Andrew Wilson vs. Naima HEATED Debate Round 2 | Whatever Debates #23
Episode Stats
Length
3 hours and 31 minutes
Hate Speech Sentences
221
Summary
In this episode of the Whatever Happened? podcast, host Brian Atlas ( ) is joined by Andrew Wilson ( ) and Naima ( ) to discuss feminism and the controversy surrounding the cancellation of a planned Jubilee surrounded debate.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
welcome to a debate edition of the whatever podcast coming to you live from santa barbara
00:00:17.080
california i'm your host and moderator brian atlas a few quick announcements this podcast
00:00:22.280
is viewer supported please consider donating through streamlabs that's streamlabs.com
00:00:27.280
slash whatever we're going to have q a questions or if you want to leave a statement for 200 dollars
00:00:33.520
and up 90 well 199 dollars and up there will be no instant tts so these are going to be at various
00:00:39.660
breaks and they're going to be batched you can see the description for all triggers and full details
00:00:44.420
without further ado i'm joined today by andrew wilson host of the crucible he is a blood sports
00:00:52.980
debater and a political commentator also joining us today is naima she's a senior at usc
00:01:01.160
she's a political social commentator and content creator
00:01:05.700
the topic today is feminism and we might hit some other topics too i want a good clean debate
00:01:15.100
no interrupting i will issue a verbal warning followed by a yellow card
00:01:22.360
which you cede conversational priority for one minute or until your opponent yields followed by a
00:01:32.180
red card which results in ceding conversational priority for two minutes or until the non-affringing
00:01:41.080
a fringing offending party uh yields their time there will be no opening statements straight into
00:01:48.180
open convo let's get let's get on yeah i mean we were we were just discussing i think it's funny me
00:01:54.340
and andrew were actually supposed to do a jubilee surrounded debate um for our kind of part two of
00:02:01.520
this conversation but what ended up happening now i don't work for julie i'm not going to speak for
00:02:07.340
their administration but i think the general consensus do you know what the like theme of
00:02:14.100
the video was supposed to be uh feminism no so well like the people who were surrounded it was supposed
00:02:20.080
to be like jubilee all-stars so it was like surrounded jubilee all-stars and so of course we all know each
00:02:26.540
other because like you know it's all the people who've been in jubilee videos before and i think the
00:02:32.500
general consensus was that we wanted to debate someone bigger to be honest with you so that's why
00:02:37.300
they brought in charlie kirk and he actually was assassinated like i want to say a week before we
00:02:44.300
were supposed to do that debate so i don't know it yeah it got completely canceled they like rescheduled
00:02:51.740
it and now we don't know who it's going to be damn yeah i know it was pretty intense it was weird
00:02:56.740
the debate was actually scheduled for the day of his memorial so you guys all said no to me
00:03:01.660
i don't think it was no sounds like you were saying no yeah i mean it was kind of no yeah
00:03:08.400
okay i mean not a lot of people really know about the crucible i mean a lot more people your crucible
00:03:14.580
a lot more people know well yeah actually tell me the names of the people and let's see if they do
00:03:19.560
know about the crucible who are the names of the jubilee all-stars i mean i'm not speaking on behalf of
00:03:25.100
anyone i know but what are the names of the jubilee all-stars who would have been there um i mean
00:03:30.720
lots of people parker dean oh so yeah parker knows me well dean knows me well who else yeah we're not
00:03:36.580
talking about us of course we all know people in the well i thought you just said nobody i thought
00:03:40.820
you just said nobody knows the crucible andrew i'm talking about the world the audience everyone
00:03:45.960
in a political sphere of course knows each other we're all in an insular community but outside of
00:03:51.740
you know this community do you think you're as big as charlie kirk no of course not
00:03:55.100
but okay who is candace owens ben shapiro i mean candace owens wasn't bigger no i don't think
00:04:01.720
any of them were bigger than charlie kirk nick crowder nick crowder well i mean they're all bigger
00:04:05.780
than who the hell is nick crowder isn't he that guy who does the podcast where he's all mean i don't
00:04:12.280
know that's kind of all you guys do you mean steven crowder oh yeah no uh charlie kirk is definitely
00:04:18.560
bigger than all of them sorry i'm not a huge fan of steven crowder's content no i mean were you a big
00:04:23.260
fan of any of their content no but everyone knew about them yeah so i understand no i get it um
00:04:29.480
i mean i know andrew it sucks to hear that but they but they had reached out to me not me to them
00:04:33.420
so yeah um i mean i guess i guess i don't know um you know i've debated most of those people in the
00:04:41.180
political circles on places like pierce morgan i've never seen you there well that was kind of
00:04:44.960
part of it yeah i actually got invited to pierce morgan i didn't do it because they asked me like
00:04:48.180
20 minutes how come you how come well now we're speaking about this how come you canceled on tim
00:04:52.800
pool oh i canceled on tim pool because i got a brand deal that was paying me more and i didn't
00:04:57.300
have to leave my house actually i can talk about the tim pool thing yeah because he said that you
00:05:03.020
agreed you agreed to come on and then canceled okay so it's very interesting that you say that
00:05:07.920
when i met with tim pool's team they were not willing to pay me to travel across the country
00:05:13.600
to debate well you're going to take care of your flight hotel that's not paying me though that's
00:05:18.220
paying for my flight they would have had to do that for anyone and they also were not they didn't know
00:05:22.680
who i was supposed to debate yet so i told them i will agree to do a debate so long as i know who
00:05:29.840
i'm debating and i accept the terms of that debate has jubilee paid you yeah of course they paid me
00:05:34.520
what do they pay you that's not your business well they pay 25 for gas right no they pay me more than
00:05:39.820
to show up for the surrounded of course well that's interesting because they don't pay any
00:05:43.720
of the conservatives who show up for the surroundings well that's a shame they should
00:05:46.720
advocate for themselves just so you guys know now we know this that they pay the conservatives 25 bucks
00:05:51.620
to show up but they actually pay the progressives i don't think they pay all the progressives i don't
00:05:56.300
like i'm not every single yeah i make them pretty good content i mean you don't think it's fair for
00:06:02.500
people to get paid for good work i mean i guess that's that's fine i just think it's funny it's
00:06:08.280
interesting that the conservatives who are in the surrounded when i first started doing the jubilee
00:06:12.440
videos i didn't get paid and then the more and more successful i was on their platform the more
00:06:16.300
they offered me that's generally how it works it's almost like a promotion i understand that's how
00:06:20.340
most jobs work i get it okay cool yeah so leftists refuse leftists like parker and dean and you guys
00:06:25.860
refuse to debate with me because you're not big enough and you don't have a fan base you're bigger
00:06:29.980
than i'm bigger than all of you no you're not way bigger than all of you we can go follower for
00:06:34.840
how many followers do you have on instagram right now instagram's not a fight you could take your
00:06:38.760
top off and get 800 000 followers but i didn't take my top off i got 150 000 and so what that's
00:06:45.180
nothing how many do you have then i have over 250k just on youtube with an average live audience of
00:06:51.080
seven to nine thousand what about you how badly you have to prove when you when you go live look at
00:06:56.520
how fragile you are just because i told you nobody wanted when you go when you go live how many live
00:07:01.080
viewers do you get i don't go live you don't go live no when if you did go live how many would
00:07:06.180
you do you think you'd get i don't know i don't go live oh interesting all right well i do a lot
00:07:12.620
better than dean and parker when i go live on youtube and they do so i think that's debatable
00:07:17.540
i'd say dean and parker have a significantly bigger following across platforms adam rockler all of these
00:07:22.500
people are bigger than you i don't think so and you look at how badly you have to defend yourself
00:07:26.420
worth this is so sad you're the one who attacked it i'm not attacking it i'm telling you what i'm
00:07:30.920
giving you nobody wanted to debate you because it's an all-star jubilee because we want an all-star
00:07:34.880
guys we're all cowards i mean listen to this you guys were just all cowards we're not cowards if i
00:07:40.320
was dean and parker tell me why dean and parker won't actually agree i've i've said i'd give them
00:07:45.300
twenty thousand dollars to show up and do a debate live so they can't get fed answers from their little
00:07:50.640
teams andrew if i was a coward i wouldn't be debating you right now they refuse the point was it was an
00:07:56.160
all-stars debate and you are not an all-star adversary gotcha you're right i mean i am you
00:08:01.780
didn't get big but you're here so anyway i'm ready i'm ready when you are all-star okie dokie so go
00:08:08.260
ahead with your criticisms of my worldview you're not a jubilee all-star aren't we starting with
00:08:12.060
democracy or no whatever you want to start with okay andrew let's uh why why don't we start with
00:08:17.700
unless you want to get into the criticisms of his specific positions i would rather go through all of
00:08:24.260
the our positions and then do criticisms and then andrew before we get into the prompts
00:08:28.860
i as i understood it you wanted to respond to some of naima's specific criticisms from that you saw
00:08:36.480
online or we can do that as we go do it as okay criticism that i saw online sure i didn't post
00:08:42.000
anything about you online oh yeah you did i made a tick tock i have clips a singular tick tock i know but
00:08:47.540
you lied a lot in it i lied in it andrew it's all based on a debate we did together i know we were both
00:08:52.720
here which is why i have all the counter clips for it andrew i literally posted a video of you
00:08:57.040
not being able to open a pickle jar what's your counter for that i did open the pickle jar you didn't
00:09:01.420
open an olive jar so they're not a pickle jar then did you open the olive jar no no and why did
00:09:07.100
you say it was that you are supposed to be but why did you say that wasn't any point that was ever
00:09:11.200
made you lied that not the point of force no no and by the way um you said it was greasy you said
00:09:20.160
the jar was greasy why didn't you tell people that yeah you did you said the jar was greasy
00:09:23.860
so did you so did you remember do you want to pull up the video of him being incapable of opening
00:09:28.620
you want to pull up the video of you being incapable of opening it andrew i never said i was going to be
00:09:32.920
the point is though it's like it's really funny to me you want to pull up the sorry yeah so the thing
00:09:40.820
is the thing is it's funny is like you did though you did say yeah it's greasy and then you just omitted
00:09:45.660
all that i said it's not greasy nope you didn't promise will you just hang on hang on i got a
00:09:51.180
thousand bucks in my backpack right now that i'll bet you that you said it was greasy when you were
00:09:56.220
asked i'll put it on the table right now put my money where my mouth is i'm not really a betting
00:09:59.960
yeah so you're not really sure if you lied about it or not why would it be a lie well because i think
00:10:05.240
that there was intentionality behind it so you got drugged what you're trying to say is that you were
00:10:09.920
incapable of opening that olive jar because it was greasy even though you dried it off with several
00:10:14.720
paper towels your t-shirt and then your assistant was able to open it despite how greasy but you
00:10:20.240
couldn't andrew you and brian either could brian but the point was it was an attempt to
00:10:25.760
but the point was and it was an attempt to emasculate me and show how weak i am and it turns out that
00:10:30.740
you are just as weak how would that demonstrate that i was weaker than you because neither of us
00:10:36.060
could open do you want to arm wrestle no not why it's just ridiculous it's the most ridiculous
00:10:41.420
shit ever and it has nothing to do with force you're so pressed about it you just couldn't
00:10:45.500
open an olive jar man get over it okay bro i'm just telling you that you couldn't open it have
00:10:50.280
gone out of your way to lie over and over about my position gone out of your way to lie dude your
00:10:54.360
name is not in my mouth i don't give a fuck about you saying that you lie a lot about my positions i
00:10:58.740
played a clip of you what okay but i'm gonna play clips that'll show the lies about my positions
00:11:04.620
i made one video about that specific moment lied a lot about my positions you said things like
00:11:11.820
this man wants to uh get rid of women's rights and you said all sorts of things you said that no i
00:11:16.620
didn't yes you did no i didn't and i just watched her debate back yes the fuck you did okay tell me
00:11:21.600
my positions and what is force doctrine force doctrine is that whole theory that might makes
00:11:26.400
right essentially it is more okay then why don't you define your no you have to tell listen first you
00:11:31.120
can't criticize a position unless you can stay stably tell me what you think the position means
00:11:36.200
before you criticize it so what is it what's for your prescription your position is descriptive so
00:11:40.500
do you want to define your terms before we argue on whether i want to know what you think force
00:11:45.620
