Destiny Gets Grilled By Debate Coach

[@gabrielpace8370]

When the dude whipped out the research on "intuition pumping" I was so scared for destiny

[@OnJahseh]

That was wild 😭

[@FuriousTortoise]

Ha no way I knew he shot himself in the foot with that one. Destiny (and Council of Trent) knows that the pump can be used with good and bad faith. He was just posturing and hoping Destiny would buckle.

[@boliussa]

What on earth. Destiny was the one that brought up that term. It's Destiny that was trying to show off and it didn't work

[@WizardofGargalondese]

@@boliussa Destiny brought up the term in the past so trent brought research on it

[@boliussa]

@@WizardofGargalondese when "in the past"?

[@ilovecows7929]

saw the debate between both of them i loved how normal it felt compared to the last abortion debate

[@DougQ]

Sure Trent was respectful. But he spent the majority of his talking time trying to gotcha destiny into supporting killing 2 yearolds. He wasn’t engaged with destiny boundaries at all so it kind of sucked

[@TGiSHIllidanServer]

@@DougQ *Destiny asks question* Trent: "Well my not-realistic example should've been answered, your not-realistic example is more unrealistic, I think. But back to how you'd murder children..." Dodging a question and just moving on quickly is his entire debate strategy lmao.

[@julian758]

@@DougQlol so true. He also asked numerous times if destiny would fuck kids and kept showing pictures of fetuses and literally doing the “would you murder this baby” while showing the camera… Trent was strictly doing this for optics. Sad more people can’t see this.

[@flyboy5089]

@@TGiSHIllidanServer I hope all these professional pro-life debaters value animal level consciousness. Because they’re all weasels

[@rodiculous9464]

​@@TGiSHIllidanServerI don't understand how people from his camp can watch that and think he's some 500 iq level debater, like are they all just bad faith or clueless, hard to tell

[@w00lleymam0th9]

I feel like i'm learning so much from august just by watching these intros. He lets the start of a topic play out, and it gets you relaxed to hear a little bit of it, and destiny goes, "the only part that was annoying was" which brings up excitement for what destiny is about to say, and then it cuts. Now they're hooked, watching the video up until at least that information is delivered.

[@laurabea660]

I actually feel that Brian did a good job in as the moderator, of course we know his biases but he kept his comments relatively milktoast/neutral and sparse, and was tasteful with his interruptions for superchats etc. Not a fan of whatever in general, but it is at its best when it's just him and serious panel members like this tbh.

[@PolarizedxD]

Brian might of been bias toward destiny if anything his questions were much more directed toward Trent

[@fifiadan]

Brian is pro choice

[@PolarizedxD]

@@fifiadan even if that’s true (I haven’t heard him state his position) his questions were still targeted at Trent challenging his position.

[@QMS9224]

Brian really been annoying me lately. I get he has his style which is super soft and laid back which makes the girls feel comfortable, but he’s just not a good speaker it’s painful to listen to. It’s like if fresh ran a podcast

[@ihaveachihuahau]

@@QMS9224 He's the good cop without the bad cop, lol. It just doesn't work that well.

[@Marcel-eg9bz]

If they're not answering the question after a few tries, it's fair game to break the fourth wall to connect the dots for the audience. "So it doesn't seem like I'm able to get a satisfying answer from you for this question, we can move on if you want - but the question was X, and the reason I asked the question is because I wanted to get to Y, but you seem unwilling to get to Y because you know it would fundamentally undermine your position which is why you're dancing around the issue without actually engaging with the question - but that's okay, we can move on."

[@adriansanchez-alvarez7313]

My favorite thing this last year is watch destiny slowly come to terms that debate in theory leads to truth but in practice most of the time it just leads to two people moral grandstanding to try to attract as many people to their belief or entertainment.

[@debrachambers1304]

I feel like he already knew that. He's had SO MANY shitty debates.

[@parkeranderson8428]

Books right if you’re trying to win an argument optically. Big reason I’m here for destiny is because of this kind of meta observation on navigating conversations so I find a lot of value when destiny points out how people operate in bad faith. Helps me navigate my own difficult conversations

[@parkeranderson8428]

@@JohnStockton7459 whoops internet tough guy got me

[@tristenatorplaysgames6833]

Optically I think he really shoulda hammered home even harder that the fact that miscarriaged would be viewed as murder and mothers would forced to be hospitalized or all women would need to be dragged to hospital everytime they have sex.

[@matthewstevenson6835]

Trent's hypotheticals were carefully thought out ahead of time so as to be direct enough to be answered with a simple yes or no, without requiring additional clarifications. Destiny's were written down spur of the moment, mid-debate and needed cleaning up. It wasn't that Trent didn't answer them, it was that he couldn't answer them with a simple yes or no, they needed clarified/qualified - which was what Trent was trying to do. My advice for Destiny would be to plan the questions ahead of time. It's a form of Socratic reasoning Trent uses to test the underlying logic of an opponents position. It wasn't bad faith and I can assure they weren't posted to TikTok. It's a useful exercise and I'd encourage Destiny to use it in the future. Just make sure to plan the questions ahead of time and properly qualify them. Great debate!

[@Amavera]

Yeah, Trent clearly did answer the hypotheticals, but he didn't answer with an unqualified yes or no because the questions required a nuanced an answer. Maybe Destiny should go back and listen to the conversation and pay a little more attention, or accept that an thoughtful and intelligent conversation can't be reduced to only yes or no answers.

[@nevermusic]

It was crazy when be was saying his hypotheticals were more believable, so they were justified. that was so funny.

[@p8triotmode]

I think both of you did amazing during that debate.

[@ataraxia7439]

Yeah I really want to see more like it. I’m sure destiny and that guy probably had other things to debate on.

[@ataraxia7439]

Yeah I really want to see more like it. I’m sure destiny and that guy probably had other things to debate on.

[@ataraxia7439]

Yeah I really want to see more like it. I’m sure destiny and that guy probably had other things to debate on.

[@ataraxia7439]

Yeah I really want to see more like it. I’m sure destiny and that guy probably had other things to debate on.

[@ataraxia7439]

Yeah I really want to see more like it. I’m sure destiny and that guy probably had other things to debate on.

[@miikavuorio6925]

20:20 "the one thing that was hard was to define how a baby's consciousness is more similar to an adult's consciousness than a dog's consciousness is" That's because that's the one position where destiny is wrong lol

[@tomasroque3338]

Have you followed the development of his views on the importance of semantic understanding? As a Hegelian, I sympathize with the direction Destiny's moving in (even if his road is cruder)

[@HeavenlyReaver]

I don’t think it’s a wrong view I just think the topic itself is a little fluid and vague right now. But I think a good analogy to say is that a dogs consciousness is like that of a calculator. It works in a limited function and can actually seem impressive from an isolated point of view. A child’s consciousness is like a PC but they only have a calculator app loaded on it first. Now for an outside observer these two things seem to function pretty much identically but that doesn’t make them the same thing whatsoever. The computer has better functionality and capable of much more as more apps are downloaded into it overtime. The calculator, on the other hand, will only ever be capable of being a calculator. That’s the difference. Just because the PC only has a calculator app loaded on it thus far doesn’t make it equivalent in value to the calculator as it’s still a PC with a graphics card, ram, motherboard, internet connection, Wi-Fi, blue tooth, i9 intel core processors, so on and so forth. If you toss the calculator all you lost was a 20 dollar calculator. If you toss the PC, even though it only has a calculator app on it, you’ve still lost approximately 1500 dollars worth of equipment.

[@tomasroque3338]

@@HeavenlyReaver > that's the one position where Destiny is wrong > I don't think it's a wrong view If you are changing your original statement, I feel no need to push back. But I would say that, for the PC analogy to work, it needs to be made clear that the way the app works on the computer is different from the way the calculator works, and that Destiny believes we value the way apps run on PCs, rather than the return of numeric values from calculators.

