"Oh God why am I doing this..." Destiny debates Digibro
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 เม.ย. 2019
- Destiny and Digibro debate over the Dick Masterson debate.
Click▼
Date streamed: 04/03/2019
Dick Masterson Debate - • Heated Debate with Dic...
Digibro's Rant - • Ranting About Destiny ...
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
Follow Digibro
►TH-cam - / digibron. .
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/?tag=des000-20
Produced by Voddity
►Voddity - / voddity
►Edited by - / ryuice0
►Thumbnail by - / ryuice0
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
![แม่กลองสองใจ - ซีแกรม โตเกียว มิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GSQfVjcr_f4/mqdefault.jpg)
Destiny neither won or lost this debate, because winning is in the eye of the beholder.
damn we're getting creative
LOL OK to be fair, that isn't inaccurate;You can come out of watching a debate with your own opinion of the debate
In my eye, I think Destiny won. Still like both though, obviously.
He just participated. N e x t. L e v e l.
Which can be true. If you as a viewer of the debate can deconstruct the other guys argument, he will not have won in your eyes. Though if you view the arguments made against each other in isolation he won.
Those seem to be the two positions they have, but they're talking past each other so it just gets retarded. Both points can be correct and valid.
Three hundred and fifty two I would push back on both being correct and valid. Mainly because the way digi interprets a debate negates the entire purpose of a debate. A debate in a broad sense is a combat of ideas. If we are to take digi’s framework all we get is two or more people talking at each other with the crowd staying insulated in their previously held ideas because they know the “truth” but at the same time not necessarily because they are free to change their mind however should not be compelled to do so from sound reasoning. Digi is only technically correct in the sense that everything is subjective and nothing is “true” which is kind of a meaningless statement
This is the brain damage I live for.
I see you watch Lu Bu.
Same dude
I laughed out loud at work...good comment
I exhaled aid out my nose, this one is funny.
Same here
Digibro - "I like to touch the stove when its hot."
Destiny - "You enjoy burning your hand?"
Digibro - "STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!"
You’d have to define hot first, because that actually is putting words in someone’s mouth. As something can be hot, but not hot enough to burn one’s hand. Saying I like hot showers isn’t the same as saying I like to scald myself.
@@wschippr1 You sound like you're a blast at parties.
Chris Diaz
lol wow what a witty and original retort. Next time instead of being a douche just admit that you didn’t have the most apt example.
@@wschippr1 You're original response was completely correct....just as my 10 year old is completely correct when I say it is 6:00 and she says its 5:57.
Youre "that guy" so just own it.
Chris Diaz
If this was about typical everyday conversations then you’d be a 100% correct in calling me a pedant. However, this video is about rational debate and discourse. To use your time example, telling a friend it’s 6:00 when it’s actually 5:57 is fine. However, it’s not fine for a doctor doing the same when telling someone time of death.
"I'm arguing that: you can win a debate, debating poorly, by being correct."
Look at that sentence. Just look at it.
fucking hell
I think the guy is special ed or something, clearly has brain damage.
He should have just tried to make the point that winning or losing a debate, or making better or worse points in a debate, is separate from whether the topic being debated is true or not.
That is defensible. A terrible advocate of round earth could make worse arguments than a flat earther in a debate and still be correct. But if the arguments made were worse, by most peoples standards, they would lose the debate.
Losing a debate does not mean the argument they were pushing for is incorrect, it means they did not argue it well enough to counter the perceptions and arguments of their opposition.
ubuu7 you should debate destiny about that bruv
He's probably mistaking a logical debate with a simple quarrel. That's the only way i can comprehend this
Broad
Dude couldn’t see the difference between winning an argument and something being true. Yikers
I dont think you understood Destiny's point
NostrTXB He was talking about Dig
This guy is an utter moron. He is literally butthurt because Destiny is literally smarter than him ha
@@ManikMiner155 literally
Roba code exactly. I think that’s where destiny failed to capitalize. The whole time I just kept thinking say “you do realize there is a difference between winning an argument and being right. You can be wrong and win an argument.”
I feel like digibro made a good point, but he didn't substantiate it PEPE
LUL, where
He doesnt have to, He only made correct points PEPE
@@MMAGamblingTips Yeah pretty much
@@TopBurger239 And his points are correct because they were substantiated elsewhere.
When someone makes a point that is supported by a known "fact"(that means it is proven(which also assumes that it is something provable by logic) ), even though it is not substantiated in the context of the debate due to the incompetence of the person raising the point, does not disprove the *fact*. But digibro fails to say this in a correct way. He misses out on not stating that a raised point is FACTUALLY SUPPORTED, but the factual support is not brought up by the one raising the point(due to incompetence) or the offender of the raising point(for the sake of winning the argument). In a debate that is aimed at reaching a correct(this assumes there exists a correct conclusion), or say better conclusion through conversation, the opposing side loses because the opposing side knowingly lets a factual point fall down. But in a debate aimed at showing how to debate well, the incompetent guy loses.
At the end of the video destiny mentions a math question where you get the correct answer but the process is entirely wrong, you get like one point out of ten.
He forgets to add that in a math question where you got the wrong answer due to a mistake made elsewhere but with the right methodology that would lead to the answer if that mistake was not made(lets say you added 2+7 and somehow wrote 8 there), you also get like one(though likely a higher point than one, but NEVER ten) point out of ten.
Holy shit! You got Digibro to admit at the end that he determines who "won" a debate entirely based on who he already agrees with, and he doesn't see the problem with that!
I used to watch a lot of Digi back when I watched anime, Digi is the most opinionated anime youtuber without any hint of justification or shame for the fact he lacks the capability to justify what he has to say. He treats himself like a god of logic without ever actually arguing anything. There was one podcast he did where he and another person on the podcast had had a back and forth in their videos and he just kinda rode a wave of "Isn't it sad he thinks that way?" without ever actually having done shit to show why this guy was wrong. Watching Destiny is a breath of fresh air by comparison.
@@OmegaThirty that was what made Digi one of the few old school anime TH-camrs that was watchable tbh
@@conorallen100 cause he was a train wreck?
