How To Win Any Political or Moral Debate with the “Best” Online Debaters

Vaush, Destiny, Vegan Gains, and others have some reputation online as being good debaters. Some people avoid debating them for a variety of reasons, and, while maybe true for some, I think the reasons probably go beyond being “scared” of them (Vegan Gains challenged me to a debate and then backed out, but I think that has more to do with him feeling lazy or that there’s no real incentive to do it). Regardless, some believe there are other online personalities who are scared to debate these people on any political or moral issue. If you happen to be one of those scared online personalities, I’m going to tell you how to win any political (at least, its evaluative claims) or moral debate with them.

Defining “winning”

First off, to “win” the debate, I mean the following.

1) You’re not necessarily showing your opponent to be wrong.

2) You’re not trying to win the favor of some audience.

3) You are setting up your position as right and showing how Vaush, Destiny, Vegan Gains, etc. cannot show you to be wrong.

The main point: If moral subjectivism is true, then you’re morally infallible

Destiny, Vaush, Vegan Gains, and company all accept some form of moral relativism or subjectivism. For them, moral truth is determined by individual whims, desires, and preferences. In other words, if one approves of socialism, then socialism is good. If one disapproves of veganism, then veganism is bad. And so on.

This being the case, whenever you hold the opposite view of these streamers, just remain steadfast in your belief. Don’t offer any wiggle room. Simply assert that socialism, capitalism, or anti-veganism are moral. That’s your belief, and your belief determines morality. They may have opposing beliefs or opposing arguments, but that does not show you to be wrong. Morality is determined by your preferences and not beholden to any sort of standard outside of that (otherwise, that would be rejecting moral subjectivism). They cannot show you to be wrong, because, for you to not be wrong, you must simply hold and approve of your preference. You can even cover your ears and repeat words like a demented robot in a Rings of Saturn t-shirt. Sure, it will look ridiculous and not win any rhetorical points, but, under subjectivism, you would not be necessarily wrong to do this.

An example with Vaush

Vaush: While I make no claims to objective truth, we can say, from a virtue ethicist’s perspective, that when we tally the total net benefit AND utility behind a total versus average utility cost and outcome of CP that is NON-supererogatory, we come to the UNIFIED and objectively true and AGREED upon conclusion that capitalism IS bad.

You: Capitalism is good.

Vaush: No, it’s wrong to exploit workers.

You: Nope. It’s actually good to exploit workers.

Vaush: Do you have any studies to show that?

You: I’m making an evaluative judgment. I don’t need studies. Morality is subjective, I approve of my evaluative claims; therefore, capitalism is good, and it’s okay to exploit workers.

Vaush: Most people would find that crazy.

You: I don’t care. Morality is determined by me. I’m still right.

Vaush: My audience is just going to laugh at you.

You: Your audience can’t even handle getting their own groceries, and I’m still right.

Vaush: Do you have any reasons or arguments for your moral belief?

You: No, and I don’t have to. I don’t have to follow any of your subjective standards for me to be reasonable. At the end of the day, I still approve of capitalism. Therefore, I’m right.

(You could make the same moves against Destiny when arguing in favor of socialism.)

An example with Vegan Gains

You: It’s okay to kill and eat animals.

Vegan Gains: Hang on. Let me pull up #NameTheTrait version 45 that was peer-reviewed by a medical doctor. Okay, so, name the trait which if true of animals would also make it true of humans.

You: I approve of killing and eating animals, but I don’t approve of killing and eating humans.

Vegan Gains: Okay, but, umm, *pauses to consult the dialogue chart* what’s the trait?

You: Asking me to “name a trait” is stupid. For all I care, my approval is the trait. Or I can simply deny that traits are morally relevant. You’re a moral subjectivist. You can’t correct me on what’s morally relevant or not. I approve of killing and eating animals, so that’s morally correct. I don’t approve of killing and eating humans. That’s also morally correct. I don’t need any further reasons to be justified or correct.