[@HeavenlyReaver]

@@tomasroque3338 to address the pc vs calculator analogy my point is that the structural elements of the PC is already far more valuable and far more capable and complex than the structural elements of the calculator even if all it’s used for is the calculator app. The comparison between the calculator app and the calculator is that even though these things are being used to conduct the same identical function they are still not identical things. The PC, even if used as a calculator, will never be just a calculator. It’s fundamentally different down to its composition even if at a certain point in time, let’s say arbitrarily, it only has the one calculator app loaded on to it. It’s still capable of more, not in the future, but from that moment onward even if none of those capabilities are ever even expressed as opposed to the calculator which will only ever be capable of the one function (calculating math problems) no matter how much time passes because it doesn’t have the structural elements in place to do anything more than that. This demonstrates that just because at a certain point in time two things might be doing identical functions that doesn’t than inherently make them identical things. A spoon can be used to dig up dirt and so can a shovel. A shovel can be used to eat food (however sloppily) just like a spoon. But just because these things can accomplish the same types of feat, to a certain extent, doesn’t make them identical things. From the form, shape, and size they end up being different down to the very intention behind their creation and the materials used for their composition. When Destiny argued the difference what he’s saying is that, from the start, a child’s brain is fundamentally different structurally speaking and the differences in that structure lead to a far more complex expression of an emergent property. That complex expression of an emergent property and the structural elements necessary for that need to first be present (not “about to be” or “will be”) in order for that emergent property to be present in order for him to value it. Another way of saying this is to say “Destiny values working PCs over calculators. In order for him to recognize that this thing is a working PC he needs to turn it on. In order for it to turn on it needs structural elements in place to be able to do so. In order for him to determine it’s working he needs to at least see evidence of some base type of programming at play. Just because that base level of operation for the PC may look similar to the calculator that doesn’t mean Destiny values working calculators. He values working pcs and it just so happens that in order to discern some base level of functionality it needs to at least exhibit capabilities of or exceeding the level of the calculator.” Identity isn’t just determining a superficial aspect of a thing and lumping it with other things that express those same superficial aspects. Otherwise, our ability to differentiate things would be severely impacted and impractical. It would be similar to saying “humans consume resources to survive. Bacteria also consume resources to survive. Ergo, humans and bacteria are the same.” Or “This brick is red and rectangular. This child’s foam toy is also red and rectangular. Ergo, they are both the same and deserved to be valued the same in construction” the composition of a thing, the manner in which it was put together, and the capabilities of that thing are just as important (if not more so) as it’s superficial characteristics and expression. Any attempt to equate two things based of superficial characteristics is like saying: “X person had Y experience. X person belongs to Z race. Thus every person of Z race has Y experience.” That would, and should be, considered offensive because not everyone of Z race has had X person’s Y experience. Even if X person exhibits very similar mannerisms to C person and they belong to the same Z race that doesn’t than make them identical. For example maybe X person of Z race may exhibit E (frugal) mannerisms due to a Y experience (poverty). And C person may exhibit E (frugal) mannerism due to Q experience (financially responsible parents). You may look at this and say “since E for C person looks like E from X person and both C & X belong to Z race they must have both experienced Y” you would be fundamentally incorrect. This indicates that identifying something as a Dogs consciousness and equating it to a Child’s consciousness due to its similarity in expression and saying that if you care about one you should care about the other might be inherently flawed. Similarly, identifying an Adults consciousness as different from a child’s consciousness based on a superficial observation may be flawed as well. A PC with more apps might look different than a PC with less apps but that doesn’t mean they must then belong to a different brand and are inherently different. They could be the exact same brand and capable of the exact same functions with the only difference being is that the first PC just had more time to download apps while the second PC just got started on downloading those apps. That doesn’t make the second PC less valuable than the first or of equivalent value to the calculator. All these arguments go for conflation as well. An attempt to conflate or separate things based off of superficiality is doomed to fallacy and failure. Just because one brick is red and another is orange doesn’t mean that the orange one is now not a brick. Just because a red rectangular object is a brick doesn’t mean all red rectangular objects are bricks either. When we are identifying something as belonging to a category we must focus on the nuance in order to accurately and specifically identify them. If we want to be superficial though we tend to be so vague as to make any classification useless. “All noises that are produced by living things are language” so accidentally stepping on an autumn leaf that crunches is part of a language? “All noises that are intentionally produced by living things are language” so a child intentionally jumping in a puddle to make a splash is language? “All noises that are intentionally produced by any living beings throat are language” so gulping down water is language? This is the issue. In order to identify things we absolutely need to consider nuance especially when we are identifying things that are hyper specific. Saying a child’s consciousness is different than an adults may be correct to a degree. But what if we are talking about the same person? Is the child’s consciousness different from when they are an adult or is it the same consciousness that has simply learned different manners in which to express itself? If an adults consciousness is different from a child’s consciousness does that mean the child’s consciousness is closer to that of an animal or closer to that of an adults? This is the intention behind the analogy. It’s to point out that even if the function between a calculator and a PC calculator app that’s being used may look identical that doesn’t make them the same thing. The PC is structurally different from the calculator, built different from the calculator, capable of running more complex programs than the calculator, and is far more valuable than the calculator even if it never has a chance to express every function of which it is capable of at that specific time. Just because you only learned to use the calculator app on a PC doesn’t mean that the PC is now equivalent to the calculator. That’s the point.

[@kyler9323]

@@HeavenlyReaver the problem is that you can apply your analogy to younger human embryos, even zygotes, to make a case for their personhood. You can say that this biological organism is like a high powered PC with little software downloaded. More software with better functions will get downloaded as the human embryo develops into a fetus then an infant, then a child etc., but right now it is still a high powered PC, unlike an amoeba or something else which will never be able to handle the better software downloads. The analogy breaks down though, in that the embryo writes its own software code, since nothing gets added in terms of genetic information or body parts after fertilization. So it is such an amazing little being. It makes itself conscious. It makes itself rational and self-aware. Isn't such a being worthy of rights? The human embryo just needs time, nutrition, and a safe environment to develop all these capacities. That is because rather than being a potential person, she is a person with great potential!

[@JustinSailor]

Trent has a follow up video on "Pints with Aquinas"

[@ryans2848]

I think that’s my favorite debate you’ve ever had dude was obviously a heavy hitter and very smart, but I think you held your own in that one good job

[@Wakozi]

I feel like in many of his discussions he lets questions just slip by. He mentioned it himself and he said he needs to be a more persistent with his questions. I mean, he still wins 90% of his discussions but would be nice if he didnt give people easy passes by not answering his questions.

[@EvilFandango]

If your debate opponent isn't answering your question, then it's best to be acoustic and stay on target until the guy gives up or answers your question.

[@johnsmith8649]

We love booksmarts. More talks like this please

[@kopekopekop]

I don’t get why people think the girls were more gotcha like than the new guy, as destiny said at one point it seemed like he was farming clips on specific questions

[@samuelmorkbednarzkepler]

People suck at analysing things. They respond more to vibes than substance. The girls had very bad faith vibes while this guy had very calm collected vibes. And since most people have no brains that's all they manage to take away from it

[@imoutofnames1]

It seems like people automatically think that because it's not a shouting match and they're talking back and forth that it was a good debate. Neither discussion was good. The women were just unhinged and clueless. Not much to say about that one they had a few canned statements and nothing else and just yell to shut things down. The guy while he did have more backing to the things he said, he was just a calmer version of any other pro-life person. His arguments all boiled down to the same few talking points that all pro-lifers give and his engagement with anything is barely there (hence his inability to engage with any of the hypothetical) because most pro-life arguments rely entirely on loading the question and not actually giving too much thought into what is being said. E.G. the life begins at conception and you have to protect the human life from that moment onward which sounds okay at first until you actually have to defend that means protecting the 8 cell thing and treat it as a full human even though they come up with excuses as to why they don't have to protect it in a hypothetical but you do for the abortion talk specifically. IMO his loading of questions, his phrasing (the same that all pro-life people use), and his rapid firing of questions comes off as exceptionally shady because of how calm the discussion was. You'd expect something like "you're killing a human baby" when talking about the moment an egg and sperm meet from an unhinged lunatic like those women because they are relying on playing into the audiences emotions and their own. But from someone supposed to be more researched and arguing with data to do that comes off as extra scummy. Overall, this debate has made me lose hope in any abortion debates ever having any positive purpose. If the best and brightest are basically the same as the unhinged screeching lunatics but without the entertaining part of being unhinged. Might was well talk to the crazies since no progress is going to be made anyway and it will be the same discussion regardless.

[@Curt-]

I thought the debate was pretty good. You might say that they were all gotcha questions, but to have a debate about this it seems you would have to understand a person's moral framework pretty well which would require many questions. At several points in the debate the other guy even acknowledged he was asking a ton of questions and told destiny he was free to ask several questions as well.

[@nage9465]

The girls were just way more aggressive and transparent about it

[@kopekopekop]

@@Curt- I just don’t believe any prolife person would steel man proabortion into infanticide, I don’t believe for a second he would prefer half of the country to be pro infanticide

[@qyokai]

I think Destiny did good but he still hasnt convinced me enough yet. The new pro life guy actually convinced me more about pro-life unlike the girls who did poor.

