Debating Incest with a Viewer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 ноя 2017
- Click▼
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - / omnidestiny
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
Get the chair Destiny has, the SL5000, from www.destiny.gg/chair Put "destiny" as your checkout code to get a 10% discount!
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/?tag=des000-20
Edited by Garyukov:
► CONTACT - garyukov@gmail.com
► TWITTER - / garyukov
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
i'm not gonna argue for or against incest, just keep it in the family.
top kek
@@buttereggproductions9996 what the fuck LOL
Did you know he's an athiest?
Lol!!! This was funny
Wow that was done too well
I love how it ended up with the guy arguing that pedophilia is ok to prove that incest was wrong.
He should have left after the first 20 minutes
Modern problems require modern solutions
🤣
you baited me he didnt prove shit
This is nice after watching the No BS debate. This guy can actually understand basic logic and the English language in general.
Right?! he just said the same things over and over again and slang the same basic insults repeatedly. At least this guy brought up a flat nose squid 🤣
Good to know
honestly quite amusing yes yes
Actually, I was far more entertained by watching the stupidity that is no bs
This is actually the dumbest person I’ve ever seen destiny debate with 💀
When this pops up on your feed and your workmate catches it out of the corner of their eye and looks at you like you just shit out Hitler...
recordatron lmao
lolol this is funny
They need to mind their own effing business 😤
"Let me help you with this argument."
like chad helping me bench press at the gym
No. Just because someone hides something, it does not imply that they know it is wrong. It can also be because they know other people believe that it is wrong. So they hide it to avoid social repercussions.
True. Many LGBT people used to hide their sexuality and some still do.
Yeah thought the same
"my moralistic view, if we're gonna be philosphical about this" oh boy. He's one of those philosophistocratic moralistological skeptologists
Seriously tho, what a fucking idiot/teenager.
I find it cute, like a newborn deer stumbling
Is that even a real thing?
@@livingtoaster1358 if enough people want it to be
me learn big words need to show i know big words
We started at morals of incest and somehow ended up with egg freezing technology and flat-nosed squids sneakily mating. What a time to be alive!
Incest is a game the whole family can enjoy
That really got me haha
As a software engineer with a computer science degree I can comfortably refute the point at 1:01:18 about how we can't be idiots
It's really frustrating listening to this caller. He has such a hard time articulating what he thinks.
he's probably just young though, he'll probably learn how to better articulate himself in the future
hopefully
you should debate destiny! i"m sure it would be a fun listen :)
You probably weren't to be fair.
@@JM-fh1tv peoples ability to articulate themselves has nothing to do with intelligence
J.I I wouldn’t say you are either.
he concedes his entire argument and then immediately goes back and argues the exact same thing lool
I think as the conversation progressed, this guy became more and more effected by a carbon monoxide leak.
This was an example of someone who wants to enter the debate but isn't able to understand the debate. I enjoy the vids! Keep the master-debating up!
> Morality is relative
> Incest is wrong
Holy shit dude, pick one.
Morality is relative, because it's subjective.
Morality is subjective, but moral arguments can still be made using logic and reasoning. Moral systems are built around what people value (e.g if you value life the system will be constructed to preserve it). Although cultures may have different values, thus resulting in the subjective nature of morality, they also have values in common. We can theb examine those common values and see which moral system is best for preserving them. For example, all humans value well-being and I can give an argument that Islam's moral system is bad at this because it treats half of their population (women) as lesser.
@@aniekanumoren6088 So what if different cultures have different values? It wouldn't therefore entail subjectivity, if so, this would be a non-sequitur.
No, you can't give an argument for why, for example, a radical Muslim's moral system is bad because under subjectivism you cannot have genuine moral disagreement. Any attempt to do so is only going to be done according to your preference, and that's about as powerful as arguing preferences in terms of ice-cream flavours.
@@aniekanumoren6088 philosophyindy.wordpress.com/2018/11/10/metaethics-moral-subjectivism-moral-disagreement/
Read that blog-post. Abandon subjectivism, you people can't have actual conversations under that meta-ethical theory. You can try to point to logical inconsistencies in someone's system all you'd like, but that won't help you in terms of proving something wrong/being immoral. We're all morally infallible, according to you people.
