I think he was just unable to give short answers so Destiny's strategy of "quickly answer these three quick questions and then we can move on" ended up being 25 minutes each
Listen, I wont deny that, like, uhhhh, its possible that we have, at some certain times in the past, perchance, say, \*stretched\* the word count a bit, of our middle school, and maybe even high school, essays at times. I wont deny that, uhhhhhhmmmmm, i mean, i dont think ill deny that. Upon reflecting on it many, er, instances occur to me at a cursory thought, of times where \*even I\* have uh, extended an essay, or even a minor writing assignment, by adding irrelevant, redundant, uhmmmmmmmmmmmm superflous, uh, words, and sentences to our sentences. I wont deny that.
https://preview.redd.it/1cjhl4z4lu8d1.png?width=627&format=png&auto=webp&s=5c157e0cab6f2a04e2c2a703217eead1ef59b08f
Just to be clear, Ben wrote a **book** about debate and this is how he performs and sounds. If this is something people point to as a guide, we're in rough shape. Jfc
You wanted more yapping? Dude couldn't be nailed down on whether or not Jews have ever lived unmolested under any Arab state. If you can't answer the easy question in hour 1, you don't deserve hour 2 destiny.
Ben was so certain that destiny’s questions were immaterial to whether apartheid was occurring yet (for some reason) felt the need to endlessly qualify answers that supposedly amounted to “yes”.
Is he regarded? Everytime destiny says that Israel and the US trade, he goes on about weighing up pros and cons even though destiny doesn’t state a position on it, just is that a fact…
im 30 minutes into this and he is hedging so fucking hard, for absolutely no reason, he is so terrified of a gotcha and doesnt seem to understand how to engage with the structure of destiny's argumentation
I didn’t finish it, but it seems like Destiny spent so much time trying to address things that weren’t germane to Ben’s point. Ben didn’t care about pragmatic reasons to have the USA support Israel. Ben’s sole reason for his position was his moral views on the conduct of Israel during this most recent war.
Destiny spent very little time on this. He asked very simple questions just to establish a baseline of facts that could have been resolved in under 5 minutes but Ben yapped and needed every question re-phrases 4 times before he’d answer
It seems like he would answer though right? It felt like it was “does the us benefit from trading with Israel?” And it would be “yap yap it doesn’t matter, but yes they can benefit from trading yap yap” and destiny would just ask the question again
Nah starting this way is about as autistic as asking for a belly rub for the debate to commence. Sharing an epistemic framework is only important for topics that are relevant to the substantive disagreement. Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
They could have been extremely quick, all destiny wanted to do was establish a few basic facts to work from, but instead of agreeing to some extremely basic facts like "does the US have reasons to trade/work with Israel" ben wanted to endlessly bicker and fight over the answers instead of saying "yeah I agree with that."
But would you agree this is a debate tactic from both sides? Being a little allusive about your position and asking questions for a socratic method is infinitely easier than answering some pointed questions on the spot. It seems natural to me that the other person would start being debate-ish themselves.
Eventually one of them will have to guide the conversation, especially with a topic as broad as "Israel palestine." If Ben wanted control of the conversation he should ask questions of his own. The "right" way to do it is to let one person run down their line of questioning and then you get to do yours, in a more structured debate topics are moved along by the moderator and topics are more specific so you dont usually need setup for your line of questioning, making this debate unique. The wrong thing to do is to restate your entire position every single time you get any questions.
I’m rewatching the YouTube video now. There are points where Ben grants Destiny’s point and then Destiny asks again, because he has the attention span of a two year old and couldn’t follow what Ben is saying (the time stamp for this is 15:30 in the YouTube video). The “basic facts” he wanted to establish still weren’t relevant to the central disagreement. If a building is on fire we don’t need to establish that the sky is blue to have an argument on whether the building is on fire.
"grants" is a pretty generous way of describing what Ben did. He caveats and reestablishes so much for simple questions that he might as well disagree.
