Thread 514771170

Simply submit

Let's see him debate Adam Green

>>514771170 (OP)
Ben shapiro would dunk on him

>>514771170 (OP)
I tend to agree with a substantial amount of what he says, however he just delivers it in the most mind numbingly arrogant and smug way imaginable.

bro looks so bad ass looking to the side and smoking a cig fr fr

>>514771170 (OP)
He married a single mom with kids

>>514771170 (OP)
>Undefeated
That will happen when you only debate women.

>>514771224
he did and he absolutely bullied him

>>514771224
didn't they already debate once?
it devolved into the same old presupper arguments
>you have to assume the jew god to say jews raping kids is bad

>/pol/'s teigning champ destroyed
Who else?

>>514771170 (OP)
Sooooo bad ass raising someone elses kids.

>>514771170 (OP)
He conceded that he was a cuckold in a debate with UndeadChronic
That blonde bitch angry tomato was there too

>>514771170 (OP)
he has some talking points that are stupid, but he would mop the floor with any democrat.

>>514771250
Andrew would give Ben a swirly and use his yamaka as a frisbee. That yid doesn't stand a chance.

>>514771506
>>514771546
>but but he's a cuckold!
That's all anybody ever has and it has nothing to do with anything. Besides, he isn't really a cuckold if both parties know and accept each other's circumstances beforehand.

>>514771970
he has to borrow from the atheist worldview to even care about being a cuck to begin with.

>>514771170 (OP)
>*blocks your path*

>>514772039
Where in the Bible does it say not to marry a woman with children? White Christian people had to do this all through history due to disease and death. Also just because you come from the 90s and 2000s doesn't mean you have to lay down and give up.

>>514771354
His only argument
>Well you dont believe in anything
Which is just less nuanced way of what he does to leftists but adam falls back and says "white survival" which is valid in my eyes.

>>514771970
>>but but he's a cuckold!
>That's all anybody ever has
He conceded to it, niggercuck
He demanded a half an hours worth of qualifiers but he still conceded to being a cuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fadGE1YNuV0
Why it's relevant is right there in the title too
>men should not listen to high level cucks

>>514772189
It absolutely tells you not to sleep with her and get her pregnant while she's still married to a previous husband.

>>514772189
>actually there's no prohibition on being a cuck or inviting niggers into your country. It's all kosher, goy!
wasn't that my point?

>>514771170 (OP)
I have his phenotype. If I put on a black hat and sat next to him you could easily mistake me for him.

>>514771170 (OP)
nah burning the flag should be protected. imagine sucking the cock of inanimate objects.

>>514771371
It's not a real reductio ad absurdum because there's no contradiction, it's just bullet biting which the opponent is at the mercy of the same argument, pretty much everyone is.
>>514771260
Good, lefties are smug cunts and to out smug them is what gets under their skin.

>>514771626
>he has some talking points that are stupid
like what?
most people that don't like him just don't like the fact he wishes to get rid of women's rights through alternative forms of political systems.

>>514771170 (OP)
Post some good content by him. I can only find like 4 debates

>>514773003
It goes behind a paywall, just type up any famous leftist debaters name and put andrew wilson and you'll find the debate on the leftists channel.

>>514772891
>like what?
His hypotheticals that go to the extremes of necrophilia and beastiality are RETARDED
They might make sense and cost you no ground I a friendly debate amongst debate bros and garner laughs because it's gross but it forces him to cede moral high ground while attacking the opposition's morals (unnecessary, they have no morals) and it would be be far more effective to attack their intelligence with hypotheticals of extreme stupidity (if done well, he can get them to agree and reveal how dumb they are too)

>>514772833
idk if I would call it bullet biting. it reminds me of the Munchhausen trilemma.
a lot of the presupper stuff also works the same way on platonism, but that isn't jewish so it's bad for some reason.
It's function in a debate is to reject any common ground, as a red red herring to derail everything.

>>514773124
The whole point of that is to deconstruct the moral idea about harm reductionism, NAP, imposition of will as the golden rules of enlightenment and leftist ethics.
I don't understand how it forces him to cede moral high ground?
It shows how deranged and little thought out their position is on the matter.
>far more effective to attack their intelligence
so just don't deal with the actual arguments and make people look dumb?
you mean exactly like what Dean Withers does and everyone hates him and leftist ideologues don't watch retards like that seriously, it's all for laughs.

>>514773132
Religious debates end up in meta ethics which they shouldn't and just be strictly limited to epistemology. Adam Green and Andrew were wasting their time with that, but again a debate isn't always about truth but rather rhetoric.

