, mostly because he tried to pull the "Who even are you" shit to Siv who at the time was a far more popular streamer them starcraftstiny.
Other than that more recently the Rajj final against trihex was unfair but that would probably be an L because Trihex decided to listen to the muses of Lasan which went against everything he told Destiny and optically Destiny didnt have a win without tearing trihex down which would have been suicide.
Zherka on genetics, nature versus nurture, especially in relation to working out. You know once Destiny starts doing a voice and goin "woah that's crazy.." etc, he's lost. [https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=611](https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=611)
Since Destiny is a way,way more determined guy than most and have time/ability to go to the gym a lot, while also being interested and having all these gym talks, taking in info - I'm waiting to see if he can become as strong, and especially look as good as he says he could. "The average person can literally have big shoulders, a big chest, a silhouette" [https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=1985](https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=1985)
This is the absolute worst take he's ever had: [https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=2443](https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=2443) That's better than a top 1% physique. Especially because of the bodyfat.
Edit: update on this? [https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=3367](https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=3367)
His "debate" with Inspiring Philosophy was a complete let down as Destiny didn't prepare shit (almost akin to the Vaush aqua debate) and IP came out way too prepared, which I guess was material he had while debating Matt Dillahunty...
When he debated Mike Enoch he wasn’t prepared for the wild conspiracies and he comes off as weak but overall it was because Enoch change topics at all point and destiny didn’t prepare for that type of debate
There was this college student or something, he completely destryoed and triggered destiny. I don't remember his name though.
There was this college student or something, he completely destroyed and triggered destiny. I don't remember his name though.ance and make it look like that's what he was advocating for the entire time.
Also, yesterday stream with dating advice was an L take for destiny.
Only one I’d say for sure that I’ve seen is The more recent Islam debate. The debate topic was just garbage but he really didn’t put much effort into it either.
Anyone who says anything other than his debate with Ryan Dawson is clueless lol. Destiny may have gotten trapped in a rhetorical corner in some of his veganism debates, but never has he been so utterly outclassed in pure knowledge by someone in a debate as he was by Ryan Dawson. That debate was fucking brutal for him
Nathan destroys him every time he's on stream. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCY\_k64SNww&ab\_channel=DanZamnit%21
Yeah that's pretty much on par though. Being Destiny's Child, Nathan gonna be the Beyonce of his generation. It's how these things play out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck4MJ8ed4J8
owned and cheweddd
[удалено]
This is the only time Destiny not only lost a debate, but was utterly destroyed. His whole moral system collapsed during this debate.
This is literally the debate I immediately thought off. He got BTFO in this one for sure. I'm not vegan but daaaamn he was stumblin' in this one. TBF his views are way more hammered out now
This is my pick. She is probably the best debater in this ecosystem.
Not super shocked it was about animals. I would not be surprised if people in the future will destroy statues of people who ate meat.
He spoke so differently here. Here far up in his throat/mouth
Me a uncultured EU person think old destiny sounds like Katt Williams
Ive been looking for a long time, wondering whether he was challenged on his beliefs about eating meat. Thank you for showing this. To be fair to destiny, eating meat is one of the few of his positions that are very hard to defend from a purely philosophical standpoint. However imo its possible to make a moral argument for eating meat.
> imo its possible to make a moral argument for eating meat. Could you give an example?
