Fresh & Fit - Andrew Wilson VS Destiny Debate!

00:01:08.000 Alright, we are live.

00:01:09.000 What's up, guys?

00:01:10.000 Welcome to the Fresh Red Podcast, man.

00:01:11.000 I'm joined by two people that I call my buddies.

00:01:14.000 Good guys, contrary to what people might say.

00:01:17.000 Andrew Wilson and Destiny.

00:01:19.000 Today, I'm going to be hosting a debate between them on, was January 6th an insurrection?

00:01:25.000 Okay, the way this debate is going to go is we're going to have opening statements by both parties for five minutes where they're going to identify their arguments.

00:01:33.000 Their stance, who they are, introduce themselves to you, etc.

00:01:36.000 That's going to be five minutes uninterrupted.

00:01:38.000 Then we're going to have three minutes where each of them are going to be able to lodge their arguments for three rounds of that for three minutes going back and forth.

00:01:46.000 And then we're going to have two rounds where it's an open five-minute dialogue.

00:01:51.000 I'll be timing each round, staying as a neutral moderator.

00:01:55.000 So guys, if you're not familiar with Destiny or Andrew Wilson, please go subscribe to both their channels.

00:01:58.000 I'm cool with both these guys.

00:02:00.000 Obviously, we don't agree on everything, but I respect both these guys as skilled debaters, and they're good colleagues of mine, so please go check out their channels on YouTube and on Rumble and all the platforms that they're on.

00:02:11.000 DominiqueLiberal on Twitter, the PaleoChristCon on X? Just PaleoChristCon, yeah.

00:02:17.000 Yeah, on X. So go check them out on all the platforms, guys.

00:02:20.000 I'm happy to be able to host this debate.

00:02:21.000 So other than that, we're live on all platforms, YouTube, Rumble, etc.

00:02:24.000 Check us out at rumble.com.

00:02:27.000 And Andrew, I will turn it to you to go ahead and start with opening statements, and I'll start the timer.

00:02:33.000 Okay, I appreciate it.

00:02:34.000 Thank you to the entire Fresh and Fit audience for coming out and to DGG as well.

00:02:39.000 We're here today to debate if the events of the January 6th Capitol riots were an insurrection or if they weren't.

00:02:45.000 Simple.

00:02:46.000 It's a simple debate prompt.

00:02:47.000 They either were or they weren't.

00:02:49.000 Looking into the idea of insurrection itself, it isn't exactly clear what the meaning of it is.

00:02:54.000 It does always seem to be tied together with violence or some will to overthrow a government law, government system, government itself, or resistance to that law, or something akin to this.

00:03:05.000 The Supreme Court hasn't given us any guidance on this as they wash their hands of it, and to date, not a single person has been charged or convicted of insurrection who participated in any of the J6 rioting.

00:03:15.000 This includes Donald Trump himself, who was acquitted of inciting insurrection.

00:03:20.000 You would think, with no clear guidance of what an insurrection is, a lack of anybody being prosecuted for this supposed insurrection who participated, and a president acquitted of inciting one, that that would be that.

00:03:35.000 The events of January 6th were a protest that turned into a riot.

00:03:38.000 This is nothing new.

00:03:40.000 Democrats do it all the time.

00:03:42.000 In fact, Destiny in 2021 completely agreed with my current assessment.

00:03:47.000 Please, if you don't mind, play clip one.

00:03:49.000 Okay, we will make that available to you.

00:03:51.000 Bills is going to roll it up right now.

00:03:56.000 And I will go ahead and give you an extra five seconds on your thing.

00:04:02.000 Okay, go ahead and play the video, please. 1.00

00:04:04.000 If you think the majority of the people there were actually trying to do that and all they managed to do was, like, kill, like, one woman got shot by the cops, you're fucking delusional. 0.99

00:04:12.000 I think most of the people probably showed up to protest because they were fucking mad and then shit got riled up. 0.99

00:04:16.000 They were probably, almost for sure, I would say, some genuine bad actors there that had fantasies of invading the fucking Capitol and shit. 1.00

00:04:22.000 Now, I think I heard from the FBI. I don't think every single person who went there, their goal was to destroy the White House or destroy the Capitol building and take it over. 0.99

00:04:36.000 Because if they were, we would have saw way more shit. 0.99

00:04:39.000 Okay. 0.96

00:04:40.000 Now, just so you know, I have no visual on my end when those play, and I'd appreciate it if you guys could put the visual up on my end as well.

00:04:47.000 Okay.

00:04:47.000 In fact, Destiny even agrees such rioting and political violence is part of the democratic process, akin to voting, he says.

00:04:55.000 He said this to justify the George Floyd or BLM riots, that such riots were just one side of the Democrat coin and baked in to our Democrat process.

00:05:04.000 The tail's in, and just the other half of democracy, he says.

00:05:09.000 Of course, he later denied this.

00:05:11.000 Please play clip two.

00:05:12.000 Okay.

00:05:13.000 And we'll get this so that you can see it, Andrew.

00:05:16.000 Give us one second.

00:05:16.000 I'm going to stop the clock while we...

00:05:19.000 Right now, we're two minutes...

00:05:21.000 Hold on, Bills.

00:05:23.000 I'm going to start the clock once, back up once, to be fair here, once the clip is up.

00:05:28.000 Can you see it, Andrew?

00:05:30.000 I cannot see the clip, no, on my end.

00:05:32.000 He's gonna make it visible to you here in a second.

00:05:34.000 Great.

00:05:35.000 And I stopped the clock just so everybody knows.

00:05:41.000 Bear with us, guys.

00:05:44.000 We're using a million different things.

00:05:46.000 OBS, Zoom, all this other stuff.

00:05:48.000 Shout out to Bills in the back, working hard.

00:05:51.000 Can you see it now?

00:05:52.000 I can see something.

00:05:54.000 There we go.

00:05:55.000 Okay.

00:05:55.000 Perfect.

00:05:56.000 So we will roll the clip now.

00:05:57.000 I'm gonna start the clock back up.

00:05:58.000 Bills, go ahead. 1.00

00:06:00.000 ...a disingenuous sack of shit. 1.00

00:06:01.000 Because, as I've debated you in the past, you started talking before January 6th ever occurred about how the BLM riots were justified. 1.00

00:06:09.000 It was just the other side of the coin of voting. 0.97

00:06:11.000 Of course, once you realize that grip wouldn't do as well for you when you were debating the Rittenhouse shit, you completely 180'd your position. 0.99

00:06:16.000 Hold on. 0.97

00:06:17.000 Did I ever say writing is the other side of the coin of voting?

00:06:19.000 Probably did.

00:06:20.000 That's a really strange statement, but I did.

00:06:21.000 That's a really strange statement, but go ahead.

00:06:22.000 Okay.

00:06:24.000 Activism and riots are one side of the coin and the other side is voting.

00:06:26.000 I don't think there's conspiratorial at all.

00:06:28.000 I think that effecting political change like this is fine.

00:06:31.000 That's part of the goal.

00:06:33.000 Activism and riots are one side of the coin and the other side is voting.

00:06:38.000 Okay.

00:06:40.000 And we're three minutes and 20 seconds in.

00:06:42.000 Go ahead.

00:06:43.000 So why the radical change of heart on this topic from Destiny?

00:06:47.000 This complete 180?

00:06:48.000 Well, that's simple.

00:06:49.000 He hates Donald Trump.

00:06:51.000 A simple motivation, but at least understandable.

00:06:53.000 He also hates Trump supporters. 0.79

00:06:55.000 In order for him to justify that he wants them all to be unalived, he needs to brand them all as traitors and insurrectionists. 0.97

00:07:01.000 In this way, he can build a case that Trump supporters are evil, and so it is justified to use violence against them. 0.88

00:07:07.000 To recap that, Trump supporters are evil, therefore anything which happens to them is fine.

00:07:11.000 Going so far as to say his friend Pisco, to his friend Pisco, the only reason he wouldn't have liked Trump to have been unalived... 0.62

00:07:22.000 By this would-be assassin is because it would motivate Republicans.

00:07:26.000 This, of course, gives us an entailment that if it wouldn't motivate Trump supporters, he would be fine with Trump having met his demise in this assassination attempt.

00:07:34.000 And this is the last clip.

00:07:36.000 Play clip three, please, and then I'll wrap this up.

00:07:38.000 Okay.

00:07:38.000 We're four minutes and 20 seconds in.

00:07:40.000 I'm going to stop to watch while we pull this up.

00:07:46.000 Proxy, 424 seconds, but I'm adding another five from the first clip, and we're pulling it up, so.

00:07:51.000 So far beyond that, so far.

00:07:53.000 Okay.

00:07:55.000 I'll start the clock back up once we roll the clip.

00:07:58.000 Can you see it, guys?

00:07:59.000 Can you see it, Andrew?

00:08:00.000 Oh, sorry, he's screen sharing it right now.

00:08:02.000 Give us one second, we'll pull it up.

00:08:05.000 Thank you, audience, and thank you guys for bearing with us here.

00:08:08.000 Many things going on.

00:08:09.000 We want to make sure that Andrew can see it as well as the audience.

00:08:11.000 Yep, I can see it.

00:08:11.000 You can see it?

00:08:12.000 Okay.

00:08:13.000 Bills, go ahead. 0.68

00:08:14.000 I'll start the timer back up.

00:08:15.000 So far beyond that. 1.00

00:08:16.000 So far giving a fuck beyond any of these fucking losers. 1.00

00:08:19.000 But go ahead. 1.00

00:08:20.000 Can I ask you a question?

00:08:23.000 And you don't have to answer if you want to.

00:08:25.000 Yeah.

00:08:26.000 Do you wish the attempt had been successful?

00:08:30.000 Do I wish that the attempt had been successful? 0.99

00:08:34.000 Fuck, am I even allowed to say anything about that? 0.99

00:08:38.000 You don't have to answer that. 1.00

00:08:40.000 Here's what I'll say.

00:08:41.000 This is what I will say.

00:08:42.000 A failed attempt is probably the worst outcome of anything that could have happened.

00:08:48.000 I'll say that much.

00:08:49.000 I disagree.

00:08:49.000 I think a successful attempt, if that had happened...

00:08:52.000 Well, actually, hold on.

00:08:54.000 We might agree.

00:08:55.000 The successful attempt would be an attempt at that point.

00:08:58.000 So, guys, we just hit pretty much the five-minute mark.

00:09:02.000 Destiny, if you're okay with it, I can let this kind of go on another minute or so, and I'll afford you an extra minute and give you six.

00:09:07.000 Are you okay with that?

00:09:08.000 Yeah, you can learn most.

00:09:09.000 You sure?

00:09:10.000 Okay.

00:09:10.000 All right, then.

00:09:10.000 So we'll complete this out.

00:09:12.000 I'll time it.

00:09:12.000 Whatever I gave Andrew, I will give to you as well on your opening statements if you're okay with that.

00:09:16.000 Go ahead, Bill.

00:09:16.000 Roll the clip back.

00:09:17.000 Thank you, Destiny.

00:09:19.000 Whatever.

00:09:19.000 It might be the worst thing that happened.

00:09:20.000 But if it was the worst thing, it was just because of the country's reaction afterwards, basically.

00:09:24.000 Which is possible, yeah.

00:09:28.000 So, ultimately, destiny needs to be able to provide us with what an insurrection actually is.

00:09:34.000 An actual working legal definition or even a personal one so we can work off of that to understand the mindset of a person who claims this was an insurrection, even as nobody ultimately is prosecuted for an insurrection.

00:09:47.000 He, to date, hasn't done this for the same reason the Supreme Court and higher courts won't.

00:09:52.000 If they do define it strictly and categorize it strictly, then it's likely Democrats and even Republicans are engaging in them all the time.

00:09:59.000 Non-stop, in fact.

00:10:00.000 I am, in fact, willing to, in the ultimate spirit of good faith, concede that if destiny just can't really define an insurrection or tell us what goes into that category and not into the category of a riot, That he really has no business calling anybody an insurrectionist, especially when nobody's been charged with an insurrection in regards to J6. Nobody.

00:10:20.000 And certainly not convicted.

00:10:21.000 I will concede, however, if he concedes Democrats are likely involved in insurrections all the time, using violence for political change.

00:10:29.000 I'll concede Republicans maybe as well if his definition is that broad.

00:10:34.000 However, that will eliminate his moral high ground for the justification of do what you want to them because they're traitors.

00:10:41.000 That would also make you a traitor.

00:10:44.000 With that, I'll cede my time.

00:10:46.000 Note in that video that the entire audience, when he was asked this question by Pisco, said, yes, we would have preferred that Trump was unalive during that assassination attempt.

00:10:59.000 Go ahead.

00:11:00.000 Okay, so I have approximately 6 minutes and 45 seconds there.

00:11:05.000 Destiny, I will reset the clock and allot you the same exact amount of time to stay fair here.

00:11:10.000 Let me know when you are ready, and I'll restart the clock.

00:11:14.000 Yeah, I'm ready whenever.

00:11:15.000 You ready?

00:11:15.000 Okay, I'm going to start it now.

00:11:16.000 I'll give you 6.45, and go ahead, brother.

00:11:19.000 All right.

00:11:20.000 I believe that the subject matter of the debate is whether or not January 6th is an insurrection or would be considered an insurrection.

00:11:26.000 Originally, I thought there was going to be a 1v1 debate against me and Andrew, but I can do a 1v2 debate against my 2021 less educated self as well.

00:11:32.000 I have no problem speaking to arguments I've made in prior clips.

00:11:35.000 I have no problem speaking to current arguments made by Andrew.

00:11:38.000 So we can head down that road.

00:11:40.000 I think that the first thing that we need to acknowledge when we talk about the structure of the United States government is that the Constitution of the United States It's the supreme law of the land.

00:11:48.000 The Constitution is what powers our three branches of government, and it sits above every other part of our government, and every part of our government must comport to the Constitution.

00:11:57.000 I think this is a foundational American belief and principle, and if you don't share on this foundational belief, then we're never going to connect in any sort of meaningful way when we talk about how U.S. law or U.S. process or procedure or whatever should be carried out.

00:12:10.000 So that being said, there was an amendment to the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and Section 3 of that amendment basically goes on to say that any prior oath-taker that has engaged in or aided in an insurrection is no longer allowed to hold office, essentially.

00:12:25.000 Now, the question that we come to today is trying to define what is an insurrection.

00:12:30.000 And while in modern times it seems like An insurrection is a term left to a dictionary or a term left to internet debaters.

00:12:36.000 At the time that the 14th Amendment was framed, what was an insurrection was pretty well understood.

00:12:44.000 An insurrection includes four vital elements.

00:12:47.000 One is an assemblage, meaning a group of people that have come together.

00:12:52.000 Two is resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

00:12:56.000 Three is you have to do this by way of force or intimidation.

00:13:01.000 And four is it has to be for a public concern or a public cause, not a private thing that one might be interested in.

00:13:08.000 Just for some understandings of when we say an assemblage, we can look to in 1861, Justice Benjamin Curtis said a combination or conspiracy by which different individuals are united in one common purpose.

00:13:21.000 So not just a bunch of people in a city protesting different things, but a group of people that are united in one common purpose.

00:13:26.000 We can look to Justice Samuel Chase.

00:13:29.000 In the case of Freeze, in the year 1800, he says, if a body of people conspire and meditate in insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States, a statute such as the ECA, the Electoral Count Act, which is what they were united on January 6th to insurrect against,

00:13:44.000 they were opposing the execution of that.

00:13:47.000 They are only guilty of a high misdemeanor, but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, which we did see on the day of January 6th, regardless of if every member engaged in force or just one, they are guilty of the treason of levying war, and the quantum of force employed neither lessens nor increases the crime,

00:14:06.000 whether by 100 or 1,000 persons, is wholly immaterial.

00:14:10.000 Doesn't matter if you have an insurrection of 50 people, 100 people, or 1,000 people, you only really need two people there to make it an insurrection.

00:14:16.000 Uh, In terms of whether or not they were resisting a law or interfering with the cause of government, we can quote here, An insurrection against the United States requires resistance to any statute or some public law of the United States.

00:14:31.000 This is a quote by a judge in, I think, 1826.

00:14:36.000 Curtis said, I think?

00:14:55.000 And Justice Fields' opinion in the Great House court case held that any effort to coerce the conduct of government constituted an insurrection, such as when people went to the Capitol to coerce Pence to overthrow the election, which is what Donald Trump told them to do.

00:15:10.000 By force or by intimidation.

00:15:13.000 Quoting Justice Marshall in 1807, the most comprehensive definition of living war against the king or against the United States, which I have seen, requires an assemblage of men ready to act and with an intent to do some treasonable act and armed in warlike manner or else assembled in such numbers as to supersede the necessity of arms.

00:15:29.000 You don't necessarily need weapons to do it.

00:15:31.000 You could just have the numbers of people there threatening to use force or intimidation.

00:15:35.000 And then for a public purpose, obviously, the insurrection is to, I'm quoting Judge John Kane here, insurrections to redress by force national grievances or to form real or imaginary evils of a public nature.

00:15:47.000 Obviously, they were protesting the vote.

00:15:49.000 That's what they were there to do.

00:15:51.000 This is obviously a public issue.

00:15:53.000 So, to recount, for the Assembly, there were hundreds of people that breached the Capitol building.

00:15:57.000 There were thousands that trespassed on federal land.

00:15:59.000 For two, there was a clear resistance to the federal law.

00:16:02.000 The trespassers were there to contribute the Electoral Count Act.

00:16:04.000 There was a plethora of evidence brought up in the Anderson v.

00:16:07.000 Griswold case about this, where, quoting the judges on that case, they said,"...substantial evidence in the record showed that the mob's unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the 12th Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election." The third element, the resistance made extensive use of force.

00:16:24.000 This is self-evident just by watching any of the videos.

00:16:27.000 To quote the Colorado Supreme Court again, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol.

00:16:32.000 Obviously, there were calls to hang Mike Pence and people marched, very famously, with 1776 signs, which, as many in this audience might be familiar with, was a very popular insurrection in U.S. history, or a rebellion even, one might say.

00:16:44.000 And then for a public purpose, it was obviously for the public purpose of resisting what they perceived to be as the stealing of the election.

00:16:51.000 There are ways to try to counter this argument.

00:16:53.000 We can either use nonsense definitions of insurrection, but that doesn't really matter.

00:16:56.000 The only thing that matters was the public understanding and the legal understanding of insurrection at the time the 14th Amendment was created and when Section 3 was framed, because that's what the Constitution demands, that we look at what was thought of as an insurrection when the language was added to the Constitution.

00:17:10.000 We can try to divert by talking about BLM or anything else, and I'm happy to dive into all of those examples.

00:17:28.000 30-second warning.

00:17:34.000 That would be understood as a rebellion.

00:17:36.000 Every insurrection is not a rebellion, though every rebellion starts as an insurrection.

00:17:39.000 And then when we say, this is a common one as well, why was no one charged with an insurrection?

00:17:43.000 People can be charged or couldn't be charged with crimes for a variety of reasons, but for purposes of the 14th Amendment, nothing in there requires the criminal conviction of the crime of insurrection, only that an insurrection occurred and that one engaged in it or aided it.

00:17:56.000 All right, and that is 6.40.

00:17:59.000 Okay, so just five seconds shy.

00:18:02.000 That completes the opening statements.

00:18:04.000 Really good arguments from both sides here.

00:18:06.000 We'll go into round one.

00:18:08.000 I'll turn it back.

00:18:09.000 So we just completed opening statements, guys.

00:18:11.000 Each party had six minutes and 45 seconds to make their original stance and their first opening statements.

00:18:18.000 We'll go to round one.

00:18:19.000 I'll set the clock for three minutes.

00:18:21.000 Andrew, let me know when you are ready.

00:18:23.000 Yeah, I'm ready.

00:18:24.000 Okay, timer is going now.

00:18:26.000 Go ahead, three minutes.

00:18:26.000 Yeah, so let's start with this idea of my definition.

00:18:29.000 What the hell do I care about your definition?

00:18:31.000 Nobody has been prosecuted for any insurrection by any definition.

00:18:38.000 Destiny comes through and he gives us this list.

00:18:40.000 He says, one, an assemblage.

00:18:43.000 Okay.

00:18:44.000 Two, resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

00:18:48.000 Okay.

00:18:48.000 Three, by force or intimidation.