Not really.
They both agree that we can determine the correct winner.
Destiny argues that if the debator does not show his work then he is not correct.
Digibro argues that as long as the final result is correct then that debator won.
Digibro actually raises a good point here.
Consider this.
A pedophile has lots of justifications about why raping children ought to be acceptable by society.
Another person does not waste time debating those points and just says "no raping children is wrong I won't waste time debating why it is wrong you either understand or you don't"
The same thing applies to flat earth.
Flat-earthers did not come to their conclusion by rational means...so logic is not effective for convincing them otherwise.
See the backfire effect of cognitive bias.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect
Sometimes proving irrational people wrong with logic only makes them believe more strongly in their irrational beliefs.
>spends half the debate arguing against objectivity, prescriptivism, and absolutes.
>"it's a good point as long as it's true"
this guy is literally a mix of a full-on relativistic skeptic nihilist and an objectivist... he literally believes in absolute truth while simultaneously not believing in it. he has reached the epitome of doublethink
He has reached the peak of the Skeptic community ftfy
Seems like conservacucks believe whatever they want to hear, Destiny clearly stated that the point is to substantiate one's point, the objective universal truth might not be a thing, but there are certain truths such as laws of physics (most of them have constraints not visible to the human in the everyday life) that are well studied. The point of the debate was that people can be hearing to a debate and still ignore good arguments in favor of "good points" as long as they confirm their biases...
Prescriptivist is subjective what the brainlet
@@user-ts7tp1dh6f Prescriptivism can claim objectivity as the basis of why you should follow whatever is prescribed. Prescriptivism can allow admit subjectivity, but perhaps argue that their approach would bring the most utility.
They would probably argue that what they are prescribing would objectively bring the most utility as well, making prescriptivism usually have some relation to claiming objective truth. I assume you were reacting to the idiot destiny was talking to and not me, right?
@@ByzantineDarkwraith Honestly, I thought both destiny and the other dude had a very limited understanding.
But in terms of prescriptivism. Let's break this down. When we asses whether a meta-ethical theory is 'objective or not' we use more specific language. This is moral 'realist' and 'anti-realist'. Or cognitivist and non-cognitivist. That was one of my major problems, very limited philosophical understanding in this debate.
Now my point could be done here just by linking you prescriptivism and seeing everyone put it under the 'anti-realist' camp, where morals aren't real, but I'll explain why that's the case.
Morals are real when we can definitively claim to derive a moral statement from an authority that makes judgements, on a consistent basis, what good and bad is. Theological absolutism, for example, prescriptivism has an adaptive moral code, one that permits change.
If morals existed, how could they possibly change?
As an example, a moral absolutist could make the moral statement, 'slavery is bad'.
A prescriptivist on the other hand would take the prescriptions into account, that is, slavery is a wholly a-moral deed, and simply a business practice.
Therefore, prescriptivism is a moral anti-realist notion. Or as they would very poorly refer to it as 'subjective'.
44 Minutes? Must be a speedrun.
anything lower than 4 hours, is a speed run
@@Crihs95 I would pay money for that.
@@Crihs95 this is a great idea
@@Crihs95 Shut up and take my money
nah he got fucked by dampe
"The guy won the the debate even thought he didn't put up any good arguments because what he said was fact"
*a few mins later*
"You can't decide who won a debate*
Jesus christ later he says "You can judge an argument based on anything you want" alright guys guess I'm now going to start judging who wins debates based on who ever says the word potato the most and you can't say I'm wrong because objectivity doesn t exist. EzClap
@@spaceghosttoast I think he and the so called "skeptic community" have something in common after watching this shit. They are far too attached to their arguments while simultaneously absolutely needing to feel right that they have to back peddle and weasel their way out of actual debate whenever possible, but at the same time their egos won't let them back out of debate, so they instead do insane mental gymnastics so they can still tell themselves they won and are still right.
@@skylithium462 Yeah, "You are putting words in my mouth" always seems to translate to "You are making logical conclusions out of my premises to check for consistency, but since I never evaluate the logical implications of what I say, I was not thinking this when I opened my mouth, so you're putting words in my mouth"
Yeah especially after he refused to actually debate on what Destiny and Dick were debating lol it almost seemed like he was trying to justify thinking Dick was right...to himself, more than anything else, that's what it seems like to me at least.
The skeptic community has its roots in poking holes on religion. The major issue is "can debunk superstitious nonsense" is *not* the high benchmark for rational thought, so a lot of people that had no idea what they were doing snuck in because it's almost impossible to be 'wrong' in those instances.
A long time ago I personally viewed them as kind of reasonable because I never thought I had to question intelligence to the level of "wait, how do I know this person has fifth grade understanding of algebra". I just took for granted that most people had at least a basic understanding of logical facilities. I just thought a lot of people took shortcuts and glossed over things because they were *that* obvious, but no, they *legitimately* didn't understand any of it at all. @@skylithium462
This is just 45 minutes of Digibro trying to make it acceptable for him to not make arguments.
Creative Nothing
This is the most productive day of my goddam life amen
New conspiracy theory: Somewhere in the US there is a special ed teacher who forces his/her kids to debate Destiny once they've gotten to a stage of being able to form grammatically correct sentences.
Cant wait for donald trump to reach that stage!
Digibro would be a terrible lawyer.
I'm not even sure if this dude is functional enough to breathe and think at the same time and you're here wondering how he'd be as a lawyer lmfao
Digilawyer: Objection! *WHEN DID I SAY THAT!?*
Court stenographer: At exactly 4:13pm
Digilawyer: fuck.
Your honor, Digibro makes a very good point.
He'd only be a terrible lawyer if the metric you use to decide if someone is a terrible lawyer is whatever they can win a case.
But not everyone has to use that metric, someone can decide he made a really good point and that he won because of it.
And IS a terrible everything-else!
Destiny won this debate because I agree with him...
lol
lol
lol
Lol?
I was going to substantiate my own lulz but I remembered I dont have to
It's funny. I randomly decided to start studying some math from my high school years and as soon as I open the book it starts with a quote from Aristotle something like "The primordial question is not what we know, but how we know."
