How Debate Got Stupid

By clicking my link www.piavpn.com/wisecrack get 83% discount on Private Internet Access! That's just $2.03 a month, and also get 4 extra months completely for free!
Did the Internet Kill Debate?
Debate is one of the oldest ways of testing out ideas. And yet, today, it feels folks who take to debating online are more interested in clout than the ideas they’re debating. Are digital debates anything more than a philosophical pissing contest? Let’s find out in this Wisecrack Edition: Did the Internet Kill Debate?
Support us on Patreon! ► / wisecrack
Join this channel to get access to perks ► / @wisecrackedu
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
Celebrities Suck at Politics ► • Celebrities Suck At Po...
Are You A Cynic Or Just A Jerk? ► • Are You A Cynic or Jus...
Why America Loves Fake News ► • Why America Loves Fake...
Written by Rachel Van Nes
Researched by Michael Lodato
Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Edited by Andrew Nishimura
Produced by Olivia Redden
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#debate #culture #wisecrack
© 2023 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming

[@WisecrackEDU]

By clicking my link www.piavpn.com/wisecrack get 83% discount on Private Internet Access! That's just $2.03 a month, and also get 4 extra months completely for free!

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love your vídeos guys😊😊😊

[@Feefa99]

Let's debate about this first

[@PriestessOfDada]

Just one note on PIA. The service is okay. Passable, but not as good as some of the others. The problem with it is that you can't cancel the service. They used to run the thing honestly, but this year, after like nine months of not using the service, they started billing my card again, and their customer service won't respond. If you buy service from these guys, use a disposable credit card. Something you can shut off

[@randomthings1293]

I don't get how a philosophy-centered channel doesn't understand that Vaush was making an argument around the nature of language... And clipping him out of context like that is pretty dishonest on your part you guys... By the way, debate against the Right is important, because yes, while it IS a show of force, *shows of force are the most likely way to appeal to the rubes that compose the vast majority of the Right-wing audience* ... Because you can be sure that THEY don't have PhDs in philosphy and relative acquired patience for video essays...

[@jakob8884]

Videos essays going after the "debate bro", indiscriminatingly lumping in leftists debaters with right-wingers, is its own genre by now. Each one repeating the same populist canards about individuals with little to no effort to understand the specific sociopolitical stakes and mechanisms of the subject of current anti-rightwing online debate. If a big channel like Wisecrack takes on the subject, and this late in the game, one would expect a slightly higher level, some nuance and actual elucidation. Behind the fluff this fits quite squarely in the anti-debate bro video essay genre, a genre so smugnorant it would have made Deleuze a Vaush fan.

[@orions221]

You really DESTROYED, HUMILIATED, and EVICERATED those debaters

[@WisecrackEDU]

ABSOLUTELY OWNED

[@nessiecz2006]

@@WisecrackEDU CRUSHED

[@toppersundquist]

@@WisecrackEDU DISCOMBOBULATED!

[@Local_diamond]

I just bought my "Debate bro tears" tumbler from wisecrack merch shop

[@readsomebooks666]

But was it with Facts and Logic?

[@namedhuman5870]

Debate is only worth while if all participants value the truth. If that foundation isn't met, then one or both parties will lie to pretend to be right.

[@Kuroganemk2]

The problem with that is, that truth can get lost in the sauce. Not all studies are conducted well and companies pay off people if they can make profits.

[@MisterCynic18]

I think the primary issue is participants don't agree on what truth is or how to determine it. There is no collective understanding or procedure.

[@roguedogx]

This probably could have been the whole video tbh. Nice job maximizing the piffy.

[@nyshyn307]

​@MisterCynic18 yup. Even if there's some sense of truth the legitimacy of a solution is probably going to be determined by "best" outcome then that will forever lead to "best for who?" which will lead to the difference in values becoming the main argument It also isn't helpful that no matter what happens in a debate it feels like fans will remain loyal to whoever they came in support of which furthers the fact that debate itself generally gets nowhere

[@johngaunce]

I'm actually not sure that's the case. I think almost everyone, in their mind anyway, thinks they value the truth. It's really easy to either engage in what others might see as "intellectual dishonesty" without being aware of it, and on top of that, it's super easy to see someone else's argument as "intellectually dishonest" when it really isn't. I think the difficulty with debate is a combination of a bunch of things, including our simple but strong social instincts to see people as either allies or opponents. When our mind flips into a combative framing, regardless of our conscious intents, we are more likely to rationalize our positions even if they aren't as strong as we initially thought, or engage in fallacious behaviors like strawmanning, cherry picking data, and other such things, almost always without even noticing it.

[@kylespevak6781]

"The rules of debate were to maintain politeness and to stay on topic" Is exactly why what's called debate these days is not at all debate. It's just people arguing

[@Sienisota]

It's not even arguing, it's a verbal fight

[@IsaiahSenku]

Exactly

[@KaiserSoze679]

Even when you try and put rules in place, there's a large chunk of our population that refuses to respect them. Just look at Trump. The man has never met a minute of opposition speech he wouldn't yell over. Real debate is supposed to be about comparing ideas to determine which are closer to the truth. That only works so long as everyone involved actually cares what's true, recognizes they don't have a defacto claim to truth, and is genuinely curious and open to dialog.... but that's basically extinct in much of modern society, especially on the political extremes, and even more concentrated on that of the right.

[@jennyanydots2389]

And then the bawl bag comes out full batwing... everyone stans, claps,.... admires.

[@jgnogueira]

Every time i see people online arguing, it sounds like my family on christmas.

[@HasanAbi]

I AM NOT A DEBATE BRO!!!!!! 😡😡😡😡😡

[@simplybaker.]

Prove it hasi debate lord

[@Juanmaq8]

Debate him

[@kfishy]

this is exactly what a debate pervert would say 🤨 📸

[@leorodrigues9596]

He's a debate cousin.

[@chitsmasStuff1071]

box em

[@mary-janebrewington8503]

Video idea: people who declare they don't read because they only rely on their personal experiences. Over the last few years this has become a very common sentiment that drives me up the wall when I hear it, total thought stopper

[@Ford_prefect_42]

Woah is this common?! Thankfully I have avoided this stuff so far so I've never heard of it. Guess I should do some reading 🤣

[@alexdegross6248]

This is a very mind boggling thing I’ve seen also. The people that express this sentiment are also very proud of this. As with most things now of days I believe this is a bi-product of social media

[@numnut1516]

Please tell me this is a joke. 😢 you might need to find a new crowd, that is terrifying

[@K1ng1995]

​@numnut1516 I wish they weren't sadly most gen Z and some millennial's as well simply don't want to read or they refuse to

[@SNESpool]

Right, it's usually the same kind of person who makes a wild and completely unsubstantiated claim, and then when asked for evidence/data, responds with "it's just common sense" 🤦

[@twilight3272]

Related: I legit HATED debate in high school. It all felt so fake. It was a competition on who could talk fast and not accidentally sound like an ass. It was never about truth, it was about raw charisma.

[@B_Van_Glorious]

Everything boils down to communication. Everything. That's prob what drove Chomsky to Linguistics. The various mathematics are celebrated because once you understand the language of it, the clarity of the language can be used to accurately describe objective reality. If only we had a similar language for our subjective reality. If. Only. Tesla or Einsteins work have value because they were able to take hard fought and harder found, esoteric fact, explain how they got to it and bring it back down to the masses. That's why relativities spaceman is so powerful. This is why 'science communicator' is a thing. We need the Bill Nyes and Carl Sagan's due to the briefness of existence and individual limitations of our minds and interests. There's simply too much to know and learn for one lifetime. No less serious than the survival of civilization itself presses specialization upon us. If someone finds the grand unifying theory but just babbles incoherently then theyre simply seen as crazy. Nietzsche was portrayed as such (the horse incident, if it even happened, doesn't help his case) after his death when his nationalist sister compiled his notes, incomplete and absent context, into The Will to Power. Clearly writings and thoughts that he felt weren't ready for publication, his sister took, then edited and spun into a manifesto for her own agenda. If your introduction to Nietzsche is that book, you aren't going to understand how or why postmodernism is essentially built from his writings. If you heard "God is Dead" but don't understand the framing around it, then you don't actually understand what he was saying. Life isn't sound bites. That sounds bites relation to the world prior and post it's existence are absolutely necessary. We don't live in a vacuum. Like Einstein was saying, it's all about relativity.