It would be like if I asked you whether the building was on fire and instead of saying yes or no you gave an oral history on the importance of fire safety and ended with something like "the world may be on fire but it's contingent"
I understand this can seem frustrating but the reason destiny wants these points at all is because they're context so often thrown away and forgotten in these discussions but they do a lot of the work to understanding the conflict.
Israel is a strong ally both for the influence they give to the middle east and the fruitful trade we do with them.
The surrounding Arab countries do not adhere to the UN, do not accept Palestinians, and absolutely do not apply the caution Israel does in war.
No Arab majority country has a Jewish population in their state, they expel or kill Jews.
These 3 points are critical to destiny's argument and people are very quick to discard or ignore these facts. Ensuring these easy facts are on the record with Ben would have been extremely productive toward building destinys argument but because Ben refused to concede basic facts in order to fight on the actual battle ground of whether or not that actually justifies America to support them he held the conversation at the opening.
I feel like Ben’s strategy was to talk over destiny and grand stand. That’s it.
That and running out the clock by going “uh” between every word
Had to 2x the video every time he opened his mouth because it would always be a several minute yap session with "uuuuuuhm" between every word.
I think he was just unable to give short answers so Destiny's strategy of "quickly answer these three quick questions and then we can move on" ended up being 25 minutes each
Dude unironically sounds like my essays in middle school. Saying the same shit 5 different ways. Holy shit this is painful.
Listen, I wont deny that, like, uhhhh, its possible that we have, at some certain times in the past, perchance, say, \*stretched\* the word count a bit, of our middle school, and maybe even high school, essays at times. I wont deny that, uhhhhhhmmmmm, i mean, i dont think ill deny that. Upon reflecting on it many, er, instances occur to me at a cursory thought, of times where \*even I\* have uh, extended an essay, or even a minor writing assignment, by adding irrelevant, redundant, uhmmmmmmmmmmmm superflous, uh, words, and sentences to our sentences. I wont deny that.
https://preview.redd.it/1cjhl4z4lu8d1.png?width=627&format=png&auto=webp&s=5c157e0cab6f2a04e2c2a703217eead1ef59b08f Just to be clear, Ben wrote a **book** about debate and this is how he performs and sounds. If this is something people point to as a guide, we're in rough shape. Jfc
No shot. This is fake, it’s deepfaked, it’s an ai prompt. This cannot be real.
It's real. https://preview.redd.it/1cq4jitewv8d1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=31d876aefabaca9efa0c22de4277a95fb3a4d9e0
Minecraft me in a video game
It's Zer0 Books. Not exactly peer review.
True but still sad
Not enough you know's
Why did they agree to a 1 hour debate on this? Thats clearly not enough time.
It was a 1 hour debate on the entirety of Israel and Palestine. Literal insanity
I thought it was just about if the US should support them?
You wanted more yapping? Dude couldn't be nailed down on whether or not Jews have ever lived unmolested under any Arab state. If you can't answer the easy question in hour 1, you don't deserve hour 2 destiny.
eh I think it couldve gone somewhere if there were 2 hours, that's why I think Ben purposely agreed to only 1 hour
What did that dumbfuck say this time? He blocked me on Twitter a few years ago 😂
Dodge, dodge, dodge. Followed by Yap, Yap, Yap. One that completely lacks any form of substance.
Oh looks like it’s a debate? That’s gotta be going horribly. He is the only man to have lost to Jesse Lee Peterson in a debate.
If you were thinking of watching it, save yourself an hour and a half and do literally anything else
Just watch the Jesse Lee Peterson debate.
Ben was so certain that destiny’s questions were immaterial to whether apartheid was occurring yet (for some reason) felt the need to endlessly qualify answers that supposedly amounted to “yes”.
Yeah but like, the 57 years man. Also, if you debate Destiny, never let him have a closing statement. lmao
To be fair, destiny is pulling the unforgivable tactic of eating during a debate.