I was instantly reminded of this hahahahaha
Aristotle really got ignored by digi in this debate
Aristotle didn't write for MLP, K-On or Psycho Pass, neither did he watch those shows, so he's irrelevant and his taste in animation is clearly shit.
Humans are 60% biologically related to cabbage, I think this explains this guy.
I don’t need you to substantiate this because I already know you’re right.
Cabbage is too healthy
>A is either B or C
>I think A is not C
-Oh, so you think A is B
-OOOOOH HOLD ON!
It's like a less articulate Jordan Peterson....
Ahh dude you cracked me up all over again. This is all I have been hearing from this guy throughout the entire video.
All I'm saying is A CAN be B if you already know that A being B is the truth!
More like
DesTINY>so you believe A is B because it can be either B or C
Digi>That isn't my position the way you've phrased it
DesTINY>oh so you accept the way I've phrased it? That means you believe A is C!
Digi>Uh no, I didn't accept the premise you folded into the question in the first place, so you can't assume that.
DesTINY>Oh my god you're so dumb! Everyone look this guy believes A is C!
It doesn't surprise me that the kind of people who believe Destiny is a good debater are incapable of processing or remembering the nuance in other people's statements, you just simplify it down into false dichotomies all day long because that's an easy strawman to attack, while people's actual statements aren't so weak.
his argument was that it wasn't a dichotomy.
@@aprilhart4810 Digibro's statement was that a point in a debate can be a good one without that person having to substantiate it. Destiny drew from that statement that Digibro was of the belief that facts don't need substantiation as long as one just generally believes a particular point is correct.
Destiny was incorrect in that assumption because Digibro then went on to say that facts in a debate do need to be substantiated... just by someone else, not necessarily by the individual in that particular instance making that argument. Which Destiny basically pointed out was a pretty horrendous way of trying to come out on top in an argument.
And that's pretty much it. Digibro is making about as vapid an argument as he possibly can, he's basically saying nothing. That there is both enough subjectivity in everything to analyse every argument but there's also indisputable arguments that don't need to proven because they can't not be correct.
“You say ‘confirmation bias’ like its this really horrible thing”
Lmaoooooooo yeH this is when i stop watching
Don't stop there.
Its only 40mins
It gets worse.
Yeah hes also fine with being hypocritical because its inevitable that someone will eventually be hypocritical in some way so he doesn't even try to not be. I like some of his videos but i don't know how he does the mental gymnastics to reach some of these conclusions.
MadTrax Digibro did 16:10
Do you really think Destiny would ever say that lol
FrodoFraggins that mindset is so fucking stupid tbh. Like why even argue anything, ever? You’re literally saying you dont care if you ever contradict yourself, and thats totally antithetical to debate.
@@theblackswordsman9951 He doesn't need to make mental gymnastics at all to reach some of these conclusions, because he already knows he's right...or something.
"The earth is round" is a correct assertion. But it's not good enough on it's own, as it contains no argument, no reasoning, no evidence. And because anyone can assert anything at any time we need to make actual points and actual arguments to figure out which assertions are true and which are false.
Example: "Digibro is a pedantic bore", "Destiny is smarter than Digibro", "Digibro doesn't grok debate" - all these assertions are correct, but you won't know they're true until you listen to the video.
1:56
"I need to debate more lefties"
Destiny's infamous last words
Top 10 Tragic Photos Taken Moments Before a Disaster
RELEVANT
Lolll ok
That’s a big rip now bb
:( can we warn destiny with our comments from the future?
This has to be the most pointless debate I've ever sat through.
According to digi, all arguments are pointless.
@@calmingvoice8646 Kinda paradoxical.
You can't prove or disprove that! it's in the eye of the beholder, which is apparently not yourself. I don't have to substantiate how this works everyone knows it.
An argument about how arguments work.
I think this might be the best debate actually.
I watched this video and Destiny had opinions and points that I know are correct, so he won. I dont have to prove it, or even consider Digi's opinions. Truth is truth my guy.
Basically.
@Lain J is poking fun at Digi's thought process.
J destiny danced around saying truth, believe that.
@@Ghilhans Aw shit, you right
Truth isn't truth! Oh wait, that's some other guy...
"I need to debate more lefties."
Famous Last Words
Lmao
DIGIBRO: "Objectivity isn't possible!"
ALSO DIGIBRO: "A point is only good based on objective truth!"
The winner of any argument is always the one who has the most TRUE LULW 's in chat.
egg honestly
SquadW
GIGALUL
NOT FALSE LULW
That is what we learnt from the story the Tortoise and Hare. The Hare was the faster racer even though the Tortoise crossed the finish line first the the Hare obviously won because I know he is faster.
lmao at Digibro thinking he had Destiny when he said a flat earther could win a debate.
By Digibro's logic, a broken clock is just as useful as a functioning clock twice a day, at the two times that it is correct
That's actually a pretty good summary. I mean, why would anyone say that at that time the clock isn't a good measure of time? Right? RIGHT?
@@Froad The problem is the clock is still subjectively right two times a day. If it was objectively right, the clock would have to have an infinite amount of precision in the measurement of time. Heck even then it would still be subjectively right because of the reference frame.
No, Digitard's logic would be that the broken clock is right twice a day - because we know it's right twice a day. And how do we know a broken clock is right twice a day? Because other factors substantiate it.
_Argues that substantiating your points aren't important_
*Fails to realise that everything he knows to be true is a product of substantiated points*
That isnt what he said at all
The need to substantiate claims got destroyed in this debate
My poor brain cells got destroyed in this argument
You need to substantiate this point
@@stephenH3369 Nice try, bucko
F
Destiny got substantiated in this debate
tl;dw - "Confirmation Bias is not a bad thing" and "Good points don't need to be substantiated" and "Let me be vague so I can walk back on any argument".
@@awerp9ioug8 Deconstruct? I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain what you mean by "deconstruct one of the debaters arguments"?
[edit: "on" to "one"]
I'm pretty sure destiny understands what digibutt is saying. He addressed that Digiduder's argument is something that happens in the world, but Destiny's goal is the world not sucking. Being able to support your arguments is kind of healthy because we need to explore reality in order to come up with real solutions on topics that aren't as established as water being wet.
