Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 1, 2025 - Fresh & Fit

02:03:15

Andrew Wilson VS Gary The Numbers Guy. Christianity Debate!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	We are here with Gary and Andrew Wilson.
	We're going to be doing a debate on Christianity and numerology.
	So, we're not going to play the intro music, man.
	We're going to just go ahead and have our guests introduce themselves for you guys.
	Gary, you want to introduce yourself first?
	Yeah, my name is Gary The Numbers Guy.
	I'm the best of the best of what the hell I do.
	No more introduction needed.
	Simple.
	To the point.
	Andrew?
	Yeah, I'm Andrew Wilson.
	I'm the host of The Crucible.
	It's a popular entertainment channel on YouTube.
	I'm a political analyst, a political satirist.
	I also do debates all over the world.
	I appreciate you guys hosting this debate tonight.
	All right.
	Happy to be here and facilitate it.
	So I guess we'll go right into opening statements.
	We had a discussion before about parameters and everything else like that.
	The way this is going to work, Chad, is we're going to have four minutes of an opening statement where they kind of give their position of where they stand.
	And then after that, we're going to go into timed rounds.
	For the first one or two rounds, assuming everything goes good, it's going to be open dialogue between the two.
	Hopefully it doesn't get too rowdy.
	But if it does, then we'll go back to time rounds where only one person can speak at a time.
	And we can kind of go from there.
	But I think both parties agreed to having open dialogue for at least the first two rounds, see how it goes.
	But the opening statements are going to be four minutes uninterrupted where they stay at their position.
	I think Gary is the challenger, so he's going to go first.
	Yes.
	And then he'll get the last word as well.
	So I'll turn it over to Gary.
	I'll start the timer once he starts talking.
	And we also have, I think, one or two videos to play as well that are very short.
	Did you want to talk first or video first?
	Let's start talking first.
	Today what we're going to do is we're going to talk to someone who promotes a system that's a relic.
	Whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, see how I put that one in there too?
	Buddhism, Hinduism.
	These are all belief systems that were started a long time ago when people were a lot less advanced.
	When people talk about the family unit, that is a discussion we're going to have today.
	But here's the thing.
	I want people to understand this.
	I'm not debating this as an atheist.
	I believe in the prime creator.
	I believe.
	I won't call the prime creator a god, because to me, there's so many false gods, plus, you know, God spelled backwards as dogs, so I'm not going to insult the guy like that.
	To me, the prime creator is real.
	We're not going to be discussing the validity if there is a prime creator.
	What we will be discussing is the validity of the system.
	Of Christianity, the validity of the system, Islam, but mainly we're going to focus on Christianity.
	And then we're going to start talking about the practitioners within that system to see if they're actually living up to their so-called virtue.
	Or we're going to start talking about, is there a better system?
	And having said that, you know, let's have the tapes.
	Bills, let's start.
	My name is Gary the Numbers Guy.
	I'm a numerologist astrologer, and the information you hear in this video just could save the life of a loved one or yourself.
	Ever since I started studying numerology right after 9-11, it got me to thinking, is there a pattern to this?
	And what I discovered is absolutely horrifying.
	Whenever it's the 11th, the 29th, or any day that adds up to an 11th, there seems to be a lot of plane crashes in the world.
	Basically, if you're going to get on a plane on the 11th, 29th, or any day that adds up to an 11th, or say when the Okay, cut that video.
	So basically, that was a video from me in 2011. See, unlike most people who pick up grips, I've been doing this for a while because I actually believe in this.
	This is what I do.
	This is what I believe.
	This is how I live my life.
	I told people 11 years ago, don't fly in the 11th and 29th.
	Play the next video, Bills.
	Do not fly on 11 days.
	Do not fly on the 29th of the month.
	You've seen what happened.
	Not one, not two, not three, but five.
	Five plane crashes.
	January 29th.
	Three plane accidents in the world.
	And yesterday, the first day of the snake, 2025, January 29th, we had a very serious plane accident in Washington, D.C., where over 60 people on an American's airline died in midair in takeoff because they collided.
	The whole point is this.
	There is a better way to live than to believe there's a magic man in the sky.
	There is a better way to live than to believe a virgin gave birth to Jesus Christ.
	No one will believe that stuff in the streets.
	Why do you believe in fairy tales that are in the Bible?
	I just showed you as a numerologist.
	I said, don't fly planes on 11 days or the 29th.
	What happened?
	We have five plane accidents.
	Some that have cost people their lives in the past 29th of the month.
	I didn't say 1st.
	I didn't say 7th.
	I didn't say 18th.
	I said 29th, and that's exactly when it happened.
	Numerology and astrology is a better way because that is actually the prime creator's language.
	I yield my time.
	All right.
	Three minutes and 50 seconds.
	All right.
	I'll put four minutes on the clock for you, Andrew.
	I'll start once you get going.
	And then, Bills, if we have that timer ready for the next one, the one after this one we'll have it, right?
	All right, cool.
	Yeah, go whenever you're ready, Andrew.
	Yeah, so when you're talking about religion, and Gary seems to be saying that he's going to come at this from a religious purview, not as an atheist, and he believes in some system which has what he calls a prime mover or prime creator, which isn't a god, which I don't exactly understand.
	So I don't actually understand what the religious purview is that Gary is speaking from.
	So debates, when you're talking about Christianity versus any religion or secularism, it's about worldviews.
	So what you're doing is you're taking epistemology, which is grounding knowledge and foundational knowledge, and you're seeing if it holds up to the scrutiny inside of a worldview.
	In other words, are the descriptors for this knowledge, are they coherent?
	Do they make sense?
	Is it something which can be followed?