00:18:50.000 Okay.

00:18:50.000 Four, for a public purpose.

00:18:52.000 He has just outlined basically almost every single political riot I've ever heard of.

00:19:03.000 We're good to go.

00:19:21.000 And then for public purpose, very nebulous.

00:19:24.000 All of this is completely nebulous language.

00:19:27.000 He has not actually given us a definition at all.

00:19:31.000 By the way, if you could cam me while I'm talking, I'd appreciate it.

00:19:34.000 He has not given us a definition at all.

00:19:38.000 He's just kind of given us this loose, nebulous framework for what is or isn't an insurrection.

00:19:48.000 So let's kind of dive into a couple more things here.

00:19:52.000 He says people can or can't be charged for a variety of reasons.

00:19:55.000 That's not saying anything.

00:19:56.000 So what?

00:19:57.000 Yeah, that's true.

00:19:58.000 Maybe they committed insurrection and they weren't charged for insurrection, but also maybe they did not commit insurrection and that's why they weren't charged with insurrection.

00:20:08.000 That's a non-argument.

00:20:11.000 We're good to go.

00:20:31.000 He also, as he talks about these various rulings, he says treason of levying war comes in.

00:20:39.000 Obviously, insurrection seems to have something to do with levying war against the United States, or at least some type of start to levy war against the United States.

00:20:47.000 He still has not actually demonstrated any of this.

00:20:50.000 He's just given us this really nebulous idea.

00:20:54.000 An assemblage resisting any law or interfering with the course of government proceeding by force or intimidating for public.

00:20:59.000 This is very nebulous.

00:21:01.000 So unless Destiny is going to concede that anything which meets this criteria is an insurrection, then I'm not even sure how to go forward with this debate.

00:21:10.000 How in the world can he say essentially almost any riot on planet Earth Or any assemblage, even a peaceful protest where they shut down the roads, is an insurrection.

00:21:20.000 That can't be true.

00:21:21.000 That just can't be true.

00:21:23.000 Okay.

00:21:24.000 We ended there at about 2.57.

00:21:26.000 Andrew, you're up on our channel.

00:21:28.000 They can see you.

00:21:29.000 I don't know if it's on your channel.

00:21:29.000 Yeah, we're good on mine, too.

00:21:31.000 Okay, perfect.

00:21:31.000 I just want to make sure that we're there.

00:21:33.000 But you are definitely up on, and whoever's speaking, I always make them the main person.

00:21:37.000 So, Desti, I'm going to put, this is round one.

00:21:39.000 I'm going to put three minutes on the clock for you.

00:21:41.000 Are you ready?

00:21:42.000 Yeah.

00:21:43.000 All right, go ahead, brother.

00:21:44.000 Well, I think my definition is pretty clear.

00:21:46.000 There is an assemblage.

00:21:47.000 There's a clear resistance to the implementation or the execution of some federal law.

00:21:51.000 The resistance has an aim to make use of force or intimidation, and it's gathered for a particular public purpose.

00:21:58.000 BLM almost automatically fails on the fact that these were not usually demonstrations against federal law.

00:22:04.000 I don't know the federal law or the federal thing that was being resisted by BLM. But again, I'm happy to dive into any particular BLM supposed insurrection or riot if you'd like.

00:22:14.000 But again, I mean, that has nothing to do with January 6th.

00:22:16.000 And if you want, then you can see that entire argument.

00:22:18.000 We can move on to analyzing individual BLM instances.

00:22:20.000 But again, you'd have to show that there was some implementation or carrying out of some federal function for it to be an insurrection against the United States government.

00:22:27.000 States might have their own definitions of state insurrections.

00:22:29.000 I'm unaware of any.

00:22:31.000 I think we're good to go.

00:22:54.000 We can complain about people being charged with an insurrection or not, but whether or not somebody is charged with an insurrection, again, has nothing to do with the event itself.

00:23:06.000 For instance, if I were to look and see at any number of BLM riots, if I were to look at a riot, would a challenge to that riot be, well, was anybody charged with rioting?

00:23:14.000 If I could show you a riot where people clearly engaged in a riot, where there was a mass of people that were engaged in violent behavior that involved the destruction of some property or violent activity, but I would say, well, look, nobody was actually charged with rioting, would you say then that, well, I guess nobody was actually, or there wasn't a riot that actually happened?

00:23:29.000 Nobody would make that claim.

00:23:30.000 There's a whole list of reasons why a prosecutor may or may not charge for particular crimes.

00:23:35.000 In this particular case, there were really good reasons not to head down that We're good to go.

00:24:03.000 So, yeah, again, if there's an alternate definition that wants to be explored for an insurrection, then I welcome that.

00:24:09.000 But that definition, it needs to comport with the historical and legal understanding of what an insurrection was.

00:24:14.000 Otherwise, it's just meaningless, meandering, opining.

00:24:19.000 That means nothing when we should be thinking, like, what was the definition of insurrection at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted.

00:24:24.000 Okay, that's two minutes and 40 seconds.

00:24:26.000 You don't want to use the rest of the 20 seconds, Destiny?

00:24:29.000 Okay.

00:24:32.000 If this ends up going into a whole bunch of BLM stuff, we can get to that, but that has no bearing on whether J6 would be considered an insurrection or not.

00:24:40.000 Okay, so two minutes and 57 seconds.

00:24:43.000 That completes round one.

00:24:44.000 I will restart the clock.

00:24:46.000 We'll move into round two.

00:24:48.000 I'll turn it back to you, Andrew.

00:24:50.000 Let me know when you're ready, and I'll turn the clock on.

00:24:53.000 So I'm not claiming that this has anything to do with BLM. I'm doing an internal critique and saying that if you're going to apply these nebulous standards to this, then you must apply them to this.

00:25:02.000 If this category, if category A over here, also would include everything which includes a riot, then we would need to know what the delineating factor is.

00:25:12.000 He claims here there must be some federal element.

00:25:15.000 However, that's not in his definition.

00:25:17.000 His definition does not include any federal element.

00:25:20.000 To go over his definition again, an assemblage resisting law by force or intimidation for public purpose.

00:25:25.000 It doesn't say anything about a federal element. 1.00

00:25:27.000 He just pulled that out of his ass. 0.99

00:25:29.000 I don't know where the hell he got that, but it's definitely not in his definition. 0.99

00:25:31.000 If it was, he should have said that that was in his definition.

00:25:35.000 He keeps going back to this illogical idea that just because X doesn't happen doesn't mean X isn't true.

00:25:41.000 Yeah, that's true, but it also doesn't mean X is true.

00:25:43.000 So making the claim that, well, wait a second, Andrew, just because they weren't actually charged with insurrection doesn't mean they weren't guilty of insurrection.

00:25:51.000 Well, that's nice, but it doesn't mean they were either.

00:25:53.000 And I have the evidence on my side as none of them were actually prosecuted.

00:25:59.000 None of them were prosecuted for insurrection and Trump was acquitted for inciting insurrection.

00:26:06.000 So the evidence is on my side.

00:26:08.000 He would actually have to demonstrate that this was an insurrection and that they were all wrong, that they were completely incorrect in not charging it this way.

00:26:17.000 He just keeps saying, well, there's a variety of reasons why they didn't.

00:26:20.000 Well, that's nice.

00:26:21.000 Couldn't one of the reasons be because it wasn't an insurrection?

00:26:24.000 Yes, that seems to be a very obvious reason, doesn't it?

00:26:28.000 But going back to my opening, I just want to kind of point out that Destiny has changed his entire idea on this, whereas at first he claimed in 2021 this was in no way an insurrection, that it fit the criteria of a riot better from anybody who's looking at it objectively.

00:26:46.000 I agree with him.

00:26:47.000 That's exactly what it fits.

00:26:50.000 But he still has not demonstrated at all that this was actually an insurrection.

00:26:55.000 He just says, well, I have this nebulous definition.

00:26:57.000 He also says, give me a counter definition.

00:26:59.000 It's not my burden to give you a counter definition.

00:27:02.000 What do you mean?

00:27:02.000 I'm not calling him insurrectionist.

00:27:04.000 You're calling him insurrectionist.

00:27:06.000 I don't have to define for you what that means.

00:27:08.000 You have to define for me what that means.

00:27:11.000 Giving me these four elements here is meaningless unless you can tell me what goes in those categories specifically that does not go in the category for rioting.

00:27:21.000 Because as I look at an assemblage resisting any law by force or intimidating or for public, that could all just be rioting.

00:27:28.000 That does not really tell me what goes in the category.

00:27:30.000 You didn't include federal anything.

00:27:32.000 So I would like for you to actually expand on this definition so I can understand what the hell you're talking about and why the J-6ers specifically fit this criteria. 1.00

00:27:40.000 All right.

00:27:42.000 That is two minutes and 49 seconds.

00:27:44.000 Destiny, I'll turn it to you whenever you're ready.

00:27:48.000 And we are in round two right now, the bottom of round two.

00:27:52.000 Yeah, so people, like, again, so there's two parts to the insurrection, two elements that I don't think would fit.

00:27:59.000 So the first one is an assemblage.

00:28:01.000 That would clearly fit a riot, I think, but it would fit a riot and it would fit an insurrection.

00:28:06.000 The second part is resisting a particular law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

00:28:11.000 There are plenty of riots that aren't riots to resist a We're good to go.

00:28:44.000 I would say that riots generally have a forceful or intimidating aspect to them, although they generally happen spontaneously.

00:28:57.000 Usually they're not planned in advance to use force or intimidation.

00:29:17.000 I think?

00:29:58.000 We're good to go.

00:30:00.000 Relating to the actions of a particular government.

00:30:03.000 So you might riot, for instance, BLM might riot against police violence, but there's not a particular federal statute or federal law there.

00:30:11.000 In terms of me specifying the federal part, well, I mean, J6 was an insurrection against a federal entity.

00:30:17.000 Again, if we want to talk about state insurrections or something, I guess we can, but the differentiating factor here is why I have the federal part is because we're talking about We're good to go.

00:30:47.000 We're good to go.

00:31:00.000 That is time.

00:31:02.000 So, what I'll do is, that concludes round two.

00:31:08.000 Andrew, I'll turn it back to you unless you want me to give Destiny a little bit extra time and I can give you that extra time as well on the back end, but I'll let you choose that.

00:31:17.000 Yeah, I'm fine.

00:31:17.000 He can finish.

00:31:18.000 Okay, Destiny, go ahead and finish, and I will add that to you.

00:31:23.000 Yeah, my final statement is, okay, if you look at the Colorado Court case, they found that Donald Trump acted as part of an assemblage that he helped bring into being.

00:31:30.000 It said that Trump was resisting the enforcement of federal and constitutional rules, that Trump took numerous illegal actions to prevent the peaceful transition of presidential power.

00:31:39.000 He engaged in an ongoing course of conduct aimed at producing violent resistance to the peaceful transfer of presidential power.

00:31:44.000 He attempted to incite his supporters to attack Congress, which they did.

00:31:48.000 And that Trump's speech occurred sufficiently close in time and place to when and where the insurrection took place to be considered an incitement.

00:31:53.000 Like, every single part of this, like, very easily and very cleanly meets the definition of insurrection.

00:31:57.000 If we want to argue that my definition isn't clean or that my four elements aren't being met, that's—well, I don't know how we can argue that.

00:32:03.000 I think all four elements are being met.

00:32:04.000 If we want to argue that, well, every single riot would, you know, fall into this, then we could say, well, fine, Destiny, I agree.

00:32:09.000 For your definition of insurrection, fine, January 6th was an insurrection.

00:32:12.000 Now let's talk about these other events, and we could talk about whether they fit or don't fit.

00:32:15.000 Or you can give me your own definition of insurrection, and then we can go from there.

00:32:18.000 Okay, that added an extra 55 seconds.

00:32:20.000 So we're going to round three.

00:32:22.000 Andrew, I will give you that so you will have three minutes and 55 seconds to take your time.

00:32:29.000 So I'll start at the clock now.

00:32:31.000 Yeah, so again, trying to put the burden on me to give you a definition of your claim is insane.

00:32:36.000 As we went through your definition here, it's really funny because I'm going to use your own logic back to you.

00:32:44.000 Just because they weren't charged with an insurrection doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.

00:32:50.000 Oh, okay.

00:32:50.000 Well, they were actually charged with elements of rioting.

00:32:54.000 So I'm going to say it was actually rioting.

00:32:56.000 And I'm also going to say that, wait a second, your definition here seems to be more about rioting than anything else by your own claim.

00:33:04.000 An assemblage would fit a riot, says Destiny.

00:33:06.000 That's his first claim.

00:33:07.000 Resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

00:33:10.000 It wouldn't fit rioting itself, says Destiny, even though rioting itself is against the law.

00:33:16.000 What do you mean?

00:33:17.000 Of course it's impeding the law.

00:33:18.000 How could it not be impeding the law?

00:33:21.000 Rioting itself is against the law.

00:33:23.000 I don't know where the hell you came up with that.

00:33:25.000 By force or intimidation, Destiny concedes, riots require force.

00:33:41.000 Let's try this again.

00:33:43.000 Resisting any law.

00:33:57.000 I think?

00:34:07.000 than it is any type of insurrection.

00:34:09.000 He still hasn't told us the distinction that fits in this category, why this isn't a riot, even though everybody was charged under that kind of branch of rioting and not charged for insurrection. 0.96

00:34:18.000 This is a garbage definition. 0.91

00:34:21.000 It's totally nebulous, right? 0.97

00:34:23.000 And he keeps on saying, well, wait a second, Andrew, why don't you go ahead and concede that unless you can go against all four of these points, why don't I actually have to do that?

00:34:31.000 All I need to do is say, okay, all these four points fit a different criteria better Than insurrection.

00:34:38.000 And apparently he agrees.

00:34:39.000 He agrees on.1,.3, and.4.

00:34:42.000 The only thing he argues is.2, but his argument for.2 makes no sense because rioting itself is illegal, so therefore you are resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

00:34:53.000 Well, the government proceeding is to enforce law.

00:34:55.000 You would be interfering with the government enforcing law if you're rioting.

00:34:59.000 So all of these fall under the better criteria of riot, which is totally consistent in my mind because that was the criteria in which people were charged, not with insurrection.

00:35:09.000 And I really need Destiny to answer to that.

00:35:12.000 Okay, that was two minutes and 40 seconds.

00:35:14.000 You still have a minute left, Andrew.

00:35:15.000 You're going to concede that round then?

00:35:17.000 Yeah, I'll let him go ahead and answer to it.

00:35:19.000 Cool.

00:35:19.000 So I will turn it back to you, Destiny.

00:35:23.000 We're in round three, and this is the second part of round three.

00:35:27.000 So your turn, Destiny.

00:35:28.000 I'll start the clock back up for you.

00:35:31.000 Breaking a law and resisting law are not the same thing.

00:35:34.000 Usually when people riot, they're not rioting with the purpose of making arson or murder or whatever other crimes are being broken to make those legal things.

00:35:45.000 Usually they're breaking laws not with the intent of resisting the implementation or the execution of those laws or resisting or contravening the execution of some function of government.

00:35:55.000 When people were rioting on January 6th, the goal of that was to stop I think?

00:36:16.000 And again, I don't know, we can move on this over and over again, but again, if I can show you in Kenosha, if I can show you in Seattle, if I can show you a riot, if I can give you a video of cities burning, people screaming and throwing shit, of property being destroyed or damaged,

00:36:33.000 and then you were to go, wow, that kind of looks like a riot to me, I would go, yeah, it kind of does.

00:36:37.000 I think?

00:37:00.000 I think?

00:37:21.000 Okay, that's 1.50 on the clock.

00:37:23.000 So that concludes round three, and I'm going to turn it to you gentlemen, and you guys can let me know what you want.

00:37:28.000 We can either do another round of three minutes uninterrupted debating, if you guys want to formulate your arguments a bit more, because I know there is some disagreement.

00:37:35.000 I would like to do one more round.

00:37:36.000 You would like to do one more?

00:37:37.000 Destiny, are you okay with that?

00:37:39.000 Okay, and then after that, so we'll go into a fourth round with a three-minute debate time limit where it knows interruptions. 0.86

00:37:47.000 Then after that, we can get into the five minutes of discourse between you two where you can actually speak.

00:37:52.000 Is that fair for everybody?

00:37:53.000 Sure.

00:37:54.000 Cool.

00:37:54.000 All right, so I will go ahead and reset the clock.

00:37:57.000 This will be round four.

00:37:58.000 Take it away, Andrew.

00:38:00.000 Yeah, so this is an absurd argument.

00:38:02.000 We'll go right back to Destiny's logic again.

00:38:04.000 He says just because somebody wasn't charged with X doesn't mean X didn't happen.

00:38:10.000 This is complete and total obfuscation, by the way, because ultimately what's going on here is that these do fit the criteria much better for a riot, and under the purview of rioting, these are the types of charges which were levied at these people.

00:38:23.000 Destiny says specifically, under point two, And he didn't answer to this.

00:38:28.000 He said, resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding wouldn't fit rioting.

00:38:34.000 Yes, it does fit rioting.

00:38:35.000 It fits rioting better than anything else I can think of.

00:38:38.000 Yes, you are immediately, upon rioting, resisting the law.

00:38:44.000 And you are obstructing the law immediately.

00:38:46.000 That is what a riot is.

00:38:48.000 It's an unlawful assembly.

00:38:50.000 So how he could say this, in fact, each point, he concedes on point one, an assemblage that would fit a riot.

00:38:57.000 An assemblage would fit a riot.

00:38:59.000 That's point one, he agrees.

00:39:01.000 Okay?

00:39:01.000 Point three, by force or intimidation, he agrees on point three that that is a riot.

00:39:08.000 Okay?

00:39:09.000 He agrees on point four.

00:39:10.000 He conceded on that as well.

00:39:12.000 And then he just conceded on point two.

00:39:14.000 He couldn't exactly tell us why resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding wouldn't fit a riot.

00:39:21.000 Of course it fits a riot.

00:39:22.000 All of these, in fact, fit the events of January 6th perfectly.

00:39:28.000 And if he's conceding that, hey, these fit a riot perfectly, the events of January 6th were a riot under this definition, which he essentially has conceded is true, then the charges were appropriate that this was a riot and not an insurrection.

00:39:45.000 This could not have been an insurrection.

00:39:48.000 His own definition proves that this is more akin to a riot.

00:39:52.000 He still hasn't really told us, by the way, what an insurrection is, just these kind of four nebulous points.

00:39:57.000 But these four nebulous points fit a riot perfectly.

00:40:01.000 Perfectly.

00:40:02.000 And he's basically conceded to three of them on the outset, and then on the second, he's basically conceded that as well.

00:40:08.000 Because resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding would fit a riot by its very nature.

00:40:14.000 The reason it would fit a riot by its very nature is because it's immediately an unlawful assembly.

00:40:18.000 You're resisting the law, you're resisting the police, you're resisting, resisting, resisting.

00:40:22.000 So, whether that's done at a federal level or a state level, I think it would still meet the same fate of being more akin to a riot.

00:40:30.000 This definition really moves towards a riot and not towards an insurrection.

00:40:35.000 He has not told us the distinction yet, and so again, I think that the entire reason he wants this only painted as an insurrection, even though nobody's ever been charged with an insurrection, even though Trump was cleared of inciting an insurrection, is so that he can make justifications for why the other side deserves what it It's because there are a bunch of traders.

00:40:53.000 Thus far, no.

00:40:54.000 I'm sorry, this definition or this logic adds up.

00:40:57.000 The logic of saying, well, just because they weren't charged with a thing doesn't mean it wasn't the thing.

00:41:02.000 Fine, but that doesn't mean it was the thing either, and by your criteria, it seems like it was this other thing.

00:41:09.000 Okay, that's three minutes and ten seconds.

00:41:10.000 I will make the clock the same for you, Destiny, to keep it fair.

00:41:15.000 I will start the timer if you're ready now.

00:41:19.000 Yeah, I guess we're just going to loop on these points.

00:41:23.000 Resisting a law is not the same thing as breaking a law.

00:41:25.000 If you could show me that there was a particular riot where people assembled, and the goal of that riot was when they were rioting, they wanted to riot to make rioting legal, and that they had gathered in order to change the law in a particular area, and they were going to use force and intimidation to do it, we're here to riot today because we're going to make rioting legal,

00:41:43.000 then sure, then we could argue that that's probably an insurrection.