[@haydenlee8332]

same. I hated debate in high school because it was all about out-talking the opponent into submission rather than being about truth

[@distantraveller9876]

If debates boiled down to charisma Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson would be jobless and living with their parents.

[@Starcrash6984]

I took debate in high school, and we never actually learned about _how_ to debate. We didn't learn about logic. We didn't learn about fallacies. We didn't even learn about rhetoric. Instead, it was about researching your position and then presenting it, which isn't really how debate works because there's no consideration for how to deal with conflicting information.

[@MrGksarathy]

Debate has never been about truth, even in the idealized form this video longs for. No adversarial process can actually arrive at a new truth.

[@Camus2301]

Debate has come to a point of "gotcha" moments rather than people actually discussing about a topic in-depth with mutual respect. Especially this happens a lot in political conversations.

[@TheBiggestMoronYouKnow]

Someone is usually taking a bigoted point, not an intelligent one

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

It makes sense considering how most Americans aren't conditioned to intently care about politics.

[@mheiseus]

🤣 that's what debating is.... It's not about 2 people agreeing

[@MonarchAnt]

​@@mheiseusBeing disrespectful and generating hostility is not required for debating. Discourse between at least two individuals or parties with different views, opinions or ideas is.

[@mheiseus]

@@MonarchAnt you have to have disagreements to have a debate... 🤣 What are you talking about?

[@Vicioussama]

Remember, you can't reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into.

[@danielwilliams8346]

I think you can, but they have to be open to it. I was a 6-day creationist. It was hard when I began to study biology, especially rRNA sequencing, and more about the fossil record until I finally accepted the fact of evolutionary biology.

[@miki49]

⁠@@danielwilliams8346Biology is biology, and facts are facts, but to call evolution a fact is objectively incorrect. And this is coming from a scientist.

[@_audacity2722]

@@miki49we can observe species of animals that have evolved in contemporary times, in front of our very eyes. It may still be a theory that specifically modern-day humans evolved from lower primates, but we literally watch new species and sub-species evolve into existence

[@miki49]

@@_audacity2722 That’s objectively false. Doesn’t matter which animal or species you’re talking about (human or otherwise), or even if we can link a species to its probable ancestor species. Evolution takes MILLIONS of years. It’s not a “theory” because humans can’t prove whether or not we came from lower primates. It’s a Theory because there is no evidence you can show that could capture millions of years of change. That is why it is the Theory of Evolution. For example, it is highly believed that dogs came from wolves, but we cannot explain how they were domesticated, which humans had done so, or why dogs have a generally smaller frame with shorter snouts than said wolves. Even if it reaches the heights of being unanimously BELIEVED, you, and everybody else, have nothing to actually show for it, no matter how probable it might feel.. Facts, on the other hand, are not believed. They are fully known, and completely in the light. Evolution has not reached that light, and it is debatable whether it ever can be.

[@EyeonthePrize247]

@@miki49 Which subset is your specialty?

[@Vorusen]

Debating went from explaining your side and understanding the other side to "winning" and never backing down.

[@palemoonlight96]

and from winning to "DESTROYING!!!"

[@soeasyastonercoulddoit]

You make this mistake of conflating "understanding the other side" with "accepting the other sides positions as valid". And when you get into the most interesting topics of debate bro culture like something as little as human rights, you quickly learn that if you value your own sanity, you will never "accept the other sides positions as valid".

[@ffffffffffffffff5840]

​@@soeasyastonercoulddoitif they make a valid argument, go after the truth of the premises

[@LegendConsole]

​@@soeasyastonercoulddoit No, it was always about "Understanding the other side". Validity is usually the point of debates. Debating is about two people agreeing on definitions and terms to discuss their hypotheses on a subject. Clarifying their positions to the basic fundamentals of logic so that a general audience can understand and make informed decisions. You don't have to agree with the debaters, but understand why they have their belief on a subject. I used to watch great structured debates all the time, some of which got heated at points. The "debates" youtubers/streamers/podcasters usually end up having are more like "arguments".

[@haydenlee8332]

this is true. debate is no longer about truth but is now about lying and being stubborn until opponent backs down (a.k.a. “winning”) it sucks

[@outsidethewall8488]

I was a debate kid in high school and what I specifically loved about debate was that you didn't get to choose what side you argued, everyone had the same prep time and speech time, and you were awarded or deducted marks in part based on the quality of your arguments and rebuttals. Also, the terms were defined by the affirmative team and the negative team had to accept or reject their definitions outright so it was clear whether or not you were even having the same arguments. It taught me so much about formulating arguments and recognising good/bad rhetorical tactics while also teaching me to consider alternative perspectives to my own if I had to argue for it. Online debates (and political debates for that matter) fulfill none of those things. It's all optics, tone, appealing to audiences, and who can talk the fastest and the most confidently. Now when I tell people I like debate I feel I need to specify I don't mean the way mainstream debate media is done nowadays.

[@half-soursaffitz6617]

As a former hs debater, THISSSS. I'm so hesitant to tell people that I love debates bcuz they'll immediately think I'm talking abt mainstream debate media.

[@abelmatw]

Fuck Yes!!!!! I’d personally choose the difficult side to make it more challenging. It was all about formulating arguments, finding new angles and having a blast!

[@itsjustme6018]

I usually watch debates for entertainment purposes, but also their is a difference between finding common ground and pushing back against harmful ideas. Not every debate has to be finding common ground, it also can be used to push back and poke holes in harmful and extreme ideas.

[@jmn327]

Right; it's why I'm not about to tell someone to stop if they're effectively using their platform to expose the various shams that prop up fascist ideology, or if they use it to point out the gigantic holes in, say, uncritically accepting Leninism. In a conversation between people with more rational perspectives, I would certainly want to see more of a conversation, but it's hard to share or find common ground with those who would embrace totalitarianism.

[@TheCamps10]

Now is the idea that all debate should be about common ground a legitimate valid thought out idea or another talking point in service of legitimizing harmful ideas? This guy had to produce a twenty minute video, not exactly a thing you can do with a cursory overview of the topic while missing key details like what you showed here. I henceforth assert that this wisecrack dude is an extremist collaborator.

[@jmn327]

@@ImAmirus Who speaks for the proletariat, particularly in a country where its numbers would be in the hundreds of millions? Does this dictatorship protect the rights of minorities within that population? How to account for stark differences of opinion among such a large group? If the answer is "appoint a council" or something, we've seen that before, it's repeatedly failed. Any system that can be put together must work towards the betterment of the community, but should still respect the rights of the individual, as well, and any totalitarian form of government, regardless of the purity of their motives or lack thereof, is anathema to both the community and the individual, and only serves the interests of those placed in control of the levers of power.

[@jmn327]

Leninism facilitates it by empowering the vanguard while selling the idea that it'll ever surrender power to the people; it's an explicit part of the system, and it's biggest structural flaw. Democracy with safeguards for minority/individual rights is attainable; America is nowhere near enough of a democracy thanks to the minoritarian tendencies baked into its very stale, outdated constitution, but that's its own set of issues that require a great deal of work to address.

[@das6109]

@@ImAmirus Dictatorship from a new group just leads to inequality in another direction. It's comeuppance not utopia. A lot of countries have monarchy above democracy because it's a great way at keeping your power generationally. That's why it predates republics in most of those places. Monarchs tended to eventually produce revolts because it was so bad for everyone but the very few incredibly powerful. Thinking monarchy has anything to do with protecting minorities (in any sense other than nobility being a minority by its very definition as the highest socioeconomic class) is completely anti-history. Monarchs were almost invariably going to be members of the most common, most powerful group on the axis of ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. A rare king does an ethnic minority make.