doctrine is because you're critical of it how can you be critical of a position you can't define
00:11:50.440
i mean i think force doctrine is generally the belief that those who are stronger physically are
00:11:58.420
able to defend their rights no no no okay then explain it to me andrew yeah force doctrine
00:12:05.580
is the critical belief that rights come to women specifically from men that women always have to
00:12:13.100
appeal to men for the rights collectively okay so do you believe that anybody has like inherent
00:12:18.760
rights that there are any inherent human rights regardless unless you can ground them in god i don't
00:12:23.000
believe that you can ground rights in anything and if you can go ahead and do so okay so then
00:12:27.060
based on your religion what are the inherent rights that humans well first i need you to understand
00:12:31.960
what the criticism is so um when i say to you i don't believe that you can ground rights absent
00:12:38.900
religion do you agree that that's true or false i believe that that's false okay then can you ground
00:12:45.040
rights for me absent religion do you not know what rights are can you ground them absent religion go
00:12:51.280
ahead grounding rights absent of religion i mean there's natural law there's humanistic theories on
00:12:56.520
well i don't i don't know which one are you going to go with but go with one of them okay well let's
00:13:00.780
see which one would you prefer we could do humanistic theory we could do deontological i literally
00:13:08.320
don't give a shit i just want you to ground rights outside of uh outside of god
00:13:13.420
nick you gotta send me okay continue guys continue with the debate i guess what do you mean ground
00:13:36.000
rights do you mean justify human rights i mean this when i say ground rights um what are you appealing
00:13:46.820
to let's just make it easy what are you appealing to for rights morality okay that can either be
00:13:54.640
morality through religion or that can be morality through natural law that can be morality through a
00:14:00.180
social contract i'm not interested in all that can be morality through creating an egalitarian society
00:14:05.500
not interested at all in possibilities i'm interested in the one that you have these aren't
00:14:11.260
possible can you tell me what all of them i just want to know what you ground rights in i ground rights
00:14:18.620
rights are moral it is just and moral to give people basic rights what do you ground morality in
00:14:27.600
are you going to keep asking me or are you going to actually like make an opinion this is what you do
00:14:33.000
andrew you ask questions and questions and questions so that you don't actually have to form an opinion
00:14:37.360
and defend it that's great stop using descriptive arguments what do you ground make an opinion
00:14:41.900
what do you ground morality do you believe that humans have inherent morality do you believe that humans
00:14:46.360
have inherent value we can't go anywhere with the debate unless you can tell me what you ground
00:14:50.060
morals in so do you exclusively ground morals in your belief in god i've already said five times yes
00:14:55.960
now i need to know what you ground hold on hold on listen to me if god did not exist i'm not interested
00:15:01.780
would there be zero morals not interested until you tell me what you ground morality in tell me what
00:15:06.720
you ground morality in i don't even understand why you're asking this question okay so you are you
00:15:12.100
you said i asked you do you believe that rights can be grounded outside of god you said yes so i'm
00:15:18.500
asking what they're grounded in outside of god social order what does that mean it means creating a society
00:15:25.740
that functions you if no humans have rights and you can't function as a society everyone would just be
00:15:31.080
attacking each other all the time so you would have a society that functioned no you would have an
00:15:36.620
anarchic society if there is no social order what would make that unfunctional you just it would be
00:15:41.320
something i mean no one could collaborate with each other everyone would be constantly killing each
00:15:45.500
other and maiming each other and raping but do you see how you're just making an appeal that morality
00:15:49.580
just is preference based just fits your preference it's not preference based it's a necessity it's a
00:15:54.840
human necessity it's not it's not necessary for you to have rights necessary for survival
00:15:58.860
the right to life the right to life yes the right to life is necessary for survival you think that
00:16:05.460
there's a right to life yes of course i believe there's a right to life okay and what do you ground
00:16:09.620
that in i ground that in our ability to survive as a species if nobody had a right to life then what
00:16:16.320
would stop brian from just shooting up everyone in this room force our society could not function
00:16:22.560
based solely on force then how come society would all just be beating each other up how come societies
00:16:27.680
right now do societies don't exist solely on force we have tons of other forms of power that exist
00:16:33.980
in society do you agree with me that there are societies which function purely on force
00:16:37.900
yeah and they suck name a singular one that exists that is like fun to live in do you see how
00:16:43.460
now you're changing the goalposts so i'm not changing the goalposts i'm trying to create a
00:16:47.740
remember how we weren't talking about interruptions can i at least make the point you've interrupted me
00:16:50.860
like five times since we started yeah okay well so anyway where you switch the goalpost here was you
00:16:55.980
said that societies cannot exist they can't exist absent rights and that my contention here is that
00:17:02.900
they can they can exist just via force eventually hang on hang on let me make the point let me make
00:17:08.620
the point they can exist absent rights and you say that rights are necessary for societies to exist
00:17:14.980
clearly that's not true i can point to you right now societies where they don't have rights name a
00:17:19.960
singular society where no human has any rights that exist north korea at anything you have that's a
00:17:25.920
right comes from the state they still have a right to life no there's no right to life they take
00:17:29.880
out in a field and shoot you if you look at them why don't you go live in north korea is that an
00:17:34.340
argument would you like to go is that an argument andrew is that an argument are you arguing in favor
00:17:39.280
of north korea you think the north korean government structure is fun a vibe like why would anyone want
00:17:47.740
to go there what does that have to do with anything i just said because it's not a sustainable
00:17:53.140
society okay but it's a society that perpetuates human let's try this again no one has any free will
00:17:58.700
i know that why don't you so as we're doing as we're doing as we're doing the obfuscation here
00:18:03.800
i just want to point this out i asked you uh how you ground rights you said rights exist absent
00:18:09.920
preference and i said okay if they exist absent preference uh can't how come i can point it well
00:18:16.520
you said you have to have rights for there to even be a society i can point to a society where humans
00:18:21.140
have no rights and clearly that's a society so i don't i don't understand how how it is that you
00:18:27.920
think that you can't have societies which exist without rights and you still haven't given me
00:18:32.080
accounting for where rights come from and so it's it's critical i gave you my opinion about forced
00:18:37.380
doctrine i told you what i think about rights so do you hang on and so i told you what i think about
00:18:42.060
rights right now we're just clarifying the language so you can't do the fallacy of equivocation i don't
00:18:48.500
want you to move between separate definitions of a word using vagueness which is fallacious so fallacious
00:18:52.980
debate move i want you instead to be very clear on what rights are what you ground them in where
00:18:59.120
they come from and that's what we're debating about if we're talking about rights so please do so we're
00:19:03.980
not debating about that we're debating about forced doctrine the morality of forced doctrine do you
00:19:08.440
believe that forced doctrine is moral do you believe that it is moral to take rights away from people
00:19:13.380
on the basis this is pure obfuscation in coercive power this is pure obfuscation i do think it's fair
00:19:20.040
for you to answer his it is i think honestly andrew my issue with i don't care about anything you're
00:19:25.400
about to say just want to know if you don't care about anything that i'm about to say then why
00:19:29.860
where are where do rights come from i believe that humans have natural rights i believe that
00:19:34.280
okay natural rights yes okay so natural right theory is what nala believe or i'm sorry not nala what is
00:19:40.520
it naima sorry natural rights okay i don't think they have to be ordained by god i believe that
00:19:47.240
everyone has an inherent set of rights they're inherent yes natural inherent these are synonyms
00:19:52.540
so where do they come from they come from our existence what do you mean it's a right it's not
00:19:57.880
a physical thing like you get that right no no can you explain it for me no well the right to life
00:20:05.500
yeah life comes from being alive so what do you mean where does it come from where does life come from
00:20:11.580
no life comes from when a man and a woman are in love and they hold hands for a very long time
00:20:17.060
they can make a baby that's where life comes from so these natural rights that you claim that we have
00:20:23.000
which are inherent if they're inherent does that mean that um everybody has them yes i believe everyone
00:20:28.980
has them but they can be infringed upon and that is immoral i see that is the definition in my opinion
00:20:35.200
of morality is infringing on one's natural rights so you're born with rights yes so they're not social
00:20:41.120
constructs that we make up they exist outside of that well i mean it's not a physical thing oh it's
00:20:48.480
not well i'm gonna i'll tell you a couple of terms objective and then subjective objective means
00:20:55.040
that it does not depend on the mind an example is that tree out there would exist if there was no
00:21:01.860
i know what objective and subjective means then tell me what subjective means subjective is something that
00:21:05.900
is malleable it can change it's not a fact no subjective no philosophical subjectivity just
00:21:11.740
means uh depends on the mind okay so that's exactly what i just said no it's not yeah so anyway back to
00:21:17.000
this though um i was trying to give you the example so i could clarify the position i want to try to have
00:21:21.920
a good faith debate i don't know why you refuse to clarify your positions for me i just clarified my
00:21:26.060
position okay so now clarify so is it so so are rights subjective i believe rights are subjective
00:21:31.720
across society then how can they be inherent i believe that certain rights are inherent and
00:21:35.620
certain are subjective okay so how so i mean there's no limit on how many rights a human can
00:21:39.960
which inherent rights are objective which inherent rights are objective i think the right to life
00:21:44.420
is objective okay so then if it if it's objective and it does not depend on human minds where can we
00:21:49.380
find it we can find it in being alive what the fuck are you talking about where can you find the
00:21:54.620
right to life absent the grounding in in meaning all minds are gone remember i told you objective
00:22:02.340
means you don't need any human minds i tried to explain this to you a second ago now you just walked
00:22:08.440
into a horrible trap uh objective means does not depend on a mind what you said just got done telling
00:22:15.920
me is that you have an inherent right to life and it's objective that would mean that that right does not
00:22:20.900
does not require human minds so you should be able to point to where it is where is it andrew
00:22:27.340
rights are not physical though not everything that is objective is physical okay then what is
00:22:33.940
everything that's objective if it's not physical well you just defined it what you just what are you
00:22:40.580
talking about objective objective means it requires or does not require human minds honestly this is
00:22:50.400
philosophical objectivity requires minds put that in no don't put requires minds just put
00:22:55.880
definition i'll do for both of you thank you so objectivity the quality of being okay the quality
00:23:01.740
of being objective thank you marym webster yeah you have to put philosophical philosophical objectivity
00:23:08.320
requires minds okay that way we can clarify it let's just do a basic definition of objectivity
00:23:13.360
and work off of that so objective not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and
00:23:21.260
representing facts thank you yeah but a fact would have to be material not all facts are material
00:23:28.920
andrew which ones i mean air air exists and currently material actually yeah okay yeah i'll give you
00:23:37.320
that one oh god okay so we have inherent rights that aren't material but they're objective andrew
00:23:45.220
there are immaterial facts do you genuinely not believe that what i mean thoughts like humans have
00:23:53.080
thoughts thoughts are not material where do they do thoughts come from something material but a thought
00:23:58.320
is not material do you believe that a thought is material how do you know when you have thoughts to
00:24:02.240
steam rise out of your fucking head how do you how do you know thoughts not material how do you know
00:24:06.000
thoughts are well the thing is what thought that you've had is material you would ground a thought
00:24:10.320
in a brain right yeah but a brain and a thought are two different yeah so you would agree with me that
00:24:16.120
if there was no more brains there would be no more thoughts well your brain creates thoughts so without
00:24:22.320
but a thought is your so without are you really trying to argue that there is a material thought
