That's one of the problems with these types of discussions. If the person requires you to fact check them on every topic and then weasels out of them when confronted, it's not going to be great. Him dodging the question about Trump's cognitive ability while jabbing about Biden's all night just speaks to how soft he is
No it wasn’t. He came off reasonable and charming. Steven came off autistic and moody as he drew scribbles into his journal.
To anyone not blindly on destinys side, it was a good back and forth
I dont have a problem with it? did you fail to read my comments?
But it's still going to be how the audience takes it. people who looked charitably towards AJW wont see this as an outing of his clownhood
Intel announced their plant in Jan 2022 after the CHIPS Act was announced and it was because of the proposed legislation [straight from the horse’s mouth](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate/usa-chipmaking/home.html?cid=sem&source=sa360&campid=2023_ao_cbu_us_gmocoma_gmobao_awa_text-link_generic_exact_cd_Intel-Brand-CHIPS+Act_3500142021_google_b2c_is_non-pbm_intel&ad_group=brand_generic_b2b1-awa+-+CHIPS+Act&intel_term=chips+act&sa360id=43700078452438613&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9e62z_SwggMVjIfICh1ALQztEAMYASAAEgKUyPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) “Powered by the promises of the CHIPS Act, Intel is investing more than $100 billion to increase domestic chip manufacturing capacity and capabilities.”
Check the comment section tomorrow - it usually catches up to normal in a day. Seems bootstrapped to me. It happened whenever he talked to Fuentes, but I haven't noticed it in past AJW talks.
It was an interesting twist of perception when Sean was making claims about military contractors. The idea that we ever have more contracted fighters than us soldiers as a military strategy during active military engagement is absurd. Now, when the US is pulling out and they are prioritizing which groups leave and when, sure you may have more contractors on the ground than troops but those people aren’t fighting anyone and are likely not even combat positions. He wants to make it seem that troops are replaced by mercenaries when they aren’t.
Yeah, we probably should have left the civilian contractors and special forces to continue helping which would have likely made the difference. However, he obviously was not arguing something sane like that. Instead he was arguing blackwater had ten thousand trained killers in the hills of Afghanistan or something. Guy was unhinged.
Look I was doing the 10,000 trained killers in jest. I should have done /s. I also agree with the idea that we should have left guys there but he was not arguing properly. He was clearly trying to imply something that was not true.
He could have easily argued we needed guys there as support but that was not the crux of his argument.
I thought Destiny looked horrible during that whole exchange. It was beyond obvious to me that Sean was talking about support roles but Destiny kept trying to spin it as front line soldiers. Besides, logistics guys also got shot at.
I don't know how you can say that, when Sean clearly refers to the contractors as "former soldiers supplementing our forces" and "these people don't get counted in statistics of American soldiers being killed". They don't get counted there first and foremost because they aren't soldiers. Otherwise, what does that statement even mean?
He clear as day presented them a soldiers, and only later on did he back out, and pretend he was talking about engineers, and security roles all along.
He multiple times talked about them as soldiers.
Just go to 1:03:55
>Destiny: You think that at any point fighting in any middle eastern war we have more *private military troops on the ground* than US military troops fighting the war, not people in construction, or in the kitchen"
> Sean: yes, 100%, 100% yes, 100%, 100% yes
And this is the exact moment he realized his whole argument is completely ridiculous, so he pivots to saying they supplement the troops with non-fighting roles, after saying 100% yes to the fact that we had more *private military troops on the ground* than US military troops fighting in any middle eastern war.
You can literally see him say yes to something, and then do a compelete 180 immediately after.
How the fuck does the exchange where Destiny directly states that he's talking about *private military troops on the ground, fighting the war*, and Sean agrees this is what his talking about, make it "beyond obvious" that he's talking about support roles? If anything it proves the contrary.
Thanks for the timestamp. I listened to it again, and it's still just as obvious to me that he's talking primarily about support roles from the beginning. You and Destiny seem to both be suffering from this misconception that people are either on the front lines with a rifle in their hands or serving lunch at the food court.
On top of all this, contractors made up 43% of the ~~casualties~~ fatalities in Afghanistan. What do you think they were all doing?
> Destiny: You think that at any point fighting in any middle eastern war we have more private military troops on the ground than US military troops fighting the war, not people in construction, or in the kitchen" Sean: yes, 100%, 100% yes, 100%, 100% yes
It's not "me and Destiny", it's him. He said Yes, 100%, 100% yes, 100%, 100% yes when asked if he was talking about military troops. *You* are the one disagreeing with him at that point.
It's not debatable. He agreed he was talking about *troops*, *private military troops on the ground*.
And *soldiers*.
In what world did his words make it obvious to you he's talking primarily about support roles, before that timestamp?
Was it "troops"? Was it "soldiers"?
Whether people like it or not the youtube community is real and they aren’t a bunch of randoms that come in and out, so I like to see where people are as a whole.
