I think there is a differentiation between: ad hominem and ad personam both are attacking a quality of the opponent, but the argument ad personam is explicitly not addressing the qualification of the opposition. Example: in a discussion about math: ad hominem: "Bro, you didn't even finished high school and you expect me to believe you 2x2 is 4?" - understanding of mathemathics may be relevant ad personam: "Bro you cheated on your wife and now you expect me to believe you when you say 2x2 is 4?" - infidelity is irrelevant Example: in a discussion about politics: ad hominem: "bro, you don't even know what MMT is and you want to lecture me on capitalism?" ad personam: "That is what a nazi would say." (therefore you are a nazi, therefore the idea is bad.) afaik, look it up yourself...
I don't get why people argue like this. Instead of making points they point to authors that have supposedly proven that point. You shouldn't need to cite books to prove that Destiny is a woman's name.
I unironically love how ridiculous President Sunday's voice is. It's like a caricature of a deep ultra-nerd fedora voice, and he even argues like he sounds he would.
He is sooo funny, I could listen to more of this. Sadly it's not in the way he thinks he is. The title is very accurate for once. This is the most bizarre "debate" I have ever heard.
Rattling off the titles of a bunch of books that nobody cares about and that you haven't even read is what stupid people do because they think it's something a smart person would do
@Blah blah Ya boo famous and influential books that he hasnt even read himself. Him bringing them up to say "ha these are books I have vaguely heard of, checkmate" is the argument of an idiot.
@@EdgarFriendlysCivicsTeacher During the debate, the wormhole would spawn and time would stand still for everyone except Destiny. He would look at his hands like Neo in the matrix, just all 1’s and 0’s…he’d then enter the wormhole and his whole life since the day DGG went live would replay before exiting the wormhole. At the end of the tunnel, he would be met by God. God: “Destiny, my son.” Destiny: “Yes, God?” God: “Isn’t that a girl’s name?” Then Steven Crowders little guitar thing would play and Destiny would be sucked back into the wormhole. He blacks out. Destiny wakes up at his computer, just as he is about to go live with the first iteration of DGG. A decision must be made. Does he remember what just happened with Sunday and Vaush, or is he…ahem….destined to repeat the same mistakes that spawned this whole gongshow to begin with?
I wish that was true. Unfortunately, I've went to school with these kinds of people. What's worse is that they would, while talking to other human being, would interject the words of onomonapeas for emphasis. Example: "You don't know that Ayn Rand has the perfect worldview and should be taken as gospel? Snorts!"
@@TiredGradStudent this is the absolute peak of modern polisci and sociology degrees lmfao... its a machine that churns out the most bad faith political actors
@@amazin7006 maybe. Though the people I specifically referenced were in physics and mechanical engineering. A lot of egos in those fields, especially the first one
You know what the most HILARIOUS part of this debate is? Sunday ADMITS he hasn't read most of those books and continues to maintain how uneducated Supreme is. Fucking amazing LOL
Yeah, he clearly thinks it's a great tactic to get rid of 99.99% of people arguing against him. And yet, if that 0.01% person came along, he'd find another excuse ..
Yeah, Sunday calls out supreme for "talking about things he doesn't know anything about. Then goes on to talk about the Kenosha riots, and has to google the fucking case to even remember who Jacob Blake was and why his shooting was justified 🤣
The smugness in sunday's voice is just unbearable. How can anyone actually listen to this guy? I'm surprised how good faith Supreme is. Impressive that he manage to not rage-quit the stream.
He’s literally the opposite of charismatic. He could lay out the most powerful arguments in the world but when he talks to people like that it makes people want to take the opposite stance
@@XDWASDX I can agree that Destiny is smug, but surely not to this extent. Most importantly, he acts in good faith, so his smugness is more like "I know what I'm talking about", not "heh, you don't realise how beneath me you are" demonstrated by Lunday.
Man President Neckbeard isn't worth wasting time on IMO, he seems to think that acting as obnoxious as humanly possible makes him look good for whatever reason, that combined with being smug and not being nearly as smart as he thinks he is makes for a gnarly combination.
In the following MrGirl-moderated convo, he does a horrendous job at differentiating private property from personal possession in a Marxist sense. I shared it with my resident commie friend and he was easily able to explain what Sunday was going at, really showed me how he’s just as bad as the people he’s preaching against misrepresenting concepts. Dude really is high on his own farts
@@lancevance6346 I came here to say the same thing I swear to God. Vaush is churning out delusional virtue hounds arguing with themselves everytime they confront someone. Dudes biggest enemy is his own confidence in how little he knows 😭😭
@@lancevance6346 that "sinthe" guy destiny debated sounds the exact same. it seems to be the uniform voice of the online hard left. the pattern of speech goes like this: answer a question with a question talk over the other persons answer make hyperbolic statement obsess over some detail out of context claim the moral high ground.
Actually quite impressed by WickedSupreme here. Mostly right, but also likable, pushing back the right amount, not being overly aggressive, not being a pushover, clowning on the guy a good amount
It's a shame because they had a second convo and supreme took more of a troll-esque attitude which made me sad Also max modded aka nothing gets to conclude
I think Tiny said this a long time ago; a very stupid person will cite random things they've read or are familiar with to make an argument, while a smart person will be able to describe the content in those works without referencing them to make the argument.
The difference is that President Sunday was not even trying to make an appeal to those authors. He admitted he never read them and said that his ability to list those works made himself an academic. 😂 Like, usually people cite random shit when they can’t argue something well enough and need a published author to vouch for them, but there was not even an argument being made.
He didn't even do that though. He was citing those books before the argument even began and he never even attempted to relate them to the argument. In fact, he admitted that he hadn't even read them lol.
I mean it's still nice to attribute ideas to their rightful authors instead of making it seem as though you yourself came up with those ideas. Fair point regardless.
Dude is a literal living Brian Griffin; does nothing but spout out the names of influential authors and hasn't read a single one. It's like listening to someone with Vaush's ego but with none of the intelligence to support it.
This "academic" guy that he's debating literally sounds like a middle school kid who thinks he's coming across as an evil genius, but everyone else just seems him as the gigacringe geek that he's actually being lmao. I remember a kid like this in school who tried to do this kind of thing. One time he tried to be intimidating about it and (in high school...) literally said "don't you _dare_ do that... or I'll.. *so* mess you up...". They literally laughed at him in response lol.
I don't think it's that far off to say that anyone who stands to gain or has a goal to gain from their political engagement is a grifter. Your rhetoric necessarily needs to align with a paying audience to spread. And while I think he's genuine on some issues, it's pretty clear Destiny is obfuscating the truth for clout when he doesn't acknowledge that he has a women's name
Do you know who this streamer is on cam? I'm interested in looking him up. Anyway, onto my counter-argument. This is all in good spirit, don't take any of it personally. "stands to gain or has a goal to gain from their political engagement is a grifter." What does this mean? "stands to gain" as in get re-elected? Then yeah, by your definition that's a grifter. There's plenty of clean politicians who care. Are they grifters because they run election campaigns? "rhetoric necessarily needs to align with a paying audience" Why? Plenty of ideas have spread online naturally. It happens all the time. Trump was elected while spending a surprisingly small amount of money. "Destiny is obfuscating the truth for clout" What truth? That politicians are grifters? Are we back at the labeling issue again?
I'm somewhat of a connoisseur with regard to the depth, clarity and sophistication of my own farts. While you don't even know the name of the gentleman who cooked the last baconator I consumed 🤓
All of that word salad and hubris… It’s just to MAJORLY cope about his lack of platform, lack of audience, and lack of income in regards to his streaming career. He’s got the “real solutions.” Knows the “real” information about a given subject. An ACH-tu-ally meme come to life. All this perfect and real information, you’d think he’d be able to actually present it or have a modicum of success doing so. Why do people care about this guy and talk to him? He never speaks to anyone in good faith. Never has anything important to say. A cry bully who makes up principles on the fly, to justify his situation in life. Not worth engaging.
@@mido9573 i couldnt get over Vaushes hot takes with Destiny. Vaush eventually conceded that if a man threatened you and chased you and tgen you showed that you would defend yourself with the rifle by brandishing it then start to retreat that if that guy continued to chase you you would be justified in defending yourself with deadly force. He said this about a hypothetical before all the details came out....then he still defended rosembaum and called rittenhouse a murderer and unjustified when all the details came put🤣
@@thrash208 he also doubled down that a single person should concede to a mob even if he was gonna die or potentially die because “muh consequentialism” worldview that says 1 person dying is preferable to a person killing multiple people that try to hurt him. Never forget.
Wow. President Sunday is exactly what's wrong with academia in regards to political philosophy. Yeah he knew of these texts and who wrote them, but he hadn't even read them, he only knew of what these books talked about(Which I would argue he didn't even name the most important ones). And the issue with this is that academia doesn't make you actually read these texts, they will have you read some sections, and then outsource your understanding of these works to some secondary source who interprets it for you. This may be ok for someone who is a layman in political philosophy, but as the student of political philosophy that President Sunday claims to be, that should be unacceptable. Read these texts for yourself, in their entirety, come to your own conclusions, and then you can talk like this. Even then, Political science isn't a hard science.
There's always been a difference between learning to know and learning to learn. When you spot who falls into what, everything starts making sense behind their character. It reveals a lot.
That's wrong with academics, as academics actually read, digest and agree disagree with the premises. Ironically flowers I'd a faux intellectual, this makes him a grifterl. As he pretend to understand things he hasn't even read.