	Is it something which essentially is coherent in its explanation?
	Gary does not actually have that.
	So Gary is using this bizarre system.
	So, for instance, he brings to bear this evidence.
	His evidence says, look, I predicted that there would be plane crashes on the 11th, 29th day, this type of thing.
	But here's all the plane crashes that he forgot about.
	March 21st, China Eastern Airlines.
	April 7th, DHL Aero Express.
	May 12th, Tibet Airlines.
	May 29th, Tara Air Flight.
	June 21st, Red Air Flight.
	July 16th, Meridian Flight.
	September 4th, October 23rd, November 6th, November 18th, the list goes on and on and on of dates which don't coincide with what Gary is talking about here.
	The truth is, is that if you make a prediction that there's going to be some type of aerial catastrophe, which will revolve around the 11th or the 29th, eventually you will be right.
	There's not, I mean, just as an eventuality, that has to be the case.
	Now note, He claims he made this prediction years ago, and this validates the prediction.
	I actually would counter and say that that prediction is invalidated because he made it years ago.
	Because it's so many years ago, all he had to do was wait over years because eventually, if you say the sky is going to fall on X day, it will.
	If you say some type of deterministic accident will happen on X day.
	Eventually, you will be correct, especially when you're talking about airlines, air traffic control, you know, car accidents, famous people dying, right?
	And he's talking, he's saying, well, 10 years ago, I predicted this.
	Well, no, 10 years ago, you predicted nothing.
	You just said there could be plane crashes, which happened on these dates.
	And you missed all the other dates that plane crashes happen on that aren't these dates, and it took 10 years for one to finally happen on that date.
	That's just mere chance.
	So this is not evidence for the coherency of his worldview or his system.
	It's not even proof that his predictions are correct.
	And with that, I'll yield my time.
	All right.
	You still had three minutes.
	Sorry, you still had a minute on the clock.
	So I guess we'll go to...
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Let me respond to what he said.
	Well, this is going to go into one of the first debates.
	I get you.
	I get you.
	Let me finish this up, though.
	Sir, I did make that prediction 10 years ago.
	I also made one about two days before it happened.
	Billis, can you play that tape again?
	The one I did two days before the 29th happened.
	It will be the third video in that list.
	See, I love the fact that you brought that up.
	I wanted you to bring up the fact that it was 10 years old because I did the same thing.
	Do the one with the 11 on it.
	Yep, play that one.
	On 11 days, it's the most likely that you can have issues with planes.
	We had three planes have issues on December 29th, 2024. Korea, Canada, another one.
	Why?
	Because it was the 29th and 29th is 11. And I've said this many times.
	On 11 days, if you can avoid flying, you should.
	I'm not going to say I haven't flown on 11 days.
	I have.
	But if I can avoid it, I do it.
	Why take that chance if you can avoid it?
	On 11 days.
	Cut the video.
	So that basically disproves everything you just said, Andrew, because that video was made two days before the 29th.
	So again, sir, you can try to backpedal all you want, whether you go 10 years ago or you go two days ago.
	My message has always been consistent.
	Now, you're going to say, guess what, Gary?
	Not all plane crashes happen on the 29th.
	Guess what?
	You're right.
	I agree with you, but the fact is, if you do a mathematical percentage of the days plane crashes do happen, you're going to see they significantly increase on the 11th and 29th.
	That's why December 29th, we had three plane crashes worldwide, and a couple days ago, we had two, including the one in Washington, D.C. So your whole argument is invalidated, my friend.
	I just gave you more proof right there than it's all of the freaking Bible.
	I yield my time.
	All right.
	So just to dive in, I'm willing to concede this portion of the argument, Gary.
	Just show me mathematically that most plane crashes are going to happen on the 11th, 29th.
	I'll wait.
	There have been four, I believe, five plane crashes this year.
	Yeah, no, actually, there have been significantly more.
	Go to the list of how many happened, and then go to the 11th and 29th, and then we can do a mathematical survey.
	And by the way, I did call this.
	You said you already, no, no, no, you made the statement, the affirmative statement.
	It is, in fact, the case that most plane, not all plane crashes happen, but the highest percentage of them happen on the 11th and the 29th.
	If that is the case, I await your evidence.
	Oh, again, I didn't come here to do mathematical equations with you.
	So you just came here to make claims that you can't?
	The evidence is very clear.
	Where's the evidence?
	We had two plane craters yesterday.
	Where's the one on the 30th, Andrew?
	Where's the one on the 28th, Andrew?
	Where's the one on the 27th?
	So now that you have been basically proven wrong about this, let's move on and start talking about Christianity.
	Oh, no, let's not move on just yet.
	You've already committed code, sir.
	Let's not move on just yet.
	Go ahead.
	When we pull up plane crashes for 2024, I actually just read you several dates, we can pull up the aviation dates of all plane crashes globally.
	Would you like to do that right now?
	I don't actually see.
	So even if one were to happen on the 29th or the 11th, and all other ones don't happen on that day, then that would assume that the risk is just as possible for those other dates.
	How many plane crashes happened this year, Andrew?
	Hang on, hang on.
	I just let you talk.
	I didn't even interrupt you one time.
	So what I'm saying to you is that statistically that would mean it's just as likely as any other day that these crashes happened on.
	Now again, I'm willing to concede that you're correct in that on the 11th and 29th, that's when the highest percentage of plane crashes happen.
	I just want you to give me the actual evidence for that.
	That's all.
	I'm not asking for you to move the heaven and earth here.
	I'm not asking you to have the prime creator do anything.
	I'm just asking for the actual evidence, the statistical evidence that proves on the 11th and 29th, that's when most plane crashes will happen.
	Okay, so I'm going to pass this evidence right now.