[@michealjaymurphy]

Like your sentence doesn’t make any sense you can’t be convinced on Somthing you already believe

[@qyokai]

@@michealjaymurphy It does when you're taking into consideration a new stance on a topic when you're fence sitting on it. To assume I was already fully pro-life proves you didn't understand anything I said.

[@michealjaymurphy]

@@qyokai so your sitting on the fence, ie you don't believe it, thank you check please

[@qyokai]

@michealjaymurphy Of course. At the time I was neutral towards the topic and now I'm more lenient into pro-life. Doesn't mean I'm stubbornly committed lol. You don't even know me Michael.

[@qyokai]

@michealjaymurphy Also fence sitting doesn't mean I "don't believe it" lol it means I'm not inclined to either side of the topic lol. Check please

[@wrv341]

Seems like poisoning the well and the intuition pumping can easily be swapped "you are OK with killing a baby", OR, "why are you trying to defend a bunch of cells?"

[@off6848]

Defending a potential. An adult human over time

[@thecapitalisticdictator2256]

Ngl you have to be heavily in the pro-abortion camp to think labeling a fetus a "bunch of cells" doesn't make you sound like a psychopath. Like the pro-abortion side's whole argument is to convince the viewer that's the case (via consciousness or something else), so saying it's a bunch of cells isn't a gotcha.

[@off6848]

@@thecapitalisticdictator2256 bro they have transgender people on TikTok raising funds for a uterus transplant just so they can carry and have an abortion. How is that not an ideological sickness? Nothing to do with women having a better life

[@rand0mletters1]

Problem is “why are you defending a bunch of cells?” Elicits a feeling of ‘oh that’s silly’ whereas “why are ok with killing a baby?” Caries much more weight.

[@WizardofGargalondese]

@@thecapitalisticdictator2256 Its objectively a bunch if cells, even fully former humans are. Destiny’s argument has literally nothing to do with this

[@ryaugn]

My understanding of an intuition pump is it's a way of tweaking a hypothetical to a point that tests whether the hypothetical seems true at an extreme.

[@FuddlyDud]

I’d actually say Trent’s point on hypotheticals is fair. A 64 cell human being will die in a few days due to the nature of its development/growth stopping…so while the hypo is interesting, it’s not as productive and misleads more than offers insight. For comparison, if I had a hypo where society would ultimately benefit from killing “unfit” humans and there would be no serious secondary effects, then I could justify systemic eugenic programs. However, you’d rightfully point out that doesn’t reflect reality, so doesn’t really help my argument of saying the “unfit” should be systemically killed. :/ I like hypos, but sometimes they just are too far removed from reality to have utility.

[@josephmother2659]

The point is not to say “You need to have an answer to this”. It’s more about discerning the lengths to which the definition of functioning human being is applicable. This is extremely important to all sides of the argument, because while it does not seem “nice” or “practical” to say, there has to be a concrete line where the boundaries are set. It cannot be interpreted differently by everyone because you will never reach any compromise or end the debate. For his stance to be taken seriously in a logical sense, this gentleman must have at the very least, a well thought out explanation for almost any scenario involving the birth of a child, whether he wants to or not, because policies and laws (if implemented) need to have basis in fact and have firm standards, and cannot simply ignore hypothetical situations because something similar is near inevitable to happen

[@bruh-tq2pw]

I think destiny uses hypotheticals in a few different ways. In this case, Destiny used them to try and mislead and derail his opponents argument from gaining momentum. I agree with you they don’t prove anything. I don’t get into arguments with too many hypotheticals because they get messy and almost never end anywhere. Debates are really a terrible medium for determining what is “good or bad”. It is widely accepted that papers are better. I’m pro-choice but I find the consciousness argument to be really bad. Destiny rejects that the potential for human consciousness doesn’t matter but I would argue that a newborn doesn’t even have a level of “human consciousness “ that we value. I think it’s the potential for a developed human consciousness that we value. I find the structures argument to be biologically misleading because the scale of the structures is what is actually important. Chimpanzees have nearly all of the brain structures that a humans do but we don’t value their lives. I find it to be bad faith from destiny all around on this topic. Every time anyone gives him pushback he derails the debate. He isn’t interested in coming to a truth or understanding. Destiny debates for his ego.

[@JustinSailor]

​@@bruh-tq2pwDestiny only seems to care about "human consciousness" and not the underlying structure that gives rise to that thing he cares about. It's like caring about going to space and not caring about rockets , the only known thing that can get him to his destination. It's like destroying a perfectly good space rocket.

[@bruh-tq2pw]

@@JustinSailor okay, so if Destiny doesn’t care about the structures, what would even determine when a human conscious experience starts? Newborns don’t possess the level of human consciousness that an adult does. We still value them. Chimpanzees level of consciousness is higher than that of an infant and may even be more similar to that of a human adult. Destiny constantly brings up brain structures to defend his argument. I think he values the consciousness but he doesn’t even define ideally how that would begin

[@JustinSailor]

@@bruh-tq2pw I mostly agree with you about the animal/baby consciousness thing. But Im pro- life. I would bolster Destiny's arguments by arguing that human life is the underlying structure that gives life to the kind of consciousness we care about. Making pre-conscious human life sacred. But that would turn him pro-life. His argument seems to be a pro- life adjacent argument that moves the "real" human life's birth to consciousness. He gets to remain on the left with this reasoning.

[@ShinAkuma204]

Destiny was getting bullied up until Trent refused to answer the plan B questions directly. Then Destiny turned it around.

[@capo4ever334]

Trent also let up on a couple of points only mentioned them never to even argue them. Both did well but I’d edge it to Trent. I also don’t think destiny lost to Nick. You take that idiot Zherka and confused weirdo sneako, out, and you have it just Fuentes vs destiny with Myron interjecting with his little “I think what Nick means is” destiny claps them cheeks no problem.

[@ShinAkuma204]

@@capo4ever334 I would probably give the edge to Trent as well, but his refusal to answer the plan B question turned the debate around from a 40-0 blowout in Trent's favor to a 23-20 win. That was an unforced error. The issue is Trent obviously doesn't believe the zygote should have the same protections as a developed baby. He knew this as Destiny asked him, hence all the pivots away from answering the question. He should have anticipated that line of question since he was the one who introduced the visual references to highlight his positions.

[@andrewsmith9031]

@@ShinAkuma204 but that's the issue, you can't genuinely win a debate if there is a clear hole in your argument. Trent either has to willingly accept that his position means conaidering the zygote equal to an adult in every legal and moral way, including the ramifications that come with it, or he has to admit that he may in fact be wrong because he cannot concur with that observation. Destiny on the otherhand, remained purely consistent, even when the optics look really bad.

[@JustinSailor]

As someone who mostly agrees with Trent, I would say this…. I think there is a difference between actively killing someone and deciding what a reasonable amount of effort it takes to keep a person alive is. Can someone be pro-life and be ok with "pulling the plug" ? Or judging that our resources should be focused elsewhere.

[@ShinAkuma204]

@@JustinSailor You are missing the point. Destiny's position is you can pull the plug when there is no brain activity. Trent disagrees. But by refusing to answer the plan B question he exposes his position as arbitrary as he isn't adhering to "life at conception". And it's fine to have a position that doesn't protect a zygote but by doing so Trent is fundamentally adopting the same position as Destiny, he is just choosing a different cut off. Trent knew this hence his avoidance at answering.

[@draszi]

As someone who regularly watches and am usually in agreement with your takes, I think booksmarts is at least somewhat right about your incessance on intuition pumping making you look a little scared to actually engage. Personally, I know what you were trying to do but I believe this will turn off a lot of people and I'm not sure it's the best rhetorical strategy

[@ggrogan]

I have one of those hypotheticals that would make him look silly, imagine if a scientist dropped a several petri dishes on the ground that happened to have several zygotes, and other simple multi-cell human organisms in it, should someone face manslaughter charges for all of the potential they’ve ruined?

[@slamdunker77]

For me, if it was at the 20-24 weeks where neural signals can be detected or consciousness then I would say yes. It’s up to a judge to assign how many years he’ll serve if at all tho.

[@viktorceder4985]

@@slamdunker77he Said zygotes, not 20-24 week fetuses.

[@Diego-de6dq]

YES! Hopefully destiny does actually change his approach to debates, because it's been infuriating how everyone he debates moralize everything into making him look bad optically and destiny just biting bullets left and right. At the end of the day a purely logical and sound argyment is not enough to "win" these debates.

[@NicholasW943]

It's super frustrating. Destiny is very stubborn when it comes to arguing. He thinks that, no matter what, every argument should be about getting to the truth of the topic, but that only ever works if both sides hold that stance. Grandstanders don't care and argue to convert the audience, not seek truth. Destiny desperately needs to know when to drop that and fight on optics more.