Kyle has more right to be there then the rioters tbh hometown and he’s a lifeguard there he lives with his mom 15 minutes away while his father cousins and friends live there and the day of the riot he was cleaning graffiti handing water out and putting fires out and a store asked for protection too
That is debatable but regardless, he should not have been there, just as the rioters should not have been there. His actions got people killed that night, and I think it's pretty obvious that the kid had fallen prey to right wing propaganda and was looking to gun down evil antifa rioters. America is screwed
@@luke8536 None of the three shot by Rittenhouse were from the area. They were there specifically to use the riots as an excuse to loot, burn and assault police officers.
@@SD78 it’s not a frat party, you don’t have to “know someone” to have the right to go to a city. If you’re arguing he had a better reason for being there that’s a different discussion, but they all had the “right” to be there, even though they shouldn’t have been because of the curfew.
The amount of projection, bad faith, ad hominem, refusal to answer principled questions, and the sheer arrogance. I have not seen someone so eviscerated in a debate before. Actually embarrassing. President couldn’t even gather his thoughts because his brain was overloaded with cognitive dissonance being thrown in his face.
@@bobbyflaybobbyflay5065 yeah it's so stupid. Apparently you can't have political disagreements anymore. If you don't support communism then you might as well be a Nazi apparently.
Kyle was moving between dealerships when the Rosenbaum altercation took place. He ran specifically from a threat to himself, not a threat to the shop he was defending. This "Rittenhouse as coward" narrative is ludicrous. But let's say that he did run from a threat to the dealership, that's just more evidence he didn't intend to kill anyone over property. Their desire to dunk on Kyle is undermining their own arguments and they can't see it.
"I'm here to stop you from burning this building" "Oh... ite then we'll just beat you then" "Oh of course go ahead" From the same ppl who say "people over property". Then again it is the "submit to the mob" crew lmao
It amazes me that to this day there are still people who are maliciously ignorant about this case. Only in America can the most most clear case of self defense be debated this much
I love how he agreed that if people away from property asked you to stop someone from destroying it, you could threaten their life and rightfully defend the property if the attackers attempted to destroy it, yet his hang up with rittenhouse is that he RAN from the property and shot people, defending himself. As if when you defend property you must stand your ground and let people harm you, he fails to realize that via being the defender of said property aggressors will not take kindly to you and will try to harm you. Hes upset that kyle defended himself from attackers yet acknowledged that its okay to defend property with lethal force, as if attackers of that property would ignore him or not have the idea to take him out first.
He hardly had any any points to make beyond fishing for dunks and trolls on his opponent. He came across as pretentious and smug and the cringe way he calls liberals as ' right wingers ' as some kind of own does more to make the left look unhinged than it actually says anything about the right wing.
Memorizing a bunch of authors and books that you haven’t even read yourself just to list them out in an internet debate to try to discredit your opponent instead of addressing their actual arguments is one of the most pathetic - and most President Sunday - things I can possibly imagine
Who ever "Closes the gap" generally loses a self defense claim. Rittenhouse was running away from every single person he shot that night. Seemed pretty cut and dry to me legally.
That's only true when the individual isn't the aggressor. But given that the three men were within their rights to perform a citizen's arrest on Kyle Rittenhouse for disturbing the peace and harassment, Rittenhouse didn't have the right to run away. It's like someone robbing a jewelry store and then running away when security tries tackling them. If the individual uses a weapon, it's not "self-defense," it's armed robbery. (Not saying I agree with that, but that's how the police will see it). So the same principle applies here. Rittenhouse committed a crime, was about to be apprehended for it, and instead of complying, he escalated the situation by using a weapon on the individuals acting in their official capacity as Good Samaritans.
@@whodoesntlikesurfing was the citizens using a skateboard to hit him over the head and also plans to shoot him with an illegal firearm a part of that plan? Lol
Why does anyone engage with this guy? He doesn't actually say anything. Has anyone ever seen him honestly talk with a single person who doesn't just agree with him?
"Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there in the first place..." The rioters shouldn't have been there either. The rioters were already caught red handed for two nights straight destroying the city of Kenosha where law enforcement all but abandoned the citizenry to lawlessness, yet only one side of this topic is argued while the other remains almost protected by government (likely because government failed the people completely in Kenosha). Kenosha was under mob rule and basic tyranny for two days prior to Kyle showing up to the plea for help by citizens being oppressed by aggressors and the attempt at charging Kyle for clear usage of self-defense is questionable, as there was an absence of law in that location already. As law enforcement abandoned the public being oppressed by the "rioters" burning down the city long before-hand, is it just to uphold the law when the law abandoned that location during the time of the incident? In a location removed from the rule of law, as law enforcement were told to stand down by their leaders and all but abandon the public to such evil, how can Kyle even be charged for crimes when the government all but failed at their duty to protect the public trust and safety to begin with, as there was no framework of rules or law during the timeframe of events, not until long after when Kyle removed himself from the location and mob in hot pursuit of Kyle. "He crossed state lines" was quite the talking point until it was found legal, and that narrative quickly abandoned. "He was a minor illegally handling a firearm" was quickly found legal in Wisconsin. "The firearm was illegal due to superficial reasoning..." The firearm Kyle had was legal and abided the state requirements for him to legally possess. "He brought the firearm from another state" was found a lie, Kyle's friend purchased the firearm for him until he was of legal age, and the firearm was kept in a safe in Kenosha with his friend's family. "He was not part of the community" was a lie, the prosecutors demanded Kyle's long known public service and interests within Kenosha to be removed from the trial and kept from the jury, and the prosecutors were mocked for trying to purposefully mislead the jury about Kyle, for trying to falsely frame Kyle not being part of the community of Kenosha which he was. Look to the prosecutors opening and closing arguments, then look to Kyle's opening and closing arguments and find out who is lying about what transpired, the prosecutors were misleading the jury throughout the trial. Soon, throughout a long-winded trial showing Kyle was all but innocent, the prosecutors then forced the jury to decide whether or not Kyle was guilty regarding a mess of a still frame of pixels that you cannot even make out due to its extremely low resolution that was provided by the FBI, in which the FBI refuses to tell their reasoning for being there at the time yet have enough influence to prejudice the jury all the same. The original video from the FBI was "somehow" deleted too, leaving the jury basically guessing as to whether or not Kyle faced his aggressor or not to claim Kyle instigated his aggressor, it was madness to listen to, Kyle's freedom now rested upon pixels that could be perceived to be anything, and the prosecutors ran with that false narrative. Don't forget, Kenosha also wanted to build a monument to the rioters who were burning down the city who attacked Kyle, and the public's outrage shut them down quickly...But don't think they will not attempt to get this monument to their oppressors through once the outrage dies down. The conflict that happened in Kenosha was an ongoing issue that was happening long before Kyle Rittenhouse entered the picture, and Kyle Rittenhouse became the state leadership's scapegoat to avoid any liability for abandoning their constituency. Regarding Kyle Rittenhouse, law enforcement all but abandoned the locale and public already, where Rittenhouse and the rioters were having continued engagements and conflicts throughout the night without any incidents of note...Only for a certain mentally unwell individual found goading Kyle and his friend's repeatedly, and only to eventually assault Kyle and pursue Kyle until Kyle had no other recourse but to use self-defense. Thereby the belief that any framework of politics and/or law being absent from society, as this "influencer" attempts to argue (to his own detriment imho), as law enforcement and thereby the government purposefully retreated and abandoned this location where everything occurred to allow absolute chaos and anarchy to reign...Outside the possible FBI involvement and possible operations that remains quite vague if not purposefully removed from public discourse, isn't Kyle's actions and that of the rioters both removed from any crime and/or law, judging by the belief this "influencer" is attempting to produce? Trying to argue Kyle Rittenhouse was acting upon evil, or acting criminally, from a position where one even claims an established political/moral framework offers humanity a semblance of laws and rules to follow, and without those laws and rules any crime is considered moot if not irrelevant, then the person claiming that position should fully side with both Rittenhouse and the rioters that were burning down the city the past couple days. This person should claim the rioters along with the actions of Rittenhouse were not criminal, and instead claim the government was in error instead for previously abandoning the public to such anarchy. This is using this person's own argument, the dude who answers questions with questions, who purposefully demeans the other guy for his positions while he gives absolutely none himself. He is the definition of a "useful idiot."
