This Debate Went WILD - Debating “Superstraights” vs TJump 

Glorious I love you

@@just_a_turtle_chad You got a discord server again?

@@just_a_turtle_chad Damn. You mean your account overall or just the server?

@@just_a_turtle_chad Also I remember the first time it got deleted I was one of your old admins lol

This is gonna be an interesting debate huh?

He was NOT gonna let up.

This man's teeth could cut diamonds after seeing him obliterate the bait on that one

He bit it *fast,* too. Vaush barely finished the sentence before he said yes. I can only assume he committed to saying yes to anything that came outta Vaush's mouth the second he heard "black people." Also, I do love that after he bit the bullet, he realized he let his mask slip a little too much, so he had to quickly come up with that weird "hypothetically, if you found that black people have alien DNA or something" argument just to cover his tracks.

I mean its logically consistent, right? Its just reprehensible. There is the hypothetical situation where we find some alien dna or genetic difference that make the statement "Black people arent human" technically correct (Within some arbitrary construct). But the motive of using this hypothetical information would be evil, and the utility of this information would be destructive and cause suffering. The solution in that most extreme hypothetical would be to adjust the construct of human to include whatever genetic divergence we found... Or the choice to not broaden the definition of human to include this divergence would be indicative of bigotry.

@Yeetus debeetus what now

@@Pllayer064 to be fair, many women would enjoy having our legs folded 😏

@@katyungodly 😳 now I can't wait to see my partner again tomorrow

@@Pllayer064 I'm sure some chick out there is into that

Damn. Too good

Some of y'all are too innocent to remember Tokyo Gore Police, and it shows. There's a sex club where all the girls have had extreme body mods done, including a woman that is a chair

Lmaooo

Not the first time Tjump has done that

Only to people that are delusional enough to think dudes that think they’re women are women. T Jump is on the scientific and logical side of this, in my opinion

name that jrpg enemy in the beastary.

for real! he was whining and grumbling the whole time lol. how do you expect to be perceived as smart if you start crying the second someone interrupts your 10 minute speech?

@@Eb0nut interrupts his 10 minute speech after he himself interrupts vaush at least 15 times before that

The ai of Reddit bots is wild

😂😂 trueee

@@johnrzepka2008 I find it odd that the "lol reddit" joke is maintained in this community. I could be wrong but I thought that joke just started because 4chan hated Reddit for being left-wing, so they told the rest of the internet to behave that way and they obeyed. Thats what happened, right?

r/intellectualdarkweb type beat

No you're making a hasty generalization fallacy

Honestly I'm surprised that Vaush responded to anything he said seriously after that, that argument with the follow-up that "what is a human" is empirical not socially constructed made it glaringly obvious TJump's position doesn't exist, he's just disagreeing to disagree

He assumed that racist/transphobic actions require racist/transphobic intent. The threshold for that dude to consider something to be bigoted is so impossibly high that barely anything can be considered transphobic/racist. But it doesn't matter because biology and sCiEnCe I guess

@@17jat15 There is no legitimate reason for saying somethung like that.

@@17jat15 Prove that people who believe in redefining words are insane.

@@17jat15 bro just admit you are a transphobe and move on

They guy who came up with speciation: "MY SOURCE IS I MADE IT THE FUCK UP"

@@psychopompous489-Charles Darwin, 1853

Yeah therefore concept is not grounded in reality at all

@@ThatisnotHairis this ironic or do you actually believe something so stupid

​@@ThatisnotHairIt's grounded in reality.It's just not describing reality. It's a frame that we use for explanatory power in regards to how life develops. Like in fact, you could say that gravity doesn't actually exist.It's a theory that we use to explain phenomenon we see in nature.

tbf, one could say that Vaush is appealing to authority there and wouldn't be a good argument edit: okay people i get it lol i wasn't trying to be mean or anything

@@sergiarts which authorities what? Biologists?

@@sergiarts I dunno if that's an "appeal to authority" perse, that's more like an appeal to consensus (what do the majority of experts say). Appeal to authority is actually more like what the anti-trans crowd likes to do when they cherry pick a few hacks (Jordan Peterson, Deborah Suh) that fit they're preconceived narrative rather than what the majority of experts have to say. I guess you could argue "appeal to consensus" is still technically a fallacy, but you would have to come up with a really good reason of why you some how know more than majority of academic experts.