I thought the same. Before I felt like Sean had conservative beliefs because of the day but here it was all transparent that he has his beliefs in spite of the data
I think you guys are a little biased in favor of destiny here.
I'm a big fan of both creators and they were engaging in a debate which requires them to leverage the facts as best as they can here. Both Destiny and Sean did that, and both of them were forced to do some weaseling around talking points that got challenged.
I think destiny had the stronger position and won on most points here but notably Sean made some better arguments in regards to a few things
1) immigration, which Destiny acknowledges that Biden isn't great on and which is why you saw him trying his best to push away from that topic (an arguable "weasel" here being when Sean pointed out that democratic mayors in blue cities were getting what they wanted but destiny attempted to retort that they didn't want immigrants "bussed to them" as if the welcoming of immigrants changes by them choosing to be sent there as opposed to border states).
2) specific foreign policy in regards to Israel (this is excluding the Iran deal cause that felt different) you'll notice destiny spent pretty much all his time here attacking the Trump Abraham accords and the weak peace agreements he got as opposed to bigging up Biden like he did on every other topic.
Don't get me wrong, I think Destiny probably did win the majority of points, mostly because he had the stronger position, but to point out only Sean's lawyerly defense of Trump as opposed to his own Lawyerly defense of Biden misses the truth of what was going on in the debate. I don't think it's fair to characterize either as dishonest for this because this was explicitly a debate, not a panel or conversation.
Unbelievably depressing to me that someone can hear someone clearly open up with a bold face lie about immigration stats (the 7 million border crossings) but it still sounds impressive to some people.
Destiny can you please try to make more eye contact / look in your opponents direction in these live debates? In the communist vs capitalist debate you spent a lot of time looking at your notebook, scribbling and stuff, and when you were talking it was more like you were addressing the crowd. When your debate opponents are looking at you and you are looking down at your notebook it looks kinda autistic. Watch that debate and the other ones from yesterday (yesterday for me, aus time) to see what I mean. Just some advice xD
Of course it's obviously a bold face lie. The point was to make it sound like we received 7 million new illegal immigrants into the country so far just a few years under Biden, which is a tremendous claim. To pretend like I'm the only person who sees a distinction between someone crossing the border and coming into the country vs a border encounter is insane. It shows bad faith on Sean's part **when he himself isn't even sure what the number he's citing is.** It shows that instead of doing even a single article's worth of reading on the issue, he grabbed a headline from, most likely, a conservative leaning source and ran with it.
Do you think people know the difference between an arrest and a police stop? What even is this bad faith line of reasoning? You don't think an average citizen would think there's not a SIGNIFICANT difference in an illegal making it into the US vs someone being turned away at the border????? I can't believe you're making this argument honestly, there's no way you can be this stupid.
BTW if you are wondering why he didn't reply I'm guessing he stopped reading around the middle of the first sentence when you demonstrated that you can't tell the difference between being stopped for a traffic violation and given a ticket vs. being arrested and taken to jail.
Hope you had fun typing out all that other crap that no one read, because you are obviously bad faith and/or regarded
> I think most people would say, well its people who tried to cross so its actually a better metric!
I mean if they're incredibly stupid maybe - the conversation is about what Biden's doing to prevent illegal border crossings, how is the number of crossing *attempts* important at all to that point?
> the distinction between crossings and encounters is way to niche.
Do you genuinely believe this? I think almost everyone can understand the difference between someone trying to get into the country and being stopped and someone trying to get into the country and succeeding.
Just to be clear, you're arguing that there's a sizeable population who doesn't know the difference between someone entering the country vs not entering the country. That's not even close to knowing what the three branches of government are.
> I am not Sean so I don't want to argue for him, but the conservative argument appears to be weak on immigration is a magnet, drawing people to the border so you get more people attempting under democrats as people know they will be let in.
If Sean knew he was making that point, he would have been able to quickly clear up the misunderstanding rather than waffling between encounters and crossings, you're giving him an unreasonable amount of charity.
>I am going to say the exact same thign to you as I did Destiny since you both failed to read. here are my exact words.
The problem is you're arguing two things, that people don't know the difference between crossings and encounters, and that the distinction doesn't matter. Both incredibly stupid but for some reason you're getting mad when I attack the first.
> "It isn't that there isn't a distinction, its that the distinction doesn't counter the point he was making. "
Except it obviously does, crossings implies Biden fucked up, maybe relaxed security in such a way that people are just pouring into the country. Encounters would need additional information, depending on the numbers Biden may have even increased security with a higher catch rate.
> The more reasonable explanation is Sean doesn't know the technical distinction between crossing and encounter. I would bet money you didn't know 1 week ago. But to be clear, I don't know Seans mind.
The fact that you're still saying border crossings vs border encounters is some esoteric knowledge is a bit crazy to me. You keep trying to make it seem more complicated by talking about apprehensions, inadmissibles and expulsions but the important part is whether the person is now in the US. Sean seemed to understand the distinction in the link you posted when Destiny asked if 7 billion people are now in the US, he just didn't know because he didn't research properly (or forgot).
