He who Devon Tracey has avoided debating since April 6, 2018. If you wanna talk, go to Discord, I don't text debate: https://xitter.cf/t.co/NHzFQJL0gL
Guelph, Ontario
Joined August 2016
- Tweets789
- Following149
- Followers3.2K
- Likes1.4K
Hey @AviBittMD, know that you're the "dumbest man in the internet" according to @mehdirhasan. But from your dumb perspective, how plausible do you think Mehdi's belief here is? youtube.com/watch?v=PUjTUjP-…
Also, seems like a kinda weak feat. IDK much about powerscaling but I suspect @ClydeYouTube would say something like that this is small-planetary and Goku would no diff. I mean he didn't even vaporize the moon, just cut it in half.
Lmao. People, it's 2026, ok? Almost 2027. Certain bad faith moves are simply not viable anymore. I've pointed this out once before. For instance, refusing to engage with hypotheticals. That's just a way of saying "I've been destroyed I won't admit it, but I also won't continue in good faith." So it's more-or-less pointless to say, it's just so easy to identify as a dodge and a sign of weakness at this point in human history that it doesn't serve its intended dialectical role. Another to add to the list, as demonstrated nicely for us by @mehdirhasan here in response to @AviBittMD is ignoring a debate offer but saying something that indicates you don't agree. That's as bad as hypo dodging or any of the other outdated-and-never-worth-deploying-again bad faith moves. Seriously the bad faith meta needs to evolve. When it's this transparent, what even is the point? When I see a debate offer ignored in a reply like this my mind immediately goes "ah ok, knows he'd get shat on, doesn't wanna admit it, trying to save face". Please stop being cringe. Either advance the bad faith meta with something new and creative or just develop dignity and don't be bad faith in the first place.
Lol Jimbob has already been beaten bloody on this silly evolution ⇒ no correct thinking nonsense. Ever since he flees me despite there being an open offer to complete the conversation he ran away from live. The fact that he still runs this trash argument on unsuspecting science types while dodging the phil people who are familiar with it, have counters to it, and who he knows he can't hang with, is pretty pathetic. Stomping linked below.
youtube.com/watch?v=MiFo1Qd8…
This Post is from a suspended account. Learn more
I didn't watch this debate. I'm sure it was a funny narcissism battle. I suspect Jay was doing his standard schtick where he hamfistedly regurgitates traditional phil puzzles while implying that if the other side doesn't have good answers Christianity must be correct. I suspect the puzzle here was something roughly like the following:
Concepts (like microphone) are either physical, mental, or abstract. They can't be physical or mental cause this would mean they can't be shared (since we don't share brains or minds), so they're abstract.
Things to note:
1. This kind of reasoning doesn't get you to Christianity because atheistic platonism is an available view.
2. You don't even need to accept platonism at all here, you could just be careful about what it means to "share" concepts. For ex a behavioral notion of concept sharing could be used where two people are said to share a concept when sufficient behavioral overlap can be observed in response to a term being deployed. Like if you say to a group of people "we're getting Chinese food, what would you all like?" and everyone responds by listing a dish like "kung pao tofu', or "chow mein", that could qualify as sharing a concept of Chinese food.
Reminder that both Stefan and Jay dodge me. Lol.
Re: Andrew vs. Candace. Conspiracy theorists are actually one of the more difficult kinds of people to debate. It's easy to underestimate the difficulty because our priors are very low on their views (and reasonably so). But in fact it's often easier to debate someone with a stronger position than the conspiracist if their thought pattern is more conventional because you're playing the same game. To really pwn conspiracy theorists some pieces have to be in place:
1) You need clarity on basic epistemology. Often conspiracists have deranged epistemologies and if you only know how to fight at layers that are logically posterior to epistemology it's easy to get stuck. You should understand how theory choice works. There are theoretical virtues (philpapers.org/browse/theore…) and different theories are more or less virtuous WRT a given set of theoretical virtue. The goal is to converge on a virtue set, reductio the conspiracist's set if there isn't convergence, and if there is convergence to show your theory beats theirs on said virtue set. Without this high-level framing you're in a vague cloud.
2) You need to understand the evidence hierarchy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierar…) and how to reductio non-standard hierarchies.
3) You need domain knowledge of the relevant conspiracy. This is a research project. Knowing all the stupid points takes a long time.
I could say a lot more about how to string this all together into a linear procedure. But If you minmax on #3 you'll have trouble cause then you'll get into a pattern of trying to swat away a million little insane points like flies without a coherent overall picture emerging. So the whole thing has a lost in the weeds vibe.
Some people have no shame, lol. I don't get how someone makes tweets like this while dodging debate. Guy told me to contact him via email so we can schedule debate and I followed up 3 times with no reply. You can get a sense of how well he'd do from last time I pressed him on is-ought: youtube.com/watch?v=sjKgQ1Ng…
Hero in own mind I guess. Offer remains open when he's ready to defend his view instead of posturing like he's ready to defend his view.
Lol. "Every time"? Except that time I called to press you on realism and you tapped out.
youtube.com/watch?v=6PWfMYen…
After years of running like a bitch from everyone competent, Jay Dyer fully flees. Byebye, retard! If you ever grow some balls we're waiting, as we have been for years.
