"Oh God why am I doing this..." Destiny debates Digibro - Videos for the 97.4%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utDoE_DT1XA

https://soundcloud.com/grant-mooney/digibro

This is very likely the dumbest person Destiny has ever had a debate with.

It doesn't say much since Destiny only debates retards

If Destiny only debates retards (which says a lot about the internet right, I guess) and this guy is the most retarded, doesn't that actually say a lot about him ?

Yes, and the people who post his videos

:thinking: Perhaps you're right

Holy shit listening to that guy almost gave me brain cancer.

I remember I used to watch Digibro's channel because of some anime bullshit. Then he started doin' other shit and I dropped that fire off hot.

And you know what, thank good on him for doing it. These idiots need to be debated back to the shit holes they came from, and to Destiny's credit he's pretty good at that.

Digibro's entire argument is literally that "Right, but for the wrong reasons" is valid because the person is right. Yet again, proving that his opinion holds no weight.

Not really. His format is like a lot of progressives right here, so eager to shining finger virtue blast at the slightest drop of hat/pin/mouse when most of the subject he covers are day 1 civility, not phd level ethics and ramifications. Virtue signaling is day one shit, and bagging out the lowest hanging fruit isn't exactly herculean brain shit either. He's basically the debate equivalent of DSP/LTG, and he never touches the ramifications of all the policies he champions or how the fuck they get to be implemented long term. He's basically bill maher with a patreon.

That's not at all the impression I have, could you be more specific? He specifically avoids virtue signaling and moral arguments and tries to tackle subjets from a utilitarian standpoint and I'm not sure what policies he champion you're talking about.

I don't know if I'd go that far, after Carlgon I really think the only way he could find someone worse is if he got Alex Jones or James Fields.

I don't really recognize "virtue signaling" as a concept but even if I did, I don't think it's accurate at all to accuse Destiny of doing it, he is pretty open about his beliefs, even his more radical ones. I'm not quite sure what virtue he would be trying to pass off as something he genuinely holds. Also not a fan of this impression some people have that he picks and chooses who he debates. Most of the people he debates are people who ask to talk to him. Several of the people he has debated have serious clout on in right-wing circles. He has expressed a desire to debate people like Shapiro and Dave Rubin, the latter of which would be fucking hilarious to witness but will never, ever happen.

Have you literally never watched him? He makes a point of being an amoral edgelord. He claimed to be fine with dogs being skinned alive so that he could win an argument with a vegan. He was banned from twitter for sending someone a picture of a burning cross. He is not a bleeding heart liberal and he's very good about sourcing his shit. He'll often go through pages of sources and sources for counterarguments before the debates that get posted on YT.

i'm not a big destiny fan (he is a bit of a cunt and an edgelord, and he gets pissy quite a bit in all the videos of his i've seen) but your description doesn't seem to apply at all. he is well spoken and has a lot of good, if basic and easily learned, debating skills, and seems very happy to go as deep into something as his 'opponent' is willing to go, which is usually not very far because they are dumbcunts most of the time. but i've seen a few where he's willing to go in depth and follow his point as far as it can go. as usual, most people who start shouting about 'virtue signalling' are thinly veiled chuds.

Destiny needs to show more initiative in pinning down his opponents arguments, and hard rebuking them. A huge issue I saw in this debate, is that Destiny wholly accepted Digibro's slipperiness when it came to what "winning" a debate was. In a "formal debate" "winning" would be exactly what Destiny describes it as being (One side has statements that are substantiated by proceedings), the issue is that Digibro has no idea this is how debate is actually carried out, instead they subscribe to the "court of public opinion" style of debate "winning". A good example is Jordan Memerson, put them in the rink without a moderator or someone brushed up on fundamental debate or argumentative reasoning , and they'll use all sorts of rhetoric to plow their opposition, and "win". Ben Shapiro is much the same in this matter, even sneakier about it (he deliberately debates people who aren't prepared for the way he argues). Contrast this to say, Matt Dillahunty who uses developed argumentative reasoning to define, propose, and rebut arguments used against him. To get a good idea of this, watch Jordan argue with somebody less practiced than he is, then watch his debate with Matt Dillahunty. You'll see how easily he gets cornered, since his arguments aren't actually sound, but instead are meant to appear sound. Destiny should have explained the process for which constructive debate is done, and that "winning" can be reasoned from an argument using logic. Instead they never meet eye to eye on what the most basic premises of argumentation.

I agree with most of your post but I think its worth pointing out that Destiny has received dozens of emails over the years of people telling him that his debates helped convince them to change their mind on a given issue. It may seem unproductive or pointless from the point of view of someone who already agrees with Destiny but if even one person is converted from the other side I'd say it was a very effective debate.