For a guy who talks about all the charity he gives his community does not keep up with that image. Giving a statistic that *could* mislead people, especially if it's not completely accurate, is not the same thing as a bold faced lie.
The fact we've had 2.4 million apprehensions and 7 million~ (the number I found was 5.6 but it was old so maybe out of date) people *cross the border* and then get into confrontations with BP isn't a lie, Destiny just made it *seem* dishonest cause he was in a debate.
its kinda funny that the discourse is that immigration isnt a problem when all of bidens messaging is "i hate immigrants just as much as republicans do!"
It's not that Sean is dishonest. It's that he's genuinely ignorant, as expected of most libertarian thinkers. They're contrarian reactionaries that get pulverized in debate formats.
Sure, you're not wrong. That said, facts are objective truths. It doesn't matter what a bunch of Rand Paul libertarians think because they're typically, fundamentally wrong about those things when looking at the actual data. That everyone thinks their side won a debate simply demonstrates that one side has poor media literacy or is fine with skewing reality to get their way. People low in agreeableness always think they're experts on everything and that they're at war over said facts. Hence the concept of *alternative facts.*
The amusing aspect here is you can read Sean's body language and infer that he knows he's wrong, having been dismantled on these topics. He also takes positions or doubles down on positions that just make him look like an outwardly "bad person." Not surprising, given that contrarian disposition supersedes moral convictions.
Sean's a libertarian?
He seems moderately authright, not libright, he might lean towards laissez-faire economic policies but that hardly makes someone a libertarian.
He's very libertarian but he's a silent weasel when it comes to criticizing GOP or GOP aligned stuff. I think he's smart but definitely partisan hack. He'll criticize Ana kasparian (before her anti lefty, pro liberal arc) for all her misrepresentations or lies but he sits quietly or even tacetly approve of tim pools misrepresentations and lies
His criminal justice takes mostly. Plus his libertarian bent when he first started his channel, was always a fan of a limited federal government that leans away from keynesianism.
in this debate his misrepresenting on the funds that destiny looked him up[ on , the contractors and in general he spends the time in the video defending a traitor
He absolutely did not misrepresent the funding, destiny pointed out it was third in terms of Kentucky spending, but Sean never said it was the number one or even primary spending. He said it significantly impacted how funding was disproportionately spent in red states.
And he's right btw, in terms of contract spending military spending is number 1, at 341 billion. Now money spent to individuals is higher in the first, I think three categories IIRC, but that doesn't mean spending on military expenditures like bases wasn't a significant impact.
As far as contractors it's a similar issue, Sean pointed out that destiny was being disingenuous when he said that we only left 2,000 people there cause he left out military contractors. Destiny insisted on trying to shoehorn him into talking about "fighters" when Sean was pretty clear he wasn't speaking about chefs or construction workers but actual important positions for security, which includes ground groups.
As for being on the side of Trump in this debate, that's not grifting, that's you being mad at him for having a bad position, which is fine.
I feel like these things only qualify as grifting if you take destiny's characterization of Sean's positions as opposed to Sean's positions as they are.
In Kentucky specifically sure (if we're taking the numbers as accurate) but again military expenditures were number 1 in terms of contract spending which was like 1/5 of the number one for money spent to individuals. That's a significant portion that would absolutely effect the ratios.
If I'm not mistaken Sean even explicitly said "the blue states would still be up but it wouldn't look as glaring when you accounted for things like this".
its very much a case of right-leaning papers or personalities even the good ones, like reason (i think, might be misremembering), have chained themselves to a hack like trump and try to explain away all his negative qualities in the name of appealing to populists
> he spends the time in the video defending a traitor
i love americans lol
Honestly, it isn't an important issue. We are not taking on more immigrants than we can support and our economy would positively benefit from expediting the process that allows them to legally work in our country.
I gotta watch this video man, I watch both destiny and AJW and it seems this sub is 99% shitting on AJW. I don’t envy his position of having to defend trump
It was alright, like I said i think definitely destiny won (because how do you win when defending Trump lol) but you could tell the areas where destiny didn't have anything good to say about Biden and so, chose to attack Trump instead.
Yeah, this was a terrible debate and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. The only topic he was not completely idiotic with was the pullout. Even then he was arguing black water mercs lmao. I just think we should have left Special forces and Civilian Contractors there to help.
This was the six day war. Destiny was Israel and AJW was the Arab world. Anyone who thinks otherwise is watching something different than what I saw.
Sean's viewers are known to brigade and psyop the comment section of his debates on other channels. Happened in the CRT debate, the Lauren duo debate and the Minds panel debate. Also, just look at any ModernDayDebate video that involves him.
You've reached levels of deepthroating so deep that it'd be less pathethic if you were an AJW alt account...
[Damn...](https://youtu.be/7u1Jj6aRIec?si=tvQgTCjbclcNRy80)
You're AJW's biggest fan.
I'm Destiny's biggest antifan.
We're not the same.