00:41:45.000 I think?

00:42:07.000 With insurrection, John Fries and friends made a show of arms that resulted in the release of persons charged with federal tax evasion.

00:42:12.000 That was considered an insurrection.

00:42:14.000 In 1847, when Hispanic and Native Americans attacked occupying American officials in New Mexico, that was considered an insurrection.

00:42:19.000 In 1851, when Pennsylvanians obstructed official efforts to capture an alleged fugitive slave, that was an insurrection.

00:42:25.000 In 1856, when there were rival forces in the United States that were violently resisting the laws on slavery, that was considered an insurrection.

00:42:34.000 These aren't just like riots where people are like, We're mad and we're breaking the law by being violent.

00:42:38.000 It was they were resisting the law.

00:42:40.000 They were resisting an actual federal law claiming that that particular law shouldn't exist.

00:42:45.000 They were trying to air a public grievance through force or intimidation with an assembled group of people in the goal of overturning that particular thing through violent action.

00:42:55.000 And then on this final thing, there is a difference between resisting law and breaking a law.

00:42:58.000 Just because you're engaged in a riot doesn't mean that you're resisting the implementation of the law.

00:43:02.000 People that are engaged in riots aren't usually rioting to make riots legal.

00:43:04.000 That's what would make that the equivalent.

00:43:05.000 And then just the crime of X is not the same thing as the event of X. I don't know why we could send this.

00:43:10.000 Nobody was charged with insurrection, therefore there was no insurrection.

00:43:12.000 If I walk into a room and I see a person's throat cut, can I not say that there was a murder here if nobody was charged with murder?

00:43:17.000 If I see 20 people setting fire to a house and they all run away and nobody gets charged with arson, can I not say that an arson happened?

00:43:22.000 If I look on video and I see that there's 500 people blowing up, you know, some shit, and they managed to run away, or the cops, you know, can't arrest any of these people or charge them with, like, the formal, I guess, crime of rioting.

00:43:30.000 Does that mean there was no riot that took place?

00:43:31.000 The crime of X is different than the event of X. And right now, we're talking about if January 6th was an insurrection, not did any individual person engage in the criminal behavior of insurrection.

00:43:42.000 That would be a separate conversation.

00:43:43.000 If we want to have that conversation, we could, but we would have to first conceive that an insurrection did indeed take place on January 6th.

00:43:47.000 And I believe that the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in good analysis, and they decided that an insurrection had taken place.

00:43:59.000 We're good to go.

00:44:06.000 Okay, so that completes round four of the three-minute uninterrupted rounds.

00:44:12.000 If you guys are okay with it, we will move on to the five-minute round where you guys are able to actually have open discourse.

00:44:19.000 Well, I have a quick counter if Destiny wants to agree to this for the purpose of fairness.

00:44:25.000 Are you okay with that, Destiny?

00:44:27.000 I'm willing to do two rounds of internal critiques, and I'll allow Destiny to start with an internal critique if I can move to an internal critique after.

00:44:35.000 So two five-minute rounds of internal critiques.

00:44:36.000 Does that sound fair?

00:44:38.000 What do we mean when we say internal critique?

00:44:39.000 What does that mean?

00:44:40.000 It means that I'm just here to answer your questions for five minutes, and you're here to answer mine.

00:44:46.000 Sure.

00:44:47.000 Okay, I'll let you go first.

00:44:49.000 Okay, so just so I make sure I have this right so I can moderate it properly, is he going to question you, Andrew, and you're going to answer?

00:44:57.000 Yeah, he gets round one, five minutes, and then I get round two, five minutes.

00:45:00.000 Okay, so basically, okay, so it's essentially a Q&A between the two of you where, okay, so Destiny, if you're okay with that, we can do that, or we can go to just open discourse between the two of you where you...

00:45:11.000 I think I feel like I'd probably, because I feel like...

00:45:14.000 Part of my argument is going to be that he hasn't put forth, like, a positive position yet for me to even attack or interrogate, so I'm not even sure what I would do on the Inquisition round.

00:45:22.000 So I feel like it would be better to just do back and forth.

00:45:25.000 Okay, well, if you want to do back and forth, I'm prepared for that, too.

00:45:28.000 Okay, but you guys are good with no more—you don't need any more three-minute rounds to solidify your stances?

00:45:32.000 No.

00:45:33.000 No?

00:45:33.000 Okay.

00:45:34.000 So I will go ahead and set the timer here for five minutes.

00:45:39.000 I will—I guess who wants to kick it off?

00:45:42.000 I can kick it off real quick.

00:45:44.000 So, Destiny, would you agree with me that the motivation for demonizing the opposition political party often revolves around calling them traitors, accusing them of treason, and pushing for some type of villainization that they are against the country,

00:46:00.000 they are against you, they are against everybody?

00:46:03.000 For another debate maybe, but that's not at all any of the subject matter here.

00:46:07.000 Well, I think it is.

00:46:08.000 I think it ties in because I believe that the motivation for why you're claiming that the other side are a bunch of insurrectionists, though you have no direct evidence of this, and your own criteria is just that of basically a riot, that your motivation is just to demonize the opposition.

00:46:23.000 Sure, but this isn't a debate over my motivation.

00:46:25.000 I could be motivated by a hundred million different bad faith factors, and literally none of them would be relevant to this conversation.

00:46:30.000 It could be the fact that the DNC actually paid me money to give this precise argument, and Kamal is on the phone with me right now, and it wouldn't have any impact on this particular debate.

00:46:38.000 I think it would.

00:46:39.000 I think that the motivation for why you're making the argument itself would have an impact on the debate.

00:46:44.000 But I am willing to concede that if you just want to keep it to the material, we can.

00:46:48.000 Let's move over to point two then.

00:46:50.000 Point two, you say resisting any law or interference with the course of a government proceeding wouldn't fit rioting itself.

00:46:57.000 How does that not fit rioting itself?

00:46:59.000 Of course it does.

00:47:02.000 Well, let's say, for instance, the purpose of a riot was because you felt like the law wasn't being enforced.

00:47:06.000 It wouldn't make sense to call that part of an insurrection.

00:47:08.000 Let's say, for instance, that there was a lynching of a person, and you felt like the cops weren't upholding their duty or whatever, and so you decided to have a protest that turns into a riot, and you all show up with the goal of protesting and rioting because you felt like the law wasn't being carried out here.

00:47:20.000 You wouldn't really call that an insurrection because they're not trying to contravene a legal process.

00:47:25.000 Just because, again, you engage in unlawful conduct doesn't mean that you're trying to resist the implementation of the carrying out, resisting the laws.

00:47:31.000 That would be the same case with insurrection then.

00:48:00.000 Yeah, but even if all— Yeah, but even if all— Even if all that's true, Destiny, it still wouldn't matter because the events of January 6th themselves, the intent of the people could have just been to riot,

00:48:16.000 not indeed to commit to any sort of treasonous insurrection activity.

00:48:21.000 And you have failed to demonstrate this time and time again, how this actually would meet the criteria of an insurrection.

00:48:27.000 Them showing up...

00:48:29.000 And just like your take in 2021, right, when you say, hey, look, the damage would have been way worse, way worse if they had shown up with the purposes of actual insurrection or some type of 1776 mindset.

00:48:42.000 This is the most armed nation on planet Earth.

00:48:44.000 How in the world can you say these people showed up specifically in order to do that?

00:48:48.000 That makes no sense, man.

00:48:50.000 None of that argumentation was sequitur.

00:48:52.000 People very quickly obviously showed up to protest the certification of the vote.

00:48:57.000 They were called there by Donald Trump on January 6th.

00:48:58.000 If it's a non-sequitur, then you in 2021 were using a non-sequitur when you made the argument that from the appearance of this, it could not have been an insurrection.

00:49:07.000 2021 Destiny was incorrect because 2021 Destiny didn't have the historical context to understand an insurrection.

00:49:12.000 If you want to bring him on here and talk to him, you can.

00:49:28.000 No, he didn't.

00:49:35.000 He never said that.

00:49:46.000 He did.

00:49:47.000 I actually have the tweet.

00:49:48.000 I have the tweet.

00:49:49.000 He did say that.

00:49:51.000 In the speech, he said to fight like hell.

00:49:54.000 And in the speech, he said that we need to go down.

00:49:56.000 I'm talking about his tweets.

00:49:57.000 Why would a person put out a tweet to be peaceful if their intent was insurrection destiny?

00:50:03.000 Why would a person call a protest on January 6th?

00:50:07.000 What do you think they were protesting?

00:50:08.000 What do you mean?

00:50:08.000 People call protests all the time.

00:50:11.000 That doesn't mean that the purpose of the protest is insurrection.

00:50:15.000 What was the purpose of the protest on January 6th?

00:50:17.000 The purpose of the protest was to go out and show support for Donald J. Trump.

00:50:20.000 For what?

00:50:21.000 Well, there was a variety of reasons.

00:50:23.000 No, give me...

00:50:24.000 Wait, wait.

00:50:25.000 Are you telling me we can't understand what the January 6th protest was about?

00:50:28.000 You can't say no, no, no.

00:50:28.000 Are you saying there wasn't a variety of reasons why people didn't show up?

00:50:31.000 Nope.

00:50:31.000 I think there was one clear reason.

00:50:33.000 Oh, there was only one reason why everybody showed up.

00:50:35.000 One clear reason.

00:50:36.000 10 seconds.

00:50:36.000 Correct.

00:50:37.000 Okay, what is the one clear reason?

00:50:39.000 There was not a variety of reasons.

00:50:41.000 Some people didn't show up just because they wanted to see what was happening.

00:50:43.000 Some people didn't show up just to support the president.

00:50:46.000 Some people didn't show up because they really liked to go to protest.

00:50:49.000 Everybody showed up for one reason, right?

00:50:51.000 I didn't say everybody showed up for one reason.

00:50:52.000 I said they were called there for one reason.

00:50:53.000 That was to protest the certification of the election.

00:50:56.000 Guys, guys, guys, that is time.

00:50:58.000 I'm happy to let this play out longer if you guys want and add an extra minute to the clock.

00:51:03.000 Are you guys okay with that?

00:51:05.000 Yeah, we can add an extra minute.

00:51:07.000 I'll add an extra minute to the clock, and this is still round one of the open discourse, but just try to limit it to one minute, and then we'll go into round two of it, and then we can go from there.

00:51:16.000 And if we need more rounds at the five-minute mark, we can absolutely do that.

00:51:20.000 So I have a problem with him ascribing motivation to all.

00:51:24.000 He says there's one clue.

00:51:31.000 That's not the argument that I'm making.

00:51:38.000 That was the argument you made.

00:51:41.000 January 6th is an insurrection.

00:51:43.000 Not, did every single person on January 6th engage in the crime of insurrection, or did every single person on January 6th go with the intent to commit an insurrection?

00:51:51.000 I said that there was a clear reason why people were called there, because there was.

00:51:54.000 Donald Trump called people there to protest, not on January 5th, and not on January 7th, and not in a random part of D.C., and not in a random part of the country.

00:52:01.000 He called them on January 6th.

00:52:12.000 That doesn't tell us their motivation.

00:52:14.000 That doesn't tell us their motivation, Destiny.

00:52:19.000 That doesn't tell us their motivation, Destiny.

00:52:28.000 So then do you admit then?

00:52:29.000 Do you admit then?

00:52:29.000 No, I don't admit anything.

00:52:31.000 Even if I grant your logic...

00:52:32.000 They happen to do every single thing that an insurrection is called for without actually engaging in an insurrection?

00:52:37.000 Guys, give me a chance to respond.

00:52:39.000 Not only do I concede nothing, but your logic...

00:52:43.000 We ran out of time on that round.

00:52:44.000 So what I'll do is this.

00:52:45.000 I can see that this is a dynamic conversation and clearly it's going to go out the bounds sometimes of a timed round.

00:52:50.000 So what I'm going to do is I'm just going to go ahead and set the clock for 10 minutes.

00:52:56.000 That completes round one of the open discourse.

00:52:58.000 But I see that this is a dynamic argument. 0.98

00:53:00.000 Me just stopping it randomly at five minutes would probably be stupid.

00:53:02.000 So I'm going to let it play out.

00:53:03.000 I'll put 10 minutes on the clock and have you guys go at it.

00:53:05.000 Is that okay with both of you?

00:53:07.000 Yeah, I'm fine with that.

00:53:08.000 Destiny, are you okay with that?

00:53:10.000 Yeah.

00:53:10.000 Okay.

00:53:10.000 Because I don't want to interrupt you guys again like that, so I'll just go ahead and put 10 minutes on the clock, and I will start it right now.

00:53:17.000 You guys can pick right off where you left off, Andrew.

00:53:20.000 Sorry about that.

00:53:20.000 So to respond, right, and I'll be more charitable with the time back your way now that we have 10 minutes, Destiny, but it's actually an illogical argument to make to say, even if Donald Trump had some certain intent in his head, that would not mean that the people who were showing up for the protest had that intent.

00:53:37.000 So the thing is, both ways, it's a double entendre for your own logic.

00:53:41.000 Either one, you claim, wait a second, there's one clear reason everybody showed up, or two, no, there was no clear reason why everybody showed up.

00:53:48.000 They had multiple motivations, even if Trump himself had a different motivation.

00:53:52.000 This is illogical argumentation.

00:53:54.000 I'm sorry, but this would never be applied to anything.

00:53:56.000 If somebody says, hey guys, we're all going to show up.

00:53:58.000 That's not an argument either.

00:53:59.000 I'm making the argument right now.

00:54:00.000 If somebody were to make the call and say, hey guys, we're all going to show up to go and blow this building up, and a bunch of people showed up, and then a bunch of them marched for the crowd, and then they all went and a building got blown up, we wouldn't say like, oh, well, we don't know what the intention of the crowd was.

00:54:12.000 We don't know what the intention of the leader there was.

00:54:13.000 We don't know what actually happened, because we can't divine the intention of every single individual person. 0.90

00:54:18.000 That's a ridiculous straw man.

00:54:19.000 We can say that's You can call it a straw man, but the idea that in order for me... 0.98

00:54:23.000 Okay, hold on.

00:54:23.000 What would I need to show then?

00:54:26.000 No, no, no, wait, hold on.

00:54:27.000 What would I need to show?

00:54:28.000 There's no spurging.

00:54:29.000 Let me respond to the argument.

00:54:31.000 You can respond to my argument.

00:54:33.000 You made an argument.

00:54:35.000 Let me respond.

00:54:36.000 And then you can ask the second argument.

00:54:37.000 I think that that's fair.

00:54:38.000 So when you're talking about this from a logical standpoint, when you say...

00:54:43.000 Oh, if somebody called and said, hey, we're all going to blow this building up, yes, I would agree that you could probably ascribe the motivation to it then.

00:54:49.000 Can you show me a tweet or any type of anything from Donald Trump saying, hey, guys, show up, we're going to do an insurrection? 1.00

00:54:55.000 No, you just made this shit up. 0.99

00:54:57.000 Okay, fine, so I can. 0.99

00:54:58.000 So as part of Donald Trump's speech, I'll give you two quotes.

00:55:00.000 Our country has had enough.

00:55:01.000 We will not take it anymore.

00:55:03.000 And that's what this is all about.

00:55:04.000 And use a favorite term that all you people really came up with.

00:55:07.000 We will stop the steal.

00:55:09.000 Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election.

00:55:12.000 We won it by a landslide.

00:55:13.000 This was not a close election.

00:55:14.000 The first quote.

00:55:15.000 The second quote.

00:55:16.000 We must stop the steal.

00:55:18.000 And then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again.

00:55:22.000 When he says stop the steal, when they're at the Capitol building on January 6th, and when the election is being certified, what does stop the steal mean there?

00:55:29.000 Wait a second.

00:55:30.000 So, first of all, you're attributing to Donald Trump's rhetoric here something which he may not have intended.

00:55:37.000 None of that actually shows or demonstrates that he was calling for an insurrection on the Capitol.

00:55:43.000 You are just kind of ascribing that motivation onto it for the purposes of convenience.

00:55:47.000 You have to show me there where he calls, like your example was, if I say we're all going to show up and blow up this building, that was your example, and then people show up and do it, we can understand their motivation.

00:55:58.000 I agree.

00:55:59.000 You have to show me where he says, okay, guys, we're all going to show up and do an insurrection.

00:56:02.000 You can't then take words that don't say anything about an insurrection and say, but I think he meant that, though.

00:56:08.000 So then just before I answer this, what would I have to show you to show that an insurrection was what Trump was planning?

00:56:14.000 You would have to give me the criteria, first and foremost, of something which fit the criteria of an insurrection better than some other thing.

00:56:24.000 And you would have to make it refutable to that thing from what people were charged under.

00:56:30.000 So if the criteria is, I'm going to give you what I think an insurrection is, and it fits a different criteria better than an insurrection, and under that criteria, that's what people were basically charged under, then it sounds like the other thing makes more sense than an insurrection.

00:56:46.000 So are we going with the argument that for X event to have happened, like some person needs to have been charged with the crime?

00:56:53.000 No, your logic there is faulty as well.

00:56:55.000 Then why do you have the second element there for me approving?

00:56:57.000 Hold on, you can't just talk for 20 minutes and then as soon as I say one sentence you handle for another 20 minutes.

00:57:00.000 You can't ask me a question and then move to another question.

00:57:03.000 I can ask you a question and then ask another question as part of my question.

00:57:05.000 Yeah, but I wasn't even able to respond.

00:57:06.000 You gave two elements to what I needed to prove.

00:57:09.000 The second one was that I have to show why people weren't charged with a crime.

00:57:12.000 I've answered this thing 50 million times.

00:57:14.000 We can center on justice on one point if you want.

00:57:15.000 Just because somebody hasn't been charged with a crime of X doesn't mean that an event related to X didn't occur.

00:57:20.000 This is Yeah, but the opposite would equally be true.

00:57:22.000 The opposite is also true.

00:57:24.000 Just because they weren't charged with the crime of X doesn't mean they committed the crime of X either.

00:57:29.000 I'm not making that argument.

00:57:30.000 You're using this argument as a way to negate my argument.

00:57:33.000 Yes.

00:57:34.000 It's called a counter-argument, yes.

00:57:36.000 No, hold on.

00:57:37.000 That would be like you saying, John couldn't have murdered Jane because John wasn't there.

00:57:41.000 And then I say, well, no, that's not true.

00:57:42.000 And then you're going, well, just because John was there doesn't mean that he murdered Jane.

00:57:45.000 Nope, the opposite.

00:57:45.000 That's not the element that I'm giving.

00:57:46.000 Nope, the opposite is true.

00:57:47.000 I've given you four clear things.

00:57:48.000 Wait, wait, wait.

00:57:50.000 The opposite is true.

00:57:51.000 Would you like to give me an argument or give me a definition of insurrection?

00:57:53.000 Stop, stop.

00:57:54.000 Stop, stop.

00:57:54.000 Hang on, hang on.

00:57:55.000 The opposite is true.

00:57:56.000 I'm not saying that—so you say, oh, John murdered Jane, but that can't be true because he also may not have murdered Jane.

00:58:04.000 You're making the claim, John murdered Jane.

00:58:06.000 And so I say, okay, that's your claim that he murdered Jane.

00:58:09.000 Can you define for me what the criteria would be in which you would consider this to be murder?

00:58:14.000 And you go, well, and then you define for me something that is not murder or fits some other criteria better.

00:58:20.000 Would not a rational human being, including you, take that and understand, wait, if it fits this other criteria better, it probably isn't actually murder.

00:58:29.000 What part of my...

00:58:30.000 Can you give me an example?

00:58:32.000 I'm just curious.

00:58:32.000 And I shouldn't even engage with this.

00:58:33.000 So just up to this point, you've given me no definition of insurrection.

00:58:36.000 You seem unwilling to...

00:58:37.000 It's not my burden.

00:58:38.000 I understand that, but I'm just saying you've given me no definition of insurrection.

00:58:40.000 No, I'm not going to...

00:58:41.000 I'm giving you nothing.

00:58:42.000 It's not my burden to prove.

00:58:42.000 So my question would be, can you give me a riot?

00:58:44.000 That's not my burden.

00:58:45.000 Can you give me a riot that would fit all four points that I've given of what I've defined as insurrection?

00:58:50.000 It's not my burden to do.