00:24:28.640
oh i'm gonna tell you what the fuck are you talking about i'm gonna tell you so that you understand
00:24:33.180
do you agree with me that if we have no more brains we have no more thoughts sure okay great then what
00:24:40.120
that means is that you're appealing to something material for for thought okay but it's still
00:24:46.160
immaterial okay well hang on hang on the the trick here is to understand that when i say objective
00:24:52.400
right sure it means it doesn't depend on a mind when i say subjective it means it means it does
00:25:00.700
depending hang on i want to be very clear sure it means that it does so when i say where do rights
00:25:08.000
come from you say rights are objective that means they exist somewhere outside of minds so can you tell
00:25:13.160
me where no i'm not saying that objectivity needs to exist physically i think that things can be
00:25:21.300
objective without existing physically but why don't you give an opinion on your actual belief because
00:25:27.360
right now i'm just trying to figure out what the terms are for rights themselves so we don't
00:25:31.640
equivocate do you not know what rights are i don't know what you think they are what are they
00:25:35.920
i just told you well you just told me that they're objective but then you don't give me any grounding
00:25:40.920
for certain rights are objective okay where did they are objective and grounded in human morality
00:25:48.120
which can be based on a god as you do or which can be based on our conception of natural law is he does
00:25:56.560
human morality require a mind sure well then it can't be objective yes it can because objective
00:26:03.740
things can be immaterial you don't know what objective means you're using one definition you found
00:26:10.660
can you repeat the definition that you there is a sub definition to not dependent on the mind for
00:26:16.140
existence actual i'll repeat i'll repeat hers though will you stop of of a person in the mic and
00:26:22.060
stop doing this you're coping so bad you're so dumb you know i can't believe you did this so bad
00:26:29.280
oh go ahead of a person or their judgment not influenced by personal feelings or opinions and
00:26:35.300
considering and representing facts also andrew did you want me to look up something or i just want to
00:26:41.740
know if if rights are objective and they don't depend on minds can you please tell me where i
00:26:47.940
could find them andrew how could you visit there are things that exist that are not physical i'm not
00:26:52.840
talking about whatever you think exists it's not physical there is no limited number i just want to
00:26:57.180
know about rights right now just right immaterial do you understand that it's a concept do you know
00:27:02.680
what a concept is do concepts require minds sure and then it then rights then where's in your mind
00:27:08.440
then where's it then where's it so then they're not objective but something can exist in your mind
00:27:12.640
but are we talking about something are we talking about rights so do you not think that people have
00:27:17.140
an objective right to life like what are you arguing right now i'm just trying to get to
00:27:22.540
go ahead you're arguing on a definition because you don't want to actually have to defend
00:27:29.360
your opinion why would i ever in a million years be required to defend rights if you can't even
00:27:38.520
fucking tell me what they are i just did yeah but i just pointed out all the incoherency with what
00:27:44.500
you just said it's totally incoherent it's completely incoherent rights are the immaterial concept
00:27:51.300
that humans deserve certain i wouldn't say benefits but i guess like
00:27:59.840
actually what is a good word for that not benefits entitlements yes i'll take entitlements
00:28:05.800
i like that one got it and they're so so they're subjective they're not objective so do you not
00:28:10.900
believe that anyone has any it's not i'm asking you to i want you to define a belief make a statement
00:28:16.880
that's great right now we're just trying to figure out what rights are are they subjective or not
00:28:21.840
i think that certain rights are not subjective okay can you demonstrate the rights that are not
00:28:29.040
subjective i think that rights can be infringed upon but can you tell me the rights that aren't subjective
00:28:34.320
i think that the right to life is not subjective okay so i've just said it like eight times so the
00:28:42.240
right this right which exists for life that doesn't require human minds well everything requires human
00:28:50.060
minds then it can't be objective everything is subjective
00:28:53.380
wait a second you're so right so from your view everything that's a right would be subjective
00:29:03.400
i think that everything that exists would be subjective at that point okay anything that comes
00:29:08.960
from our minds and doesn't exist in the natural world would be subjective okay so then rights are
00:29:13.540
subjective meaning they're it's just concepts that we make up i don't think that rights are concepts
00:29:20.120
that we make up i'm sorry i just don't i mean maybe you don't believe humans have rights but i do
00:29:26.800
okay then we'll flesh it out again so do you think if it's the case that rights oh god andrew do you
00:29:33.600
think this is listen do you understand that what you're saying here is so fucking incoherent it's
00:29:39.200
so incoherent i can't even have the conversation andrew do you have your own definition of rights
00:29:43.800
why don't you give it well first first you can't say to me i'm giving you some incoherent gobbledygook
00:29:50.720
it's not incoherent i'm going to show you i'm going to demonstrate how it is oh my god so we start
00:29:54.780
with this objective versus subjective you agree with me that objective right means does not require my
00:30:02.100
hang on does not require minds subjective means does require minds you continue and then you got
00:30:07.580
done telling me hey man everything is subjective and these concepts are subjective by that metric
00:30:13.840
okay great but you still believe that there's rights which are objective like the right to life
00:30:19.180
but then can't tell me how it's subjective i think that the right which hang on which means that we're
00:30:23.620
now in either a a performative contradiction or you're just giving me incoherent babble all right
00:30:29.320
andrew i believe that the right to life is objectively moral how about that does that
00:30:33.820
make more sense to you and since you want me to define rights so bad let me just take the merriam
00:30:38.120
webster definition so we can move on and actually have a conversation about opinions rights are legal
00:30:42.860
social or ethical principles of freedom and entitlement okay will you take that are those subjective or
00:30:48.580
objective though the definition of rights is our agreed upon definition no no what's in the definition
00:30:53.960
of rights is that objective or subjective well they come from the mind so i based on your description
00:30:59.720
i would say subjective okay now do you hang on no no no i'm not done speaking and you've had a long
00:31:05.480
turn to speak and i would like to ask you a question you can ask whatever do you believe
00:31:09.580
that there are any inherent legal social or ethical principles of freedom of a freedom or
00:31:17.000
entitlement that all humans deserve not objectively now you don't think that there's anything that all
00:31:22.240
humans deserve not on a moral basis do you think it would be immoral not objectively so you think
00:31:26.760
it's completely moral not objective to infringe on anyone's rights no i'm just saying that that
00:31:31.760
objectively no but i'm not asking about whether or not it's objective or subjective i'm asking about
00:31:35.740
your opinion you don't understand that you believe that there are any rights that everyone has
00:31:40.780
that are morally unacceptable to infringe not objectively i don't care about objectivity i care
00:31:47.160
about your fucking opinion give me an opinion we're in this objective do you have a
00:31:52.080
single opinion give me an opinion come up with an opinion okay so i just want to make sure that
00:31:57.100
we can you're dancing around it you're obfuscating yes you are because you don't want to have to
00:32:01.400
give an opinion i'm literally making sure we don't i can argue against i'm literally making sure we
00:32:05.100
don't obfuscate you asked me to define rights i did i accepted yeah but the thing is now what is
00:32:10.000
your opinion i just want to clarify to make sure that we get this right so you don't believe that
00:32:16.020
there are any objective rights right i believe that the right to life is an objective right but we can
00:32:21.280
disagree on it if you want to then we're back to incoherent world no we're not andrew you just
00:32:25.320
don't andrew will you answer the question i've answered i can't i don't even know what you mean
00:32:29.460
by rights and andrew i just defined right no listen are you not listening you can't you can't
00:32:34.720
give me he's not listening to me did you not understand what i said do you want me to repeat
00:32:37.400
it yeah repeat it okay so rights are legal social or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement
00:32:43.720
do you understand what that means and are those subjective oh my god what is up with you and
00:32:49.260
subjectivity the reason the reason i'm just trying to get a coherent okay so let's say
00:32:53.500
that they are subjective for the sake of moving this conversation along okay so all rights are
00:32:57.000
subjective what right so it's the right to life subjective i'm not asking whether or not it's
00:33:01.440
i'm asking so i can get a fucking coherent answer i'm not asking whether or not it's objective i'm
00:33:05.760
asking whether or not you think i'm asking you listen right now do you think that humans deserve
00:33:10.360
a right to life calm down all we're doing right now is i'm just trying to make sure
00:33:13.840
that you and i have a definition of rights just it's taking you like an hour to understand this
00:33:19.300
definition can we move on because you don't understand how you don't understand how bad
00:33:22.860
this is you're so afraid to make an opinion what's wrong with you man just say something you do this
00:33:27.620
all day yeah i'm gonna do it until we get to some kind of coherent okay some kind of coherent
00:33:32.600
non-contradictory definition of right you are so afraid to just give an opinion on i'm not going to
00:33:38.080
i'm not going to grant fallacious arguments i'm not going to grant fallacious definitions i'm not
00:33:42.900
going to do it with you that rights are subjective now okay so then so then the right to life is
00:33:47.700
subjective do you believe just answer the question is the right to life subjective sure do you believe
00:33:52.200
we deserve oh my god thank god so all rights are subjective got it okay so now that we've agreed
00:33:56.260
that all rights are subjective do you believe that there are any rights that all humans inherently
00:34:01.580
deserve not objectively but morality based on your personal morality i'm not asking you about
00:34:08.340
objectivity or subjectivity i'm asking you about your personal morality sure do you think
00:34:12.760
that there are any rights that all humans deserve no they're all subjective but just because
00:34:19.960
something is subjective doesn't mean that's not a like a moral opinion i'm asking it is a moral
00:34:25.860
opinion no i'm asking for your opinion based on your ethical and moral framework so for me
00:34:30.420
i would say that uh you have god-given rights sure right but i think you can't ground rights
00:34:36.600
so i don't know how you get to have a conversation with me about rights when you just think rights
00:34:40.420
or opinions so you're grounding rights exclusively in the authority of god i don't think they can be
00:34:44.480
grounded outside of that because they're just uh you're saying that they're just a sequence of
00:34:48.880
preferences but we can't talk to god you're just saying they're a series of preferences
00:34:52.420
that's all the right is no do you want me to define it a fourth time if it's subjective what could it
00:34:58.400
be other than a preference legal social or ethical principle of freedom or entitlement do you think
00:35:05.080
that subjectively and morally there is anything that humans are entitled to subjectively no
00:35:12.460
okay morally do you think that there is any right what do you okay now we're getting somewhere
00:35:18.140
morally what do you believe are the rights that humans are entitled to i think that we well if
00:35:24.240
you're going to ground rights and ground them in god then i would say that like the ten commandments
00:35:28.360
would give us some certain rights that would be necessary like a necessary entailments okay
00:35:33.420
so morally i would ground those are all uh can you actually pull up the ten commandments for me
00:35:39.440
um so the ten commandments are all of the essentially all the human rights that we no i'm just saying
00:35:44.920
that those are an example of what we can ground in god there's other ones too there's additional
00:35:49.080
believe our inherent human rights i just gave you a list you haven't given me any that's it
00:35:53.040
just the ten commandments well i would say that those can be grounded as an example of what can be
00:35:57.340
grounded as a moral objective right god is subjective so why are you grounding it in the
00:36:01.860
subjective again if god is subjective god is subjective then all rights are subjective
00:36:06.980
then how would i be on a lesser playing field than you even if those rights were subjective if i believed
00:36:14.080
in them and you believed in subjective rights also so what you're saying is you need to ground your
00:36:18.520
rights in something objective and the objective thing that you chose to ground them in is god
00:36:23.520
which isn't objective wait wait i'm sorry that's i'm very confused here help me out
00:36:27.680
if if uh my preferences align with god's preferences okay if i'm like let's just say that i'm a subjective
00:36:35.680
anti-realist or a christian anti-realist so i believe that there are rights right they align with god's
