videos

The problem is that Destiny fundamentally lacked the required knowledge to engage in any kind of meaningfully relevant discussion beyond himself conceding immediate defeat. There's no "debate" to be had of any value, Destiny could never hope to add value as he lacked sufficient knowledge. Despite this, he still tried to argue against Finklestein, who does know about the subject to a far greater degree.

Among Communists, there is a saying:

No investigation, no right to speak.

It is far better to hold your tongue on matters you do not know until you have done the necessary legwork to learn. Otherwise, you contribute to a cacophany of misinformation.

Debates as the modern liberal bloodsport are based on "owning" the other party. Winning the argument matters more than coming to a higher understanding, ergo it's a space dominated by the most annoying types of people (like Destiny). "Holding his own" doesn't matter in the slightest unless you value winning the argument over being correct.

If you want to be more educated on a subject, it's far more effective to spend that time reading. Books exist for a reason. Debates are for entertainment, not education, unless they are held among principled comrades wishing to come to a unified consensus on matters key to principle.

Side note, liberalism is a bad thing. This is a Leftist community, Destiny is rightfully hated here as a genocidal zionist liberal. Just a heads-up.

"because what is the point of having to literally educate him on basic aspects of the topic." Isn't this a good idea?

If Destiny started that discussion by saying that he was ignorant on the topic, and willing to learn, there's nothing wrong with educating him.

That's not what he did. He went into that debate, with men who have been studying this issue since before he was born, like an arrogant streaming jackass. He thought being able to speak quickly and paraphrase Wikipedia meant he was the intellectual equal, if not the superior, of people who have forgotten more about Palestine than he will ever know. He thought that memorizing Israeli State Department talking points was the same as lived experience, he thought that skimming a couple Wikipedia articles was the same as scholarly research, he thought that pontificating on the stream where he grooms Young girls, was the same as writing dozens of books. He thought that arguing with his twitch chat prepared him to go against intellectual Giants.

Anyone who watched that debate and thinks destiny did anything besides embarrass himself, is a faux intellectual.

Edit: the exact same way that Charlie Kirk thinks that he's an intellectual giant because he can shout down 19-year-olds, but ends up getting his ass handed to him by anyone who actually finished their degree, destiny walked into that debate like he was going to be arguing with 15-year-olds in his chat, and he got smacked down accordingly. He has not earned the right to be treated as Finkelstein's intellectual equal. Benny Morris, monster that he is, has earned that.

How do you know?

How? Even just a passive viewing of that debate shows how little he understands the citations he's using. He couldn't defend any of his sources beyond reading select quotes that just happen to be available on wikipedia - any time Finkelstein engaged the substance of whatever it was he was resting his case on Mr Bonnelli couldn't hang.

This is why this kind of exchange is pointless - Finkelstein is an actual scholar on the issue and can engage with substance far deeper than most average BA's could, let alone a college drop-out slop-tuber. The distance between them in terms of subject matter knowledge is just too great - they might as well be speaking different languages.

It's Chinese for 'IP checks out', i.e. you're from a .uk instance, and one with a poor reputation for political literacy. ~~But, to your credit, at least you're seemingly hoping to learn~~. I hope that similarly to how you were able stop being an 'anti-liberal'* transphobe from watching debates, you'll continue to mature and watch and read from sources wider than online debate streamers, like, actually reading scholarly writing other. You'll quickly come to realise how out-of-depth Destiny is.

• we have different understandings of this phrase, but you ain't ready for that yet

Destiny is a little openly genocide loving freak and only deserved to be mocked and ridiculed by an expert. Norm couldn't do much more than make fun of him for trying to defend a genocide using Wikipedia, while the real complexities were gone over with the Zionist scholar destiny brought with him.

Only an anglo could find a gamer defending a genocide "awesome"

I didn't watch the debate but I've heard them both argue about the topic in different contexts. Destiny is good at debating and he can "hold his own" in any debate, regardless of how wrong he is on a subject, by litigating technicalities, deviating and distracting from the core issue at hand. I'm sure his arguments sound great if you know absolutely nothing about the subject matter.

It was because his points were factually incorrect, which is what Finkelstein was pointing out. If you are saying that 'as long as the argument sound good it good', then you are willfully ignorant. He never made a better argument than Finkelstein.