00:58:50.000 Well, then you must accept my definition of insurrection.

00:58:52.000 I don't need to accept.

00:58:53.000 Why would I need to accept your definition?

00:58:54.000 Because you're saying that my definition of insurrection isn't valid because it also applies to riots, and I'm telling you very clearly, no, it doesn't, because riots don't typically happen in a planned manner to contravene the execution of some government function or the implementation of some particular law.

00:59:07.000 That's not what your definition says.

00:59:09.000 I said it's resisting some law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

00:59:14.000 Yeah, so you're just changing your definition.

00:59:16.000 I'm not resisting.

00:59:17.000 Do you think that resisting a law is the same thing as breaking a law?

00:59:21.000 I think that it could be synonymous inside of people's minds, but no, I could see the distinction with merit. 0.94

00:59:28.000 But when you say resisting any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding, that sure sounds like a fucking riot to me, Destiny. 0.79

00:59:36.000 Okay, can you give me an example of a riot where that happens? 0.96

00:59:39.000 Yeah, where BOM burned down a police station.

00:59:41.000 That seems like it's resisting the law.

00:59:44.000 Yeah, so that's – what law were they resisting the implementation of?

00:59:47.000 The law of arson, the law of rioting, all sorts of laws.

00:59:51.000 So you're telling me that those riots were trying to make it so that arson was legal?

00:59:55.000 Can you point me to a tweet?

00:59:57.000 Can you point me to a statement where somebody was saying we're rioting because we think that the laws against arson are – Can you show me in your definition where it says that the purpose of the insurrection is so that they can make something else legal?

01:00:08.000 Because that's nowhere in your definition, Destiny.

01:00:09.000 Resisting any law or interfering with the force of a government.

01:00:12.000 Doesn't say anything about making something else legal.

01:00:15.000 You just made it up.

01:00:16.000 No, you're saying that they're resisting the law of arson.

01:00:19.000 Nobody's arguing that the law of arson is bad.

01:00:22.000 Just because you're breaking a law doesn't mean you're resisting the law.

01:00:24.000 What's the or?

01:00:25.000 What's the or?

01:00:27.000 Or for what?

01:00:28.000 It says, or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

01:00:32.000 Would you not consider, if somebody interfered with the FBI, for instance, for that to be interfering with the course of a government proceeding?

01:00:38.000 Or if somebody interfered with police officers, that that would be interfering with the course of a government proceeding?

01:00:43.000 Police officers are not federal police officers.

01:00:45.000 If you want to talk about interfering with, if you want to talk about, if you want to, where you are, because we're talking about January 6th.

01:00:50.000 It's not.

01:00:50.000 We have your definition.

01:00:51.000 It's not required.

01:00:52.000 Where did January 6th happen?

01:00:55.000 We have your definition.

01:00:56.000 Why would I be arguing about the definition of an insurrection in a state when we're talking about an insurrection that happened on the Capitol grounds?

01:01:02.000 Well, then can you show me in your definition where it says it must be federal for an insurrection to occur?

01:01:05.000 I don't need to.

01:01:05.000 We're talking about an insurrection that occurred on the Capitol grounds.

01:01:07.000 Well, then if it doesn't, it doesn't matter.

01:01:08.000 So then any of the criteria which would apply at the state level would still apply at the federal level for rioting.

01:01:12.000 It's the same thing.

01:01:13.000 I don't know if insurrections are state-defined.

01:01:15.000 I'm not aware of that in the historical record.

01:01:17.000 Well, you can't have a state insurrection?

01:01:19.000 I'm not aware of something.

01:01:20.000 Can you show me?

01:01:20.000 We're in a historical record.

01:01:21.000 I'm just asking why you couldn't have one.

01:01:23.000 Because I'm not aware of any having occurred historically.

01:01:24.000 That doesn't mean you couldn't have one.

01:01:27.000 You just claimed that it's possible.

01:01:28.000 I didn't make a claim.

01:01:30.000 Oh, okay, then no one is claiming here that an insurrection is possible.

01:01:32.000 No, you are making a claim.

01:01:33.000 You're making a claim on your four points.

01:01:36.000 I am making a positive claim that there could be a federal insurrection because I have a historical record of there being statements about insurrections federally and historically.

01:01:42.000 I've never had a statement about a state insurrection.

01:01:45.000 I'm not aware of any of those.

01:01:46.000 Yeah, but you not being aware of any doesn't mean that the criteria could not apply to a state insurrection, correct?

01:01:52.000 That's correct, but we are talking about an insurrection that happened on federal grounds, so we're obviously talking about federal insurrections.

01:01:57.000 Yeah, I agree, but your definition doesn't require federal anything.

01:02:00.000 That's not what your definition requires.

01:02:01.000 Okay, I think if the only holdout you have is that your definition of resisting a particular law just means that you are breaking a law, then I think I'm satisfied.

01:02:12.000 No, no, it's not.

01:02:13.000 Or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

01:02:14.000 This could be localized for non-localized purposes.

01:02:16.000 No one here has made any claims about a non-federal insurrection.

01:02:19.000 Okay, well, if those are your two holdouts that you think- Okay, well, what is or interfering with the course of a government proceeding mean?

01:02:24.000 What does that mean?

01:02:25.000 The record that I'm invoking, we're especially talking about things relating to insurrection, and we're talking about the invocation of insurrection, which is my understanding has only ever happened in federal law and in stuff relating to the United States government, not a state government.

01:02:37.000 If you want to show me it happening or show me a historical record or a state constitution or a state criminal statute that references insurrection, then we can talk about that if you want to.

01:02:44.000 What?

01:02:44.000 What does or interfering with the course of a government proceeding mean, Destiny?

01:02:48.000 Or interfering with the course of the implementation or the execution of some particular federal law.

01:02:52.000 It has to be federal?

01:02:55.000 Yes, because we're talking about the federal government.

01:02:57.000 No, that doesn't mean it.

01:02:58.000 Hang on.

01:02:59.000 Hang on.

01:02:59.000 So you're doing a classic kind of destiny bait-and-switch where you say in this particular case it would because that's what we're talking about.

01:03:07.000 Okay, that's fair, but that doesn't mean that that's what the definition says.

01:03:11.000 The definition itself does not say that it must be federal.

01:03:14.000 It doesn't say that.

01:03:15.000 Hang on.

01:03:16.000 It doesn't say that anywhere.

01:03:19.000 What does or interfering with the course of a government proceeding mean?

01:03:23.000 What does it mean?

01:03:24.000 Real quick, guys, that is 10 minutes.

01:03:26.000 What I could do is, because I see that there's a discussion here between federal, you know, if an insurrection could be federal or state, I will go ahead and reset the clock.

01:03:34.000 I think maybe this is something that we can kind of hone in on.

01:03:37.000 Can an insurrection be, obviously we're talking about it from federal level, but can also be at a state level.

01:03:43.000 Do you guys want to shift that conversation to there and make this run specifically for that?

01:03:46.000 Are you guys okay with that?

01:03:47.000 I don't know.

01:03:50.000 State insurrection.

01:03:51.000 I'm just not even aware of that even being a thing.

01:03:53.000 I don't think I've ever heard of that.

01:03:54.000 Were the DC cops local?

01:03:55.000 I'll put the clock for five minutes.

01:03:57.000 The DC cops were federal.

01:03:58.000 No, all of them were federal, eh?

01:04:00.000 The District of Columbia is federal.

01:04:03.000 So they have no state police there at all?

01:04:06.000 What state police would they have there?

01:04:07.000 I don't know.

01:04:08.000 I'm just asking.

01:04:10.000 I don't believe so, no.

01:04:11.000 I'm pretty sure even the National Guard there directly, like the chain of command goes up to the president, not a state governor.

01:04:15.000 Do states have state governments?

01:04:17.000 Yes.

01:04:18.000 Okay, well, I don't understand why you couldn't have an insurrection against the state government by this definition.

01:04:22.000 You should consult the historical record and come with an example next time.

01:04:24.000 Well, just because you never have one, I'm asking you if you can.

01:04:27.000 I'm not here to debate whether or not you can have an insurrection against the state government.

01:04:30.000 Well, I don't understand that if your definition doesn't include federal.

01:04:34.000 No, this is like asking if the murder occurred on January 6th.

01:04:37.000 In that case, I would only be talking about murder as it's defined in federal law, not in state law.

01:04:42.000 We're talking about an insurrection on whether or not January 6th was an insurrection or not, so I'm only going to be appealing to federal law or federal historical understanding of an insurrection against the United States.

01:04:49.000 So I don't know why we're saying, well, what about a state insurrection?

01:04:51.000 I don't know.

01:04:52.000 I'm not even aware of a state insurrection as a possible thing.

01:04:53.000 I've never heard that reference before.

01:04:55.000 It's not semantic.

01:04:56.000 It's legal and it's historical, and that's where the understanding is.

01:04:58.000 No, I'm fine with a semantic distinction.

01:05:00.000 I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it.

01:05:01.000 I'm actually just trying to make one.

01:05:03.000 So you agree that you gave me a definition that it nowhere includes the word federal, correct?

01:05:12.000 I also didn't give you a definition that includes the word human, or that includes the words like in this present point of time and not like in the future or time traveling in the past, or that doesn't include like dimension C-138, or that like there's a million other things that I didn't include.

01:05:25.000 Yeah, I don't know what that has to do with anything.

01:05:27.000 Because why would I include the definition of against the United States when we're talking about an insurrection that happened on federal grounds?

01:05:33.000 Because your definition of an insurrection matters.

01:05:37.000 Okay, well, in that case, I will simply add on my second part.

01:05:39.000 Aren't you appealing to a state court, for instance?

01:05:42.000 What are you talking about here?

01:05:44.000 Appealing to a state court for what?

01:05:46.000 Aren't you appealing to a state court for this definition?

01:05:48.000 Isn't that what you said?

01:05:50.000 Did I get that wrong?

01:05:51.000 Right now I'm appealing to federal history.

01:05:55.000 What are you talking about?

01:05:56.000 Well, I'm asking, where did you get this definition?

01:05:58.000 Let's start with that.

01:06:00.000 There is a writer who studied—I think it was constitutional law specializing in the 14th Amendment.

01:06:08.000 His name is Mark Graber, and these are the four qualifications that he basically lists out, and then he goes through a number of historical examples to say as much.

01:06:14.000 There's also a much longer paper written about the—I think it's like the sweeping power of Section 3, written by, I think, Baud and Paulson, who write like a 130-page paper where they go through listing the historical understanding of insurrection.

01:06:30.000 Does he say in this paper that it's a requirement that this be done at the federal level?

01:06:37.000 I don't think anybody talks about state insurrections.

01:06:42.000 I don't think you can levy war or engage in insurrection against a state.

01:06:45.000 I'm just not aware of that.

01:06:46.000 I've never heard of that brought up before.

01:06:48.000 Yeah, but I'm just asking.

01:06:50.000 For instance, when you say treason, if I were to give you a definition of treason, I don't know if you can commit treason against the state of Iowa.

01:06:56.000 I think that's only a federal crime.

01:06:58.000 I have no idea either.

01:06:59.000 That's why I'm asking.

01:07:01.000 Well, I can't say for sure because I'm...

01:07:32.000 Maybe there is evidence of it out there, but I don't know.

01:07:33.000 I don't know.

01:07:33.000 Well, it's an assemblage of people for a common purpose.

01:07:38.000 An assemblage of people, yes.

01:07:40.000 So they've come for a common purpose, okay?

01:07:42.000 And then two is to resist any law or interfering with the course of a government proceeding, right?

01:07:47.000 Resisting a law.

01:07:48.000 That's not just breaking a law, but you're there to resist a particular law.

01:07:52.000 There's one you really don't like.

01:07:53.000 And then three, you're showing up.

01:07:54.000 Yeah, but we have the or there.

01:07:56.000 We have the or interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

01:08:00.000 Wouldn't that be even resisting police?

01:08:02.000 Wouldn't that qualify?

01:08:03.000 No, a government proceeding would be like the Senate confirming an officer of the executive agency.

01:08:12.000 You would have to demonstrate that.

01:08:13.000 I don't believe that that's true.

01:08:14.000 I think that you can interfere with government proceedings, even absent there being some actual proceeding that you're interfering with.

01:08:23.000 I think that this could be done with just localized laws.

01:08:25.000 That's fine.

01:08:26.000 And if you would like to introduce your own definition of insurrection, you can do that.

01:08:30.000 Because I'm unaware in the historical record of anybody suggesting that interfering with police officers is a matter of insurrection or can lead to an element of insurrection.

01:08:40.000 Are there laws against rioting?

01:08:42.000 I don't know.

01:08:43.000 I'm not sure.

01:08:43.000 I know there's laws against things that happen in rioting.

01:08:46.000 I don't know if there's a law of rioting.

01:08:47.000 Are you resisting those laws when you're rioting?

01:08:50.000 No.

01:08:50.000 You're not resisting those laws when you're rioting?

01:08:52.000 No, unless you're literally rioting to say we should make rioting legal or we need to get rid of the prohibition on rioting.

01:08:58.000 And that is five minutes.

01:08:59.000 Why would that be a qualification to resist the laws?

01:09:02.000 Because breaking the law and resist...

01:09:03.000 Do you acknowledge that breaking the law and resisting the law are not the same thing?

01:09:05.000 Well, tell me what the distinction is so I'm not confused anymore.

01:09:08.000 Breaking the law is when you do something that's illegal, and resisting the law is saying that this particular law shouldn't exist.

01:09:15.000 Yeah, okay, but if you're rioting, how do you go about resisting a law?

01:09:21.000 Well, you could riot for the purpose of overturning a particular law.

01:09:25.000 Yeah, but you're resisting other laws then, right?

01:09:27.000 No, you're not saying that rioting should be made legal.

01:09:31.000 Yeah, but even if you weren't, you would still be resisting laws that were on the books against rioting.

01:09:38.000 So if I can't divorce—okay, we can just disagree here.

01:09:40.000 Do you think that resisting and breaking the law are the same thing?

01:09:42.000 I didn't say that they're the same thing.

01:09:44.000 I said that necessarily if you're rioting to resist some other external law.

01:09:49.000 So let's say I think that there's some— Hold on.

01:09:51.000 Do you agree that you can engage in rioting and accept that you might get arrested for rioting?

01:09:59.000 Yeah.

01:10:00.000 Then that defeats your entire argument.

01:10:01.000 You can engage in rioting without resisting the law of rioting.

01:10:04.000 Actually, that makes my argument.

01:10:06.000 That makes my argument.

01:10:07.000 So the thing is, is that even if I concede that it's true, that you could be rioting with the expectation that you get arrested for this X thing, right?

01:10:17.000 You could do this for murder as well.

01:10:18.000 You could do this for basically anything.

01:10:19.000 You could commit any crime with the expectation that you could be arrested for the crime itself.

01:10:24.000 But that would not say that you're not resisting rioting.

01:10:27.000 Whatever the current laws were that were on the books about that crime.

01:10:30.000 You're saying that the necessity here is that you are resisting some other thing.

01:10:33.000 Fine.

01:10:34.000 But you're also resisting laws by the very nature of rioting.

01:10:37.000 So I don't know why you would have to have something which is externalized while you yourself are still breaking laws.

01:10:43.000 How are you resisting the law?

01:10:45.000 How are you resisting laws of rioting by rioting?

01:10:49.000 What does resist mean to you?

01:10:51.000 I can give you an example of this.

01:10:54.000 Let us assume for a second that people are rioting in an abortion clinic because they want abortion overturned.

01:11:00.000 I think this is the spirit of your argument, right?

01:11:02.000 So they're rioting in an abortion clinic.

01:11:04.000 They want abortion to be overturned.

01:11:07.000 You would agree with me then that they are pushing against abortion, but they're still breaking laws while they're rioting, right?

01:11:17.000 So they are resisting current laws, even though they're resisting another current law.

01:11:21.000 And I don't think that you would consider that to be an insurrection, even though it could fit all of the criteria of these elements.

01:11:28.000 It's an assemblage, for sure.

01:11:30.000 You're resisting some other law that you don't like, or you're interfering with the course of a government proceeding.

01:11:35.000 You would say that that fits criteria, too.

01:11:38.000 You would say that this is by force or intimidation, and you would say it's for a public purpose.

01:11:42.000 But that clearly is not an insurrection, Destiny.

01:11:48.000 The issue is that abortion is not like, this isn't a federal law.

01:11:52.000 I could just grant you that and we can move to the state example since you seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between state or federal law.

01:11:57.000 Let's assume for a second that it was.

01:11:57.000 Let's assume for a second it was a federal law.

01:12:00.000 Okay, you know what?

01:12:01.000 Actually, we can do that.

01:12:02.000 Let's say that the federal government passed a law either allowing or not allowing all abortion.

01:12:10.000 The government either allows it, everybody can have an abortion whenever they want, or nobody can have an abortion. 0.99

01:12:14.000 Let's say that I gather a group of people and I say, listen, fuck this abortion law. 0.99

01:12:18.000 We're all going to get together and we're going to go protest. 1.00

01:12:21.000 And we're protesting.

01:12:23.000 The goal of our protest is we want to get rid of The abortion thing, whether it was pastor or made illegal, okay? 0.59

01:12:29.000 We want to get rid of this law. 0.99

01:12:31.000 And we're going to show up with a whole bunch of fucking people, and shit's going to get ratty, and we're going to, you know, we know what we're doing, okay? 0.99

01:12:37.000 It's a day in Capitol Hill that they're going to sign the law into whatever. 0.99

01:12:39.000 We march down there, and in the course of protesting, like, it becomes a riot, and the riot and everything there was because of that particular law being signed into practice.

01:12:48.000 I would say, yeah, that was an insurrection.

01:12:50.000 You've shown up with a group of people.

01:12:51.000 You're resisting the passage of some particular law.

01:12:54.000 You're showing up through force or intimidation, and you end up exercising that, and then it's for the public purpose of a particular law that impacts everybody in the United States.

01:13:03.000 I would say that is an insurrection, yes.

01:13:04.000 Would you say it's not?

01:13:05.000 Would you say that's not an insurrection?

01:13:07.000 Yeah, I would say that it would not be an insurrection, at least by this criteria.

01:13:11.000 That would just seem to me, again, to be a riot.

01:13:14.000 That would seem to fit the criteria, again, of a riot better than an insurrection.

01:13:17.000 I still can't exactly figure out the delineation point, and I'm trying to.

01:13:21.000 Now, to be fair to you, it is nebulous.

01:13:23.000 I understand it's nebulous, but I'm also not the one who's making the affirmative claim you are. 0.97

01:13:29.000 So you're saying that if a bunch of fucking dope-smoking hippies wanted to resist the federal law of being able to smoke marijuana on federal land, and they all showed up and they got stoned, and then they started rioting, that that would be a fucking insurrection? 0.94

01:13:42.000 If they went there with a common purpose, they were trying to resist the implementation and execution of a particular law. 0.98

01:13:48.000 Yeah, theoretically it could.

01:13:49.000 Well, no, they're just resisting, right?

01:13:51.000 They're just resisting a law.

01:13:53.000 They're saying we're here to protest the fact, man, that we can't smoke weed on federal property, man.

01:13:58.000 So they all grab their blunts and they start toking up in protest.

01:14:01.000 Ten seconds.

01:14:05.000 Hang on, I just want to make sure.

01:14:06.000 You think that that would be an insurrection?

01:14:09.000 The historical record, it could be yes.

01:14:11.000 Do you have any definition of insurrection whatsoever?

01:14:13.000 I don't need to give you a counter-definition.

01:14:15.000 If you're not going to give me a counter-definition, the riot definition doesn't include necessarily a public purpose.

01:14:23.000 I've already given examples of riots that wouldn't fit my definition of insurrection, and I really only need to give one and I automatically win.

01:14:28.000 A riot could very much be in response to a particular sports team winning a game.

01:14:31.000 Boom.

01:14:31.000 That's an example of a riot.

01:14:33.000 It doesn't fit my definition of insurrection.

01:14:35.000 I've differentiated the two, and unless you're going to give me any countervailing definitions, I automatically satisfy that element of my claim.

01:14:40.000 Yeah, but I already did.

01:14:40.000 We're interfering with the course of a government proceeding in and of itself.

01:14:43.000 I think that the necessity of rioting in and of itself...

01:14:47.000 What if you blockade a federal highway?