@@sergiarts TJump was basing his argument "on science" and arguing that Vaush's argument was based on feelings. I thought that was a reasonable way to refute that point. It also highlighted that TJump's argument was based on his own ontology, rather than science.

@@sergiarts Appeals to authority aren’t always wrong. Context matters. If it’s agreed upon by a majority of biologists that they don’t use that term than it’s reasonable to state that. This would be like calling out someone for using an argument from popularity when the discussion is around something like how much money a film made.

It's always the "self defense" that you from right, such ignorant idiots

@@lorenabuck2423 I had a stroke reading this

@@NIN0ID sorry my English isn't that good

I mean the right wing is always on the defense when it's comes to real life problems and experiences

@@lorenabuck2423 Oh okay you pass the vibe check

Simple: he does not think.

phallacy 😂

Assuming someone saying "I hate trans women" is transphobic is a hasty generalization fallacy because how do you know it's not opposite day?

We know.

The irony of this comment

@@gobackpls3029 that'd be a sick burn if they were 12 years old. And not taking part in important discourse.

@@gobackpls3029 You think Tjump knows what any of these words mean?

@@zacheryeckard3051 considering he’s prob been proficient in philosophy longer than you’ve been alive, then probably not

@@gobackpls3029 I might actually be older than Tjump. And he's CLEARLY not proficient in philosophy, don't even get started.

That’s a hasty generalization. Saying ALL Tjumps would lose

@@gishgish5195 you're right... The earth loses as well as every person breathing air that TJump is wasting with his stupidity.

That's a genetic fallacy lol

Lol

@@rigroll1612 lol. Based like a huge pile of shit.

The guy is full dishonest.

@@5driedgrams It takes a lot of work to debate liars like this, and I applaud people that have the patients to do it.

@@5driedgrams I honestly think he just comes off as a classic D-K victim. It seems to me he isn’t intentionally dishonest, he’s just a dreadful combo of dumb and ignorant.

Honestly? Powermove, but that dude's STILL a dumbfuck. It's like if somebody accused you of a crime you committed and you just went "I did not commit that crime" while walking off.

@@showtheshow3397 Yeah, in a way you have to admire it. "I believe in objective categories like biology" "Biologists would disagree with you" "I don't care"

Like he could have cited P values and diagnostic weights of certain traits, as in, we gather evidence until we can ascertain a set number of traits that reliably enough allow us to tell apart two species. Then though he would have been confronted by the fact that the trans woman category shares a lot of highly diagnostic traits with the category woman. Like... I lift weights for a living and would have sounded less appallingly misguided in my understanding.

@@RagingRugbyst No but, the thing with social constructs is that, and especially given than in reality most things are part of a spectrum, the way the line that divides those things apart from one another is chosen by us. I really LOVE Phylosophy Tube´s video: "Social Constructs | Philosophy Tube", it´s so ducking good at explaining the concept it singlehandedly made me understand the entire thing and I could never do it enough justice.

In the first 40 seconds of this video the guy says "ecksetera." When I hear that I immediately lose faith in the person's intelligence.

Science.

@@lazerhosen that's the better way of pronouncing it

Yo his face was looking all kinds of crazy 🤣

Science!

"wait wait wait wait wait wait wati wait wait"

That’s the hasty generalization fallacy 🤦‍♂️

I mean the argument that there aren't even any logical fallacies in vaush's argument is pretty sound. For a genetic fallacy to be valid the current usage of super straight would have to differ from its original use to invalidate trans people, and since the common usage of the term hasn't changed that fallacy is invalid, coincidentally he also bases his accusation of the hasty generalization on his previous assertion of a genetic fallacy, we have sufficient data to conclude super straights are transphobic by vaush's definition because being transphobic is a part of the "identity" which means we don't really have to poll a large number of super straights to find out if they actually think trans people are valid in their chosen identity, the trait we're looking for is inherent in the sample. TJump however, and I love this, commits a fallacy fallacy in assuming that an argument that contains a logical fallacy automatically invalidates the conclusion

Not everything that biologists says is science.

@@Juan-rz1lt That's besides the point. Every scientific thing you can say about biology came from a biologist somewhere along the line.