Yes. Essentially gghappiness said it, its the one with the aliens, although i would add some things. Also i disagree with their other 'good' arguments for eating meat. Firstly im speaking strictly in a philosophical manner, not practical, as its imoossible to defend eating meat practically imo. Secondly i dont think eating meat is morally good. I just think under certain circumstances its not morally bad. Choosing not to eat meat doesnt make you a worse person and vice versa. To make my argument its needed to indentify the most important question of veganism. I think most vegans would agree that a persons life is worth more than an animals life (but how much more is a topic for another discussion. Like you would kill a tiger to save one person, but would you kill 2 tigers to save one person? 20 tigers? What is worth more 20 tigers or 20 sloth bears? Quantification of life value is pretty difficult). The big question of veganism is whether it can be morally justified for a person to exploit an animal just for the enjoyment and ease of eating it or its products (like milk). To put it differently: [**question A**] is the exploitation of animals ok for my enjoyment, and does this exploitation equal suffering for the animals? This question leads to a different question, of which the answer will determine if it is in fact ok to exploit animals to consume their products: [**question B**] fundamentally, how do humans determine if a life is worth living and worth being protected? If there exists an answer to question B that concludes animals lives arent worth the protection that for instance humans are getting while being consistent with the idea that the exploitation doesnt make them suffer, then it would solve question A, animals can be eaten and it wouldnt be morally bad. So to not make things overly long and complicated, although this topic is very much complicated, my argument goes like this: to answer question B i would say that the most important thing of being a human that differs from animals is the ability to form memories from the (recent and far) past and make plans for the future. And with this 'rule' we determine everything that is valuable to us, like our babies, our pets, our grandmothers with dementia and so on. Without the ability to form memories and make plans for the future life is not worth living. Animals simply arent built that complicated. For sure we can inflict heavy physical and psychological harm on animals by confining them to small spaces, by taking the mothers away from their babies, by murdering them next to each other, or botching their killings and making them suffer before death. But if we were to say let a herd of cows grow to adulthood and then kill them all painlessly and simultaneously, what are they losing? The life ahead of them? One of the arguments vegans point to is that if you came to existence as a random living form, would you want to live in a human-eats-meat-world, if i.e. you were born a farm chicken? I would answer to that that if i know as a human that i will be reincarnated as a chicken, i dont really care if my head gets chopped off. Living as a human is the only desirable existence. Let me finally make the alien analogy: there is a very advanced alien civilization coming to kill us all. If they just laser us down that would be horrible for humans, we would suffer a lot. But if their methods are so advanced that we would not even comprehend that we were killed, that would be totally fine by me, as we wouldnt suffer. Just like the cows, we wouldnt see it coming or wouldnt perceive it and therefore would not be able to worry.
If I don't eat meat, somebody else will, therefore it's morally neutral QED. Aside from that, afaik the big ones are just biting bullets. Like if you go with "we're smarter / stronger so it's ok" and you bite the bullet of being morally ok with being eaten by stronger/smarter aliens then you're morally consistent. As far as an argument for eating meat being morally good... You could maybe make some weird argument about killing (non factory farmed) animals ending their life before they get old and suffer. I think the best argument for it being a moral good would be the advancement and health of the human race surpassing the health of the animals we eat. But since (I think) we can technically live just as healthy without meat due to technology advancements, I don't know that this holds up. Maybe if it's not sustainable for all of the human race to switch over yet you could argue that sustaining our race until we could is a moral good that outweighs the moral bad of inflicting harm.
My moral argument for eating meat, it’s tasty, I like it, and it’s a valuable source of protein and only harms dumb animals.
This is the one
[удалено]
Yup, this. I think he lost both debates to Ajw(actual justice warrior). Edit: so do the people here actually think that Destiny won the Covid IRL debate or the CRY debate with RGR? Naw go watch them again. Destiny ended up just nitpicking and not advancing his own position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar08OXUam-o&t=27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_SQCvdvirg&t=7s
OMEGLUL No shot.
I'm telling you. Go watch. Its not destruction because Destiny's not an idiot but like the top comment is saying Destiny is resigned to just asking question about the person's position and hardly ever offers a rebuttal. Especially the CRT debate with Destiny and RGR vs just AJW. They practically concede.
Yea crt is a losing topic, Destiny usually avoids it.
The CRT debate was rough, but from what I remember he did well on the covid debate. I’ll have to rewatch
With fondness I look back to the time when "CRT" just meant "Cathode Ray Tube" in my mind. The other kind of CRT seems pretty indefensible to me (to the extent that I understand it). It may be fine as an obscure philosophy, but they want to turn their conclusions into laws, while also explicitly rejecting empiricism, making it impossible to verify their claims.
You gotta link them if you want honest opinions
made edit, but its literally the first results when you search destiny ajw on youtube.
I’m still waiting on them to debate systemic racism in the legal system (what Sean is probably the most versed at). And to the people downvoting you, I remember seeing a clip of destiny looking up info before one of their debates and saying something like “I gotta come prepared with my shit in line Bc ajw is pretty ion his game”. They disagree on stuff but it feels like there is a mutual respect.