00:36:41.740
preferences and my preferences align with god's preferences okay great um how would that give you
00:36:47.600
any higher standing considering that all rights are grounded subjectively from your perspective
00:36:53.020
yes which would mean they're all just preferences but god is also subjective andrew why would that
00:36:58.280
matter because you're saying that every all of my rights are only grounded in subjectivity and but
00:37:03.740
here my rights are also only grounded in subjectivity exactly actually that's my point okay so if that's
00:37:08.440
the case then we have established that you have no moral high ground for making any prescription
00:37:13.800
on rights because you're just saying their preferences we do have a moral high ground
00:37:17.820
though rights are not preferences we've already defined how are they not preferences then rights
00:37:22.560
are not preferences okay then what are they you think the right to life is like the preference to
00:37:26.280
be what else could it be if it's subjective what do you mean what else could it be if subjectivity
00:37:30.800
requires a mind then what else could a right be other than your preference for a thing
00:37:34.560
what else could it be it's a principle no and it's your preference to follow that principle
00:37:40.200
well it's guided by our human morality and that's your preference to follow those morals
00:37:44.240
sure so then it's all just guided by preference okay but how do you define whether something's
00:37:48.180
moral or immoral we would just use preferences that doesn't work but that's the only way you're
00:37:54.160
doing it right now but what if everyone on earth decided we prefer if we have one group of
00:37:59.320
people that we enslave would you then say that slavery is moral exactly so you believe that
00:38:03.400
slavery is moral well it wouldn't be a belief of slavery being justifying slavery no no no it's
00:38:08.000
the opposite slavery is moral do you think that repeating the question as though that's going to
00:38:13.180
help you with this well you just did that no i'm expressing i'm expressing to you i'm repeating what
00:38:17.460
you said back to you to make sure you realize how ridiculous i'm going to show you how it's not you
00:38:21.640
ready tell me how slavery is immoral except or absent preference it's causing human suffering and
00:38:29.520
it's your preference that we don't cause that so you don't think it's immoral is it your preference
00:38:35.000
we don't cause human suffering i asked you my personal preference so i'm asking you how do we
00:38:38.920
ground a right that humans shouldn't be slaves absent collective human preference including yours
00:38:44.640
how well i think it's inherent i think that there are certain rights that you know
00:38:49.500
it's inherent yes i believe that there are inherent human rights that violate the basic principles of
00:38:57.380
oh my god this is so funny you can cringe all you want you're the cringiest for i can't believe you
00:39:04.620
just said that you just said all rights are subjective right they're only grounded in preference
00:39:09.440
but they're also inherent no i believe that there are inherent human rights okay i believe our society
00:39:14.220
would not function if we didn't have inherent human rights okay what is inherent literally would not
00:39:17.720
like if if it was immoral not to kill each other what if we all decided to just maim each other how
00:39:21.960
would we survive as a species so it's our preference it's the proliferation of our species that would all be
00:39:27.180
a preference so you want us to go extinct what the fuck are you talking about you prefer that the
00:39:33.840
human species i'm telling you that you that all everything that you're talking about right now
00:39:37.780
is just a set of human preferences okay so if that's the case can you ground why it would be
00:39:45.680
that slavery would be immoral outside of human preference well you're causing suffering yes but
00:39:52.400
that's just a preference again it's just a preference not to cause suffering so do you believe that
00:39:56.720
there's any definition of morality like can we can you actually do you want to just look at the
00:40:00.680
definition of morality since we can't agree on a single definition i mean andrew what are you are
00:40:05.060
you defending slavery what the fuck are you talking about right now dude it sounds like you're defending
00:40:10.180
slavery for what purpose i really don't understand i know you don't understand yeah because why on earth
00:40:16.780
would anyone defend slavery nobody did you did just now never happened why are you acting like we
00:40:24.360
weren't just in the middle of a conversation in which you were defending slavery that never happened
00:40:28.260
you just made it up are you trying to gaslight me because it's not only not trying to gaslight you
00:40:32.260
but the opposite is happening i'm defending slavery can you tell me how i defended slavery you just said
00:40:38.140
that if everyone wanted so like rights are based on subjective human preferences so if everyone
00:40:43.880
preferred slavery it would be moral yeah you just said morality is justified by human i'll tell you what
00:40:49.660
and if you can ground how morality is not grounded by anything other than preference i can't wait to
00:40:58.060
to end the proliferation of human suffering and progress as a society that's a preference those
00:41:06.200
are preferences everything's a fucking preference right so if it's just preference right you're just
00:41:12.240
saying that collectively people have a preference to not make other people slaves and that's what morality
00:41:17.580
is is it's a shared set of preferences then if i say enslavement is just a shared set of preferences
00:41:22.940
how can you claim that's immoral so you don't believe that there's anything that's morally good
00:41:26.940
or morally bad inherently no matter what if everyone wanted to do it it's still morally bad i'm
00:41:32.160
demonstrating every single person wanted to just like kill the shit out of a baby
00:41:35.920
i'm demonstrating to you that that's an entailment of what you moral there is an inherent
00:41:41.900
definition of morality what is why is your sense of morality preference based because if you don't
00:41:50.600
ground your your preferences or something like this in something which is an unchanging standard for
00:41:58.420
morality in other words it's changing just based on preference right you would need to give me some
00:42:03.440
way to ground this where it's unchanging that would demonstrate for me that slavery is only is inherently
00:42:11.760
immoral in some faucet other than collective preference but even when we were existed in a
00:42:18.740
society that collectively endorsed slavery it was still immoral do you not believe that like do you
00:42:23.360
not believe what made it i'm asking you what made it immoral the concepts of good and bad do you not
00:42:29.220
believe that there is any inherent definition of good and bad is it just based on personal preference
00:42:34.680
i think that from your view it would be yes no i think that from your view then ground it
00:42:40.400
outside of preference go ahead fine will you pull up the definition of freaking morality since we're
00:42:45.820
only going to argue on descriptors today because andrew's afraid to give an opinion we can't get past
00:42:50.620
the descriptors because you won't give me anything coherent andrew why don't you like agree that there
00:42:56.340
is a very basic like there is an inherent goodness and badness do you not believe that on a base level
00:43:02.400
you can't justify that from your view and if you can't justify it from your view i don't need to
00:43:07.880
accept the definition of good or bad so justify it first all right i believe that if something is
00:43:12.240
good when it perpetuates um wait no sorry i believe something is bad when it perpetuates and
00:43:16.560
proliferates human suffering that's a preference so andrew do you just not believe in the concept of
00:43:23.340
morality don't you understand when when you're having a debate when you're actually having a debate
00:43:29.860
and you're asking a person to give a definition of the thing the actual thing in question here
00:43:36.060
and i ask you what is morality if we're having a moral based argument in this case we are because
00:43:42.380
we're talking about rights and i say okay tell me what rights are and you incoherently babble about
00:43:48.660
how they're both objective and subjective they're they're inherent and they're not inherent they're social
00:43:54.040
constructs and they're not social constructs i don't even know what the fuck you're talking about
00:43:57.820
it's just babble so then hang on here i'll define them one more time rights are a legal social or
00:44:03.260
ethical principle of freedom or entitlement and out of those preferences a principle following a
00:44:11.020
principle it could be someone's preference it could not be well yeah right so what does it matter if
00:44:17.180
it's a preference why are you stuck on the concept because if it's the case because i'm looking for the
00:44:21.400
case of equivalency if it's the case that you think that you have a morals which are better than mine
00:44:27.260
or gooder than mine i don't think they're better than yours because you haven't shared yours or
00:44:31.740
gooder than mine or great or whatever or gooder than anybody's or gooder than anything or good or
00:44:37.820
the goodiest of all things uh then you would need to demonstrate for me that rights are more than
00:44:46.000
simply preferences of people to invent social constructs that they think might be beneficial to
00:44:52.300
themselves if that is the case then if i have preferences against that and they're shared
00:44:57.700
collectively with other people you would have to demonstrate why those preferences are inferior to
00:45:03.660
your own because they're both preferences so andrew how do you define morality like how do you define
00:45:09.240
morality if you don't want to keep dealing with my stupid opinions on the basic definitions of words
00:45:16.060
that you know we both understand how do we don't both understand okay then give me your definition
00:45:20.640
how do you why does my definition help your definition because you refuse to agree to my
00:45:25.520
definition i'm not going to until you give me a coherent one you don't want to give an opinion
00:45:28.880
you are so afraid of sharing we're gonna start first with something that's coherent define
00:45:32.880
morality it doesn't matter you have to give me a coherent definition of right i'm not gonna give
00:45:36.620
you that then we can't go anywhere with rights unless you tell me what they are it's an incoherent
00:45:41.520
definition andrew it's the definition that is generally agreed upon by merriam-webster and oxford
00:45:47.160
dictionary that is the definition of rights it is literally the definition of right and are they
00:45:51.740
preferences who gives a fuck i give a fuck what is morality preferences you think the morality is
00:45:59.340
solely based on personal preference yes so something is morally good if you want to do it yes that's what
00:46:05.580
you believe yes what else could it be so if you wanted to punch brian in the face you really really
00:46:10.580
wanted to just punch brian in the face sorry to use you in this yeah but if you really wanted to you
00:46:15.220
believe that that would be a morally justified act for me yes okay so if someone really wouldn't be
00:46:19.980
for him because he has a different set of preferences you see okay uh-huh so you define
00:46:24.500
morale so then what happens in that how do we decide if it's moral or immoral through collectivization
00:46:28.900
so every like so your definition of morality is based solely on the collective will
00:46:34.360
that's it well not solely based on the collective will okay so then what else is it based on collective
00:46:38.740
preferences collective preferences so if collectively we all decided that we wanted to commit a genocide
00:46:44.140
against i don't know let's say germany the entire country of germany kill all the millions of people
00:46:48.440
that were there every single person in america agreed to do that you believe that that would be
00:46:52.000
morally justified well if it was the so let's say there were more people in america than there are
00:46:55.880
in germany so their preference is to not get genocided but there's less of them right and our preference
00:47:00.580
is to genocide germany and there's more of us so collectively that preference is larger you would
00:47:05.360
morally justify that action i think that if it was preference-based morality it would be justified right
00:47:09.460
so you believe in preference-based morality so you're going to justify slavery genocide all of
00:47:14.860
those things you just morally justified yeah all of these horrific actions i'm going to tell you the
00:47:18.460
greatest i'm going to tell you the greatest thing in the world and you just completely defeated your
00:47:23.100
own argument that is what your morality is no that's what your morality is we're basing it off
00:47:28.320
of your grounded on anything other than preference if you disagree with me i don't believe them or i think
00:47:33.060
that they're like i think morality is about what is good and bad and i think what is good and bad
00:47:38.480
i'd say good and bad i mean why uh uh whatever what is good just justified what is good or bad
00:47:51.120
other than preferences i would say something is good if it is beneficial uh-huh to the world
00:48:00.220
so preferences again no when you say something's beneficial to the world mutually beneficial isn't
00:48:07.000
that just things which align with people's preferences yes they happen to but it's not
00:48:13.700
based on the preference what is it based on the preference is based on it do you understand that no we
00:48:18.840
prefer things that are good to the world but things that are good to the world are not good to
00:48:23.500
the world just because we prefer them okay then what makes them good to the world what makes them
00:48:27.300
good to the world is if it like disincentivizes harm in human suffering or animal that sounds very