01:14:49.000 Wait, the necessity of rioting in and of itself?

01:14:51.000 Wait, what?

01:14:52.000 Hold on, wait a minute.

01:14:54.000 To be clear, do you acknowledge that I just gave you an example of a riot that wouldn't be an insurrection under my definitions?

01:15:02.000 So I think that that would even be appropriate.

01:15:04.000 I think that you could give me tons of definitions of riots that would not fit this definition of an insurrection, but that would not mean that this definition doesn't fit the definition of riot better than insurrection.

01:15:14.000 You understand?

01:15:15.000 Wait, so if somebody was protesting and it got really violent after a sports game, how would my definition fit that better than insurrection?

01:15:22.000 What if they were blockading a federal highway?

01:15:25.000 Would that be interfering with the course of government proceedings because there's a federal law that says you can't blockade byways on federal highways?

01:15:31.000 I mean, this is the thing.

01:15:33.000 I don't know.

01:15:33.000 I don't think that counts as a proceeding.

01:15:36.000 Do you see what I mean, though?

01:15:37.000 This becomes so broad that we can begin to just add all sorts of things and call them insurrections.

01:15:43.000 What is the government proceeding?

01:15:44.000 Let me give you an example.

01:15:46.000 So if we're going to be totally good faith here, which I've been trying to be this entire debate, and I think you would concede that, if we're going to be really good faith here, Do you really believe that if a bunch of hippies showed up to smoke a bunch of dope on federal property, okay,

01:16:01.000 and a few of them got wild and started a fire and kicked some shit, right, and fucking, I don't know, somebody got beat up with a bat because there was tens of thousands of them who showed up for that protest, do you really believe that that would fit the criteria of what most people think of, including you, 0.84

01:16:17.000 as an insurrection? 0.99

01:16:19.000 If they didn't go, they're united by a particular public purpose.

01:16:23.000 The public purpose was they were going against this federal law.

01:16:26.000 They don't want the federal law.

01:16:27.000 They're resisting that federal law.

01:16:29.000 So we don't have to waste more time on this.

01:16:30.000 If you want to stack this enough, all I'm going to end up doing is saying that, yes, I would agree that this would be an insurrection.

01:16:36.000 You're not able to demonstrate.

01:16:38.000 This is why I'm asking you historically, can you give me an example of an event that you don't think I would want to classify as an insurrection?

01:16:42.000 I don't think I need to.

01:16:44.000 But if you're just going to give me examples, but you're just going to need to build these events more and more.

01:16:47.000 I'm going to give you the ultimate example right now.

01:16:49.000 Yeah, I would say that was an insurrection.

01:16:50.000 Nobody in good faith.

01:17:03.000 I don't believe you believe it.

01:17:05.000 I don't believe your audience believes it.

01:17:07.000 I don't believe anybody believes it.

01:17:09.000 So if that is the case, that it's so broad that that will encapsulate that, I'm actually fine leaving the debate there too.

01:17:16.000 Okay.

01:17:16.000 I mean, again, it doesn't really matter what we would consider to be an insurrection.

01:17:20.000 The only thing that really matters is what the historical record says at the time was considered an insurrection.

01:17:25.000 Yeah, well, I don't know.

01:17:26.000 Because nobody's prosecuting anybody for it, so...

01:17:29.000 You don't have to...

01:17:30.000 Well, you're just retreading.

01:17:32.000 Technically, I think this might be a gish gala when you keep bringing up arguments that have been rebuked over and over and over again.

01:17:36.000 I don't think it was gish gala.

01:17:37.000 But again, we agree that we can walk in and see, wow, this person was murdered, and go, oh really?

01:17:41.000 Who was charged with murder? 1.00

01:17:42.000 Okay, fuck. 1.00

01:17:43.000 Or wow, wow, there sure is a riot here. 1.00

01:17:45.000 We saw that a riot happened.

01:17:46.000 Well, who was charged with rioting? 1.00

01:17:47.000 Well, fuck, I guess. 0.99

01:17:47.000 You don't need a charge of a particular crime, and the barrier or the bar for charging somebody with a particular crime is probably a lot higher than declaring an event a thing itself. 0.99

01:17:56.000 It doesn't make any sense to say because somebody hasn't been charged with a particular thing.

01:17:59.000 It also doesn't make any sense to say that because they haven't been charged with a particular thing, that means they're guilty of the particular thing either.

01:18:08.000 That's the law in that argument.

01:18:09.000 I've pointed it out multiple times.

01:18:11.000 My criteria is not— It doesn't actually flow with this correctly.

01:18:14.000 My criteria is not because they weren't charged.

01:18:17.000 That's why it was an insurrection.

01:18:19.000 I would never use that as part of my criteria.

01:18:20.000 Yeah, well, hippies everywhere.

01:18:21.000 Don't show up to federal property to protest by smoking weed.

01:18:24.000 Because if a couple of you start a fire, you're going to get brought up on insurrection charges that nobody ever.

01:18:29.000 That's insane.

01:18:31.000 I don't know why we keep bringing up insurrection charges.

01:18:33.000 No one's talking about a criminal charge or a criminal proceeding here.

01:18:35.000 Yeah, criminal charge or criminal proceeding.

01:18:37.000 That would be a charge, right?

01:18:38.000 Yeah, nobody's talking about that here.

01:18:40.000 Nobody's talking about criminal charges here or criminal proceedings here.

01:18:43.000 But you would still consider that an insurrection, right?

01:18:46.000 An insurrection doesn't have to be a criminal matter.

01:18:48.000 I just want to make sure that you would still consider that an insurrection.

01:18:51.000 If all four elements of what I said were met, then yes.

01:18:53.000 All right, fine.

01:18:54.000 Well, then I'll leave the debate there.

01:18:55.000 I'm good with that.

01:18:56.000 So what I'll do, so we went seven rounds here, and I was just timing it and everything else like that.

01:19:02.000 I see that there's obviously a difference of opinion and definitions of what fits what, etc.

01:19:06.000 So what I'll do is I'll go to closing arguments.

01:19:09.000 I'll put, are you both okay with three minutes on the clock to make your closing argument?

01:19:14.000 Sure.

01:19:14.000 Or I can make it a little bit longer if you guys want, and then we can close that after that.

01:19:18.000 Yeah, whatever you guys want to do, I'm fine with it.

01:19:20.000 Are you okay with three or do you want more?

01:19:22.000 Three is probably fine.

01:19:23.000 Three minutes?

01:19:24.000 Okay.

01:19:25.000 Who wants to go first?

01:19:29.000 Well, I open first, so usually the person who opens closes last.

01:19:32.000 Okay.

01:19:33.000 So, Destiny, I'll turn it to you.

01:19:35.000 I'll put three minutes on the clock, and you can put your closing arguments here.

01:19:40.000 And this was a fantastic discussion, obviously.

01:19:42.000 You know you have a good debate when the chat is like, you know, almost 50-50.

01:19:47.000 So, I'll go ahead and turn it to you, Destiny, and you can give us your closing arguments, and then I'll go turn it to Andrew.

01:19:53.000 Yeah, I mean, historically, there have been examples of things that were considered insurrections that were incredibly small in nature, right?

01:19:59.000 I don't know if anybody died at all in the Whiskey Rebellion.

01:20:02.000 I'm pretty sure everybody that got arrested for that was, like, acquitted.

01:20:04.000 It was just people basically essentially protesting the whiskey tax laws.

01:20:09.000 This wasn't a massive deal that had, like, explosions and gunfire and deaths everywhere.

01:20:14.000 I think that we just don't tend to view things as insurrections.

01:20:16.000 I think?

01:20:44.000 We're good to go.

01:20:55.000 I think?

01:21:27.000 Thank you.

01:21:43.000 I think?

01:21:51.000 One minute.

01:22:22.000 All right, okay.

01:22:24.000 That was two minutes and 30 seconds.

01:22:25.000 I will turn it to you, Andrew, to make your closing arguments.

01:22:29.000 And then, Andrew, from what I understand, you wanted to open up the phone lines, right, and have a discussion with the people after?

01:22:33.000 Yeah, I'm fine with that.

01:22:35.000 Even if Destiny has other places to go, I'm willing to stick around for call-ins.

01:22:38.000 I've always done that on the Crucible.

01:22:40.000 Sure.

01:22:41.000 Right now as we speak, Bill's is firing up the phone line, so we'll get that phone number out and put it on the screen.

01:22:49.000 Destiny, if you want to stay, you can telegraph it to your audience and we can answer some questions for the people.

01:22:52.000 But I will turn it to you, Andrew, to make your closing arguments.

01:22:56.000 Well, it's really funny, this appeal to authority.

01:23:00.000 Destiny grabs this entire nebulous definition from some guy that he respects on the internet and then claims that this is some authoritative definition.

01:23:06.000 This is the authoritative definition because I read it from some guy on the internet.

01:23:10.000 Oh, okay, great.

01:23:11.000 Even though the courts themselves have not ruled on this, and nobody was charged with insurrection, nobody was charged...

01:23:17.000 Again, one more time, nobody charged with insurrection.

01:23:20.000 Trump acquitted of inciting an insurrection, which, again, nobody was charged with.

01:23:24.000 Talk about nebulous definition.

01:23:26.000 He says, I'm playing word games.

01:23:28.000 Meanwhile, he takes time today, all day, to assemble a four-point, you know, kind of, this is my definition, completely based on some other guy on the internet, which is crazy to me.

01:23:41.000 This is Destiny's personal definition.

01:23:44.000 Personal definition of what this means.

01:23:47.000 And it clearly fits three of the criteria for rioting right off the gate.

01:23:51.000 We only had an issue with two.

01:23:53.000 And then when we apply these, and remember my opening statement.

01:23:56.000 I said in my opening statement, this is going to become very broad, right?

01:24:00.000 There's no way that we're not going to be able to call all sorts of things insurrections that clearly are not insurrections.

01:24:06.000 We come up with the idea of what if a bunch of dope-smoking hippies all show up with the united purpose of smoking dope on federal land in order to resist the federal law.

01:24:16.000 And then a couple of them start a fire, and one gets beaten up with a baseball bat or something like this.

01:24:20.000 Suddenly, that's an insurrection.

01:24:32.000 We're good to go.

01:24:44.000 He's only there specifically to villainize the opposition for the purposes of demonization so that when bad things happen to them, he can call them traitors.

01:24:53.000 That's it.

01:24:53.000 That's the whole game.

01:24:55.000 It's been his whole game now for a while.

01:24:57.000 And this is what got him on Pierce and all these other things, which I recently reviewed, was that take.

01:25:03.000 And so in order for him to justify that take, he has to make you a traitor because you don't believe that that was an insurrection that nobody was charged with.

01:25:11.000 Okay, 2.15. 0.97

01:25:13.000 Guys, that was a fucking fantastic discussion. 0.88

01:25:18.000 Obviously, people are going to have different viewpoints on where they go, but that's, I think, the beauty of any discussion like this in debate. 0.98

01:25:23.000 Good debate always has people with different viewpoints saying, like, oh, I think this guy did better, I think this guy did better, so great discussion from both.

01:25:30.000 I am going to open up the phone lines right now.

01:25:33.000 I think the number is going to be BlockTalkBills?

01:25:35.000 Yeah.

01:25:36.000 So, guys, the number is going to be 515.

01:25:41.000 605-9740.

01:25:43.000 Yeah, I still remember, yeah.

01:25:46.000 So that is going to be the phone number, guys, to call into the show.

01:25:49.000 You can interact with us, whether it's me, Destiny, or Andrew.

01:25:53.000 Start your show now.

01:25:53.000 Press 1 to hear.

01:25:55.000 Your show is scheduled to start in 33 seconds.

01:26:01.000 And Andrew, how do you normally run this?

01:26:03.000 Yeah, 505-605-9740, that's the number to call in, guys.

01:26:06.000 Again, that number is...

01:26:07.000 Usually just whoever calls in, they have a single question, they answer the question, and then move on to the next caller, maybe like 30 seconds, very quick, back and forth, so you can get to as many callers as possible.

01:26:19.000 Usually that's how I do it.

01:26:20.000 Okay, no, that's cool, because we're going to have...

01:26:22.000 Your show will go live in five seconds.

01:26:24.000 Four, three, two, one...

01:26:32.000 Okay, so guys, the number to call in is 505-605-9740.

01:26:38.000 Again, that number is 515-605-9740.

01:26:42.000 We're manning the phone lines here at Fresh and Fit.

01:26:45.000 So if you call in, if you super chat, we'll go ahead and put you at the top of the list.

01:26:50.000 Get you in there faster.

01:26:51.000 As usual, super chat is the last four bits of your number.

01:26:54.000 And I think we just opened up the lines.

01:26:58.000 Okay, so do we have anyone on now?

01:26:59.000 I know we literally just opened them, but...

01:27:01.000 Yeah, we do.

01:27:02.000 Okay, so as usual, guys, normal rules.

01:27:04.000 If you want to skip the line, super chat the last four digits of your numbers in, and we will go ahead and get you on the line.

01:27:09.000 Let's go ahead and hit the first caller here.

01:27:11.000 We got 6327, you're up.

01:27:15.000 6327, you're up.

01:27:16.000 Go ahead, 6327.

01:27:17.000 And I'm going to be hosting a Zoom call after this, guys.

01:27:19.000 Andrew, if you don't mind dropping in on Castle Club after this.

01:27:22.000 Of course!

01:27:23.000 At your service, thank you so much for hosting this and you guys coming in on your day off.

01:27:28.000 You're welcome, too, if you want to jump in and talk to my community.

01:27:31.000 Hey, you guys ready for me?

01:27:32.000 But yeah, go ahead.

01:27:33.000 But we'll do calls for a bit, and then we'll switch on over to Castle Club.

01:27:36.000 And I appreciate you guys doing that for me if you guys want to come.

01:27:38.000 Thank you, Andrew, and if you want to come in, that's the awesome.

01:27:40.000 We got someone online, right?

01:27:41.000 Yeah.

01:27:42.000 Okay, brother.

01:27:42.000 Tell us your name, where you're from, and hit us with your question.

01:27:47.000 My name is Rick from Miami, Florida.

01:27:49.000 The question is for Andrew.

01:27:52.000 Very frustrating on his side to see the debate on his side, so I really do need an answer of what his definition is for an insurrection.

01:28:02.000 Are you asking me my definition?

01:28:05.000 Andrews.

01:28:07.000 Yeah, I'm not going to give you one.

01:28:08.000 It's not my burden.

01:28:12.000 I feel like that's a cop-out.

01:28:14.000 Okay, so that's all.

01:28:14.000 No, well, then you need to learn how to debate because you not knowing how to debate doesn't mean that I'm copping out.

01:28:19.000 It's not my position.

01:28:20.000 The affirmative position, the person calling people insurrectionists is not me.

01:28:25.000 Wait, how are we supposed to have a debate on a January 6th as an insurrection if you don't even have a definition of insurrection?

01:28:29.000 Why do I need to have a definition to note that whatever definition that you could come up with would be too broad to apply to this?

01:28:36.000 That's not a logical statement.

01:28:37.000 Hold on one sec.

01:28:38.000 Hold on one sec.

01:28:39.000 He came in with some facts.

01:28:41.000 He came in with some points, but you didn't.

01:28:47.000 Okay.

01:28:47.000 Andrew, do you want to respond to him on that?

01:28:49.000 I think we missed like...

01:28:51.000 Yeah, I'm sorry.

01:28:52.000 We were having an exchange.

01:28:53.000 I missed the actual question.

01:28:54.000 I think his main criticism is he wants to know what your definition of insurrection is.

01:28:58.000 Is that correct, Haller?

01:29:00.000 Correct.

01:29:01.000 Yeah, it's not my burden.

01:29:04.000 It's not my burden.

01:29:18.000 Okay, how is it my burden?

01:29:22.000 So let me ask you a question, caller.

01:29:25.000 Okay.

01:29:26.000 Let's assume for a second I didn't know what murder was, and you were trying to give me the criteria for what murder was.

01:29:32.000 Could I logically give you a criticism for why that actually would fit something else that I do know what it is better than the idea of murder?

01:29:42.000 Do you understand that, caller?

01:29:45.000 Yes.

01:29:47.000 Well then, what is your criticism?

01:29:49.000 I think what you're asking me is if something that you think...

01:30:05.000 No, I'm giving what's called an internal critique.

01:30:08.000 An internal critique doesn't necessitate an argument.

01:30:11.000 Hold on, this doesn't make sense.

01:30:13.000 If the debate has to do with whether or not a person was murdered...

01:30:17.000 If that's the debate, was John murdered, and the entire debate is just you critiquing another person's definition of murder, but you're unwilling to put forth your own definition of murder, the implication is that you were never prepared to debate the actual topic of the debate, which is if somebody was murdered.

01:30:29.000 That's not the implication.

01:30:30.000 That doesn't even make any sense.

01:30:31.000 So, Destiny, let me ask you a counter-question.

01:30:32.000 My argument is that is arguing in bad faith.

01:30:35.000 Not only is that not arguing in bad faith, it's arguing in the best faith.

01:30:40.000 Destiny knew for sure that he had the burden, not me.

01:30:45.000 Let's get the next caller on.

01:30:46.000 How could you possibly deal with the topic if you don't have a definition of insurrection?

01:30:53.000 Well, let's try.

01:30:54.000 I was just getting to that.

01:30:55.000 So let me ask you, Destiny.

01:30:57.000 Let us assume for a second that you weren't sure exactly what murder meant.

01:31:01.000 You weren't exactly sure what the criteria was.

01:31:04.000 Another person was calling this group of people a murderer, right?

01:31:07.000 You had kind of an idea, maybe, of what that was.

01:31:10.000 And so you went to them and you said, okay, can you tell me what you mean by murder?

01:31:14.000 And they gave you some other criteria that fit way better with something other than their definition of murder.

01:31:20.000 Why would that be illogical or in any way unreasonable?

01:31:23.000 That's not illogical and that's not unreasonable, but that would only mean that you would be successful if the debate was, is Destiny's definition of insurrection satisfactory insofar as defining January 6th as an insurrection?

01:31:35.000 But that wasn't the debate.

01:31:35.000 It wasn't just my definition.

01:31:38.000 Yeah, it was.

01:31:39.000 Do you agree that the prompt of the debate was January 6th an insurrection?

01:31:45.000 Yeah, why does that mean that I have to...

01:31:46.000 How can you answer that?

01:31:47.000 Wait, do you not have to answer the prompt to a debate?

01:31:50.000 Yeah, so I'm not taking that.

01:31:52.000 I'm neutral on it.

01:31:53.000 It could have been.

01:31:54.000 I was willing to concede that.

01:31:55.000 Oh, you have no position?

01:31:56.000 I was willing to concede that it could have been.

01:31:59.000 I said, write my opening in good faith.

01:32:01.000 I'll make concessions based under A, B, and C criteria if he can make these demonstrations.

01:32:06.000 You never did.

01:32:08.000 Okay, so then, just to be clear then, just so we're all...

01:32:10.000 So the prompt for the debate was, was January 6th an insurrection, and I came in with a positive, and you came in with no position.

01:32:16.000 No, it wasn't no position.

01:32:18.000 It was that it's possible that it was, possible that it wasn't.

01:32:22.000 That's no position.

01:32:23.000 I was willing to hear you.

01:32:23.000 No, it's a neutral position.

01:32:24.000 That's not no position.

01:32:26.000 That's no position.

01:32:26.000 If somebody's looking...

01:32:27.000 I'm sorry, is neutral not a position?

01:32:29.000 Not really, no.

01:32:30.000 Oh, no, not really.

01:32:31.000 Does that mean no or yes, Destiny?

01:32:33.000 Is neutral a position or isn't it?

01:32:35.000 For the purposes of having a debate, no.

01:32:37.000 Oh, for the purposes of having a debate, you can't have a neutral position.

01:32:41.000 Destiny, Stephen Bonnell III, the best leftist debater on planet Earth, ladies and gentlemen.

01:32:45.000 Neutral on a debate topic is not a position.

01:32:48.000 Not to have as a debater.

01:32:50.000 That's correct.

01:32:50.000 There's a debate saying, is God real?

01:32:52.000 And one person shows up and says, I'm arguing the freedom.

01:32:55.000 God is real.

01:32:55.000 And the other person says, I'm a neutral position on that.

01:32:57.000 Oh, I guess you've never debated with an agnostic before who's neutral.