>>514771170 (OP)
He is probably the most bad faith debater who has no real arguments at all. He never argues anything, he basically spends the whole debate arguing about definitions that were already addressed in the opening of debates, poisons the well, move goalposts, tries to logic trap people by falsely claiming fallacies that he himself commits, dismisses any research that counters his opinion but expects everyone to accept his researched points (mah wife wrote a book about how feminism is a Rothchild backed CIA movement), uses extreme hypotheticals and pathos claims to prove something, and then calls his opponents stupid and says he wins. I just saw a debate with him where his opponent laid out all the definitions in the opening statement and he still spent 45 minutes badgering about what harm means.
In a real debate, he would basically be laughed off the stage.

>>514771970
Yeah, hes a cuckold. Jew worshiper opinion discarded. Also smoking goes against the 5th commandment.

>>514773521
Hes a jew worshiper so he argues like a jew he idolises.

>>514773521
Idk, I have no idea who this guy in the OP is. But you sound like a faggot and belong on plebbit. So please, just shut up pussy.

>>514772149
>>514771506
>>514771296
>>514773521
>>514773543
basically only ppl talking shit are memeflags which tells you a lot. /thread

>>514772891
i cat remember them all but he tried to argue that the revolutionary war wasnt that impressive or something. he was trying to downplay the argument for guerilla warfare or something. when in reality it was a big reason they won and redcoats lost hard because they were walking around in formation in big red coats. i cant remember the exact argument, but at that point i think he was simply talking out his ass to still look smart, which he didnt. he is really smart, but there are times where im like
>yeah, thats not right.

>>514773282
He's essentially trying to "rope-a-dope" with that specific argument, yes, I do believe talking them into a logic trap exposing that would be more effective, especially if he can pull it off with a good relevant punchline then graciously back off it to let them stew in it. Not being a smug fast talking faggot about intelligence like Zestiny or his clones try to and ultimately fail to attack debate interlocutors' intelligence
He loses *some* high ground on it simply because it's a nasty topic and he's putting his hand in that stink and throwing that mud ball of a
topic in.
His recent spate of leftwing hitjobs from clipchimps never would have gained any traction if he hadn't tried to argue about morality of rape

>>514771250
No he wouldn't. He knows the tricks and always hauls them back to the point.

>>514771170 (OP)
don´t ever mention race or white identity around these "based christians" or point out they worship a dead jew. it will make them shit and piss their pants.

>>514773843
you sound like a fag who's cucked, buck broken and coping by lashing out at people who found a way to live well

the solution: being a christian who believes real spiritual israel is white and killing niggers and jews because jesus was white

>>514773795
well you said clipchimps so you clearly know he wasn't arguing about the morality of rape, you know that part was taken out of the context.
people are always going to clip you out of context and if you're really targeted it means you're effective and they hate you.

>>514773965
you sound brown and low iq

>>514773843
Women drop heaps of their beliefs really quickly all the time, she was a larper to begin with, the fact people base their opinions as to what is true depending on how women react to it has to the most backwards thing you can do.

>>514771170 (OP)
He looks how a public toilet full of shit smells

>>514773282
What he does is rhetorically dodge the argument topic. He throws out shock-value hypotheticals as a pathos-driven strawman so he doesn’t have to defend his own framework. When someone answers, he immediately shifts the goalposts until his slippery slope lands somewhere he already wanted it to go. It’s just a way to avoid ever putting his own position under the same scrutiny.

>>514773843
Crystal shop wiccan/goth girls have some of the best racist pussy around

>>514771170 (OP)

I have no idea who this is, and for this reason, I am happier than all of you. Now I will procede to fuck all your mothers at once while all your dad's watch, in a 5 dimensional, infinite orgasm.

>>514774240
I've seen many debates where he presents his own worldview usually in the debate "is secular ethics or christian ethics better for society."
Most peoples problem is they're terrible at cross examining and refuting views because they are generally shit debaters even though they've been in the scene for years, because it's not an easy skill.
"pathos-driven strawman" I don't even know what you're saying at this point, you're giving me no reference to go on for this claim.
Besides you not liking his style of debate, what do you disagree with him on besides the race stuff?

>>514774602
>"pathos-driven strawman" I don't even know what you're saying at this point, you're giving me no reference to go on for this claim.

