Goonclown Steven Bonnell II / Destiny / Destiny.gg - Emotionally Unstable Manchild, Creeps on Teenagers, Incest Supporter, Degenerate Foot Sniffer, Cum Felcher, Gooner

[Kars den Karb]

Destiny's cope for the Andrew Wilson debate is taking shape as "neutral positions are weak" which is a prima facie retard argument that amounts to rewriting the rules of debate itself so Stevie doesn't have to take a hit for bringing a claim made of toilet paper.

People bring up tiny gloating over the dead firefighter, Aba says "what about you joking over running over blm protesters". Aba then says that "the right says they hare cancel culture but look, tiny has been demonetized, isn't that hypocritical?", all while he gloated over Fresh and Fit (degenerate niggers in their own regard) getting demonetized.

Aba ran as quickly as possible to the whataboutisms to avoid talking about what Destiny actually said. If he just threw up a single screencap of the tweet about the firefighter burning in hell with Ashli Babbit, the entire video would have been wrecked and he knows it. Let it hang out there, Aba. Tell us again how you're friends with that guy.

 

[Kivotos strongest Sensei]

Aba ran as quickly as possible to the whataboutisms to avoid talking about what Destiny actually said. If he just threw up a single screencap of the tweet about the firefighter burning in hell with Ashli Babbit, the entire video would have been wrecked and he knows it. Let it hang out there, Aba. Tell us again how you're friends with that guy.

He ran to Whataboutism because he knows he's being intellectually dishonest and no argument he can bring up will make Destiny look normal or reasonable after having a sperg moment. It's the equivalent of someone covering their ears and shouting "Shut up shut up I can't hear you shut up!" because you just told them something they don't want to believe.

 

[Elderly Homosexual Negro]

Aba N Preach, aka the "based niggers", made a video about tiny.

I hate those niggers, giving them an ounce of credability is one of Destinys most egregious crimes.

 

[tabletoothbrushloofa]

https://files.catbox.moe/ax9g2q.mp4

https://files.catbox.moe/eqa18t.mp4

This is quintessentially the problem with destiny as a debater, he so autstically dedicated to being a logic lord in any given debate that he cant see the forest from the trees, here it resulted in him basically giving away any moral impetus behind the insurrection and in doing so also showing that Andrew was right in his characterisation of why hes calling jan 6 and insurrection.

 

[Kivotos strongest Sensei]

I hate those niggers, giving them an ounce of credability is one of Destinys most egregious crimes.

Their older content used to be more aggressive and definitely more on the right, but I guess this is what happens when you hit a certain number and YouTube becomes your livelihood. Monetization of internet content wad one of the biggest mistakes ever made.

 

[Brap God]

Didn't have the time to listen to the Andrew debate last night but today I did and both of them really fumbled when that one caller wanted Andrew to define an insurrection. Andrew really scrambled to cover his ass and not fork over a clear definition. Luckily for him, tiny sucks ass when it comes to stuff he hasn't rehearsed.

 

[Queesechake]

This is quintessentially the problem with destiny as a debater, he so autstically dedicated to being a logic lord in any given debate that he cant see the forest from the trees, here it resulted in him basically giving away any moral impetus behind the insurrection and in doing so also showing that Andrew was right in his characterisation of why hes calling jan 6 and insurrection.

Destiny is intellectually dishonest. It's not that he can't see that the person he's arguing is correct, it's that he chooses not to. He thinks he's so smart he can win arguments even when he knows for a fact he's wrong.

 

[Dude Snakes]

Aba N Preach, aka the "based niggers", made a video about tiny.

https://youtu.be/gwhaB2kwILs?si=HPww5bPVXvHwnd1F

The title is clickbait because as soon as the video starts, Aba says he doesn't care about american politics and everyone is an emotional hypocrite except for him, then spends the rest of the video being an emotional hypocrite over american politics.

People bring up tiny gloating over the dead firefighter, Aba says "what about you joking over running over blm protesters". Aba then says that "the right says they hare cancel culture but look, tiny has been demonetized, isn't that hypocritical?", all while he gloated over Fresh and Fit (degenerate niggers in their own regard) getting demonetized.

Towards the end he even says he doesn't have any arguments, just wants to defend his friend tiny.