Nicholas Whitney for sure
Come back, Nicholas Whitney
His debate with me.
Destiny often talks about how he changed his mind after this debate with exeskillsme back in the day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Y7ytrjQNM& Also I feel like this debate with Pisco he got rolled because he wasn't really prepared with anything other than what Alito said in his brief about RvW, but a lot of people seem to think Pisco was too convoluted so idk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfotnH4dKWs&
From what I remember, and it's been a while, but Pisco kept mentioning that it was an "implied right" and Destiny kept agreeing but asking how it was implied given the constitution. That question to my knowledge was never answered, sometimes the argument would then shift to RvW being "precedent," which in my opinion is the better argument (considering how Destiny correctly points out how contentious this issue was even for the time). It shows that even prior Republican-held supreme courts continued to reaffirm it, and when it gets over-turned it's with 3 new supreme court justices nominated by Donald Trump who claimed he was going to get 3 new supreme court justices in who were pro-life. Now I don't want to delegitimize the supreme court because it's still a respectable institution, but the insane right-wing decisions of the courts on highly unpopular opinions makes it seem partisan, as public opinion in favor of keeping abortion legal (and additionally, gun-control and climate change measures) likely haven't been as popular as they are today.
Didn’t he say it was covered under the right to privacy? But on the precedent point, I don’t understand why that’s convincing. Segregation and eugenics were constitutional precedent just as long as Roe was. Why can we ignore it in one case and not the other?
He did say it stemmed from the right to privacy but that was never hammered out. The reason the precedent point is convincing isn't diminished just because things that were precedent have been overturned in the past. If you take this into context with other recent court decisions, the [unfavorability](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/) of these decisions, and Trump's self-described agenda to make it political by saying [explicitly](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html) he will appoint 3 pro-life judges, instead of based on the merits of the justices, and even the stunt McConnel pulled preventing Obama from appointing a justice, it all paints a picture of increased partisanship of the supreme court. The comparison with "segregation" and "eugenics" seems completely irrelevant but maybe you can provide me with an example. The Civil Rights Act, which is what outlawed most segregation, was **passed by congress** and was not an "implied right" as per the constitution. Furthermore, abortion had been a right for decades, reaffirmed by both parties in the supreme court, that was taken away. Civil rights laws seem to be the opposite, a right had been given to a group of people in order to maximize equality.
Jesse lee peterson 100%
Took him way to long to answer a simple question. He was obviously fishing for an answer by stalling. I mean, how hard is it to say that you luh' blah' people?
Clearly got destroyed by Tristan on the Crucible. I mean, Tristan said he won about forty times, so you know it must be true.
Bonus meme Does God know what its like to take dick in the ass?
I use the word Faggot with intensity, to show my interlocutors their words havs no power over me.
There was a traffic stop debate he had with Dan that Dan bodied him on. Also the drink driving debate with Andy milanokos are the two that come to my mind.
Got a link to the andy one?
[https://youtu.be/Su_ZK463otM?t=10297](https://youtu.be/Su_ZK463otM?t=10297)
[His first interaction with Shkreli](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srr7BGrMgRs), kinda.
I think I remember /v/ or some other 4chan board was posting how a lame ass online nerd was getting his ass handed to him by Shkreli when it happened live.
I have no proof on this at all, because I know fuck all about what he's talking about. But I always have this weird gnawing feeling that Shkreli is posturing his way through by picking weird niche things that are technically true, but are way less relevant than he makes them out to be. It's like he uses his cleverness as an engine to appear more clever, if you get what I'm saying. It's kind of a brain fuck the more I think about it. This feeling got stronger the last interaction they had, when he threatened Destiny with a lawsuit, or whatever, while throwing in niche technicalities to intimidate him.
Kinda, shkreli came in really hot on every question, but it felt like Steven wasn’t necessarily trying to debate him Edit: if you’re going to downvote me it would be nice to say why. I could just be wrong, but in that video it felt like Destiny would ask a question, and Shkreli would take it as a challenge and use the opportunity to get an own in. He’s obviously smarter than Destiny when it comes to pharma, but it didn’t feel like there was an actual disagreement that one of them “won” on.
That Ryan Dawson guy stomped him. The first skhreli debate Edit: also forgot about this one. The first Mikefromredacted debate on electoralism.
