Is destiny the god of debate?

Is destiny the god of debate?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2nhcLJXtYY4
youtube.com/watch?v=xRHTD0YMfpM
youtube.com/watch?v=-cgGjJpAb68
researchgate.net/publication/294733608_Race_Wealth_and_Incarceration_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Survey_of_Youth
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

will the op ever die painfully
i sure hope so

He’s the god of word salad and muh feelings.

He's okay at it. If we're giving him an honest measurement of intelligence and debate skill, he's roughly as good as the top 1% of Sup Forums. He would murder almost every poster on this board, but that isn't saying much.

If we put him against someone with real debate skills like Ben Shapiro or someone who actually has formal debate experience? He would get crushed.

But he's decent for an internet manchild.

>Andy Warski hates him for being a pedo and won't let him back on

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

his co-host has 7 fucking restraining orders from 7 different women but Warski suddenly has morals when it comes to the guy BTFOing every potential guest on his show

HAHAHAHAHAHA

youtube.com/watch?v=2nhcLJXtYY4

He's the god of faggot manlets

destiny 2 is the god of disappointment

t. Destiny

lol you aren't shit retard

I debated him one time and he was crying like a baby by the end. I told him to prove he isn't a nigger, and he couldn't do it.

Do not reply to spammed troll threads.
Report them and move on.

He it literally an awful debater whos entire strategy is "I dont care, im right"

Yeah I'm Destiny, which is why I said I would get wrecked by any real actual debater. Because I love myself.

You fucking retarded maori nigger faggot.

Post proof or stfu queer boy

is he still b& from twitter?

He's not stupid and can hold his own but a lot of his tactics are really fucking aggravating
>move goalposts constantly
>talk extremely fast and change subject multiple times in a response to confuse opponent
>moral outrage to make his point seem more valid
>constant appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum, "I'm not used to anyone challenging this assertion because it's generally accepted as true," "top economists agree with this so it must be true," etc
>mocking opponent with a retard voice when he's getting his ass handed to him

to be honest, in the debate on Baked Alaska's channel, he did a lot better than anyone else until he cucked on the racial issue.

yes we can only cry and stroke our tiny alt right white cocks while he BTFOs one after another of /ourguys/

I don't agree with his sjw views but you've gotta hand it to him, he btfo'd 6 people one by one.

>6 people one by one.

who

He destroyed all the other retards on that debate
his point was
>guns are fine but I wanna explore options to limit access to people who might potentially be dangerous

vs every other one of those retards autistically screeching about how video games and black people are to blame and we should never do any sort of research into what actually prevents gun violence

that's the story of destiny debating the alt right, presenting ideas too big for their little heads and then when they get down to personal arguments and name calling beating them at that too

well, first off, it was really only James Allsup that was alt right in that event.

Secondly, getting rid of the racial issue in the United States would drop gun crime down as much as 80%. It's not something to overlook.

Seeing as how he's never come even remotely close to winning a debate, I'd have to say no.

youtube.com/watch?v=xRHTD0YMfpM

youtube.com/watch?v=-cgGjJpAb68
the names in the titles

The red elephants dude wasn't alt right? He seemed like it.

>Secondly, getting rid of the racial issue in the United States would drop gun crime down as much as 80%. It's not something to overlook.

That's not how statistics work. You can't just say
>remove black people
and assume no other person of any other race would appear to fill that niche in terms of crime and potential profit. It's just intellectually lazy.

Well, yes, you can, actually. The poorest whites commit less crime than some of the richest blacks.

To suggest that if blacks were to disappear then that crime would be replaced by white crime is absolutely ludicrous. I also never mentioned specifically black people. Hispanics commit disproportionate amounts of gun violence as well.
In no way did Destiny own anyone in this debate, I'm sorry Moshe

Who?

>real debate skills
>Ben Shapiro
You can only pick one

We need a debate of the manlets between Ben Shapiro and Destiny.

