REACTION: DESTINY VS ANDREW WILSON DEBATE – IWAM Ep. 749

View Comments

• These debates always devolve onto splitting hairs on definitions.

  • That's because definitions matter.

  • Destiny himself has said that if you're clutching at definitions you've lost the debate.

  • @@BestNotMiss that makes no sense, for example if you give a bad definition than having to argue the definition of what you said is almost always going to be argued.

  • @KingDroza.  think about it in the context of Destiny's violent and genocidal rhetoric in recent weeks. This a (very small insecure) man that was so sure of an insurrection that he ends up struggling to meet the threshold of his own definition. How does he justify his violent political rhetoric over a definition? Again, Destiny himself has said to never get bogged down in definitions.

  • @@BestNotMiss I agree I wasn’t defending destiny, he was the one who gave a bad definition and very broad definition too.

• Right and defining j6 as an insurrection is super disingenuous.

  • ​​@nicknmm09 is this historical definition applied evenly to events such as CHAZ? Destiny applies different standards to "insurrection" based on his partisan outlook.

  • @@BestNotMiss i think destiny called chaz an insurrection

  • @@fensteroffen not in this debate

  • @@BestNotMiss i think he did in the viewer call-ins depending of unknown characteristics having occured or not.

• Steven "weed smokers rioting to legalize cannabis are insurrectionists" Bonnell.
  Bad faith Destiny is honestly such a clown lmao. Andrew is still undefeated.

• Dammit, damn you Jon. I watched the actual stream, I didn’t know you were going to do this. I’ll be in the replay crew…

• W MLD

• damn, andrew not engaging in the difference of breaking the law vs resisting the law as the differentiating factor between a riot and an insurrection. jan 6 riots had the intention to resist not break the laws. i thought he was more logical.

  • ​@@gibby3216 i didn't make the point that destinys argument is correct, just that andrew didn't engage in the differentiation between breaking the law and resisting the law. he argued for 20 minutes a point destiny adressed again and again pretending he didn't hear the argument every listener did hear.
    i'm not here to argue whether protesting the overturning of roe is comparable to jan 6, but i'm sure the point of contention would lie in what amount of resisting would make it viable to call it an insurrection. for example some characteristics would be amount of people (were there 10s, 100s, 1000s or 10000s?), the amount of force (were there destruction of governmental property, where there deaths), the amount of planning (was there a plan in the background which used the riots as a means to resist the law, was there incitement, was the location of the incitement planned to be a mile away), amount of power behind the people (president of the united state vs local interest group), nature of the law and how vital it is to the the government organizing it (supreme court decision vs transfer of power after the election of the president of the united states). i think engaging in this would be a good faith argument about whether jan 6 was an inssurection or not, and whether protesting the overturning of roe was an insurrection or not. i can easily imagine the protests of roe being an insurrection if the force, the planning, the power of the organizer and the consquences to the vitality of the government would have reached a certain point to become insurrectionist.

    but andrew never engaged in defining the borders of the definition, he pretended there are no borders, which is factually incorrect.

  • Rioters also "resist" the law, when they resist or interfere with police trying to enforce the law against rioting. Same thing with Jan 6, they were "resisting" the law (or so the story goes) by interfering with the enforcement of the law on formalizing an election result.

  • @@tommyflash67 so if the election process was eventually delayed through the house, set for another date while allowing for legal investigation/audit.....what would be the problem?

  • @@tommyflash67 no, rioters break the law. They are not rioting with the goal to interfere with the governmental process related to the law. The jan 6 rioters were breaking the law like other rioters, but additionally they were rioting with the goal to resist the confirmation of the electoral votes.

• Destiny got wrecked

  • Yeah. Blue individuals are not ppl

  • It’s easier to swallow when you realize they’re not the same as us. In the sense of personhood

• why in the hell are you reacting to this if you know nothing about january 6th?

• Get on the waiting list for TOTAL DATING MASTERY launching on August 1st!
  CLICK HERE: https://shorturl.at/4RmF0

  🍙TimeStamps㊗

  Modern Life Dating

  0:00 : Destiny is destroying himself
  Join the waiting list for TOTAL DATING MASTERY launching on August 1st!
  CLICK HERE: https://shorturl.at/4RmF0

  0:55 : Start of the debate on Jan 6th. Destiny’s definitions and arguments.

  2:20 : Weaponization of the justice system and Destiny’s a mess.

  4:25 : Andrew debunking Destiny’s bunk arguments

  6:00 : Destiny changes the narrative for views

  7:20 : Copium is real, How was the government really going to be overthrown?

  9:40 : Is Destiny on drugs?

  12:00 : Andrew flips Destiny’s logic ft Joe Biden drugs

  15:00 : Destiny on Breaking laws and resisting are different things

  17:30 : Obfuscation of the truth and what is a riot

  20:45 : More bunk arguments and poor examples from Destiny

  24:05 : Destiny is on drugs

  25:05 : Open Discourse: Is Destiny doing this debate in bad faith?

  27:50 : How was Jan 6th an insurrection?

  36:15 : Destiny tries to confuse Andrew off on the topic

  42:00 : Does an insurrection apply as federal or state law?

  48:25 : Destiny defining breaking and resisting a law

  51:45 : Poor example of insurrection made by Destiny

  55:20 : Andrew’s breaks down Destiny’s poor definition of insurrection

  1:00:00 : CLOSING: Ad hominem attack by Destiny

  1:02:22 : CLOSING: Andrew snaps back

  1:05:30 : Phone lines open up

  1:07:10 : Caller 1: What is Andrew’s definition of insurrection?

  1:11:55 : Solid frame from Andrew from leftists

  1:14:25 : Caller 2: Neither debaters have a clear definition of insurrection

  1:16:35 : Caller 3: Caller was likening Trump to Hitler (to Andrew)

  1:19:40 : Caller 4: Troll caller more definition BS (to Andrew)

  1:22:25 : How do you not know what a riot is (CHAZ/CHOP)?

  1:25:40 : Caller 5: BLM meets the criteria of insurrection (to Destiny)

  1:27:25 : No legal context or charges of insurrection

  1:29:15 : Caller 6: wouldn’t any major political protest count as an insurrection? (to Destiny)

  1:30:35 : Andrew mentions CHAZ/CHOP insurrection state

  1:33:35 : Destiny tries to obfuscate Andrew again

  1:36:20 : Caller 7: Why didn’t Trump call security/police during (FALSE, they denied security)

  1:38:25 : Caller 8: How come Leftist protests/riots were not prosecuted like Jan 6 protestors?

  1:41:15 : Caller 9: Define insurrection

  1:47:00 : Destiny’s insurrection definition doesn’t work

  1:49:00 : Discourse: Historical and legal definition of insurrection (Rebellion)

  1:52:20 : Destiny argues in bad faith

  1:53:40 : Andrew brings historical example and danger of defining insurrection the way Destiny did

  1:55:00 : Andrew holds frame

  1:57:00 : More bad faith argument from Destiny

  2:00:00 : Caller 10: sexual assault and rape definition example (to Destiny)

  2:01:15 : Final Thoughts

  Join the waiting list for TOTAL DATING MASTERY launching on August 1st!
  CLICK HERE: https://shorturl.at/4RmF0

• Wheres the actual debate? It's not on the Crucible podcast list

  • Its up on fresh and fits channel too. Though im all for supporting The Crucible