The notion of bringing differing weaponry to these scenarios would not cause differing responses to conflict, that has already been proven a moot argument by Europe and their current escalation in crime and violence with knives since firearms are banned from most the public, as we are currently witnessing within Europe with rampant crimes regarding knives, I don't see how this is a relevant argument knowing firsthand how knives can be far more deadly in any conflict than firearms, as both knives and firearms both are just as efficient as however skilled and/or trained a person is with said tool. "Maybe I can disarm them..." Isn't that exactly what Rittenhouse did to the one rioter who pretended to stand down, and then pulled out his illegal and criminal usage of a carry and conceal, and that "protester" attempted to fire upon Kyle Rittenhouse at close range after pretending to surrender prior to attacking Kyle, only for Kyle Rittenhouse to first lower his firearm at the sign of said false surrender and to then re-engage and fire to "disarm" this rioter prior to them firing upon Rittenhouse? Kyle "disarmed" that aggressor but go ahead and argue the "nuance" of this fact. Kyle Rittenhouse only fired upon direct threats to his person, and that is likely why a jury ruled him innocent. If Kyle was fired that firearm any more than he ended up doing, he might have been found guilty of endangering others, and Kyle had all the reason to keep his guard up and possibly shoot more as videos of that incident show Kyle is not the only person firing firearms during the timeframe in question. But since Kyle remained mostly restrained in his usage of said firearm, his restraint was likely the very reason he was innocent. Lastly, after the Rittenhouse trial and the jury went to deliberate, there was a clear disparity in outcomes from Corporate Media and countless content creators, lawyers and "influencers" who watched this entire trail. I witnessed many streams that covered the entire trial through its entirety, Corporate Media on the other hand cherry picked whatever they could to come to their predetermined narrative of guilt. Corporate Media long beforehand claimed Kyle Rittenhouse clearly guilty on all counts (as they ruled him guilty long before hand with many politicians and celebrities claiming as much biasing just about any jury that was to be had), they even defied the very legal principles and were outraged at every time one of the charges was rightfully tossed out by the judge, while content creators mostly agreed that Kyle Rittenhouse acted within the boundaries of the law and was innocent of nearly all charges, but weren't foolish enough to perceive a jury who lived through this oppression and were inundated by the propaganda at work from most known "trusted" platforms. The jury suffered through mob rule and more or less oppression if not terrorism by the mob, to not put their blame upon someone like Kyle Rittenhouse seemingly didn't seem realistic, the need to "vent" their frustration somewhere or upon someone, most who watched the trial realized Kyle might be charged with something due to the jury having suffered through this oppression. Yet even so, the jury sided with Kyle Rittenhouse, the content creators, lawyers, "influencers," social media at large mostly were shocked and earnestly content with the outcome of the trial, seeing how malicious the prosecutors were it was more or less and argument regarding whether or not mob rule is acceptable for society, and if so Kyle Rittenhouse had no right to stand up for his community, which is an abuse of power if I've ever witnessed one. And Corporate Media lost its mind regarding the verdict, and they began all but inciting a response from their viewers, pleading with the public to take action for daring to defy their ignorant position on this trial. People were becoming concerned, like myself, we worried that Corporate Media was inciting the public to commit some terrible action against the public from their blatant incitement and demands for some sort of "revenge." And it ended up happening too, as Wisconsin then saw some lunatic drive his vehicle through a parade...Only for Corporate Media to immediately stop inciting the public about Kyle Rittenhouse being innocent and then ignoring that topic all together as they pivoted coverage and salivated over the parade crisis that just took place, likely due to them inciting such an incident to happen. How Corporate Media was not scrutinized relentlessly for all but inciting such a response, I simply cannot fathom how they continue on without any blame for the parade incident, they all but demanded something like that to happen.
My guy..... You need to chill out. The final verdict has already been made and Kyle is doing great. Whatever beef people have with a case that's already closed is just a moot point. That's all you have to say about it, not write a thousand page essay about how triggered you are lol
@@Hunterchuck Apparently not, there are many who still believe Kyle murdered African Americans that were doing nothing criminal because of the egregious amounts of propaganda over just about every issue lately. Near everything is being politicized, weaponized, and society is finding a complete break in mentality, siding "against" the "other" almost always. And the problem at hand is social media, the internet and those in power all encouraging such rhetoric and belief, those in control of the internet and the platforms of speech, thereby thought are manufacturing this division purposefully while our government is continuously found inciting their constituency into conflict and strife. If they are nefariously pushing us into one box or the latter, there should be immediate inquiry and scrutiny, even regarding leadership seeing how they all but agree with this evil. We are no longer being informed but indoctrinated, and that is now being embraced by education too. Most social media platforms along with the internet itself all but admit to as much, and it's all to reinforce the public resentment of one another instead of society demanding leadership be held accountable.
@@snugglestruggle8437 Ok dude.... I've not heard anyone say that a black person was shot in a leftist place. If this is even a thing, it's not even worth mentioning. You are making boogeymen out of nothing....
Not gonna lie this was brutal, it was more posturing than anything. I love the argument hey he(Rittenhouse) shouldn't have been there and put himself in a bad position so he was wrong because of it. Simple question I would ask is this, is a woman that went out drinking and got a little too drunk and decides to go down a dark alley responsible for her possible attack and rape? We all have our ourselves in bad positions but it doesn't mean we deserve violence or death. What 50 million people walk around with a gun at all times. It doesn't mean they deserve retribution from some pedo, that btw was trying to push a dumpster that was lit on fire into a gas station and Kyle tried to stop it. The kid made some less than optimal decisions but in the end he handled that situation better than most would have. He shot only the attackers and no one else and didn't have many if any shots that didn't land where needed or intended. All this over Jacob Blake a guy that 90 percent of the rioters didn't even know by name, and didn't even really know what happened or why they were rioting or protesting. My simple conclusion, if you decide destroying someone's property because you want to participate in destructive behaviors for seemingly no reason other than just because, expect some resistance. While so many say it was just things, many lost their businesses and many that were insured didn't get near enough back, including lost labor and lost business. Not to mention the vast majority of the riot affected black or brown owned businesses. So they fought for someone they didn't know because of racism by destroying minority owned businesses in order to provide nothing in return. Except maybe contempt.
@@idimo7976 then why even speak with them? Grandstanding because someone doesn't agree with every single aspect of your political ideals seems pretty narcissistic and ignorant.
Its funny because people laugh at Vaush for basically arguing that "you have to let it burn", but then they turn around and say Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, which translates to "you should let it burn"..
@@ozzy7455 oh, I'm saying that he isn't charitable to Rittenhouse. His opposition to Rittenhouse being there with a gun isn't based on any values, it's the "friend good, enemy bad" stuff that Destiny doesn't like.
Keffals I dont think cross anything even T's. The only thing about her that seemingly crossed state lines was experiments she claimed to be hormone blockers if the rumor are correct.
I remember seeing people commenting on the video last time president Sunday talked with Destiny about how they were glad that someone was giving good pushback, and I was left flabbergasted. It was the most brain dead pushback. I hope this conversation helps people realize the lack of knowledge and bad faith that this guy brings to the table.
@@ON-ry8iw “Grifting is when you do something for money.” Also, the not understanding what someone means when they ask if something is a right. Either intentionally bad faith or brain dead. Also, not being able to engage with any question proposed. Granted this is likely less a brain dead position or more one of knowing that answering these questions is going to either put you in an untenable position or make you admit you are wrong. Also, the entire premise of his argument is brain dead. Are there right wing grifters who have the facade of liberal? Of course. But there are plenty of principled liberal content creators that believe in what they espouse and their positions are more in line with left wing positions than right wing.
@@ON-ry8iw go back and listen. Sunday essentially says that destiny has thrown his lot in with the transphobes by being too tough on certain Trans content creators. He's the classic douchebag that thinks that the fact he uses big words and sounds smart while arguing a false binary makes him right.
@@ON-ry8iw he does it again here. The idea that liberals and centrists can just be lumped in with any and all other right wingers because they believe in property rights is peak braindead binary logic.
@@ON-ry8iw If they're talking about the Manifesto pushback, it was basically an hour of, "Destiny, aren't you aware everything you say has consequences? You have influence, and I don't agree that you're using it well because you haven't always said everything with every necessary caveat or proper tone in the moment such that someone watching you could walk away with a bad belief." Pointing out that people who talk for 10 hours a day to audiences might have slip ups and clippable moments that run counter to their values is just about the most brain dead criticism you could have.
"I'm pro defending himself, no I don't think you should kill people to defend a few cars." He says right after acknowledging the fact that rittenhouse fled from his post and wasnt protecting property anymore. I don't know what this guys point is. He's okay with the gun being there for self defense, but can't recognize that's all the gun was used for that night.
Ad hominem is not just a plain old insult-it's specifically the use of an insult AS an argument. If I call someone fat and ugly in response to an argument, it's only an ad hominem if I say, "and because of that, you are wrong." Otherwise, I'm just being rude.
Cringing so hard and I'm only a few minutes in. I have no idea what this guy looks like but I'm imagining a minimum of three trilbys stacked on this guys head
If people are just going to keep ignoring evidence and the legal code why even entertain debating them exactly. It’s like trying to translate a language to a person who denies the existence of said language.
Destiny, the ad hom scenario I think you should’ve used would be “I think 2+2=4” “I think you’re a *word salad* incurious person” which feels like a character attack avoiding the debate entirely, if not calling someone bad-faith in their debating at all or just stupid
Oh my f****** God bro Attacking somebody's credibility is an ad hominum. Calling someone a fat f****** r***** is just an insult. It can become an ad hom if you add, "therefore, your argument is wrong." The reason it's a fallacy is because the person making an argument has no relation to the validity of the argument. End of story, 100% of the time. If you don't think someone is qualified to talk about something, don't talk to them about it, but the moment you start saying they're not credible instead of engaging with their argument, it's fallacious. I don't know why an appeal to authority always gets brought up here because this completely unrelated. They are similar in that it's still true that the authority of the person making the argument has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. It's still fallacious, because, news flash, nobody is correct 100% of the time. Bro destiny, vaush, president Sunday, I don't care. I'll debate anyone on this topic you guys are all wrong, consistently. It demonstrates a lack of comprehension as to why these things are fallacious.
I'm on the same page as you but no need to get panties in a wad about some silly semantics lol Kind of irrelevant to more interesting topics of discussion.
@@Hunterchuck Understanding the basic rules of logic is a lot more important than just semantics. Not understanding this means that you are incapable of figuring out what is true. Do you know what sophistry is? Just look at how president sunday somehow rationalized in his head that he doesn't have to listen to ,or engage with, anyone. He literally believes that he can't be wrong. It isn't even an option. That is what this leads to.