@@hybridphoenix7766 however, u can empirical show that some values are better at preserving wellbeing than others . As long as a culture deems wellbeing as important you can argue with them in a non subjective matter that other values like free speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state etc. are good. If they don't value well being, you can point to history and show empirically that such cultures don't last or function optimally. (Humans typically like wellbeing as we are social animals who evolved to do so)
This guy is absolutely incapable to distinguish law from biology from morality. He just keeps jumping from one thing to another, because in only one realm his arguments do not hold water whatsoever.
I remember the No Bullshit debate where he couldn't explain why he thinks 21+ year old gay/lesbian twins having consensual sex is wrong lol
Offensive Phenomena To be clear, I am not saying it's right or wrong. No Bullshit didn't explain why he thinks it is wrong.
NoBullshit summarized (Incest is wrong because i say it's wrong i'm not going to quote anything i'm just going to show you it's wrong)
Offensive Phenomena. That would make it neutral. You wouldn't say playing with a yo-yo is right because it doesn't hurt you or anyone else.
I would say it's okay.
@Sam Haden
Playing with a yo-yo is right because it's fun and it doesn't hurt anyone.
Clicking the like button is a biological thing.
Burretploof I don't get why my college made me take a stupid biology class when everything I do is biological.
Lmao how bout u biolog deez nuts nerd
its intrinsic to my reptile brain
All of this clickety-clacking is intrinsically rooted in the initial physical conditions and procedural material laws of the universe, bro. I mean, is it NOT?
Destiny: *Clearly and concisely dismantles this guy's argument at a foundational level.*
This guy: Exactly, that's my point. *returns to what he was arguing three points ago*
Rinse and repeat.
Please stop saying nucular. Please stop saying nucular.
I'm with you.
It's NEW-klee-err!
nucular
Gibbous A Cthulhu Adventure but everyone knows the nuclear family is the best family. Ofc I'll make an exception for gay couples but nothing more. You might wonder how I came to these conclusions, well, it's partly biological, partly moral, and partly legal. You see, I get my morals from a magic 8 ball.
unless you are George Bush
Nucular. It's pronounced nucular.
Sounds like the guy Destiny is debating is trying to use big words that he wouldn't normally use, or is not used to using. It definitely sounds like he is trying to pad his syllable count where ever he can.
Not that their is anything wrong with that, it just noticeably affected the cadence of his speech sometimes and made it more awkward to listen to.
there*
Can squids join the social contract?
The convo went off the rails when they started arguing about legal semantics. Define your words THEN defend or dismantle the morality of those definitions.
Only if they sign the contract in ink.
the chat acts like they would've had the exact same great arguments as Destiny and not the other guy
Swear but if they got asked if incest was ok out in public they gonna say that shit wrong
I’d have trash arguments if put on the spot
Here we go again! Let me get my popcorn.
Well yeah, the reason I watched this debate is because it´s a biological impulse and a matter of survival. Duh.
Seek help
What I’m saying 🙏🏽
"Moralistically"
Moralisticallically.
Snowgooooose magically
Moralistiny
This guy uses his verbs so wrong it's distracting to the point of not being able to follow what he's saying.
I think he is just nervous
get your adverbs right before criticising others
Most people wouldn't do any better..
Damn. This guy, was going ok for awhile, then he fell down a steep slope... then he somehow found another steeper slope to fall down into near the end.
The deeper you dig, the more you can see how someone thinks, or at least what they think they think. I feel some of these people just grasp at straws when they don't know what to say. Or maybe they are learning about themselves with them being forced to dig as to the basis of their being, where their opinions stem from.
For clarification on the self defense and murder discussion, if you shoot someone in self defense then you're shooting them to stop them from harming you, not to kill them. If you shoot someone in self defense and they're down and no longer pose a threat to you, you cannot legally walk over to them and finish them off with a head shot, you would, in that scenario, go to jail for murder.
A flesh wound does not always stop someone. Name three targets on the body that would stop someone with a gun from killing you.
It's just hard to argue at what point they no longer pose a threat even with video evidence and a good angle/camera.
@@FETTYNOP if the flesh wound gets them to the ground, then after a moment or two they try to get up, you may be able to argue for shooting to hurt again. If they are brought to the ground, then rapidly get up and continue to pursue, theres a strong case to go for the kill, since the previous injury was clearly not enough.