That was to your point of him using necrophilia and incest as a debate tactic. Pathos-driven strawman isn't even vague, it directly targets the fallacy he is using. The three techniques of persuasion is pathos, logos, and ethos; pathos is the weakest form of persuasion and argumentation. Him using necrophilia and incest is to appeal to the shock and disgust instead of reason. Secondly, it's a strawman because he doesn’t address real secular ethics; he caricatures them by tying them to taboo hypotheticals. It is an emotional appeal and not a rational critique. Also, whether or not he has presented his worldview elsewhere doesn’t change that this is a recurring tactic he uses instead of defending his own framework in the moment. If your point is that his opponents are bad debaters, sure, that can be true, but that doesn’t make his reliance on shock hypotheticals good argumentation. I can agree with a lot of his positions, especially regarding the white race and jewish supremacy, but the way he comes at it just makes him look like a midwit.

>>514774355
Just another debate-bro faggot that performs in front of a camera for money like a whore, and gets nothing done at the end of the day.

>>514775200
That isn't a strawman it's the entailment of a principal because it doesn't object to it.
>it's a strawman because he doesn’t address real secular ethics
so you haven't watched the debates and that also doesn't make it a strawman.
>taboo hypotheticals
The point is to demonstrate civilization can't function on these peoples praise for individualistic institutions such as no fault divorce, etc. It's all an extension and consistency with their other pillars for their worldview.
IMO I'm just going to speculate you don't do debates nor do well in them, correct me if I'm wrong.

>>514775434
I actually don't think you understand what you're talking about when it comes to terms of a debate because what he does is actually strawman most of his debates with those tactics. A logical entailment has to follow from the actual principles people use, however, secular ethics already have resources such as Mill’s harm principle, Kant’s categorical imperative, even modern consent frameworks which all reject things like incest or necrophilia outright. Andrew skips those and pretends the only outcome is moral chaos which is a misrepresentation and the definition of a strawman. Saying “civilization can’t function” is a separate claim, but it doesn’t excuse his tactic. Again, the people he debated may be bad at debating, but his tactics are still bad faith and in any structured debate, moving goalposts and caricaturing your opponent’s position would get called out or disqualified. His tactics only work in the internet format where anything goes and its all about views and money.

>>514775888
>Mill’s harm principle
>Kant’s categorical imperative
>modern consent frameworks which all reject things like incest or necrophilia outright.
The only thing here that can possible have an objection is Kant's categorical imperative which isn't consequent based, which btw I'm still yet to see a leftist or anyone he has debated use this as an argument because they're all utilitarian, it's why they don't want to draw upon this because they don't want to be arbitrary.
You need to demonstrate how the harm principle will object to incest and necrophilia.
Vaush brought this up specifically and tried to say no to these things on the basis of harm and it didn't go well for him, you can easily find that debate.

>>514776147
I think that we can find agreement that there are bad debaters on youtube and are there basically for views and money, so they don't have to understand their position to just spout out talking points (Vaush and Destiny being some). We can see this when they go against actual people who debate in structured forums and understand the position they take (for example, when Vaush tried to debate a feminist philosopher about trans people and defaulted to linguistic changes throughout history that made no sense).
But breaking down the harm principle will object to incest and necrophilia, we can look at Mill's harm principle. Mill’s harm principle is not just about “consent.” It says individuals are free unless their actions cause harm to others. So, with incest, even in consenting adults, incest produces predictable genetic harms (higher rates of birth defects, miscarriages, early mortality, etc...). Beyond that, it undermines family trust structures, which destabilizes social institutions built on that. That’s tangible harm. With necrophilia, a dead body cannot consent, so it fails the consent baseline already. But beyond that, desecration of the dead body destroys public trust in burial or funeral institutions, which are central to psychological and cultural well-being. That’s social harm. If you look at the modern consent frameworks, incest involves power imbalances and necrophilia would be rejected because consent cannot be attained. So both would be rejected. You're right, too, Kant's categorical imperative isn’t consequential, Kant’s CI rules necrophilia and incest out because they fail universalizability. If incest was universal, family systems collapse; if necrophilia was universal, dignity of persons collapses. Also, treating bodies as objects violates the duty to treat humanity as an end in itself.

>>514771170 (OP)
Defeated by a jar actually

>>514776882
>for example, when Vaush tried to debate a feminist philosopher about trans people and defaulted to linguistic changes throughout history that made no sense
Yeah I remember that debate, completely retarded stuff.
> With necrophilia, a dead body cannot consent
Small objection; Mill doesn't address about the consent of dead bodies in fact utilitarians wish to be able to forcefully take the liver out of people that have just died to increase the quality of others to maximize happiness this could be extended to, maximizing happiness by a person engaging in sex with such body.
Major objection; A dead body can provide consent prior to death, in a will perhaps with their partner perhaps for this to happen or with anyone if they really wanted to.
>desecration of the dead body destroys public trust in burial or funeral institutions
That would equally apply to marriage institutions and would lead to the objection of gay marriage hence why I hear no leftist utilitarian actually caring about "institutions" if they believe they have a better way of doing things.
>incest involves power imbalances
Incest can be consented to through adults and it doesn't necessarily entail and power dynamics because the siblings could be of similar age, life experience, income etc.
So it can be reduced to the acceptance of it.
>if necrophilia was universal, dignity of persons collapses. Also, treating bodies as objects violates the duty to treat humanity as an end in itself.
please tell this to a utilitarian and tell them why they can't harvest body organs to increase happiness for the greatest number of people.
I think for this exact reason this is why they don't bring up the arguments you're bringing up, well I lied vaush brought up this objection to Andrew which didn't work very well, I'd suggest refreshing yourself with that debate.