00:48:32.560
preference based again to me it's not preference so then tell me how these how someone could have
00:48:37.280
a preference that they want the world to suffer and cause harm but it doesn't mean that actions that
00:48:43.260
disincentivize suffering are somehow now immoral you got to help me out here then uh your definition
00:48:47.620
so how fluid so how inherently can an action be good or bad outside of a human mind and preference
00:48:55.560
well because we can see the physical consequences of the not outside of a human mind yes the fuck we
00:49:02.260
can if you punch brian in the face we could all see that that would exist outside human minds would
00:49:07.280
see that no shit i didn't know okay but it still exists objectively in space it wouldn't because it
00:49:12.800
would require a mind and an observer what the fuck what kind of if a tree falls ass argument is this
00:49:17.600
it's not an if a tree falls ass argument in the face it's objective you objectively just did that
00:49:22.500
like what are you talking about man what makes it immoral other than your preference your subjective
00:49:28.760
preference no it makes it immoral is that you perpetuated human suffering yeah but human suffering
00:49:33.040
requires minds you see what i'm saying so like what i'm asking you is this sure if an action is truly
00:49:39.120
good or truly bad how does that work that an action is good or bad on its own absent a human's
00:49:45.460
preference it's consequence an action can be good i mean there's multiple definitions but an action
00:49:53.520
can be good or bad based on intent and consequence okay i'm gonna i'll try it i'll try this again
00:49:59.340
if thing good how thing good outside preference consequence the consequence of the action and people
00:50:06.540
have a preference for consequences they don't want they don't want consequence you're using the
00:50:12.680
preference as what is prescribing the morality it is what's prescribing the morality i don't think
00:50:16.800
morality is inherently based on human preference then what's it based on i think morality is based
00:50:20.960
on whether or not it proliferates human suffering that's really any kind of that's just grounded
00:50:26.860
again in preference no it's grounded in consequences and you prefer not to have those consequences
00:50:31.140
the consequence of human suffering yeah then that would be preference-based morality it's not
00:50:35.680
preference-based morality because my preference doesn't influence its morality it's the only thing
00:50:40.080
i had the preference okay then then what other than what other than human preference would influence
00:50:46.640
morality consequence and intent i just said it that's all you saying preference no but the preference is
00:50:53.920
based on the consequence oh yeah okay so wait let me get this right based on but the morality of an
00:51:00.160
action is not based on my preference towards the consequence okay so imagine morality of an action is
00:51:04.580
based on the objective consequence so imagine you have 20 people and they all like i don't know they
00:51:10.500
beat a kid to death right and there's just you there's just you who sees this and you're the 21st
00:51:16.800
person right it's only 21 of you on planet earth you see these 20 kids and they beat a kid to death
00:51:22.540
yes okay did all of them do something wrong yes okay if you didn't exist what would make that action
00:51:28.440
wrong it would make that action wrong because it proliferated human suffering the consequence was the
00:51:32.420
death of a child which i believe is inherently morally wrong you have denied that child the right
00:51:36.640
to life you have infringed upon its rights so when i asked you consequence of the action whether or not
00:51:41.260
they agree with that so if you're not there what makes it morally wrong you said because i think it's
00:51:46.780
morally wrong but you're not there i said you're not there the right to life that's what made it morally
00:51:53.220
wrong andrew i see and you have a preference against that right i happen to okay but that's besides so can
00:52:00.160
you ground how that's bad absent your preference they denied a child their right yeah and you prefer
00:52:06.860
that they didn't that's not the point it is the very point no it's not then tell me even if i didn't
00:52:14.160
exist and didn't have a preference that would still be immoral then you're saying human suffering and
00:52:19.300
denying a child the right to life is immoral then what that would mean why are you advocating in favor
00:52:23.760
what that would mean is that that morality that is objectively true even absent minds observing it
00:52:31.620
right okay got it so it's objectively true that even without minds if somebody got beaten to death
00:52:39.360
uh that would be immoral yes okay can you tell me then how you ground that it's immoral other than
00:52:47.960
restating the thing itself as being immoral i just told you it's immoral because you denied a child
00:52:54.160
the right to life yeah but that's just you repeating the claim do you understand like if i say
00:52:58.400
murdering that guy's wrong and i and you say why is it wrong and i say because murdering people is wrong
00:53:02.800
that's not giving a justification you caused human suffering that's why it's yeah but why is causing
00:53:07.540
human suffering immoral so you don't think i'm asking you a question why is causing human suffering
00:53:12.960
immoral absent preference why because it's wait causing human suffering is immoral because because
00:53:20.160
you are denying them their inherent rights given by god or by you don't believe in god how do you know
00:53:26.560
you said so no i didn't when did i say so you do believe in god so rights come from god a christian
00:53:31.160
and i don't believe that all of our inherent rights come from god but i do believe well then we're okay so
00:53:36.260
all these the rights that don't come from god morality is not based on my belief in god is what i'm saying
00:53:40.660
okay got it so then what would make the the action immoral you say because the action's immoral
00:53:46.320
no okay well then what makes it immoral perpetuating human suffering and what makes that immoral the
00:53:50.600
consequence of the and what makes that immoral other than your preference what what makes it
00:53:54.980
immoral is that you're killing the species i mean yeah that's just restating it again it's a
00:53:58.740
consequence so it's a consequence of the action makes let me show you what what keeps happening i say
00:54:04.000
why is killing that person wrong and you say it's wrong because he's killing that person and i say what
00:54:07.900
outside of that i say what outside of your preference makes that wrong you say because
00:54:11.880
he's killing okay we'll try it again what makes it wrong to perpetuate human suffering absent your
00:54:17.700
preference the consequence of human suffering and what makes that consequence wrong absent your
00:54:24.840
preference absent of my preference it's the perpetuation of human suffering you're see how
00:54:29.600
it's circular do you understand now it's totally circular done with my sentence okay go ahead if you're
00:54:34.620
going to interrupt me in the middle of my sentence okay oh you're right go ahead thank you thank you
00:54:38.080
okay wait where was i go back to your question yeah so the question is what makes an action immoral
00:54:43.100
absent your preference i think an action is immoral if it infringes on the natural rights of an
00:54:50.140
individual and perpetuates human suffering i understand that you believe that and that's
00:54:55.360
your preference what makes it wrong absent your preference well definitely not god
00:55:00.240
what makes it wrong but i believe that they're like do you not believe that's your preference
00:55:06.000
that's your preference sure it's my preference so what makes it wrong you keep saying more
00:55:10.340
objective truth are like just because my preference happens to agree with that okay so then tell me why
00:55:15.860
it's wrong absent your preference because i believe there's a like objective definition of right
00:55:20.180
and wrong that's your preference again okay andrew then why do you believe it's why does it
00:55:24.720
what does that have to do with the what does me believing that that fucking tv right there's off when
00:55:29.780
it's on have to do with your definition of this wait that's a red herring hold on for my bingo oh
00:55:36.220
my god that's not a red herring i'm literally trying to stay on topic right here hold on where's
00:55:41.480
can you ground morality outside of your preference or not boom can you ground morality outside of your
00:55:46.700
preference or not you keep on saying it's wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong because it's
00:55:49.820
grounded morality and natural rights i've already done this now what are natural rights other than your
00:55:53.780
preference what are natural rights other than my preference well my preferences happen to align with our
00:55:58.080
definition of natural rights so your natural rights are just your preference no then what are
00:56:02.200
they natural rights are the right to life the right to liberty and honestly the pursuit of
00:56:05.580
happiness and what gives you those rights other than people's preferences it's not people's
00:56:10.300
preferences that well it's not people's preferences that give you those rights it's just that we are
00:56:14.420
all naturally deserve them the right like just being alive is what gives you those rights i
00:56:20.560
believe that all humans who are birthed into those this world have a natural right to life
00:56:25.880
liberty and the pursuit of happiness that's a preference constitutional founders would agree
00:56:29.500
with me do you realize that's a preference sure but what the fuck does that matter it matters because
00:56:33.500
if you're you keep on claiming over and over again rights aren't preferences and everything you give
00:56:38.420
me is just a preference for a right anytime i ask you what's if you have good whatever you think good
00:56:44.780
is what is it outside of what you prefer andrew all you want to do is have a descriptive argument i want
00:56:52.100
to actually hear your listen the semantics are important to the debate dude yes dude what time is
00:56:57.620
it uh 4 50 i'll sit here all day and do this i'm telling you right now we're not moving past this
00:57:02.720
until you can give me the grounded claim it's pointless it's no it's the most pointed you're just
00:57:08.700
trying to evade because you are afraid of voices all you have to do is tell me how you ground rights
00:57:14.120
outside of your preferences because you keep saying they're not your preferences you are the one who
00:57:17.360
grounded rights and preferences and that was your justification for fucking slavery you
00:57:20.440
disagreed though yes don't tell me how you ground them outside of preference it's natural law
00:57:25.840
and what is natural law other than a set of preferences natural law i mean it's a concept
00:57:32.460
that there are inherent rights that every human deserves based on the fact that they're alive
00:57:37.140
okay which is objective we are alive objectively unless the whole thing is a simulation okay so you're
00:57:43.460
alive sure you believe people have a right to be alive yes that's a preference right
00:57:50.300
it happens to be my preference yes there are people who disagree with me okay and and is that
00:57:55.100
because of their preference yes so then what are rights so are they wait wait hold on so question
00:58:00.480
are they morally justified to kill others if their preference is to kill your worldview yes
00:58:05.360
because rights are just preferences you're the one who believes in a preferential worldview andrew
00:58:09.580
so do you know do you believe in it there is an inherent definition of right and wrong good and
00:58:15.240
okay then give it to me what makes the thing good other than a set of preferences i believe that
00:58:20.140
something is good i've already said this do it again going no actually no don't fucking tell me what
00:58:25.400
to do man okay uh change the prompt i think i think not i think listen i'm gonna tell you this
00:58:31.280
no because all you want to do let me make the case debate because you're afraid of let me your
00:58:35.280
opinion let me make the case doesn't make any yeah let me make the case so the case is this okay she
00:58:40.900
wants to have a debate and she claims it's good faith on forced doctrine which is a a descriptor
00:58:46.560
about rights when i ask her if rights or preferences give her her own worldview back to her right when i
00:58:53.400
say what she says so all these genocides and everything else are completely justified because of
00:58:57.640
preferences i literally gave you your worldview back to you and said yes they have to be
00:59:04.660
because hang on let me finish i don't believe that right am i allowed to finish what i'm saying
00:59:08.720
let him finish go ahead andrew so anyway the thing is is like if that's the cat gave you your whole
00:59:14.520
worldview back and showed you based on your worldview all of those things actually would be justified yes
00:59:18.780
because i don't believe that you can ground this concept of good or evil outside of preference and you
00:59:25.780
haven't and you want me to just move on hang on and you want me to just move on from that and i'm not
00:59:30.540
going to until you either a concede that your morality is is all preferences or b justify how
00:59:35.820
it's not i don't believe that morality is based in preference i don't believe that morality is based
00:59:40.020
in inherent natural law and we've already talked about but inherent would would say that it's well
00:59:44.580
here's the thing inherent would say that that's objective and you don't believe in objectivity
00:59:48.820
you believe only in subjective rights no that's not true we're talking about morality not rights you
00:59:53.480
don't believe that there is an inherent basis of morality from your view there's not i'm not asking you
00:59:59.320
about my view andrew i'm asking you about your view it wouldn't matter what my view was no it does