>If Destiny wins Ben Shapiro will cry Antisemitism
>If Ben Shapiro wins Destiny will cry for heightism
#DebateOfTheManlets

yes since he has won every single debate he has hosted

>To suggest that if blacks were to disappear then that crime would be replaced by white crime is absolutely ludicrous. I also never mentioned specifically black people. Hispanics commit disproportionate amounts of gun violence as well.
most gun violence is not people going out and shooting people out of spite, you realize that? most gun violence is committed in the process of committing a different sort of crime. So yes, if you removed all blacks and hispanics you would most likely have white people committing crimes like that as well.

>had archnemesis named combatex in sc2
>destiny tryharded all the time and never did anything in sc2, but always speak how he's better then combatex
>combatex stops doing cannon rushes and takes sc2 seriously for a short time
>wins everything that destiny never could
>destiny remains internet looser
>combatex finished his uni and is now engineer somewhere

well nigel if you listen to your circle jerking friends - of course he didn't , they keep saying he was btfo'd all the way. But if you show this debate to an anbiased person, the conclusion is clear.

I don’t count googling “facts” in the middle of FaceTime session as a legitimate debate.

Who?

>Anbiased
FBFP

Listening to his pilpul feels like a grind. He tries to win at all cost and there is no knowledge to gain from his debates. He seems soulless, fake and self absorbed, don't get why he has such a huge fanbase.

>skheli

Whoever he is I could BTFO him without batting an eye

>So yes, if you removed all blacks and hispanics you would most likely have white people committing crimes like that as well.
you wouldn't though

if america was as homogeneity as Japan it would have a similar crime rate

Niggers lack impose control due to their primitive small brains and are responsible for pretty much all crime in the united States from a statistical standpoint, getting rid of niggers would make the united States nearly crime free and no white people wouldn't fill the vacuum. black people are not white people with a different skin color they are a different species entirely

Message him on youtube or twitch and he'll debate you. he literally debates anyone and he agrees to all their terms.

why do whites not do that nearly as much as blacks?
I have seen many arguments like this. It is just the sort of rhetorical technique where you grasp at straws attempting to salvage anything you possibly can. It doesn't work.

The logic that if you remove all minorities in the US, then the lower populated US which has only whites will commit the same amount of crime, is absolutely baseless and wrong. Even in terms of proportions, whites wont magically start to commit 3 times as much crime because there are no minorities.

Additionally, most black gun crime is gang violence. You do not see white gang violence in the US

an unbiased person does not make for a valid judge of a debate. Objective facts do. Him making the point that non-US citizens are arguing about the US, so as to suggest that their views are invalid, is completely illogical.

I'm not a US citizen, yet I think the US should get rid of minorities.

>if america was as homogeneity as Japan it would have a similar crime rate
AHAHAHAHAHA

it would also have the same birth rate and suicide rate, also hilariously small penises

>Niggers lack impose control due to their primitive small brains and are responsible for pretty much all crime in the united States from a statistical standpoint, getting rid of niggers would make the united States nearly crime free and no white people wouldn't fill the vacuum. black people are not white people with a different skin color they are a different species entirely

holy shit

imagine being so racist you can't possibly imagine people facing similar hardships in life, you always have to assume blacks and whites are a galaxy apart

I literally debate people for a living
Why would I waste my time?

404 arguments not found

you're a nigger aren't you? go lay your empty little head on a pillow, it's getting late in bongistan

>it would also have the same birth rate and suicide rate, also hilariously small penises
Horrible analogy. Japan doesn't have small birth rates and high suicide rates because of homogeneity. It has them because of the difficult educational system and work ethic.
Crime is, actually, related to the homogeneity, though.

>imagine being so racist you can't possibly imagine people facing similar hardships in life, you always have to assume blacks and whites are a galaxy apart

imagine being so dense that your only counter-argument is "racist!"

the guys original post had a source of a reddit post i mean you cant ask for proof when yours is a fucking reddit post

...

>Horrible analogy. Japan doesn't have small birth rates and high suicide rates because of homogeneity. It has them because of the difficult educational system and work ethic.
>Crime is, actually, related to the homogeneity, though.
So nuance is allowed when it comes to japs but not blacks and hispanics living in the US?

