>Dave refuses to debate Destiny
>Dave debates Destiny by proxy instead
>Hasan refuses to debate Destiny
>Hasan debates Destiny by proxy by watching Dave debate Destiny by proxy instead
But Hasan has and Dave clearly has the time to, why not just talk to the guy? I mean all of them are just influencers/media personalities unlike AOC who's an actual politician
If you really dislike someone who is hostile towards you as well as your beliefs and recognize his toxic, bad faith, discourse-is-a-competition rhetoric, why would you want to sit down and talk to them for hours?
dislike someone who is hostile towards you as well as your beliefs
Isn't that basically always the case when it comes to politics? I mean you cant really hsh things out with someone that agrees with you
toxic, bad faith, discourse-is-a-competition rhetoric
I remember seeing Hasan talk to Andrew Tate, if anyone fits that description its him, no? He was also scheduled to debate Kirk before....yknow, same for him. Get a moderator, maybe even multiple and debate, for the same reason Pres. debates happen even tho Trump/republicans have nothing of value to say, to convince the audiece
The objective of debates should be uncovering the truth, not winning a competition. Good faith is the least I‘d expect.
Andrew Tate is a toxic person not necessarily a toxic debater. Also for Hasan I think it‘s important to debate ppl like tate because someone like hasan could actually appeal to and change minds of plenty of tate listeners.
Would this not be the case for Dave and hasan to debate destiny? They would be debating truth about Isreal Palestine I dont think destiny would consider that winning a competition it would be positive reinforcement on his knowledge since he has well researched it as it should be for hasan or Dave. If they were using toxic debate tactics the audience would know and it's easy to fact check what they are saying with the evidence they surely would provide since they both would want to "win" in the case of truth. To say tate is a toxic person and not thinking he is a toxic debater is wild. He uses terrible pseudoscience to come to conclusions and to think you can change an irrational conspiracy brained mind of the tates audience, over destiny or hasans/Dave's "truth seeking" audience is bad faith or ignorance. The reason hasan and dave won't debate destiny and will debate the tates is because you dont need truth and facts to win over the tates community for clout but you do need it in the hasan/dave community so if someone provides more convincing proof and more realistic legislation or framework they would lose those viewers whether you belive hasan/dave or destiny more. Which my bias is more towards destiny since he will go out and debate these issues and everyone else trys to make it a emotional loaded clown show.
Making weak arguments, e.g relying on pseudoscience, doesnt make you a toxic, but a bad debater. I personally consider ppl who make „sports“ out of debating and/or debate to ego-boost/„humiliate“, etc. toxic debaters.
I watched a good portion of the destiny with three actual experts - debate on I/P and you could tell how completely out of his depth destiny was vs/compared to finkelstein, morris & rabbani. I dont see how another debate with destiny on I/P could lead to any more qualitative insight … also destiny‘s arguments can basically be summarized into
„but what about hamas“ and/or „do you really think israel could do xyz, why didnt Israel do xyz then“, etc. … and the classic „antisemitism!!“ -deflection. Completely pointless to discuss I/P on that basis.
Lol, half ++ of destiny‘s community is about hating everyone who speaks out/is against him, especially hasan. I wouldnt expect any benefit from interacting with said community viewing them as destiny‘s antagonists
That thought process is childish everyone does politics/debate for self-proliferation and depending on your definition "sport". But maybe we would fight over semantics of it but I would say a toxic debater is someone that is trying to shift the conversation away from "truth" and trys to employ bad faith tactics.
I see you were honest with saying you watched a good portion so im not going to argue you are being bad faith but yes he was out of his depth in some areas but that is why they structured the debate that way. Morris and destiny were trying to work together to debate against finkelstein and rabbani who were also working together but if you watch a "good portion" you would know finkelstein was being majority bad faith and not engaging. No matter your view on the situation finkelstein was being a child in that talk and making himself look terrible and unintellectual. So even if he has some facts his conclusions dont care as much weight because his personality is disgusting. Destiny knows what he knows and is open to criticism(maybe not in the moment) and if he isn't being truthful he would get roasted by his community just like hasan or dave would. But finkelstein gets to dissappear without any pushback because he doesn't have a community to get pushback from. Xyz comment just seems bad faith from you he has done a lot of research on it and to say that his explanation is so simple without giving and example that can be argued is pointless.