Honestly, President Sunday is the political-space content creator I'd be most afraid to be in a room with. People who see themselves as superior to the 'lemmings,' think only in black and white, have contempt for existence and/or humanity, try to hold a bubbling rage just below the surface, and have easily bruised egos have manifested that contempt for humanity in ways -- bigger and smaller -- I don't want to be around to see.
Wicked seems like a pretty chill dude. That Sunday guy is unbearable though. The road to intellectual enlightenment is to know books and their authors without having read them.
Dude wicked supreme literally described how I feel when he mentioned people that might have been interested in sunday's content but now see him as a blowhard and could care less about what he has to say
Exactly. I first learned about him when he talked with Destiny about the manifesto. Back then I did get some of the same vibes as this video, but overall I didn't hate him and I did feel as though he was somewhat smart. I could have seen myself being conviced into checking him out eventually. What little I've seen since then has done the opposite. With this video, I'm fairly certain anyone not already a fan of his would totally write him off. Even those that are already his fans can't possibly think he looked good in that conversation.
@@OneNot yeah I always got kind of a condensing vibe from his stuff and his vocabulary seems intentionally inflated. But I'm honestly ok with both of those things, they're kind of just quirks. He seems to be so venomous that he can't think in the moment so his real time conversations just suck so bad
@@Fedorevsky no, he knows the name of the books. It just so happens the minimum bar of entry to debate him is you need to know the name of books too otherwise it's not worth his time. He knows book titles and authors names and hes probably read a couple of the back cover blurbs.
@@gotworc "Sir! If you've not read about Max and his philosophies in Where the Wild Things Are, then frankly, I don't see the point of continuing the conversation."
Next time someone asks of I've ever tripped acid I'm gonna ask who wrote Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as an appeal to authority... Then I'm going to say I've never read it. Then I will be a true academic.
Wow.... so we are into clickbait huh? That guy didn't list books he knew. He listed books he knew the titles of... my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined!
If someone ever says "read a book", they are unnable to make the arguement themself which means they dont understand it. If they did, they should be able to explain it in simple terms. Hes literally just appealing to the authority of books, many of which he hasnt even read. Its the same thing as an engineer saying "im an engineer, trust me this a good idea" while being entirely unnable to explain why. Authority does not make up for the lack of evidence or an arguement, the engineer should instead be able to present his math and reasoning. In this case, the uncharismatic fellow thinks just because he knows a few books we should just take him at his word
Listening to the AdHom part and I want to pull my hair out. If you're not attacking the argument in some way it's just plain abuse. I think this is what Supreme means when he talks about credibility
It's amazing how some people don't understand how important livelihoods are. They seem completely unaware how being unemployed and homeless is a very dangerous situation to be in.
I want to see these two in a good cop bad cop sitcom where every interrogation devolves into arguing over semantics and ignoring the suspects while they try to confess. I’ve heard wicked talk to destiny here and there and always thought he seemed pretty grounded but after this I think I’m a fan. He seems really good at undermining pretentious attitudes and making them look like characters. Although I don’t think this other guy needed any help there
Destiny Convinces Him To Quit The Debate ►ruclips.net/video/_j61a34Oork/видео.html
Who the guy talking about the books
I think there is a differentiation between: ad hominem and ad personam
both are attacking a quality of the opponent, but the argument ad personam is explicitly not addressing the qualification of the opposition.
Example: in a discussion about math:
ad hominem: "Bro, you didn't even finished high school and you expect me to believe you 2x2 is 4?" - understanding of mathemathics may be relevant
ad personam: "Bro you cheated on your wife and now you expect me to believe you when you say 2x2 is 4?" - infidelity is irrelevant
Example: in a discussion about politics:
ad hominem: "bro, you don't even know what MMT is and you want to lecture me on capitalism?"
ad personam: "That is what a nazi would say." (therefore you are a nazi, therefore the idea is bad.)
afaik, look it up yourself...
What game is Destiny playing
@@JohnSmith-yd5wq Factorio. I think
41:43 this is enough. Can I kill myself already?? How does one man have this much patience??????? 😢 End my suffering
I don't get why people argue like this. Instead of making points they point to authors that have supposedly proven that point. You shouldn't need to cite books to prove that Destiny is a woman's name.
In most cases, if someone argues by appealing to authority, instead of actually arguing the topic...I stop listening.
I think not reading relevant titles shows to a degree that you are less willing to engage with the idea that Destiny is a woman's name
I agree, blessings upon his woman's name.
Do you know who is the author of Destiny XX Chromosome, no? well you are clearly not ready for the topic.
God why are you destiny fans such massive losers
"I know that these books exist.“ is a bold debate strategy.
💯😆
He’s the kind of gambler that bluffs while showing his cards
“I’ve heard of ‘getting pussy’ but I’ve never actually done it myself”
-this guy
I literally burst out laughing. This guy is a meme
@@ChuckFinelyForever LMAO great analogy
I unironically love how ridiculous President Sunday's voice is. It's like a caricature of a deep ultra-nerd fedora voice, and he even argues like he sounds he would.
he sounds like vaush
He is sooo funny, I could listen to more of this. Sadly it's not in the way he thinks he is. The title is very accurate for once. This is the most bizarre "debate" I have ever heard.
@@peepeepoopoo2749 yeah people who do this dont realize how easy it is to tell. Sounds like you're swallowing something
It even sounds like he has some sort of EQ going on. Maybe just mic distortion, it always bothered me.
He’s trying to do the Death Note “L” modulated voice when he’s speaking through the laptop
Rattling off the titles of a bunch of books that nobody cares about and that you haven't even read is what stupid people do because they think it's something a smart person would do
@Blah blah Ya boo famous and influential books that he hasnt even read himself. Him bringing them up to say "ha these are books I have vaguely heard of, checkmate" is the argument of an idiot.
@Blah blah Ya boo Why hasn't he read those books then ? That's automatic L bro.
"Look at all these books I know the author of, owned chud!"
His specific point is that anyone who is "interested in ideas", like WS claims he is, would at least know of them.
It's an incorrect point.
I think we can create a worm hole if we get Sunday and Vaush debate books they know the authors of.
I was hoping if we could get them to touch fingers they'd cancel one another out, but I suspect it'll just play out like The Thing.
@@EdgarFriendlysCivicsTeacher During the debate, the wormhole would spawn and time would stand still for everyone except Destiny. He would look at his hands like Neo in the matrix, just all 1’s and 0’s…he’d then enter the wormhole and his whole life since the day DGG went live would replay before exiting the wormhole. At the end of the tunnel, he would be met by God.
God: “Destiny, my son.”
Destiny: “Yes, God?”
God: “Isn’t that a girl’s name?”
Then Steven Crowders little guitar thing would play and Destiny would be sucked back into the wormhole. He blacks out.
Destiny wakes up at his computer, just as he is about to go live with the first iteration of DGG. A decision must be made. Does he remember what just happened with Sunday and Vaush, or is he…ahem….destined to repeat the same mistakes that spawned this whole gongshow to begin with?
@@opinionshurt2905 this would be an amazing animated series
@@tb8654 it could be like a choose your own adventure series. How do we make this happen? I cant draw and am generally talentless. Any ideas?
The difference being that Vaush would never admit to reading
Sunday vs Vaush would be the most unbearable debate in the history of mankind.
This fucking guy is unbelievable
Why did you put that into the ether?
There is no way this guy wasn't trolling. I refuse to believe people actually argue like this
Welcome to Earth!
I wish that was true. Unfortunately, I've went to school with these kinds of people. What's worse is that they would, while talking to other human being, would interject the words of onomonapeas for emphasis. Example: "You don't know that Ayn Rand has the perfect worldview and should be taken as gospel? Snorts!"
@@TiredGradStudent That's why I'm going to Welding School.
@@TiredGradStudent this is the absolute peak of modern polisci and sociology degrees lmfao... its a machine that churns out the most bad faith political actors
@@amazin7006 maybe. Though the people I specifically referenced were in physics and mechanical engineering. A lot of egos in those fields, especially the first one
You know what the most HILARIOUS part of this debate is? Sunday ADMITS he hasn't read most of those books and continues to maintain how uneducated Supreme is. Fucking amazing LOL
He's a redditor personified.
@@ATSaale My new hobby is learning authors to books I will never read.
I wanna be as smart as Lunday!
Yeah, he clearly thinks it's a great tactic to get rid of 99.99% of people arguing against him. And yet, if that 0.01% person came along, he'd find another excuse ..
Yeah, Sunday calls out supreme for "talking about things he doesn't know anything about. Then goes on to talk about the Kenosha riots, and has to google the fucking case to even remember who Jacob Blake was and why his shooting was justified 🤣
@@bewareofmountainlions4429 TRUE!! Was the funniest shit I've ever seen 🤣 😂
This guy is "iamverysmart".
And would cry to the teacher that nobody liked him after using his "intellectual" superiority to bully everyone.
The saddest part about these people is that generally they can't realize how dumb they are.
Dunning-Kruger in effect.
I think he is objectively smart... but intelligence doesn't always give you the right answers
Not smart enough to move his mouth in such a way to pronounce words correctly
Aww....someone like you who spends time on a website like Reddit insinuating that OTHER people are pseudo-intellectuals is just ironically hilarious.
The smugness in sunday's voice is just unbearable. How can anyone actually listen to this guy? I'm surprised how good faith Supreme is. Impressive that he manage to not rage-quit the stream.