	The Myron that was just texted me.
	Myron?
	Okay.
	Yeah, what do you want me to read now?
	I just, whatever it says.
	43 accidents.
	Plank crashes in 2024. And then it shows you the days...
	It shows me your Twitter.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I was looking at it like, oh shit, wait a second.
	My bad.
	No, no, you're fine.
	There you go.
	Alright.
	Okay.
	Well, you got a chart.
	Yeah, yeah, there's a chart here.
	43 fatal aircraft accidents by day 24. And it shows a chart here.
	This chart analyzes...
	Do you want me to put this on the screen for the audience?
	Okay.
	Shit.
	You texted me this?
	I'll give it to Bills.
	I'll text it to you right now.
	Alright, I'll give it to Bill.
	One second.
	And I'll put it up on screen for you.
	It's on Twitter, so we've actually done that.
	It's on Twitter?
	Yeah, I'm about to send you two.
	We've done statistical analysis just in case people like Andrew come along so we can actually prove our point without actually going back and forth in boring conversation.
	I'll put it up on screen.
	Okay.
	Bill, let's send you this right now on the Telegram.
	So you can put it up.
	Men lie, we know women lie, but numbers never lie.
	Alright.
	So we passed the time for the round, but I'm assuming this is going to be on proving the point, so we'll just keep it going for this one.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	This is what he asked for, and if you ask, we shall provide.
	Here we go.
	Here it is.
	Okay, we'll put it up on screen.
	And then, Andrew, just let us know if there's anything you want us to show on your end.
	Just let me know and I'll have Bill put it up as well.
	You know what I mean?
	Make sure that it's completely fair all around.
	Okay.
	Can you see that, Andrew?
	I can't see anything.
	Oh, you can't?
	Okay, I can.
	Is it way for us to...
	But I can.
	If you just tell me what the source is, I'll pull it up and follow along with you guys.
	I will.
	Actually, I'll do you one better.
	I'll text it to you right now on your phone.
	Okay.
	So you have it.
	The audience can see it on our end, but I'll give it to you so you can look at it as well.
	And while I send you this, I'll read it out loud.
	Can you make that big for me, Bills, real fast?
	So it goes, fatal aircraft accidents by day.
	This chart analyzes fatal aircraft incidents by the day of the month.
	With the day's numerological energy reduced, the data reveals a striking alignment with Gary Greenberg's insights as 11 energy emerges as a key factor linked to malfunctions and significant events.
	Offering valuable implications for aviation safety and then it shows the month and the days it looks like here.
	So yeah, on the bottom you have day of month and then on the left hand side you can have frequency.
	And then you go there by the day total, so when something adds up to an 11-day in total, you can see that there's a significant amount more plane crashes than all the other days.
	Now, am I saying they only happen on those days?
	Of course not.
	What I am saying is there's a significant increase in fatalities when it comes to planes on certain days based off numerology, and here's the evidence.
	And just to be clear, what are those days?
	Those are the 43 fatal accidents that we've had in...
	No, no, no.
	I'm sorry.
	I'll just clarify the question.
	What are the days you're saying?
	It's the 11th?
	So anything, so there's two graphs.
	There's one way to come up to an 11 energy is anything that happens on the 11th or 29th because 2 and 9 is 11. The other day is something that adds up to the day they attacked Afghanistan.
	Afghanistan was attacked, I believe, 10-7-2001.
	1-0-7-0-2-0-0-1 adds up to an 11. So that is the only ways you can come up with 11 energy.
	And based off those statistical...
	increase here.
	So I'm very happy you brought those type of questions up and stuff like that, because we're ready for you.
	Good.
	So let me just refute this very quickly.
	The most deadly day for airlines is actually on the 17th.
	Here's my proof.
	The total 787 people killed in the combination of these accidents are the worst in history.
	Remember, Gary just got done telling you.
	That these are going to be the days which correspond with the most deadly accidents, and they're not.
	1996, 2000, 2007, 2014. That would be Malaysian flight, TAM54, Alliance Air 7412, and TWA800 for a combined 787. That is actually the most deadly date, sir.
	Well, I said when they mostly happen.
	No, you said that that's when you get the most casualties.
	I said they mostly happen on 11 days.
	Don't change the narrative.
	You said that's when you get the most casualties.
	I understand you want to move the goalposts, but I said most accidents with airplanes happen on 11 days.
	You said the most fatalities.
	I provided the evidence, and now you're backtracking.
	But, you know, you lied in the last debate, so I expect accidents like this.
	What am I backtracking on?
	You said the most fatalities happened on those days.
	What you did was you took a graph of only 43. I basically said most accidents happened on 11 days.
	That graph proved exactly what I said, sir.
	Well, no, the graph, well, the graph did was it showed a data for one year set.
	And in that one year set, it did show, too.
	We're going to move from a year to five years to ten years.
	Let me respond, dude.
	So, yes, that's exactly what you would do.
	You would say if this was consistently true, that every year this was consistently true.
	If it's consistently true every year, then you are indeed, yes, correct, that on the 11th and 29th, that's when you're going to see the most amount of these accidents happen, if year by year that is the case.
	However...
	It's not.
	Not only is it not, but the most deadly days on the 17th, proven by these four flights that I just gave you with a combined death total, 787s, worst in history.
	You've just been proven incorrect, Gary.
	So, again, I said most plane accidents happen on certain days.
	I was proven right.
	No, you weren't proven right.
	You only showed 2024. Okay, so 2024. But I also went on video two days before the 29th and said, don't find the 29th, and we just had the most horrific plane crash of two.
	2025 happened on the 29th.