Alex Malpass and I did a review of the debate in question between @StefanMolyneux and @RationalityRule years ago. Lots of issues IIRC: youtube.com/watch?v=g986YoXU…
Also worth noting I never heard back from Molyneux after he told me to follow up with him on email for an is-ought debate (I followed up 3 times and got no reply). What little debate we did have on Is-ought is here: youtube.com/watch?v=sjKgQ1Ng…
I Failed a Moral Debate! X Space - UPB
Philosopher Stefan Molyneux challenges a caller's claim that he failed a moral debate in this Wednesday Night Live on 3 June 2026, demanding specific quotes and errors instead of vague attacks while walking through how biological needs like breathing and eating prove universal behaviors. He shows that treating arguments in context and rejecting bad-faith claims keeps debates honest and truth-seeking.
0:00:00 Opening Banter
0:01:56 Taking Caller Questions
0:03:04 Christians, Child Abuse, and Hell
0:11:14 The Good Samaritan Standard
0:17:51 Religion Fails Moral Reality
0:19:24 Virtue Versus Family
0:22:49 Belief Versus Performance
0:28:46 Challenging the UPB Debate
0:33:26 Context Matters in Quotes
0:41:05 Editing Debate Reactions
0:43:31 Demanding Specific Evidence
0:51:44 Benefit of the Doubt
0:54:26 Revisiting an Old Debate
0:58:43 Notes, Memory, and Certainty
1:05:12 Debate on UPB Proofs
1:24:16 Biology Versus Morality
1:41:48 Conscience and Empathy
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! xitter.cf/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
freedomain.locals.com/suppor…
Had a great discussion with @RyanCMullally. Something that's great about Ryan is how he really cares about his interlocutor truly understanding his position. These days so many people just want to talk AT each other without really listening. But Ryan makes it obvious he wants to talk WITH you. If you're ever having trouble following something he's saying, just tell him, he's always happy to fill in the blanks so you can understand him going forward. Highly encourage everyone to watch this to get a sense of how to have productive discourse.
youtube.com/watch?v=6PWfMYen…
Watch nerd time.
Myself, Lance Bush, and @askyourself92 reviewed the recent debate on moral realism between Lance Bush and David Enoch. Premiering now, check it out! youtu.be/enOid3xg9Is
I feel like the blue-button-pushers need a rallying cry to emphasize the value of blue lives at stake. May I suggest: #bluelivesmatter?
Funny cause @Timcast isn't familiar with @JayDyer's schtick but just sorta latches onto the contradiction thing and happens to punch Jay in the weakest part of his position. Jay is an absolute clown. He's been fleeing me for years and gets bitchslapped every time he talks to someone competent.
Me debating him years ago. He ends up saying there are cases of P∧¬P that aren't contradictory (lol) then fleeing the convo when I try to point out the fact that using words like "should" doesn't commit one to realism. I didn't really know much phil/debate at the time and still clowned him pretty bad, if we redid in 2026 the bloodbath level of be off the charts and so he'll never do it. He got pwned by like half-baked mid 20s Isaac: youtube.com/watch?v=ZiDAz5mn…
Me showing he doesn't understand internal critiques a bit later: youtube.com/watch?v=rp6s5-Az…
@FrictionPhilo completely raping him (he loops on an already addressed point once stuck then flees the convo): youtube.com/watch?v=S0DxUQt5…
Jay running from @AviBittMD (he now runs from all AY community members hahahaha): youtube.com/watch?v=9TMqE7Bl…
Jay running from @RuxterL after a very quick bitchslap: youtube.com/watch?v=VHTQV-BI…
🤡🚨🤡🚨🤡🚨🤡🚨
Honestly if you take this guy seriously, that is one of the most hardcore clown alerts possible.
🤡🚨🤡🚨🤡🚨🤡🚨
Can we please all collectively mock this blazing retard and make him feel some shame for literally fleeing everyone who knows how to break his position for years on end? If you wanna watch me or any of the above people rape him, let it be know. I doubt he's capable of feeling shame but the more people who humiliate him for fleeing the better. I and probably all the others mentioned in this post are happy to debate this clown any time. Keep running, you little bitch.
People are mad this is getting made fun of and think those making fun are assholes. I'm vegan, if you put a V in there for vegan or an A for animal I'd still find it funny, and not cause I don't care about these groups. There's something funny about the combo of fulfilling the rightwing prophecy of an ever-expanding acronym (they've been calling this for at least a decade), trying so hard to be compassionate in the least meaningful way ever, and just the overall unsustainability of the thing.
I didn't actually watch the full convo, so perhaps I'm missing context but taking the clip at face value, this is 100000% the right norm to set. I say that while not liking many of @TheOmniLiberal's debate norms. If someone just wants to ramble and evade you should simply leave the convo and let them cry about it or tell them to wave when done rambling then mute them on your end and just refute their points/shoot the shit with your own audience till they're ready to stop being clowns then pick up at exactly where you left of and refuse to follow whatever new thread they established during the rambling dodgefest. There are other options but these are 2 I like.