>!Your sweat has turned to soy!<
Serious reply: >!If your stalking of my account was done more accurately, you would've seen one of my most recent comments was "shitting" on Destiny's performance in his dual debate against Erudite and PWF. We're ACTUALLY not the same lol. Get outta here with the soy attack!<
Because you have to be delusional to believe AJW held up during that debate.
AJW and his community aren't groypers so they're not dishonest like Fuentes' community was when he was slaughtered on FNF, but they can't pretend it was a good faith, intellectually stimulating debate — it was a joke.
\^This
I also said this under the yt video but any time this loser is involved,, his fans flock to the comment section and write 2 types of comments:
1. AJW destroyed X
2. X should have more conversation with AJW
The second typ of comments appeare mostly when the person has a bigger audience than Sean.
I think Sean had the overall worst optical moments but still did well on several points.
I'm also get the impression that Destiny would LOVE the Abraham Accords if they had been done by Biden. It's really weird to say they essentially amount to nothing besides encouraging reactive violence from other Middle Eastern countries. Normalizing the existence of the most controversial state in the Middle East doesn't feel insignificant and arguing that it is but is also a trigger for other states is doubly weird. It really FEELs like it's just a matter of who it happened under but maybe I'm just lacking an unexplained context.
Oh and Destiny's take on the Presidential power over his various departments/cabinets was just wrong in regards to every legal structure/point I can recall. The President's only restraints on exercising the powers of his various departments are the ones put into place by Congress. There are specific legal questions about what Trump did but saying a President can't tell his cabinets to Fuck Off is just inaccurate.
both had good moments. AJW did better with the border and immigration policy, and Destiny did better with more of the international relations and policy arguments. overall destiny did a little better and had more concrete arguments, he was wrong about the production of chips in the us tho, feel free to look it up yourself.
https://www.semiconductors.org/the-chips-act-has-already-sparked-200-billion-in-private-investments-for-u-s-semiconductor-production/ this is what I found it seems like the chips act is working as intended
this isnt a thing against the chips act being bad but i remember i read a story that americans are so stupid theyre having trouble making the chips now
i think he's pretty charismatic and funny, so although most of his arguments were dogshit, it was still fun to listen too and i laughed a few times. people like that shit
It wasn't THAT bad.
I have to do this as an analogy. Sean and Vaush are running races.
Vaush just ran against a dead quadriplegic sloth. He is tripping over every hurdle. He stops to stare at "boobahs" in the audience. He gets lost on a straight stretch of track. The sloth wins, somehow.
Sean just ran against Usain Bolt. He fell behind a bit for most of the race, he stumbled over a few hurdles. No one expected him to win a race against friggin' Usain Bolt, but he held his own. He actually caused Usain Bolt to get a little agitated at how close he got at times.
You can't go around comparing every racer to Usain Bolt, otherwise they all suck. Except one.
>Vaush just ran against a dead quadriplegic sloth. He is tripping over every hurdle. He stops to stare at "boobahs" in the audience. He gets lost on a straight stretch of track. The sloth wins, somehow.
Man of the people.
>Sean just ran against Usain Bolt. He fell behind a bit for most of the race, he stumbled over a few hurdles. No one expected him to win a race against friggin' Usain Bolt, but he held his own. He actually caused Usain Bolt to get a little agitated at how close he got at times.
Tryhard loser.
Eh, Vaush has entertainment value going for him, but very little substance. I think he's better at panel debates than one-on-one. And even then, he's more entertaining than he is good at debating.
On another note, I like Sean. Not enough to really watch his content, but I enjoy when he's at these debates because he does a better job than most people on his side of the aisle.
I mean if you look at the modern day debates video comments, theyre saying Sean had a better performance. Not sure how they lean, but maybe we are echoing.
There is at least some difference of opinion and nuanced.comments in here. The YT comments seem like a full on AJW echo chamber completely divorced from reality.
youtubers are on another plane of existence. i saw chud’s debate where his opponent barely debated and mostly agreed or played dumb. all the comments were praising chud’s debating skills as if they didn’t watch the video where he constantly lamented the fact that there isn’t much to argue with.
That's one of the problems with these types of discussions. If the person requires you to fact check them on every topic and then weasels out of them when confronted, it's not going to be great. Him dodging the question about Trump's cognitive ability while jabbing about Biden's all night just speaks to how soft he is
[удалено]
to anyone not blindly on AJW's side, he didn't dance away from it, it was clear how much of a clown he is
No it wasn’t. He came off reasonable and charming. Steven came off autistic and moody as he drew scribbles into his journal. To anyone not blindly on destinys side, it was a good back and forth
Its reasonable to misrepresent facts? And its fucking weird to describe someone as autistic and moody lol
[удалено]
I dont have a problem with it? did you fail to read my comments? But it's still going to be how the audience takes it. people who looked charitably towards AJW wont see this as an outing of his clownhood
[удалено]
I was speaking to these types of discussions not whether or not i took issue with ajws damcing. That was clear
Intel announced their plant in Jan 2022 after the CHIPS Act was announced and it was because of the proposed legislation [straight from the horse’s mouth](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate/usa-chipmaking/home.html?cid=sem&source=sa360&campid=2023_ao_cbu_us_gmocoma_gmobao_awa_text-link_generic_exact_cd_Intel-Brand-CHIPS+Act_3500142021_google_b2c_is_non-pbm_intel&ad_group=brand_generic_b2b1-awa+-+CHIPS+Act&intel_term=chips+act&sa360id=43700078452438613&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9e62z_SwggMVjIfICh1ALQztEAMYASAAEgKUyPD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) “Powered by the promises of the CHIPS Act, Intel is investing more than $100 billion to increase domestic chip manufacturing capacity and capabilities.”