@@Juan-rz1lt Not everything that Christians say is Christlike.

He's probably anti-vax and/or a covid denier too i doubt this is as far as his ignorance goes

literally every transphobe

My man is in pure agony through out the whole video lmfao

Yeah Vaush is physically painful to listen to.

@@captainphoenix yeah it’s painful when he explains why you’re stupid.

@@captainphoenix How so?

​@@captainphoenix yeah it can be painful to listen to someone explain why your entire stance is baseless and ignorant

That pretty much sums up this debate. I did enjoy laughing at his positions though

biologists do differentiate between women who biologically born with female genitals and women who transitioned from being a man. Vaush is just delusional about this....... i mean slow it down and really think about it........ people who study the anatomical differences between sexes have no word or criteria to distinguish between biological and tans women...... thats insane haha, vaush is waaaaay off here.

TJump had several easy questions he could have asked like: Do you think "Demi-sexual" is valid? because if it is he could have made a case for super straight. instead, he kept going back to this "Biology" thing.

@BattleMage wait how? Isn’t Demi-sexual just when you only feel attraction after an emotional bond with someone? How can that be used to defend super straights?

@@AT-AT26 I see some people on the left who seem to be describing "Types" into their own "sexuality". If you can make the case that only attracted to autistic people is a sexuality or "Emotional Bond" is a sexuality. I guess you can say only attracted to Cis people is a sexuality as well. Important to know this is a small minority.

For these brainlets, facts = my feels

@@AT-AT26 it can't be. Demi-sexuality is a specific sub-category of the asexual sexuality. Such people such as myself do not feel primary sexual attraction but will have sex with those we have an emotional connection with. There is scientific research on asexuality.

Also, studies show that people who have met a trans person are 50% less likely to be transphobic

☝️

Literally😭 Its so fucking easy

I understand your meaning but this is pretty uncharitable in a way. Say I'm a man who wants kids and isnt interested in adopting, am I a transphobe for not wanting to date a trans woman?

@Teratoma surrogacy is an option and also plenty of cis people are infertile without knowing it anyway. Also not all trans woman/femme people don't have functional reproductive organs. The transphobia is the reasoning being about a generalisation of trans people rather than a specific preference

I believe if you search "SuperStraight - Deirdre thehun", you'll get a stand-up comedy routine based on that concept. Oh, the comedian is Robin Tran and the set is "Does that make me gay?". Accidentally promoted a re-upload.

If I recall correctly, the super straight really meant super heterosexual. As in you are only attracted to people of the opposite sex. But I guess super straight rolls off the tongue better because the goal was to meme and not make a serious argument.

Trueeeee

Perhaps I’m misconstruing SS, but I thought it’s only an attraction to ciswomen (whilst being a cis male)? Not women altogether.

@@humesspoon3176 and how would anyone know if someone is cis or trans unless they tell you?

It made my brain hurt. "2 Nazis agree with me. So I'm right."

Remember that time when Raid: Shadow Legends sponsored black pigeon speaks? You know, an actual white nationalist?

@@0wolfmoon Yeah that's about what I expect from Raid: Shadow Legends.

@@0wolfmoon Raid: Shadow Legends will literally sponsor anyone with enough subs/views.

The Brainstem Trust - no supratentorial activity, guaranteed

Best part is that it happened when they were at the: - How do definitions happen? - We make them up. - Which means they are...? - Subjective. - So the definition of woman would be subjective, correct? - No, it's objective when based on biology and history.

literally all conservative talking points require this level of cognitive dissonance from the facts they accept to the conclusions they make

@@lokalcrow1470 “It’s not my wallet.”

@@lokalcrow1470 wouldn't everything be subjective then? Like for example what counts as a dog would be subjective as well then by that logic right? ( I'm not trying to be a smart ass I'm just curious)

@@silverstein8308 Yes, that's why it's important to understand social constructs in terms of definitions.

tbh I can kinda understand that try making jokes about police brutality or politicians being pieces of shit

@@AR15ORIGINAL I get what you mean, but I think gallows humour and a mentality of it being the norm that never seems to change, means this type of forget-to-do-the-comedy-bit isn't really present on the left. Dave Chapelle (probably not a leftist, but on the issue of police brutality) is an example of how we joke about it.