[@cephas5053]

@@NicholasW943so you want Destiny to lie or to be disingenuous in order to win. You guys are weird. The reason why Destiny keeps losing lately is because he’s not as wise as he think he is and consistently underestimating his opponents ESPECIALLY with Christians like with Ruslan Lilly and Trent. Destiny is the king of moving the Goal post and confusing people in order to deceitfully win debates.

[@NicholasW943]

@@cephas5053 Lying and being disingenuous isn't the same as arguing to convert an audience. If you knew for certain your position is correct, why would you ever bother arguing it for any reason other than converting people to your side? That's what these religious anti-abortionists think. They aren't lying or being disingenuous, they're arguing from a position they have faith is the correct one. Destiny needs to recognize when that's happening and switch how he debates. Debating someone with the "I want to get to the bottom of things" attitude doesn't work with a "I know I'm right and nothing can convince me otherwise" attitude. There's nothing wrong with arguing with the goal of converting your audience. You should almost always keep the audience in mind when speaking publicly. Destiny does worse in these debates not because he's not doing enough research. I've seen people do pro-abortion arguments that know less than him that do better. He does worse because he's way too into the belief that everyone he talks to is trying to find truth like him. Pro-abortionists aren't interested in trying to find the truth. They already have their truth that is backed up by faith, so they have no incentive to engage in the way he expects.

[@enrique2185]

Agreed, Destiny had much better arguments and still got cooked

[@rodiculous9464]

If he cared about optics his whole life wouldn't be a big irl caricature of how conservatives imagine average liberals to be

[@uh-ohspaghettio7826]

I didn't watch the full debate. When Destiny's standard reached a point of condoning the idea that human life can be damaged to prevent consciousness to allow the body to be used as a s*x puppet for p*edophiles, the conversation was over for me and my switch from pro-choice to pro-life years ago was further cemented to the point I don't think I'll ever budge now. It kind of reminds me of that point in I Robot, when Del is talking to Susan about why he hates robots and what separates humans from robots where Del and a little girl were in a car crash where both cars landed in the ocean, and a robot came to save them, but with it's cold-logic it deduced that Del had a superior percentage chance for survival, so despite Del's pleas for the robot to save the little girl it saves him instead and the little girl dies. Susan tells him the robot probably deduced Del's survivability was at a higher percentage and Del retorts by saying that she's right, the little girl's 11% chance was far lower than his 45% chance of survival, but that 11% was enough, and that a human being would have known that. The point being that by running solely on cold-logic, there is no display of humanity, and I'm just not willing to let cold-logic destroy my humanity. It's kind of funny. Destiny argued his side better than most could, and his good arguments for pro-choice is what cements me to pro-life more than any bad pro-choice argument could.

[@Peregrine86]

It’s interesting because my humanity tells me that most people would prefer not to torture their mother and risk her life for their own against her will especially when they would not know or care they had been alive anyway. I wouldn’t force a raped 13 year old to suffer for my life or an 18 year old who made a dumb mistake, why would I assume the foetus would if it was capable of making the decision? I value my life because it was a gift my mother gave me willingly, she sacrificed herself. To force that sacrifice is grim. I think you can believe a foetus is a person or not and still realise making abortion illegal is inhumane.

[@kopekopekop]

Trent brought up how good the Peter singer argument is so often I’m starting to think he’s secretly a fan

[@kingmarlin5043]

If you read the Singer argument, it's basically Destiny's argument brought out to it's logical conclusion.

[@Carlos-iu6yk]

Im a fan of singer because he is honest about where his positions lead. I can appreciate that and also disagree with just about all of his positions. I recommend “peter singer and christian ethics”

[@kopekopekop]

@@kingmarlin5043 I just disagree, and while destiny and singer are both probably smarter than me and have definitely thought more about these concepts than me I think there’s large distinctions in their positions. I am lazy and haven’t read up on singer yet, but it was brought up that in his position, rationality is part of when consciousness is valuable, which infants don’t get until sometime after birth. But in my mind there’s a large distinction between a persons cognitive ability and their “consciousness/awareness” that we actually care about. There are almost certainly some animals smarter than a small minority of humans, but those impaired humans still appear to have a vastly different experience than those smart animals, an experience that is still fundamentally different from any animal and rises to the sophistication it is something to be valued. Where the cognitive capabilities comes in would be in expressing the consciousness a person may or may not be having. In my mind singer appears to draw the line with when consciousness is physically displayed, which requires some amount of experience. While destiny draws the line at 20-24 weeks because at that point the brain has an identical structure to an adult and the parts of the brain begin communicating, so while uncertain, until shown otherwise we assume it behaves similarly to how ours does. But of course I’m sure I butchered and oversimplified singer and am not even sure if that’s fully destiny’s position but I think there are clear differences

[@siggi4426]

Debate coach Bookfkr is more of an optics coach

[@socraytes]

Debates, especially in the political realm, are often more about optics.

[@DerUnbekannte]

since when is he either? didn't he just write college essays for people before chatgpt could do his job

[@JakeTylenol]

Yeah optics are important in a debate

[@Billionsmustreflect]

What he specializes in is deep, sentence by sentence analysys, checking the logical structure of an given argument, with some rhetorical evaluation. There's no real academical/well educated insight in the study of rhetoric as many people believe. He's just a smart dude who's good at writing and language who can sit for 4 hours analyzing a 1 hour debate, so it's still very impressive.

[@GBeegobeekobado97]

Destiny coping on taking L’s

[@cainification]

12:00 to be fair you did state this and I think his response was, "well what is the point of having this conversation then"

[@pinbraid]

My human intuition tells me Destiny is a girls name.

[@limitedhangoutlive]

I'm not really agreeing with this "I absolutely crushed it" take tbh.

[@Curt-]

No! He was bad faith, retarded, only there to farm tik tok clips and destiny won easily. Am I missing anything?

[@Valdrex]

Destiny gave decisive answers to all of Trent's hypotheticals and Trent wouldn't answer Destiny's. Maybe it wasn't a blowout but Trent definitely didn't look strong.

[@pumpkineater629]

The fact that he's doing so much coping about it afterwards is evidence of that.

[@usucdik]

@@pumpkineater629 the fact that you have to call it coping when you know the other guy just had weak points at pretty much every turn kinda calls into question who is coping

[@phelimkennedy6653]

