Ethan Klein / h3h3Productions - Opportunistic, two-faced e-celeb sperg with a penchant for hypocrisy and an Oedipus complex; sold out to Susan Wojcicki, the incompetent CEO of YouTube

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Who would win in a fight?

  • Ethan Klein

    Votes: 292 3.9%
  • Sam Hyde

    Votes: 7,176 96.1%

  • Total voters
    7,468
Why would he even want to debate hasan, hasan like all leftoids is the most dishonest bad faith rat in debates and will just (ironically) Pilpul the fuck out of this kike by never answering any questions, never addressing any points, asking meaningless time wasting questions, and redirecting anything Ethan says right back at him.

Never debate leftists or Jews, just make fun of them.
 
I like how Ethan would sooner debate Hasan, with whom he has irreconcilable ideological disagreements with, then forgive iDubbbz for basically stabbing him in back with the Content Cop.

It might be because, as I saw Tommy C point out, the fact that Hasan was the only one who refused to offer a positive remark about Ethan at the end arguably made him more principled - his hate for Ethan in that sense is genuine, which ironically makes Hasan the most honourable person amongst that nest of crybully vipers.
 
There's a non-zero chance Hasan doesn't debate him anyway and just ambushes him with somebody else to debate for him like he's done before.

Maybe that fat faced cunt Frogan will show up.
I remember H3H3 doing the same bait and switch with Steven Crowder. So if Hasan does that, I guess fair play?
 
  • Like
Reactions: spacedapple420
Not sure it's the best place to post this, but Gokunaru really (tried to) ate a shoe:
He did this, because he made a promise if the next CC will be on Ethan Klein he will eat a shoe. He was that confident at this not happening, but jokes on him.
 
Why would he even want to debate hasan, hasan like all leftoids is the most dishonest bad faith rat in debates and will just (ironically) Pilpul the fuck out of this kike by never answering any questions, never addressing any points, asking meaningless time wasting questions, and redirecting anything Ethan says right back at him.

Never debate leftists or Jews, just make fun of them.
Da Oreo played some of the WillyMac "debate" yesterday. It was just an unending barage of "no I didnt watch your video, now verbally and with no error specifically describe exactly what was in the video (that you made a year ago)."
 
Da Oreo played some of the WillyMac "debate" yesterday. It was just an unending barage of "no I didnt watch your video, now verbally and with no error specifically describe exactly what was in the video (that you made a year ago)."
They love to do that shit, the other Jewish/leftist debate tactic is making you define every single term that everyone on planet earth understands the definition of. “What even is white? Can you define woke for me? Woke doesn’t even exist does it?”

it’s made to tire you out so that these retards don’t have to even try and attempt to defend or justify their retarded insane fucking evil positions that they know they can’t defend without seeming like an absolute lunatic.
 
the other Jewish/leftist debate tactic is making you define every single term that everyone on planet earth understands the definition of
devil's advocate
it is a complete and utter act of violence against cognition to use invalid concepts
requesting definitions is a perfectly legitimate way of ensuring a correct use and formation of concepts, a mutual understanding of the words being used (words being symbols that refer to concepts), and a committed standard to hold people to
there are infinitely many people using words like "freedom", "justice", "love", "democracy" etc.pp. without even a hint of solid understanding of what these words mean, because they have never formed these high-level concepts properly
 
devil's advocate
it is a complete and utter act of violence against cognition to use invalid concepts
requesting definitions is a perfectly legitimate way of ensuring a correct use and formation of concepts, a mutual understanding of the words being used (words being symbols that refer to concepts), and a committed standard to hold people to
there are infinitely many people using words like "freedom", "justice", "love", "democracy" etc.pp. without even a hint of solid understanding of what these words mean, because they have never formed these high-level concepts properly
Most midwit shit I’ve ever read in my life. Most people have the same if not, very similar general definitions and meanings for all those words, and if they don’t, they are retarded and not worth talking to, and if they are A midwit pseud like you who is going to ask me to define a bunch of words that everyone knows the definition of, they are also not worth talking to.