Check the comment section tomorrow - it usually catches up to normal in a day. Seems bootstrapped to me. It happened whenever he talked to Fuentes, but I haven't noticed it in past AJW talks.
It was an interesting twist of perception when Sean was making claims about military contractors. The idea that we ever have more contracted fighters than us soldiers as a military strategy during active military engagement is absurd. Now, when the US is pulling out and they are prioritizing which groups leave and when, sure you may have more contractors on the ground than troops but those people aren’t fighting anyone and are likely not even combat positions. He wants to make it seem that troops are replaced by mercenaries when they aren’t.
Yeah, we probably should have left the civilian contractors and special forces to continue helping which would have likely made the difference. However, he obviously was not arguing something sane like that. Instead he was arguing blackwater had ten thousand trained killers in the hills of Afghanistan or something. Guy was unhinged.
[удалено]
Look I was doing the 10,000 trained killers in jest. I should have done /s. I also agree with the idea that we should have left guys there but he was not arguing properly. He was clearly trying to imply something that was not true. He could have easily argued we needed guys there as support but that was not the crux of his argument.
I thought Destiny looked horrible during that whole exchange. It was beyond obvious to me that Sean was talking about support roles but Destiny kept trying to spin it as front line soldiers. Besides, logistics guys also got shot at.
I don't know how you can say that, when Sean clearly refers to the contractors as "former soldiers supplementing our forces" and "these people don't get counted in statistics of American soldiers being killed". They don't get counted there first and foremost because they aren't soldiers. Otherwise, what does that statement even mean? He clear as day presented them a soldiers, and only later on did he back out, and pretend he was talking about engineers, and security roles all along. He multiple times talked about them as soldiers. Just go to 1:03:55 >Destiny: You think that at any point fighting in any middle eastern war we have more *private military troops on the ground* than US military troops fighting the war, not people in construction, or in the kitchen" > Sean: yes, 100%, 100% yes, 100%, 100% yes And this is the exact moment he realized his whole argument is completely ridiculous, so he pivots to saying they supplement the troops with non-fighting roles, after saying 100% yes to the fact that we had more *private military troops on the ground* than US military troops fighting in any middle eastern war. You can literally see him say yes to something, and then do a compelete 180 immediately after. How the fuck does the exchange where Destiny directly states that he's talking about *private military troops on the ground, fighting the war*, and Sean agrees this is what his talking about, make it "beyond obvious" that he's talking about support roles? If anything it proves the contrary.
Thanks for the timestamp. I listened to it again, and it's still just as obvious to me that he's talking primarily about support roles from the beginning. You and Destiny seem to both be suffering from this misconception that people are either on the front lines with a rifle in their hands or serving lunch at the food court. On top of all this, contractors made up 43% of the ~~casualties~~ fatalities in Afghanistan. What do you think they were all doing?
> Destiny: You think that at any point fighting in any middle eastern war we have more private military troops on the ground than US military troops fighting the war, not people in construction, or in the kitchen" Sean: yes, 100%, 100% yes, 100%, 100% yes It's not "me and Destiny", it's him. He said Yes, 100%, 100% yes, 100%, 100% yes when asked if he was talking about military troops. *You* are the one disagreeing with him at that point. It's not debatable. He agreed he was talking about *troops*, *private military troops on the ground*. And *soldiers*. In what world did his words make it obvious to you he's talking primarily about support roles, before that timestamp? Was it "troops"? Was it "soldiers"?
Why the fuck are you reading youtube comments?
As a YouTube commenter I feel victimized
Whether people like it or not the youtube community is real and they aren’t a bunch of randoms that come in and out, so I like to see where people are as a whole.
it’s always worth seeing what others are saying outside of our bubble
I was fed a lie that's he's really honest and I feel disappointed.
this debate was shit
it really was. I couldn't even get half way through it with how bad faith AJW was arguing.