Destiny is smug as hell and we eat that shit up
He’s literally the opposite of charismatic. He could lay out the most powerful arguments in the world but when he talks to people like that it makes people want to take the opposite stance
same
@@XDWASDX I can agree that Destiny is smug, but surely not to this extent. Most importantly, he acts in good faith, so his smugness is more like "I know what I'm talking about", not "heh, you don't realise how beneath me you are" demonstrated by Lunday.
supreme wasnt good faith, he was insulting and posturing the whole time haha
President Sunday is what happens when a meme is granted sentience
A very bad meme too
@@0xcc32sys_err4 and a very limited amount of sentience
Nah, bikini bottoms food critic had to find a new job.
It’s basically a case of tell me you were bullied in high school, without telling me you were bullied in high school.
@@makecrimeillegal4308 no pickles
Man President Neckbeard isn't worth wasting time on IMO, he seems to think that acting as obnoxious as humanly possible makes him look good for whatever reason, that combined with being smug and not being nearly as smart as he thinks he is makes for a gnarly combination.
In the following MrGirl-moderated convo, he does a horrendous job at differentiating private property from personal possession in a Marxist sense. I shared it with my resident commie friend and he was easily able to explain what Sunday was going at, really showed me how he’s just as bad as the people he’s preaching against misrepresenting concepts. Dude really is high on his own farts
I’ve never seen anything like it. Since childhood lol
@@lancevance6346 I came here to say the same thing I swear to God. Vaush is churning out delusional virtue hounds arguing with themselves everytime they confront someone. Dudes biggest enemy is his own confidence in how little he knows 😭😭
@@lancevance6346 that "sinthe" guy destiny debated sounds the exact same.
it seems to be the uniform voice of the online hard left.
the pattern of speech goes like this:
answer a question with a question
talk over the other persons answer
make hyperbolic statement
obsess over some detail out of context
claim the moral high ground.
he’s interesting to follow sometimes
You know, the more I hear from this President Sunday guy, the more I don't care for him.
Okay, simmer down. He is not Hitler.
@@narva5440 Ok simmer down. All Daz said was that he doesn't care for the guy.
@@gomblebomble808 r/wooosh
@@Hankblue That's exactly what I thought too. He just absolutely made himself into a lolcow for no reason.
Geez, chill. He's not Hitler, is he?
Actually quite impressed by WickedSupreme here. Mostly right, but also likable, pushing back the right amount, not being overly aggressive, not being a pushover, clowning on the guy a good amount
He's taking the Jordan Peterson strategy of just sitting back and letting your insane opponent destroy himself. Just let him talk.
@@Mant111 Judge Mathis was the OG of doing that
It's a shame because they had a second convo and supreme took more of a troll-esque attitude which made me sad
Also max modded aka nothing gets to conclude
@@Mant111 The problem is Peterson sat back and destroyed himself lmao
@@wheresmycar9559no lmao
It’s very obvious that this dude has been listening to a lot of Vaush. He has his mannerisms and inflections nailed down
I’m convinced it’s literally Vaush trolling.
Seems to be Vaush with a pitched mic.
I honestly thought this was Vaush. Came in auto play after another video and I was only listening and not watching or reading.
@@johnmorris8444
I did the same and honestly thought that it’s Vaush.
Ironically being a Vaush clone makes him look like a grifter.😂
@fred's long, hard, throbbing ego imagine basing your entire existence on Vaush lol
Sunday was the kid in school that always dropped his underwear around his ankles to use the urinal.
Lmao he's grown up Butters
This is so painfully spot on
and now he's a reddit mod
He’s still a kid, just uses an obvious voice changer
I think Tiny said this a long time ago; a very stupid person will cite random things they've read or are familiar with to make an argument, while a smart person will be able to describe the content in those works without referencing them to make the argument.
Troof
The difference is that President Sunday was not even trying to make an appeal to those authors. He admitted he never read them and said that his ability to list those works made himself an academic. 😂
Like, usually people cite random shit when they can’t argue something well enough and need a published author to vouch for them, but there was not even an argument being made.
He didn't even do that though. He was citing those books before the argument even began and he never even attempted to relate them to the argument. In fact, he admitted that he hadn't even read them lol.
I think his most telling thing is that he admitted not even reading the books
I mean it's still nice to attribute ideas to their rightful authors instead of making it seem as though you yourself came up with those ideas. Fair point regardless.
Dude is a literal living Brian Griffin; does nothing but spout out the names of influential authors and hasn't read a single one. It's like listening to someone with Vaush's ego but with none of the intelligence to support it.
So no difference at all?
@@nikwaggoner2480 well, vaush has more skill in sophistry to hide it
“You’ve never looked at someone in the eye and called them a bitch.” That was the truest thing said in this whole interaction 😂
This "academic" guy that he's debating literally sounds like a middle school kid who thinks he's coming across as an evil genius, but everyone else just seems him as the gigacringe geek that he's actually being lmao. I remember a kid like this in school who tried to do this kind of thing. One time he tried to be intimidating about it and (in high school...) literally said "don't you _dare_ do that... or I'll.. *so* mess you up...". They literally laughed at him in response lol.
I don't think it's that far off to say that anyone who stands to gain or has a goal to gain from their political engagement is a grifter. Your rhetoric necessarily needs to align with a paying audience to spread. And while I think he's genuine on some issues, it's pretty clear Destiny is obfuscating the truth for clout when he doesn't acknowledge that he has a women's name
Do you know who this streamer is on cam? I'm interested in looking him up. Anyway, onto my counter-argument. This is all in good spirit, don't take any of it personally.
"stands to gain or has a goal to gain from their political engagement is a grifter."
What does this mean? "stands to gain" as in get re-elected? Then yeah, by your definition that's a grifter. There's plenty of clean politicians who care. Are they grifters because they run election campaigns?
"rhetoric necessarily needs to align with a paying audience"
Why? Plenty of ideas have spread online naturally. It happens all the time. Trump was elected while spending a surprisingly small amount of money.
"Destiny is obfuscating the truth for clout"
What truth? That politicians are grifters? Are we back at the labeling issue again?
Remarkable.
Quit grifting.
this the best one
amazin'
This guy is a clear representation of someone that sniffs their own farts cause they think it’s classy and that they are smarter than everyone
South park reference lol
I'm somewhat of a connoisseur with regard to the depth, clarity and sophistication of my own farts. While you don't even know the name of the gentleman who cooked the last baconator I consumed 🤓
But my farts smell so tasty 🧐
All of the authors ever should band together to sue President Sunday for destroying the perceived value of their products
I just think it’s funny to imagine Karl Marx trying to get money out of Sunday instead of just eating him
All of that word salad and hubris… It’s just to MAJORLY cope about his lack of platform, lack of audience, and lack of income in regards to his streaming career. He’s got the “real solutions.” Knows the “real” information about a given subject. An ACH-tu-ally meme come to life. All this perfect and real information, you’d think he’d be able to actually present it or have a modicum of success doing so.
Why do people care about this guy and talk to him? He never speaks to anyone in good faith. Never has anything important to say. A cry bully who makes up principles on the fly, to justify his situation in life. Not worth engaging.
Ah because he's hilarious
"Oh I would just disarm him"
Spoken like My guy has never in his life considered his own mortality lmfao
You know its going to be a good day when a lefty wants to debate about rittenhouse🚬
It's incredible how after 3 years the narrative on the left is still "he's a murderer who shot 3 people in cold blood for no reason"
respect the grift
@@mido9573 i couldnt get over Vaushes hot takes with Destiny.
Vaush eventually conceded that if a man threatened you and chased you and tgen you showed that you would defend yourself with the rifle by brandishing it then start to retreat that if that guy continued to chase you you would be justified in defending yourself with deadly force. He said this about a hypothetical before all the details came out....then he still defended rosembaum and called rittenhouse a murderer and unjustified when all the details came put🤣
@@thrash208 he also doubled down that a single person should concede to a mob even if he was gonna die or potentially die because “muh consequentialism” worldview that says 1 person dying is preferable to a person killing multiple people that try to hurt him.
Never forget.
@@sdjslkdjlsskldjslkdjsl8262
Next he will compare actual court cases to the nonsense that happens in the She Hulk show.
@fred's long, hard, throbbing ego He actually did lmao
"Rings of Power is gripping."
Hahaha, this guy must be trolling.
Wow. President Sunday is exactly what's wrong with academia in regards to political philosophy. Yeah he knew of these texts and who wrote them, but he hadn't even read them, he only knew of what these books talked about(Which I would argue he didn't even name the most important ones). And the issue with this is that academia doesn't make you actually read these texts, they will have you read some sections, and then outsource your understanding of these works to some secondary source who interprets it for you. This may be ok for someone who is a layman in political philosophy, but as the student of political philosophy that President Sunday claims to be, that should be unacceptable. Read these texts for yourself, in their entirety, come to your own conclusions, and then you can talk like this. Even then, Political science isn't a hard science.
Its also a borderline pointless thing to pursue academically. Let alone tout it
Bro, imagine not wasting time on the book measuring contest and instead talking about the disagreements they had. What a fun novel idea.
@@JaredandTasha What's an example of something that isn't "pointless" to pursue "academically"?
There's always been a difference between learning to know and learning to learn. When you spot who falls into what, everything starts making sense behind their character. It reveals a lot.
That's wrong with academics, as academics actually read, digest and agree disagree with the premises. Ironically flowers I'd a faux intellectual, this makes him a grifterl. As he pretend to understand things he hasn't even read.
President Sunday just proved to me that reading books is pointless. Thanks a lot.
