Also, people should not underestimate how talking quickly is a shallow signal to smoothbrains that "this person must be smart!" Destiny and others, while conducting very little research and only basically saying "that doesn't seem right to me, give me more sources I won't ever read" they have certain debate tactics that are designed to throw people off and fog the issue. If people have never been in a debate, it's kind of like being in any other fight in that your adrenaline is raised and you're trying to think ahead and you might miss things.
This is why upon reviewing a debate you may notice things that you didn't notice before, especially if someone is laying down a full 30 second rapid fire case and they like to bury little points in there so they can say later "he dodged that question!" This is obviously magnified since so many of Vaush's debates aren't actually based on history or research,, but what ought to be and proposed with weird hypotheticals.
I remember when Striker debated Destiny and they were talking about music, and Striker made the point that there is such a thing as objectively good music and objectively bad music, while Destiny went on about how everything has always sucked and also everything is subjective. The slight of hand there is good because by arguing for subjectivity you are almost proving subjectivity in itself. He doesn't believe in objectively good music, which means there isn't and the very fact they disagree proves him right.
Vaush is the type who would say like 2 years ago how Jordan Peterson is an idiot's version of a smart person, which while making no sense is ironically the thing an idiot trying to sound smart would say.