>>514777283
>Mill doesn't address about the consent of dead bodies in fact utilitarians wish to be able to forcefully take the liver out of people that have just died to increase the quality of others to maximize happiness this could be extended to, maximizing happiness by a person engaging in sex with such body.

I think this is kind of conflating an issue, I feel like you're saying something like “If utilitarians allow organ harvesting, then they must also allow necrophilia, because both maximize happiness.” How I see it is organ donation is tied to saving or extending lives, which is a measurable, large-scale good with no sexual element, while necrophilia provides fleeting gratification for one individual, producing broader harms such as public disgust, erosion of dignity, distrust in systems, etc..There is also the consent factor regarding organ harvesting and necrophilia; organ harvesting exists within legal and cultural frameworks that protect the dignity of the dead and serve collective welfare, where necrophilia has no justification, it is purely for gratification with high social costs.

>>514777283

(the post was too long)

This would be the time in which definitions would be asked in an actual debate, like, what is your definition of consent in these cases? In my definition of consent, it requires an active, living agent because once you are dead, you no longer have autonomy, dignity, or capacity. Permission in a will isn’t the same as genuine, ongoing consent, because the body is no longer a subject but an object. Legal systems and ethical frameworks already reject the consent to be harmed after death stuff. Looking at incest, even pretending away the power dynamics and biological stuff, it still harms the family structure through undermining trust and roles that if normalized, it erodes the stability of society and sexual relationships leading to psychological harm. So even in the case where it is consented, consent alone isn't enough. Modern ethics requires consent and context. You can't sell yourself into slavery. Within Kantian ethics, incest fails the categorical imperative because universalizing it would collapse family structures and treats family relationships as a means to gratification, not ends in themselves.
I am also against gay marriage because I believe it causes societal harm and I go back to saying that most of the people on youtube debating don't understand the things they are talking about.

>>514778364
the point you're missing is it doesn't cause physical harm.
also im eating dinner so i can't be fucked writing long responses

>>514773714
if u still admire that fat idiot after seeing that pickle jar video than you have very poor judgement or you are ignoring key red flags like people who are in a toxic relationship an most likely you will end up in your mid 40s, broke, alone and drinking every day. please rethink your support of this fat idiot, i implore you

>>514778649
i'm not a keen supporter to begin with i just watch his debates and i agree that shit was embarrasing.
I don't go to political commentators or internet politicians for information or my beliefs, so i think i'll be fine.

>>514778649
also for political entertainment who else is there to watch? i'm all ears but i don't see any alternatives

If you're gonna larp as a moral puritan, don't be a fucking degenerate cigarette smoker. Literally the worst of the worst.

It's funny how he argues for people to go to prison out of moral failure when society would improve much more if scum like him were locked up.

>>514779693
Can't really larp as moral puritan if you're a degenerate cigarette smoker, can you?. Terrible criticism.

>>514771170 (OP)
I think he's great but I don't like that him and Dyer lately have been just declaring themselves victors of debates because their opponents can't make an ought claim.

Dyer vs notsoerudite was really disappointing... And, then Dyer vs Parker and the smug atheist from the Jordan Peterson debate was cringe using that approach on Piers Morgan. They may technically be walking away with the win, but it's hollow because they don't address the substance of what their opponents are talking about.

>>514780181
that's a dyer thing.

>>514780284
It is but Wilson used it against dean and another time against Parker too

>>514779876
Yeah that's my point. Well, you technically can try to larp as morally pure. But it's going to look very fake and hypocritical to any outsiders.

>>514781257
No your point is dumb. He can't be larping as a moral puritan if he's doing the opposite. No one is going to buy that grift. So obviously that isn't his angle and you're just butthurt over something he did or said. Just guessing because your argument is not logical but emotional. Are you a woman by chance?

>Doesn't name the Jews
Fraud

>>514781485
Say Jesus is God.

>>514773618
He literally said to stop giving money to israel because it's supporting the antichrist.