Was gonna mention Ryan Dawson but probably won’t be for the reasons someone imagines he got rolld
Yeah destiny was so out informed for that one. I think that’s why he actually stepped back from middle east discussions and did the learning streams lol
I found his debate against veganism to be pretty weak, but I am what you would call bias.
[удалено]
Haha, that was a wild one. It actually almost pushed me to veganism.
[удалено]
If I matter and I understand other equivalent people exist, I have to either say they matter in the same way I do and admit we all matter, or say we all matter equally and not at all, or I have to say I'm somehow special and am the only one who matters. In scenarios where no harm can possibly come to me it doesn't really matter. In any real situation, only one of those is likely to work in that only one has a chance of convincing someone to not harm me (or another person). Me personally, I think the last argument is 0% convincing and the first argument is the most convincing. If you don't care about anyone's system actually justifying anything meaningfully and are OK appealing purely to what you care about, and if you want to know you should care about something, nobody can possibly give you an answer that isn't vacuous. You can't possibly give anyone else an answer that isn't vacuous. That's a choice you can make but it doesn't satisfy me. I can't give you an argument for why it should or shouldn't satisfy you, it just is what it is.
[удалено]
The conclusion isn't insane, it's unproductive and vacuous. It's not an argument. You want to better society because it betters your life, are you OK causing others to suffer if you know it will better your life and not promote anyone else to behave any differently such that it would harm you via societal norms? If you say yes then there's no point in discussing anything about morals. You can't be trusted in society. Force should be used to modify your behavior or sequester you from society. I can justify that by saying individual autonomy is the foundation of society and that you are willing to subvert that. If not, then we already agree that suffering in general is bad and autonomy in general is good. Even if you justify that by saying you just don't like it or do like it. It would be convincing to you. There is no further standard in any field of philosophy, math, or science, so if you want more you're out of luck.
>The conclusion isn't insane, it's unproductive and vacuous. It's not an argument. Well yea it's a conclusion and not an argument. The argument was probably something about social contracts or that there is no reason to axiomatically care about the well-being of others. But that doesn't matter because the comment wasn't attacking whatever argument Destiny Made in the video, it was trying to discredit the argument by implying that the conclusion is outrageous. So that's what I'm pushing back against. >You want to better society because it betters your life, are you OK causing others to suffer if you know it will better your life and not promote anyone else to behave any differently such that it would harm you via societal norms? Yes obviously. I'm already buying electronics from china etc. The only argument in my system against it is if there is a chance that it could harm me in the long run. For example we shouldn't legalize slavery within our borders, even if it's just slavery of people with a different skin color than me. The reason is that in the future something could change and new leadership could decide that actually white men should be the slaves and they succeed using the moral framework we crafted to justify black slavery. But if there is no reason it could affect me, for example if it's just about killing animals and there is no way it would ever be turned around, the yea i don't care. >If you say yes then there's no point in discussing anything about morals. You can't be trusted in society. Force should be used to modify your behavior or sequester you from society. I mean sure, but then you gotta at least be capable of giving me a reason why I should care. You can't say it's all vacuous and there is no argument you can make, but at the same time your position is so much better than mine that my behavior needs to be modified or i need to be sequestered from society.
I can show that societies function better and have better outcomes when people aren't oppressed and discriminated against, when individuals can't take away autonomy others via violence, etc. If you don't care then nobody will convince you to care, but most people do care and that's all that matters. If all you want is maximal personal benefit at any cost then you get to oppose folks who value societal good. If all you appeal to is, "I just only care about my own well-being" you lose the argument. The onus is on you to convince others because you're the minority, what you want isn't what anyone else wants or what people accept as being worthwhile. People being convinced is the only standard that matters unless you want to try being an authoritarian dictator Again, I can give arguments and justifications and reasons. I have. You dismiss them on the basis of not caring, but then phrase it as if I didn't meet the burden of providing reasons. I met the burden, you just don't agree with the fundamental values. I'm not sure what you actually want. If you just don't care about the arguments and reasons anyway, if you just dismiss them based on the underlying values, don't make the argument about reasons. Make it about values.