[@bookdream]

Debate is incredibly important. Not because it gets to the “truth”, but because it CAN be used to show foolish or dangerous ideologies for what they are. It’s not to sway them, but the audience. The problem is it can also do the opposite and bolster those ideologies if you are not rhetorically skilled. Debating fascists and absolutely destroying and shaming their bad ideas is very powerful, because it can make the world less fascist.

[@MrGksarathy]

Agreed. It's about jolting the audience away from bad ideas, not convincing the other debator.

[@falsificationism]

COUNTERPOINT: When has this ever worked?

[@martinsriber7760]

@@falsificationism All the fucking time.

[@RoffeDH]

​@@falsificationism All the time, literally all the time. Just because YOU haven't been persuaded by it, doesn't mean other's haven't. While I was never right wing (thank god!), I had become reactionary. You know what helped me snap out of that? A debate between Vaush and, someone, I can't remember who exactly right now. Lot's of people are swayed by debate all the time. It just doesn't happen then and there in the moment usually, because of human psychology, but over time. There's that nagging feeling in the back of your head when the ideas that was debunked or "destroyed" during the debate come up and you repeat what you know is bad arguments because you don't have a good counter argument. Does this work for everyone? Of course not. And? Diversity of tactics is a thing that, somehow, only essayists are blinded to.

[@italorossid]

@@martinsriber7760 even if marginally, I'd say convincing people willing to listen and making the world a little less fash or intolerant is good enough

[@lordvoldamort4606]

This is why I prefer discussions not debate. People show up with hatchets to debates. They show up with family photo albums for discussions. I think the discussions accomplish more.

[@WisecrackEDU]

AGREED.

[@haydenlee8332]

THIS!

[@iulioh]

They are literally the same thing

[@WitlessSod]

@@iulioh No, they aren't. Discussion is about mutual understanding. Debate is about winning.

[@MrMash-mh9dy]

@@iulioh I wouldn't say that. A discussion is casual, it can be done over dinner or on the couch, whereas debates are usually in a forum with some sort of an audience. You are far more likely to change another person's mind over a drink than on a stage or in front of an audience. I agree completely with lordvoldamort and like Micheal points out here, on the stage, it is not about understanding the other person anymore.

[@Keith-vh4sg]

xQc doing the worm is peak internet debating

[@Feefa99]

Yeah, but he's actually goblin

[@wilbo_baggins]

It wasn't even the worm.

[@thalesanastacio760]

The forbidden debate tactic

[@thematman92]

​@@wilbo_bagginsyour mom's not a worm!

[@DastardlyDavid69]

It turned out I wouldn’t love him if he was a worm.

[@AlexGardipe]

Honestly, watching debates has helped me better understand why people I disagree with think what they think and it's challenged me the same way. Depends who you watch.

[@adriansanchez-alvarez7313]

This is only applies to online people tho, irl a lot people do not hold views that derive from a sense of logical consistency. Most people just say they have this view bc they say so or have no backing for why they have that view but accept it as the natural way. When applied to online people it can be worth it, but overall thats good for broader movements. So i can empathize with your point of view

[@mladizivko]

​@@adriansanchez-alvarez7313 yep, ppl are fundamentally very irrational

[@SomeRandomJackAss]

If a person can use actual reason and logic to back up their position, this should be what debate is all about.

[@EmbraceTheStruggle24]

​@@adriansanchez-alvarez7313definitely can't deny anything you described - because there is no perfect way of understanding anyone or anything in this world, as we're all in a rat race competing for the same wants and needs; but in a more fundamental sense - a lot of this is just an illusion ... unless if you're born into a wave of really bad misfortune, then its understandable . But I've also always believed that 'we' as a species have to fundamentally look out 'ourselves' if really truly want to be happy and lead a life that is worth living . Sometimes a lot of us (myself included) take certain things for granted - and its no one's fault really . Its really just how society conditions us; but thats exactly my whole point - to be okay with who you are no matter the situation you're in, because in turbulent times we're all going through, we're always dealing with some sort of hassle or battle . Sometimes though thats just the nature of the beast . I learned how life presents numerous challenges at an early age - and a lot of that i think is a testament to my folks, peers, and my surroundings . And even though I've never given myself enough credit in this regard; my thirst for learning and wanting to understand others' perspectives even if sometimes we as people agree to disagree - and i think that can be the true cornerstone of making debates and discussions easier to process . Even if all what i described seems a bit redundant or arbitrary; at least im not sugarcoating it . That being said though, i would hope we all stick together as a 'human species' and realize we all have a voice no matter what .

[@Mawyman2316]

Have to agree with others to say people’s actual rationale and arguments are always massively varied. You won’t learn the community opinion by some Internet personalities. You want to have these conversations with those around you.

[@slygunslinger]

I think all debaters would assert that they employ a more Socratic method in the pursuit of truth, even if it means doubling down on their biases and arguments. However, the question arises: who is the debate really for? It's for the audience. Recently, I revisited the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate on evolution vs. creationism. Of course, when Ken Ham found himself cornered, he would dismiss points and staunchly defend his position in an attempt to 'win,' so to speak. Does that render the debate pointless because Ken Ham is attempting to promote his argument and, essentially, the offerings of his museum? No. It's because the ultimate decision lies with the audience. Even in the recent disagreement between Joe Rogan and Peter Hotez, where Hotez declined an invitation to debate on his show, I believe that was unwise. The value of a debate forum shouldn't dictate what a debate is. A debate could occur in a dusty attic with only a candle for illumination. Yet, if there are two people there, listening to them debate, that's all that truly matters. The best outcome one can hope for is that they refrain from talking over each other and take the time to lay out their arguments.

[@drd2093]

I think Richard Dawkins is one of the first debate bros, and partly responsible for spreading the debate style

[@WisecrackEDU]

absolutely.

[@daasnahk5058]

@@WisecrackEDU Well dont forget Destiny was the first streamer and created both Hasan and Vaush so guess he's really responsible, althou he does also run the largest canvassing events for democrats in a couple stats so atleast he puts his money on his beliefs.

[@milascave2]

A parrot that was trained to say "Show me the evidence" could debate the same way as Richard Dawkins does. Now, I'm not a big fan of Christopher Hitchins, but he was one of the few two people who could debate neo-Nazis properly, without it just ending up as another platform for them.

[@jroden06]

Idk guys I think that Diogenes fella living in the barrel might have been an early inceptor.

[@NoWay1969]

I don't remember Richard Dawkins ever being in a public debate. He's shunned them his entire career. ICW, maybe in the seventies he debated gene-based evolution, but he's never debated theists simply because it would dignify their position too much.

[@zacharybosley1935]

Oh we're making it out the debate bro youtubes with this one

[@Psychedlia98]

Tbf, they are all annoying little shits that think humiliating their interlocketer

[@hellsjamfleas]

Its not fair to say Ethan's debate with XQC didnt change minds or focus on facts. He dominated that debate and set a strong narrative for what XQCs attitude was. There was a lot of commentry in the aftermath and X widley critcised. The only limit to that is they were arguing over IP so it has limited interest. I'm sure a lot of this is fair criticism, but I've seen some of these debates and I dont agree with some of the characterisation. I'd like more debates. I think there are alot of people pretending to be authorities online and not wanting their ideas challenged.

[@TheBiggestMoronYouKnow]

Ethan is a bigot 😂 how does that help

[@citizenVader]

Sometimes it's alright to say I don't know.. in fact, in those moments, the only right answer is "I don't know." The best thing about being a parent is when your kids ask you a question that is so out of the ordinary they are scary to listen to, even though they genuinely ask because they want an answer. It's in these moments it's a joy to say, "I don't know honey, but let's find out together."

[@batman5224]

Most people debate to win, not to have a legitimate conversation. Even I have been guilty of this. I think one of the reasons people debate online is that there are things we would like to say to certain politicians/public figures, but we don’t have access to those people, so we settle for their followers online.

[@Shorty15c4007]

Its fighting with words. Most people don't need to play nice, they just want to make their point at all costs regardless of the other side's point.