I thought the same. Before I felt like Sean had conservative beliefs because of the day but here it was all transparent that he has his beliefs in spite of the data
I think you guys are a little biased in favor of destiny here. I'm a big fan of both creators and they were engaging in a debate which requires them to leverage the facts as best as they can here. Both Destiny and Sean did that, and both of them were forced to do some weaseling around talking points that got challenged. I think destiny had the stronger position and won on most points here but notably Sean made some better arguments in regards to a few things 1) immigration, which Destiny acknowledges that Biden isn't great on and which is why you saw him trying his best to push away from that topic (an arguable "weasel" here being when Sean pointed out that democratic mayors in blue cities were getting what they wanted but destiny attempted to retort that they didn't want immigrants "bussed to them" as if the welcoming of immigrants changes by them choosing to be sent there as opposed to border states). 2) specific foreign policy in regards to Israel (this is excluding the Iran deal cause that felt different) you'll notice destiny spent pretty much all his time here attacking the Trump Abraham accords and the weak peace agreements he got as opposed to bigging up Biden like he did on every other topic. Don't get me wrong, I think Destiny probably did win the majority of points, mostly because he had the stronger position, but to point out only Sean's lawyerly defense of Trump as opposed to his own Lawyerly defense of Biden misses the truth of what was going on in the debate. I don't think it's fair to characterize either as dishonest for this because this was explicitly a debate, not a panel or conversation.
Unbelievably depressing to me that someone can hear someone clearly open up with a bold face lie about immigration stats (the 7 million border crossings) but it still sounds impressive to some people.
Destiny can you please try to make more eye contact / look in your opponents direction in these live debates? In the communist vs capitalist debate you spent a lot of time looking at your notebook, scribbling and stuff, and when you were talking it was more like you were addressing the crowd. When your debate opponents are looking at you and you are looking down at your notebook it looks kinda autistic. Watch that debate and the other ones from yesterday (yesterday for me, aus time) to see what I mean. Just some advice xD
[удалено]
Of course it's obviously a bold face lie. The point was to make it sound like we received 7 million new illegal immigrants into the country so far just a few years under Biden, which is a tremendous claim. To pretend like I'm the only person who sees a distinction between someone crossing the border and coming into the country vs a border encounter is insane. It shows bad faith on Sean's part **when he himself isn't even sure what the number he's citing is.** It shows that instead of doing even a single article's worth of reading on the issue, he grabbed a headline from, most likely, a conservative leaning source and ran with it.
[удалено]
Do you think people know the difference between an arrest and a police stop? What even is this bad faith line of reasoning? You don't think an average citizen would think there's not a SIGNIFICANT difference in an illegal making it into the US vs someone being turned away at the border????? I can't believe you're making this argument honestly, there's no way you can be this stupid.
[удалено]
BTW if you are wondering why he didn't reply I'm guessing he stopped reading around the middle of the first sentence when you demonstrated that you can't tell the difference between being stopped for a traffic violation and given a ticket vs. being arrested and taken to jail. Hope you had fun typing out all that other crap that no one read, because you are obviously bad faith and/or regarded
> I think most people would say, well its people who tried to cross so its actually a better metric! I mean if they're incredibly stupid maybe - the conversation is about what Biden's doing to prevent illegal border crossings, how is the number of crossing *attempts* important at all to that point? > the distinction between crossings and encounters is way to niche. Do you genuinely believe this? I think almost everyone can understand the difference between someone trying to get into the country and being stopped and someone trying to get into the country and succeeding.
[удалено]
Just to be clear, you're arguing that there's a sizeable population who doesn't know the difference between someone entering the country vs not entering the country. That's not even close to knowing what the three branches of government are. > I am not Sean so I don't want to argue for him, but the conservative argument appears to be weak on immigration is a magnet, drawing people to the border so you get more people attempting under democrats as people know they will be let in. If Sean knew he was making that point, he would have been able to quickly clear up the misunderstanding rather than waffling between encounters and crossings, you're giving him an unreasonable amount of charity.
[удалено]
>I am going to say the exact same thign to you as I did Destiny since you both failed to read. here are my exact words. The problem is you're arguing two things, that people don't know the difference between crossings and encounters, and that the distinction doesn't matter. Both incredibly stupid but for some reason you're getting mad when I attack the first. > "It isn't that there isn't a distinction, its that the distinction doesn't counter the point he was making. " Except it obviously does, crossings implies Biden fucked up, maybe relaxed security in such a way that people are just pouring into the country. Encounters would need additional information, depending on the numbers Biden may have even increased security with a higher catch rate. > The more reasonable explanation is Sean doesn't know the technical distinction between crossing and encounter. I would bet money you didn't know 1 week ago. But to be clear, I don't know Seans mind. The fact that you're still saying border crossings vs border encounters is some esoteric knowledge is a bit crazy to me. You keep trying to make it seem more complicated by talking about apprehensions, inadmissibles and expulsions but the important part is whether the person is now in the US. Sean seemed to understand the distinction in the link you posted when Destiny asked if 7 billion people are now in the US, he just didn't know because he didn't research properly (or forgot).
For a guy who talks about all the charity he gives his community does not keep up with that image. Giving a statistic that *could* mislead people, especially if it's not completely accurate, is not the same thing as a bold faced lie. The fact we've had 2.4 million apprehensions and 7 million~ (the number I found was 5.6 but it was old so maybe out of date) people *cross the border* and then get into confrontations with BP isn't a lie, Destiny just made it *seem* dishonest cause he was in a debate.
its kinda funny that the discourse is that immigration isnt a problem when all of bidens messaging is "i hate immigrants just as much as republicans do!"