Don't worry, he hasn't read them either.
@@Lkjhgf5482 tbh he feels like Vaush 2.0 but even Vaush wouldn’t say something so pretentious and stupid at the same time.
If one stupid person can prove you that, you are already lost.
It's fine my dude, you don't have to read them - just learn titles and authors by hard
@Char Aznable yo nigga. You Char Aznable? And I’m Kamille Bidan .
Kyle has more right to be there then the rioters tbh hometown and he’s a lifeguard there he lives with his mom 15 minutes away while his father cousins and friends live there and the day of the riot he was cleaning graffiti handing water out and putting fires out and a store asked for protection too
CROSSED STATE LIIIIIIINNNNNNESSSS!!!111
-Ana Kasparian
That is debatable but regardless, he should not have been there, just as the rioters should not have been there. His actions got people killed that night, and I think it's pretty obvious that the kid had fallen prey to right wing propaganda and was looking to gun down evil antifa rioters.
America is screwed
So none of the rioters worked or lived there?
@@luke8536 None of the three shot by Rittenhouse were from the area. They were there specifically to use the riots as an excuse to loot, burn and assault police officers.
@@SD78 it’s not a frat party, you don’t have to “know someone” to have the right to go to a city. If you’re arguing he had a better reason for being there that’s a different discussion, but they all had the “right” to be there, even though they shouldn’t have been because of the curfew.
This guy is the textbook definition of "Its not my job to educate you".
The amount of projection, bad faith, ad hominem, refusal to answer principled questions, and the sheer arrogance. I have not seen someone so eviscerated in a debate before. Actually embarrassing. President couldn’t even gather his thoughts because his brain was overloaded with cognitive dissonance being thrown in his face.
Why do I get the feeling President Sunday's never touched a woman?
A madam , if you will
Not even during breast feed?
Let's hope it stays that way.
Maidenless
Thank God.
This guy sounds like the type of person who would say socialism is a centrist position.
Anything i dont like is right wing and the more i dont like it the more right wing it is
@@bobbyflaybobbyflay5065 yeah it's so stupid. Apparently you can't have political disagreements anymore. If you don't support communism then you might as well be a Nazi apparently.
everybody knows the definition of grifter is Hunter Avallone
Is that in the Oxford or Urban dictionaries?
@@BigBossTooN Oxford
Kyle was moving between dealerships when the Rosenbaum altercation took place. He ran specifically from a threat to himself, not a threat to the shop he was defending.
This "Rittenhouse as coward" narrative is ludicrous. But let's say that he did run from a threat to the dealership, that's just more evidence he didn't intend to kill anyone over property.
Their desire to dunk on Kyle is undermining their own arguments and they can't see it.
"I'm here to stop you from burning this building"
"Oh... ite then we'll just beat you then"
"Oh of course go ahead"
From the same ppl who say "people over property". Then again it is the "submit to the mob" crew lmao
It amazes me that to this day there are still people who are maliciously ignorant about this case. Only in America can the most most clear case of self defense be debated this much
I'm not a dude overly obsessed with destiny, I'm just here early.
Good on you buddy 😊😊😊
Obsessed + Ratio + Ur a black elf + Guh-nome phucc + Why did you call me princess + Who asked + Weaselly little liar
@@chriscueva1866 thanks bud.
@@JohnSmith-wi2re oh no
I love how he agreed that if people away from property asked you to stop someone from destroying it, you could threaten their life and rightfully defend the property if the attackers attempted to destroy it, yet his hang up with rittenhouse is that he RAN from the property and shot people, defending himself.
As if when you defend property you must stand your ground and let people harm you, he fails to realize that via being the defender of said property aggressors will not take kindly to you and will try to harm you. Hes upset that kyle defended himself from attackers yet acknowledged that its okay to defend property with lethal force, as if attackers of that property would ignore him or not have the idea to take him out first.
He hardly had any any points to make beyond fishing for dunks and trolls on his opponent. He came across as pretentious and smug and the cringe way he calls liberals as ' right wingers ' as some kind of own does more to make the left look unhinged than it actually says anything about the right wing.
Memorizing a bunch of authors and books that you haven’t even read yourself just to list them out in an internet debate to try to discredit your opponent instead of addressing their actual arguments is one of the most pathetic - and most President Sunday - things I can possibly imagine
The biggest flaw in his logic is, who decides which list of books is important?
Who ever "Closes the gap" generally loses a self defense claim. Rittenhouse was running away from every single person he shot that night. Seemed pretty cut and dry to me legally.
Everyone did, even his detractors hence why nearly all of them went for the "but muh over state lines" BS
He shot three dozen black people in cold blood, waving a Notsee flag and quoting passages from the Final Solution.
That's what I heard, anyway.
@@Avatar_of_Chairness That would still be self defense, considering they attacked him first, quite ironically lol.
That's only true when the individual isn't the aggressor. But given that the three men were within their rights to perform a citizen's arrest on Kyle Rittenhouse for disturbing the peace and harassment, Rittenhouse didn't have the right to run away. It's like someone robbing a jewelry store and then running away when security tries tackling them. If the individual uses a weapon, it's not "self-defense," it's armed robbery. (Not saying I agree with that, but that's how the police will see it).
So the same principle applies here. Rittenhouse committed a crime, was about to be apprehended for it, and instead of complying, he escalated the situation by using a weapon on the individuals acting in their official capacity as Good Samaritans.
@@whodoesntlikesurfing was the citizens using a skateboard to hit him over the head and also plans to shoot him with an illegal firearm a part of that plan? Lol
Why does anyone engage with this guy? He doesn't actually say anything. Has anyone ever seen him honestly talk with a single person who doesn't just agree with him?
There’s on video that comes to mind where he acted more professionally
"Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there in the first place..." The rioters shouldn't have been there either. The rioters were already caught red handed for two nights straight destroying the city of Kenosha where law enforcement all but abandoned the citizenry to lawlessness, yet only one side of this topic is argued while the other remains almost protected by government (likely because government failed the people completely in Kenosha). Kenosha was under mob rule and basic tyranny for two days prior to Kyle showing up to the plea for help by citizens being oppressed by aggressors and the attempt at charging Kyle for clear usage of self-defense is questionable, as there was an absence of law in that location already. As law enforcement abandoned the public being oppressed by the "rioters" burning down the city long before-hand, is it just to uphold the law when the law abandoned that location during the time of the incident? In a location removed from the rule of law, as law enforcement were told to stand down by their leaders and all but abandon the public to such evil, how can Kyle even be charged for crimes when the government all but failed at their duty to protect the public trust and safety to begin with, as there was no framework of rules or law during the timeframe of events, not until long after when Kyle removed himself from the location and mob in hot pursuit of Kyle.
"He crossed state lines" was quite the talking point until it was found legal, and that narrative quickly abandoned. "He was a minor illegally handling a firearm" was quickly found legal in Wisconsin. "The firearm was illegal due to superficial reasoning..." The firearm Kyle had was legal and abided the state requirements for him to legally possess. "He brought the firearm from another state" was found a lie, Kyle's friend purchased the firearm for him until he was of legal age, and the firearm was kept in a safe in Kenosha with his friend's family. "He was not part of the community" was a lie, the prosecutors demanded Kyle's long known public service and interests within Kenosha to be removed from the trial and kept from the jury, and the prosecutors were mocked for trying to purposefully mislead the jury about Kyle, for trying to falsely frame Kyle not being part of the community of Kenosha which he was. Look to the prosecutors opening and closing arguments, then look to Kyle's opening and closing arguments and find out who is lying about what transpired, the prosecutors were misleading the jury throughout the trial.
Soon, throughout a long-winded trial showing Kyle was all but innocent, the prosecutors then forced the jury to decide whether or not Kyle was guilty regarding a mess of a still frame of pixels that you cannot even make out due to its extremely low resolution that was provided by the FBI, in which the FBI refuses to tell their reasoning for being there at the time yet have enough influence to prejudice the jury all the same. The original video from the FBI was "somehow" deleted too, leaving the jury basically guessing as to whether or not Kyle faced his aggressor or not to claim Kyle instigated his aggressor, it was madness to listen to, Kyle's freedom now rested upon pixels that could be perceived to be anything, and the prosecutors ran with that false narrative. Don't forget, Kenosha also wanted to build a monument to the rioters who were burning down the city who attacked Kyle, and the public's outrage shut them down quickly...But don't think they will not attempt to get this monument to their oppressors through once the outrage dies down.
The conflict that happened in Kenosha was an ongoing issue that was happening long before Kyle Rittenhouse entered the picture, and Kyle Rittenhouse became the state leadership's scapegoat to avoid any liability for abandoning their constituency. Regarding Kyle Rittenhouse, law enforcement all but abandoned the locale and public already, where Rittenhouse and the rioters were having continued engagements and conflicts throughout the night without any incidents of note...Only for a certain mentally unwell individual found goading Kyle and his friend's repeatedly, and only to eventually assault Kyle and pursue Kyle until Kyle had no other recourse but to use self-defense. Thereby the belief that any framework of politics and/or law being absent from society, as this "influencer" attempts to argue (to his own detriment imho), as law enforcement and thereby the government purposefully retreated and abandoned this location where everything occurred to allow absolute chaos and anarchy to reign...Outside the possible FBI involvement and possible operations that remains quite vague if not purposefully removed from public discourse, isn't Kyle's actions and that of the rioters both removed from any crime and/or law, judging by the belief this "influencer" is attempting to produce?