	The point is, there is something to this, and if you don't actually see something to this, because I've given you statistical analysis, this is a reason for all you people who are listening right now to go out there and do the research.
	Go out there and do the work, and you will see how the validity in this type of work.
	Andrew is a person who doesn't want to believe in this.
	He wants to believe that the Virgin gave birth to Jesus Christ.
	That is his right to believe that.
	But we believe in logic, and based on logic, mathematics, and percentages.
	Numbers don't lie, my friend.
	Yeah, but even if I was wrong, let's just say I was completely wrong about the religious belief of the virgin birth and all of the various criticisms you have about Christianity, even assuming that was incorrect, that wouldn't make your system correct.
	That is logic.
	So logic would dictate, even if Andrew wrong, that doesn't mean Gary Wright, or even if Gary Wright, that doesn't mean Andrew wrong.
	That's actual logic.
	So what I did was offer a statistical refutation.
	The foremost deadly air disasters all fell on the 17th, on the 29th or the 11th.
	All of those air disasters combined on the 17th had a grand toll of 787. No four combinations reached that number.
	Therefore, Gary, you are wrong in your analysis.
	The most deadly flights happen there, one.
	And two, you're also wrong in your analysis that year by year, you will find the most amount of these accidents happen on the 11th and 29th, which is why you only gave us a single-year analysis.
	Now, what that's called...
	Hang on, hang on.
	I'm almost done.
	What that's called is a data bias.
	That's when you, what you do is you take your sample and then you apply your sample to the current thing you already believe without giving people a full picture.
	Now, if you were to say, Andrew, going back 15 years or even 10 years, year by year, I can show you that on the 11th and 29th, there's always the most amount of aircraft accidents which happen around these days.
	That would actually be pretty powerful evidence.
	And I would be like, huh, I'd have to take another look at that.
	But that's not what you did.
	You only gave us a single data set for 2024, which affirms the bias you already have.
	And when you said it had the most casualties, that was just factually incorrect, Garrett.
	This is what we're talking about.
	This is a liberal straw man argument.
	First, I proved that I said something would happen, and it did.
	Then I gave him statistical analysis for 2024. It happened.
	I was right.
	He still doesn't accept it.
	It's never going to be enough for people like this.
	But these are the same type of people who tell you to believe in the Bible.
	They tell you to believe Jesus Christ is coming back.
	These are the same type of people who offer absolutely no proof that anything they believe in, but they won't accept mathematical proof from you.
	They will always keep pushing further and further and further.
	He doesn't want to have an honest conversation.
	Exactly what I expected.
	The fact of the matter is, most plane crashes happen on 11th and the 29th, or any day that adds up to an 11th, and Andrew, if you would really like me to do 20-year statistical analysis, I'll pay someone to do it, and if that will be enough evidence for you, tell me right now, on this stream, that will be enough evidence to you if I go back 20 years, because then I didn't go back 50 years, or hell, I didn't go back 100 years, because it's never going to be enough for you.
	You're always going to move the goalposts.
	I gave enough statistical evidence for the people who are watching, at least the ones with the IQ above room temperature, to understand there's something to this.
	Okay, so let me respond to all of this.
	I don't know why.
	What Gary's doing is he's trying to switch the burden of proof.
	It's very strange.
	These are Gary's claims, not Andrew's claims.
	I didn't claim what day the most aircraft accidents happen.
	Gary claims that.
	I didn't claim that this is true.
	Gary claims this is true.
	These are Gary's claims.
	He says, well, what would it take to convince you of my claims?
	And it's like, well, pretty simple.
	If the claim, and this is the claim Gary made, that on the 11th and 29th, that's when the most amount of plane crashes are going to happen.
	Well, is that every year, Gary?
	Is that since airplanes were developed?
	Yes.
	Is that always?
	Okay, so if that's the case, then it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for me to say if that is true, then every single year since the very first airplane was made, you should be able to give me a very simple statistical analysis.
	Now, let's go on to part two here.
	Pull that chart up again.
	Pull it up.
	Okay.
	The one we just had before, right?
	The other chart.
	Yeah, Bill will get it back up.
	The one from X. Yeah, it should be in the Telegram.
	And then after this, because we're talking about plane crashes and stuff, I guess we can cover...
	Well, yeah, after this we can cover the next topic, which I'm assuming you guys want to talk about Jesus?
	Christianity?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so go ahead and pull the chart up one more time.
	We're letting this one rock, because obviously this all encompasses plane crashes and 11, so...
	Here it is.
	There you go.
	Yeah, there you go.
	So, are you claiming that there's only been 43 crashes, Gary?
	Because I was just reading your chart.
	Or are you just claiming that there's only 43 crashes which were fatal?
	Fatal.
	That's what that means.
	Then, if that's the case...
	If we were to use this statistical analysis for just fatal crashes, which I actually don't even think that's correct.
	I think there were more than 43. And I'm sure I can pull that up, too.
	But even if I'm wrong on that, let's just yield that this is correct.
	And there was only 43 global accidents.
	This would include non-commercial airliners, I would assume, single-engine Cessnas, guys who fly on their own.
	Guys who are going out and, like, you know, taking private aircraft.
	I'm not sure if we got someone in Zimbabwe who took a joyride and went down, but I'm sure...
	Well, I mean, but either way, even if he did, it should still be on the 11th or the 29th.
	Correct.
	The thing is, is that if it is the case, are you also saying that those are the most deadly days, meaning the most amount of people died on those days?
	That's not what it said.
	That's what you said.
	So if that's not the case, then why would we care anyway?
	If the more deadly days are on the days which are not on the 11th and the 29th, wouldn't you want to predict the days with the most amount of fatalities rather than the days with the most amount of crashes?