>imagine being so dense that your only counter-argument is "racist!"

That wasn't my argument, I literally mentioned hardships of life. Poor whites suffer a ton. The shit you said about black people is so cartoony and hilarious I cant help but laugh.

the nuance people give towards hispanics and blacks in the US is their poverty, yet that is untrue, due to the fact that, as I mentioned and you omitted to respond, the poorest whites commit less crime than the richest blacks.

If hardships were to be the cause of blacks living in crime, then it would be the same for poor whites, yet it is clearly not the same. Poor whites commit significantly less crime than poor blacks.

just watch how he acts when he hears the name Ryan Faulk

...

>That wasn't my argument, I literally mentioned hardships of life. Poor whites suffer a ton. The shit you said about black people is so cartoony and hilarious I cant help but laugh.
poor whites suffer a ton yet commit nowhere near the amount of crime poor blacks do. it doesn't even come close.

ergo they're different species. as said before black people aren't white people with different skin. they are a different species.

It's just that alt-right YouTubers are so used to going after low-hanging fruit that they have no idea how to debate someone with decent arguments.

>an unbiased person does not make for a valid judge of a debate. Objective facts do.
You're right. Too bad every public debate that takes place on this matter and every scientist weighing in on it thinks your pleb opinion is unsupported trash.

You're fucked either way. If you go by general public, you lose. If you go by scientists and experts, you lose. The only way to try and claim that the alt right wins public debates is if you ask alt righters who they think won.

Have you actually bothered to check your attached pic? Please reverse image search it. Plz. Link me to the study that pic came from. I'll wait I guess. I really wanna see how you react to the source of that picture.

*pilpuls respectfully toward you*

Put up or shut up faggot.

you don't have to wait.
researchgate.net/publication/294733608_Race_Wealth_and_Incarceration_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Survey_of_Youth

then why is JF, a scientist, not agreeing with you? Or is ad populum and appeal to authority valid logic all of a sudden?

sub 2k andy
OMEGALUL

Anyone you doesn't think he's at the very least DECENT at debating is a retarded little cuck faggot

>He would murder almost every poster on this board

doubtful, maybe he could beat the bottom 50%

...

Your source says it's a meme article from college students citing data from 1979. Do you want me to go over it right now to point out how flawed it is because that would take hours and we know the thread won't be alive by then.

>one outlier exists, so my opinion must be right!

That's cute. I like how you tried to infer scientific consensus as "ad populum" fallacy.

You're legitimately retarded, and you know I'm right. Your "objective facts" don't hold up to scrutiny, and you're trying to say your opinion on what is an "objective fact" is actually objective when it isn't. Which is why right wingers always get rekt in almost 100% of formal public debates.

>then why is JF, a scientist
also to point out how ridiculous this is

JF is not a scientist he's a joke in the scientific community

>UR WRONG REEE

wow so this is the powerr... of....liberal....debate

>muh Racism™

Not an argument.

>we know where you live faggot
go beat him up free content

>shakes autisticly

scientific consensus IS an ad populum.
The fact that people agree on something does not make it true.

calling something a meme doesn't discredit it. You're horrible at this. Try again.
I already know your main intentions in rebutting the claims made by the study, as I'm sure you've already read the entire essay in full. Your points will be that there is racism in the legal industry, which is not provable. But go ahead, I'll humor you.
Objectively, he is a scientist. He has a PhD, and worked as a biologist in a university. Your claim was wholly incorrect and a flat out lie. Try again.

Most of this board is legitimately retarded, so no. It is top 1%. Think about it in this perspective: most of this board can't even debate. You guys are just used to making throwaway comments(JEW SHILL FAGGOT etc), including your own reply. You're also used to operating in a format where if you're called out for your retardation, you rely on your other circlejerking fag friends to make you feel better about your shitty opinion because they dogpile on the dissenter and make you feel like more people agree with you, so you must be right.

The problem is when you're isolated in a 1v1 debate and can't rely on anyone else to back you up by jerking your dick off and you have to actually defend your views in real time and not in a "let me think about it and post some deflection" way, it falls apart.