01:33:01.000 They're neutral on it.

01:33:01.000 Not in a debate on what—that would be a debate on agnosticism or gnosticism.

01:33:05.000 No, it could be a debate on whether or not God is real or not real.

01:33:07.000 Why couldn't you go into a debate agnostic about God being real or not real, Destiny?

01:33:12.000 Can you explain that real quick?

01:33:13.000 Because definitionally, an agnostic doesn't take a position on or doesn't think they can have knowledge of God. 0.67

01:33:17.000 They do take a position.

01:33:18.000 They take a neutral position.

01:33:18.000 They don't have a knowledge of God, so why would you debate a gnostic person or somebody an agnostic person?

01:33:22.000 That makes no sense.

01:33:23.000 Or somebody on narcissism who doesn't have a position on the existence of God.

01:33:26.000 So agnostics can't have a neutral position about whether or not God exists or not, according to Stephen Von Elba III. A person who's agnostic, you wouldn't listen to the debate on whether or not God is real or not.

01:33:35.000 They would say, oh, well, I can't have information about the existence of God.

01:33:38.000 And you'd go, okay, well, actually, you wouldn't have this.

01:33:39.000 Well, then I guess 50% of the debates on modern-day debate are incorrect because people have a neutral position, an agnostic position, like Matt Dillahunty, a guy you talk to about whether or not God is real, where Matt Dillahunty says, listen, I'm agnostic on it.

01:33:51.000 He could be real.

01:33:52.000 You just haven't demonstrated to me that he's real.

01:33:54.000 Matt Dillahunty's wrong in all of those debates, right, Destiny?

01:33:57.000 He would be if that was the prompt of the debate.

01:33:59.000 Yes, if the prompt of the debate was, is God real or not real?

01:34:01.000 I'm doing the triangle.

01:34:02.000 I'm doing the triangle.

01:34:03.000 You come in and you go, oh, well, I'm agnostic. 0.99

01:34:05.000 Then you go, okay, well, why the fuck are you in this debate? 0.99

01:34:07.000 You don't have a position on it. 0.99

01:34:08.000 Then bring in somebody that feels, an atheist who wants to have a strong position of, like, he's not real, or an atheist who has a strong position.

01:34:14.000 That makes no sense.

01:34:15.000 You can still have a neutral position.

01:34:17.000 That's absurd.

01:34:18.000 I don't know.

01:34:18.000 How in the world are you the world's best leftist debater if you don't know you can take a neutral position in debate?

01:34:23.000 This is like saying you want to have a debate between two people between who is God or what is God, and one person is Catholic and the other person is an atheist.

01:34:28.000 It's a nonsense position.

01:34:30.000 Everybody knows this.

01:34:30.000 This is like a debate game right now.

01:34:31.000 Oh, everybody knows it, so it's true.

01:34:32.000 It's a debate game, yeah.

01:34:33.000 Just like everybody knows it's an insurrection, even though they can't charge anybody with an insurrection.

01:34:36.000 I didn't say everybody knows it's an insurrection.

01:34:37.000 I saw the historical record since it's an insurrection.

01:34:39.000 Uh-huh.

01:34:39.000 Okay.

01:34:41.000 So what I'll do here is we'll move to the next caller here.

01:34:44.000 Let's, Mo, you got it up?

01:34:47.000 5584, you're up.

01:34:49.000 5584, you're up.

01:34:50.000 Alright, welcome to the show, 5584.

01:34:52.000 You got Myron Gaines, Destiny, and Andrew Wilson in the house.

01:34:56.000 Hit us with your question, please, quickly, because we got a lot of people on the line. 0.99

01:34:59.000 Holy shit. 0.99

01:35:00.000 Hello? 0.99

01:35:00.000 Yeah, go ahead, bro. 0.99

01:35:01.000 You're on air.

01:35:03.000 You can hear me?

01:35:04.000 Yeah, we can hear you, man.

01:35:05.000 You're on air.

01:35:06.000 Oh, hello.

01:35:09.000 So, I just wanted to ask, do I have to solely debate on this topic alone, or can I just talk about other topics as well?

01:35:17.000 You want to keep a topic specific, please. 0.90

01:35:19.000 Yeah, just on this alone, yeah, because otherwise people are going to be calling up for every damn. 0.97

01:35:22.000 Yeah. 0.98

01:35:24.000 This is hoping.

01:35:25.000 I mean, neither of them actually gave a definition on the topic at all.

01:35:30.000 Like, Destiny, what was your definition of an interaction trick? 0.99

01:35:55.000 Damn. 0.99

01:36:00.000 Yeah, Collar, he said that at the top of his argument, bro. 0.99

01:36:04.000 Caller, he said that at the top of his argument, dude, and he was referencing the 14th Amendment.

01:36:09.000 You might have missed that.

01:36:09.000 No, I'm just saying, no, I agree with him that it was an insurrection, but wasn't Andrew's whole point that January 6th was not an insurrection?

01:36:16.000 I believe that was his whole point.

01:36:17.000 Well, Andrew doesn't have a point because he rejects my definition of insurrection, and then he appeals to some universal definition of riot, which I'm not even sure he's given.

01:36:24.000 And then he appeals to, well, this is what everybody would think a riot is.

01:36:27.000 And then he appeals to, well, nobody would agree that hippie people engaged in your definition of insurrection or committing an insurrection.

01:36:32.000 So I guess Andrew's just agnostic on the question of whether or not J6 was an insurrection because he doesn't have a definition of what an insurrection is.

01:36:39.000 Okay, but I think you answered his question, Destiny, so we can move on to the next guy.

01:36:42.000 Yeah.

01:36:43.000 All right, brother.

01:36:43.000 Thank you for calling in.

01:36:45.000 We're going to move on to the next caller again, guys.

01:36:47.000 515-605-9740.

01:36:49.000 Shout out to Mo and Bill's manning the phone lines in the back.

01:36:52.000 If you superchat in the last four digits of your number, fnfsuperchat.com, we will go ahead or rumble right?

01:36:58.000 Whatever you want to do.

01:36:58.000 We're live on all the platforms.

01:36:59.000 We will get you to the top of the list.

01:37:01.000 Last four digits of your number.

01:37:03.000 Who's up next?

01:37:04.000 4086.

01:37:05.000 You're up.

01:37:06.000 4086.

01:37:07.000 Go ahead, 4086.

01:37:08.000 Shout out to the production team in the back, man. 0.99

01:37:09.000 Making this fucking flawless. 0.99

01:37:11.000 Go ahead, bro. 0.99

01:37:12.000 Yeah, hello.

01:37:13.000 Can you hear me?

01:37:14.000 Yes.

01:37:15.000 Welcome to the show.

01:37:16.000 Yeah, I got a question for Andrew.

01:37:20.000 I'm not trying to debate on it.

01:37:21.000 It's just a question.

01:37:21.000 I'm just trying to gauge what you think about this.

01:37:24.000 So, Andrew, if there was like a leader or whatever, per se, of the country or whatever, right?

01:37:31.000 And you genuinely thought, like genuinely wholeheartedly believe that this leader...

01:37:46.000 That's really context specific.

01:37:49.000 Possibly.

01:37:53.000 What if you believe that this leader is the next Hitler or whatever?

01:37:57.000 Do you think it's okay to take over or stop them from...

01:38:04.000 Again, that claim is really context specific.

01:38:10.000 I'm going to tell you it's possible.

01:38:12.000 Yes.

01:38:13.000 But I'm not sure, because it would be under some type of, again, it's like a nebulous concept, the context behind this.

01:38:20.000 So I'm not sure.

01:38:21.000 Maybe it could be.

01:38:23.000 There's a possibility, but that doesn't mean yes or no.

01:38:26.000 I'm not sure.

01:38:27.000 I would need context for this.

01:38:30.000 Okay, so I mean, just take some shooting, for example.

01:38:33.000 Mm-hmm.

01:38:36.000 Right, so I mean like suppose that guy that did it or whatever legitimately thought that like Trump was gonna be the next Hitler.

01:38:43.000 Do you think he like he was in the like almost a moral right or whatever to try to take him out?

01:38:49.000 No.

01:38:52.000 Okay.

01:38:53.000 Why?

01:38:55.000 Well, so we're not allowed to, in this nation, assassinate our political opposition.

01:39:03.000 And if you want to know why that would be immoral, it's because that would be murder.

01:39:07.000 But if you want to know why that would be illegal, it's because there's a crime against killing people.

01:39:13.000 That's why it would be illegal.

01:39:14.000 It's a crime.

01:39:15.000 You can't kill people.

01:39:17.000 Just to be clear, I don't think assassinations are allowed in any country.

01:39:23.000 Do you think it's okay to just stop them?

01:39:27.000 Just stop them from taking office?

01:39:29.000 Like physically force them and prevent them from taking office?

01:39:35.000 I mean, I'm trying to follow this.

01:39:38.000 Maybe it could be, but what do you mean?

01:39:41.000 You mean, is it okay to physically stop Trump from taking office?

01:39:45.000 Like, if a bunch of people pulled up and just, like, forcibly, physically, we're saying, like, we're not going to allow you to be president because we think you're going to be awful, do you think it's okay to do that?

01:39:55.000 Yeah, that would be criminal.

01:39:57.000 Yeah.

01:39:57.000 You can't do that, no.

01:40:00.000 Okay.

01:40:02.000 All right.

01:40:03.000 That's it.

01:40:04.000 Thank you.

01:40:04.000 No problem, man.

01:40:05.000 We'll move on to the next caller.

01:40:06.000 Again, 515-605-9740.

01:40:08.000 Superchat, last four digits of your number to cut the line.

01:40:11.000 Go ahead, Mo.

01:40:13.000 3990-3990, you're up.

01:40:16.000 Go ahead, 3990.

01:40:19.000 Hello, everyone.

01:40:20.000 Can you guys hear me?

01:40:21.000 Yes.

01:40:23.000 Okay.

01:40:24.000 Andrew, I have a question.

01:40:26.000 Can you define me a chair?

01:40:30.000 Do you want, well, it depends on, this is like the sandwich argument, right?

01:40:35.000 So what is a sandwich?

01:40:37.000 What is a chair?

01:40:38.000 This kind of thing.

01:40:40.000 So when you look at the essence of a thing, right, it is possible that all definitions could fall short to an essence of a thing, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize the essence of a thing.

01:40:50.000 This is why if we were to take the idea of a bunch of hippies smoking a fucking blunt in a forest somewhere to resist federal law and then they started burning the forest down because a couple of them got too rowdy, calling that an insurrection wouldn't fit the spirit of what that means.

01:41:06.000 So while you're looking at both the definition, you're also looking at the application. 0.81

01:41:11.000 So when you ask, can I define a chair?

01:41:14.000 Sure.

01:41:14.000 Can I give you a definition of a chair which you can't pick apart?

01:41:18.000 Likely not.

01:41:21.000 But isn't that what you're doing right now?

01:41:24.000 No, it's not what I'm doing right now.

01:41:27.000 Because there's still an essence to the thing.

01:41:30.000 There's still something which we're perceiving to the thing, which makes it a chair.

01:41:35.000 The same way it makes it an insurrection.

01:41:37.000 So if it's a criterion of a riot better, and when we see it as a riot, and everybody sees it as a riot more than they do an insurrection, which is why it was charged that way, it seems like it falls under riot better.

01:41:50.000 Who's charged for a riot?

01:41:52.000 Well, they're charged under the purview of rioting.

01:41:55.000 I thought they were charged for trespassing and stuff.

01:41:58.000 Yeah, well, trespassing as well.

01:42:00.000 That's not a riot, though.

01:42:01.000 These are going to be tangential laws.

01:42:04.000 What is a tangential law?

01:42:05.000 What does that mean?

01:42:06.000 Let's say for a second that you're arrested for, I don't know, for trespassing, right?

01:42:12.000 Certainly that's not going to fit the definition of an insurrection, right?

01:42:16.000 Yeah.

01:42:17.000 Is there a federal crime for rioting?

01:42:22.000 Well, maybe not, but it would be on the purview of what rioting is.

01:42:25.000 I don't know what that means, purview of what rioting is, when we talk about criminal charges.

01:42:29.000 I don't know what that means.

01:42:30.000 Okay, well, do you agree with me there is rioting?

01:42:32.000 I don't know if rioting is a public, or is a federal crime.

01:42:35.000 I'm not sure.

01:42:36.000 Okay, I get that, but do you agree with me there is rioting?

01:42:39.000 I agree that riots exist, yeah.

01:42:41.000 Yeah, and do you agree that you and I could likely agree on what a riot is?

01:42:45.000 I don't know.

01:42:46.000 You don't want to give definitions for anything.

01:42:48.000 Well, I mean, if I gave you examples, do you think we could agree, like, if I showed BLM footage of their riots, do you think that you would agree that those were riots?

01:42:56.000 No, I would ask you very specifically, was anybody charged with a riot?

01:42:59.000 And if they weren't, then I would say that by your earlier definitions of insurrection, these must not have been riots.

01:43:03.000 What definitions did I give you of insurrection?

01:43:06.000 You made it sound like a necessary element of an insurrection having occurred was an individual being charged with a crime of insurrection.

01:43:11.000 No, that never happened.

01:43:13.000 Then why did you bring that up over and over and over again?

01:43:15.000 Well, no.

01:43:15.000 So you're taking, you're conflating two different ideas.

01:43:18.000 So idea one is nobody was charged with an insurrection, which means the powers that be also, when they saw this under their purview, probably didn't think that it fit the criteria for whatever an insurrection is going to be.

01:43:32.000 And so we have to untangle this idea.

01:43:35.000 And then we move on to idea two, which is your definition may fit something else better than it fits actual insurrection.

01:43:44.000 Okay.

01:43:45.000 Then you'd have to show me for a particular BLM riot that somebody was charged with the crime of rioting.

01:43:49.000 And if they weren't charged with them, they were charged with something else, I'd say, oh, people probably didn't think it was a riot.

01:43:52.000 You would have to demonstrate for me how this was actually an insurrection.

01:43:55.000 I already did.

01:43:56.000 I laid out four necessary elements, the things that wouldn't encompass a riot.

01:43:59.000 Okay, well, I would say that Chaz and Chop was like an open rebellion or insurrection.

01:44:04.000 Would that be a fair demonstration?

01:44:06.000 No, because I would ask you for a single historical example, either judicially, legally, or through any kind of historical writing, where they say that you can engage in an insurrection against a state.

01:44:16.000 I'm not aware of that being possible.

01:44:17.000 I don't think insurrections are fine for states.

01:44:18.000 But if you can show me an example, then I say, okay, fine, then Chaz was an insurrection. 0.81

01:44:21.000 Yeah, okay, but the definition itself, right, if I were to define it that way, right, like Chaz Chop, and I'm not, right, but I'm saying I can at least look at that and say this is something akin to this, of what I would expect to see under the criteria of X,

01:44:38.000 Y, and Z. That's my point.

01:44:42.000 Maybe, but you never gave me a definition for insurrection, so I'm not sure.

01:44:47.000 I mean, it's a good thing that Andrew doesn't think there are no riots during the BLM protests because no one got convicted.

01:44:54.000 So that's a good takeaway, I guess.

01:44:56.000 But thank you, guys.

01:44:56.000 That's it.

01:45:03.000 All right, so we'll move to the next caller.

01:45:04.000 So guys, I'll just discuss with my team how we'll do it.

01:45:06.000 We'll answer a few more phone calls here, and then what I'll do is we'll stay live on YouTube and all the other platforms.

01:45:11.000 As you guys know, obviously, go check out Destiny.

01:45:12.000 Go check out Andrew Wilson on their respective YouTube channels.

01:45:15.000 They're streaming as well.

01:45:16.000 This is, you know, multi-stream between all the different platforms.

01:45:18.000 I think between all of us guys, we've got like 50,000 plus, around 30,000 to 50,000 watching us.

01:45:23.000 And what I'll do is I'll send a Zoom link to all the Castle Club members and we'll answer questions exclusively with the Castle Club members.

01:45:30.000 And I appreciate you guys doing that for me.

01:45:32.000 But we'll answer a few more phone calls for guys that are just watching the show regularly.

01:45:35.000 But we'll stay on, but we'll answer questions from Castle Club members only.

01:45:37.000 But we'll do that in a bit after we answer some more here.

01:45:40.000 Who's next on the line?

01:45:41.000 We'll try to get through as many of you guys on.

01:45:44.000 1143, you are up.

01:45:46.000 1143, you are up.

01:45:48.000 And before we bring him on, Destiny, Andrew, do you guys want it where he just asked a question, then we just move on, then take him off the line, you answer the question, then go on so we get more people through.

01:45:57.000 However you want to do it, bro.

01:45:59.000 Okay, because I know you normally do this on your thing, so I want to try to make it...

01:46:01.000 That would be better is have the caller say what they say and then disconnect them.

01:46:04.000 Otherwise, it's like a back and forth.

01:46:05.000 Okay, we'll do that then.

01:46:06.000 So, caller, go ahead.

01:46:08.000 Say your name, where you're from.

01:46:09.000 Ask your question, and then we'll have them respond to your question and move on.

01:46:13.000 Get as many people through.

01:46:15.000 1143, go ahead.

01:46:16.000 Go ahead, brother.

01:46:18.000 All right, I'll remain unnamed, but I just want to point out that...

01:46:25.000 The particular government proceedings that BLM of the movement was interfering with were the various court cases related to police brutality.

01:46:39.000 So does BLM meet the criteria of an insurrection?

01:46:47.000 I wouldn't define an entirety of a summer of protests or riots or insurrections as a particular insurrection.

01:46:55.000 Also, I don't think that...

01:46:58.000 I'll ignore the federal state distinction right now.

01:47:01.000 What?

01:47:01.000 One entity.

01:47:03.000 Sure, but if we look...

01:47:05.000 They identify themselves consistently as BLM through the whole summer.

01:47:08.000 Say that again?

01:47:11.000 And they profess themselves in favor of a certain type of outcome in various court cases relating to police brutality and demanded forcefully with intimidation that the government bend to what they wanted the outcome to be.

01:47:27.000 How does this not make BLM an insurrection?

01:47:32.000 My guess is going to be that if we went through every single BLM riot, that we could probably find some that I would say might meet my definition.

01:47:42.000 If we ignore the state-federal distinction, we might find some that meet my definition of insurrection.

01:47:45.000 And that Trump is a bad president because he led an insurrection, then Kamala Harris directly provided aid and support No, because I don't think any court has reviewed any of that behavior and found any of it to be an insurrection,

01:48:03.000 number one.

01:48:04.000 And number two, I don't believe that providing bail money is considered part of...

01:48:09.000 Whoa, whoa, whoa.

01:48:10.000 No court has said that this is an insurrection either.

01:48:14.000 That's not true.

01:48:15.000 The Colorado State Supreme Court did.

01:48:17.000 Why wasn't anybody charged then, Destiny, with insurrection?

01:48:20.000 Because it wasn't revealed Because the court wasn't reviewing it for a criminal proceeding.

01:48:24.000 It was the Colorado State Supreme Court.

01:48:26.000 They don't have the authority or jurisdiction to hear.

01:48:28.000 And what has the Supreme Court said?

01:48:29.000 The Supreme Court said that they didn't really want to deal with it.

01:48:32.000 So they basically axed it.

01:48:33.000 Right.

01:48:33.000 So we're just operating off of your definition.

01:48:35.000 Under your definition, he's meeting the criteria for these being insurrections because he's saying that this is now federal.

01:48:41.000 That these are impeding and resisting federal laws at this point.

01:48:46.000 And so if that is the case, you have to concede.

01:48:48.000 No one is resisting the federal laws.

01:48:49.000 It's just you haven't demonstrated that.

01:48:50.000 The federal execution of what law?

01:48:51.000 Well, wait a second.

01:48:53.000 Weren't they resisting the federal laws of how police are able to deal with suspects and things like this?

01:49:02.000 Were they?

01:49:03.000 Was that what police reform was?

01:49:05.000 None of that is federal.

01:49:08.000 I mean, that's what the caller is saying, though.

01:49:12.000 No, it's not like he was saying they were protesting particular court outcomes.

01:49:15.000 That's the judicial system, not the legislative system.

01:49:18.000 So I understand that government is confusing, but these are two totally different things.

01:49:22.000 I don't know if you can have an insurrection protesting court decisions.

