Simp Chat Notsoerudite Discussion Thread

looks like she stopped streaming and is mostly uploading old videos to yt, she needs to go back to streaming and wear skimpy outfits god damn
 
She has never annihilated Andrew, who is beating down Andrew? It isn't Charlie. It isn't NotsoEuridite. Definitely isn't Kylie or Naima. What debates are you watching.
And Dyers question exposed Euridite as the pseud she is. So sad you fall for the pop quiz style debate
 
Tell me you know nothing about debate without telling me you know nothing about debate.
 
all these debate universities bro don't understand everytime andrew is cornered and can't debate he starts asking the meaning of words
what is good, what is bad, what is moral, what is justice.
With lauren he was like "who's saying that", when she said plenty on X which they do, gimme a name, she said prager u, he was like who in prager u, she said dennis prager and then he was like when did he say that. It's getting into meta wiithout the arguments because his arguments are weak.
Everybody who debates knows this is bad faith. He was cornered with dean/parker on tiktok and started saying what is good, which is why they don't debate him. He's bad faith, his only tactic is asking others questions and refusing to answer on his positions. He loves internal critiquing others but will never allow anyone to do it to him because he's not a good debater. That is why he only debates OF girls and farms clips.
 
I can't take any Sexpestiny orbiters seriously. These ppl prop up, groom , and run cover for a sociopath, desperate for any clout they can leech off of DGG's genocidal poster boy. These are not good people.
 
Come on buddy are you any better, being on this forum of all places? You’re here to goon not grandstand.
 
What are the allegations against him. He leaked his tape with his gf to another girl he wanted a 3some with. But then that other girl leaked his tape publicicly to gain clout?
Euridite and destiny is no different than wilson. They are performative and will hide behind semantics when they get in tough arguments. There is no good faith debate bro. Just cause you better at defending or attacking political opinions doesnt make yours correct. Unless its a scientifically measurable or an objective fact it cannot be right or wrong.
 
Semantics are important in debate else you just talk past each other, your prageru example is him asking her to verify her claim as the claim itself doesn't verify itself, so bad example, that's called being good at debate else Lauren can just hide behind ambiguity.
 
Semantics are important if you ask once and accept. With andrew, the moment he is losing the argument, he will start asking for meaning and not accept any definition given by his opponent to move the conversation. He did that on the reparations debate with Austin Julio Broughton, the tiktok debate with parker, the insurrection debate with destiny, the lauren southern debate. He was grilling aella on correlate, whatever she would say, he would reject it and when aella asked him to explain, he simply avoided by saying "he doesn't know". That's bad-faith when you can't define semantics but actively reject whatever definition your opponent puts forward.
That's like someone says "white people are being discriminated" and you go on an hour discussion on what is discrimination, who is considered white, i reject your premise, i reject your definition, who said that, when did they say it, what exactly did they say, do you have a tweet/video to show they said that, are you sure he meant discrimination in this sense.
"If you can't prove any of this you are a liar, white people aren't being discriminated and I won't engage with you".
He is active on X, he doesn't need examples of RW twitter advocating repealing the 19th including his Christian nationalists proposing it on podcasts, everybody sees it. It's all obfuscation and moving to meta to avoid the actual debate and clip farm them stuttering or catching them off-guard.
 
No it's not only important if you ask once and accept, if someone gives an unsatisfactory answer, then you can probe to clear up any ambiguity, everyone who levy this attack at Andrew just makes faulty leaps in logic and just assumes he should grant the opponents position, but that's not what debate is, debate has rules that you have to follow, such as you can't commit logical fallacies and hide in ambiguous language
You claim his tactic is obfuscation, but if him simply asking someone to clarify the meaning of a term so that there's no ambiguity is enough to confuse the opponent, perhaps they shouldn't be debating in the first place, I'm sorry but none of these critiques are good, and just comes off as spiteful cope because you don't like the guy, address the arguments instead of meta if he's so bad
 
Has she done the tifa cosplay yet or have a date for it? I just wanna see her fake titties in a tight t shirt.
 
Sup Andrew
Next you’ll be extolling the virtues of yelling “you lick snizz” over and over and over again
 
LOL can you blame him being here. When your wife looks like you with a blonde wig, you gotta escape as much as you can.
 
>if someone gives an unsatisfactory answer, then you can probe to clear up any ambiguity,
this is fine, check his debate with Austin Julio Broughton where he starts losing and keeps harping on "what do you mean by justice" and everytime Austin gave a definition, he would reject it, Austin basically said if you dont like any of my definition, we will go by yours, what is your definition, he would say "its your claim, I cannot give you answers for your claim".
He did the same thing with destiny on insurrection, rejected every definition destiny gave and when destiny asked for his, he refused saying it's your claim. That is textbook bad-faith.
I was his fan too, you can't see this clearly with your bias, once you start noticing these patterns you'll realize too he never states his positions, never lets anyone critique his positions, never answers anything and keeps grilling people on meta convos to farm clips.
 
You are simply logically disposed of understanding how debates work, Andrew does not have to define what he thinks Justice or insurrection is, this is an intentional debate tactic by him, but it's actually a good one, not a bad one as it helps the opponent with their own burden, but Andrew's job is not to help destiny, he doesn't have the burden in those cases, Destiny is the one in the affirmative, and Andrew took a neutral position, so like I said, debate has rules like a game of chess, and Andrew is abiding by the rules of debate, both opponents agreed to engage in a formal debate, all of your critiques is just Andrew playing the game better, not being bad faith because he's losing
And the claim that Andrew never gets questioned on his positions are just blatantly false, he literally just did a debate against Stew Peter's where he said we can go 50/50, you question me, I question you, and Stew didn't want to get questioned, he's done this numerous of times as I've watched numerous debates with just about everyone in this space during the blood sports Era of twitch, I mean I saw the first stream that Erudite ever did with destiny live, if you want to complain about bad faith debate tactics, Destiny is much more blatant example lol
 
imma say this the last time, he rejects every definition by his opponent and refuses to provide one himself; moves the convo to meta to avoid the arguments/debatewhen he starts losing.
This is erudite's thread so I'll this will be my last reply on this topic, i hope one day you'll look past your beliefs.
 
You can say it as many times as you want, you'll be wrong everytime as it's not a good argument, I watched the destiny Andrew insurrection debate like 5 times and knew that destiny would fall for this before the debate, what Andrew did is called conceding the definition to collapse the significance of the claim, destiny always make overly broad definitions without realizing that it de facto encompasses things that he would never in actuality call an insurrection or whatever, but yea this is a gooning site, let's leave it at that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top