	Well, you want to talk about maybe one crash happened on the 17th that killed a whole bunch of people, but I'm going to tell you there's been about 10 that happened on the 11th, and maybe the total amount of people died wasn't exactly the same.
	That's a straw man argument.
	I'm telling you they mostly happened on the 11th and 29th.
	And that's my whole argument, sir.
	Let's not move anything over the goalposts anywhere.
	That is the whole argument right there.
	Yeah, but I'm giving an inquiry about the argument so that I have clarification.
	Wouldn't it be actually more useful if I could demonstrate that more people died off the day of the 11th and 29th?
	Wouldn't it then be more useful to give people the days in which the most amount of deaths will happen rather than the days in which the least amount of deaths happen?
	That happened this year, so we'll see how the year goes.
	But it's already there.
	Washington, D.C., you know, RIP. The 35 or 37 souls that actually, I'm sorry, 60, 65 souls that died in a plane crash in Washington, D.C., which is crazy because all of us were just there.
	All of us were just at that airport.
	So, again, but, you know, we know not to fly in the 29th.
	And now you can go back, you think, and demonstrate that on the 11th and 29th of each and every year that those are the days in which the most amount of all aircraft which fly around go down.
	Or any day that adds up to an 11, correct.
	Like I said, this includes all military aircraft.
	I believe it encompasses everything.
	You think that there was only 43 fatal accidents, which included military aircraft?
	I don't know if it includes military aircrafts or not, but commercials...
	But shouldn't it include military aircraft?
	Aren't they beholden to the same numbers, rules, as commercial airlines?
	When it comes down to military aircraft, it could be a war, you know, so you never know about that.
	Yeah, there could be a war, but even if it was a war, you should still have...
	The same amount of most of them going down on the 11th or 29th, right?
	I will be more than happy to put up all those statistics within a week, sir.
	And we'll do it on Twitter so we can go back and forth as well.
	Do you think if I pulled up the Ukraine stats on which days various jets were shot down the most amount of them?
	I mean, if you want to do all of that right now.
	Yeah, that the most amount of them were shot down on the 11th and 29th.
	And that the most helicopters go down on the 11th and 29th.
	I mean, how do you want to go in the drones too?
	I assume is this all aircraft?
	Let's make all the rules now.
	Where do you want to go with this?
	I'm asking if this encompasses all aircraft or not.
	Probably not military in Ukraine, though.
	What gives them a numerological exception?
	It's a war zone.
	We're talking about commercial aircrafts, Cessnas, private aircrafts, things of that nature.
	Yeah, but why are other aircraft accepted from this rule?
	Because when you have a war zone, different rules apply, don't they, sir?
	Or different numbers rules from the Prime Creator apply?
	Well, of course, on 11 days.
	Well, I mean, you want to talk about 9-11 when the first plane to hit the World Trade Center is Flight 11. We can talk about that as well.
	I don't understand why there's an exception.
	You want to talk about the plane to hit the World Trade Center on 9-11?
	Will you want to talk about that?
	I'm on YouTube.
	I can't get into 9-11 shit.
	No, no, no.
	I mean, you're saying it doesn't happen.
	I'm giving you examples.
	The World Trade Center hit on the 11. The Pentagon hit on the 11. It doesn't happen.
	When is it enough, sir?
	When are we going to stop moving the goalposts?
	When you're all done, Spurgeon, let me know and I can continue the argument.
	We'll stay away from 9-11 out of respect.
	Yeah, please.
	I'd appreciate it.
	I don't care.
	I'm happy to get into it.
	We have TOS. Anyway, so over on this...
	This should encompass all aircraft, and let's just say we exempted it from war zones, like Gary says.
	For some reason, the prime creator thinks in war zones, the numbers no longer apply correctly.
	Now we have a new number set of some kind.
	I don't know how that works exactly, but let's just assume that, too.
	Gary says there's only 43 total accidents, which happened with airplanes, in 2024. Fatalities, sir.
	Fatalities, sir.
	What's that?
	Fatalities.
	Yeah, only 43 with fatalities.
	Okay, fair enough.
	We'll clarify.
	So only 43 total with...
	Don't pull up 200. So that would include non-commercial airlines, helicopters.
	That would include all aerial aircraft going down, military or otherwise.
	So he doesn't even give us the full data set.
	He doesn't even give us the full 2024 data set.
	There was way more than 43 airplanes that crashed that had fatalities, I guarantee, especially if you incorporate globally all military aircraft, it would have to be the case.
	So since that's true, we don't even have a complete data set there.
	On top of that, even the data set we do have is only for one year, and all it does is affirm a bias that Gary has.
	It's not proof of anything, Gary.
	So if we go back to the GDP of a country last year, it doesn't prove anything about the GDP of the country.
	Is that what you're telling me?
	No, it proves exactly what the GDP of the country was.
	Exactly, so my statistics stand for what they are.
	Let's move on, sir.
	That's not an argument, though.
	Like, you're saying if we go back and look at the numbers for the GDP, will it show us what the GDP was?
	Well, sure.
	If we go back and look at all 43 of these flights, could it show on the 11th and 29th that that's when the most of them went down?
	Sure, but that doesn't tell us anything.
	Wait a minute, it doesn't tell us anything.
	It backs up my argument.
	It doesn't tell us that it is the case.
	That since aviation began on the 11th and 24th, every single year is when the most amount of aircraft go down.
	That's your argument.
	Ten years will not be enough.
	He wants all the evidence, and then even that will be enough.
	I know.
	I want evidence.
	But this is the same person who will say, believe in Jesus Christ, believe in my Lord and Savior, and he can't even give you an iota of the proof that I just did.
	See how this works?