01:49:25.000 I'm not aware of that ever being the case.

01:49:28.000 If you can engage in insurrection or rebellion against a court decision, I'm not aware of that.

01:49:33.000 All right.

01:49:35.000 We will go on to the next caller.

01:49:37.000 Who's up next?

01:49:37.000 And we'll take a few more of these guys, then I'm going to drop a link in Castle Club for Castle Club members to come in and ask these questions.

01:49:43.000 7579, you are up.

01:49:46.000 7579, you are up.

01:49:47.000 Go ahead, brother.

01:49:49.000 Hey, what's up, y'all?

01:49:50.000 Y'all hear me?

01:49:51.000 Got you.

01:49:53.000 Hey, I got a question for Destiny, and I think Andrew can pick up afterwards.

01:49:58.000 So, based off of your four points that you gave for what would make An insurrection.

01:50:05.000 Technically, none of your points make it necessary for there to be violence.

01:50:10.000 You say in point three, force or intimidation, but it doesn't necessarily have to be violence.

01:50:16.000 So based off of that, wouldn't any legal protest where you're advocating for a certain political cause or anything like that in a public space, wouldn't that also, by your definition, count as an insurrection?

01:50:32.000 Yeah.

01:50:49.000 Or else assembled in such numbers as to supersede the necessity of arms.

01:50:53.000 So I don't think you necessarily have to engage in violence, but I think that having the people there with the purpose of, like, intimidation and being ready to act with violence, I think is easily enough to satisfy.

01:51:03.000 No justice, no peace.

01:51:07.000 You would have to point to a particular thing.

01:51:11.000 Yeah, I'll point to Chaz Chopp.

01:51:13.000 So do you think that if you were to take over a big portion or even a small, tiny portion of a state and consider it to now be neutral from the United States itself, that that becomes a federal matter?

01:51:25.000 I don't know.

01:51:26.000 Was it considered a federal matter?

01:51:28.000 Well, don't you think that that is resisting federal law?

01:51:31.000 If you make the claim, we are seceding this area from the United States, how would that not be federal?

01:51:37.000 Were they seceding it from the United States?

01:51:38.000 That's what they claimed.

01:51:39.000 Or were they seceding it from Washington or whatever?

01:51:44.000 What?

01:51:44.000 Were they seceding from the United States of America, or were they seceding from the state or the city?

01:51:48.000 They said that this is a neutral zone, we are seceding.

01:51:51.000 So they no longer accepted USD, they no longer employed or recognized interstate travel?

01:51:53.000 I'm not sure that even if you were to have a secession, that that would mean you couldn't accept USD anymore.

01:52:01.000 Why would that matter?

01:52:03.000 Because, well, it seems like if you're going to secede from a country, it feels like part of that would be establishing your own government, establishing your own foreign relations and ambassadors.

01:52:10.000 Yeah, but you can still have USD, and they did.

01:52:12.000 They were trying to do that.

01:52:13.000 They had their own armed militant group, who was there armed, definitely intimidating, refused to allow people to come in and out of the zone.

01:52:20.000 They were trying to start their own economy, their own gardens.

01:52:23.000 They had annexed the buildings which were around them.

01:52:25.000 That definitely seems like they're resisting federal law.

01:52:28.000 You're not allowed to secede in the United States.

01:52:31.000 That's a big no-no.

01:52:33.000 I don't remember this being—can you tell me what statements or what they made?

01:52:36.000 I don't know the details of this.

01:52:37.000 What did they make or what statements did they make about federal secession?

01:52:40.000 Yeah, so Chaz Chop, they considered it the neutral zone.

01:52:44.000 There was multiple statements made that this is no longer part of the United States.

01:52:47.000 By who?

01:52:48.000 We are taking this over just by the people who were there.

01:52:51.000 By the people.

01:52:52.000 So if a random person says a particular thing, I thought you said earlier that we couldn't read intent into the Donald Trump crowd.

01:52:57.000 You said earlier that we couldn't read intent into the Donald Trump crowd, despite the fact that people were hanging signs saying 7076, hang Mike Pence, and the statements that Trump had made.

01:53:04.000 But you say such an inference is fine.

01:53:08.000 I didn't.

01:53:08.000 I said the inference is fine.

01:53:19.000 No, it actually doesn't make any sense.

01:53:21.000 Because your claim is that you can read into the hearts and minds of these people based on what you perceive their actions to be.

01:53:28.000 It's like, okay, fair enough.

01:53:30.000 So if the people who are there are doing the exact same thing, they're saying, okay, this is now a neutral zone.

01:53:34.000 We're seceding from the United States of America.

01:53:36.000 Why can't we read that into their actions as well, Destiny?

01:53:39.000 I mean, it makes no sense.

01:53:40.000 I would.

01:53:40.000 I would absolutely do that, but I don't know of any statement like that.

01:53:43.000 And you can't name a single one, so I don't know what I'm supposed to—I don't know what I can work off.

01:53:47.000 If Chaz Chop, if there was such a statement—let's just assume that there was for a second—would you then consider that to be an insurrection?

01:53:57.000 If they said that we are going to secede from the United States of America, and they had, like, some organized violent wave and all the other elements, I would say, yeah, this would count as an insurrection.

01:54:04.000 Easy, sure, easily, of course.

01:54:06.000 Gotcha.

01:54:07.000 All right.

01:54:08.000 But you wouldn't say the same for January 6th because you haven't even given a definition of insurrection, but that's the difference between good faith and bad faith, by the way.

01:54:14.000 No, no, no.

01:54:15.000 That's not bad faith for me to do an internal critique in your definition when I can at least take your definition and say, wait a second, all of these apply to a different category, and that was established very well.

01:54:27.000 You're critiquing my definition without even having a definition of your own.

01:54:29.000 I don't need to have a definition to critique yours.

01:54:31.000 That's absurd.

01:54:32.000 You can't.

01:54:33.000 That's illogical and absurd.

01:54:35.000 Stop using illogical.

01:54:37.000 It doesn't mean anything.

01:54:37.000 You're abusing the word, okay?

01:54:40.000 What does it mean?

01:54:41.000 The debate was over whether or not January 6th was an insurrection.

01:54:45.000 If you only came to that debate to critique my position, and I shouldn't even let you get away with this.

01:54:50.000 You said earlier that you were neutral on it.

01:54:51.000 You're not neutral on it.

01:54:52.000 The answer for you is you can't compute the question.

01:54:55.000 It's undefined.

01:54:56.000 You don't have a neutral position.

01:54:57.000 If you don't have a definition of insurrection, you can't possibly take it.

01:54:59.000 It's like dividing by zero.

01:55:01.000 The answer is not neutral or nothing.

01:55:02.000 You just have an undefined position.

01:55:03.000 Well, I know you don't like this.

01:55:05.000 You don't even have a definition of a term.

01:55:05.000 Yeah, I know you hate this, but...

01:55:06.000 That is true.

01:55:07.000 That is illogical.

01:55:08.000 That's actually an illogical statement to say that I would need to have a definition of anything to critique your definition of it if I have something else that I can make a comparison to that fits with better that you agree it fits better in.

01:55:22.000 I don't know why you don't get that.

01:55:24.000 Okay, what would your position be on if I were to ask you?

01:55:26.000 Is January 6th...

01:55:29.000 Did... 1.00

01:55:30.000 What the fuck? 1.00

01:55:31.000 Are you okay? 1.00

01:55:32.000 What's your answer to that?

01:55:33.000 Is January 6th...

01:55:33.000 Did you just go...

01:55:34.000 Yeah.

01:55:36.000 Why?

01:55:36.000 Was January 6th a...

01:55:38.000 What's your answer to that?

01:55:39.000 Would you say you're neutral on that?

01:55:42.000 Well, that would be incoherent.

01:55:43.000 I wouldn't even understand what you're saying.

01:55:44.000 Thank you.

01:55:45.000 I agree.

01:55:45.000 Yes.

01:55:46.000 Insurrection, that term is incoherent to you because you have no definition for the word.

01:55:50.000 So I'm uttering nothing to you when I say insurrection.

01:55:53.000 You have no way to compute the question, so you can't say that you're neutral on it.

01:55:56.000 The same way that you can't say you're neutral on it being...

01:55:58.000 Well, I don't know. 0.86

01:55:59.000 I don't know how fucking language works, then, when you say, okay, this is a snicker bar, and I don't know what a snicker bar is, but I can't make comparisons to other things so that I can at least understand where you're coming from with what a snicker bar is. 0.96

01:56:12.000 Okay, Destiny. 0.99

01:56:13.000 That's correct.

01:56:14.000 That is correct.

01:56:15.000 What if I showed you a bar and you're like, that's not a Snicker bar.

01:56:17.000 That looks like a chocolate wafery thing with caramel on it.

01:56:19.000 Yeah, that's a Snicker bar.

01:56:21.000 Isn't that great how that works?

01:56:22.000 Actually, this fits way better with a Milky Way.

01:56:25.000 That's actually way more like a Milky Way.

01:56:27.000 No, it's not quite a Milky Way.

01:56:28.000 It's a Snicker bar.

01:56:28.000 And you're like, well, I don't even have that.

01:56:29.000 Well, then it would fit that criteria of a Snickers bar, the ontology of a Snickers bar, better than the ontology of a Milky Way.

01:56:36.000 That ontology is non-existent for you because it's undefined.

01:56:39.000 You have no definition of what a Snickers bar even is.

01:56:41.000 You don't need to have a You need to have a definition for you to understand an ontology of a new concept.

01:56:45.000 What are you talking about?

01:56:47.000 That's crazy.

01:56:49.000 We're arguing over whether a thing is a thing, whether A is B, and for you, B is undefined.

01:56:55.000 So you can't even be agnostic on the question.

01:56:57.000 You just, you can't compute it.

01:56:58.000 It's...

01:56:59.000 Gibberish to you, like when I utter gibberish.

01:57:00.000 No, this is gibberish to me.

01:57:01.000 This makes no sense.

01:57:03.000 There's absolutely no reason why, if you've never, even if you were to grant, I'd never even heard the term insurrection before, that I couldn't understand if you came up with a term for insurrection.

01:57:12.000 I said, well, fit this other criteria better, why it is that you couldn't concede that that was true.

01:57:16.000 That's this absurd logic.

01:57:18.000 And yes, Destiny, it's illogical.

01:57:21.000 Okay, we can move to the next caller.

01:57:23.000 I'll take a few more of these.

01:57:25.000 Castle Club, guys, I'm going to send you guys a link in Castle Club.

01:57:27.000 We can join in and be the people that ask these guys the questions.

01:57:31.000 And don't worry, we won't have your face on camera because we're streaming on all the platforms.

01:57:35.000 So we're going to protect your identity.

01:57:36.000 If you want to be on camera, maybe we'll do that.

01:57:38.000 But in general, we'll just have your voice play.

01:57:40.000 Who's up next?

01:57:41.000 And whoever is 7983, I see you donated, but you're not in the phone line.

01:57:46.000 Okay, 7893, get in there.

01:57:48.000 Who's up next behind him?

01:57:49.000 1-7-5-3, you're up.

01:57:51.000 1-7-5-3, you're on the air with Destiny Myron and Andrew.

01:57:54.000 Go ahead.

01:57:56.000 1-7-5-3.

01:58:01.000 There you go.

01:58:01.000 What's up, brother?

01:58:02.000 Yes, sir.

01:58:02.000 How are you guys doing?

01:58:04.000 Good, man.

01:58:05.000 What's your question for the panel?

01:58:06.000 Quick question.

01:58:08.000 It's tangentially related.

01:58:11.000 Andrew, why do you think Trump didn't call anybody during the riot?

01:58:16.000 There were three hours. 1.00

01:58:18.000 Cops had their shit kicked out of them. 0.99

01:58:20.000 He didn't call anybody, except for his lawyer and stuff. 1.00

01:58:24.000 But like Nancy Pelosi, that's usually the defense. 0.97

01:58:27.000 She was the high queen of all capital security. 0.64

01:58:29.000 Why didn't Trump call Nancy Pelosi?

01:58:31.000 It's not within the purview of the debate.

01:58:38.000 I don't care about your diatribe.

01:58:40.000 I don't care about your emotional state.

01:58:41.000 This is not within the purview of the debate.

01:58:44.000 Alright, next up, 8-4-3-8.

01:58:47.000 You are up.

01:58:49.000 8-4-3-8, you are up.

01:58:52.000 Hey, can you guys hear me?

01:58:54.000 Go ahead, brother.

01:58:56.000 I appreciate you having me.

01:58:57.000 I have a quick question for Destiny.

01:58:59.000 It's kind of like, at the end of the debate, toward the end, he conceded to Andrew's example of the hippie rebellion, a hippie insurrection, If that's the case, then wouldn't you also have to say that the inauguration for Trump in 2017,

01:59:19.000 the overturning of Roe v.

01:59:21.000 Wade at the Supreme Court, and the...

01:59:24.000 I'm sorry, go ahead.

01:59:28.000 Nobody said anything?

01:59:31.000 We're just listening, Colin.

01:59:32.000 Yeah, just listening to you, bro.

01:59:33.000 Go ahead.

01:59:35.000 Wouldn't you have to say that those two events, and then, of course, you have the White House bombing after the George Floyd death with Trump and everything, wouldn't you have to say that those would fall within the same definition as well?

01:59:47.000 I would have to go through the facts of each of these, but if you can show me that there was an assembly of people that united for a common purpose, that they were there to contravene some type of federal law, that the resistance's goal was to make use of force or intimidation, and that they were there for something that was in the public interest,

02:00:04.000 then whatever you're going to give me here, I'm going to say, well, yeah, if it's my definition of insurrection, then I would say these were probably insurrections, sure.

02:00:11.000 All right, thanks.

02:00:12.000 Also, wait, hold on.

02:00:13.000 Real quick, not only would I say that, you should say that too.

02:00:19.000 Let's say, for instance, let's say that when Roe v.

02:00:21.000 Wade changed or whatever, let's say the federal government was going to do a particular thing.

02:00:24.000 They were gathering to—let's just say they were doing a ban on it.

02:00:26.000 Let's say that you had—let's say that Kamala Harris was marching with these people, chanting and cheering them on, and saying, like, we're going to stop the government from banning abortion, okay?

02:00:36.000 They're going to sign this law today.

02:00:37.000 We're not going to let them do it.

02:00:38.000 We're going to make our voice here.

02:00:39.000 We're going to go and— We're going to do what we need to do to make them not pass the law.

02:00:42.000 They show up when it's going to be signed.

02:00:43.000 She's outside cheering them on as they break into the Capitol building.

02:00:46.000 They go in.

02:00:46.000 When we talk about whether an insurrection is occurring or not, and we talk about the 14th Amendment, you shouldn't want her to be president again.

02:00:54.000 You should say, hey, you took an oath to the Constitution, and now you're engaging in insurrectionist behavior.

02:01:00.000 You're violating your oath to the Constitution.

02:01:03.000 I don't want you running for office again.

02:01:05.000 We should all think that.

02:01:06.000 I would think that all of us should have that feeling, that if somebody has engaged in or aided in helping people engage in insurrection, that you shouldn't want this person who was in office to run for office again, I would say.

02:01:18.000 Alright, we'll move on to the next caller.

02:01:20.000 And guys, just so you know, we're going to drop the Castle Club link.

02:01:22.000 Sorry, the Zoom call link in Castle Club right now.

02:01:25.000 So get in there and then raise your hand in the Zoom call.

02:01:27.000 And we'll answer one or two more calls and we'll go over to Castle Club guys only.

02:01:31.000 But we're going to drop the link right now.

02:01:32.000 Castle Club guys, go ahead and join CastleClub.tv.

02:01:34.000 You know how to support free speech on our side.

02:01:37.000 But we'll take a few more callers while we get that set up on our Zoom side.

02:01:40.000 Who's up next, Mo?

02:01:42.000 4849...

02:01:43.000 Okay, 4849.

02:01:45.000 4849, yes.

02:01:46.000 You're on there with Destiny Myron and Andrew.

02:01:48.000 What is your question, brother?

02:01:49.000 Hey, can you guys see me?

02:01:50.000 Yes, welcome to the show.

02:01:53.000 All right, cool.

02:01:55.000 So, this whole debate was over a definition of, was this event the thing of insurrection?

02:02:02.000 So, if you were to pick something like, we'll say, there's a shape, and we were going to debate whether this shape was a square or not...

02:02:11.000 Andrew's argument seems to be that, oh well, that maybe fits the definition of a rhombus or a parallelogram better, and that basically those definitions are mutually exclusive.

02:02:28.000 I think that a lot of people would agree that the January 6th event Does fall under the definition of a riot, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it also wasn't an insurrection.

02:02:42.000 So if you say, oh, hey, this shape, well, it has four sides, and each of the four sides is parallel, and say, well, oh, well, that's a rhombus, or that's a parallelogram, that's not actually a square, then,

02:02:58.000 like, okay, but you haven't said what a square is, and Destiny is...

02:03:04.000 Put forth not just a personal definition, but the legal definition that's agreed on to by lots of courts, and that's how we do lies.

02:03:14.000 You know, we use courts' opinions to figure out whether this falls under the courts' Like, the federal definition of what everybody agrees that is.

02:03:27.000 And so the saying, oh, well, I don't have to define what a square is, if it's my definition of a rhombus, fine, then I don't see what we're arguing.

02:03:41.000 Because it seems like Andrew conceded that all of the criteria that Destiny laid out for his definition of insurrection Andrew conceded that it fit within that definition.

02:03:58.000 It seems like he agrees, but he doesn't like the name.

02:04:01.000 Bro, hang on, hang on.

02:04:02.000 You cut out.

02:04:04.000 Me and Destiny both missed maybe 15 seconds there.

02:04:10.000 Oh, sorry.

02:04:11.000 Do you know where it was that it stopped?

02:04:14.000 Basically, I'm just saying that the definition of right in insurrection is not mutually exclusive.

02:04:20.000 And so that just because he says that, oh, this fits my personal definition of a riot, does not necessarily mean that it's also not an insurrection.

02:04:30.000 And the fact that they were trying to prevent some function of the government from happening, some law from being followed or carried out by the U.S. government, that's the defining factor.

02:04:45.000 That's the thing that makes it an insurrection.

02:04:49.000 We can say that it was a riot.

02:04:50.000 Cool.

02:04:52.000 But it was also an insurrection.

02:04:55.000 Okay.

02:04:56.000 Anything else?

02:04:59.000 Would you say...

02:05:01.000 And this is why I'm saying that you need to have some sort of way of saying this is not an insurrection other than saying this is a riot.

02:05:13.000 Yeah, we've already been over this, though, multiple times.

02:05:15.000 I know you don't understand the argument, but that doesn't mean it wasn't made.

02:05:18.000 But you haven't said why it isn't.

02:05:20.000 Oh, I understand.

02:05:21.000 I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is.

02:05:27.000 I never have to tell you why the thing...

02:05:29.000 You're arguing that it's not an insurrection.

02:05:31.000 If you're just going to cut me off and not let me answer, then we're not going to have a productive combo.

02:05:37.000 Let him make his point.

02:05:39.000 Who's the burden of proof on here?

02:05:41.000 It's on both of us.

02:05:43.000 No, it's not.

02:05:44.000 Who's the burden of proof on?

02:05:48.000 Well, if the burden of proof to say that it's not an insurrection is on the person who's claiming that it's not an insurrection.

02:05:55.000 No, it's not my burden to say it's not.

02:05:57.000 It's not my burden to say that it is.

02:05:59.000 Then you have no position on whether it's an insurrection.

02:06:00.000 The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not for me to negate said claim, but for them to prove it.

02:06:09.000 That's the distinction.

02:06:10.000 Do you understand that?

02:06:10.000 No, would you say you have no claim that it's not an insurrection?

02:06:13.000 No, no, no.

02:06:14.000 Answer my question.

02:06:16.000 Do I need to negate a claim for you to be able to prove it?

02:06:20.000 Can't you prove a claim?

02:06:24.000 Well, if you're...

02:06:26.000 Answer my question, dude.

02:06:28.000 It categorically does not fit the term...

02:06:30.000 Yeah, I know.

02:06:31.000 You're not answering the question, right?

02:06:32.000 The term insurrection.

02:06:34.000 All right.

02:06:35.000 All right.

02:06:36.000 Whatever you say, bro.