He rode that fence so hard I'm surprised it didn't break
@@awerp9ioug8 Agree with what you'r pointing out, but chiding ("semi-retarded") them for doing so isn't really fair. It kinda insinuates that it was blatantly obvious that the two argued on two different planes, but it really wasn't; when they're in the heat of the moment, the ability to make more broad assessments diminishes, meanwhile, you and I have the benefit of watching the playback and analyzing the discourse at whatever time and speed we wish. Hindsight is 20/20 man. :)
@@kmk1225 I picked up on this even before the end of the video, there's no need for in depth analysis and no real excuse to not have picked up on the fact that they were arguing about different things in real time. I could maybe see the "heat of the moment" thing because destiny kind of went out of his way to make ad hominem arguments and get under digi's skin, but in that case, it's really not as though though there's no one to blame for this trainwreck of a debate.
Oh god, he's like the living example of why the free market place of Ideas doesn't work.
Digibro is the Olive Garden of the marketplace of ideas who thinks he's Gordon fukken Ramsey.
You can't say this as a liberal
But this is a perfect example of wy they do work
Some guy came in defending someone who criticised the socratic method, and his method of defense was by forwarding the idea that the conclusion of a debate is "in the eyes of a beholder", and his ideas were rejected by and large.
yea some people probably think he made a good point. But that's to be expected if some of the beholders are dumbasses like him
You need this free discourse to weed out the dumbasses.
Now we know who they are.
Now we can shame them and/or avoid them.
@@TheTheThe_ "if I call them a liberal, I win"
"Winning is in the eye of the beholder"
Presumably the excuse Digibro uses when his parents ask him why he's such a loser.
LMAO
GUYS GET THIS COMMENT TO THE TOP WTH
Destiny went an entire debate about debates and didn’t mention incest once
That's what we in the biz call a *wasted* debate
this debate has been in my dreams for years
I never knew digibro was an idiot LMAO but i do agree with him here because i like him. He's the obvious winner because he just made good points.
This is the release I've been waiting for so long. I've disliked Digibro for years.
Same here, lol.
A real dream would be when Destiny debates Onision.
Is it time to wake up yet?
The most insufferable person you've ever debated, by far.
How Digibro became the voice of authority in the anime community is a mystery but it explains why the anime community is an irritating clusterfuck of elitism.
@Ulquiorra *SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP*
"How Digibro became the voice of authority in the anime community"?
He had one competitor and that guy was effectively retiring at the time when Digi got started. He put out more content about more relevant shows and identified when they performed well or poorly from a cinematographic perspective. You don't have to have strong logical reasoning skills to know how to compose a shot, whether with a real camera or with a drawing. Digi also talked about older and obscure anime, which made him even more unique and worth watching, even if you didn't necessarily enjoy watching his videos, because he exposed you to more anime you might like.
He hardly ever makes anime videos anymore, because *[drum roll]* other people are already covering the topic. He only got into it because there as a void.
Since when is Digibro the voice of authority
Ive never seen a destiny debate before but he comes off as a gigantic asshole. Also Digibro is just a fucking idiot who never shuts up
That's why I liked Gigguk and Glass Reflection way better than Digi. Never liked Digibros content. The dude is a joke
Digibro is the embodiment of "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'll make it seem like I do"
"1+1=2 because Zygobats created the world."
Digibro: "Good point"
Earth is round because I like to shit in a toilet.
Digibro: Good point
if the point is too figure our what 1+1 is then yes. You can say whatever irrelevant bullshit but the point was still made.
since what you said was irrelevant bullshit no one will be conviced, but the point is still made.
the point is made in a bad way, but the point is made.
"I know there are are 23,517 jellybeans in this jar, because Naruto appeared to me in a dream and told me."
DigiBro: "Shit, I don't already know how many are in there. Uh, I'm going to guess... good point?"
@@soundbot5189 a point made in a bad way is not a good point at all. You just raised a belief you have but provided no process as to why you arrived at that belief. Why that belief is the conclusion of a set of assumptions evidences in front of you. That is what makes a good point.
Randeep Singh " Why that belief is the conclusion of a set of assumptions evidences in front of you. " Wth????
Destiny: my math teacher deducting points for not showing my work
Digibro: Me, who looked up the answers in the back of the text book
I ask people if they are Destiny fans, then I relentlessly bully them.
Bag Shit You must have a lot of friends.
People used to "already know" that Zeus was the cause of lightning prior to discussions about the cause of lightning. We absolutely MUST substantiate affirmative arguments in court, it's called the burden of proof. Without that concept, anyone can claim anything at any time as true. Also, the fact that he admits that an argument MUST be substantiated at some point previously makes his point completely useless. Why have a discussion at all? Just claim that every point you WOULD make has previously been substantiated, declare yourself the winner, and leave.
@@jimflannery6335 Bill Nye and Ken Ham had a debate about the validity of creationism in 2014. If my memory serves, the topic of whether or not the bible accurately states the age of the earth was brought up, and Bill Nye cited the rings of tree fossils as evidence that the earth is far older than what the Bible attests.
Digibro would say that even if Bill Nye had not brought any evidence to support his claim that the Bible is wrong about the earth's age, at the end of the day, his point is still correct because, as he would put it, "you could just go look it up yourself."
And you are correct that this puts into question the very necessity of debates and discussions like this, which is why I think this video is a lot more interesting than people (or Destiny himself) give it credit for.
My guess is that the counter argument would be that you have debates about presubstantiated subjects if they are ignorantly contested by a large group of people in order to dispel any doubt of what is true. Such subjects could include climate change, vaccination, or even creationism and flat eartherism. In these cases, it is extremely important for the person debating on behalf of the objectively correct stance to substantiate their claims as accurately and as logically as possible in order to persuade the ignorant into abandoning bad ideas.
Buuuuut, even if they fail in this, that doesn't make the stance that they're advocating for any less objectively correct; therein lies the rub.
Really this whole thing was brought about by laziness, though.
