Is there any debate where you honestly feel like you lost it? Because I honestly can't determine if any of your debates even yield any victory from either side. If it's by audience reaction, that's a bad way to measure the results since your opponents tend to not bring their supporters to watch your video, making the general audience reaction severely one-sided. I've been holding off on watching your video simply because it doesn't seem that constructive since it is so disorganized, so in your opinion what value do you think your videos provide in terms of debate?
Also, have you seen what a traditional debate - I'm talking about LD or Cross Examination format debates - is like? Is there any reason why you wouldn't plan out your debate videos like that? Especially since these formats tend to be very compact and constructive in its ability to generate discussion.
Lastly, can you clarify what your stance on deplatforming is? You honestly seem to go back and forth on the subject.
I don't usually think of any debate I've had as "won" or "lost." In order to figure that out, you'd need a metric to measure to determine said win or loss. I generally go by how I feel I've done in getting my points across or addressing the points the other guy gave me. In that sense, I guess I'd say I've "lost" any debate where I have a part 2. I generally ask for a second debate if I feel like I wasn't able to address the points of the person in the first debate.
In terms of just making better points than the other person, obviously I feel like I generally do it better than them. But even in debates where I feel like the other person is ridiculous, ie: Sargon, it's hard to say I've "won" because they were unable to engage with any of my points and their fanbase will always feel like the other person 100% came out on top, even if they're using quasi-ridiculous arguments like "black people just need to get married to fix their problems," or a Count Dankula argument like "well I've seen lots of videos so I know I must be right."
In terms of the other person over-shadowing me in knowledge, I'd say it happened during the Ryan Dawson debate. That was a debate that was supposed to be about who the better president would be, Hillary or Trump, but it ended up being almost exclusively about the Middle East and I was way out of my depth there (this is the debate that encouraged me to dig a lot more into Middle Eastern politics and it's why I know as much as I do now about it all). A lot of people point to the Shkrelli debate, but honestly that was more just randomly shooting the shit for 2-3 hours.
I've seen more structured debates. I've thought about using some strategies to structure mine more, but I didn't have a chance to implement them and had to take a step back because of all the shit-slinging these guys' fanbases engage in.
If you're looking for a well organized, well structured debate, I don't think any of my debates are for you. Ironically enough, the only person who seemed able and willing to critically engage with any of my points was Amos Yee. That was probably one of my more productive debates, because he seemed like he was arguing in good faith (even if he was pushing for something so morally abhorrent).
I have been incredibly consistent on my stance on deplatforming, it just gets horrendously misrepresented in places like this all the time; if you are pushing misinformation deliberately or in a grossly irresponsible way, I think you should be removed from discourse. I don't care if you're a nazi or an SJW or whatever, the "offensiveness" of the belief doesn't bother me. So people like Richard Spencer are (probably) okay to me, because I don't see them deliberately misrepresenting anything. Same with people like Alternative Hypothesis (Ryan Faulk). People like Ian Cheong, though, and Lauren Southern/Sargon/etc..., these people are a waste of time who contribute absolutely nothing positive to public discourse.
Your stuff is academically really sophomore and your 'debates' are effectively just running circles around some cretin because you have an assertive manner and it's hard to counter a gish gallop. unless they're smarter/better in discussion than you anticipated like Metakaur. Nothing is learnt and the dumb are made a little dumber by having their presumptions re-enforced.
In what context are you not just doing good old feel good bible revival shit for the dumber American liberals?
I never claim my stuff is the apex of academic discourse. But understand that the people that are huge on YT now for politics are engaging at an even more basic level. People like Dave Rubin, for instance, have a less than high school understanding of the topics they preach. He can't even defend basic "free speech" type ideas in an auditorium against incredibly simple questions.
I see this accusation a lot, the reason why I don't respond is because there's nothing here for me to engage with. Most people who say that I "gish gallop" cannot provide even a single example of me doing so. In fact, I specifically say at the beginning of almost every debate, "if I say something you disagree with, stop me immediately and we can address that point instead of letting me ramble on."
Fuentes, for instance, is someone who genuinely employs the gish gallop technique as part of his arguments, and I can provide concrete examples of this. He also believed I was constantly talking over him in the debate and many people seem to agree that I was the one gish galloping him.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KrKFr4Bz0h0k7Ldo6YUWBr64-9z7d0T6yb5vyGtT-yg/edit
A fan actually ran through this debate. Ironically enough, Nick spoke for -twice- as long as I did.
This is why I get irritated when people claim I do stuff without ever giving an example of me doing it. This is where debates like the Masterson debate come from - just another person showing up to make accusations at me without ever giving a concrete example of me doing something they accuse me of doing.
Destiny, after the run ins I have had with your stans on reddit, I can conclude they are ridiculously dense and they take everything at face value, which is the very thing you are accusing us of doing.
I don't know if you're lacking in self-awareness, but showing up in a reddit post and saying "people who insult me need to do it to my face" is insanely cringey, mate.
