I think I can explain why people dislike Warski defending Destiny and make Tonka's case against Destiny
From what I gather, Destiny's case against JF is based off of an opinion by a psychologist thrown out by the judge. And it is also contradicted by her full legal autonomy prior to the relationship.

Destiny talks a big game but went out of his way to dodge and block Alternative Hypothesis. Which is why people think he is dishonest, or him ending the debate with Naked Ape after Ape pointed out he didnt read his own study. These debates are about his glorification, which is why he goes after people if they embarass him, and motivates dishonesty. I also think he does prefer to take on people who dont know their own positions very well, and not those who do. And his fanbase assigns an additional penalty if one does do too well against him.

Really, destiny is smart and competent at debating. He knows it is better to criticize the other side than defend one's own positions, and debates he has lost usually involve that script being flipped. And people think because he has an annoying personality that this isnt true, that he isnt smart and quick enough to be good at debating. Really, I think that is the secret. His debates are annoying to watch if you dont care for him so people dont know what to expect

Destiny did do his whole "immigration reduces cost of goods" thing with Jontron, citing the wealth of California as proof. Sargon even isolated it mockingly.

And Jontron was right about rich blacks and crime. As per the Washington post, poor whites are less likely to go to prison than rich blacks. You can say it's discrimination but I'd argue it is unlikely this is the case based on the correspondance between black perps reported by the NCVS and UCR. Basically the records of blacks charged with crimes matches the rate people report being victimized by blacks.

Destiny is just about reducing bad things happening (who isnt), and he thinks appeasement is the answer. I guess this is why he dislikes race realism, means you cant just throw money at the issue. Economists tend to assume people are just widgets which can be interchangeable, and it neglects the fact that power is a zero-sum game, giving away industrial power is pretty bad.

The people arguing with him about economics were stupid, they let him get away with a huge presupposition and instead tried arguing against the free market rather than explaining the limits of reducing everything to a matter of money.
Mexico wont be as stable as Canada, and assuming lack of money is why is silly. Lack of money is the consequence of Mexico's failures and problems. ​If a latin american nation cant twist the arm of America for more money like we would hypothetically give to Mexico, how will money fix their issues? Puerto Rico isnt a powerful economy.
All his solutions will work out ideally, all his opponent's will never ever work out well. At least he admitted wages get depressed.

Why not just build the wall and send them money, that way we just arent endlessly throwing them money?

"What would the super long term economic impacts? Not sure"
Most criticisms of immigration revolve around the long term economic impact of these demographic changes. One of which is Krugman's "permanent underclass" which can only do low level labor and will get fucked by automation.

"Actually it is ephebophilia, giving AIDS shouldnt be a felony, ands being shocked about planning a homicide is moralfagging" Amazing what you miss. Oh and using Twitch TOS as defense. It will end well for Twitch I am sure, wont end in some kind of scandal.

http://bit.ly/2CqMMVP
http://wapo.st/2Cn4lbP