[@sylviamontaez3889]

Ive noticed this while watching debates by the oxford union, the uni debating society. i noticed how each side would introduce guest figures from the oppossing side, and laced insults in said introductions. something i never understood why. im not sure how to explain it exactly, but it was very offputting.

[@cambriakilgannon12]

Anybody who thinks that the purpose of debate is to "reach an agreed upon conclusion" leaves themselves vulnerable to those who understand the true purpose: *convince the audience that your arguments are better than the opponents'*

[@batman5224]

@@cambriakilgannon12 It depends on the setting. If it’s a formal debate on a stage, then yes, but if someone is a guest on a podcast, for example, the interaction does not have to be inherently combative. It’s a much less formal setting.

[@cambriakilgannon12]

@batman5224 audience doesn't care about the setting. Even if its more formal, all that matters is convincing them that you're the right one. The game just becomes a bit more subtle but it doesn't change

[@dog-whistlingyodeler830]

Debate in most online forums is largely for entertainment purposes. That said, I think many can agree there are worse forms of entertainment out there. Higher likelihood that someone watching debate bros will look up impressive-sounding words like “castigate” or attempt to fact check a rival view, actions requiring some degree of intellectual engagement, compared to someone watching reality TV.

[@LoLo1k2k3k]

wise crack is quickly becoming the most refreshing channel i watch. bc i watch a lot of political content which obviously has become inundated by 'debate bro' rhetoric and practice and i am so so so fucking EXHAUSTED lmaooo

[@WisecrackEDU]

Thanks! We promise to never become debate bros. Michael is far too soft for that.

[@lyndiss.2017]

The emphasis on "winning" is one of the prime reasons why I gradually left debate competitions. The time constraints, the lack of emphasis on gathering facts and fact-checking (especially because of the time constraints), the audible gaps I got for standing on the podium and said, "I yield my time to others because I honestly don’t know much about this topic. I'm sorry!" Or in another case, fully conceding to the other team because I thought they were right, which handed them their victory, and earning the (rightful) ire of my partner and senpais. These things really made me realize I just ain't cut out for debate competitions.

[@toddhensley880]

Matt Dillahunty is actually pretty enjoyable to watch debate, and tries to do it properly. His opponents will often make you pull your hair out.

[@Lonesurvivor256]

Agreed. What sets him apart is he is always attempting to debate in “good faith”. That’s what seems to be missing in debates just about dunking on opponents

[@GhostCorvid20]

Until you see him try to discuss veganism, then he devolves into hilarious levels of bad faith and will deploy obvious logical fallacies and talk over his opponent to avoid ever conceding even the most obvious of points.

[@elias8141]

i find him arrogant maybe because he brings unexperianced guests to humiliate them

[@daasnahk5058]

His Debate with Destiny is interesting one where both argue for what is the best Pro Abortion Stance

[@mytmouse57]

So, what you're saying is, he's a master debater.

[@micahvandam9658]

I think a more informative debate option is in the form a video essays where each video can pick apart the others and break down their arguments. I especially appreciate the inclusion of sources to back up claims.

[@redstoneactive6589]

Though this still leaves room for fallacious arguments, with the added benefit that your opponent cannot call you out on it.

[@josephhahn4923]

Did debate in highschool and definitely found this out. It was frustrating for me because people wanted to make arguments that would win and not necessarily ones that would get to the truth. There is value in the skill of debate, but only when applied in the pursuance of real truth and deeper understanding through opposing ideas.

[@theradhatter4100]

Ben Shapiro is simultaneously why assault is illegal and why it should still be legal.

[@Tacom4ster]

Shapiro would easily lose to Vaush

[@sammyvictors2603]

Shapiro is the cousin of Mara Wilson, aka Matilda to us 90s kids. No wonder Ben's a bitter she-dog.

[@xXRickTrolledXx]

Vorsch alert!

[@jeremyn4397]

Vooosh!

[@olaseniajibade]

Battery. Assault is threat of violence. Battery is the doing of said violence. Though I imagine the distinction is meaningless in Ben's case

[@Shiny7054]

Nowadays, it feels like sport, like there has to be a winner and a loser. You have to DESTROY your opposing debater. Ideally, the outcome of a debate should be a greater insight on the subject at hand, whether for all participants or just one. Making it about winning or losing or destroying misses the point. And I guess in a post-truth era, greater understanding doesn't matter. Just winning

[@1massboy]

Actually even during Lincolns time it was a contest. And a lot of the beach got extremely heated.

[@MrBazBake]

Debate as a skill, even in schools, is scored primarily on how convincing you are. Debate was never about getting at truth, it was about convincing with conviction. If people wanted something resembling the truth, they'd read the news or science journals.

[@garmenlin5990]

That is exactly what CNN became when that Jeff Zucker guy was the president. He turned cable news into a style of sports

[@cfri9332]

@@MrBazBake Debate is grooming the children. Let's take it out of the schools.

[@skoolboi9901]

@@MrBazBakein the context of debate in school that’s different because teaching debate is the primary purpose, not getting the right answer.

[@watamatafoyu]

I love debates when they're intellectually honest. If they're full of manipulation tactics, they're not debates.

[@bookdream]

Yea they are still debates, they are just not good faith debates. Either way if the person opposing is prepared and can point out the manipulation tactics than they can expose the bad faith debater and show that there isn't substantive reasoning behind his arguments.

[@MrGksarathy]

There are no debates without persuasion techniques, my dude. Otherwise, it's not really a debate.

[@harrybudgeiv349]

@@bookdream there is no such thing as a good faith debate. The point of debate is to win. If both people aren't actively trying to win, it's a discussion.

[@bookdream]

@@harrybudgeiv349 Trying to win doesn’t mean you’re not acting in good faith, imo. If you really believe in your position and are making arguments from a place of intellectual honesty, than you are acting in good faith. “Trying to win” doesn’t mean “trying to win at all costs”. Also, often there is no hard line between debate and discussion. I’ve seen debates that ended up sounding more like a discussion and discussions that ended up being more like debates.

[@harrybudgeiv349]

@@bookdream How can someone be intellectually honest if their first priority is to win? Every debate is about winning first, anything else second.

[@ElijahParfitt]

I'd disagree that debate bro-ing can't influence positive transformation. When I was 18 I was legitimately on the opposite side of the political spectrum. From listening to enough debate points online, I've grown and flipped almost to the complete opposite end. Not from confirming my bias but from hearing all possible points and coming to the best conclusions.

[@nathanatkins15t]

Same here

[@Starcrash6984]

I've always thought that, while "debate bro-ing" does little to nothing about changing the minds of those who debate, it does have an effect on those who watch. If you see someone humiliated, you think to yourself "I don't want to be that guy". It's fairly easy to change your mind when you haven't taken a public stance.

[@paranoidmarv]

@@Starcrash6984 What about all the times when the person losing the debate is the person who is right, they just didn't have the best debate skills? What's to stop a good-faith debater from engaging in bad-faith rhetoric just to avoid losing a debate? There's definitely a lot of pressure to "win" even if you have to bend the truth or engage in fallacies. I don't mean to take anything away from those who found something of value from debates; who turned from a hateful ideology and learned to be thoughtful and critical. I just think the next logical step is to engage in behavior that socializes others to be critical of whatever it is in our monkey brains that makes us want to see the out group get demolished.

[@Yor_gamma_ix_bae]

Yea this guy is a literal grifter. This video is so low effort, none of his points had anything to do with the clips. And using the worst examples of people who don’t even debate is pure sophistry.