01:00:03.600
i'm really genuinely curious that's nice but i want to know right look we're not gonna we're not
01:00:08.920
i'm not moving past it until we get to good and bad we're not doing it believe that there is any
01:00:15.140
inherent it wouldn't matter yes it does it doesn't it doesn't matter doesn't matter you have to
01:00:22.460
actually like give an opinion you can't just sit here and like if you don't understand you i don't
01:00:27.800
why don't you understand give me the definition and ask for the definitions of things over and
01:00:31.900
over and over and over you've destroyed the ability for morality itself you've destroyed the ability
01:00:38.340
for morality itself so it wouldn't matter what i claimed what do you mean i've destroyed the ability
01:00:43.620
because because what you're claiming is an anti-realist position it's a moral anti-realist
01:00:49.520
position you're saying there's no true moral facts everything is just morality based on preferences
01:00:55.280
that's the opposite of what i just said ground it i just said then ground it there is inherent
01:01:01.380
morality based on natural law i just said that so now what is your definition of ground it do you
01:01:09.180
believe there's inherent morality answer a question why why would it matter answer it because i want to
01:01:15.060
know yeah sure we're in the middle and i think they're all preferences why am i the only one who is
01:01:19.240
sharing so you don't think there's so yes the prescriptive morality is not my opinion it's yours
01:01:23.640
it's yours too no it's not ground it i just did no you didn't i've done it over and over you haven't
01:01:29.560
you are afraid to i literally just let each other finish please how did what what did i ground what
01:01:36.300
did i ground morality in you just grounded it in prescriptive no preference you just said that
01:01:40.440
preference prescriptive is and what are you grounding morality is the morality what are you grounding
01:01:44.900
morality in i'm grounding morality in the inherent belief that humans deserve natural rights
01:01:52.260
but it's inherent it can't be inherent if you're grounding it in your preference there is an
01:01:59.800
inherent right then demonstrate that they're inherent demonstrate the what's inherent morality right
01:02:06.100
yeah morality i just did with no you didn't yes we did with slavery we you want to go back to the
01:02:11.420
slavery example so if an entire society believes that this one society should be enslaved and there's
01:02:18.000
less of them yeah under your definition of morality enslaving this smaller group would be morally
01:02:24.180
justified based on preference yes okay and i'm saying because morality is inherent then even though all
01:02:30.500
these people would like to enslave them it is still not morally justified i see so um tell me something
01:02:37.900
this these inherent rights um where do they come from again inherent rights i don't believe they come
01:02:46.240
from god i believe they come from natural law but god is also an example so is natural law unchanging
01:02:51.140
um yeah to an extent it natural law is unchanging yeah okay and um can you demonstrate an unchanging
01:03:00.120
natural law um in order for he will all humans like have to be born and all humans die that's a natural
01:03:06.740
law you know a moral natural law but morality is based on natural law the natural like natural law is not
01:03:13.500
what is moral or immoral so what wait now i'm really confused i thought you just said that natural law
01:03:20.700
is what you're appealing to for what is or isn't moral yes natural law okay so can you give me an
01:03:26.740
example of an unchanging natural law which is moral or immoral okay causing harm creates human suffering
01:03:34.740
that's a natural law we know this to be fact that's a natural law yeah okay can you demonstrate
01:03:39.640
the natural law for me okay other than if andrew punched brian in the face brian you think that
01:03:44.620
would hurt yes okay so there it is that's the natural law if you caused harm to brian it would
01:03:51.060
create human suffering in brian there it is what if brian wanted me to punch him in the face because
01:03:56.140
he thought it felt good well that's now consensual so i guess so then that's not an unchanging natural
01:04:02.660
law non-consensual harm there how's that non-consensual harm sure okay and when you say
01:04:08.460
non-consensual harm can a person like i don't know consent to things which would harm them
01:04:13.600
and that would still be bad cause human suffering because they want it i see okay so when you say
01:04:20.620
suffering is suffering this idea is that subjective or objective do you believe that that's requiring
01:04:28.260
minds or not well everything requires a mind okay so then the ideas for what suffering is right now can
01:04:35.240
change well i guess some suffering isn't isn't subjective what what suffering what's what form
01:04:45.840
of suffering or preference for suffering can't change over time well i guess yeah your personal i guess
01:04:50.580
suffering is subjective to each person yeah yeah so then they it preferences for suffering can change
01:04:56.040
over time well it's because well the definition of suffering doesn't change but like an individual
01:05:01.820
yeah can feel like something well then natural laws now rendered incoherent because hang on because
01:05:07.600
you said that it's unchanging but you clearly think that it does change well suffering doesn't change
01:05:13.400
okay so suffering suffering it can change between people like it's then it changes but suffering itself
01:05:21.200
the concept of suffering is not changing but what we each interpret as suffering on our bodies can change
01:05:27.260
yes then it's not unchanging it is unchanging it still exists well but how can i don't understand
01:05:33.700
how can it be an unchanging law do you not understand what suffering is i don't understand how it can be
01:05:37.480
an unchanging law if it can change what do you think that suffering is andrew i don't know like pain
01:05:41.680
things like that i think yes yeah so pain still exists but someone's pain tolerance can maybe get
01:05:46.800
better or worse over time right yeah so the concept of suffering and pain is the same but
01:05:52.780
it can like it's subjective to each person do you understand that yeah so i'm gonna show i'll show
01:06:00.100
you kind of the line of logic here okay okay so if it's the case that you have you think that morality
01:06:06.340
is an unchanging standard and you're pointing to natural law right you're saying natural law is
01:06:11.660
unchanging this is the standard for which i base morality on and it's not preferential yes okay it's
01:06:17.660
not preferential so natural law exists somewhere yes absent minds sure okay sure where
01:06:25.240
well there's multiple natural laws moral natural laws no not moral natural laws just subjective
01:06:32.940
natural laws but being born and dying exists absent of mind pain exists absent of mind how does pain
01:06:41.120
exist absent of mind physical pain can exist absent of mind how
01:06:44.740
if someone cuts off your arm it's gonna fucking hurt no it's not just that you think those are
01:06:50.760
both minds it's neurons those are minds well it's not neurons but those those are both minds
01:06:55.020
what are you talking about so how does pain exist absent of mind so you don't think like
01:07:02.060
pain exists absence of mind because it's your body your body is feeling things you can feel things
01:07:07.140
without your mind thinking about it what i mean it's your central nervous system how do you feel
01:07:11.340
something without a mind you never felt this if you had no brain you would feel stuff we have
01:07:16.960
multiple if you had no brain you would feel stuff well i've never not had a brain before do you think
01:07:23.060
people with no brain feel stuff i don't know why don't we ask one of them do what do you think
01:07:27.660
i don't know where do you think where where are your pain receptors located aren't they all over
01:07:34.060
your body if you have no brain how could you possibly feel pain because you feel pain in your
01:07:41.780
body how without a brain to process it but who the fuck doesn't have a brain andrew like who is this
01:07:47.080
argument you said that pain doesn't require minds so so long as humans have a brain then we can feel
01:07:54.600
pain so minds brain well what's a mind other than a brain to you well the mind is the conscious inside
01:08:00.640
of your brain so it's the brain no it's not then if you consciousness is not your brain so that if
01:08:05.260
you don't have a brain do you have consciousness no okay then it's the brain but you can have a
01:08:09.480
brain without consciousness right like chickens have brains but they're still not conscious that's
01:08:13.980
sentience no it's a conscious sentience your conscious is what is thinking right well no cortex
01:08:21.080
is your con no because you would have unconscious consciousness which would mean like you could be
01:08:25.060
half brain dead but still like picture things in your mind yeah actually that's a great example do
01:08:29.000
people who are brain dead feel pain shall we switch prompts this is the fucking yeah i let's let's
01:08:35.960
can i just finish with one last thing sure okay i just want to finish i just want to finish with one
01:08:41.060
last thing i just want to point this out to you so that you understand that you this whole time you
01:08:48.840
have not been able to demonstrate moral facts absent preference everything that you give as a moral fact
01:08:56.180
like pain suffering things like that are just things that you're claiming you have a preference
01:08:59.760
against they don't exist absent minds are subjective to the individual so if that if that's the case
01:09:05.260
you're grounding all morality in preference all of it you're not like what else could it possibly be
01:09:12.320
you just and then when i ask you so so if i say hey is murdering brian wrong you say yes i say
01:09:17.560
why because this principle i say well isn't that adherence to the principle just your preference yes so
01:09:22.240
what makes killiam wrong it's sir it's a massive circle natural law i literally just said that i
01:09:27.420
mean honestly andrew i think you're having a hard time listening because you're so focused on
01:09:31.080
justifying slavery despite you know your belief that do you think do you think that that's going
01:09:35.880
to make a good clip for you because it's not going to it's not a great clip for you andrew i don't
01:09:41.580
really need to clip you come on give me a break you're going to try to open another jar of pickles
01:09:46.900
do you think that that one's going to be a good one for you too but anyway go ahead we can move on
01:09:52.400
to the next topic it's most ridiculous i just want to finish this off i do too go ahead well yes
01:09:57.400
well you each get you just finished so now may i have my final statement yes i mean andrew i don't
01:10:04.600
really agree with your basic definition of prescriptive morality i think that prescriptive morality opens the
01:10:10.600
door for so the moral justification for so many aspects of human suffering
01:10:16.580
including slavery and genocide which you just justified yourself now whether or not we agree
01:10:22.300
on what each natural law is i think the natural law is what justifies and dictates what is moral and
01:10:28.440
immoral and i mean if you don't agree with that then i guess you can just head over to north korea
01:10:33.220
all right i'm done okay so the next prompt there's quite a few but while we can i have a smoke first
01:10:40.280
yeah i'll do a smoke you guys want to take a break yeah because it's been like an hour now
01:10:44.540
all right we go for it go for it the next the as soon as they would you can go at the same time
01:10:50.960
if you'd like i'm good okay all right got it so we'll go over just a couple things here the next
01:10:56.420
prompt it's also a break from andrew that's fine uh the next prompt guys andrew's just taking a smoke
01:11:02.740
break well we'll announce it as soon as he returns and if they agree on the exact prompt i am
01:11:09.940
going to and then we'll also do the q a session so if you guys want to send in a question or statement
01:11:16.760
you can do so via streamlabs.com slash whatever that's streamlabs.com slash whatever
01:11:23.400
$199 and up if you want a uh to submit a question or a statement also guys like the video we have about
01:11:33.200
11 000 12 000 people watching so if uh you guys are enjoying the stream you'd like to see more of
01:11:39.440
these debates drop a like on the video it's uh supports the show also you can support without
01:11:47.120
any of these platforms taking their cut we have venmo cash app it's whatever pod on both also guys go
01:11:54.940
to twitch.tv slash whatever and drop us a follow in the prime sub if you have one if you have amazon
01:12:01.040
prime you can link it to your twitch and then you can drop twitch prime subs it's a quick free easy
01:12:06.040
way to support the show every single month also we have some merchandise shop.whatever.com
01:12:11.460
also what was the bingo well we can get your t-shirt can you hold the bingo the bingo thing up to the
01:12:18.460
okay so i thought it'd be fun if we did um sorry i'm like a little autistic with my notes
01:12:26.260
um logical fallacy bingo i don't know if you can see it move it forward just a little bit
01:12:33.140
so it's actually turn it and you see how it's coming into frame other other way do you see on
01:12:41.340
the left side of the screen there turn it the other way is it like almost so it's facing behind you
01:12:46.140
almost turn it like that oh like this yeah and then scoot it this camera i see what you're saying
01:12:52.400
okay there you go here she she did a logical fallacy bingo there it is there it is
01:12:59.680
it's not necessarily in focus but yeah this is logical fallacy bingo did he hit me with an ad
01:13:06.720
hominem did i miss one i i haven't been keeping i know okay maybe both it's possible i think you
01:13:12.240
should start doing these more in debate the bingo we do have bingos oh do you usually i'll send you a
01:13:17.660