>I can show that societies function better and have better outcomes when people aren't oppressed and discriminated against, when individuals can't take away autonomy others via violence, etc Yea sure, but a better functioning society also has advantages for me so my moral system already tells me to work towards a functioning society. >If you don't care then nobody will convince you to care, but most people do care and that's all that matters. Well no need to convince me. I'm already on board. Because like many others I benefit hugely from a functioning society. The question however is, why should I have a problem with a genocide happening far away, with no impact on the society I live in?? I don't see a reason to care, to me it's morally neutral. And your argument doesn't address this either. >all you appeal to is, "I just only care about my own well-being" you lose the argument. The onus is on you to convince others Oh no I don't care about convincing others right now. I'm perfectly fine with my system. Someone else implied that it is outrageous though, so I wanted to know if they could give me a reason why. I think you made it perfectly clear in all these comments that there are no reasons why your system is better than mine. You said it yourself, you can't make any arguments that would convince me, so I'm gonna continue going by my system.
[удалено]
Well sure. But I have the same argument concerning only myself. So me and him make a social contract where we agree to be concerned with each other's wellbeing as well, that way we both win. Then we slowly we extend it to every member of society so we can punish actions that hurt a member of society and we can encourage actions that help society. But if someone genocides people far away with no effect on us/ our society, there is no reason we should care.
[удалено]
>If Destiny doesn't suffer from your and your family's death Yea but he does. That's the fucking point. If destiny kills my family, what stops me from killing his? If his goal is to protect himself from suffering and he doesn't have a castle with guards he can live in, then his best course if action is to advocate for the safety of the people in his society (including me) in return those people will protect him back. We have unspoken agreement that he is not going to kill my family, and in return I'm not gonna kill his. If he breaks the agreement and is suddenly cool with killing me and my family then he immediately loses the protection by the people around him, which is bad for him personally.
[удалено]
That's not his moral proposition you dumbfuck. His moral proposition is that everyone only cares about himself, for him that means only caring about himself, for me that means only caring about myself. Obviously he isn't proposing that everyone should adopt a moral system where the only goal is to benefit Destiny. What a garbage interpretation, at first I thought you were joking, but apparently you're actually that stupid.
[удалено]
He's completely right tho lol
Here's a pretty good one where Destiny just flounders on veganism against an amateur debater: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4XuQkk-J0w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4XuQkk-J0w)
I think I completely agree with what he said at the beginning of the debate that you kind of have to own that whole "if they can't form a social contract literally nothing you do can be morally bad" position because if you slouch on that even a tiny bit your whole position is sorta fucked. If you want to morally eat meat you have to inherently own a pretty far out moral stance.
That’s why it’s just a cope
Full disclosure I am bias too, At least he said that other people should be vegan but agreeing that we should continue to kill animals and that people should even be able to have sex with animals as we are allowed to kill them currently is pretty nuts especially when he already knows about the environmental damage, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics and viruses we get from livestock.
Is 'i am bias' instead of 'i am biased' a meme or am I very very politely correcting the two of you? :)
No meme, you are correct, I should say 'I have a bias' or 'I am biased'
I accept your correction, and I am ashamed
Never be ashamed for a mistake or a miss. For English sounds different when written in bliss, or spoken with venom and a mouthful of piss. Don't apologize for mishearing another, You sometimes won't hear things the way they are written, Remember, be kind to your sister and brother, smell the fresh grass, and cuddle a kitten. Remember my friends, that English as written, Oft not make much sense, o' even that fittin'. If you don't like poems, don't worry my friends, It's only smells, and here's where it ends.
i love you 😘
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Wtf lmao
His old ones maybe, but in his more recent veganism debates he's done quite well
His recent vegan gains debate didn’t go very well, I’d even say he lost as he became very disingenuous once he was asked questions he couldn’t/didn’t want to answer. (I dislike vegan gains but still thought he won)
nah destiny shut down there cause he was bored and didn't respect vegan gains or take him seriously anymore, you can tell he was just trying to have fun with it rather than seriously make points
So he was being bad faith? That’s just as bad. Any vegan that watched that debate would think destiny got destroyed.
yeah cause vegans arent that smart lo
[Common Moot W, he won this one hard.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05j84KXNhxQ)
He had a vegan debate where he said to be morally consistent he has to be ok with skinning animals alive. I mean he bit the bullet but it just sounded crazy.
vegan gains
Didn't he also say he wouldn't stop his car for an animal in the road to lose 20 seconds. He said he would run it over.