[@Starcrash6984]

@@paranoidmarv "What about all the times when the person losing the debate is the person who is right, they just didn't have the best debate skills?" Yeah, that definitely happens. There was a debate between Michael Crichton and a bunch of climate scientists back in 2007, and polling before and after the debate showed that Crichton definitely swayed the audience into climate skepticism with his good rhetoric and strong arguments against literal experts who couldn't express their research in a helpful or meaningful way. So as I (accurately, I think) stated, audiences are persuaded by debate to not be on the side that looks terrible in a debate. This isn't to put any value judgments on it -- I think that Crichton debate was terrible and it's a shame that it led to greater climate skepticism. But it's still the way things _are_ even if it isn't necessarily they way they _ought to be._

[@coupdetat7631]

debate has existed since disagreements have existed. it has always been stupid because we are stupid. but it is vital. i have debated my mom about what car she should drive. i have debated my brother on who he should vote for. i've had friends who i debated when they thought they shouldn't be alive anymore. debate is dumb, but very important.

[@FrostySumo]

Yeah this video just reeks of we are too good for this type of debate and since it's not structured Harvard level debate then it doesn't count. Essentially elitism.

[@bao1964]

​@FrostySumo can you even tell the differences between "debate" and "yelling at each other until one gives up" ?

[@Jerry-qj9xc]

Saying things isn't a debate.

[@FrostySumo]

@@bao1964 Are you pretending to be stupid or just actually stupid? Debating exists on a spectrum. Low effort yelling debating is not great but it's still debating. Then you have the high end moderated debates happening in a more structured format in education settings. Then there's political debates somewhere right in the middle. There is a spectrum of what encompasses debate. I'm guessing the way you're phrasing it you only consider the higher learning academic debate to have any merit? If that's the case then it's literally elitism. It's not like there's a science to debate or some sort of universal way to do it that arrives at some magic way to convince people of your viewpoint. Some people cannot be convinced no matter what evidence is put in front of them. Some people engage in good faith. You're not trying to change anyone's mind you're just trying to put your position in the best light and let the audience come to their own conclusion.

[@professionalgrasstoucher8167]

This video drastically romanticizes logicality in debate, something I’m not sure has ever truly been the case. Logic is important, yes, but I feel it can get in the way of considering how we actually evaluate arguments. There are kind of different components, and they play on each other. At least, when we’re talking about classical rhetoric, there are obviously three key components, that we all know from school, which are logos, ethos, and pathos. And whether this is exactly correct, or not, I think that demonstrates that even the ancient Greeks didn’t exactly think that debate or persuasion was only about presenting the facts, which is kind of implied by the video. Disappointing, I really disagree with. Is that the “think like a scientist” point doesn’t really work if you’ve ever actually been around a lot of scientists. Especially at the top levels of academia, people are just as entrenched as the most religious sycophants, and let’s make a certain amount of sense, because most people don’t want to believe that they’ve spent their life dedicated to something that is “wrong” or “irrelevant”. But especially as we reach the limits of what our knowledge is, and what we can actually determine about the universe, things do become a lot more speculative, and there isn’t necessarily an answer that appears through logic alone. Finally, this video, like so many others, like it, makes the cardinal mistake of presuming that debate is about convincing your opponent. I think in ideal world it is, but let’s also not forget that part of debate is for public consumption. It can be reinforcing to what people already believe, that’s true. But more often than not, coming up against someone who actually does make arguments well, and at the very least, gives you the briefest sense of doubt (which we should note is a feeling more than it is actually a logical position). I certainly don’t want to say that there aren’t problems or that all debates are good or that all people who might fall into the category of “debate, bro“ are good, but I feel like videos like this often are pretty reductive, and are, in many ways, the thing that I actually think makes a lot of unlike debate unproductive, which is bad faith. It’s kind of disappointing to see this in so many other channels who’s content I otherwise enjoy, absolutely shit on other people, and they’re content, making and not really presenting good arguments about it either. I know some people might write this offers me just “debate broing” the topic, but what is it that people actually want? I realize that a lot of people in this sentence are using debate to mean very specific genre of deliberative inquiry, but it does kind of come off as though some people are simply suggesting no form of debate is ever worth anyone’s time. At least for me, I’ve come to this point where I guess I’m kind of tired of everyone’s endless critique, but no one actually wanting the responsibility of proposing solutions. Because God for bid that someone actually had to take responsibility for how things go. God for bid that you had to be judged by other people and potentially critiqued in the same way that you’ve critiqued other people. Maybe that should tell us something about how we , go about all of this. For the time being, you do your thing and stop worrying about these other people unless you actually want to engage with them and consider debate without having already come to the conclusion that it’s bad. Because at least to me, that seems an awful lot like what you are trying to criticize.

[@viceversa7245]

Sophistry has almost completely replaced rigorous debate and the current trend of “streamed debates” is only aggregating the matter by adding a social and monetary incentive for this bottom of the barrel form communication that is rotting peoples brain every day

[@amazin7006]

Having a moderator that can pause, mute, and question the debaters solves 100% of these issues.

[@viceversa7245]

@@amazin7006 I actually thought about mentioning the absence of moderations, since a good moderator can definitely help, but many philosophical dialogues (eg Plato, Cicero, Seneca, Hume, etc.) make no use of moderation. So while possible, it does seem to require a entirely different level of skill. Dr K is remarkable in this regard because he succeeds in debate with even bad faith agents somehow.

[@amazin7006]

​@@viceversa7245 Well yeah those dialogues are in written form, which means they can be paraphrased and have all of the rhetorical fat trimmed. When you boil it all away, debate is the same. It is a method of understanding, and probably the best method.

[@viceversa7245]

@@amazin7006 I think you’re onto something because dialogues are just documented debates (either real of fictional) and many of these figures went back to that specific format as a means of teaching. However, what’s remarkable about a lot of them is that they still preserve the rhetorical flares and even some of the sophistry (specially with Socrates vs the sophist). They are thankfully not sanitized.

[@kiwikemist]

@@amazin7006 It doesn't at all. If you want reasoned debate, at least put it in writing, all the online BS is just theatrics.

[@insearchofahillworthdyingon]

Debate is a means of doing philosophy. Philosophy is about the pursuit of the good life. And what is the good in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.

[@StephenLeGresley]

Debates got stupid because they are no longer filled with facts, but rather political rhetoric. I was in the debate club in high school and there were rules to those debates. 1) If you quote a source you had to have it with you so that the other person could read it and fact check you. 2) No personal attacks, you had to keep it focused on the issue itself. 3) No using emotional manipulation. You had to base your arguement on facvts and data not appealing to people's feelings. Basically we used the same rules as a court room and the debates were far better for it. Look at Presidential debates since the 80's, they've become a joke, they're just a race to how can have the most extreme stance on an issue. Stick to the facts and the facts alone.

[@alexledford4747]

Ah, this is why I like Crowder's "Change my Mind" segments. He comes prepared with resources, research, statistics, and looking for truth in discourse rather than trying to shame people. It is only when people come to him attempting to "gotcha" that he starts to turn the tables on them.

[@Sebastian.Medina]

​@@alexledford4747the whole segment is a gotcha tho, going to unprepared people who have had no time to bring their own sources and giving hand picked quotes and statistics which the responder cannot fact check is not good for debate.

[@rickydo6572]

​@@alexledford4747 He's debating people who aren't usually politically literate, that are not prepared for a debate, and has said debate on his own terms (he's the one picking the themes for example) He does research and prepares talking points and so on before doing those debates, while the other party isn't given that chance. That's the most intelectually dishonest way to debate people really.

[@user-ti6ix5tn2o]

Using 3 has benefit though. There are time that emotional manipulation is super necessary when you're speaking to a callous person or a person who simply don't care. Facts and logic is not always the ultimate goal here but empathy and insuring good life. Like why put humans above animals even if some situation doesn't make sense? There is a bias and appeal to emotion there. Animal rights and welfare needs to appeal to emotions to convince people to care for them.

[@StephenLeGresley]

@@user-ti6ix5tn2o If you have to use emotional manipulation to get your point accross then you have a weak position., The facts should be enough to prove your case. Thats why court rooms don't allow it.