	He wants to demand all the proof in the world, but he can't prove anything.
	He can't even prove Jesus existed.
	Well, so in this debate, I haven't made a single claim yet.
	No, no, you believe in Jesus Christ.
	All I've done is respond to claims which Gary has made.
	You believe in Jesus Christ.
	Gary, you'll get a chance to get into whatever claims you want with me, but I'm just saying right now...
	These are claims you made that we're diving into.
	My claims for 2024 are correct.
	You want more analysis.
	I gave you, and my analysis might be enough for the people watching.
	They might be enough for the people who are listening to this right now.
	If they're not enough for you, that's fine.
	But what I'm trying to tell you is very simple.
	I can provide evidence for what I believe in.
	You can't provide iota.
	Should we get into the Christianity thing?
	Just real quick, because we're almost wrapped up.
	I just want to be clear here, and then I'll give Gary the last word, and then we can move on.
	Gary, we were very specific, and I got clarity on each claim.
	So Gary's actual claim, and you guys can back this tape up as much as you want.
	Since aviation began on the 11th and 29th...
	Always those days are going to have the most aircraft crashes, regardless of the year since aviation started.
	That's Gary's claim one.
	Claim two, he did say, these are the days when it's the deadliest, right?
	I disproved that immediately, so that's completely disproven.
	How many people died on 9-11, sir?
	And I demonstrated that by showing the day 17th, actually.
	How many people died on 9-11, sir?
	Okay, dude, I won't interrupt you when you're giving your clothes on this.
	I won't interrupt you.
	Just don't interrupt me.
	So, anyway, the point is that I disproved that very quickly.
	And then on top of that, using a single, imagine if we use, we could do this with almost anything.
	We can use a set year announcement.
	That's not how you do a statistical analysis.
	Gary knows this.
	Everybody knows this.
	You would have to do a statistical analysis of such a bold claim of the 11th and 29th of each year by taking all commercial, military, aircraft, everything, combining them over each year and then determining that on these two days is when the most amount of those crashes happen.
	Showing me a chart of 2024 or 43 crashes is just plain lazy and it doesn't prove shit.
	The last I'll say on it.
	That's your opinion.
	And listen, now that we're going to get to the Christianity portion of this, I want people to understand the evidence I provided was real, but he didn't accept it because it wasn't enough.
	But remember, I'm about to turn this on him.
	And he won't be able to give me an iota, a shred of evidence that Christianity is real, Jesus Christ existed, a virgin gave birth to Jesus.
	He won't be able to do any of it.
	So now, my friend, I'm looking forward to this because you set your bar so high with mine.
	Let's see how low you set it with yours, sir.
	Alright, so we will move into the Christianity portion.
	So what I'll do is I'll put, we got the timer on the bottom left here.
	We'll put, you guys are still okay with open dialogue for four minutes on this topic?
	And we can use as many rounds.
	You guys want to go with Jesus.
	What's your position on Jesus Christ?
	Well, it's very simple.
	When you look at the leftists, we look at them as crazy when they say there's more than two genders.
	Because that's lunacy.
	And I'm telling you, People who believe like me, look at their right wing, who believe a virgin gave birth to Jesus Christ the same way you look at those crazy lefties who believe, oh, there's more than two genders.
	But real quick, Gary, I just want to know the topic of this.
	Are we going to do...
	The validity of Jesus Christ being born from a virgin.
	All the fairy tales are in the Bible.
	That's what we want to discuss.
	Okay, just so we can stay concise here, because we can do the other stuff.
	So, of course.
	You're challenging the validity of him being born to a virgin Mary.
	Of course.
	Okay.
	The foundation, yeah.
	The foundation of that?
	Yeah.
	Basically.
	Wait, which one?
	Christianity itself.
	He's challenging Christianity itself.
	I mean, I want to keep it kind of specific so we can move on.
	So, Virgin Mary.
	Well, you can start with that, but there's a lot of ways we can go with it.
	Sure, sure, sure.
	But I want to go per topic so that it stays concise.
	Of course.
	So, you know, this is a guy who goes on your podcast.
	He goes on whatever.
	He talks down to bimbos and stuff.
	If any of them told him that they were a virgin and they're pregnant, he'd say they're crazy.
	But yet we're supposed to believe something that's in a 2,000-year-old book.
	But go ahead.
	Let's go.
	We'll put the timer.
	We'll put four minutes on here.
	This will be back and forth.
	Maybe five minutes.
	I don't know because it's going to be between both of them.
	Who wants to go first as far as he's making the assertion that he doesn't believe in it?
	Andrew, do you want to go first?
	Yeah, sure.
	I can dive in real quick.
	I'm going to kind of give you a very classical argument for this, Gary, just so that you have it.
	It's written out.
	There are six conditions that gives reason for us to accept the doctrine of Jesus Christ being born of a virgin.
	Conditional one, the very fact the doctrine exists at all gives reason for accepting it.
	There was something abnormal about its birth is a strong apostore argument for its basis.
	If he had been born naturally by two parents, then nothing would be mentioned about it in the Bible, right?
	There just wouldn't be any mention.
	That would make no sense.
	The character of nativity narrative provides cause for believing in doctrine because of the Jewish atmosphere of the narratives themselves.
	Most scholars universally believe Jesus Christ existed, was a man.
	I can give you the institutes which believe that Jesus Christ was a person, an actual person who existed.
	This includes biblical scholars, classic historians, New Testament scholars, and Old Testament scholars.
	The rest of the New Testament is silent about doctrine.
	Had this teaching been invented, there might be more reason for writers to touch on it further, to argue for it.
	Instead, they don't.
	So the Church universally accepts this doctrine.