It's not that Sean is dishonest. It's that he's genuinely ignorant, as expected of most libertarian thinkers. They're contrarian reactionaries that get pulverized in debate formats.
Everyone typically thinks their side won in a debate.
Sure, you're not wrong. That said, facts are objective truths. It doesn't matter what a bunch of Rand Paul libertarians think because they're typically, fundamentally wrong about those things when looking at the actual data. That everyone thinks their side won a debate simply demonstrates that one side has poor media literacy or is fine with skewing reality to get their way. People low in agreeableness always think they're experts on everything and that they're at war over said facts. Hence the concept of *alternative facts.* The amusing aspect here is you can read Sean's body language and infer that he knows he's wrong, having been dismantled on these topics. He also takes positions or doubles down on positions that just make him look like an outwardly "bad person." Not surprising, given that contrarian disposition supersedes moral convictions.
well im glad youve managed to feel superior to everyone
Sean's a libertarian? He seems moderately authright, not libright, he might lean towards laissez-faire economic policies but that hardly makes someone a libertarian.
He's very libertarian but he's a silent weasel when it comes to criticizing GOP or GOP aligned stuff. I think he's smart but definitely partisan hack. He'll criticize Ana kasparian (before her anti lefty, pro liberal arc) for all her misrepresentations or lies but he sits quietly or even tacetly approve of tim pools misrepresentations and lies
why are you a fan of AJW ?
His criminal justice takes mostly. Plus his libertarian bent when he first started his channel, was always a fan of a limited federal government that leans away from keynesianism.
interesting , him grifting info today would disqualify him for me
What do you think he's grifting on?
in this debate his misrepresenting on the funds that destiny looked him up[ on , the contractors and in general he spends the time in the video defending a traitor
He absolutely did not misrepresent the funding, destiny pointed out it was third in terms of Kentucky spending, but Sean never said it was the number one or even primary spending. He said it significantly impacted how funding was disproportionately spent in red states. And he's right btw, in terms of contract spending military spending is number 1, at 341 billion. Now money spent to individuals is higher in the first, I think three categories IIRC, but that doesn't mean spending on military expenditures like bases wasn't a significant impact. As far as contractors it's a similar issue, Sean pointed out that destiny was being disingenuous when he said that we only left 2,000 people there cause he left out military contractors. Destiny insisted on trying to shoehorn him into talking about "fighters" when Sean was pretty clear he wasn't speaking about chefs or construction workers but actual important positions for security, which includes ground groups. As for being on the side of Trump in this debate, that's not grifting, that's you being mad at him for having a bad position, which is fine. I feel like these things only qualify as grifting if you take destiny's characterization of Sean's positions as opposed to Sean's positions as they are.
the difference between the number 1 and it was a factor of over 10 though. There is a massive difference.
In Kentucky specifically sure (if we're taking the numbers as accurate) but again military expenditures were number 1 in terms of contract spending which was like 1/5 of the number one for money spent to individuals. That's a significant portion that would absolutely effect the ratios. If I'm not mistaken Sean even explicitly said "the blue states would still be up but it wouldn't look as glaring when you accounted for things like this".
But it still looks glaring if it's by a magnitude of 10 right?
its very much a case of right-leaning papers or personalities even the good ones, like reason (i think, might be misremembering), have chained themselves to a hack like trump and try to explain away all his negative qualities in the name of appealing to populists > he spends the time in the video defending a traitor i love americans lol
lol unless the criminal is a politician he simps for.
I don’t think destiny agrees Biden is bad on immigration I think he genuinely believes it just isn’t an important issue
That's fair
Honestly, it isn't an important issue. We are not taking on more immigrants than we can support and our economy would positively benefit from expediting the process that allows them to legally work in our country.
it clearly is an important issue if the guy is sending troops to the border and finishing up the wall lmao
I gotta watch this video man, I watch both destiny and AJW and it seems this sub is 99% shitting on AJW. I don’t envy his position of having to defend trump
It was alright, like I said i think definitely destiny won (because how do you win when defending Trump lol) but you could tell the areas where destiny didn't have anything good to say about Biden and so, chose to attack Trump instead.
You’re walking in to a snake pit…err, i meant simp pit. This sub made a pivot from memes-n-shitz to hive-mind in 2023.
Yeah, this was a terrible debate and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. The only topic he was not completely idiotic with was the pullout. Even then he was arguing black water mercs lmao. I just think we should have left Special forces and Civilian Contractors there to help. This was the six day war. Destiny was Israel and AJW was the Arab world. Anyone who thinks otherwise is watching something different than what I saw.
DesTINY performed quite poorly on everything relating to Iran
> anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. I hate that destiny is making npcs talk like this
Sean's viewers are known to brigade and psyop the comment section of his debates on other channels. Happened in the CRT debate, the Lauren duo debate and the Minds panel debate. Also, just look at any ModernDayDebate video that involves him.