Thus why Destiny would murder almost anyone on this board, as he has routinely murdered Sup Forumstards in the past.

Every time Destiny starts losing he just says "I haven't looked into that" and then changes the subject, hes not a good debater, he just dodges everything he doesn't have a pre-thought out reply to.

The guy said America should invade Mexico to fight cartels instead of building a border wall and increasing border controls. He's a fucking idiot.

I'm a conservative.

It's not "ur wrong", I explained why his opinion is stupid. It would be the same as making the argument "Well, this one doctor suggested I should have my foot amputated, and 99 other doctors I saw suggested anti-biotics to take care of the infection because it wasn't that serious. Clearly, believing the 99 doctors is an ad populum fallacy, so I'll just cut my fucking foot off durrrr"

Literally the same logic as the retard I replied to.

people need to learn how to check ID's, shits not that fucking hard.

wtf is his problem?

Who are these people? Is this more TRS faggotry?

Shapiro only debates college students.

>calling something a meme doesn't discredit it.

>write an article in 2016 on a hot button issue like race
>cite an obscure and incredibly hard to trace source from the year 1979
>article written by literal college students

how is it not a fucking meme?

>The fact that people agree on something does not make it true.
Agreed. The fact that the scientific community at large agrees on something vs race realists on Sup Forums tho? A whole different subject.

>Objectively, he is a scientist. He has a PhD, and worked as a biologist in a university. Your claim was wholly incorrect and a flat out lie. Try again.

Please stop this. He is clearly regarded as a joke by all his "scientific peers." Whether you agree to it or not he's not an example of a notable scientist by any means.

>scientific consensus IS an ad populum.
>The fact that people agree on something does not make it true.

HAHAHAHA.

Ok, to be fair, no it doesn't. But to be fair, what are you going to argue to the contrary? That because absolute truth cannot be determined, we should ignore all expert opinion and stop relying on the consensus of experts for any decision?

I can understand having a basic sense of skepticism of "Just because it is commonly accepted does not necessarily mean it is DEFINITELY true or objectively true", but trying to argue that it can all safely be ignored because it cannot be confirmed to be objectively 100% true is fucking retarded. You can't confirm with CERTAINTY that you'll die if you stop eating. Maybe all the JEW SCIENTISTS are lying to you, so you should starve yourself and stop wasting money on the FOOD JEW.

See where that retarded logic takes you, faggot? You'd have to stop visiting doctors, stop buying food from people, stop using any advanced technology, stop benefitting from any advanced knowledge that was determined by scientists rigorously determining the best option etc.

Fuck yourself, you retarded faggot.

Just some twitch celeb centrist

Destiny just talks fast and argues semantics and anytime you make a point he can't handle, he makes frustrated huffing noises and 'agrees to disagree.' It's so funny that you think this is a win when the other people are so tired of arguing about 'your you're* didnt didn't*' tier arguments.

>Every time Destiny starts losing he just says "I haven't looked into that" and then changes the subject

I agree with you on this sentiment. He has a habit of wanting to undermine his losses in debate. It's smart to handle it that way and many don't really pick up on it, but it's a tactic for him to minimize things he feels weak on. "I can't confirm data on that/let's move on to something else"

This doesn't change what I said though.

>Please stop this. He is clearly regarded as a joke by all his "scientific peers." Whether you agree to it or not he's not an example of a notable scientist by any means.

the fact that he defended his doctorate in biology successfully means that he is a scientist. None of your sophist drivel will change that fact.

>>cite an obscure and incredibly hard to trace source from the year 1979
Obviously you've only read half of the first page of the study. Absolute fucking retard.

>Agreed. The fact that the scientific community at large agrees on something vs race realists on Sup Forums tho? A whole different subject.
No, regardless of how much authority someone has, their word alone is not evidence of anything.

That IS both ad populum and appeal to authority.

If this person is the sort to say that Sup Forums is stupid, then I have it on good authority to believe that Sup Forums is filled with geniuses.

>He is clearly regarded as a joke by all his "scientific peers."