Nearly every comment is calling them out on their starwmanning and they're trying to play it off as tiny "making jokes" and "free speech".

Niggers being retarded it must be a Day ending in y.

 

[Nadine9]

All these “groupies” erudite, aba, Tom, etc… they’ve spent way too much time guzzling tiny’s DNA that they have become just as retarded and disingenuous as him.

 

[Lats of Peace]

Didn't have the time to listen to the Andrew debate last night but today I did and both of them really fumbled when that one caller wanted Andrew to define an insurrection. Andrew really scrambled to cover his ass and not fork over a clear definition. Luckily for him, tiny sucks ass when it comes to stuff he hasn't rehearsed.

I think it was fairly clear that Andrew was being disingenuous and not arguing in good faith. That's fine by me because Tiny never argues in good faith either so fuck him. The answer to the question is that an insurrection is a mass action undertaken by a group of people that attempts to overthrow a government. The catch is that the attempt has to be le bad. You call the enemies of your regime insurrectionists. If an insurrection is le good then it's no longer an insurrection.

Some court historian defining an insurrection under four characteristics is going to fall apart when tested under retarded scenarios like pot smoking hippies burning shit because it was never meant to be overarching and explanatory. It was only meant to tie together what's already been deemed an insurrection.

It's a worthy debate to have but not with Tiny. The second best thing to do was what Andrew did, bogging him down in precise definitions and meaningless distinctions. The best was what Finkelstein did and just call him a wikipediabrained tard.

 

[ThebookofDobson]

I think it was fairly clear that Andrew was being disingenuous and not arguing in good faith. That's fine by me because Tiny never argues in good faith either so fuck him. The answer to the question is that an insurrection is a mass action undertaken by a group of people that attempts to overthrow a government. The catch is that the attempt has to be le bad. You call the enemies of your regime insurrectionists. If an insurrection is le good then it's no longer an insurrection.

Some court historian defining an insurrection under four characteristics is going to fall apart when tested under retarded scenarios like pot smoking hippies burning shit because it was never meant to be overarching and explanatory. It was only meant to tie together what's already been deemed an insurrection.

It's a worthy debate to have but not with Tiny. The second best thing to do was what Andrew did, bogging him down in precise definitions and meaningless distinctions. The best was what Finkelstein did and just call him a wikipediabrained tard.

Tbh Andrew was very soild and just lost to the caller, not Destiny.
Destiny lost from the beginning when he was fulling willing to argue that the COURTS doesn't have get people on an insurrection charge for them not to commit an insurrection. Thats just admitting that one can accuse anyone of anything at states mercy which is not how it works and acting like you know more than the high courts is one hell of a play, good luck on that.
Andrew was right to say it wasnt his position, but just not answering was scummy and would show that "riot" and "insurrection" is interchangable.
This was a waste of time to anyone who knows why Destinys logic is wrong but it was cool to see it being told to him.

 

[Kars den Karb]

Tbh Andrew was very soild and just lost to the caller, not Destiny.
Destiny lost from the beginning when he was fulling willing to argue that the COURTS doesn't have get people on an insurrection charge for them not to commit an insurrection. Thats just admitting that one can accuse anyone of anything at states mercy which is not how it works and acting like you know more than the high courts is one hell of a play, good luck on that.
Andrew was right to say it wasnt his position, but just not answering was scummy and would show that "riot" and "insurrection" is interchangable.
This was a waste of time to anyone who knows why Destinys logic is wrong but it was cool to see it being told to him.

Another problem with Destiny's criteria is "interfering with a government process" covers, at the minimum, a lot of BLM/antifa courthouse riots or even something as simple as blockading a highway which interferes with first responder and postal traffic. Even the nonsense state/federal distinction can't save him there as federal courthouses were also attacked in the summer of 2020.

If you're familiar with Malcolm X's history at all, many events in his career could also be deemed insurrections under this standard.

Andrew eventually pointed this out in the caller segment by bringing up CHAZ/CHOP, but in the actual debate he used a pure internal critique as that was the shortest path with the least effort. I feel like he could've made his position almost unanswerable with more historical context, but it wasn't necessary.

 

[ThebookofDobson]

Another problem with Destiny's criteria is "interfering with a government process" covers, at the minimum, a lot of BLM/antifa courthouse riots or even something as simple as blockading a highway which interferes with first responder and postal traffic. Even the nonsense state/federal distinction can't save him there as federal courthouses were also attacked in the summer of 2020.