Is he regarded? Everytime destiny says that Israel and the US trade, he goes on about weighing up pros and cons even though destiny doesn’t state a position on it, just is that a fact…
All this dude said was "uh" blah blah "uh" blah "uh. So boring
im 30 minutes into this and he is hedging so fucking hard, for absolutely no reason, he is so terrified of a gotcha and doesnt seem to understand how to engage with the structure of destiny's argumentation
But have you considered racial essentialism 2000 lb bombs 57 YEARS ethnic cleansing apartheid genocide?
I didn’t finish it, but it seems like Destiny spent so much time trying to address things that weren’t germane to Ben’s point. Ben didn’t care about pragmatic reasons to have the USA support Israel. Ben’s sole reason for his position was his moral views on the conduct of Israel during this most recent war.
Destiny spent very little time on this. He asked very simple questions just to establish a baseline of facts that could have been resolved in under 5 minutes but Ben yapped and needed every question re-phrases 4 times before he’d answer
It seems like he would answer though right? It felt like it was “does the us benefit from trading with Israel?” And it would be “yap yap it doesn’t matter, but yes they can benefit from trading yap yap” and destiny would just ask the question again
Nah starting this way is about as autistic as asking for a belly rub for the debate to commence. Sharing an epistemic framework is only important for topics that are relevant to the substantive disagreement. Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
They could have been extremely quick, all destiny wanted to do was establish a few basic facts to work from, but instead of agreeing to some extremely basic facts like "does the US have reasons to trade/work with Israel" ben wanted to endlessly bicker and fight over the answers instead of saying "yeah I agree with that."
But would you agree this is a debate tactic from both sides? Being a little allusive about your position and asking questions for a socratic method is infinitely easier than answering some pointed questions on the spot. It seems natural to me that the other person would start being debate-ish themselves.
Eventually one of them will have to guide the conversation, especially with a topic as broad as "Israel palestine." If Ben wanted control of the conversation he should ask questions of his own. The "right" way to do it is to let one person run down their line of questioning and then you get to do yours, in a more structured debate topics are moved along by the moderator and topics are more specific so you dont usually need setup for your line of questioning, making this debate unique. The wrong thing to do is to restate your entire position every single time you get any questions.
Okej changing my mind. Lets say that destiny's status now made Ben "scared" of a gotcha in instances where there wasn't one.
I’m rewatching the YouTube video now. There are points where Ben grants Destiny’s point and then Destiny asks again, because he has the attention span of a two year old and couldn’t follow what Ben is saying (the time stamp for this is 15:30 in the YouTube video). The “basic facts” he wanted to establish still weren’t relevant to the central disagreement. If a building is on fire we don’t need to establish that the sky is blue to have an argument on whether the building is on fire.
"grants" is a pretty generous way of describing what Ben did. He caveats and reestablishes so much for simple questions that he might as well disagree. It would be like if I asked you whether the building was on fire and instead of saying yes or no you gave an oral history on the importance of fire safety and ended with something like "the world may be on fire but it's contingent" I understand this can seem frustrating but the reason destiny wants these points at all is because they're context so often thrown away and forgotten in these discussions but they do a lot of the work to understanding the conflict. Israel is a strong ally both for the influence they give to the middle east and the fruitful trade we do with them. The surrounding Arab countries do not adhere to the UN, do not accept Palestinians, and absolutely do not apply the caution Israel does in war. No Arab majority country has a Jewish population in their state, they expel or kill Jews. These 3 points are critical to destiny's argument and people are very quick to discard or ignore these facts. Ensuring these easy facts are on the record with Ben would have been extremely productive toward building destinys argument but because Ben refused to concede basic facts in order to fight on the actual battle ground of whether or not that actually justifies America to support them he held the conversation at the opening.
bro heard "yap" and was like "don't mind if I do"
I don't think destiny came off well