Trying to argue Kyle Rittenhouse was acting upon evil, or acting criminally, from a position where one even claims an established political/moral framework offers humanity a semblance of laws and rules to follow, and without those laws and rules any crime is considered moot if not irrelevant, then the person claiming that position should fully side with both Rittenhouse and the rioters that were burning down the city the past couple days. This person should claim the rioters along with the actions of Rittenhouse were not criminal, and instead claim the government was in error instead for previously abandoning the public to such anarchy. This is using this person's own argument, the dude who answers questions with questions, who purposefully demeans the other guy for his positions while he gives absolutely none himself. He is the definition of a "useful idiot."
The notion of bringing differing weaponry to these scenarios would not cause differing responses to conflict, that has already been proven a moot argument by Europe and their current escalation in crime and violence with knives since firearms are banned from most the public, as we are currently witnessing within Europe with rampant crimes regarding knives, I don't see how this is a relevant argument knowing firsthand how knives can be far more deadly in any conflict than firearms, as both knives and firearms both are just as efficient as however skilled and/or trained a person is with said tool. "Maybe I can disarm them..." Isn't that exactly what Rittenhouse did to the one rioter who pretended to stand down, and then pulled out his illegal and criminal usage of a carry and conceal, and that "protester" attempted to fire upon Kyle Rittenhouse at close range after pretending to surrender prior to attacking Kyle, only for Kyle Rittenhouse to first lower his firearm at the sign of said false surrender and to then re-engage and fire to "disarm" this rioter prior to them firing upon Rittenhouse? Kyle "disarmed" that aggressor but go ahead and argue the "nuance" of this fact. Kyle Rittenhouse only fired upon direct threats to his person, and that is likely why a jury ruled him innocent. If Kyle was fired that firearm any more than he ended up doing, he might have been found guilty of endangering others, and Kyle had all the reason to keep his guard up and possibly shoot more as videos of that incident show Kyle is not the only person firing firearms during the timeframe in question. But since Kyle remained mostly restrained in his usage of said firearm, his restraint was likely the very reason he was innocent.
Lastly, after the Rittenhouse trial and the jury went to deliberate, there was a clear disparity in outcomes from Corporate Media and countless content creators, lawyers and "influencers" who watched this entire trail. I witnessed many streams that covered the entire trial through its entirety, Corporate Media on the other hand cherry picked whatever they could to come to their predetermined narrative of guilt. Corporate Media long beforehand claimed Kyle Rittenhouse clearly guilty on all counts (as they ruled him guilty long before hand with many politicians and celebrities claiming as much biasing just about any jury that was to be had), they even defied the very legal principles and were outraged at every time one of the charges was rightfully tossed out by the judge, while content creators mostly agreed that Kyle Rittenhouse acted within the boundaries of the law and was innocent of nearly all charges, but weren't foolish enough to perceive a jury who lived through this oppression and were inundated by the propaganda at work from most known "trusted" platforms. The jury suffered through mob rule and more or less oppression if not terrorism by the mob, to not put their blame upon someone like Kyle Rittenhouse seemingly didn't seem realistic, the need to "vent" their frustration somewhere or upon someone, most who watched the trial realized Kyle might be charged with something due to the jury having suffered through this oppression.
Yet even so, the jury sided with Kyle Rittenhouse, the content creators, lawyers, "influencers," social media at large mostly were shocked and earnestly content with the outcome of the trial, seeing how malicious the prosecutors were it was more or less and argument regarding whether or not mob rule is acceptable for society, and if so Kyle Rittenhouse had no right to stand up for his community, which is an abuse of power if I've ever witnessed one. And Corporate Media lost its mind regarding the verdict, and they began all but inciting a response from their viewers, pleading with the public to take action for daring to defy their ignorant position on this trial. People were becoming concerned, like myself, we worried that Corporate Media was inciting the public to commit some terrible action against the public from their blatant incitement and demands for some sort of "revenge." And it ended up happening too, as Wisconsin then saw some lunatic drive his vehicle through a parade...Only for Corporate Media to immediately stop inciting the public about Kyle Rittenhouse being innocent and then ignoring that topic all together as they pivoted coverage and salivated over the parade crisis that just took place, likely due to them inciting such an incident to happen. How Corporate Media was not scrutinized relentlessly for all but inciting such a response, I simply cannot fathom how they continue on without any blame for the parade incident, they all but demanded something like that to happen.
Go off sis
My guy..... You need to chill out. The final verdict has already been made and Kyle is doing great. Whatever beef people have with a case that's already closed is just a moot point. That's all you have to say about it, not write a thousand page essay about how triggered you are lol
@@Hunterchuck Apparently not, there are many who still believe Kyle murdered African Americans that were doing nothing criminal because of the egregious amounts of propaganda over just about every issue lately. Near everything is being politicized, weaponized, and society is finding a complete break in mentality, siding "against" the "other" almost always. And the problem at hand is social media, the internet and those in power all encouraging such rhetoric and belief, those in control of the internet and the platforms of speech, thereby thought are manufacturing this division purposefully while our government is continuously found inciting their constituency into conflict and strife. If they are nefariously pushing us into one box or the latter, there should be immediate inquiry and scrutiny, even regarding leadership seeing how they all but agree with this evil. We are no longer being informed but indoctrinated, and that is now being embraced by education too. Most social media platforms along with the internet itself all but admit to as much, and it's all to reinforce the public resentment of one another instead of society demanding leadership be held accountable.
@@snugglestruggle8437 Ok dude.... I've not heard anyone say that a black person was shot in a leftist place. If this is even a thing, it's not even worth mentioning. You are making boogeymen out of nothing....
Not gonna lie this was brutal, it was more posturing than anything. I love the argument hey he(Rittenhouse) shouldn't have been there and put himself in a bad position so he was wrong because of it. Simple question I would ask is this, is a woman that went out drinking and got a little too drunk and decides to go down a dark alley responsible for her possible attack and rape? We all have our ourselves in bad positions but it doesn't mean we deserve violence or death. What 50 million people walk around with a gun at all times. It doesn't mean they deserve retribution from some pedo, that btw was trying to push a dumpster that was lit on fire into a gas station and Kyle tried to stop it.
The kid made some less than optimal decisions but in the end he handled that situation better than most would have. He shot only the attackers and no one else and didn't have many if any shots that didn't land where needed or intended.
All this over Jacob Blake a guy that 90 percent of the rioters didn't even know by name, and didn't even really know what happened or why they were rioting or protesting.
My simple conclusion, if you decide destroying someone's property because you want to participate in destructive behaviors for seemingly no reason other than just because, expect some resistance. While so many say it was just things, many lost their businesses and many that were insured didn't get near enough back, including lost labor and lost business. Not to mention the vast majority of the riot affected black or brown owned businesses. So they fought for someone they didn't know because of racism by destroying minority owned businesses in order to provide nothing in return. Except maybe contempt.
PS sees a person who goes against left wing movements he agrees with (blm, etc) as a political enemy and will therefore not be charitable to him.
@@idimo7976 then why even speak with them? Grandstanding because someone doesn't agree with every single aspect of your political ideals seems pretty narcissistic and ignorant.
Its funny because people laugh at Vaush for basically arguing that "you have to let it burn", but then they turn around and say Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, which translates to "you should let it burn"..
@@ozzy7455 oh, I'm saying that he isn't charitable to Rittenhouse. His opposition to Rittenhouse being there with a gun isn't based on any values, it's the "friend good, enemy bad" stuff that Destiny doesn't like.
@@idimo7976 elaborate I'm not sure I'm following you 100%? Honest question thanks.
Yeah ok, but did Keffals cross state lines before calling you a stealther?
Lols😅
Keffals I dont think cross anything even T's. The only thing about her that seemingly crossed state lines was experiments she claimed to be hormone blockers if the rumor are correct.
I was actually crying of laughter at this conversation lmao
Same. Dollar tree vaush is unintentionally funny lol.
5:18 I absolutely enjoyed this, sets the tone for the conversation
Okay but do you know the name of the authors of the books that he mention though?
I really wanna see the alternate timeline where WS actually did know the authors.
And knew the books really well.
The guy would say the same things
On all levels except physical, Sunday is a human fedora.
Deleuze is some of the most niche derivation of psycho analytic marxism out there. The fact that dude acts like these are household names is insane...
Tbf, he's canonical in terms of continental philosophy. But yeah, it's still a stupid.
Why do they always sound like Vaush
What’s with the ridiculous fake deep voice?
Vaush and his consequences:
I remember seeing people commenting on the video last time president Sunday talked with Destiny about how they were glad that someone was giving good pushback, and I was left flabbergasted. It was the most brain dead pushback. I hope this conversation helps people realize the lack of knowledge and bad faith that this guy brings to the table.
Could you explain how it was brain dead? I’m interested
@@ON-ry8iw “Grifting is when you do something for money.”
Also, the not understanding what someone means when they ask if something is a right. Either intentionally bad faith or brain dead. Also, not being able to engage with any question proposed. Granted this is likely less a brain dead position or more one of knowing that answering these questions is going to either put you in an untenable position or make you admit you are wrong. Also, the entire premise of his argument is brain dead. Are there right wing grifters who have the facade of liberal? Of course. But there are plenty of principled liberal content creators that believe in what they espouse and their positions are more in line with left wing positions than right wing.
@@ON-ry8iw go back and listen. Sunday essentially says that destiny has thrown his lot in with the transphobes by being too tough on certain Trans content creators. He's the classic douchebag that thinks that the fact he uses big words and sounds smart while arguing a false binary makes him right.