picture of it you should do the ad you should send me a picture i'll post it on our discord
01:13:21.780
speaking of which discord.gg slash whatever uh we post uh behind the scenes
01:13:28.960
our schedule hate mail uh pull it up really quick guys if you if you want to see all the behind the
01:13:36.580
scenes stuff of our discord we had uh scroll up a little bit yeah we post like all the reasons people
01:13:42.520
cancel we post our legal threats that we get we post uh let's see what was the most recent one
01:13:49.700
uh no it's all good discord.gg slash whatever if you want to stay updated on everything going on
01:13:57.260
in the world of whatever and like guys like the video also if you want to become a master debater
01:14:02.480
like andrew or naima debate university.com they're both master debaters and if you want to become one
01:14:10.520
yourself and um engage you do a lot of debates you're what are you a journey are you a journeyman
01:14:19.700
debater you're what's a journeyman debate i'm not sure actually did you just make that up like you
01:14:24.660
know how there's like there's uh journeyman electricians i don't really know a lot about
01:14:31.040
the world of electricians journey i don't know is it i think i think it should be like karate like a
01:14:35.760
belt system what oh sorry i think it should be like a belt system like karate uh so a worker or
01:14:42.380
sports player who is reliable but not outstanding you call me a journeyman debater you said you
01:14:49.540
weren't a master if you're not a master what are you okay that's fair all right that's okay fine
01:14:54.180
intermediate i don't know are you intermediate intermediate to advanced intermediate to
01:14:59.480
advanced are there any synonyms for like i feel like i'm like a brown belt you're a brown belt
01:15:06.360
right as i go okay all right that works i think it should be a belt system i think it'd be really fun
01:15:12.840
that works uh let's see here i'm gonna let some chats come through oh no i hate the chats i'll wait
01:15:19.500
for the chats until everybody is back at the table trying to think if there was anything else that we
01:15:25.800
needed to uh go over there guys if you're enjoying the stream kindly like the video we're going to be
01:15:31.500
doing a q a session as soon as both participants return to the table so you can do that via stream
01:15:38.320
labs.com slash whatever did you want to do your smoke or do you want to just get back i want my
01:15:42.620
smoke okay never gonna say no to a cigarette all right sounds good we're taking guys we're taking a
01:15:48.800
brief break to allow the participants to have a a breather from the debate welcome back andrew
01:15:55.680
to the table so uh i wouldn't touch your eye to the microphone i don't know i just yeah your
01:16:10.500
forehead's good forehead's fine i wouldn't just i'm looking out for answer i don't need this guy
01:16:17.020
having pink eye at debate debate con speaking of which andrew you want to let the people know
01:16:21.460
you got debate con all right i'll do it for andrew i'll do it for andrew guys uh andrew's going to
01:16:29.240
be participating at uh debate con this is it friday saturday just bring me some fucking liquor for the
01:16:35.600
love of it there's there's some there's some fucking there's oh god this is oh tim pool tomorrow
01:16:43.100
if you guys uh want to see uh more of andrew he'll be on tim pool tomorrow and if you guys are enjoying
01:16:50.960
this debate andrew was on yesterday he was on saturday he had a one-on-one debate saturday and
01:16:58.020
he participated in our dating talk panel show sunday the links are just on our youtube channel i'm sure
01:17:03.860
most of you saw it but if you didn't those were fantastic shows and uh yeah be sure to check it out
01:17:10.860
should we get a beer also for for our i'll ask her when she comes back i'll i'll ask her when she
01:17:20.640
comes back uh so andrew in terms of prompts you'd like to get into once you realize that i can't
01:17:29.420
tilt this down like we can't get into debates if i like and we if a person refuses to even give me
01:17:39.620
simple coherent definite how do i debate with them dude what am i supposed to do with that
01:17:43.940
like it has to at least be coherent i mean charlie gave me coherent fucking definitely you know what
01:17:48.720
i mean yeah like i have to have i have to have something she wants me to argue positions i don't
01:17:55.200
even understand from her view like they don't even understand what she's asking me well let me tell you
01:17:59.780
the few prompts that we do have available to us and maybe you might find that there are
01:18:04.780
the prior conversation might not apply to these specific topics so black people can be racist
01:18:13.680
towards white people feminism enslaved women instead of liberating them women just as violent
01:18:19.240
as men if not more feminism lies about the benevolent nature of men yeah we can do that one
01:18:25.160
probably which one the feminism lies about the benevolent nature okay yeah all right
01:18:30.460
and then uh of the other ones i read you is there after we do the benevolent nature of men one
01:18:37.420
is there one that you'd like to i'm gonna make a demand i'm gonna make a demand for this first time
01:18:43.520
i've ever tried to make a demand of the whatever audience but that was like the most painful thing
01:18:50.340
on planet earth it really was it was just like pure 90 minutes of pure fucking pain and you've got to
01:18:58.000
send some money you've got to send some cash i earned every cent okay i earned every cent you can't
01:19:04.420
ever say i didn't i do have a bit of a headache too you know i'm i'm right here so you know
01:19:12.440
um let's see here guys venmo cash app whatever pod twitch.tv slash whatever drops to follow drop us
01:19:21.300
prime sub if you drop a prime sub we are going to pop it up on stream shop.whatever.com
01:19:26.340
uh we sell t-shirts pickle habas the german world war one helmets and uh these cups we're i have like
01:19:34.420
60 000 of them i need to sell some uh discord.gg slash whatever like the video if you're enjoying
01:19:40.400
the stream and also uh i already plugged debate university while andrew was out for a smoke but
01:19:46.720
guys if you want to become a master debater like andrew wilson if you want to watch a person argue
01:19:52.420
against their own worldview for 90 minutes straight and i know that they're doing it go to debate
01:19:56.340
university.com and guys and get my course get the course if you want to learn how if you want to learn
01:20:03.380
how to make them argue against their own position for 90 minutes straight that's how you do that
01:20:07.660
hours and hours of instructional video on debate also guys thanksgiving is coming up christmas is coming
01:20:15.600
up this time period of the year you're you're you're meeting with your your your liberal uh family
01:20:22.760
members and and you want to really just completely uh just destroy the relationship there at least you
01:20:30.600
win the you know those christmas dinner conversations thank your your crazy cat aunt or whatever she's
01:20:38.700
talking about how she doesn't like trump if you're gonna have an argument you might as well win it
01:20:43.840
at the cost of the complete destruction of your familial relationships debate university.com
01:20:52.320
guys as soon as naima is back we're gonna do uh q a questions if you want to send in some q a
01:20:59.720
questions that's streamlabs.com slash whatever why don't i just read this one from pelagic he sent
01:21:04.880
a super chat she has nothing to talk about the only thing going on here is typical female gaslighting
01:21:09.460
and manipulation she's just trying to throw andrew off by using word salad it's rather pointless not
01:21:15.760
gonna throw me off thank you pelagic for that pasty george thank you for your super chat thank you for
01:21:22.540
your super chat again pasty george uh kitty pride thank you for your super chat casey thank you for the
01:21:27.860
membership victor villa thank you appreciate it uh thank you for your super chat robert tanner thank you for
01:21:37.020
the uh membership robert tanner he he did the he did the three hat trick champagne pops
01:21:43.040
yesterday tanner tanner's the fucking man dude he's a fucking legend he's a fucking legend
01:21:48.880
thank you robert tanner are we by the way andrew um the chat has been asking
01:21:57.260
do you want to do a jar or i'm not letting anybody this time i'm not letting anybody get out of this
01:22:08.240
by trying to obfuscate or troll or any of that shit it's not going to happen there's a straight
01:22:13.980
fucking debate where it always should have been and um and that's what's going to happen
01:22:20.160
all right no obfuscation no clipping to obfuscate away from shit i'm just no fucking way you know the
01:22:29.160
world view just has to be put on display and that's that there it is uh nick can you check
01:22:34.320
on her um some shekels for paleo man god bless brother i was on the verge of an aneurysm listening
01:22:40.940
to her kudos on making her hate her own position without her understanding what she was doing go ahead
01:22:45.120
you can check on it uh let's try to get this going okay
01:22:48.420
all right she's rejoining us in just a minute i hope you guys didn't mind the little intermission
01:22:59.100
there but uh we had to give them each some time for a little little break we are going to resume the
01:23:07.220
debate momentarily in just a moment so she's returning to the table right now we're going to
01:23:16.240
get right back into it so what we'd like to uh do is just move in actually hold on we have to let some
01:23:22.060
of the chats come through so we'll do that right now a message from the government of canada
01:23:27.200
hello oh i see what happened one moment let me redo that oh yeah because i apologize
01:23:34.760
welcome back guys we're doing the q a session right now it's a uh 199 and up that's streamlabs.com
01:23:44.080
slash whatever if you want to get it in get them in now all right hold on one moment while we let
01:23:51.560
these come through thank you pasty george appreciate it i'll pull that back up here in just a moment
01:23:56.440
sure xd donated two hundred dollars if this is what the left considers an all-star the bend is
01:24:02.360
running real low here i can't figure out if none of them understand internal critique or if this is
01:24:08.600
a strategy to avoid it as a defeater sure is that our question uh just a statement we'll message from
01:24:16.200
the government of canada let them all come through pasty george donated two hundred dollars and four
01:24:21.220
cents thank you pasty george to brown locks if everything has human rights as you have stated
01:24:26.420
so many times then do unborn babies have rights how about babies aborted before or after twenty one
01:24:33.540
weeks this is human quick it's not human quick response to this this is actually a really
01:24:38.780
interesting question well i so i think the language here you see how you said everything has human
01:24:44.140
rights i don't believe that everything has human rights two hundred dollars okay sorry for your
01:24:50.020
pain sorry brian lol do you want you can continue responding yeah well i don't believe everything has
01:24:55.540
human rights i believe every person has human rights every human has human rights and a fetus is
01:25:00.000
not yet a human but i mean under andrew's belief in preferential morality if i preferred to abort a
01:25:06.220
fetus then it would be immoral so actually i think he's more pro-abortion than i am on that one
01:25:11.840
all right we have pasty george coming in again thank you ryan a message from the government of
01:25:18.840
canada pasty george donated two hundred dollars and four cents to brown locks if a tree falls in
01:25:26.340
the deep woods with nobody around does it make a sound pasty george if you donate four hundred
01:25:32.060
dollars to ask a question and i don't answer what happens then you don't answer a question and he just
01:25:39.320
wasted two hundred dollars right well be fair you should answer the question why because he's a it's
01:25:45.440
a q a session well i'm gonna say yeah it makes a sound all right we have a message from the government
01:25:52.660
of canada pasty george donated two hundred dollars and four cents to brown locks in natural law before
01:26:01.000
the days of colonization i would be able to put an arrow in your head without a second thought because
01:26:06.300
i would believe that i am defending my land from invaders but i wouldn't be on your land if it was
01:26:13.220
before colonization you would never have been near me
01:26:16.900
we have a few more the main community donated one hundred and ninety nine dollars
01:26:25.820
thank you moral if china declared war on america to decolonize and liberate the indigenous people of
01:26:31.780
the land and would you support them if not why uh no because i believe violence is immoral and i'm
01:26:40.120
not a consequentialist you're not you're not a consequentialist andrew i'm not talking i'm talking
01:26:47.200
to pasty george i just wanted to clarify you're not a consequentialist we talked about this in the
01:26:51.800
last debate if you don't remember you can look at it again okay
01:26:54.480
all right pasty george donated one thousand dollars for you andrew you deserve it especially
01:27:05.220
for putting up with the notardness uh so pasty just to clarify do you want us to pop a ball of
01:27:12.040
champagne do you either of you want i don't want champagne no can we have it after the debate
01:27:17.300
because i'll i can take some later yeah okay i guess i'll just drink the whole most of the
01:27:23.100
ball then uh all right a few are you just gonna drink an entire bottle of champagne i'm actually
01:27:28.040
i don't i don't really drink i'm a bit of a lightweight so probably not but uh maybe i'll have
01:27:32.980
if i'm throwing up in the bathroom i'll have jake step in as the moderator oh good for the rest of
01:27:37.800
the show okay so those are the q a's let me just double check um all right we are good to get right
01:27:44.800
back into it so we were considering as the next prompt feminism lies about the benevolent nature
01:27:51.220