As a pro-life Catholic I agree with some of your frustrations. I think there can be more nuance than you allow when answering hypotheticals, but it is not always clear when someone is being obtuse/avoiding and when they are putting forward a qualified statement. I believe Trent thought he was giving qualified responses to your hypotheticals, and I would agree for some and not others. You gave unnuanced responses to his hypotheticals, which makes your position clearer but optically more prone to people rejecting it as intuitively incorrect. I think Trent rattling off hypotheticals has been misunderstood by a number of viewers and as far as I can tell, Destiny. I think Trent knew what the response would be and his approach to the debate was that he knew Destiny had a consistent position (though not the only possible consistent position) so rather than prove it incorrect, was meaning to show that it didn't align with the position of the viewers. Ie he was not trying to change destiny's mind, but to show the viewer that they should disagree with destiny, even if they also disagree with him. I think the main nuances that were missed are related to degrees of culpability, and whether all immoral things should be illegal. It is a shame that Trent was unwilling to engage on slightly tangential topics related to morality (in particular his Catholic morality) because of course that would have demonstrated that his position is consistent when factored into the topic, but I can see why he avoided it within the context of the debate. I see this as similar to how destiny doesn't engage the topic of veganism when debating abortion. Regarding Destiny's questions, and I will emphasize that I am only representing myself here and will try to use the word organism as that is what Destiny seems happiest with to avoid intuition pumping: 1. No. I would approach this from two angles, firstly obligation and then growth. We are not morally obligated to merely sustain a life until its end. If someone is hooked up to a machine and would die if it were turned off, it is acceptable to make the decision to turn the machine off (I would prefer this decision to be made by loved ones from an emotional perspective). Secondly, there is a difference between if giving the nutrients for this organism would merely sustain it or if it would allow it to continue to grow and be healthy. If it were to grow into a healthy baby given the correct environment we aught to try to provide that, be that possible in the petri dish or if it required a womb. We couldn't force a woman to have the organism implanted in her, so we would require a volunteer and if not the organism would sadly not survive. I am assuming here that the organism was removed from the mother for a sufficient reason eg threat to life or issue with the development of the organism, which would mean she is not able to provide her womb. If not, the permanent removal from the mothers womb would effectively amount to leaving the organism to starve and would have been wrong in the first place. 2. No. To me it is important that the pro-life position be compassionate to people who make the decision to have an abortion. For many of the women I appreciate that their circumstances may be awful, and that there will be a lot of suffering ahead as a consequence of becoming pregnant. This should not be minimized (I think that to describe it as a mere inconvenience like the woman in the other debate is heartless). When in such positions people need to be supported and get the help they need. I would compare this to how we would approach an individual having a psychotic episode, we would avoid criminally charging them as they may not be fully culpable. It would however be right to criminalize the providing of abortions and charge those which perform such abortions. 3. Yes. The nuance here might be surrounding what one means by suicide. I actually think Trent did a good job here. It would be attempted suicide to do an action with the express intent of killing oneself. I would always be against this. In the discussed case of 6-12 months to live, it may be acceptable to refuse medication which would prolong your life, which may lead to a shorter period, but not to apply something which leads to your death. 4. No. I am surprised that Destiny finds this case so compelling as it seems to be the weakest of these arguments. Women who miscarry do not kill the organism. The organism which has died, whether that be due to lack of nutrients, failing to implant, genetic defects etc has not been murdered or criminal neglect, in the same way that a parent of a child which dies of cancer should not be investigated. It may be the case that there are isolated instances where a woman has gone to extraordinary means to do things which have clearly led to an intentional miscarriage, but even then I would not say there is a legal requirement to investigate all such instances because I think such a policy would lead to more harm than good. 5. Yes. At first I was thinking no as I was likening it to the individual on a machine in point 1 but if the person is on a feeding tube their body is still alive and sustaining itself (so long as it has the nutrients it requires) whereas the individual on the machine has lost their bodily unity. 6. No. The zygote is closer to an adult because it is of the same kind ie human being. I will admit it looks more like a sperm and egg, but what a zygote does is completely different. The behaviour of a zygote is absolutely foreign to an egg cell or a sperm cell. To grow, to duplicate cells, to be a body (ie to be a multi-celled organism with unity), to take human form and grow human body parts. Sure it doesn't have a consciousness yet to experience humanhood but I don't think what something is isn't merely defined by what it experiences As a concluding thought, I would argue against what a lot of Trents (and my) side seems to argue about objective vs subjective morality in that they argue that if morality is subjective there is no reason to try to convince other people of what you think is right. I would say that this doesn't follow. Art or fashion are subjective, but it is perfectly applicable to argue that some art is better than others, even saying that one thing may be "objectively" better using a certain set of subjective criteria. Admitting that literature is subjective doesn't mean that I can't try to convince someone that the works of Tolkien are better than your average modern fantasy novel.

[@natephill7041]

The "Turning the book back around on him" wasn't the own destiny thought it was.

[@TechnMagician]

I thought you were losing at some points. Why give the optical win for doing "anything" to those under 20 weeks, when you could say there are other reasons to ban some of those that aren't because they are a person?

[@fifiadan]

Because that would contradict his values. He believes you only make something illegal when it harms another person it’s why he supports beastiality

[@hatertime]

Destiny's new position on debates is to poison the Well immediately and then attack the motivations of his interlocutor. Brilliant.

[@josephmother2659]

Typical woman behavior 🤦‍♀️

[@AltAlt-d3g]

Based

[@sanjicook08]

It's gonna bite him in the ass at some point t

[@AltAlt-d3g]

@@sanjicook08 kinky

[@gokiesbx857]

Well you kinda have to when your opponent is being inconsistent when answering hypotheticals and Destiny “poisoning the well” would at least put them on fair ground to where the guy isn’t bullshitting the whole time for optics

[@Andwhatson420]

In order to change minds the best way is to change the usages of words. That’s why destiny points it out each time

[@smexyapman]

He answered your questions. You really seem like this debate got to you.

[@kyler9323]

So Destiny on one hand says he goes with 20 weeks even though the ranges are 20-24 and 24-28, supposedly on some cautionary principle since it is the right to life we are talking about. But then on the other hand he says that Trent's arguments just push him towards infanticide. I think these are somewhat contradictory dispositions. If one is cautious on these questions and is shown to hold an inconsistent position, should that caution push him towards the pro-life position? If not, why pick the early end of the consciousness range to begin with?

[@Nightknight1992]

i would like to congratulate destiny on his promotion from steven bonnell II to steven bonnell first

[@Kamfrenchie]

So, one question i have, in regards to the stealing from the 20 years old, this is clear enough, but how does that work if you hurt the embryo/fetus before the 20 weeks mark, and that results in handicap/ damage to the baby that is born later down the line ? Have you hurt the person, or just hurt the potential ?

[@kronosDking]

Trent definitely won in my estimation. He did answer Destiny's questions without exception, he just didn't give simple 'yes/no' answers because the question called for a more nuanced answer.

[@slamdunker77]

Yea I hate that hypotheticals are supposed to somehow be black and white but nuance is still available.

[@vvieites001]

No he didn’t. He avoided destiny’s hypotheticals like the plague because they were “unrealistic”…that’s when you know someone can’t engage with your arguments or is afraid of where they lead.

[@kronosDking]

@@vvieites001 He said they were unrealistic but he still answered each and every one.

[@nikolaskoutroulakis571]

He didn’t give simple yes nos or any answers at all. At one point he straight up refused to answer the question. You can give a yes/no and then go into the nuance after. He didn’t do that. He danced around the questions and sometimes avoided answering them entirely. Can you tell me for example what the nuanced answer was supposed to be here: When Destiny asked him if you have the same obligation to take care of a 5 cell fetus as opposed to a 3 year old kid. By my recollection he started going over irrelevant differences in their analogies, like how close we are to have the technology in his thought experiment than in Destiny’s. Destiny brings up another one. He never answered him on whether he would prevent someone from committing suicide

[@nikolaskoutroulakis571]

@@kronosDking We literally have a clip in this video of a question he failed to answer lol wdym

[@titus4434]

Destiny, would you mandate a criminal investigation for all miscarriages after 20 weeks? Brutal question

[@VGMoose]

Just concede ground on dogs and accept that killing them is likely wrong. If that makes you a hypocrite on other animals, then that's what it is.

[@bookishbrendan8875]

You value capacity for experience. *the body* is a necessary precondition for such a capacity and, because of this, human identity ought to be seen as composite, not mind-reducible. Ethics flows from this: what is *good* for us is what is conducive to the flourishing of *both* the mind and the body. Given that the body is a necessary precondition for mind to manifest, it follows that *the body is good for the mind* ->so if you are going to value one aspect of our identity (the mind), then you ought to value the conditions necessary for mind to manifest (the body). To deliberately harm or destroy the body then, even prior to the manifestation of mind, ought to be understood as wrongdoing *in light of valuing the body as necessary for mind* What is good for us is only ever understood as such in light of our nature. It is natural for us to have bodies. Therefore, having a body is good. It is natural for us to develop the way we do in utero, and natural for mind to develop slowly across such stages. Therefore, it is bad to kill us in utero, even if we don’t yet have minds.

[@malikshabazz2065]

great stuff!

[@thelimewoodwingmen9669]

Pls start the podcast. Can’t wait for it

[@BlueDirt_ProAggressive]

If its bad faith for other guy to use "baby", bc ppl will know what he means... WILL ACTUALLY turn around and call Destiny a baby killeer. Screw hoping ppl will know better, nope. Make it clear frommthe jump. Same issue happened with that ols redpiller teacher on F&F. He said he agreed but Stevy knew he would flip when he was alone on his own channel.

[@Jobe-13]

Post-debate debate.

[@factsnotfeelings9726]

It is very interesting that this blue haired guy is more interested in winning a debate for his own personal satisfaction than winning over the person he is debating and helping others in general. While the other guy was not only trying to win this blue haired guy over, but help him and others listening in the process. That is a big take away from this debate. Also, if I'm going to take you serious at all, it is probably best not to sit there as a grown man with blue hair and a graphic T-shirt. Just for future reference.

[@TaylorJones-oj4qr]

Great debation

[@AndrewNajash]

If anyone’s curious to hear more, Trent has just been on the pints with Aquinas KZbin channel to talk about this debate

[@TimPortantno]

"Wouldn't do very much good at that stage" gives up the game. He has a complete definition in mind that differentiates a baby and a fetus, he's just not saying it because it would concede Destiny is at least partially right.

[@angelmartin7310]

I'm prolife but recognize there is no way to argue it with an atheist who rejects the concept of the soul.

[@DMLoosey]

​@angelmartin7310 You can't substantiate with empirical evidence if a soul exists. It's feels vs fact and is less than worthless argumentation.