[@PittsburghSonido]

Bowsh made the wisecrack scene

[@Versace_sheets]

He ghost writes

[@theirongiants]

Debate 101 - *obvious statement with difficult words that is completely inappropriate to the situation*

[@5353Jumper]

In online comment debates keep in mind the goal of a debate is to sway the audience, not your "opposition". Of course it is an ultimate win if the other person just concedes to your points, learning from you new information that changes their mind. But that is actually less important that the education of the audience, and their opinions before and after the debate. So when debating online trolls, or brainwashed puppets online who will never change their mind or concede any points, it may still be worthwhile if your debate educates some unanimous reader in the audience. Of course one must always keep open to the potential that you are the troll, or the brainwashed puppet. Keep a small part of your mind open to the possibility you are wrong and remember to concede actual points and facts brought up by the other side.

[@AimaCox-Zucker]

Thank you for giving us some Vaush right off the bat😂🐴🐎🐎🐴👍

[@utubepunk]

Vaush bad.

[@UncleJemima]

Ah you state that H2O is water, but if you cross the border into Mexico you'll find that it's actually agua. 😎

[@declanstoeckel2244]

@@utubepunk Vaush Chad

[@tomxu1890]

@@declanstoeckel2244 VAUSH RAD

[@mejestic124]

Vaush is medium IQ

[@kbomb234]

The biggest problem with debate bro culture is that is completely ignores long established rules of debate like not shouting over each other, establishing good will, and carefully deconstructing an argument with prepared evidence and nuance. And they can't do this because the very nature of debating implies that the ideas being discussed are topics that should be debated. But things like human rights and the various -isms aren't up for debate. If we have to debate whether or not women should vote, the argument has already been legitimized as a topic to be argued over. So instead, debate bros shout and grandstand because that's easier than actually wrestling with what their pretty words actually mean.

[@MDoorpsy]

1. More structured debate has the disadvantage of incentivising gish gallops, as the whole point of a gish gallop is to take advantage of the limited time your opponent has to respond. 2. While it sounds nice to say that certain things shouldn’t be debated, I’d be willing to bet most would be more willing to debate whether women should have the right to vote if, like a hundred years ago, they didn’t. The reason we don’t like debating that subject now is that we already have women’s suffrage, so the only meaningful change that can happen as a result of that debate is that women lose it. But, when women don’t have the right to vote, debating it can potentially sway enough people to pass it into law. Nothing to lose, everything to gain, and all that.

[@cdubsb3831]

​@@MDoorpsyThis. The intellectually lazy take of the current prevailing ideology which has only come about through built upon rational discourse is inherently good and should remain unchallenged strictly comes from a position of power and dishonesty. The whole foundation of democracy and the ability for the common masses to vote fundamentally relies on civil discourse and debate. If things aren't up for debate then the only option is violence and force.

[@araxiel569]

That "things like human rights aren't up for debate" is both a nice, but also naive sentiment. If there is one side trying to fight against human rights, ignoring those people won't defend human rights. Especially so, if the other side is gaining or in power. Trying to ignore the opposite site, and just hoping that everyone sees that they're wrong, is a losing strategy and how in many ways we got Trump. Or alternatively, if those human rights have not yet been granted, as unjust as it is, the supporters of those human rights need to make a case for it. It's why civil rights leaders like Fred Hampton went on TV. To adjust an argument by Slavoj Zizek on dogma, it is good if there are ideological dogmas in a society of things that are at its face not even accepted to be debate on. So for example, it is objectively good we don't live in a society, where we even have debate the execution of gay people through stoning is good or not. But the existence of such an ideological dogma in society is an indicator of other things, such as general values and who holds power. But such a dogma can't be upheld by ignoring those attacking it, it must be actively defended. And one way to do so is through debate. This is especially true, if those attacking it have gained power; you can't ignore the president. *TLDR: As long as people are attacking human rights, you have to defend human rights. You can't ignore those people and hope everyone else will too.*

[@kiwikemist]

Exactly. The only way to return to more reasonable debate is to force it all into writing. There is a less of a chance of people talking over eachother, and sources can be scrutinized in good faith, and on the merit of the data alone. Debates made for live audiences, video media, tiktoks etc. are just pure cancer. We need someone to bring back good magazines where people would debate in letters, provide sources etc.

[@brextonolesky-lee8231]

Y’all did Vaush so dirty with that opening 😂😂😂

[@mejestic124]

He is medium IQ

[@JemLeavitt]

Great analysis. Helpful video, ty.

[@mrgresick]

As a teacher I utilize debate in class & I always tell my students that winning comes a far second to learning. Plus they & most of us are attracted to conflict porn.

[@muridae637]

Never use teacher and porn in the same sentence.

[@Anonymoose66G]

@@muridae637 What do you expect from a teacher 😂. You know my man's is a Civics or History teacher. On a serious note what's with people just using the word porn after everything nowadays?

[@julianbufarull7602]

​@@muridae637do you realize that you made the connection out of unrelated words in different sentences? Sus

[@mikekazz5353]

It seems like the Homer Simpson approach is becoming very popular.

[@mytmouse57]

Either that, or argumentum ad Pee Wee Herman: "I know you are. But what am I?"

[@bengalas2085]

The different music for the intro into you talking actually had me for a moment

[@AGS-8785-D1R]

I definitely think the online debate-sphere is deserving of criticism, but the opposite of online debates are online video essays like these, where just one person on the screen spouts off their views and opinions without rebuttal. Video essays and essayists can suffer and encourage a different type of stupidity. That stupidity is called echo chambers, which can be damaging in their own way. So while I definitely know how toxic/degenerate/egotistical online debates can be, video essayists can just be another version of mental/moral showing off, but one that wishes not to be challenged publicly (which is totally fine by the way! We don't all need to be great debaters, I'm certainly not). I just don't know if the wisecrack team has the high ground that they're trying to take here. And for the record, I love Wisecrack. Your videos are part of my weekly diet. I just think spending most of the video criticizing online debate bros, while mildly caveating it at the end wasn't the nuanced/even-handed take that I think online debates deserve when you factor in how much of the opposite type of media can also reinforce your already dug in views and opinions. So it would be great if there was a follow up video to this titled "How Video Essays Got Stupid". Because there's plenty of that as well. Anyway, while I didn't love this video, much love to the Wisecrack team. Peace.

[@utkarshsingh-rp2dq]

I actually like video essays more than debate.

[@AGS-8785-D1R]

@@utkarshsingh-rp2dq Totally fair.

[@felipefasanella7764]

100% agree. Video essays are also pretty bad these days.

[@ThePiiX]

You have to allow withdrawal in video essays. KZbin game won't allow it and saying openly "I have been wrong" is a sign of weakness where it should be a sign of vertue ...

[@ComradeDt]

H3 becoming a debate bro is something id never imagine would happen 5 years ago

[@letsfindsomepeace9207]

H3 is racist and people just brush it off because he's not as bad Logan Paul or something

[@glenstortroen1286]

​@@letsfindsomepeace9207what's he been doing that's racist?

[@mikey_gc8]

@@glenstortroen1286nothing because he hasn’t lol that’s just a manosphere simp sewing disinformation

[@jayBBvid95]

@@glenstortroen1286 racing

[@letsfindsomepeace9207]

@@glenstortroen1286 he was racist towards Indians when TSeries vs Pewds thing was going on. I don't care about TSeries either and rooted for Pewds. But that doesn't give him a right to be racist towards Indians. There's plenty of other stories.

[@qwertyuiop42385]

Being persuasive is a neutral quality. If a good person is persuasive, then that is a good thing. How fortunate for us so many good people have been involved in debate as-of-late. About time that space was reclaimed from the bad people who occupied it before.

[@redblue5140]

Overall, persuasion is a very negative quality that shouldn't exist outside of domestic and interpersonal issues. Whenever it's used outside of that, it is biased heavily against what is true. The world is incredibly complex and there are too many nuances and factors in every issue to be summed up in some a short amount of time in ways the average person can understand, but people prefer to understand things in short and intuitive ways.

[@qwertyuiop42385]

@@redblue5140 That's elitist horseshit and you know it. It's not that hard to explain complex concepts in accessible, compelling ways. In my experience (as an engineer and a scientist) people who have trouble doing this tend to have shallow, dogmatic understandings of the things they try to explain, or worse, intentionally overcomplicate things to try and sound smarter than they actually are.

