I don't ordinarily watch Destiny but he's so bad at debating that he contradicts himself at the very beginning.
"Are you aware that Donald Trump organized 7 different sets of people to fake an electorate vote in 7 different states in the United States with the goal of sending those elector votes to congress and then begging and then
pressuring Mike Pence, first with words,
then with violence that he directed on the 6th for him to unilaterally toss the election by either selecting those electorate votes, the fake ones he submitted or by having the house choose Donald Trump to be the president against the will of the American people, are you aware of any of that?"
"I haven't seen him use any kind of
threats of violence against Mike Pence."
"I'm sorry, I didn't say anything about
a threat of violence, I don't know who you're talking to. I asked you very specifically for the thing I just laid out, are you aware of any of that? Do you know any of that?"
Does Steven have a goldfish memory or is he really so pedantic to correct on the difference between "pressure" and "threat?"
It's pretty plain to see how Destiny stacks the odds in his own favor with a debate, he weaves a narrative with a bunch of contentious "facts" and instead of asking if you agree with the statement, he asks "are you aware of this," setting the stage for his opinion to be the truth and then attacking criticisms of his flawed premise as being uninformed. I've barely watched anything of Destiny and his opening gambit is so telling of his win-at-any-costs personality and behavior.
It is a fact that Donald Trump neither used nor threatened to use violence on Mike Pence at all, the riot was already in progress as Donald Trump was giving his speech and he immediately told the rioters to go home when he was informed of what was happening at the capital building. But these things don't mesh with Steven's perfect canon of Democrat purity so he has to omit details that contradict the leftoid canon of events and his entire goal is to get the opponent to cowtow to his opening premise, because without it all of his proceeding arguments fail.