[@angelmartin7310]

@@DMLoosey I know, that's why it's futile

[@dugannash9109]

I've had this thought, and ppl can let met know if it's dumb. Let's say we take the existence of a soul and a christian god for granted - killing an unborn child prevents them from sinning or succumbing to temptation - meaning they'd be untainted souls that should have no problem getting through the pearly gates. If it is the case that all unborn children go to heaven, wouldn't we all be better off never having been born and never sullying our souls with the human experience and all the temptation that goes along with it?

[@TimPortantno]

@@dugannash9109 This is called "the ensoulment argument". In Abrahamic religions, god explicitly prescribes when someone gains a soul, and it is not at conception... Destiny should combine this argument with his "consciousness" argument to actually convert some religious people to pro-choice.

[@joshh5353]

lol destiny admits his response to the whole argument of fetuses having less sentience than animals was weak 😂 of course

[@poffpoff1]

Instead of starting the conversation with "you are bought in and bad faith.", why not try the thing you do when researching? "At the start of this debate I would like us to try to acknowledge our biases. I'm fairly arrogant and it would be difficult for my ego if you proved me wrong with your arguments in front of my big audience." while he would have to mention his Catholicism (or Destiny will. *read as threat*). This I think would be a good faith way to do the same amd let the other one retain agency if they so chose!

[@AimingAtYou]

When I watched it I felt that Destiny was doing great when asking questions, but not that well when answering them .Yes, he was correct, but from an optics perspective it didn't feel that well executed for Destiny as he seems to think. I felt that he needed to do a better job at defining a Baby. NO ONE ON THIS EARTH is for killing babies, so the question is "simply" about when it becomes a baby (fetus or whatever). He got into it with the 64 cell thing, but from a different angle, and a bit to late into the debate imo.

[@capo4ever334]

The answer is it will always be a baby. It’s only purpose is to grow and continue its natural course which is a developed human. Yes miscarriages happen and yes not every human develops appropriately but there is a reason that the majority are “normal” and healthy and of adequate iq etc. if you leave the pregnancy alone 9.9/10 the fetus will be like you and I which is depressed watching destiny videos while slave waging

[@ihaveachihuahau]

Cause that's a lazy argument that nobody buys. Everyone knows it's a human baby. You trying to change the definition of a word to win an argument isn't convincing people. It's just a cope.

[@vvieites001]

Well destiny would say it’s a baby at 20 weeks

[@vvieites001]

@@ihaveachihuahaueveryone doesn’t “know” or believe it’s a baby. Destiny would say 20 weeks, others say when it’s born, breathing, and detached from the mother. Be serious. A one celled zygote isn’t a baby in anyone’s eyes

[@vvieites001]

@@capo4ever334if you leave a pregnancy alone, there’s no guarantee it will not be miscarried. Especially if the pregnant person starves or doesn’t get the proper nutrition. And if you remove the zygote/embryo/fetus and “leave it alone” it definitely won’t develop into anything. Be serious.

[@kayekaye6111]

His answer with your hypothetical was just that we wouldn’t know what to do in that moment, which I think is valid. With his hypotheticals for you, he was just trying to assess your consistency in your view that there is not objective standard of morality.

[@spiritofhonuguidanceforlife]

The problem is that people come into the abortion debate as if there is a right or wrong answer, and they are right and the other person is wrong. One side argues for humanity, the other against it. And honestly, men arguing over abortion will always be a bit of a problem because they are not the one that makes the final decision, not the one that has to deal with the mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual ramifications on such a personal level. A 20 week old fetus to a woman who decided she doesn't want to be pregnant. A 20 week old baby to the woman who spent years trying to conceive. The issue wasn't the fetus/baby, but whether the woman WANTS it or not.

[@Akustik]

A better analogy than stealing $10,000 would have been the guy who bought 2 pizzas with I don't know how much Bitcoin, that's now worth millions. He probably feels like he lost a child back then even though he bought the pizzas at fair value at the time.

[@CisternRumblings]

"Debate coach" lol okay

[@Teutonicredneck]

"You'll never listen to me because you're brainwashed, its not because I didn't convince you" is cope. I'm pro-choice and you did well in the debate but this seems kinda whiney. You can pull the religion card when they only respond with slogans, but Trent Horne is a former deist he's not just regurgitating stuff he's been fed. Being a member of a religion you left doesn't disqualify someone from being a rational person just because you didn't like it.

[@usucdik]

Nah, trying to reframe a fundie is weak stuff. Every position he has is gonna be based off some arbitrary religious morals and he will never really move from his position, he will only come up with more niche arguments for it. Even despite the degrees the guy had, he still didn't come across as all that scholarly and I never would have guessed he had any sort of formal education like that.

[@Teutonicredneck]

@@usucdik are the fundies in the room with us right now?

[@0_oblivion_02]

​@@TeutonicredneckWell, aren't you one?

[@lacobunis971]

​@@usucdik ridiculous you just proved the point of the post, not everyone has hivemind think, you can not like the guy, but you can't read his mind, your arguments for his bad faith are ironically bad faith and opinionated, over generalized garbage, that's just my opinion though... Btw by your own logic I'm justified because you're a Destiny supporter. Destiny is an ex catholic atheist thus corrupted by the sin of baptism as a baby and religious institutions, he could never come up with secular arguments after that level of ideological corruption could he ?

[@rodiculous9464]

​@@lacobunis971it's a false equivalence because very few people abandon religion to become athiest and become pro life. Because there are very few logical arguments an atheist would find to support "pro life". Also the OP trying to play the deist card is a laughable example of lack of self awareness and general fart huffing. It's a distinction without a difference and the type of "bad faith in a pretty wrapper" debate style of trent personifies that to a T.

[@jamesmair2226]

Criminal investigation question was the best one yet

[@mattedison492]

I think the convo with Matt Dilahunty was still the best "debate" destiny has had in a long time

[@irti_pk]

Matt's bodily autonomy argument is probably the best I've heard. Destiny's consciousness is more convincing than most pro-life positions, but I feel like there are holes in his reasoning. The biggest hurdle he has to face is the apparent arbitrariness of consciousness of a fetus being "human" in nature. It'd probably be easier if he bit the vegan bullet, lol.

[@TheLumberjack1987]

@@irti_pk the good thing is for practical reasons it doesn't have to be either or, you can defend pro choice by using both bodily autonomy and consciousnes arguments combined. They are not mutually exclusive, so you can say "I'm pro choice because up to 20 weeks there's no consciousness worth protecting AND I also think that adults decide what they can or can't do with their body as long as they don't hurt another person".

[@irti_pk]

@@TheLumberjack1987 well that's true. But if you're bought into bodily autonomy then the consciousness thing is a moot point because you'd argue for abortion up until delivery basically. You're not concerned with the thing even if it has the same rights as a baby which is his argument.

[@TheLumberjack1987]

@@irti_pk yeah that's why I'd not solely build my argument on the bodily autonomy perspective, because I think once the conscious experience of the fetus starts the mother kinda sorta has lost the advantage for her bodily autonomy argument. Assuming she had a few days before the deadline to make a decision, she would've knowingly let the time pass without making the decision and indirectly accepted that a person will be 100% reliant on her providing resources until they are ready for birth. Aka she gave her consent by not aborting. Bodily autonomy is the moral core of the argument, the start of consciousness simply provides the threshold for when the bodily autonomy argument does not apply anymore, that's at least how I see it from a purely pragmatical standpoint.

[@irti_pk]

@@TheLumberjack1987 that's fair. The way I might frame your position is "bodily autonomy takes precedence over an entity that has less moral worth than a living person. After 20 weeks it receives the same basics rights as all humans when the conscious experience begins and cannot be allowed to die / killed ".

[@evangilchrist981]

There is a definition of morality that I thought would really help in this topic. I believe it was Sam Harris who I heard define morality being driven by the reduction of suffering. In the abortion debate this would reinforce Destiny's positions.

[@russianbot2630]

The problem is destiny can’t use can’t use that line of argumentation because he concedes to moral relativism. Once you do that, making an absolute claim like “reduction of suffering” becomes impossible. Absolute claims and relative ones are contradictory.

[@personalpagespodcast]

I respect both sides and I believe people should still have the choice. I don’t think anyone is wrong for feeling how they feel about their decisions. When are we gonna stop requiring others to live the way we think they “ought to” in a supposedly free country? Sigh.

[@K1NGstreet84]

The crux to all of this is: destiny's position breaks the one universal rule that governs all our laws. Would you be acceptable to having this done to you under these circumstances? It's the ,ost selfish law on the books. Most consider both stances equally. Abortion does not.

[@DS127]

I think he would say it would be acceptable to have it done to him if the details he considers relevant were the same.