@@ON-ry8iw he does it again here. The idea that liberals and centrists can just be lumped in with any and all other right wingers because they believe in property rights is peak braindead binary logic.
@@ON-ry8iw If they're talking about the Manifesto pushback, it was basically an hour of, "Destiny, aren't you aware everything you say has consequences? You have influence, and I don't agree that you're using it well because you haven't always said everything with every necessary caveat or proper tone in the moment such that someone watching you could walk away with a bad belief."
Pointing out that people who talk for 10 hours a day to audiences might have slip ups and clippable moments that run counter to their values is just about the most brain dead criticism you could have.
Arguably the parking lot held more value then the dudes Rittenhouse shot to be fair
"I'm pro defending himself, no I don't think you should kill people to defend a few cars."
He says right after acknowledging the fact that rittenhouse fled from his post and wasnt protecting property anymore. I don't know what this guys point is. He's okay with the gun being there for self defense, but can't recognize that's all the gun was used for that night.
Yep I was surprised he didn't pounce on that
His point is "Left wing right right wing wrong".
@@Tigo625 Exactly. It's nothing more than post-hoc rationalizing of his pure partisanship.
Are we sure this isn't Vaush with a voice changer
42:14 I don’t know if you guys remember this, but Sunday trolling because he didn’t have a response is unironically NoBullshit tactics. Unreal collab
What was the point of covering his eyes? Was that a stall so he could google a list of books he hasn't read? He mentioned lag..
It was a power play. He didn't use it to make a point or follow up on it at all. It was purely about making the other guy do what he said.
@@austinstarr1782 You may be correct. But really it's only a power play if the other party is unwilling to play along.
@@Corvid- Attempted powerplay, lol
i honestly forgot that didnt go anywhere
I think he wanted to make sure that he wouldn't just Google the authors.
never seen anything more bad faith. can't believe wickedsupreme is that patient lmao
Ad hominem is not just a plain old insult-it's specifically the use of an insult AS an argument. If I call someone fat and ugly in response to an argument, it's only an ad hominem if I say, "and because of that, you are wrong." Otherwise, I'm just being rude.
Cringing so hard and I'm only a few minutes in. I have no idea what this guy looks like but I'm imagining a minimum of three trilbys stacked on this guys head
I love how I don't know creators that Destiny listens to, but I remember their voices and their mannerisms from it
Rittenhouse melted this guys brain lol
If people are just going to keep ignoring evidence and the legal code why even entertain debating them exactly. It’s like trying to translate a language to a person who denies the existence of said language.
"attacking the credibility of someone" does fall under ad hominem so supreme was actually right and you were both wrong by saying that's false.
Destiny, the ad hom scenario I think you should’ve used would be
“I think 2+2=4”
“I think you’re a *word salad* incurious person”
which feels like a character attack avoiding the debate entirely, if not calling someone bad-faith in their debating at all or just stupid
If you’re going to refuse to engage and just insult your opponent because you consider them unworthy, why even agree to a debate?
Does this President Sunday think that Rittenhouse trying to deescalate by fleeing from the attackers somehow makes his use of force LESS justified??
Never heard of Wickedsupreme but he legit destroyed sunday here.
And somehow destiny thinks he lost
@@Pat4ever. I think Destiny was joking the entire time about Supreme "losing"
@@madara211000 he wasn't, he joked around both ways but for some odd reason he was saying supreme was taking the L
@@Pat4ever. nah you missed his sarcasm. Destiny was saying Supreme took hit after hit when Sunday called him bitch which is clearly joking.
@@mohaastella if you actually watched the entire video like i did, you would see this was not the case
Oh my f****** God bro
Attacking somebody's credibility is an ad hominum. Calling someone a fat f****** r***** is just an insult. It can become an ad hom if you add, "therefore, your argument is wrong."
The reason it's a fallacy is because the person making an argument has no relation to the validity of the argument. End of story, 100% of the time. If you don't think someone is qualified to talk about something, don't talk to them about it, but the moment you start saying they're not credible instead of engaging with their argument, it's fallacious.
I don't know why an appeal to authority always gets brought up here because this completely unrelated. They are similar in that it's still true that the authority of the person making the argument has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. It's still fallacious, because, news flash, nobody is correct 100% of the time.
Bro destiny, vaush, president Sunday, I don't care. I'll debate anyone on this topic you guys are all wrong, consistently. It demonstrates a lack of comprehension as to why these things are fallacious.
I'm on the same page as you but no need to get panties in a wad about some silly semantics lol
Kind of irrelevant to more interesting topics of discussion.
@@Hunterchuck Understanding the basic rules of logic is a lot more important than just semantics. Not understanding this means that you are incapable of figuring out what is true.
Do you know what sophistry is? Just look at how president sunday somehow rationalized in his head that he doesn't have to listen to ,or engage with, anyone. He literally believes that he can't be wrong. It isn't even an option. That is what this leads to.
Honestly, President Sunday is the political-space content creator I'd be most afraid to be in a room with. People who see themselves as superior to the 'lemmings,' think only in black and white, have contempt for existence and/or humanity, try to hold a bubbling rage just below the surface, and have easily bruised egos have manifested that contempt for humanity in ways -- bigger and smaller -- I don't want to be around to see.
Discount Destiny vs. Great Value Vaush
Wicked seems like a pretty chill dude. That Sunday guy is unbearable though. The road to intellectual enlightenment is to know books and their authors without having read them.
Dude wicked supreme literally described how I feel when he mentioned people that might have been interested in sunday's content but now see him as a blowhard and could care less about what he has to say
Exactly. I first learned about him when he talked with Destiny about the manifesto. Back then I did get some of the same vibes as this video, but overall I didn't hate him and I did feel as though he was somewhat smart.
I could have seen myself being conviced into checking him out eventually. What little I've seen since then has done the opposite. With this video, I'm fairly certain anyone not already a fan of his would totally write him off.
Even those that are already his fans can't possibly think he looked good in that conversation.
@@OneNot yeah I always got kind of a condensing vibe from his stuff and his vocabulary seems intentionally inflated. But I'm honestly ok with both of those things, they're kind of just quirks. He seems to be so venomous that he can't think in the moment so his real time conversations just suck so bad
Is there a reason this dude talks like he constantly has a mouth full of peanut butter?
Why are the hardest most extreme lefties also the most unbearable.
The Rittenhouse Arc still lingers how based
Couldn't even cite those books if he wanted to lmao.
"so you wish there were more Rittenhouses?"
Yes
"LET'S DEBATE"
"But you don't answer my questions..."
"Because you're boring."
???
I hate it so much when people use "right winger" as an insult. it is the equivalent of using "left handed" as an insult.
I was even thinking President Sunday is like a classic example of a lolcow before he got called on around the 34 minute mark
I like how he sets the bar of entry to debate him at his level of scholastic knowledge. What a move.
And scholastic knowledge that he himself by his own admission does not actually possess at that.
My favorite is when he says “you’re boring” to bring the debate to a grinding hault
@@Fedorevsky no, he knows the name of the books. It just so happens the minimum bar of entry to debate him is you need to know the name of books too otherwise it's not worth his time. He knows book titles and authors names and hes probably read a couple of the back cover blurbs.
@@colinsmith929 lol, that's great!
@@gotworc "Sir! If you've not read about Max and his philosophies in Where the Wild Things Are, then frankly, I don't see the point of continuing the conversation."
He sounds like a fedora.
I hate Sunday so much. He's so cringe it hurts
Next time someone asks of I've ever tripped acid I'm gonna ask who wrote Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as an appeal to authority... Then I'm going to say I've never read it. Then I will be a true academic.
Wow.... so we are into clickbait huh?
That guy didn't list books he knew. He listed books he knew the titles of...
my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined!
How much understanding of those books could this guy even have when he thinks that Rings of Power is good
Least cringy leftist
Is this guy just Vaush but from Aldi?
Obamna
Edit: obamna
Thanks for clarifying
Me: Mom, can we have Vaush?
Mom: We have Vaush at home
If someone ever says "read a book", they are unnable to make the arguement themself which means they dont understand it. If they did, they should be able to explain it in simple terms.
Hes literally just appealing to the authority of books, many of which he hasnt even read. Its the same thing as an engineer saying "im an engineer, trust me this a good idea" while being entirely unnable to explain why. Authority does not make up for the lack of evidence or an arguement, the engineer should instead be able to present his math and reasoning. In this case, the uncharismatic fellow thinks just because he knows a few books we should just take him at his word
“Authority doesn’t make for the lack of evidence” great way of putting it
Listening to the AdHom part and I want to pull my hair out. If you're not attacking the argument in some way it's just plain abuse. I think this is what Supreme means when he talks about credibility
Dream: You're wildly unprepared and under read for this debate
1 hour later
Dream: I need to Google what happened to Jacob Blake
This is comedy
It's amazing how some people don't understand how important livelihoods are. They seem completely unaware how being unemployed and homeless is a very dangerous situation to be in.
I want to see these two in a good cop bad cop sitcom where every interrogation devolves into arguing over semantics and ignoring the suspects while they try to confess.
I’ve heard wicked talk to destiny here and there and always thought he seemed pretty grounded but after this I think I’m a fan. He seems really good at undermining pretentious attitudes and making them look like characters. Although I don’t think this other guy needed any help there
Somebody convince me that president sunday isn’t just vaush with a voice changer (pro tip, you can’t)
He sounds like a smug atheist version of Buffalo Bill
Would you debate me? I wouldn't debate me