"Deviant people are bad. Obey state, and if state not like us, undermine state until we control it. Then obey state." -Conservative media in a nutshell

I understand the criticisms of the kid that made up "super-straight", but what if instead of thinking of trans-women as not "real women" like that tool, you're just a man that is turned off by knowing that the woman you're seeing used to have a penis? Is that just a "you're too in your own head, and need to work on that" kind of thing, or is that valid? I'm asking this as a straight dude who probably would date a post-op trans-woman. I'm just interested in the logic of this whole discussion. This might be dumb af lol

gustav nobody cares

its the patrick meme LMAO

That's it, that's the best summary!

They dont though. lmao

@@timinator20o0 don't overthink how wrong you are.

@@timinator20o0 prove it

@Vincent H.I don't see the point in making an argument debunking an obviously false and unsubstantiated claim. I'm sorry you're not clever though. 🤷 Try harder, I guess?

@@timinator20o0 It's more than just biologists, though. The better part of the whole scientific field that would be applicable to this debate does agree that gender and sex are not entirely binary and have a lot more nuance than seen on first blush. I know this won't sit well with some people, but I fall back on how gender and sex is viewed in the field of psychology. The standard in psychology is that while sex is generally determined by biological signs (ie the presence or lack of certain chromosomes, reproductive organs, hormones, etc), gender is purely a psychosocial construct and does not necessarily reflect the individual's assigned sex. And that's not even mentioning how sex is not completely binary (for example, being intersex), let alone gender identity and gender expression.

The name TJump is a guarantor for that.

It's a neapolitan ice cream of shitty ideas!

THANK YOU. We were just having this conversation at work! The ability of two animals to have fertile offspring is a very common qualifier for speciae, so would a 300-lb male mastiff and a 3-lb female Chihuahua be the same species? Those two animals are unable to have any offspring at all without killing Mom long before gestation.

Even having said that science does not affirm the claims that transgender people are making about themselves. They are not what they claim to be.

These morals are justifiable, YOURS AREN'T, they shouldn't even be called morals. And frankly, you'll never see researchers suggesting some humans can't be categorized as humans because "muh we don't really know where to draw the line". If you want human rights, then you better be able to act realistically about categorizations. Categories may be constructed, they're categories, by definition they are. But some, including the sex binary, are extremely well-grounded in reality, much more than most other categories. And not only this, but just because researchers disagree on which models to use to categorize species, they not only want to categorize species, but this level of the debate need not exist for other concepts, like human sex. You're misusing science here.

@@gandalfthegrey2592 Exactly! You'll never see researchers not using a category just because its limits are diffuse. It's _your_ ilk who claims that they must be all-encompassing somehow, and this is simply not scientific. You can't define woman in a way that excludes trans women but includes _all_ cis women. And even if you could, why couldn't trans people be an exception? Take quartz, for example. The way mineral groups are defined, quartz is objectively an oxide, because the negative ion in silicon dioxide is oxygen. However, quartz is treated as a silicate, wherein its entire structure would be an anion. Quartz doesn't fulfill the criteria for being a silicate, and yet, researchers treat it as such, because it's more _useful._ The reality is that science is plagued with these sort of scenarios. While we try to use definitions to describe the material world, they don't come to us through experimentation. Limits _must_ be set arbitrarily at some point, and the criteria used is that of utility. Scientists set limits based on what is most useful, and they have decided, overwhelmingly so, that A) it's more useful to treat gender as a separate category, and B) trans people are valid. This is the nature of the scientific and medical consensus. As for sex, it is definitionally not binary. You will _never_ get exceptions to a binary model. You can try this by yourself. Grab a program of your choosing, set a vector consisting of only 1 and 0, ask the program to return values at random, and see if it produces anything in-between. Sex is _bimodal._ Disruptive selection heavily favours the extremes of a normal distribution, which is why you mainly see 1 of two options, but it was never a binary.

@@gandalfthegrey2592 I wouldn't accuse anyone of misusing science if I couldn't even tell the difference between sex and gender

No lie, I wanted to deck him

@UCCpOWnaMQR1ZpeBZqWFoFSw I stole it from myself

@@TariqNasheed117 I'm glad I'm not the only one. He crossed into "insufferable douchebag" territory with the quickness.