[@prohealer3398]

Republicans be like "There's no cost too great to preserve human life!" Great so what funding are you voting for to allow for that? "..."

[@nottiredofwinning3736]

Every time we give the government our money, they waste it on either corruption or incompetence. Have you ever noticed that every hospital is named after a Catholic saint? Ever wonder why? You don't know how the world works, and you've been conned by politicians into thinking they have all the answers if we just give them more money. You are not in a position to make judgements about who does and doesn't value life.

[@ForeverMasterless]

Honestly I think you both did really well during that debate. Trent was the best prolife debater Destiny has faced so far. I still don't think the arguments are good, but he defended those bad arguments about as well as one can, and he defended them REALLY well optically. I think Trent did REALLY well during the first 40-ish minutes and Destiny was on the ropes. Then destiny asked if we should keep the 64 cell organism alive and he kinda starting backsliding and taking L after L. One of the best debates we've had recently, imo. I'd actually love to see Destiny debate him on other topics.

[@FuddlyDud]

Wait, what bad arguments did Trent have? I see quite a few people claim they are bad but rarely do I see specifics. For the 64 cell human point, the 1st issue is that these human beings typically perish within a few days, so Destiny’s hypo is more akin to how we care for dying patients. Of course his hypo doesn’t have to reflect how reality functions, but then what point is it getting at other than how Trent’s position doesn’t work for a non-reality? :/

[@Matthew-ij3zm]

​@@FuddlyDud The arguments are "bad" because the person saying it's bad didn't change their broken minds, that's it. This dude's comment demonstrates it perfectly. He can see that Trent did incredible but at the same time the arguments were "bad".

[@rodiculous9464]

​@@Matthew-ij3zmnE 1 hOo duSugReez haz brANe bRok3 duuuuU

[@tristenatorplaysgames6833]

@@FuddlyDudthe fact that his premiss was based on two rough points to consider. One the fact that if abortion is murder by that fact most miscarriages need to be investigated as if someone died. That means during a traumatic experience like a miscarriage we are shipping a girl to a hospital to be evaluated on multiple tests to prove if she’s a murderer. This also has a second affect that if someone is worried they got pregnant they’d be stuck waiting in the hospital till they were proven to be safe for weeks to make sure they aren’t pregnant since not doing so means they neglected their “child” since he referred to them as loving breathing people. The second issue is what it means for when does a life start. Since he argued at conception due to it the fact that it’s just a few stages away from being a fetus. The fact that his point is based around the idea that you can’t kill the baby because it is almost born means that a women who has a period is preventing the creation of life she drops her eggs once a month. Also that contraction is wrong since it’s just almost there stage wise and people are preventing a life forming by killing it before it’s even had a chance such a condom, spermicide any birth control by his logic of progressive stages of birth can flipped hard against him since life starting isn’t a good example.

[@TheStatisticalPizza]

@@tristenatorplaysgames6833You're extrapolating things that don't have to logically follow - it's like if I said murder is bad and your response was "well logically you must also be against killing animals!" You can say abortion should be prohibited without suggesting we interrogate and criminally charge women who miscarry, there's no contradiction there, all he's saying is you have a moral obligation NOT to intentionally kill a fetus when you know you're pregnant and the medical system shouldn't be legally allowed to assist you in doing so. The argument for why condoms aren't equal to abortion was summed up fairly well in the video - once a sperm fertilizes an egg something new is created that didn't exist before. You can say it's arbitrary but it's no more arbitrary than Destiny's weird line that a being has to experience an undefineable level of consciousness before it's officially a human, it's just a line drawn on when you consider something a valuable life.

[@kingrainbow5432]

Why was Bookfckr let back into the orbit after his backstab?

[@GeninGeo]

Idk why people run from the brain activity has ceased argument. we know that death is when brain activity has ceased but that doesnt mean that we cant make an exception for for life that we expect will have brain activity in the future. The most fundamental rule of science is that you create the rules and if something doesnt fit in the rules you create extra rules.

[@pretzelogic2689]

I think it's 16 or 32 cells of an embryo before anyone can tell what is the "human" and what is the placenta.

[@percontatio9172]

Pretty good debate, I feel maybe the only miss was conceding that saving a 64 cell foetus is a far-out hypothetical. We have all kinds of living tissues surviving outside of organisms when good environment and nutrition are supplied. It's probably not too far of a reach to implant it in a surrogate mother, but no one has done it because no one wants to or needs to, because the idea that a 64 cell thing needs to be rescued is a very fringe idea. They want it to naturally miscarry or continue development, either is fine so long as it's not intentional abortion.

[@MuscleboundKage]

Debate coach? That's just bookfxcker. 🐍

[@bennymountain1]

Wait, comet Booksmarts is back in the orbit?

[@goodolarchie]

Steven, these debates garner quite a few views, you must make decent enough money to hire a part time person with a pedigree in CX debate to watch your videos and take some cliff notes for important take aways / follow-ups / give some feedback? It sounds like you neither have the time, and it's hard to read the nutrition facts from inside the container. Something to consider.

[@NotThePoint-r7n]

Why the bloody music at the end of videos these days?

[@UnseenOct]

I wished they pushed them more on why they're not ok treating abortions as murders. They seem so scared to say women should be charged the same as if they killed a newborn despite that being their core belief. I have to assume it's because they know most people don't believe it's murder even if they think it's a crime, which puts fetal personhood into question.

[@riffeteddybear7573]

It's because there are different types of murder. Poisoning someone you think is a burden is much different than brutally beating someone to death for fun. Both are murder but the type of person who does each action are differing levels of disturbed.

[@UnseenOct]

@riffeteddybear7573 but they're both murders. You're doing the same cop out prolifers do when they're essentially arguing for aggravating circumstances, which really don't factor in until sentencing. In most US states, the degree of premeditation and intent are all that's considered in charging. Anyone who intentionally terminates a pregnancy is engaging in 1st degree murder, period. Maybe you could say 2nd degree if they throw themselves down stairs in a fit of emotion or something. If they have circumstances that make you feel bad for them, then the judge can consider that at sentencing.

[@riffeteddybear7573]

@@UnseenOct I already agreed they are both murder. I'm saying that yes both is murder. I just added the nuance that those circumstances have importance. I'm not well read on legal stuff, so I'm not arguing what should be the law. I'm only pointing out my morals as a pro life person. It's not a cop out to say that two things are the category bad/immoral buy aren't the exact same things.

[@UnseenOct]

@riffeteddybear7573 I mean, just own the fact you think people should do 25 to life for an aborting a fetus at any stage, that's all I'm saying.

[@tristenatorplaysgames6833]

The one point was where the Christian guy was saying do you think a woman is delusional for being sad a miscarriage. I think the proper response would’ve been do you think she woulda been sadder if she had a 5 year old or the miscarriage.

[@RogueMunkyNinja]

Yea I think the biggest Dilemma with the consciousness argument is what sets human consciousness apart from other animal consciousness. If human consciousness at 20 weeks is worth saving, than I would argue any animals that possess similar consciousness as a 20 week fetus and onward equally immoral of killing. Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm very willing to be challenged on this. Edit: consciousness

[@riffeteddybear7573]

Destiny needs to stop making the argument "you're religious so you'll never change your mind". It's not fair when he used to be "religious" as well and eventually changed his mind. Also, even if what he says is true(Trent will never agree w abortion if a reasonable argument is presented) it doesn't prove he is wrong about his position. Also there are tons of religious pro choice people and there are pro life atheist. These are just really poor points not grounded in logic..

[@natephill7041]

Destiny is over confident.

[@peterranney9488]

I think the reason that religious pro-lifers struggle so much with Destiny's argument on abortion is because he is using essentially an identical teleological argument as them, but he has a different point of value. If you replace (Human Conscious Experience) with (God imbues the body with a divine spark) then it lines up exactly. The reason it is so frustrating is that the arguments from there are unprovable and unfalsifiable, but the pro life side cannot point that out because that is the bread and butter. The weak spot of this is the Moral Antirealist stuff because the opposite side can turn around and claim some moral authority, which is why it is so important to get that part of the discussion on record every time. I need to go touch grass.

[@manny4012]

That’s actually a good summary. The fundamental difference is also in whether one believes morality is objective or not. Destiny’s position is the latter. I think this was shown perfectly with his conversation with Alex O’Connor. I do think that’s fundamentally the difference and a weakness in destiny’s position. He cannot say the holocaust was objectively immoral. However I will give him props for being consistent even though I believe he is mistaken. To be honest, that would have been a really interesting conversation. If you can tackle that fundamental question first then the abortion debate could follow because otherwise like you said, destiny’s position often is unfalsifiable. That’s why it seemed like it didn’t go no where even though it was an interesting exchange.