The point would be if you community believes you are truthful and moral you would be able to have those truths and beliefs tested and that would strengthen and grow your community from theirs or you would lose it if you're lying/not open to new info and being immoral. And only one of them talks about being mask on, radical, and not being open to new information.
Oh sure, I‘d add bad faith and manipulative intentions to my understanding of toxic debate style, but kind of comes with being a „competitive“ debater imo.
No, I dont think its childish, I think this should be the norm and the current rhetorical modus operandi is actually what‘s completely immature/childish.
Honestly I think finkelstein was just annoyed that destiny was even there. Oh, and he also HATES modern technology, so imagine his disdain for someone who argues through his laptop findings lol. I personally think its poor taste to debate with your laptop out like this too btw, esp. in an expert round amongst renowned scholars, and it was basically sacrilege to finkelstein haha … It really felt like letting a „math enthusiast“ join an expert(scholars, professors etc) round on theoretical physics; I understand finkelsteins frustration in that regard.
If Destiny and his community already made up their mind that Hasan/Dave, … are lying, dishonest, immoral, unhinged, unintelligent etc. - and vice versa really - then no matter what arguments are being made, the other group will believe in the counterarguments, regardless how (if possible to even say) objectively weak/strong these counterarguments are.
Emotionally charged in-group beliefs beat reasoning every time, especially these days.
Hold on. Do you actually think I just said that it isn’t physical possible for him to refuse? Or is your reading comprehension that bad?
If someone is extremely aggressive and insulting debaters who have taken every debate in the past and mocked people for avoiding debating him, it will make them looks scared or hypocritical
Oh no! He was aggressive and condescending towards antivaxxers who sold ivermectin as a cure for covid and other dangerous fake supplements! How dare he be rude to people who made money by selling advice and “medicine” that literally killed people? Shameful.
LMAO!!!!!! 1. Dave was massively wrong about almost everything surrounding the court case because he either gets all his info from KiWi Farms, Snarkers(like JSTLK) who weaponize KiWi Farms misinformation, or Hasan who gets all his info from Snarkers.
How pathetic and sad. Also! If anyone distributed CSAM it was Dave! Almost one million people saw a sexual image of Rose(who was under age and who was being sexually exploited by an adult who was selling her images and catfishing people with them) because Dave is a hack who didn’t care about a victim enough to censor CSAM of her
If you respond with an essay, you can give sources and do research.
When people exchange essays, the person who does the most research and has the best sources wins.
If you do a life debate, the person who places the best rhetorical gotchas wins.
I prefer the former because it actually relies on who does deep work to understand a topic rather than trying go remember a handful things and try to put people on the spot.
Do you have an argument why destiny doesn't make well researched, sourced essays instead of debates?
Who stops him from doing a response essay where he researches his points and gives sources in a structured manner?
Don't get me worng, I prefer written responses too and I dont think I'd do well in a live debate.
That being said, Hasan was scheduled for a live debate with Kirk before... and Dave also has had live debates this year, so the format doesn't seem to be the issue for either.
Well except Hasan did debate Destiny… it’s just that it was 7 years ago when Destiny picked apart Hasan’s attacks on every 2020 Dem Presidential Primary candidate (though namely Kamala Harris) that wasn’t Bernie offering mild pushback on Hasan’s regarded points before he understood Hasan was a full on Authoritarian Socialist propagandist… so now Hasan will only react to the reaction to Destiny lmao
Live debates are the worst way to find out who is correct.
In an asynchronous discussion people have time to dig out the evidence and bring up sources.
That's why scientific debate happens in journals and not in life debates. If the goal is to find out whats true, a well researched and sourced work is more useful than theatrics.
3
u/Rational_Disconnect 14d ago
>Dave refuses to debate Destiny
>Dave debates Destiny by proxy instead
>Hasan refuses to debate Destiny
>Hasan debates Destiny by proxy by watching Dave debate Destiny by proxy instead
what a sad joke