I’m not talking to anyone who asks me to define 500 very very basic concepts, like “justice”, “democracy” and “woke” before a political debate, everyone knows what “woke” means, yet I constantly see leftoids using this pilpul tactic of asking people to define “woke”.

I’ve had plenty of awesome political discussions or “debates” with people I agree with and disagree with and never did I have to predefine basic concepts because they might have a different definition of “justice”. That’s not how not autistic human beings in the real world operate, even if someone’s definition isn’t the exact same as mine, 98% of the time it is close enough to not matter, because these words are pretty objective and black and white, and anyone claiming they are subjective is just engaging in time wasting sophistry.
 
Most midwit shit I’ve ever read in my life. Most people have the same if not, very similar general definitions and meanings for all those words, and if they don’t, they are retarded and not worth talking to, and if they are A midwit pseud like you who is going to ask me to define a bunch of words that everyone knows the definition of, they are also not worth talking to.

I’m not talking to anyone who asks me to define 500 very very basic concepts, like “justice”, “democracy” and “woke” before a political debate, everyone knows what “woke” means, yet I constantly see leftoids using this pilpul tactic of asking people to define “woke”.

I’ve had plenty of awesome political discussions or “debates” with people I agree with and disagree with and never did I have to predefine basic concepts because they might have a different definition of “justice”. That’s not how not autistic human beings in the real world operate, even if someone’s definition isn’t the exact same as mine, 98% of the time it is close enough to not matter, because these words are pretty objective and black and white, and anyone claiming they are subjective is just engaging in time wasting sophistry.
what kind of lazy arrogant mouthbreather are you?
whining about "midwits" without realizing that words are not magic noises with fixed meanings, words are symbols for concepts, and if two people use the same word to mean different things, the result isn't a "debate", it's confused grunting

if you refuse to define terms like "justice" or "woke" then you're either too dumb to know what you mean or too dishonest to be pinned down. Bragging about never needing to define anything is like bragging about having large breasts while being morbidly obese. It just means that your arguments are vague slushy bullshit skating on by vibes and tribal signaling

If you aren't too scared to do it, because you know it would expose that your thinking is sloppy and bloated at best, go ahead and define "woke"
And if that makes you mad, then you've already admitted you can't answer it without falling apart
 
I think trying to get your opponent to define their meaning of a word can be seen as an in-road to gish gallop, especially since coming to the same agreement on the definition of an 'important' word could completely undermine your position. How words/phrases are defined to certain people is the root cause of a lot of arguments. It's why in a debate you should probably avoid dragging out the "Define X for me", since right away you would already know that ideological differences would have their definition being different from your own.

For example, a fairly innocuous one would be if a Leftie and Rightie (terminal onlineness assumed) were told to define 'Racism'. The leftie might define it as "Holding your race as being superior to others whilst using your position in society to keep the inferior races down" I.E. Prejudice + power. Racism to the Rightie might be "Prejudice and differing attitudes, both positive and negative, based on someone else's race".

Either side conceding to the definition of the other can undermine their respective positions on certain topics. The Rightie's definition of racism makes things like affirmative action and the casual use of 'white' as pejorative into bad things, whilst the Leftie's definition would see the prioritisation of your own race/country as negatives. Neither can concede on the definition here because it'd be a concession of some moral standing, not just the meaning of a word.

It's like this for almost everything. So getting into entirely separate debates and arguments over differing definitions, especially if said definitions prop up parts of your belief system, is an exercise in futility. I think understanding how the opposing side defines things could help with individual understanding, which when employed in debate would help keep things cordial, but otherwise it's best to not open that can of worms in such a context, especially since it almost definitely wouldn't amount to anything.

Consider the fact Jesus being literal or not on saying "This is my body" about a hunk of bread helped lead to the Protestant Reformation even though its process in church ultimately achieves the same end and you'll get why words both matter, but also why arguing their individual meanings shouldn't have a place in a casual debate.
 
Last edited:
Back