Dick, Digibro, and others, all claim that Destiny puts words in peoples mouths during his debates. ALL. DESTINY. EVER. ASKED. is that they substantiate that claim with a single example. A single shread of evidence.
Here's the thing. It's pretty clear that people who claim this don't like Destiny or his content. To provide such evidence, they would have to go back and re-watch literally hours of destiny debate footage in order to compile a substantial amount of examples in which Destiny puts words in people's mouths. That is a lot of work and that is a lot of time spent watching someone you don't like talk. No one who holds this stance about Destiny is actually going to do the work to prove it, so they'd rather say "just go look up his videos and you'll see what we're saying."
So in the end, it's all laziness, and that's being charitable.
I know this is a hefty statement considering all the people Destiny has had to fight with, but THIS is by far the dumbest argument I have ever seen (on Digibro's part).
The implication that an argument can be good without substantiation is not only ludicrous, but it literally defies the reason people debate in the first place. If someone is claiming a position that is so obvious it doesn't need to be proven like "water is wet", then an "argument" between two people wouldnt exist. Debates exist literally to substantiate a claim or idea because it is a point of contention. Digibro saying that an point is good because it is right is ridiculous. We understand something or some statement to be correct or proper because you can PROVE it. I can say Michael Jackson was our 1st US president because thats how i feel but it doesnt mean anything because you can SUBSTANTIATE the claim that George Washington was through proof. This idea of having a good idea without any means to show it is good is absurd and delusional and defies any basic education we have ever been given.
One day, I was commenting on reddit, and I found this guy who argued that if you search up triggered SJW, you will see why the left is unhinged or something along those lines. I told him that was confirmation bias, then he gave me this hillarious reply:
"Frankly, confirmation bias is a bombastic concept. If new information is congruent with a previously formed notion, that’s not confirmation bias."
Dear God.
the modern, young right-wing in America everybody... take a long look and don't be afraid to cry.
@Unknown ... ? I am referring to the OP's comment, and he is definitely quoting a young right-winger.
You lost when you mentioned going on reddit.
What digi is actually saying is that he wants to say whatever is convenient for him to believe and no one is allowed to make him think with any larger scope or possible consequences.
For someone who is in art analysis he certainly has no idea that words and thoughts can be multi-faceted. He lives by taking things at face value.
@@crosleybendix97 thats not true about him in the slightest.
+Jonni Ok, what's your argument against that? Or are you saying that because you BELIEVE it's not true?
@@dcon9995 There is a larger scope and consequences to the things we say.
*oh you are talking to that other guy. Ignore me.
Woah woah woah, are you trying to put words into digi's mouth? He knows what he says and does not need somebody to rephrase his arguments for him, he chooses his wording very carefully for a reason. Boom roasted!
This is proof Destiny is a masochist. I would not have handled that well at all. Some people just want to watch the world burn, and some people want to debate them.
@Lain No he is just a true internet badass. He is 2hardcore4u.
Digibro: "hey! why'd i get a D?"
Teacher: "you didnt show your work."
Digibro: "BUT IM RIGHT THOUGH!"
disclaimer: there are some things that i agree with him about, but he couldnt debate about them to save his life...
i think digi conflated up "good point" with "truth"
You should definitely do more responses to people who make videos about you.
I already feel sorry for those people
@@annasthinaful
As you can see in this video, they're usually retarded enough that they'd never care.
Well as long as you agree with him he is correct
JMFS Not for drama, I like to see Destiny picking arguments apart without interruptions or distractions.
@@0ktk it's a little easier to do that with no interaction though. Atleast Destiny is streaming this and isn't coming up with a full prepared response to someone who... doesn't have the ability to defend themselves.
"Dick Masterson brought up good points because they are self evident"
Good lord kill me, these people are beyond saving.
Agreed. Unfathomably, impossibly, incredibly stupid. Hopelessly stupid. How depressing.
They're just right because he agrees with them, I guess. That would mean that, to this guy, it is impossible for the people he agrees with to have a bad argument or to lose a debate. As long as he agrees with what they are saying, they are inherently correct and need not provide logic or evidence to back that up, they have basically won from the beginning. What the fuck?
A flat earther can win a debate. Debates don't prove whether the overall point is necessarily correct, it's just two (or a few) people attempting to justify those points to each other or an audience and they do that by providing evidence or logic to support their claims. If you fail to do that, you have lost that debate.
Digibro is not making a prescriptive argument, but Destiny is. Digibro is right in describing how it can actually work. It also not a crazy Position and much more in line with real-life versus Destiny's imagined prescriptive ideal world scenario.
Digibro argued that Destiny put words in his mouth and he was correct on all counts.
@Jesse Lee Peterson There's a difference between doing it on occasion and literally advocating it as an argument. If you can find me a time (in recent memory) Destiny stated that there was no need to substantiate a claim I'd flip my shit
@@DimiShimi So making reasonable assumptions from a vague statement is "putting words in people's mouths"?
rolls dice at a math test, gets a 100%, WHAT DO YOU MEAN I DIDN'T SHOW MY ANY OF MY WORK ITS RIGHT HERE, holds up dice
I've never watched Destiny before.
I have no idea who Digibro is.
I am flabbergasted by what I have just witnessed.
Lol
Someone: "Humans have 2 legs I won bingo yesterday that proves it."
Digibro: "HeY THaTs a GoOd POiNt!"
Everyone else: ??????????????
grhhh but then what’s the point in debates? If people are either right or wrong and the person that is right always wins the debate by virtue of showing up with the factually correct position, then why have a debate in the first place, the winner was decided before the debate began. Why did he agree to a debate? They are all pointless.
@@howiehiew The point of the debate is not really about who is correct as in some situations there is no correct answer. Usually when two people dabate they are convinced of differening veiw points, and the debate is to present your facts in a convincing manner to persuade the audience that your opinion is correct.
@@SourBitters but he can defend his beliefs, thats his point- i.e he can defend his beliefs but the person that made the argument couldnt- so he shouldnt have to change his beliefs just because some moron on his side didnt know which points to substantiate
@@squirllovechild Well in that case wouldn't you need to substantiate your points?