02:06:37.000 I know you don't want to answer.

02:06:38.000 It's fine.

02:06:39.000 All right.

02:06:40.000 We'll go to the next caller.

02:06:41.000 And just so you guys know...

02:06:42.000 Yeah, just as a real quick thing.

02:06:44.000 So, like, the prompt was, was January 6th in insurrection.

02:06:47.000 Debating my definition of insurrection doesn't satisfy the prompt.

02:06:51.000 It only satisfies attacking my position.

02:06:53.000 But even if you did manage to completely defeat my position, not by actually showing...

02:06:58.000 Because you're not even really defeating my position.

02:07:00.000 You're just making my position incoherent.

02:07:01.000 But by doing so, you're also admitting that your position is incoherent as well.

02:07:05.000 Right?

02:07:05.000 If you can prove that I don't have a good definition for insurrection...

02:07:07.000 Do you remember it to...

02:07:08.000 If you can prove that I don't have a good definition for insurrection, then you can prove that my position of saying it is an insurrection is incoherent.

02:07:12.000 I would have to use some other word.

02:07:13.000 You haven't even given a position at all.

02:07:15.000 So at best, you've only put us both at neutral, which is...

02:07:17.000 Do you remember in the beginning of the debate where I gave you the criteria for the concessions that I would make if you were willing to concede on X, Y, Z point?

02:07:27.000 Yeah, but we're not here to just argue.

02:07:30.000 Does destiny have a satisfactory definition of insurrection, which is what the debate has become?

02:07:34.000 But if I have no negation, but we end up on neutral because your definition is incoherent, then do you remember when I said in my opening statement that the goal of that was to show that you no longer have the moral high ground because everything's a fucking insurrection at that point, and that means you're as much of an insurrectionist as the people you're accusing of being insurrectionists.

02:07:53.000 That's the point.

02:07:53.000 To be clear, that wouldn't make everything an insurrection.

02:07:55.000 That would just make all riots an insurrection.

02:07:57.000 Yeah, I was being hyperbolic.

02:07:59.000 Okay, well that's kind of hard when you're also being illogical.

02:08:01.000 But the idea is that all you're doing is producing us both at the same position, which seems odd at the end of the day.

02:08:07.000 Why?

02:08:08.000 Depends on what the goal of the debate is.

02:08:10.000 The goal was to show that both of us are neutral on whether January 6th was an insurrection.

02:08:14.000 You know that you don't actually believe that.

02:08:15.000 You believe it wasn't, right?

02:08:16.000 If you're neutral on whether or not January 6th is an insurrection, your claim is voided.

02:08:21.000 But then so would yours be, unless your claim is— What claim am I making?

02:08:25.000 My claim is only that you can't demonstrate it was.

02:08:29.000 If I say that January 6th was an insurrection, you wanted to challenge that position, generally the challenge would be that January 6th wasn't an insurrection.

02:08:36.000 Not that January 6th doesn't comport with Destiny's definition of insurrection, or I think Destiny's definition of insurrection is incoherent.

02:08:45.000 That's a different kind of debate.

02:08:46.000 Well, no, I don't think it's a different kind of debate in saying loaded things like, well, generally this means doesn't mean anything.

02:08:52.000 So ultimately, if I can reduce this to a neutral position, then your claim that this was an insurrection is false.

02:09:01.000 Okay, but then your claim that it wasn't an insurrection is also false.

02:09:03.000 I never made such a claim.

02:09:05.000 What is your claim?

02:09:06.000 Your claim is just that you're neutral, you have no position on it?

02:09:08.000 My claim was that I could be swayed either way, that you could convince me.

02:09:12.000 The debate wasn't here to sway you.

02:09:14.000 Well, no, you can't be convinced because you can't even accept the definition of insurrection, so that's just not true.

02:09:17.000 Well, I can be convinced, and you just saying you can't be convinced doesn't mean anything again.

02:09:22.000 So are you unconvinced by historical courts that have convicted people or used these definitions of insurrection in order to write legislation or in order to write constitutional amendments?

02:09:32.000 What do you think the founding fathers meant?

02:09:33.000 Not founding fathers, I guess.

02:09:34.000 What do you think the framers of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment meant when they said insurrection?

02:09:38.000 I think that they're tying it to rebellion.

02:09:40.000 Because every time I saw it, it seemed to coexist with rebellion.

02:09:46.000 Every single time I see this, it seems like it's a lead towards rebellion.

02:09:51.000 If you agree that it meant rebellion, why would there be so many people that draw distinctions between insurrection and rebellion?

02:10:02.000 Yeah, until it comes to charging time.

02:10:03.000 When it comes to charging time, it seems that if they can't draw it 20%.

02:10:07.000 Hold on.

02:10:07.000 Why do you keep—just because you're talking about charges, criminal court and call— Well, if you're going to appeal to authorities here based around legal definitions, it's perfectly acceptable for me to appeal to the legal authorities, which are refusing to charge under this criteria, Destiny.

02:10:23.000 They're refusing to charge under this criteria for insurrection, and it seems every definition that I can find for this is somehow vaguely associated with rebellion.

02:10:36.000 It's associated with it because they believed every rebellion started with an insurrection, but that doesn't mean that every rebellion is an insurrection.

02:10:43.000 That's why they used rebellion or insurrection, for instance, in Section 2 of the Second Confiscation Act.

02:10:48.000 You can't give any historical things, though.

02:10:49.000 So I think if there was a big open— So for instance, they say in any rebellion or insurrection, inciting and setting foot on, assisting or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection, which is set on a Section 2 of the Second Confiscation Act, they're not—they're two different things.

02:11:01.000 That's why But the reason that I think that the Supreme Court especially didn't want to hear this is because they would end up, like you, giving a definition which was so broad that it would encompass all sorts of things that we don't really perceive of as being insurrections, because we really associate insurrection and rebellion with the same kind of idea,

02:11:19.000 which is exactly why I don't believe for a second, while you're over there saying you're good faith, that you believe for a second that if a bunch of dope-smoking hippies to kind of resist federal law No, a couple of them did.

02:11:44.000 They started a small fire, let's say, right?

02:11:46.000 Not a huge blazing forest fire.

02:11:48.000 They just started a small fire.

02:11:50.000 There was a little bit of rioting there, right?

02:11:52.000 Somebody got beat up.

02:11:53.000 A couple of them had maybe some melee weapons.

02:11:56.000 I don't think we would associate that with rebellion, and so I don't think we would associate that with insurrection, which is what I think we associate with rebellion.

02:12:03.000 I'm sorry, because I don't know the logical structures of argumentation as well as you do.

02:12:06.000 When you say people probably wouldn't do that, what kind of an argument are we making there?

02:12:10.000 When you say that people probably wouldn't think that's an insurrection, what kind of logical appeal are we making to challenge my definition?

02:12:16.000 The people probably wouldn't think...

02:12:18.000 What is that?

02:12:20.000 So hang on.

02:12:22.000 Again, we're going to untangle two different ideas.

02:12:24.000 So I already gave you the critique of your definition.

02:12:27.000 When you ask me what you, Andrew, what do you associate with this thing?

02:12:32.000 Which is your direct question.

02:12:33.000 What types of things do you associate with this?

02:12:36.000 I tell you.

02:12:37.000 Then I say, if that's the type of thing that I associate with it, I also think most people associate that type of thing with it as well.

02:12:43.000 So these are two different ideas.

02:12:45.000 I don't care what most people – I'm looking at the legal and historical understanding of it, right?

02:12:49.000 So in the Amy Warwick Prize case, the Supreme Court said insurrection against the government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the government.

02:13:01.000 A civil war did not begin.

02:13:03.000 A civil war didn't begin with insurrection?

02:13:05.000 No, a civil war did not begin because of J6. It says insurrection against the government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion.

02:13:15.000 That's correct.

02:13:15.000 So there was an insurrection against the government.

02:13:17.000 It didn't culminate in a rebellion.

02:13:19.000 Those are two different things.

02:13:20.000 And I can show you Supreme Court cases where they said they did everything.

02:13:23.000 So your idea here of, well, they probably thought they were the same.

02:13:25.000 But your definition, unfortunately, is too nebulous here for us to associate this specifically with only the idea of insurrection when there's other ideas that fit it better.

02:13:33.000 Is there a single historical scholar, Supreme Court case, writer or framer or lawmaker ever that you can cite to that says that there is a nebulous, there's no understanding of what insurrection is?

02:13:44.000 Well, actually, yes.

02:13:45.000 So the Supreme Court justices themselves have stated this.

02:13:48.000 I do have a quote from one of the Supreme Court justices who said, this is not an easy thing to tackle because the idea of it is contested in somewhat nebulous.

02:13:58.000 I believe, in fact, that was Justice Roberts who said that.

02:14:04.000 And what was the full quote here?

02:14:08.000 I would have to pull the quote up, so I'm paraphrasing, right?

02:14:11.000 But it was something akin to this idea is actually, it's a hard associative idea.

02:14:16.000 This was from Roberts himself.

02:14:19.000 The Supreme Court clearly did not want to weigh in on this because they were afraid of making a definition like your own, which would be so broad Are you disputing this?

02:14:27.000 Let's start with this.

02:14:27.000 Are you disputing that you think the Supreme Court didn't weigh in on this because they were afraid that they could make a definition of this which was so broad that things would fall under the category of insurrection that they really didn't want to fall under that category?

02:14:40.000 I don't think the Supreme Court made a strong statement about insurrection.

02:14:43.000 Yeah, what do you think, though?

02:14:44.000 I'm asking what you actually think.

02:14:46.000 They didn't.

02:14:47.000 They didn't really rule on the insurrection.

02:14:48.000 I know they didn't rule on it, but why do you think they really didn't want to hear it?

02:14:52.000 Why do you think it is that this is kind of such a hard concept for people to kind of get their minds around?

02:14:58.000 It's because it is somewhat nebulous.

02:15:00.000 It is associated with rebellion.

02:15:02.000 And yes, there's precedents for these things, but the precedents don't directly apply to what J6 was.

02:15:08.000 It doesn't matter.

02:15:09.000 The issue wasn't the issue.

02:15:10.000 Hang on, man.

02:15:10.000 Let me finish my point.

02:15:11.000 You can respond.

02:15:12.000 Other things do seem to associate with it better.

02:15:15.000 That's the point.

02:15:16.000 Your definition is far too broad.

02:15:18.000 You knew it would be far too broad.

02:15:20.000 The Supreme Court also knows this.

02:15:21.000 That's why the Supreme Court themselves, I think, really didn't want to go in and rule on it because it would retroactively make a bunch of Democrats and Republicans That's great, and that's a bunch of reading into that Supreme Court decision that they had never said, but I'm pretty sure that the rationale that they gave and the issue was that different minds could disagree on whether or not an insurrection had taken place,

02:15:42.000 and the idea that different states would make different decisions about it seemed to be very difficult for them.

02:15:46.000 So it's nebulous.

02:15:48.000 It's a little bit nebulous.

02:15:50.000 They can't really agree because it's kind of a nebulous concept, right?

02:15:53.000 Do you think that murder is a nebulous concept?

02:15:55.000 I think that justification for murder can be very nebulous.

02:15:58.000 Do you think that murder is a nebulous concept?

02:16:01.000 Why are you rambling?

02:16:02.000 No, I asked you a question.

02:16:03.000 Do you think murder is a nebulous concept?

02:16:05.000 No, I'm answering the question.

02:16:05.000 You think murder is a nebulous concept?

02:16:07.000 I'll try and answer the question whenever you're ready to let me answer.

02:16:09.000 I'm going to repeat it when you're done rambling.

02:16:11.000 Okay, well, I'm not going to ramble.

02:16:12.000 I'm going to give you an actual direct answer.

02:16:14.000 Certain aspects of murder when it comes to justification can be very nebulous, yes.

02:16:18.000 Like, right to retreat laws can be very nebulous.

02:16:20.000 Yes, that can constitute murder.

02:16:22.000 It can be very nebulous.

02:16:23.000 We have some concepts of it, but it's not really something which is easily graspable.

02:16:29.000 Yes, it can be very nebulous, Destiny, yes.

02:16:32.000 And yet we still have criminal convictions for murder.

02:16:35.000 That's true.

02:16:36.000 We do still have criminal convictions for murder, which does not demonstrate your point at all.

02:16:40.000 It absolutely does.

02:16:41.000 If a court is capable of determining whether or not a person can have a sufficient restriction to their life or liberty...

02:16:47.000 They determined that none of them committed insurrection.

02:16:49.000 That's what they determined.

02:16:51.000 That's not what they determined.

02:16:52.000 Yes, it is what they determined.

02:16:54.000 Really?

02:16:54.000 Where in the Supreme Court?

02:16:55.000 Hang on.

02:16:56.000 What did they charge him with?

02:16:57.000 They charged him with insurrection?

02:16:58.000 The Supreme Court is not a first review court attack.

02:17:01.000 I'm not talking about the Supreme Court.

02:17:02.000 I don't know what you're talking about then.

02:17:05.000 I'm sorry, where in the 14th Amendment does it say the crime of insurrection?

02:17:08.000 All you're doing is speed talking.

02:17:09.000 What I'm saying to you is when you ask me, are certain aspects of murder nebulous?

02:17:12.000 Yes, of course certain aspects of murder are nebulous.

02:17:14.000 Can people still be charged over those aspects?

02:17:16.000 Yes.

02:17:16.000 Can they be prosecuted?

02:17:17.000 Yes.

02:17:18.000 But you say, well then there, you can prove it.

02:17:20.000 Great, I agree.

02:17:21.000 You can prove it.

02:17:22.000 And when these people were prosecuted, they were not prosecuted for insurrection.

02:17:26.000 So clearly, they didn't think it was insurrection.

02:17:28.000 Or at least, it seems like they didn't think it was insurrection because they certainly didn't charge anybody with that.

02:17:32.000 Gotcha.

02:17:33.000 Just as a quick spiel or whatever, because Andrew has no concept of how law or courts or anything works in the United States, the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with somebody being charged with a criminal conviction of insurrection.

02:17:42.000 Criminal conviction of insurrection has nothing to do with any of this.

02:17:44.000 And the question before the court in Trump v.

02:17:46.000 Anderson wasn't whether or not somebody had engaged in the crime of insurrection.

02:17:49.000 And the big issue that they cited, too, for why they rejected that case was because Section 5 of the 14th Amendment said that Congress can pass laws in order to implement something, and they interpreted it as meaning Section 3 could be implemented via the Section 5 power of the Congress, and that's why they threw that case out.

02:18:01.000 Total bait and switch.

02:18:02.000 It's not a bait-and-switch.

02:18:03.000 It is.

02:18:04.000 Here's why it's a bait-and-switch.

02:18:05.000 All I was saying was that you saying, well, it's nebulous, therefore a court can't decide that question.

02:18:11.000 Courts deal with nebulous things literally all of the time.

02:18:13.000 That wasn't my claim either. 0.91

02:18:14.000 The idea that a court can't deal with something that's nebulous like insurrection, courts deal with things like murder or affirmative defenses like self-defense or anything else, is a ridiculous claim.

02:18:21.000 And it shows the fundamental understanding of what courts are even supposed to do.

02:18:23.000 Yeah, except that wasn't my claim.

02:18:24.000 So here's the great kind of destiny bait and switch, right?

02:18:27.000 He just did a typical bait and switch.

02:18:28.000 What he did was he said this.

02:18:29.000 He said, Andrew, do you think that a court can do A, B, and C, or they can in some way rule or adjudicate even with a nebulous concept?

02:18:37.000 My answer was yes.

02:18:39.000 I think that even with a nebulous concept, they can.

02:18:42.000 In this case, right, even if we were to grant destiny's argument that they can do this under nebulous concepts, They still didn't charge these people with insurrection, even if that's a nebulous concept.

02:18:53.000 What he did instead was he did a bait-and-switch and said, oh, but he doesn't understand the law, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

02:18:57.000 But this was a lead-in question.

02:19:00.000 Does somebody need to be charged with insurrection for insurrection to affect her?

02:19:03.000 Bro, let me finish my point.

02:19:04.000 I just let you go through your whole diatribe.

02:19:06.000 It's not a gish gallop.

02:19:07.000 It's a gish gallop. 0.96

02:19:08.000 You're repeating debunked arguments.

02:19:09.000 You don't even know what a gish gallop is. 1.00

02:19:10.000 You're just burning over me.

02:19:11.000 I do.

02:19:11.000 It's when you lay a whole bunch of bad claims on over and over and over again with the idea that the opponent can't actually refute them because you keep stacking the same bad claims over and over again.

02:19:18.000 You made the claim.

02:19:19.000 I'm refuting it.

02:19:20.000 You're not refuting anything.

02:19:21.000 You're repeating the same debunked arguments.

02:19:22.000 This was a basic lead-in, and I proved the basic lead-in wrong, and so that's when he went off in the diatribe about, well, what the court, blah, blah, blah.

02:19:30.000 What about the courts?

02:19:30.000 What about the precedents?

02:19:32.000 Well, it had nothing to do with the actual lead-in question, which is what I was responding to.

02:19:35.000 That's a classic bait-and-switch.

02:19:37.000 You said that the Supreme Court didn't rule on the definition because it was too nebulous.

02:19:40.000 That's not why they rejected it.

02:19:42.000 You asked me, why do you think the Supreme Court acts?

02:19:45.000 And so I just gave you my opinion.

02:19:47.000 I think possibly it's because this is a nebulous concept.

02:19:50.000 They didn't want to weigh in.

02:19:51.000 It seems that Roberts agreed.

02:19:53.000 When he read initially what Roberts said, it seems like that's what he's saying there, is that there's going to be a lot of disagreement here because we can't quite agree on this.

02:20:01.000 That sounds nebulous to me.

02:20:04.000 All right.

02:20:04.000 How about this?

02:20:05.000 We'll take one more caller, and then we'll go to the Castle Club guys.

02:20:07.000 Let's get the guy on the line.

02:20:09.000 Yes.

02:20:10.000 Go ahead.

02:20:12.000 0789.

02:20:13.000 0789, go ahead, hit the line.

02:20:15.000 And then after him, I actually do have a potential topic of discussion for the panel.

02:20:19.000 But let's get this caller on first.

02:20:20.000 Go ahead.

02:20:22.000 0789, you are up.

02:20:23.000 0789, you are up.

02:20:26.000 Hello, hello.

02:20:27.000 Can you guys hear me?

02:20:28.000 Yes.

02:20:28.000 What's up, brother?

02:20:31.000 Awesome.

02:20:32.000 Great.

02:20:33.000 Mr.

02:20:33.000 Wilson, big fan, Absolute Cinema.

02:20:37.000 And I have a question for Mr.

02:20:39.000 Borelli. 0.97

02:20:40.000 If I knew what sexual assault was, but I had no fucking clue what rape was, could you ever prove to me that a rape took place? 0.99

02:20:51.000 Because I think... 0.97

02:20:53.000 No, because whatever definition you give, whatever definition I give for rape, you're just going to say it was sexual assault.

02:20:57.000 Yeah.

02:20:58.000 No, true, yeah.

02:20:58.000 If you had no idea what rape was, but you knew well what sexual assault was, then any single time I try to define, well, I think a rape has occurred, you would just say, no, I think this fits with sexual assault.

02:21:07.000 You would never give a definition of rape, and then you would just use that to try to win the argument, yeah.

02:21:15.000 You left?

02:21:16.000 I think you left.

02:21:17.000 Okay.

02:21:18.000 Yeah.

02:21:19.000 All right, so...

02:21:21.000 We'll go ahead and start switching on over to the Castle Club members.

02:21:23.000 I'll hit a couple of these hands and then I do have something that I was going to bring up to the panel.

02:21:27.000 Who's the first person on, Bills?

02:21:29.000 Alright, we're going to go ahead.

02:21:30.000 And just for the guys on Castle Club that are waiting, we're not going to put you on camera because we're live on YouTube and all the platforms, so I want to protect your guys' identities.

02:21:37.000 But we'll go ahead and get the first person in that had something, Bills.

02:21:42.000 Do we have them ready?

02:21:43.000 Locals only, right?

02:21:44.000 Yeah, locals only.

02:21:46.000 Yeah, Castle Club, yeah, same thing.

02:21:47.000 Yeah, yeah.

Fresh & Fit - July 25, 2024

Andrew Wilson VS Destiny Debate!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript