A little late to this, but I found this rather frustrating to listen to. Part of the problem is that when you make it about intentionality (re: White genocide), Destiny's own sense of incredulity gets to be the decider. The standard of evidence that he requires is people in power saying: "yup, we are specifically trying to genocide White people; all of the social justice pretexts are just that: pretexts". Anything less and Destiny gets to act like it's a giant conspiracy to connect all the dots. It's disingenuous and frankly stupid. It is much more productive to argue that demographic replacement is happening; it's a policy choice; and we oppose it. Beyond that, the intentionality is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things anyway.

Various thoughts during the debate:

• Destiny's first argument was complete bullshit (re: internet censorship). If someone argues that Clinton is a lizard, and is subsequently banned, this is obviously not proof that she is a lizard. But that is not the logic of what Mark was arguing at all. He was arguing that part of the intentionality of White genocide can be evidenced by how opposition is censored. In other words, "x is suppressed" is not proof that x is true, but it is proof that x is being suppressed. You can tell that Destiny was being dishonest here because he later went on to say how censorship is a result of market forces -- an argument he wouldn't have made if he didn't understand Mark's actual point.

• Mark sort of got thunderstruck by Destiny's argument about grooming gangs. I don't blame him for this one bit, but it was unfortunate.

• This is minor in comparison to the rest, but is relevant to the 'genocide' part. Destiny made the argument that if Whites are being genocided through miscegenation, then nonwhites are being genocided too. Mark did reply to this but not as comprehensively as I think it deserved. That conversation got sidetracked into who is White, multiracial people identifying as the nonwhite part, etc. But IMO the more significant point here is how unbelievably stupid and self-evidently absurd his implication is: that race mixing impacts both races equally. No explanation is necessary -- it's that dumb.