[@redblue5140]

​@@qwertyuiop42385 If you're an engineer or a scientist, then I'm sure you know it's a lot easier to explain something to an educated person, since there are more comparisons you can draw to things they already know. When you're talking to a person with a flawed or incomplete understanding of the prerequisite knowledge to what you want to explain, it's no longer feasible to give an explanation without giving explanations of the explanation. In a debate space, you're now at a huge disadvantage against a person with explanations which require no prerequisite knowledge, because you're given an equal amount of time to talk, with an inequal amount of things to explain. If your explanations aren't efficient enough, you'll easily be perceived as side-tracking or going on tangents. The best way to avoid this, is through a skillful use of allegories. However, coming up with an allegory for a phenomenon is basically a science in itself, most scientific fields are rife with inaccurate allegories that scientists have no choice but use, because they don't know how to come up with a better one. When you say "it's not that hard", that might be true for whatever you work with and the people you talk to, but it can't be generalized.

[@qwertyuiop42385]

@redblue5140 this sounds like something you struggle with personally. It's probably something to work on in yourself, not be angry at the rest of the world for.

[@Sisyphussy]

Fantastic video as always

[@ShimmerBodyCream]

Debate is incredibly important because ideas aren't fostered in a vacuum. As frustrating as it is, rhetoric is important.

[@KD-ho5ze]

If a person's intent behind relying on a rhetoric is to outsmart, outfinesse, and dominate the other person for the sake of winning debate points and gotcha moments, it defeats the very purpose of debate that made us see it as important. To spark ideas through debates doesn't require the debate to be flashy and combative as well. It's useful as a hook to gain an audience, but most of the people it hooks are those who are only interested in seeing their 'champion' stomp on the other. And if it doesn't go their way, no matter how good and valuable the counterargument is, they will just retaliate with their own weaponized arguments. At that point it just turns into a tribal warfare, devoid of any learning and progress.

[@ShimmerBodyCream]

@@KD-ho5ze I think it's our job as other good faith debaters and audience to point this out. This is why good debaters can be so important, because you get this rhetoric in every day life as well.

[@florencefauna]

Seeing H3 content in a wisecrack video are my two worlds colliding haha

[@tkp3751]

Somehow you got through this whole thing without mentioning the ice cream debate in Thank You For Smoking: "I'm not trying to convince you [the other debater]. I'm trying to convince *them* [the audience]."

[@ooochavo7777]

Nothing i love more than listening to your 5 minute VPN ad so that I can watch KZbin’s advertisements

[@UnanimousDelivers]

Saying the internet invented idiotic debates is like saying Apple invented all technology since 1990. Did some time traveler go back and make AM radio never exist?

[@nachoalfonso2614]

I think he is saying that the Internet made it mainstream. At least that's what I took from the video.

[@vitalvisionary]

Can't believe I'm even slightly agreeing with Shapiro, but debating online only has value through humiliating an opponent in front of an audience. I remember reading somewhere that conversing via text only conveys something like 20% of intending information, audio is only 40%, and in-person face to face is 60%. If there's any hope to changing someone's mind, it's in person. If you are trying to brutally destroy someone's argument online, it only works if you understand the true crux of the argument. The Alt-Right Playbook helped me understand what most online arguments are actually about.

[@Diggler569]

He may have a point but it doesn't invalidate how much of a cowardly turd he is. I looked at debating like sparring in boxing. You don't go out and spar with someone way underneath your weight class and proceed to just launch flurries since you know you're bigger. You will be looked upon as a bully and the more experienced guy will be foaming to knock you out if you don't run away (which Shapiro does often).

[@jonathanchang1574]

This is only true for those with an inferiority complex. The point of a debate is actually not to convince anyone else, but to test and sharpen your own understanding of the topic. But only if you're honest with yourself. The moment you get offended and take it personally, you've wasted your time.

[@titania396]

The video fails to mention this but Hasan talks about this all the time and is open about it unlike Ben Shapiro who hides it and its only when you dig deep that you find it.

[@ShiverBruce]

The real star of this video is your Black Star T-Shirt! Infinite cool points!

[@jayBBvid95]

Most Deaf and Talib Kewli

[@eagleleft]

People fundamentally seem to be misunderstanding the actual point of debates online

[@terrykosowick594]

Thank you for this video. I agree that debate is about performance, aggression, and "winning"; not about finding the truth. I think a better method for solving problems or even just discussing an issue would be in written form. At least then a person's complete argument could be presented (rather than the person being cut off or shouted over part-way through their argument as usually happens in video "discussions")

[@fuwu9904]

It's important to note that whilst debate is not good to use when trying to arrive at a "truth", it can and does (as stupidly as some people think it is) win people over and that is really all that matters

[@JoshBurcham104]

As someone who was initially "won over" by debate, I strongly disagree that it's all that matters. If all that matters to you is what side you're on then you're probably missing the point

[@fuwu9904]

@@JoshBurcham104 Ok so to clarify yes you are right it's not literally all that matters, but in the way we engage in debate with others we don't really want anything else than to get other people to agree with us, if you are debating someone of course you should be open minded but it's not effecient to try to arrive at a mutual agreement with a person you know you can't have one with. Ultimately you either want to win over that person or more likely the people watching you, either from a completely neutral standpoint or as a member of their audience.

[@harrybudgeiv349]

Yeah if they can't think for themselves it can sway them

[@amazin7006]

​@@fuwu9904 ​ Debating is also about mutual understanding, followed by using that understanding to hash out inconsistencies or invalid ideas that either side was blind to until all that is left is "truth" or at least something that is closer to the truth than the original 2 starting beliefs. Even with the "performance" and all the other critiques this guy had, at the end of the day, debate is STILL the best and ONLY method of challenging a system of ideas. In much of philosophy, the explanation for an idea will be explained to the reader in a debate format. The whole "Socratic/Platonic dialogue" for example is foundational for western Philosophy. A famous example being Plato's Apology. Questioning and critiquing the reader's intuitions until all that is left is the "truth". Basically the entire dialectical method. There is nothing better than debate, and this sort of comment/video is just pure anti-intellectualism. He talks about the history, he talks about how it can be twisted, he calls it cringe, but he doesn't make a real intellectual argument against it.

[@nachoalfonso2614]

@@fuwu9904 That sounds like you are saying that the ends justify the means, which is way more complicated. All it matters is to get people to agree with you like sheeps while you don't actually care if what you are saying is the truth? Mind you, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a place for confrontational debate, but debating it's way more useful as a tool to help ourselves clash viewpoints, experiences and facts and test our pre-conceived ideas against other arguments. Whatever happened to debating with an open mind, willing to find common ground or actually (god forbid) realize you were wrong and that other people point to you the truth? I certainly don't like this version of debating where it's basically searching for a viral moment when someone looks dumb so other people will be induced to thinking like you. Anyway, sorry for the rant and for the bad grammar too.

[@Tupacem]

I love how the very first example they show is of Vaush debating water. 😂😂

[@JavierChaparroM]

Love the content!

[@FelixJonesReviews]

Feels like wisecrack have been reading ideas from my list lately

[@erictf9638]

Every example used in this video is from the most unbalanced or worst debates. Edit: He doesn’t mention good and bad examples of debates or discussions which make it seem as if there are none which is not true. Even some of the ones shown in the videos are good. Like the destiny Matt dilerhunty abortion debate

[@halinaqi2194]

For a debate to be fruitful both sides have to value the truth and facts over their own established beliefs which is difficult because the goal of a debate is to convince the other side that your belief is correct. Most of these political debaters are so afraid of conceding because it makes their original stance look weak because its not flawless, hence we get what we get in the YT discourse.

[@erictf9638]

@@halinaqi2194 that’s not entirely true because especially with moral debates you can agree on the facts (if there are any) and still have 2 completely different moral perspectives. But I agree that you have to be good faith and be willing to entertain different perspectives, that doesn’t mean that debates shouldn’t happen because the majority of them are bad.