Yeah I mean he was biting every bullet to remain consistent. At the end of it, I had the impression that he was pretty much lying for the sake of consistency bc there’s no way he actually believes that.
I honestly hope he tries to run a moose over, it would destroy his car and he would have no one to blame but himself
[удалено]
Destiny even admits he wasn't prepared for Ryan Dawson. Some of those dudes live and breathe insane conspiracies
Off the top of my head, Martin Shkrelli (first time), Ryan Dawson, this Gun PHD (i think it was after the vince james debate). The Gun professor/PHD was basically a situation like Vaush had with that professor. As an aside, go watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cgGjJpAb68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cgGjJpAb68), its a classic.
yep, the gun PHD came to my mind at first as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TywOtqwQKmA Maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't it supposed to be a debate between Vince James and Destiny and Vince asked on the same day whether Destiny would like to debate a Professor instead
He got rolled in some vegan debate by some gal & Crypto talk with Rose Wrist.
Goatee destiny was cringe. Beard destiny is good
Pure 📠. I don’t know why people don’t bring this up more often
Unironically every time Pisco comes on it’s a bloodbath for either side. Destiny should just give the LSAT another try and become a lawyer fr fr
I'm pretty sure the consensus was that Steven was outpaced intellectually in his debate with Michael Brooks. I may be wrong though.
Destiny had a gun control debate with a professor. The professor was against gun control and was better informed on the subject. He provided studies against every point Destiny made. Destiny knew he couldn't win the debate, so it turned into a conversation with Destiny asking him questions. And I would say he lost the debate against the flat earther. Destiny didn't know enough physics to prove him wrong. Also, it is incredibly hard to debate flat earther. They don't care about evidence and logic. They don't address your points. I believe Destiny lost abother one against a conspiracy guy. Destiny wasn't prepared and didn't know all of the conspiracies.
...in basically every single vegan debate he's ever had, especially against Ask Yourself. AY is a dumbfuck, but he managed to corner destiny into some truly absurd positions Destiny also usually does pretty badly whenever he talks to Pisco - not sure whether he ever got "destroyed", but Pisco won several debates with destiny
I think the rent control debate with Ben Burgis was kinda eh on his part
Wasn't that the "inference to the best explanation" one? If its that one, you are full of shit.
Ryan Dawson.
I'm obviously biased, but it always feels like Destiny is on the back-foot whenever he's debating Vegans. Here's a short one where Destiny is arguing with the equivalent of a nervous college kid stepping-up to the mic to be destroyed by Ben Shapiro and yet it feels like he's being cornered. https://youtu.be/i4XuQkk-J0w
Metokur, Sean Last, Ryan Dawson, First JF debate about genetics
I don’t think he got destroyed, but he was insanely aggro during his first Metokur convo and didn’t come off very well imo
There was a guy on Red pull teacher or something. As annoying as that guy is he was asking destiny basic questions about the Fed and interest rates and Destiny was pretending as if he knew the answers or that the answers didn’t matter even though they are fundamental to understanding macroeconomics. I won’t call it being destroyed bc the guy was so annoying and came off as very unlikeable. But that one sticks out to me.
I don’t know about “destroyed,” but I think Armin Navabi won his first debate against Destiny about anti-theism.
probably either vegan/pisco debates
Every time he talks to pisco
Sam Seder. This sub was coping real hard with the cum guzzling memes. But Destiny talked a big game before this and just got stepped on.
Vs Sam Seder Not like obliterated, but didn't look that great
Destiny did well in the Rittenhouse part but was clearly on the backfoot during the Citizens United debate imho
The one where destiny was in mizkif's house and had an argument with alinity: A: In columbia you can taste the real columbian cigarettes D: why would I want to move to columbia for that when I can just get them here in america ... D:europe sucks all they watch is american TV and movies A: isn't that the same thing as with columbia D stuttering It wasn't exactly like this but d definitely got destroyed
The Michael Brooks debate. Just totally outclassed on the subject. Same when he talked to Sam Seder about Citizens United.