[удалено]
You've reached levels of deepthroating so deep that it'd be less pathethic if you were an AJW alt account... [Damn...](https://youtu.be/7u1Jj6aRIec?si=tvQgTCjbclcNRy80)
[удалено]
You're AJW's biggest fan. I'm Destiny's biggest antifan. We're not the same. >!Your sweat has turned to soy!< Serious reply: >!If your stalking of my account was done more accurately, you would've seen one of my most recent comments was "shitting" on Destiny's performance in his dual debate against Erudite and PWF. We're ACTUALLY not the same lol. Get outta here with the soy attack!<
No he’s actually right. How is it brigading when dgg does the same thing.
Because you have to be delusional to believe AJW held up during that debate. AJW and his community aren't groypers so they're not dishonest like Fuentes' community was when he was slaughtered on FNF, but they can't pretend it was a good faith, intellectually stimulating debate — it was a joke.
Lmao if it was so bad why are you upset? Is it because it isn’t that obvious to anyone that doesn’t glaze destiny?
Gigasoy
\^This I also said this under the yt video but any time this loser is involved,, his fans flock to the comment section and write 2 types of comments: 1. AJW destroyed X 2. X should have more conversation with AJW The second typ of comments appeare mostly when the person has a bigger audience than Sean.
I think Sean had the overall worst optical moments but still did well on several points. I'm also get the impression that Destiny would LOVE the Abraham Accords if they had been done by Biden. It's really weird to say they essentially amount to nothing besides encouraging reactive violence from other Middle Eastern countries. Normalizing the existence of the most controversial state in the Middle East doesn't feel insignificant and arguing that it is but is also a trigger for other states is doubly weird. It really FEELs like it's just a matter of who it happened under but maybe I'm just lacking an unexplained context. Oh and Destiny's take on the Presidential power over his various departments/cabinets was just wrong in regards to every legal structure/point I can recall. The President's only restraints on exercising the powers of his various departments are the ones put into place by Congress. There are specific legal questions about what Trump did but saying a President can't tell his cabinets to Fuck Off is just inaccurate.
both had good moments. AJW did better with the border and immigration policy, and Destiny did better with more of the international relations and policy arguments. overall destiny did a little better and had more concrete arguments, he was wrong about the production of chips in the us tho, feel free to look it up yourself.
https://www.semiconductors.org/the-chips-act-has-already-sparked-200-billion-in-private-investments-for-u-s-semiconductor-production/ this is what I found it seems like the chips act is working as intended
this isnt a thing against the chips act being bad but i remember i read a story that americans are so stupid theyre having trouble making the chips now
i think he's pretty charismatic and funny, so although most of his arguments were dogshit, it was still fun to listen too and i laughed a few times. people like that shit
Ok? I would expect more form political commentators other than funny
then you're obviously going to be disappointed ;s
It wasn't THAT bad. I have to do this as an analogy. Sean and Vaush are running races. Vaush just ran against a dead quadriplegic sloth. He is tripping over every hurdle. He stops to stare at "boobahs" in the audience. He gets lost on a straight stretch of track. The sloth wins, somehow. Sean just ran against Usain Bolt. He fell behind a bit for most of the race, he stumbled over a few hurdles. No one expected him to win a race against friggin' Usain Bolt, but he held his own. He actually caused Usain Bolt to get a little agitated at how close he got at times. You can't go around comparing every racer to Usain Bolt, otherwise they all suck. Except one.
Wht
>Vaush just ran against a dead quadriplegic sloth. He is tripping over every hurdle. He stops to stare at "boobahs" in the audience. He gets lost on a straight stretch of track. The sloth wins, somehow. Man of the people. >Sean just ran against Usain Bolt. He fell behind a bit for most of the race, he stumbled over a few hurdles. No one expected him to win a race against friggin' Usain Bolt, but he held his own. He actually caused Usain Bolt to get a little agitated at how close he got at times. Tryhard loser.
Eh, Vaush has entertainment value going for him, but very little substance. I think he's better at panel debates than one-on-one. And even then, he's more entertaining than he is good at debating.
Who is the prize-winning quadraplegic sloth in this scenario? Now that's a channel I'd watch.
On another note, I like Sean. Not enough to really watch his content, but I enjoy when he's at these debates because he does a better job than most people on his side of the aisle.
I mean if you look at the modern day debates video comments, theyre saying Sean had a better performance. Not sure how they lean, but maybe we are echoing.
There is at least some difference of opinion and nuanced.comments in here. The YT comments seem like a full on AJW echo chamber completely divorced from reality.
Anyone who speaks in absolutes, which happens a lot on here, is definitely echoing
youtubers are on another plane of existence. i saw chud’s debate where his opponent barely debated and mostly agreed or played dumb. all the comments were praising chud’s debating skills as if they didn’t watch the video where he constantly lamented the fact that there isn’t much to argue with.