	There's complete acceptance without hints of any other kind of explanation for the birth of Jesus, meaning since the foundation of Christianity, this has been the set foundation for it.
	The idea that the eyewitnesses actually were present and that this was a determination made and that there's never been resistance to the foundation of this shows that there's good validity to be had that because this person existed, because there was clearly something special about his birth, and the eyewitnesses at the time are determining that there is something special about this birth and the doctrine canonically has gone on for 2,000 years, not disputing this
	with alternatives, is very powerful evidence, Gary, that this could have happened.
	Yes.
	Very powerful evidence it could have happened.
	Now, before you attack this and say things like...
	Well, I want, you know, like I want something better than eyewitness testimony.
	Well, just remember that most historic figures are based around eyewitness testimony.
	Most.
	Almost all.
	Like Socrates, for instance.
	Hang on, Gary, Gary.
	It's my opening here.
	Okay, so anyway, you'll see that Socrates, people like this.
	of other people.
	They never took pen to paper themselves, yet it's universally accepted that these figures existed because when scholars go back through and they run determination text, and we have eyewitness testimony of it from multitudes of different sources and dates, it's reasonable at that and we have eyewitness testimony of it from multitudes of different sources and dates, it's reasonable at that point Okay.
	All right.
	Witness counts of Bigfoot.
	And they have, you know, books of Bigfoot.
	I mean, based off what you're telling me, all you need is eyewitness people who say, oh, yo, and then they have to write in a book that they were eyewitnesses, and that's enough for you.
	Actually, that makes my point for me.
	Bigfoot is real based off the logic that you just told us, based off Jesus Christ.
	So Bigfoot must be real, too.
	Here, I'm going to explain this, because this logic actually is in my favor, not in yours.
	I bet it is.
	The Bible is the most investigated book in the history of all of mankind.
	There's no book which has been more sold or more studied by more people than this book.
	The thing about your Bigfoot claim that coincides with my claim is that because there was eyewitness testimony and physical evidences which were found, This was an investigated phenomenon.
	People did begin to investigate it because it became credible.
	The second, there was eyewitness testimony and evidences which were provided as to the credibility of the phenomenon.
	That does not mean that Bigfoot existed, of course.
	However, it does lead to evidences towards the investigation for the clarification.
	So here's what happened.
	When those things began to be investigated, they found guys in suits and guys making footprints and things like this.
	So the investigated evidence didn't lead to the conclusion.
	When Jesus Christ's investigated, evidence does lead to the conclusion that he did in fact exist.
	He was in fact a man who existed, and he likely was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
	That's powerful evidence, Gary.
	Would any of that evidence stand up in the court of law?
	Yeah, of course.
	It would.
	Eyewitness evidence always stands up in court of law.
	What do you mean?
	Well, eyewitnesses who are alive, sir.
	Not people who are so-called eyewitnesses who are dead who people can't question, sir.
	Well, no, that's completely incorrect.
	So evidences are submitted to courts all the time from people who have passed away, which would lend credible evidence as to who their assaulter could have been, who their murderer may have been.
	People leave behind diaries all the time, which are submitted into evidences into court.
	They're not alive anymore.
	But give credible evidences as to whether or not there could have been somebody who had a hand in foul play or fraud or any number of different things.
	So on this, you're incorrect.
	So you're telling me you can take the Bible to a court of law and basically prove it's real?
	Is that what you're telling me?
	No, that's not what I said, Gary.
	What did I say?
	I'm telling you, give me enough evidence that Jesus is real, because if you don't, sir, it's all fallacy.
	What's the fallacy?
	You cannot prove that a virgin had Jesus Christ, no matter how many eyewitnesses are written in a book that was written 2,500 years ago.
	Do you understand the insanity here, sir?
	You are basically acting like the leftists who say, yo, it's a miracle.
	Believe me, there's eyewitnesses all over who believe in this.
	You have to take them at its word.
	What leftists are saying this about evidence?
	What are you talking about?
	The leftists are telling you there's more than two genders, sir.
	It doesn't make sense.
	You provide no evidence.
	What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?
	It's very simple, because this mental illness that you guys have, believing that a virgin had gave birth to Jesus Christ, where you know that's impossible.
	It is literally impossible for a virgin to have a child.
	That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
	Unless you have artificial insemination.
	It's not impossible for a virgin to have a child, bro.
	It's not impossible.
	What's the contradiction?
	For something to be impossible has to be a contradiction.
	What's a contradiction?
	That a virgin can have a child when you just admitted a virgin can.
	Some of those whores you talk to online tell you they're pregnant and they've never had sex.
	You're going to believe them?
	There have been women that I've talked to who've been inseminated while they were virgins.
	Artificial insemination.
	Correct.
	But you have to have sex.
	No, you don't have to have sex.
	You can get it out of a condom.
	You have to have semen.
	Go inside an egg.
	Yeah, you have to have semen.
	That's true.
	How is that possible without that process?
	How is that possible, sir?
	So, well, hang on.
	So let's take it step by step.
	You have to start, when you say a thing is impossible, what you have to understand what you're saying is that somewhere in there is a contradiction.
	That's what would make it impossible.
	From your metric, though, this is not impossible.
	You're just saying it's improbable.
	That's fine, and you can say it's improbable, or you're not convinced by the evidences which are put forward, even though, as far as a historic standard goes, there's good reason.
	To believe that there's at least some kind of event around this which led to Jesus' credibility to begin with, that's why the credibility even exists in the first place.
	There's no credibility there whatsoever.
	So your idea, like the idea, hang on, the idea here that you can make the claim, I'm not convinced by the evidence, is fair.
	The idea that you say there is no evidence is not fair.
	So that's what my argument to you would be.