of men andrew wanted to do that one how's that sound for you cool cool okay perfect we'll get right
01:27:56.620
into it okay um andrew if you wanted to do that why don't you take it away yeah hang on a second
01:28:02.580
yeah so um when i'm referencing the benevolent nature of men i'm referencing that men can at any
01:28:10.760
time they want take the rights away from women and there's nothing that women can do about it
01:28:15.980
and the opposite is not true and therefore i believe that men are benevolent and there should
01:28:21.140
be gratitude shown for them not doing that wait so you do believe that men are benevolent so then how
01:28:27.240
is feminism lying about the benevolent nature because uh feminism is saying that men are not benevolent
01:28:32.960
that men are the oppressor class and you're saying that men are benevolent yes based on the fact that
01:28:40.760
you could rape someone and then you choose not to based on the fact that uh kind of the bare minimum
01:28:46.000
now yeah can you repeat back my position so that you understand it um no andrew why don't you just
01:28:52.020
repeat it if you feel like you i want you to steal man so i know you understand it no andrew i'm not
01:28:56.480
going to steal man just i don't know where to go with that brian just give me your opinion again i already
01:29:00.120
i just gave it what do you want me to do here i just gave her the position she won't steal man it
01:29:05.860
then say it again okay so one more time sure women in this case feminists consider men to be
01:29:15.200
malevolent oppressors men are the oppressor class the patriarchy and it's actually through the
01:29:23.040
benevolence of men that women have rights and i think women should be grateful to men that they have
01:29:29.300
rights and how are you defining rights in this instance uh i would consider rights to be a set
01:29:34.820
of preferences that are shared between people okay so shared preferences um okay yeah so just read that
01:29:46.420
reading that back men are benevolent because they could kill women but they choose not to
01:29:53.080
yeah pretty much yeah but that's kind of the bare minimum like anyone could is benevolent that's just
01:29:59.280
an assertion can you substantiate that i mean what makes it the bear anyone can commit an act of
01:30:03.980
violence against someone that is smaller than them and we all every day choose not to i don't think
01:30:08.640
that that's that's not an argument can you give me an argument yeah my argument is that i don't
01:30:13.840
necessarily agree with your definition that's not an argument but that well we just had an hour-long
01:30:19.180
debate over definition so now you're opposed to that when it's your definition you want to find
01:30:23.420
benevolent i mean honestly in terms of the premise i do agree with you that men are benevolent but i
01:30:31.320
don't agree that benevolence is simply choosing not to commit acts of harm against others really
01:30:37.520
because i thought your entire moral stance was about not committing acts of harm against others and
01:30:41.580
that's what the good is yeah so then that would mean that then that would mean men are good
01:30:46.640
no i mean good is proliferating positive acts no that's not what you said i think it's a
01:30:52.800
that's not what you said i think it's objectively morally neutral objectively morally neutral well
01:30:58.820
oh god not the word objective never mind cut that one i think it's just morally neutral to decide
01:31:03.240
not to kill someone is a moral neutral you haven't done something good you haven't done something
01:31:07.640
bad you've done nothing okay then can you substantiate what moral neutrality is moral neutrality is
01:31:12.640
when you haven't done something that is good or bad okay so and what are we considering bad here
01:31:16.600
from your argument bad would be the proliferation of human suffering and this would mean then that
01:31:22.420
since men are not proliferating human suffering they're not doing anything bad right yes but then
01:31:29.340
the opposite of proliferating human suffering would be proliferating something that is beneficial to
01:31:34.760
mankind like women's rights but you've done nothing like zero wait like it's a net zero like women's
01:31:39.680
rights so you don't think that women had any stake in defining their rights that's not contending
01:31:44.940
with the argument you don't think that like that's not contending with the argument that's asking a
01:31:49.400
question yeah i'm giving you a formal argument you're saying that men just decided unilaterally
01:31:54.140
one day that they were going to give women rights but that's not what happened because we know
01:31:58.280
historically there were multiple waves of feminism in which women participated in civil and civil
01:32:03.740
disobedience in order to be a woman my argument is is that if men chose to collectivize to stop
01:32:09.880
whatever their collective disobedience was it would have been stopped okay so you think that men are
01:32:14.080
good because they could choose to murder all women and they don't yeah okay sure and not only that
01:32:19.240
but that they're benevolent do you want a cookie yeah that's true i agree they're benevolent
01:32:23.840
i don't think that all men that means that so feminism there are tons of men who do commit
01:32:28.360
and those women are and men are not so that then when feminists claim that the patriarchy is evil
01:32:37.440
and malevolent you would claim the patriarchy is malevolent no i'm wait that i would claim the
01:32:44.080
patriarchy is benevolent you would claim it's benevolent so there we go so i'm sorry are you
01:32:48.200
saying that i'm claiming the patriarchy is malevolent or benevolent i'm asking is a patriarchy
01:32:53.020
malevolent or benevolent no i believe perpetuating inequality is malevolent but that doesn't mean
01:32:58.400
that all men are inherently malevolent well how does the patriarchy advocate for inequality is a
01:33:04.640
system of inequality run by basis of gender that is run by men okay so those men are evil
01:33:13.480
i think that if you are attempting to perpetuate inequality through the oppression of others
01:33:19.760
that is a morally bad action how's the patriarchy doing that the perpet the patriarchy is perpetuating
01:33:26.100
inequality of women by you know denying them the right to vote denying them didn't they give them
01:33:30.540
the right to vote well they didn't give them it was one well no they again unfortunately just seconds
01:33:37.500
ago you agreed with me yeah i do hang on that if men wanted to take away the rights of women to vote
01:33:43.660
they could by that logic then the patriarchy could have taken away their right to vote and did not
01:33:49.360
how could they be anything less than benevolent didn't they equalize voting between men and
01:33:54.020
women yes then but how could you say that but the patriarchy isn't what equalized voting between men
01:34:00.480
and women it was women's struggle that is what granted women the right to vote no it was men
01:34:05.780
who did not get in the way and went ahead and granted it because they could have taken it whenever
01:34:10.740
they wanted well i don't think that every man is an inherent like master of the patriarchy
01:34:15.520
okay there are many men who oppose the patriarchy alongside of women is the system paid that men
01:34:21.720
or women feminists were fighting against patriarchal yes and i believe that the system is malevolent
01:34:26.900
but men are not all inherent yeah i know but can i can i give the argument i'm agreeing with you
01:34:32.160
andrew what are you even arguing i'm i'm asking is the patriarchy but benevolent no well then we
01:34:38.420
have a but the patriarchy isn't a person andrew i'm not saying i'm not i'm not saying it's a person
01:34:44.220
but if it's men who are in charge of a system and the men in charge of the system allow women to
01:34:48.220
vote then that would mean that the patriarchy about your logic is benevolent i believe that
01:34:52.060
a system that is intended to perpetuate inequality on any basis is malevolent then can you tell me
01:34:57.620
however men are not inherently yeah i know but can you tell me then how the patriarchy is
01:35:02.080
the patriarchy is malevolent because it's a system that is perpetuated to increase inequality
01:35:08.660
which increases human suffering can you demonstrate that well before feminism and women didn't have
01:35:15.720
the rights to vote hold credit cards own homes leave their husbands get divorced sued and be sued
01:35:23.720
if a woman were to be mistreated by a man she would have no power to leave that man without sacrificing
01:35:31.380
her ability to have housing food and basic human needs so it puts women in a position of dependency
01:35:38.640
on men so that if there is an individual man who decides to behave malevolently that woman has
01:35:45.360
no ability to get away from him and the patriarchy and the patriarchy perpetuates that
01:35:50.700
by preventing women from having access to jobs and the things that would allow them to get their own
01:35:58.400
resources so two there's two there's two arguments individual freedom yeah there's two arguments
01:36:02.840
there so i'll compete to contend with both of them let's start with the first one
01:36:05.860
if it is the case that the patriarchy was acting in a malevolent way and women appealed to the
01:36:11.540
patriarchy and they granted them these various rights that you considered was unjust which by
01:36:16.180
your logic they had to then wouldn't that be the patriarchy acting benevolently but we're not
01:36:20.460
appealing to the patriarchy we're appealing to the morality of men i don't think that all men are
01:36:25.460
naturally just patriarchy then when you were fighting the system is a system but men are not the system
01:36:31.460
so some men are created the system give you the right to vote the system did not give us the right
01:36:36.780
to vote then who did men who were not a part who did not subscribe to the system helped us establish
01:36:43.640
the right to vote through our own work as social mark breakers so wait i'm confused civil disobedience who
01:36:51.180
was in charge i mean do you not believe in like who was in who was in charge at the time was it a
01:36:55.840
patriarchal system yes it was a patriarchal and did that patriarchal system give you the right to vote
01:37:00.840
no well then how did you get the right to vote men and women who were against the concept and the
01:37:09.200
proliferation of the patriarchy fought alongside each other fought how with signs yeah oh i mean it's
01:37:16.920
worked all over the world i see mandela gandhi i see so hang on there is civil disobedience that
01:37:22.280
is awarded people right how did they win it exactly like what did they do well a law was passed that
01:37:28.360
gave women the right to vote what law which amendment is it you don't know no i don't remember which
01:37:33.180
amendment specifically someone that gives women the right to vote but there was an amendment that gave
01:37:36.640
women the right to vote there's also an amendment that gives so then actually the established system
01:37:43.760
which was in power which was patriarchal passed an amendment for women to vote but it's not a
01:37:50.200
system passing a system is not a person though yeah i know yes do people get to vote on amendments
01:37:56.540
yes so people voted on the amendment that's not right can we pull up do you understand the difference
01:38:03.240
between a system and a person i would like to pull up i would like to pull up if people voted on the
01:38:07.520
amendment yes people did vote on the amendment okay so you think that all of those people like do you
01:38:12.120
think that every man is inherently the patriarchy hang on let's do a fact check here i just want to
01:38:17.840
make sure do you think that every man is inherently the patriarchy what do you like me to pull up um
01:38:22.720
did the people have a direct vote on the 19th amendment no it's 19th glad i didn't guess i was
01:38:37.980
it says no the general public did not have a direct vote on the 19th but that's not how any amendment
01:38:47.300
was ratified through the process outlined in the u.s constitution okay which involves votes by elected
01:38:53.520
representatives so then people did vote who was the system who is that wasn't the people voting yes
01:38:59.540
you just got caught in a huge lie hold on andrew are elected representatives human or not are they
01:39:04.960
people are were they the patriarchy no i'm asking you are they human sure the question was did people
01:39:10.620
vote was ratify the 19th amendment i'm saying yes and people didn't vote i'm not saying the people
01:39:15.460
yes you were country i'm saying you're just gaslighting because you got caught in a lie now help me out
01:39:20.220
here i'm saying people as in were the elected officials the patriarchy i don't believe that all of
01:39:26.480
the i don't know every single elected officials then who was the patriarchy they were fighting
01:39:30.140
against it's a system and who was in charge of the system do you understand who was in charge of the
01:39:35.240
system the system proliferates itself no one is specifically like do you think how do systems
01:39:39.940
proliferate themselves without people a system is created by people that's it yes so a system is
01:39:46.260
created by people and can be amended by people but the system itself is not a person do you understand
01:39:51.780
that there's no person who's like i am the spokesperson was the patriarchy in charge of
01:39:56.540
the system or not was the patriarchy in charge of the patriarchy was this was the patriarchy in
01:40:01.620
charge of the system of what system of the electoral system was the patriarchy well men were in charge of
01:40:07.720
the electoral system was the patriarchy but the patriarchy is not able to be in charge of the
01:40:15.040
patriarchy what's wrong with you who's in charge of the patriarchy if it's not the patriarchy well it's
01:40:21.360
a member of the patriarchy. Who says every man?
01:40:41.180
Are they all the patriarchy? I'm not going to make
01:41:11.140
And was it in place at the time the 19th Amendment
03:11:34.880
How does this in any way dispute forced doctrine?