This is actually a really interesting debate. You can exchange the word 'incest' for almost anything, and it still hits all the philosophical goodness for debate and how to debate.
This guy seemed decently rational until he just started defending every argument that, he even agreed, was shot down previously over and over and over.
How do people like this "viewer" exist? Holy sh*t. You watch someone intelligent, you watch them cover this topic like 100 times and then you come into the debate and spew complete and utter nonsense for 1 hour and 16 minutes. How is this possible?
Yeah but my problem is that Destiny has already defeated each of these arguments (at least the ones I saw in this video) in the past like 10 times. I would understand if this was some random guy who never watched destiny, who came in and stupidly repeated all the same mistakes that others made. But shouldn't a "viewer" have already seen Destiny cover this topic? He covered it so many times by now and this dude brought absolutely nothing new to the table, it's the same old crap. They are all arguing things that aren't incest at its core but rather things around or connected to incest and those arguments will always get smashed cause they suck.
We could change the definition of incest to "the unlawful sexual relationship between relatives" and then set out when it is and isn't lawful like we have done with murder.
Anyone that starts their discussion with "I saw @stillgray tweet this out" should just disconnect at the spot tbh.
lol to be fair he did say i dont give a fuck about him
I feel bad for the kid. Completely stomped and then he just kept getting frustrated over being corrected.
You could say this debate is extremely family friendly...
I enjoyed the "reptilian brain" meme.
Lol at one point the guy realized he was wrong. Then he just continued to argue.
John higgins
Default position is that things are permissible until we find a reason to ban them. Burden of proof is on those who think incest should still be banned.
@John higgins Because the default position for everything is that anything is permissible until there is a reason to ban. We don’t start with nothing is permissible and then find reasons for things to be allowed lol wtf
@John higgins I don’t have a burden of proof lmao, so stop trying to shift it towards me. Tell me a reason you think it should be banned and work from there
@John higgins Stop shifting the burden of proof, if you had an argument, you’d present it. But you don’t lmao
No, I told you the default position is that we say everything is allowed until we have a reason for something not to be allowed lol
Stop shifting and just tell me why it’s wrong
@John higgins ? Still thinking of a sound argument?
1:11:56 Well, you see, humans have the biological imperative to ignore their biological imperative for a time.
I got pretty rustled when he kept trying to tell you your position and interrupted you every time you tried to actually get your point across.
The best part was him talking for 10 minutes straight. Then Destiny started talking after a silence and he says "Let me finish". I lol'd pretty hard.
44:28: This didn't age well
💀💀
Lost my shit at the career-oriented rabbit
>vidya is a biological imperative
Oh man my galactic brain can't take this much expansion.
that was exhausting to listen to, jfc
I'm a new viewer to destiny and honestly really enjoying the discussions and debates going on here, and has got me thinking on alot of these topics... how can I make it possible to be able to join in on these debates and discussions?
The guy is a pain to listen to, geez.
This "issue" can be distilled down to 2 words... "consenting adults" Things that take place between these people (and this number of people only) within the privacy of their homes are inalienable and holds as much weight as any primary human right. Regardless of the act you are doing (again, if this act is between said adults and these adults only) is unquestionable, and any law prohibiting any consenting adult from choosing to do what ever they want to their own body, within the privacy of their homes is disgusting and inhumane and has zero place in a modern society. Period. This is unarguable. Social opinions on what these activities are just that, opinions. Society's collective moral compass will sort itself out just as it's done with all other things that have been socially unacceptable but as we grew are now seen as tolerated or neutral.
Not sure about this one. The problem is if incest was suddenly smiled upon and everyone was having an incestuous relationship, children would inevitably happen in masses whether people wanted them or not, and the gene pool would RAPIDLY degenerate. People vastly underestimate how dangerous incest babies are.
"But what if a couple doesn't have kids, is that ok then?" If i were to say it was, I would be perpetuating the notion that incest in general was ok, and if everyone thought this way then the problem mentioned above would very likely occur, because in a relationship sex always happens. But say I was forced to directly address the question in one instance, and they were both completely celibate lets say, there are multiple studies that show a vast number of mental health implications involving incest (easily found online, cant link on yt) which describe a correlation in much more depression, intense guilt, drug/alchohol abuse, etc. And thats not even mentioning the unhealthy power dynamics that can occur, even with a one year age gap.