[@josephg.3771]

​​@@halinaqi2194Leibniz would say there are two kinds of truth men perceive tho. Truths of facts like math and truths of reasoning which are always predicated on presumptions about the world. So for example on the issue of abortion both would agree they are composed of factually are made up of human cells but both would arrive at an antimony of what makes them human and why should we bother assigning them rights

[@kiwikemist]

Political debate is all an exercise in theatrics.

[@shockmethodx]

Seeing more rewarding discussions elsewhere is probably the play to make, but let's see where this goes.

[@ANDREV]

I always though of this,but I never could quite put it into words so eloquently, thanks.

[@clingyking2774]

We need notes for these videos. This is such insightful content.

[@ladyyyhokage]

babe wake up new michael from wisecrack video dropped

[@MrTush25]

Which leftist debate bro has mobilized their viewers against anyone?

[@calebelliott2629]

Against? Idk. They’ve mobilized them to donate a bunch of money to charities and righteous causes though.

[@MrGksarathy]

Yeah, this is bs. On the other hand, plenty of video essayists have done so. The only debate bro I can think of who has done this is Destiny, but he's not a leftist, especially not now.

[@XxCorvette1xX]

Vowsh, a number of times actually

[@nagamata]

You guys hit the nail on the head with this one. I went through an ideological soul searching phase not too long ago, and it ended when I realized my social media feeds were flooded with heavily biased dunking contests poorly disguised as debates

[@abrahamflores2566]

Reels/shorts/tik toks makes this even worst and forces people to fill in a 3 hour conversation into a 20 second clip.

[@Chadmlad]

Amazing video, thanks!

[@labellissimabritneyellis7230]

I love whenever I leave a comment and somebody hits back with a salient point I hadn't thought of. It feels great to be pushed into a new space of thinking like that

[@NowayJose14]

Fuck, this was so needed. Thank you

[@lostwanderer6649]

This was needed like Chickensoup for the Soul 😂😂

[@toyotaprius79]

Borgor more like

[@sreeharidamodaran82]

Brilliant stuff. Btw...love the Black Star shirt.

[@momcilomrkaic2214]

Love this channel

[@SomeRandomJackAss]

I've felt for a long time that debate has been twisted into something intellectually useless by virtue of the goals shifting from an exchange of ideas and viewpoints to a competition. In a classical "real" debate, everyone wins because everyone learns a little something about one another. In a modern debate, everyone tries to "win" by shutting up the other side (which is really easy to do, just kill them), but no one truly wins in the long run. However, I didn't realize how long this decline has been happening.

[@carsonpaullee]

12:56 XQC doing the worm is a great example, Ethan had no response!

[@ggchiu7400]

this really widened my horizons. I did a lot of debate in high school, local and international debates, and yea that really shaped how I thought debates should go down. even tho then, when i had to argue for sides I didnt really agree with, all I thought was about winning, how to dominate the opponent. Why debate competitions are framed this way, my guess is because they're mainly thinking of debates in terms of lawyers, which surprise, my sister ended up becoming a lawyer. Im not going to be a lawyer, but i really liked the ending where they said we should think of debate as a scientist, thats real helpful

[@samunderkhan1078]

Keep going wisecrack, you rock.

[@GasDude1011]

Dude's afraid to debate Destiny 😂

[@alantelemishev9335]

Public debates don't lend themselves to good faith and truth seeking. To expect that from them is to misunderstand the medium. If you want that from a debate you can debate a friend, coworker, family member, and so on, in the confines of a private space. You watch public debates to see what rhetoric changes the minds of the audience.

[@Psychedlia98]

Then what use is a debate if the two parties aren’t honest? It’s just two clowns ranting at each other

[@alantelemishev9335]

@@Psychedlia98 1) There aren't two parties in a public debate, there are 3 (maybe more if you have moderators, panels, etc. but that's splitting hairs). 2) Being honest really helps rhetorically. Audiences don't like people who deny the experiences they have literally lived, seen, and felt. This makes them skeptical of the conclusions being argued through dishonesty. A non-negligible amount of dishonest actors have had their careers all but ended when they've been confronted with a good debater that was able to expose their lies.

[@polyemphis]

Political podcasts are already annoying, they're just people "debating" alone by spewing their opinions But two people doing that together? Worse than passing kidney stones.

[@KomodoDojo]

Wow this video encapsulates so much of my thoughts about the state of debate.

[@worschtebrot]

Good video! Thanks for highlighting this weird internet debate culture. Unfortunately, I feel like the current state is a natural progression of free pubic debate culture without any arbitration. As soon as on side starts using the methods that were mentioned, there is really no good response. You can either stoop to their level or break off the debate. In both cases you're losing since either the debate will become pointless or the bad-faith side will be able to shout their garbage into the world without retort. I honestly don't see any way out of this dilemma since it would need a concerted effort to exclude bad-faith debaters from further public discourse but that surely won't happen any time soon given the reach of some of those people. And honestly, this isn't even just an issue with these online debaters. Public and political discourse is being degrade systematically right now but since it gets views, nobody is really doing anything about it. "Firing Line" was mentioned here and it feels like it's been the blueprint of any type of TV debate show ever since. How does one fix this? I wish I knew.

[@bp7206]

Ben Shapiro is walking urinal cake residue.

[@nothingcorporate2]

"Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You take a step toward him. He takes a step back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man."

[@evo2542]

Humanity is disappointing. That's all I ever feel when you see an industry of anything run on sophistry of any kind.

[@jbc5099]

There's a great debate between David Benatar and Jordan Peterson where David does an excellent job at calling out Jordan every time he makes a bad argument or tries to trick the audience.

[@abrahamflores2566]

So Jordan put himself in a vulnerable spot to be called out wrong when appropriate. Sounds rational. Now if he avoided talking to people that oppose his views that would be problematic

[@vege4920]

I listened to 30 minutes of it, JP lost his cool at the start and seemed to be arguing about things he agreed with already, and he did some other mistakes later too. JP trying to trick the audience is speculating about his motivations, I did not get the impression that he was thinking of the audience any more than David. I would need to watch the whole thing to see if David made a lot of mistakes worth bringing up. He denied only taking pain and pleasure into account in his claims, but could not give other examples or reasons why they are bad discounting pain. I would have been interested what else he thought was bad than pain, but he just passed the same question to JP without answering it. David did seem to have a cooler head so far, but JP seems to be fair discounting the first 10 minutes so far.

[@jbc5099]

I think Jordan chose to do that debate because he arrogantly underestimated his opponent, not because he cares about seeking out opposing views or challenging his own. I wasn't even referring to the topic of the debate or it's related arguments. Mainly the techniques Jordan uses when debating, that can make his arguments appear much stronger than they actually are. And David does an excellent job of pointing those out. @@abrahamflores2566

[@sidguernsey1393]

People are definitely worse at debating in this modern-day, rhetoric isn't just a phrase it is a skill set, you can learn it and effectively turn any argument with tricks and manipulation. This is a good video

[@nihilistic9927]

The decline of the dialectics is the decline of Western civilization.

[@Jay_gillz]

Love your shirt 💯

[@klutterkicker]

Real debate, actual adjudicated debate, has always been stupid.

[@mytmouse57]

That's debatable.

[@baritonetenor]

i had to instinctively mute any time you let a debate lord speak :(

[@hyrocoaster]

So good, thank you!

[@maxamerimaka]

Putting Hasan in the same 'debate bro' category as Shapiro is such a lib move.

[@sterlingkart9562]

It's funny how a lot of these debate bros. I'll try to speak fast to make it seem like they're intelligent yet the great debtors are the ones that speak with a calm mind. Very swiftly and really create a presence and dominance when projecting their voice

[@danielbloomquist9810]

The Marketplace of Ideas has been overrun by window shoppers.

[@basicsimp8798]

"Debate me bro" = I'm close minded as heck and would never actually listened or take the time to understand the other side, or even entertain that my idea is wrong!

[@AbqDez]

n we call it the 4 "Ps" of People arguing; 1) Preacher, 2) Prosecutor, 3) Politician, 4) Philosopher.