@@TheAhan2407 so therefore he lost that argument because he couldnt substantiate it. Right? It doesnt matter if its true. And then Digi says its entirely subjective to say who wins the argument, which is just stupid. Basically he said Dick Masterson won the debate because he has some "good" points that factually true, even if he cant prove it or give references to his argument. And no, just because someone won the argument doesn't mean you should change your beliefs.
Copernicus: Hey everyone, I have evidence that the Earth is not the center of the universe.
Everyone: No that's ok we already know the TRUTH is that Earth IS the center of the universe.
Copernicus: You're right, my bad.
If everyone thought like this guy we'd still be in the stone age. I can't believe this is a real walking, talking person and that he has an audience of some sort.
Eric Jett I think you’ve missed the point. For someone to be convinced, the argument must be more convincing than what you already know. If the case for the Earth not being the centre of the universe is better substantiated than what you already know then this will occur. However, just because in one particular debate between two people someone argues better than the other, does not mean you will be convinced by the better debater. The worse debater might make better points but fails to substantiate them there and then. Do you see the argument?
@@BrownBeast77 Yeah, but why would that be a good thing? Since Digibro came to Destiny to fight for it. Why would anyone do that?!
@@Yatsura2 Well if you agree with that argument, then it would follow that you would fight for the argument, on the condition that you wish to promote the truth (or at least what you consider to be a good argument)
@@BrownBeast77 How is asserting something as the truth with nothing to back you up is good way to promote the truth, more so when you say everything is subjective? I truly becomes I think something is true because I like or believe that person. Which there is conflict of saying everything is subjective, believing that there are truth claims, since truth claims are objective. Now, Ill grant art and beauty are subjective, but there are truths like dealing with the physical sciences.
Digi asserted DM was right about Destiny refuse to back that up with examples, same as DM did in his debate with Destiny. How does Digi believe DM is right? Other than he likes him, or believes DM is generally honest person, how does he know Destiny put words in people mouths. Yet, with out any evidence for DM claims, they fall pretty short. They come off as baseless assertions.
Outside general things people know, like sun rises in the east, sets in the west, fire is hot, water is wet, most things requires justification to believable.
Just asserting things to be true is literally al logical fallacy called fallacy of assertion. That's what we really got from Digi since he was trying to defend DM claims that destiny was putting words in people mouths.
@@DubhghlasMacDubhghlasI don't disagree with anything you have just said. I think you too have missed the point that digibro was actually making.
« I need to debate more lefties » oh no no no
This is fucking hilarious. Digibro is so laser-focused on pedantry that he refuses to acknowledge any reasonable conclusions from arguing in the way he does.
I really wanted to watch Destiny debate him on the flat earth
Me too
Digi wasn’t gonna let him, because he knew he would’ve lost both of his arguments if he did
No way. Digi isn’t a flatearther is he?
Kenneth Ballantyne no, he believes in a round earth but claims that “the earth is round because it is” so destiny was gunna argue for the flat earth for the memes
Finished the video and now I vehemently agree that debate should have happened. I was sad when he got to it cause I knew it wouldn’t happen cause of this comment lol
You can't dunk on people who don't realize they are getting dunked on.
Everyone in stadium saw the dunk it happened whether he cries it didn't happen or not
@@Xrahke This reminded me of that dude who talks shit on you tube, goes down to the bowing gym poppin' off at the mouth, gets his ass kicked runs away, and then goes back to talking shit on you tube. XD
Zero1RR you mean thequartering? Lol
I disagree. Let's debate.
Dudok22
LoL
I have a very high confidence in the earth being spherical, but I would definitely lose a debate to a flat earther.
Ok here I go, the earth is a sphere because I can spin a quarter on the table. That’s a good point since we already know the earth is a sphere.
Crazy to think Digibro had a decent sized audience at one point. That means there are thousands of people out there who are somehow even more stupid than Digibro which is pretty hard to fathom.
Digibro juan the argument before he even substantiated it.
Takes Juan to know Juan.
this juan shit is killing me.
Amazin!
I reject prescriptivism, and you should never rephrase my position.
This debate is a shining example of why I've never had any respect for digi as a reviewer. He makes blanket assertions as if they are fact, never backs them up, and if you ever question him on it, he states it's all subjective and runs away. He doesn't understand what subjectivity/objectivity is and it shows horribly in his work. He once made a video where as you can know if a show is good or bad in the first episode, there are so many series that jump the shark or change direction in an incredible way after the first episode that this is obviously, demonstrably, false. When you actually listen to what he's saying, he's saying it's possible know if you'll "like" a show in the first episode, but he has no idea that's what he's actually saying because he has no idea, no understanding, of the concepts he's playing around with. Digi is a hack, always has been, and this debate helps to shine a light on that fact.
The best part is, he's been proven wrong by a show he thought was going to be good based on its first episode: Zankyou no Terror.
If you look through the comments on his 2 videos, you'll find a comment by him that links to a PRIVATE video by him, that breaks down why the show was bad.
Here's the kicker: he said problems with the show began to appear as early as episode 3, well within the "4 episode rule" that most people use, and which he dismissed as a waste of time.
@@GlassGolem That's beautiful. Digi is right until he's wrong, but he was never wrong because it's all subjective and he's right anyway so he was never wrong, but if he was, he wasn't, cause it's subjective.
that was the most hilarious debate ive ever seen
I love the disconnect!
"A point can be good even if it isn't substantiated so long as you know someone else has substantiated it"
"well, how do you know Dick's right? "
"because I could substantiate his points"
"Ok go for it"
"I don't want to"
So if he made points that have never been substantiated, then within his own definition they're not good points?
omgspofllol
Even if in reality they're correct 😁
omgspofllol and the
Why even debate at all then?
Since everything got substantiated by someone, somewhere, somewhen, every single argument ever made has to be right, according to Digibro.
Logic got destroyed in this debate
But the logic god wasnt falsified in this debate
The rapper?
This debate in a nutshell:
Destiny: 2+2=4
Digibro: In WhO's BoOk? I hAvE tO wOnDeR.