That’s a greeting fallacy actually

@@njester025 that's a comment fallacy I think you've just made

All people who stub their toes say ouch 🙄

TJump throwing his own excrement across the room: "All the philosophers and experts agree this is how to win an argument"

Not all the stubbing are painful

@@flamingogh_ Ouch was 1 of 8 words there. Also I just go Ooooooooooo

When I stub my toe one of two things happens always with out fail 1: *long sigh* fallowed by thoughts of how I should really watch where I'm going 2 : FUCK !!! AAAAAAAGHH GOD FUCKING DAM IT I KEEP DOING IT IN THE SAME PLACE LIKE EVERY TIME UUUUGGH *tries not to cry and walks it off * I'm clumsy is what I'm getting at

Muh "social construct".

@@counselorguy5481 2016 called. Even they don't want you back so idk... go shit in the woods I guess?

@@Kenghym This dude's definition of woman isn't verifiable or falsifiable. It's all self-I.D, meaning that only the persons identifying as such are able to define it. It's all post modernist, social constructionist obfuscation and nonsense. You can support transgender individuals and still acknowledge that "trans man" is just another category of woman and that "trans woman" is just another category of man, due to the fact that a woman can never be a trans woman and that a man can never be a trans man.

@@counselorguy5481 I sum up: you have a problem with the fact that it's purely self-ID but you are fine with people self-IDing as 'different kind of man' instead of 'transwomen'. Isn't that the same thing but you switch out words? I'm also interested what objective line there is to womanhood or manhood in your view. i.e.: when does a toddler become a 'woman'? At birth? At 3? At 10 maybe? Then what is a girl? Why do we consider it inappropriate to marry 10 year old 'women' to 60 year old men? To clarify: my position on this is 'A woman leaves the state of girl when she herself feels like it.' since we know everybody matures at a different rate. But I'll admit that 'being a woman' has been defined by various means. So if not by self ID... how would you define a woman? I'm trying to understand your baseline at this point.

@@Kenghym A woman is an adult human who produces ova gamites or has the organs used to produce ova gamites. No one who has ever produced produced ova can be a man, no one who has ever produced sperm can be a woman. Humans do not have the ability to produce both gamites and reproduce asexually. There are so many empirically observable differences between men and women. One difference out of many being; that if you take a rabdo 1000 men and a random 1000 women, you will find that on average, women's center of gravity is lower than men's. Why is this the case? Maybe due to overwhelming differences in the pelvic structure/muscle mass, fat deposits, why is their pelvic structure different than mens, likely for reproductive purposes. Another difference is that women carey an additional layer of fat on their skin, thats why women are more prone to cellulite and typically have softer skin. This pseudo-intellectual obfuscation about how, "well, xyz is a social construct" is immensely unscientific. This will only makes things worse for trans people overtime.

Theoretically, I could replay that clip enough times that I will just instantly drop dead. It'd be to much torture to listen to it even one more time tho

All? That's just a hasty generalization fallacy I think 😡

him saying that defining black people as not human is not racist depending on the circumstances, then realising the mask came off and tried to suture that shit back onto his face by talking about alien DNA. that broke me

And you can tell that he literally only believes that out of assumption, he’s never looked into what philosophers or biologists say on this subject in his life

This is his go-to statement when he is backed up into a corner. He says it all the time when he has no real rebuttal.

It’s pretty clear that’s the case considering his contradictions and using subjective/objective when it’s convenient.

From this discussion that is plainly obvious

He leans from science to not caring about it in 1 second lmao

1:41:49 "pay me and I'll debate about anything" - Tjump

The crux of his argument was that it’s not inherently transphobic to identify as ‘super straight’ and he’s right. Don’t know why vaush wouldn’t concede that simple point.

I love how you worded this hahaha

It's just like Vaush said. He's not even wrong. His arguments are too incoherent and inconsistent to even address properly.

Science of the Gaps?

Science is on Tjumps side.

@@MusaMansu Not when he invokes it like this.

@@jaidenthekid6051 I don’t see how. Does biological sex exist? Yes. That’s all he was saying. He said he doesn’t even have. A problem with dating trans people personally. He’s just recognizing that biological sexy is real.

@@LegendaryHewy They haven’t proven that at all. What is a woman to you?