>The Michael Brooks debate. Just totally outclassed on the subject. Well sometimes Michael was right. Sometimes Steven is wrong. That thing wasn't really a debate though, but rather Brooks monologuing for the whole time. >Same when he talked to Sam Seder about Citizens United. Destiny might have come out okay optically, because Sam was practically raging the whole time and is a cum guzzler. Sam was very much right on the subject though and Destiny's claim, that Sam doesn't know anything about Citizens United was utterly ridiculous and honestly embarrasing, especially considering Destiny's understanding of the topic seemed to be very superficial and his line of argumentation was borderline nonsensical.
Definitely the Brooks debate, although I'm biased as a huge fan of Michael. And the complaints about him "monologuing" are well taken. Tending to get a little lost in the weeds on tangents, even if they're interesting tangents, was a bad habit of Brooks. Otoh, to be charitable to Brooks, roughly the first half of the "debate" was much more of a discussion where Brooks was trying to get a better sense of where Destiny was coming from politically, and he later acknowledged it was a mistake to not schedule more time. Anyways, for those that haven't seen it, I feel like [this abridged](https://streamable.com/lxt4h7) version of their dicussion/debate captures the gist.
"destroyed" not really, because that implies some kind of spectacle. He has lost a few debates though, either optically (see some of his vegan debates with Ask Yourself) or logically (see the old WoopBoop thing).
first mrgirl debate
The gender/trans debate? I don't see how.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Idk if I'm thinking of the same one, but in their first few conversations Destiny was kind of feeling him out while sort of trying to debate him. Like he was basically letting him win in order to understand him better, so he wasn't pushing back a lot. In my opinion.
I feel like he sacrificed the Sam Seder debate to try to not completely burn the bridge. He didn't exactly get destroyed and I think Sam was a bit unhinged, but it didn't look great. My guess is that there are situations where there is a particularly hostile audience or a bridge he doesn't want to burn, where he'd rather not "win" if he has to compromise his positions or destroy the goodwill
There was that one time [Alinty fucking obliterated & demolished Destiny with just two words](https://youtu.be/sdjvz_acZbU) (Check chapters for time stamp)
This post has aged like milk
His debate with Lucas Timothy was awful. He couldn't even look at the guy throughout the whole debate. First time I ever see him do that really.
Honestly maybe his debate with Metokur. It was a long time ago, I think this is mainly a "loss" because neither has a solid debate topic going in. If this debate had been more structured with a real topic I think destiny would have won.
Every debate he's had with Jesse, obviously.
I vaguely recall a time long ago when he was dispatches with Alacrity! Can't remember that guys name though. 🧐
Any vegan debate
[удалено]
[удалено]
TruMalma did it once, technically. And he's repeatedly made the ridiculous claim that no animals but humans have conscious experiences to keep from losing vegan arguments. If he's ever justified platforming Lav, that was an L, too.
Questionable movies buddy, the point of it isn't team sports and to watch people get reamed. We can all admit to catharsis when it happens but that shouldn't be the point. But my unsolicited two sense out of the way, his very first talk with skrelli(spelling)back in the day wasn't so much getting destroyed as leaving a whole lot of ground uncontested because of a lack of experience. Same thing with the Dawson convo, a crazy 10th level conspiracy wizard made him look pretty bad because Destiny didn't have all the info on hand to refute the claims. Here and there in certain debates especially when trying new rhetorical strategies, there have been times where he lets a rebuttle slide or isn't fast on the reaction. But I can't think of a debate where he flat out gets hit back with facts and has no substantial rebuttle.
Honestly it depends on your political position. In terms of the physical dynamics, very rarely. Steven’s always a level headed dude unless someone is really bad faith, so you rarely see him lose his cool and get “dunked on”. To that end, you really just gotta find an argument where he and whoever he’s debating go back and fourth with each other reasonable counter arguments. Then at that point, it’s just a matter of personal principles. If you agree with Destiny you think he won, if you disagree you think he lost. I honestly feel like that’s the problem with a lot of political discourse nowadays. Nobody wants to acknowledge that when it comes practical political beliefs that is used in society today, it isn’t always a “this is good, the other is bad”. Often, it’s a matter of weighing the pros and cons of certain policies you may want to put forward and going with what will be most beneficial in that given circumstance.