Am I the only one who struggled to follow this guy's line of reasoning?
@Cowell.......???
T explain why
which one
Oh boy, I gotta see your streams
joining a self-picked debate and not having a clue. feelsbadman
It hurts oh god it hurts
Ten times better then the no bullshit debate.
43:06 - And now there's hope. This is the sign of somebody who realizes they probably have no basis for their arguments or reasoning, and may very well reconsider their viewpoint.
too bad he backtracks and erased his memory of when he got stumped
"nobody wants to die" uhmmmmm
Video explained: Man tries to explain sin without believing the Bible
He just starts off by appealing to nature, what the fuck is even the point of the rest of the debate, does nobody study even entry level fucking ethics?
The guest pronounced nuclear incorrectly. I don't understand why so many people pronounce nuclear like that, or how they look at the spelling of the world and think it's "new-kya-lure"
Tbf you need to have a pretty high IQ to understand that it's in fact "new cue-lure", Basically a new method for luring the boars by giving them cues so that we can kill them to maintain non-vegetarian status so that the veggie-agenda won't take away our food-traditions and dinner-structure. I'm genuinely sorry for this comment.
lol good one
i always thought it was an american-english thing, like "aluminum"
Mans not hot take off the kids jacket
Poor guy ran out of arguments way too early, these murder memes are bizarre
@John higgins Hypothetically, incest in of itself is a morally neutral action however with most potential incestual relationships there are many problems with it which makes it morally wrong (obvious one is power dynamics and the other is fucked up offsprings argument).
Now while it is right that there are hypothetical cases where incestual relationships are morally neutral (such as the gay, separated at birth twins case you heard in the news) normalizing even those morally neutral relationships in a large scale may lead to the normalization of morally wrong incestual relationships (which comprises of the large majority of potential incestual relationships) which in a large scale will probably lead to fucked up social dynamics, fucked up genes and deformed children and all the horrible shit that may come as a result of most potential incestual relationships.
@@firebreathercat133 this right here is the t exact same argument I make
@@firebreathercat133 I'm surprised I found someone who said one of my arguments I thought I was original well formulated as well
@@firebreathercat133 This is just the slippery slope fallacy plus distain for the disabled lol. What exactly is a "morally wrong incestual relationship"? If you mean one that has the potential to birth disabled kids that's just eugenics and you'd also have to follow the reasoning that anyone who can/will produce disabled kids shouldn't reproduce which is a dangerous road to go down.
rewatching some old memes because ain't nothing but some boring ass drama happen at the bonell household atm
What about the concept that incest fundamentally changes the nature of what are supposed to be the most stable and influential relationships in your life? Your family plays a large role in your growth and mental health throughout your life (not just while you're young).
The few incest survivors I've met struggle with the fact that their Parents or Siblings don't quite fit in the same role they had prior to a sexual relationship.
Just a thought.
...but what about Cleopatra VII (he famous one), daughter of Ptolemy XII & Cleopatra V, who were the great grandkids of Ptolemy VII and Cleopatra III, who the kid and grandkid of Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I?
On a more serious note, if we go by the written stuff that managed to survive, they were pretty happy and functional making up about 15-25% of late Egypt according to roman census taken in the province. (the uncertanity in the data exists due to the fact that papyrus was not preserved i the north - likely due to the more humid climate of the nile delta).
Still what we got are thinks like pretty conventional love letters, and the like.
(and pretty outraged roman and greek contemporaries, where these couples were against anything that was sacred)
Thus its pretty hard to draw the conclusion that everything except the current anglosaxon "ideal family" model leads to mental retardation and distress.
For more alternaltive deviant family model fun-fun time check the following link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Walking_marriages
Those cases are usually when the victims are children and still mentally developing. That's why it's wrong.
thatkiddonovan - Wait, you use the word 'survivors'. You are not talking about people that were raped right? Because I would say that then you can't really seperate it from that fact.