Digibro's flat earth example has happened like 10 times on the Modern Debate channel
“I don’t take any position so I could never been proven wrong.” Summary of digibro
Yiwen Zhang yeah a lot like Jordan Peterson. Doesn't even outright say anything just says stuff that implies things but will always defend himself when you can him out on the implications because "Oh well I never said that". Jesus it's so repetitive and there's no real way to ever convince them that what they're saying is so ridiculously stupid
think about it. no position = best position
The uber centrist.
Plausible deniability
Wow, I literally can't take Digibro seriously anymore.
this paints every single video he's ever done in a different light
_Anymore_ ? This is my first exposure to him, but I find it wildly implausible that he could appear appear remotely competent in my perception no matter how favorable the lighting.
@@hilbertsinn6886 You'd be surprised, I've watched his videos on anime and they can be thought provoking the way he talks about them.
*_BUT_* His video quality has been rapidly dropping and devolve into long, increasingly less coherent rants and it's no secret that he's kind of an asshole
This was just kinda the last straw for me
@@ethanphilpot7643 I watched his videos for a while. He always seemed like an incoherent ranter. He uses cynicism and calls it "analysis."
@@umbraemilitos That's pretty much all he is now. His peers have far surpassed him in both production quality and writing standards
@deepweeb dive and that in and of itself paints all his content in a different light. once you realize some is so unwilling to admit that they are wrong it's hard to take em serious anymore
Digibro: “you put words in other peoples mouths”
Also Digibro: “so you’re saying...”
a debate allows everyone to come to a unified conclusion that works the best. if you just say all the facts without substantiating any of them, even if other people have substantiated these facts elsewhere, you probably lose the debate in the minds of all the people watching who have never had the opportunity to hear those points get substantiated. it's *your* job to substantiate the points *in the debate* so that people listening can hear the fact get substantiated. don't you think you'd want to convert the people who don't believe you? don't you think that in order to do that you would need to substantiate your claims right then and there to those specific people in order to win them over?
Yes, absolutely, in a perfect world. But the point Beatrice (nee Digi) is making is that the human condition exists. If two people in a debate have a side that is quantifiably wrong, and one that is quantifiably right, and have this debate in front of an audience that vehemently believe the point that is quantifiably wrong, then the emotional humanism can still make the person with the quantifiably wrong view the winner of the debate in the eyes of the audience. In theory, the lack of evidence on the wrong side and counterarguments on the right SHOULD sway opinion, but humans believe what they want. Some might want physical evidence that isn't possible, some don't have the tools to understand the evidence, some have deep emotional attachments to the incorrect conclusion and will disregard evidence without analyzing it.
The real issue here is that everyone is equating the winner of a debate with who is right. Debating, the sport, as trained and displayed, is about the argument and how you as a person can hold up that point. Destiny even agrees, you can have an incorrect view (flat earth) and if you can ague that point better than the round earther, you win.
The counter argument is that in quantifiable facts are by definition the winner, regardless of the individual debating them, debating in this case being arguing, not participating in the sport of debate.
Correct funny bhop man, but why are you here :))
If argue that destiny specifically chose "debate" both as a word and sport for just that reason. It has rules and metrics already established such that ones opinion or knowledge of truth don't matter. Team A may be better at sport than Team B, but if Team B gets a better score during competition, Team B wins. Regardless of facts about which Team "should" win when they compete.
LMAO when Destiny asked Digibro early in the debate if he is on the spectrum. If you know anything about Digibro, he and his friends joke about that type of stuff to the point where sometimes it doesn't feel like a joke.
Pasicho do they really ?
he did a whole video about the spectrum a while back
Digi has said that he probably has some form of autism despite never being diagnosed. Autism is basically Digi´s favourite meme.
Destiny tried to use reasoning to prove his points, unfortunately Digibro is not a rational agent.
What do you expect from a guy who sits all day alone playing videogames and prolly has 15 minutes of face to face interaction a day.
@@LordSathar He runs an anime channel, not a gaming channel. And he has a girlfriend, so probably more than 15 minutes per day.
I think this is what broke the dude.
One of those debates where Destiny argues against a person who hasn't researched philosophy on critical thinking and just wins the argument as a result... Honestly, when the guy made the argument that it is self-evident that the sky is blue I would've just suggested something like Plato's cave allegory... It's honestly just painful to watch this...
Is it just me, or do these to literally just have a different understanding of what a "point" is. Seems to me like digibro understands it to means "conclusion". To say "he made a good point" means, "he had a good conclusion". Destiny understands it the way I assume most people do, which is to say "he made a good point" means "he made a good argument."
Is that not the Crux of this entire issue?
Thing is: Digibro said this to fight for Dick Masterson and their debate style, which is circular. They are right, because they say they are right. They dont need to prove or substantiate anything, because they already said they are right, therefor they are. Why even start a debate with such mindset? Its totally useless. So even if you could turn and twist until Digibros nonsense makes sense in some way, its still begs the question: why? just why would you do that?!
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
welp; digi had to do it to himself
why bro why did he do this to himself :o
I had to double check if I was subbed to him and watched his content in the past. Answer was yes to both and now it’s no to both lol
You hate to see it folks
Kenneth Ballantyne wait, how did you unwatch the videos you watched in the past?
@@howiehiew lots of drugs and therapy.
I'm sure this is one of the debates that Destiny hates the most but, its one of my favs. It's like going to the zoo and watching someone debate a gorilla. It makes me feel so smart knowing there are people like him walking around.
Eh, he's almost certainly more intelligent than you, statistically ;)
Basically, Destiny evaluates arguments on the merits of the argument, where as digibro evaluates arguments on the merits of it's conclusion. There, saved a lot of people some time.
jinofthethunder you’re not gonna stop me from getting lethal amounts of fucking stupidity.
Yeah but without considering the arguments you're pretty much just choosing whichever one you like the sound of best based on pre concieved notions
@@mikehawk9531 I don't see the connection between what you said and me.
@@mikehawk9531 Rope.
"You say confitrmation bias like it's this really horrible thing, for me to agree with a guy who didn't make a good argument."
AHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!
@@bw1170 If you agree or not, its still a bad argument and therefor a lost debate.