By that same vein, how do you decide what is and isnt a valid identity? and is everyone that doesnt agree with this incorporeal filter just written off as a bigot?

@@peepeeman4740 this is a strange response to what I said. I only inferred that by handpicking some leftists who think that all identities are legitimate regardless of any other applicable context and ignoring the majority of leftists who recognise that some identities are worth recognising and some aren’t he is committing a hasty generalisation fallacy, by definition. He is taking a small sample size and applying it across the board, the majority of leftists do not believe this is true. It’s literally the attack-helicopter meme. Leftists don’t actually believe you can identify as an attack helicopter. In response to what you’ve just said, we already have a process by determining this in society, it’s not just a left leaning thing (which is clearly where he and probably you are aiming this imagined gestured hypocrisy). if there’s any scientific or empirical basis, if there’s any real social utility, these are the things you take into account. This is a weird kind of attempt at gotcha I have to say.

Nah that would just be the "generalization fallacy".

@@snakearekat2634 he made a claim based on a small amount of evidence, the small amount of evidence being the extraordinarily few sincere leftists on this planet that think you can identify as anything that can be conceived of

@@peepeeman4740 harm, and sincerity. If an identity causes harm, IE things like MAPs, or folks into zoophilia it's not valid. If the person admits its all a troll, then it's also not valid.

I think he's used to smudging past real criticism

He thinks cringing makes him correct

"If I pretend hard enough that my opponent is stupid maybe they'll think I'm winning", copium

His face contorts so much, it's painful to imitate

LMAOOOO

LMAO

omg underrated comment

Dude is stuck in 2016

His whole political world view seems to be based on memes

I came here to make sure somebody made this point.

How did i never consider this? These “super straights” are actually more gay than regular straights.

Ddddamn that's sus dude

Well to be fair he does state multiple times he would date a trans woman

@@thephoenix756 but, they are, in his eyes, a biological woman 👀

@@thephoenix756 But they are- many men fetishize them unfortunately

@Michael Hayes Exactly....sorta....not really. Objectivity is not on a scale....subjectivity is. TJump was slinging 'objective' and 'subjective' around as though they're interchangeable...they're not. I agree....everything we utilize to interact with each other has been socially constructed...we made them up, we change them to suit our needs...and they vary depending on the company we currently find ourselves. I don't believe anyone can be 'objective' so, of course, not all socially constructed 'constructs' are equally weighted. But that doesn't make anything or anyone 'objective'; nor does it gives us a glimpse into what IS objective. TJump tried to claim 'objectivity' through 'subjective' arguments as though they were refuting Vaush's 'subjective' arguments....which is why he failed so hard.

Biological sex is a physical reality. That is why 7 billion plus humans exist.

Tjump believes in objective morality while vaush believes its a social construct its not a fact which view is correct.

@@alexanderoneill6160 Moralitt has never been demonstrated to exist outside of the human mind. So no, Tjump's appeal to "objective morality" is just ignorant.

@@alexanderoneill6160 objective morality is silly.

Same

respect? for these types of people? never the only good thing about people who dont hide their hate is you save time trying to figure out if someone you just met is worth associating with

@@Matty002 he didnt say they agree, just that they respect it. Probably because of its honestly and bluntness.

You would have more respect if we lied to you? Y’all really do have ass backwards morals

@@Drogon7102 OP is saying they would respect a hateful person. history is full of examples of bad hateful people being treated with respect and the outcomes are never good. obligatory hitler reference here. a good society doesnt tolerate hate, much less respect it

Turns out watching a debate takes some level of knowledge regarding the subject of the debate

It's funny, to be fair I'm just that stubborn lol.

It’s like when MTG said that the Hitler statues should’ve stayed up.

Lol, perfect description of this conversation. TJump is so far up his own ass I would be shocked if he ever conceded a point in his life.

@@stevejones5075 He probably has really bad days when he's introspective for a change and has to refuse to concede a point to himself thus preventing self-growth and ruining his plans for the day. How is he supposed to enjoy a fine chicken tendies dinner with mother now?

Maybe Blaire White

@@lurkingposter 🤣🤣🤣🤣 If Blaire ever dumps joey, this man should be hers.