If they weren't raped, but it was consensual, is it that they can't view the specific relatives they have been in a romantic relationship with the same anymore, or also their other family members? Because for the first one, yeah, I'd imagine that that would change, this is true as well if you for example start a romantic relationship with a long time friend, right? I mean becoming romantically involved obviously changes your relationship and even after you end it your relationship will probably be different. But that doesn't necessarily have to be bad does it? Just different. I mean if it is that they can't interact like they feel society expects them to interact, ok, but that is dependent on the current society and could change if it became more acceptable.
If you mean the second option, they can't have the same relationship with their other relatives either. Was it a bad breakup and familial love is weird now, or did they feel the same while they were still in the romantic relationship?
I mean I suppose that if that's the case and this has permanently shaken some sense of stability for them with their family that could be seen as quite negative.
But maybe they judged it worth it when they started the romance?
Also not everyone has a good relationship with their family anyways.
The conclusion could be that people should be very wary of all the emotional risks when doing something like this but all of it seems far from suggesting a serious moral wrong
(addendum) - Perhaps if it is that other family members can't see the two who had a relationship the same way anymore? That they are affected? Then it might be more serious since it's others that are affected. Especially if it concerns a relationship between a parent and the sibling of this person. Perhaps they now can't look at their parent the same way.
I'd still say though that the seriousness there depends quite a bit on how society views this and would not necessarily be really serious it it were more accepted.
You could argue that these relationships risk serious disruptions in families if they end. But there are many things that can do this and a lot of them aren't easily judged as morally wrong because of it.
Crusader Charles XXX - Why though?
Because it's icky to you?
What even motivated you to post this inane comment here? Do you think it adds anything useful?
You must realise it's just a frustrated emotional comment because apparently you can't really think of anything of any actual substance that you could say?
Shout out to my boys at The Dinner Detective Murder Mystery Dinner Show.
I'm still confused on why this kid conceded on many points during the incest debate, but wasn't willing to bite the bullet on the whole "everything is a biological impulse" thing.
What game is he playing here? Looks like a game (evony) I used to play back in highschool.
"i saw someone that retweeted Stillgray" does he mean antman?
When he started to try and talk about murder I almost lost my fucking mind. He can't even form a coherent sentence while trying to justify what he said. He is just fucking rambling. NOW I AM RAMBLING. FUCK.
This guy went off the deep end later in the vid
I like how at 29:53 I'm listening to the donation and then the first thing after I hear is "any lewd fondling"
The guy is making shit up as he goes along.
Yo when are we gonna get Destiny Vs Seththeprogrammer if superman can beat Goku
what is that game he was playing in the beginning of the video?
The people destiny debates seem to come back to 'I can't get laid' like clockwork. Whether it's a conversation about race, economics, eugenics, or in this case incest. That's the real problem for all of these 'skeptics' it seems.
Jesus, this dude talks in such a condescending way despite continually losing ground in the argument. So grating
Which dude?
"nuclear fam-yilly" 11:46
What even is this argument anymore. I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about.
Do people really not understand what Destiny means when he wonders why incest is wrong?
Rachenviel sadly yes. I've already seen comments on this video that prove it.
he's just clueless about the consequences because he lives in a country where it's not a problem because the people there know that incest is wrong. send him to pakistan and then let him try to tell you again that's not a moral issue
@@sidarthur8706 So why is it a moral issue?
@@alyx669 Why is it a moral issue that the normalisation of incest in Pakistan has lead to widespread defects?
@@ElselchoGaming what widespread defects?
what game was destiny playing?
1:06:14 did this guy just claim video games are necessary for survival? lmao.
"There's ones that are pretend to women to copulate with the other women" looool 1:00:18
I lost it at moralistically
Destiny really hasn’t age he looks even younger then he did in this vid from 5 years ago
Well working out makes you look better usually.
He doesn’t age because he stays inside making his skin not wrinkle / get spots
this dude seems so unsure about anything he says, he gets lost on every thought he has, poor soul
I love people trying to line up a bunch of is's to make an ought.
I think I get what he's trying to say about deriving the morality of incest from biological imperative. While it's true that it's dangerous, in general, to derive morality from biological imperative, he's saying that incest is one of the things whose morality you CAN derive from biological imperative(not that you should, but you can). I remember reading or learning somewhere(in high school maybe?) that on an instinctual level we're biologically programmed not to be attracted to relatives, primarily because of some instinctive, innate sense that we must vary the gene pool, and secondarily because not doing so can result in deformed, defective, or stillborn offspring. I can't remember the specifics and I don't have a source handy, but I think it ties into gene memory (DNA memory?), almost a sort of 'spooky action' that we instinctively understand it's wrong because of innate knowledge of potential deformities in offspring. And it displays as simply as disliking the smells of direct relatives, as he mentioned earlier.