[@BaresarkSlayne]

Honestly, the two cells or the fertilized egg thing isn't the gotcha that people always make it out to be. Almost everyone has degrees in which they find the opposite position acceptable. When push comes to shove, there is a hierarchy of importance when it comes to who gets "saved". When it comes to only being a few cells, you won't really find a conservative that considers this "life" in the sense that we all acknowledge the life of a person to be, though they likely will still argue that abortion shouldn't be used as contraception. But if you wanted to actually debate and try to solve an issue, you should be finding a middle ground where both parties agree, not trying to get gotcha after gotcha moments by reducing their argument to micrometers in size. I actually think this middle ground is easy to find for the average person, not the ideologues that won't move, who exist at the fringes. That is the tiny percentage of "no abortion no matter what", and the tiny percentage of "abortion up to the point of birth". People who make these arguments should equally be excised from society, they don't argue from a point of reasonableness.

[@quidfit8436]

I watched this debate as a fan of Destiny and I think the pro life guy did a better job. The impression I took away is that Destiny's abortion position is based around answering the question "what physical attribute do people have that fetuses don't that make me feel bad when they die?". What makes me not like this is because the core of destiny's belief seems to be this is why you shouldn't' feel bad rather than this is what it means to be human. I almost feel like you could take all of Destiny arguments and apply them to any stage you want, like rather than consciousness it could be once it has a declarable anatomy, or the neural tube closes, or memory, a lot of different stages all of the same arguments could apply Destiny has just picked the one that feels the most convenient. My belief is that it probably is in everyone best interest to acknowledge that there are truths on both sides and as a society we probably shouldn't legislate abortions to be illegal nor should we allow them in the fourth trimester and we should continue to have this conversation and simply pick whatever the average of peoples opinion falls and be happy with this solution. I know this sounds might sound weak or maybe like a non argument but I feel strongly about this and I'll explain why: Abortion debates seem so focused around winning that people are willing to make compromises that I don't think they would normally make. No one on the right believes that if someone has an abortion they are a murderer, murderers are ostracized from society people who have abortions are not. People on the left have slowly been swallowing any value they feel about the potential of a child. For example Destiny believes there would be nothing to feel bad about if someone had abortions regularly to build a collection of fetuses so long as none of them had the capability of deploying human consciousness, this isn't an easy conclusion to get to but Destiny has to feel good about it because if he doesn't then he looses the whole argument. I think everyone believes that both children and mothers should be cherished and that in an ideal world society would work together to support them. An ideal society would take on extra burdens to support pregnant women so that they can have children without sacrificing their dreams and not negatively stigmatize them. Ideally children in the foster system would have the same opportunities and feel just as valuable as children with biological families. However we don't live in an ideal society and rather than trying to work together to build one we are sacrificing our political freedom and drawing battle-lines with potential allies.

[@DS127]

Why would someone *value* "the neural tube closing" as much as structures directly related to the possibility of having a subjective experience? I would guess Destiny might be concerned about the mental stability of someone with a fetus-collecting hobby. Fertilization, implantation, viability, and birth also seem like they have underlying arguments for, at the very least, being more cautious afterwards. Hmm, (typing my thoughts), I forget why I thought it seemed like "implantation" might have an underlying argument. Maybe part of it went "... and the embryo is now physically dependent on the body of the pregnant person in a fundamentally different way, therefore...".

[@pumpkineater629]

This was not a slam dunk, Destiny was on the ropes during parts of this debate and won't admit it. Some of his positions have poor optics and should be changed. He shouldn't double down when he's wrong on things. Destiny lost this debate. This is just the next level to work towards is all, no big deal.

[@usucdik]

The only perception of being "on the ropes" is when the guy tried to squash him into a tiny box and Destiny had to keep saying the box is just way too small and doesn't fit his side at all. The guy almost seems like he thinks he can get away with it because he sees the other side as taking the role of the edgy nihilist who has no morals, so of course his grandstanding on virtues is seemingly a winning performance despite lacking in facts.

[@off6848]

@@usucdikque pro bestiality take. Is it really slander to call him an edgy nihilist or are you just coping?

[@Tristanlj-555]

He talks about brain transplants as if it wouldn’t be a body transplant. Especially when we talk about children who have severe encephalitis to the point where they’re not conscious - because the transplant would essentially eject consciousness into them, but it’s not their consciousness.

[@AER3iS]

Don't do the lawyer thing the arguments need better understanding. Once you get past lines for all choices, your abortion debate works. When does something become trash, posted, grew etc.

[@usucdik]

11:40 this is a slightly interesting point to consider, if you really want to pinpoint the level of bad faith from the other side. If he truly believes his side of things, which is really the religious mumbo jumbo behind it, then it can only be considered NOT bad faith if the guy is desperately clinging to the idea of his beliefs ultimately being right but it simply being a matter of not yet finding the right thought process that would prove him correct, so that means he is gonna immediately drop anything that would give him a bad conclusion. Lots of people were trying to say he was good faith, but that is tough to swallow that when he is dodging so hard and coming up with off the wall gotcha bullshit. For himself on a personal level it might seem like it's all just an exercise in trying to find the right arguments that will validate his beliefs.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

All 60 trillion of your current cells have the same DNA as they did at a count of 64... or even when it was just one. Our unique makeup begins only once.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if you're guilty or not? Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible. Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use God's name as a cuss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty. God can justly punish you and send you to hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die." That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died on the cross for you. ❤ *Honest questions are welcome.* )()()(

[@Graffight]

geeze i would love to debate destiny on this topic...i wish there was a way that a rando could get to talk to him.

[@theeendo3677]

The person that jumped had some good questions and i didn't really care for Destiny's answers or his demeanor in general

[@MrArthurT1100]

I dunno what Booksmarts's supposed expertise is, but I feel like his rhetorical analysis is always the most inane stuff presented as expert.

[@Solutionsarejustcompromises]

The frontloading the debate will get you "poisoning the well" accused for sure. Even though your be correct, it sucks, but I would agree with Book here

[@johnm3419]

I agree with you. I wonder, would framing the assertion in a question such as “Are we going to approach this on the basis of simply a positional confrontation or as a medium for intellectual curiosity?” be a better way. It seems to me that doing it that way would just simply plant a seed that doesn’t sprout until you get to the point where someone will not engage with you as equally as you would them.

[@Solutionsarejustcompromises]

@@johnm3419 Yeah I’m a fan of the Bogosian debate tactics of asking what would the other have to see in order to change their mind. This would show destiny is certainly open to change (evidence for the start of consciousness) And for Trent, well, I don’t know, what a theist would have to see to be convinced there isn’t a soul at conception. In that regard destiny could use some SE lessons by Boghosian or Pinecreek lol

[@brokedudeforever]

It's sad this time, there was no blow up doll to be the adult in room.

[@TheWujuStyle]

Can't you just answer 'is it ok to murder a 10 week old baby' type question with 'that doesn't exist'. Just force them to do the qualification for you if they want the question answered, and only answer it once they make it to 'is it ok to kill a 10 week old fetus'. If they try to pivot away and make it look like you're being evasive, then you can go in with the correction and call out the question begging. This would both discourage them spamming the term conflation for optics, and every time they do it looks worse and worse because you run them through the whole thing and reiterate for the audience that they're just trying for a gotcha and failing. Both the opponent and the audience already know your answer here, they're just trying to cast your position in a bad light without adding anything, so you should be trying to show that that's whats going on, and it's A LOT more effective when you can make your opponent show the audience for you.

[@akatskikonan]

YOOOO BOOK IS BACK

[@limitedhangoutlive]

"debate coach" lmao

[@gallavanting2041]

"Just give concessions to the bad faith actor" -The """"coach""""

[@QuickBen1209]

bro calling booksmarts a debate coach 😂

[@trapsarentgaymcgee5202]

[@giseletheriault8633]

Canada has no abortion law at all but has a significantly lower rate of abortion. according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information 2015 31% less than 8 weeks 36.9% between 9-12 weeks 2.5% 21+ weeks past that 0.59%. Rare abortions after 22 or 23 weeks’ gestation are also done in Canada for some cases of lethal fetal abnormalities, where the fetus cannot survive after birth. Patients are sometimes referred to one of the few clinics in the United States that do them. Such procedures and associated expenses may be funded in full or part by some provincial governments. The lack of abortion law in Canada does not mean doctors perform abortions on demand to the moment of birth. Laws on abortion are religious and political not medical. Destiny's intellectual curiousity did not lead him to informing himself factually on the topic. There are two uninformed men discussing when women should be permitted to have an abortion.