Shush. Don't ruin the hopes of TJump. He might be incel.

pretty easy to claim you'd date a person who'd never date you because you don't validate their identity. like, I'd date a nazi! but I think Nazis are disgusting people too pathetic to see anything in themselves that makes them special except race. you'd be hard pressed to find any Nazis lining up for me despite my pale skin and blue eyes

I dOnT cArE...

confidence and stupidity are insufferable, agreed!

That’s the only really offensive thing about it. He’s always confidently and comprehensively wrong. Fractally wrong. Equally wrong on all observable levels.

For me it was him getting pissy whenever Vaush would start asking clarifying questions, telling Vaush to not interrupt him, but then he would literally interrupt every single sentence out of Vaush’s mouth for the entire debate. He did it constantly

@@supermutantsam1160 SAME. I kept getting so goddamn frustrated. Plus all his baby-back-bitch sighing when Vaush spoke, and he cut him off constantly when he didn't like what V was saying! He literally said TO VAUSH, "No, I know more than you." "You are so ignorant about this." bro, w h e r e ? ! ! ? ? He was also honestly just lacking basic damn respect and debate etiquette. Sounded like a child huffing and groaning like he's too good for a conversation that he didn't even bother to bring facts to. Oh. My. Gods.

Applying some charity, I think he meant that humans made them and they dont exist in nature. It was still hilarious though.

@@tsharabrown3719 Chairity*

@@roobard2700 i didn't know I needed this dad joke but I'm a better person for it

@@tsharabrown3719 Actually, the chair argument is one that makes a lot of sense and I have seen before, including (I think) from Vaush. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to come up with an objective definition of a chair that does not end up including things we do not recognize as chairs. Chairs are social constructs, not just because humans create chairs, but the form chairs take and the definition of what a chair is differs according to culture and subjective ideas which may even be difficult to articulate. The fact something as mundane as a chair is a social construct is part of a larger argument defending the position that gender is a social construct. Even people who will not "accept the ideology" of gender as a social construct as an absolute sense directly acknowledge the fact that gender roles are social constructs when they speak in a different context. What constitutes a male or female role, especially including things like clothes and work as well as actions, has obviously changed through time. The very fact they say someone is not the gender they identify as is accepting a socially constructed definition. And it doesn't start or end with LGBT. Cisgender men and women have historically and even are now referred to as "not real [men/women]" when they do not fit the "proper" gender roles the (usually conservative) person accepts.

Bill Nye the Confirmation Bias Guy

V: The aspect that makes this transphobic is not that it says one is better than the other. It's that it implies trans women are not women. T: But you can draw a distinction without saying one is better than the other!!

I can't man, I wont make it ;-;

He literally said that while i was reading your comment lmao

don't do this, you'll be dead halfway through

The real killer is taking a shot every time he says "I don't care"

That’s actually a hypocrisy fallacy

Yeah. The point is that trans women want to be seen as women, and not as some intergalactic breed of extra cool aliens. Tjump is so stupid and dishonest that I can barely watch any videos that he's in.

@@nuanceblacksywin4868 I question whether he's being dishonest, or if he just legitimately believes in the things he's saying, it's the same libertarian 101 shit, "In a perfect world void of human corruption, bias, and self interest, the builder of a building would do his absolute best to create a quality product that will make people weed out the inferior builders" 😵😵😵

I was thinking this the entire time!

@@benny399 I absolutely don't think that it's possible to change his mind. He doesn't care about facts or science. That's just his facade. As he said, he'd debate anything for money. And that looks to be the case. He doesn't give a shit that he's ignorant as fuck. Did you see his debate with Skylar Fiction on morality? That's a while back now. Tjump as usual, made NO SENSE. I just don't get why people listen to him. I get propel listening to e-girls even when theyre vapid as hell. But Tjump doesn't have looks, he doesn't have charisma, he doesn't have humour, and he doesn't have brains. He's just worthless garbage. So why does he have followers?

@@benny399 I guess. On that note I'd like to see Destiny review this debate.

Well he gave himself away in the first seconds saying that his problem is that people claim something is wrong with his character. And since something IS wrong with his character he's gonna try hard not to listen to arguments

He's too busy poisoning the well to notice.

It's funny because if you look up the fallacies he tells you to, he's actually right. Vaush looked pathetic so he projected TJump look like an idiot to cover up the fact he was getting destroyed with valid arguments.

@@ncucomics287 Give your best example with a timestamp.