HOWEVER, the problem with this argument is that, even if it's true, it still only argues against the POTENTIAL RESULTS of incest, not incest itself, and therefore isn't a moral argument against incest AS A WHOLE.
This dude didn't realize that "justified murder" is an oxymoron.
debated more about morality than incest tbh
Have the people who come on ever engaged in philosophy? This is gruelling.
Also the bit at the end, I'm sure he realised he was wrong but refused to acknowledge it.
oh hey a circle
I sense Molyneux's hand here.
What game is this?
Guild Fest
My biological impulses made me watch this video because I knew hearing Destiny debate a viewer would make me better at gathering resources kappa.
Way game is he playing someone reply
First video you see when you serch destiny debate Vaush
That naturalistic fallacy and the appeal to nature fallacy are two different things. Saying you should do something because you want to do it, or the inverse, is not an example of the naturalistic fallacy. Stop using terms of art you don't understand.
Incest is good or not.. it just depends on the individuals and their views/opinions.. If one thinks it's good/okay, others who think it's not ok should not force the other to change their view or vice versa atleast not in democracy.
you cant force someone to change their views anyways
The best argument to prove anything is moral or immoral is looking at the results. If the results are abnormal in a general way, then you can assume that that choice is immoral. The example of an abnormal child or an interracial relationship, first those are both unique cases. The chance of having an abnormal baby increases with the negative risks you take during pregnancy and perhaps even afterwards and before. For the interracial relationship, there is no concrete proof in the form of diseases, abnormalities, or evolutionary consequences to state that they are bad. Most people in interracial relationships do not have deformities or disease carried into their genetics. When a family commits incest, those types of abnormalities do occur. You can look at Royal families from the past, they had mental and physical illnesses. And incest does not just include siblings, it also includes parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles,etc. It's a sexual relationship between those of immediate blood relations. If we look at it from that perspective we can see that it could potentially cause mental problems specifically for a child even if incest was normalized, because each incestuous relationship would be unique to itself. One could be between a parent and child, another between siblings, and another between a grandparent and grandchildren. It would not only cause confusion because now each person would still be using incest to describe a relationship, but each person would have their own definition of what it is. It would also cause insecurity because of individualized definition, and no ability to form any type of other relationship. Each relationship between people is important in one way or another, and if you open all relationships to one of a sexual nature there may not exist other kinds of relationships because people may subconsciously think about the other as a potential sex partner.
Overall, you are suffering from mental and physical, not to mention societal consequences. To consider something wrong you have to be able to see a negative consequence. For example, if a child kills a dog and there is no punishment then he will not consider it as a wrong thing. Similarly, when serial killers do certain things in their childhood or youth that aren't corrected or punished, they think it is okay to do those things, or not wrong, or not immoral.
Nice. I have been thinking about these incest debates quite a bit lately and had not considered the negative consequences of losing the ability within families to see each other as impossible sex partners. This definitely becomes a huge issue.... and the defense of "but this is true in non incestuous relationship" argument doesnt work because that is actually the point.
I wouldnt bother with any of the potential birth defects arguments because the easy counter is "what about incestuous relationships where pregnancy is impossible, such as gay brothers" can be used.
My only argument prior to reading your comment was based on power dynamics and admitting that there could be specific cases where incest is ok morally... but the same could be said about age of consent laws. At some point, if we can not determine if something is ok, (ie. a mature 17 year old having sex with an immature 20 year old) we need to just draw an arbitrary line and say "this is wrong". It would be impossible to determine whether or not there is an unfair power dynamic at play in an incestuous relationship... but we do know that most of them do have one... so we should just outlaw all of them.
Watch the video
50:45...oh god...I can't handle the smug.......help me
Can someone please tell me what this game is looks kinda fun to waste my free time with
lilebort any mobile defender >
Omg at 29 mins him not understanding what murder means made me want to murder
Dude should have stopped when he said he was stumped. It was the smartest thing he said the whole debate.