I felt like my head was exploding
...? I don’t get it lol
Yatsura2 depends on what standards we’re using. But yeah, I know you’re referring to general debates for what’s rational in the 2010s
This is the most postmodern debate I've listened to in a long time.
Pretty neat really.
"Well it depends on what you mean by postmodern...and that also depends on what you mean by debate"
- ghandi
Post modern? The fuck kinda description...
Q: why can't you have a debate with a postmodernist
A: because they'll want to argue about what a debate is
It really was, and it demonstrates what's wrong with postmodernism outside of the domain of art; it's really just an excuse for bad-faith arguments based in semantic/epistemological hair-splitting. Or worse, endless devolution into such as the only things which actually can be discussed. Destiny ends this video literally accusing Digibro of being ant-truth, because of what was ultimately a very minor mismatch of scope in their usage of one term.
@@EuropiumGadolinium I mean, it is true in cases of fucking morons like Digi here, but it can be perfectly fine if used by someone with 2 functioning braincells.
"you can make no good arguments but still have a good point"
What?
"The Earth is obviously round! I mean, it's self-evident! You're a complete imbecile for not realizing this!"
Correct position (good point) to take. Terrible (completely unsubstantiated) argument for it.
"Do you think i made a good point about deathnote being alright?" "No but you're still correct" that really should have been the end
"A good point can be unsubstantiated if it's true"😂. Didn't he say that he doesn't believe in objectivity?😂🤣
Overlord 893 most likely the word “true” to him is whatever thing he agrees with
@@RobinLundqvist this is probably the case but nonetheless he tried to claim that there are things that are true regardless of whether or not they've been substantiated (which he had to backpedal) this dude has no idea what he's talking about
@@RobinLundqvist AKA confirmation bias.
he's talking about observable truth not objective truth
@@stovespiegel Observable truth is objective truth, it's objectively true because we observe it, that's science my dude.
For a guy who used to make decent opinion pieces on anime, it's hard to digest he doesn't know the difference between stating a fact, and making a good point. That's pretty integral to understanding how an anime wanted to portray something.
The funny thing is he made an entire series pointing out why an anime was bad, and substantiating his points. Why didn't he just make a 30 second video and say, "it's bad, the end"
@@wibblemu9 true. He even had the good idea of expanding on the flaws and stuff.
He still would rekt any anime fan, it's just his improv is terrible. He needs time to create and formulate his thoughts
@@eango yea I was wondering whether he was just arguing in bad faith cause he got defensive
@The Liberal Capitalist He shows that he thinks the only kind of acceptable conflict in story is the one he likes when it's convenient. So he really is a dumb anime critic too. At first glance he appears to know what he's talking about. But on close examination he's like a broken clock.
I miss Digibro
Same
for someone who lives in debate Digibrony's childishness and ego doesn't allow him to engage in the format of a debate all that well. How is this even a conversation?
This is why Math teachers ask you to "show your work"...
DigiBro: "Someone else has already done the work, therefore my answers are substantiated and are good answers. I'll take my A+ now, thanks!"
@@0Fyrebrand0 btw Digibro scoffed at academia when Steve relied on htem for his arguments but also continues to cite universal truths as examples like the earth being round
BITCH PEOPLE DIED TO PROVE THAT THE EARTH GOES AROUND THE SUN.
THESE WEREN'T ALWAYS UNIVERSAL TRUTHS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH AND LOTS OF EVIDENCES AND EMPIRICAL DATA TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Destiny sucked. I hear Destiny 2 isn't much better.
Reddit Chronicles false, destiny 2 is unused assets from destiny 1
Destiny 2 is Destiny
Be careful of the cardboard loot boxes, they do mega damage....
@@smiff513 do you really think that means it does not suck? Unused assets?
God Of Spaghett no it’s garbage I’m just saying they are the same
"Just because you are correct, it doesn't mean that you are right."
Shirou is that you?
Destiny has this tendency to throw low-key shade at his guests and I don't know if I hate it or love it
Low key? He called him retarded lol.
Oh Digi 😝 You were the Patrick meme in a nutshell
The earth is flat - the goodest point in history and that makes me correct and I just won the argument
also, destiny got reframed in this debate
And I believe you make a great point because i also believe the earth is flat you don’t need to substantiate it.
@@oliverjackson3761 gooderer
Anyone just come back every once in a while to watch this? It's so good.
The irony is that if everyone thought like him, we'd still think the earth was flat and we would never develop our knowledge whatsover outside of whatever we already believe to be true. Our minds could never be changed on anything ever. So unbelievably stupid
Digibro honestly has 0 idea of how the scientific community works.
Dude I cured cancer?
Other person: how?
Woah dude. I don't think I have to supply proof. I know I cured cancer
This is worse then the utilize vs use debate
You don't need to utilize substance to make a good point.
I miss Reckful PepeHands
Digi's arguing poorly for some sort of Bayesianism, I think. "Even if you see what appears to be a persuasive argument for a very improbable position, you should basically stick with your initial idea, since it's more likely that you've been bamboozled by a fast-talker than that the earth is actually flat."
It's a decent philosophy for navigating life, assuming you're not in the top 0.1% of reasoners.
Digibro: I know I’m right because I’m right that I’m right
"Destiny puts words in everybody's mouth."
@5:30 "so you're just kinda smarter than everybody."
Oh dear. This dude made it almost exactly 2 minutes from the start of the conversation before falling on his own sword.
Also, easy to defeat his position as his position seems to be "some people do some stuff, others do other stuff. Therefore nothing means anything." So any position he holds is as meaningless and useless as every other position. It's a universal tie.
Also, under his system, an argument of 11 = 11 vs 11 = 3 are both good points automatically prior to the individuals clarifying that one is using base10 and the other is in binary.
Yep.
Should have titles this "Destiny debates confirmation bias, for some reason?"
"I hope everyone has a great day"
That was the winning argument here. You can't refute that!
Why tf does Digi even have a YT channel still man? He was so weird and "intellectual" that he was literally expelled from the My Little Pony community. Like how insufferable do you have to be for bronies to say "nah he isn't with us"?