clips

Vee's debates seem to revolve around him filibustering with lots of points, rejoinders, comments, etc and naturally, he sees them not all being answered as demerits. On top of inane if even relevant counter-examples, changing the subject, deflecting to you or those like you, demanding more evidence (or rather, evidence meeting his arbitrary standards) while providing none himself, lazy and content-less comparisons to SJWs or inane comparisons like comparing psychologists studying psychometric traits and their genetic influence to feminist theory (very easy to make since they also dont deny groups when convenient). An extreme example of what not successfully attacking your opponent's position can lead to.

It's like dealing with a child who doesn't want to admit or learn somethjng, very hard to keep him on track or make him answer your question. He's extremely prone to interjecting with his own little reality. the Hitler quote also apploes, but more incompetence than dishonesty. A few times I didn't reject what he said because I assumed he wpuldnt be wrong, even if it was a craven attempt to dismiss without reading and looking for the easiest way to do that while looking good despite being an idiot who cites lewontin because he doesn't know anything. In all the cases of him deriding psychology (like Kraut tried with the social sciences rather than take them on and producing no positive evidence for his side), it was them reporting on findings from geneticists in a straightforward and jon-controversial manner, respected people even like Pinker. Vee certainly found no flaw
And his actual position is wishful thinking plain and simple. His case is "we enforce the law", truly. Or other incredibly simple solution to complex problems, 'just do it right this time!' rather than ever investigating why it wasnt done right the first time, what weakness was exploited.

And admitting principles of liberalism can be suspended when he gets emotional

They're right, they never have to justify that because duh they just are, their principles are universal but SJWs are super powerful and they are fighting them to save the minorities from their mind control, their worldview is complete without any blindspots as well but everyone else has romantic almost cult-like beliefs, but again SJWs run everything, and this is why they will constantly forget the gaping holes in their ideas once you beat them into their heads through all their attempts to drown it out in noise. And they also dont even have to debate you, but of course SJWs should platform (not just talk) them because market of ideas, and they either have or later do debate us or other fringes. This is also not sulking even if it comes after the game getting too rough for them clearly. Reality is that an SJW could make the same presumptions he did about the infallibility of their ideology (since both think they can only be failed and not applied with correct conviction) and would be about as correct, since CLib doesnt have the answers

Either that or this all is just insecurity and overcompensation of some kind

He seems to specifically hate the idea of cultural and political attitudes having genetic basis. Often citing totalitarianism or maverick intellectual traditions. I mean, this is a strawman to suggest we dont think input matters. What we say is, given choice, different people will produce different political systems or attitudes in the same environment. And they will respond to a lack of choice too, predispositions like all genetic traits need to play out in an environment. It isnt literallyt a gene which makes you support low taxes, but maybe genes which make you less likely to be moved by appeals for higher taxation.