@@ncucomics287 if you were paying attention to Vaush's argument, and *know what transphobia means,* neither of which TJump did, you would know that Vaush was never making a hasty generalization fallacy between TJump and other transphobes, he was saying that what TJump was saying, even in total isolation of other transphobes, is by definition transphobic. The biggest failure of Vaush in this debate was not pointing out any of the dozen times it came up, and never explained to this doofus what transphobia *actually is.*

Dunning kruger...

@@UltaFlame science.

Yes, of course. To determine what a woman is, we science at it.

He uses the same "science" argument in debates with religious people. In those situations he maintains his smugness, despite using it with the same moronic confidence 🙄

@@chiraagshah269 I mean I personally like him in his debates with religious people because he actually can argue his case far better in those circles. Unfortunately he's unable to incorporate sociology and social systems a lot more. He doesn't understand how important the sociological research and peer reviewed papers are. I wish he could come to understand that we are a social species and therefore sociology would still be an important discipline to consider.

Nope I'm ready for it. No. It's not. This is the one thing I'm a conservative on. Hot Dogs are hot Dogs and a sandwich is a sandwich. God made hotdog and sandwich not sandwich and sandwich.

Honestly just going "You do know that superstraight got made up by 4chan edgelords, right?" alone should make anyone who isn't a 4chan dumbass decide not to use that anymore.

lmao the guy just throws it out like Vaush activated his trap card.

Yeah he must have been confused what he is saying sounds more like a Association fallacy.

@Gustav 1 No, they are real women

@Gustav 1 please tell me you're fucking joking

@@caydensmith3291 What makes them women?

That really is what his whole argument depends on and even admitted it was just a copy paste of the 2014 attack helicopter craze despite knowing that craze died down because it was so thoroughly disproven that everyone stopped using it. Everytime Vaush points out something inconsistent or asks Tom to explain the reasoning of something he gets so visibly upset I actually can't stop laughing

@@thephoenix756 ok so. Let's start by differentiating between sex and gender. Sex is the biological factors blah blah blah. Gender is the expression of specific traits and identifying with that label. Transwomen identify as women and Express what we consider to be traits of women. Therefore they're women. Does that kind of make sense in a very simplistic way? I obviously didn't go very in depth here but that's the gist

“Hasty generalization fallacy” -tjump probably 😂

TJump moved the goalposts to the end of the Earth

Women existed before they were named.

@@rumncoke76 It’s not recent. Women are adult, female, humans.

@@rumncoke76 Yes. If you’re born a woman, you are a woman.

Funny thing is... that statement from TJump is a genetic fallacy. TJump tosses fallacies around like buzzwords, when he's the one using them.

@Engleburt Humperdink wow it's really great that nobody's doing that here then

Talking to conservatives in a nutshell.

Vaush's patience is insane. The fact he can stand people like this for so long without exploding, just wow.

Welcome to Leftyland. Glad to have you with us.

Character development, you love to see it

That sounds like it requires a lot of character growth and self reflection. Proud of ya :)

Absolute king! Now - please try to move friends with you!

based growing as a person

Amen

must have watched beauty and the beast and the brave little toaster a bit too much in her formative years

All chairs are women

@@CrumCringle Grammatical gender?

Table legs are more alluring than chair legs

But what if they show up to pride?

I know it’s technically an appeal to ridicule btw...

That would be fun lol

That comment section is hilarious. Not even joking! 😄

@@Juan-rz1lt watch this video

@@Juan-rz1lt Vaush not only addressed this point in this video, but even time stamped it in the description

I get why it sounds stupid, but that statement makes sense in the context that they were discussing. "Chairs" are a...concept created by humans that we attribute to things. Think about it this way; if no humans ever existed to call the thing you are sitting on right now a chair, it wouldn't be a "chair", it would just be a bunch of weirdly shaped pieces of wood or whatever.

My point is: It's terrible wording, if you're in a debate using wording like that hurts your argument.

@@rollingr0ck Exactly, humans are not a literal thing that exists by that logic. I mean TJump literally fails to see the cognitive dissonance in his statements.

absolutely, and his groans are "personified" Dunning Krugers

What sucks is he's normally pretty solid in religious debates. Not sure what was up with this one. I just don't think TJump thought this through too much