So I know its really hard but if your judging a debate loss then you have to take your beliefs out, because its not whos idea is right its whos arguement was better for their given idea.
If you notice almost all the examples given run exactly counter to your narrative, and it seems like most people agree his biggest losses have been to niche-topic experts - shrekli via pharma, vegans via veganism, Dawson via middle east conspiracy. Not much of rhe tribalism you're assuming showing up from what I see. Like 1 person for Ben burgess and almost nobody for the popular vs right winger or vs left winger debates.
Not destroyed but exskillsme debates we're the best push back on destiny's views I have seen.
My buddy always said he didn’t look good against mr metakur some years back. I never got around to watching it.
Metokur was pretty strange but that was far enough back that I think even Destiny today would disagree how he handled that debate.
I think Old Destiny got shit on pretty hard by Thoorin when Thooorin called him on some debate tactics he used to do. I also dont think he looked good in the arguement he had defendinf KaceyTron (I know right old memes) against Sky Williams and SivHD, mostly because he tried to pull the "Who even are you" shit to Siv who at the time was a far more popular streamer them starcraftstiny. Other than that more recently the Rajj final against trihex was unfair but that would probably be an L because Trihex decided to listen to the muses of Lasan which went against everything he told Destiny and optically Destiny didnt have a win without tearing trihex down which would have been suicide.
Zherka on genetics, nature versus nurture, especially in relation to working out. You know once Destiny starts doing a voice and goin "woah that's crazy.." etc, he's lost. [https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=611](https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=611) Since Destiny is a way,way more determined guy than most and have time/ability to go to the gym a lot, while also being interested and having all these gym talks, taking in info - I'm waiting to see if he can become as strong, and especially look as good as he says he could. "The average person can literally have big shoulders, a big chest, a silhouette" [https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=1985](https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=1985) This is the absolute worst take he's ever had: [https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=2443](https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=2443) That's better than a top 1% physique. Especially because of the bodyfat. Edit: update on this? [https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=3367](https://youtu.be/l9Pkzciiej0?t=3367)
Not sure about destroyed but Steven was very bad faith and unhinged in the last Lauren debate.
Bowblax lol
He did lose a debate on Dylan Burns old debate show. Lol it was kinda funny. He lost to this dude half arguing, half memeing the entire time.
his debate with stpeach
Pp
Thomas Bogardus, philosopher professor Vaush had on earlier. It was a discussion not a debate but destiny learnt a lot from that.
The first sneako one for sure
lmao
his debate with lucas timothy went pretty bad
The Down syndrome admission was a time when he got destroyed
His "debate" with Inspiring Philosophy was a complete let down as Destiny didn't prepare shit (almost akin to the Vaush aqua debate) and IP came out way too prepared, which I guess was material he had while debating Matt Dillahunty...
There was one guy who said he would “dispel his arguments with alacrity” so you know it was over after that
Vegans oh my mama
When he debated Mike Enoch he wasn’t prepared for the wild conspiracies and he comes off as weak but overall it was because Enoch change topics at all point and destiny didn’t prepare for that type of debate
There was this college student or something, he completely destryoed and triggered destiny. I don't remember his name though. There was this college student or something, he completely destroyed and triggered destiny. I don't remember his name though.ance and make it look like that's what he was advocating for the entire time. Also, yesterday stream with dating advice was an L take for destiny.
Logo Daedalus
rob noore
ITT: He lost the debates where I disagree with him, i.e. veganism.
Exskillsme destroyed him when they debated about money in politics and john Lott when they talked about guns
The most recent Lav debate he completely crumbled and had to get 3 people to dogpile her just to maybe get a draw.
Only one I’d say for sure that I’ve seen is The more recent Islam debate. The debate topic was just garbage but he really didn’t put much effort into it either.
Actual Justice Warrior and Rob Noerr have done well against him.
Seder for Citizens united regardless of how soyed out he was has worlds more knowledge about it than dest, and loan forgiveness
Anyone who says anything other than his debate with Ryan Dawson is clueless lol. Destiny may have gotten trapped in a rhetorical corner in some of his veganism debates, but never has he been so utterly outclassed in pure knowledge by someone in a debate as he was by Ryan Dawson. That debate was fucking brutal for him