If you're familiar with Malcolm X's history at all, many events in his career could also be deemed insurrections under this standard.

Andrew eventually pointed this out in the caller segment by bringing up CHAZ/CHOP, but in the actual debate he used a pure internal critique as that was the shortest path with the least effort. I feel like he could've made his position almost unanswerable with more historical context, but it wasn't necessary.

A fair argument that Destiny brought up is that "rioters didn't get charged with riots" however most if not all rioters were released from jail while alot of J6ers were put through the courts and STILL didn't pick up insurrection charges.

 

[Sodom And Gomorrah]

https://x.com/paleochristcon/status/1816947415611486314

Andrew retweeted a killshot exposing destiny's debate-pedophilia but if you watch enough destiny you already know he is one massive walking contradiction, ready to deploy any logical fallacy or dishonest tactic when it's convenient to him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzTL3UGb0KE&t=15825s

here's destiny responding to the clip today on stream, a long winded version of The Emperor's New Clothes to reassure his cult that he didn't get absolutely pwned despite the blatant contradiction sitting right in front of them

 

[namelesstacotruck]

Wilson choose a strategy that guaranteed Destiny couldnt win but also that he was only going to get a technical victory.

When you realize he is trying to go mainstream much like Destiny his neutral defense makes sense. A strong defense of j6 would make sure he wouldnt be a talking head for piers morgan and maybe get him off de facto co hosting the whatever podcast.

 

[Code Cave]

I know the thread is on a bit of a pro Trump kick, but just to dip back into him being a fucking retard on Israel:

...there is this caricature of them [Israel] moving a bunch of civilians to an area and then bombing that area - that's never happened. That's just never ever, ever, ever, happened. It's never been demonstrated..

This is such an unbelievably stupid thing for him to say, but people should be used to him going to such extreme levels of slurping on Israel's cum.

Anyone who has even a passing interest in this conflict knows that Destiny is wrong here, but just to offer one reference:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinians-killed-israeli-strikes-safe-zones-exclusive-nbc-report-rcna148008

Sari Bashi, Human Rights Watch’s program director, said in an interview that the incidents highlighted in NBC News’ investigation are not isolated.

“People are fleeing to roads that the government told them to use to places where the Israeli government told them to go,” said Bashi, who has tracked the humanitarian impact of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. “And when they go there, they get killed.”

 

[loldggL]

Destiny is coping and seething so much about the insurrection debate. Andrew debated destiny in the same exact way destiny has debated everyone in the past. Destiny has always had a surface level knowledge of any topic he's debated in the past. He knows just enough to sell you that he knows what he's talking about but uses sophistry and bad faith tactics when he's confronted with someone who knows more than he does. It wasn't until the recent israel conflict that he started reading beyond the wiki.

This is such an unbelievably stupid thing for him to say, but people should be used to him going to such extreme levels of slurping on Israel's cum.

He will say prove to me that it was intentional. He will harp on the fact that he meant intentional. He wants bibi netanyahu and the knesset to say we intentionally told palestinians to go there to bomb them intentionally. Even then he will find a way to avoid taking the L.

 

[#lurker]

Didn't have the time to listen to the Andrew debate last night but today I did and both of them really fumbled when that one caller wanted Andrew to define an insurrection. Andrew really scrambled to cover his ass and not fork over a clear definition. Luckily for him, tiny sucks ass when it comes to stuff he hasn't rehearsed.

Andrew refused to define an insurrection because if he did the argument then gets bogged down by Destiny nitpicking Andrew's definition, despite the onus being on Destiny to prove his definition because he made the assertion.

Let's say Andrew gave a definition, they argued endlessly, and at the end Destiny "dismantled" his definition. That still doesn't prove it was an insurrection. It's besides the point. However Destiny's definition is entirely relevant because he is the one making the claim and also does not hold everyone to the same standard.

 

[Elderly Homosexual Negro]

I am still laughing at the fact that some drunk caller taking a dump whilst on the call managed to best Destiny.

 

[the clap]

I think Destiny's poor performance is because his research discovered it wasn't an insurrection unless you stretch the term very loosely, but he gave it the ole' college try in the hopes Andrew was asleep at the wheel.