Who are these peers? are their any other scientists of his caliber that have said anything about him?

undermine=underplay

Just had a read through the thread, and I can confirm that it's totally weird.

First time I've seen this faggot was debating that infowars guy about guns. It was cringeworthy. Guys just doing the fast talking jew word games most of the time.

whats up with the influx of eceleb threads on this board without happenings? feels like reddit 100% pls stab id :-DD

Actually what you were just trying to understand, that nothing can be argued to be definitely true is the basis for modern day scientific philosophy. The only way science advances is by constantly questioning the "laws" currently in place until you find a crack you can exploit to move science past its current bubble. Now I'm not saying go full retard like the scenario you laid out in the second part of your post but yeah. Welcome to philosophy nigger.

have you read the arguments of professors against race realism? You should listen to some of them. "We have no genes that are distinct from every race". Even though we can determine someone's race solely based off of dna from their hair. Not to mention the immense psychological evidence based around racial differences.

Perhaps you should actually listen to the sourced arguments made by JF, instead of the Kraut-esque appeals to authority that you're so used to.

Yes
Many have tried to defeat and many have failed

>Obviously you've only read half of the first page of the study. Absolute fucking retard.
Obviously you moron. You linked it 5 minutes ago but it looks sketchy as all hell. As I said it would take hours to read and source all of it maybe days.

>the fact that he defended his doctorate in biology successfully means that he is a scientist. None of your sophist drivel will change that fact.
Why is he a NEEt living off youtube superchats confirming "race realist" views then?

>No, regardless of how much authority someone has, their word alone is not evidence of anything.

Saying this on fucking Sup Forums

A board that literally argues in favor of fascism and dictatorship

and the following that with

>If this person is the sort to say that Sup Forums is stupid, then I have it on good authority to believe that Sup Forums is filled with geniuses.

you are either biased to the point of brainwashing or just a slightly more informed Sup Forumstard

you are not a good debater by any means

Somebody call for a basic history lesson again?

I listened to a couple debates. From what I remember he certainly didn't "win" any debates as he didn't change the minds of anyone he was debating.

Dude lost a fucking debate to Sargon, who is like 120 IQ tops.
Fucking OBLITERATED by JF, and likely a race realist now due to how embarrassingly blown out he was.
Mediocre LoL player.

>implying Jim didn't fucking slaughter him

No shit you retarded faggot. Science operates by falsifiability. Scientists work to disprove things, not to prove them.

The difference is that scientists and intelligent people tend to operate by giving scientific consensus the benefit of the doubt unless they have been given adequate reason to believe otherwise.

The entire problem is that Sup Forumstards operate in reverse fashion: they form a belief, and work backwards to discredit anything that challenges their belief, and they think their own hobo internet research based on spooky Youtube videos and Sup Forums infographics are a legitimate challenge to scientific research.

>Obviously you moron. You linked it 5 minutes ago but it looks sketchy as all hell. As I said it would take hours to read and source all of it maybe days.
It would take you 3 seconds to glance over to the very next fucking page and see its other, more up to date sources, you fucking mental midget.

>>the fact that he defended his doctorate in biology successfully means that he is a scientist. None of your sophist drivel will change that fact.
Why is he a NEEt living off youtube superchats confirming "race realist" views then?
He quit.
The fact that he isn't currently working as a scientist doesn't mean that he isn't a qualified biologist. Yew ottah fowken mowron.

>A board that literally argues in favor of fascism and dictatorship
Absolutely nothing wrong with either, Muhammad.

>you are either biased to the point of brainwashing or just a slightly more informed Sup Forumstard

Call me whatever you wish, my arguments have a sound logical structure. Yours fails to follow any sort of stream of coherent thought at all. You spew the first thing to come to your mind.

120 is a very generous number to give Sargon's IQ. I'd say closer to 105 or 110 tops. Mans career is dedicated to a one way conversation completely failing at anything resembling a legitimate argument let alone a debate. Anyone with a higher than 110 IQ is cringing after the very first time he opens his cunt mouth in a rebuttal.