	You can always say you're unconvinced by evidence.
	Anybody can say that.
	They can make up whatever standard they want.
	I don't even know what standard of evidence Gary would accept.
	I don't even know.
	But you can always say that you remain unconvinced by evidence.
	And that is, by the way, the atheist position.
	They just say they remain unconvinced by the evidence.
	Because I don't believe in your fairy tales.
	That's fine, but you can't say there isn't any evidence.
	That's a different claim altogether.
	Because I don't believe in your fairy tales.
	I'm an atheist.
	I said I believe in prime creator.
	I do not believe in your interpretation.
	Could the prime creator make a woman pregnant who was a virgin?
	No, of course not, because he doesn't interfere.
	The prime creator never interferes.
	And it's not Christ is king.
	It's karma is king.
	Because you have to understand, the real God never interferes.
	He throws you in the deep end of the ocean into this evil planet and he sees and he tests you all the time.
	Are you going to be a piece of shit just so you can have more money?
	Are you going to cheat on your girl just because you have some pussy right here?
	That's going to be tests.
	They're going to be right in front of you over and over.
	And guess what, sir?
	Once you die, Then you're judged by your karma.
	And that's how it actually works.
	And then where do you go?
	What you reap is what you sow.
	I believe that's in the Bible.
	But we'll talk about the Bible a little bit more in a second.
	Yeah, sure.
	So shall you reap as you sow.
	That's karma right there.
	Is that a good interpretation of it?
	Yeah.
	Well, no, not really.
	Okay, I'm asking you.
	Yeah, what they're talking about, they're talking about basically the spirit in that case.
	They're saying, like, you can grow rotten things out of the ground.
	Right?
	That are rotten because they don't have, like, any spiritual guidance or they're spiritually sick or things like that.
	It's not actually giving a karma base of, like, if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you.
	That's not really what that means.
	You don't believe that?
	If you do bad things, bad things?
	That karma exists?
	No.
	No?
	Okay.
	No.
	So everything's according to the good Lord to you, correct?
	What do you mean?
	Well, I mean, you're a Christian, so you live everything according to the Bible, correct?
	I live everything according to Christian ethics, yes.
	Christian ethics.
	Okay, so would you agree that the type of person you are and the type of life you have lived would say a lot about how good of a Christian you are?
	Well, I mean, sure.
	I think that you...
	So Christian ethics is somewhat complex, but it's also overly simplified.
	And I'll give you the oversimplified version.
	So Christian ethics is taking a combination of virtues and duties...
	And then the teachings of Jesus Christ is combining them to the outlook of the follower of Jesus Christ.
	So we know what we ought to do, what we should not do, what forgiveness is, what forgiveness isn't, why you need church authority, normative authority to guide you, etc., etc., etc.
	So Christian ethics, and that's kind of my domain, that's kind of the purview of what that is.
	But each individual case for each individual person is somewhat different because Christianity exists in what's called pluralism.
	So let me give you an example.
	If you lived in Japan, the way that you would honor your mother and father would be different than the way you lived in the United States, right?
	You would have to honor them differently based on the cultural customs.
	So that's what pluralism would be.
	You still have to honor them in Christianity.
	However, based on the cultural dynamics that you're in, there could be multiple ways to honor them, which would still fit inside of the dimension of you adhering to the principle.
	That would be Christian ethics.
	Okay.
	And what are the ethics of remarrying women that were married before?
	Well, what do you mean?
	Well, I mean, you know, say a man, a woman was married to a man, then she was divorced, she was married to another man, then divorced, then she remarried again.
	What are the Christian ethics of that?
	Yeah, so what the doctrine says is that there's good reasons for divorce, and this is outlined by Paul, and this is also outlined by Jesus Christ himself, and then Paul really gave the full outline.
	So things like addiction.
	Abandonment, things like this are completely reasonable terms for divorce or extensive physical abuse.
	Those would be fair terms for divorce under church doctrine and ecclesiastical authority.
	Okay.
	And this is a situation that you have dealt with and your father has dealt with.
	I've watched the videos about you when you talked about how your father had multiple wives and you're of the same, you know, just like him, had multiple wives too, correct?
	Well, yeah, that's true.
	Okay, so you took vows and you broke them.
	Is that very Christian of you?
	No, I didn't break any vows.
	Oh, no?
	You have two people.
	Two people who exist.
	For one thing, I would say this is outside the purview of the debate.
	I don't think so.
	We both agreed how a man lives his life.
	Gary, I'm willing to engage.
	Gary, calm down.
	I'm willing to engage with it.
	I'm willing to engage with it.
	Calm down.
	We'll have to go to time rounds here.
	Calm down.
	Are you saying that a divorce, that a divorce under grounds of abandonment or addiction or things like this...
	That those are not within the Christian purview of Christian ethics?
	Well, I would say that, you know, when people make those statements, sometimes they lie.
	You know, Christians have a habit of lying, as you know, in our last debate.
	So, you know, just because they say something about...
	If you're claiming I'm lying, that's fine.
	I just would like the proof.
	Well, I mean, you're taking care of another man's kids, aren't you?
	And the proof that I've done anything wrong is?
	Well, the proof is that you took an oath to a wife and basically you broke that vow.
	No, I didn't.
	And now you're with a different woman.
	First of all, I was a secularist, essentially.
	I had a courthouse wedding.
	That's one.
	And two, well, I won't even get into all the details.
	They're not even important.
	Oh, yes, they are.
	The thing is, is like...
	Gary, it was completely appropriate to have such a divorce, one.
	And two, same thing with my wife.
	She was abandoned.
	Like, what do you want?
	By the way, it would be the most Christian, as far as Christian ethics, it's the most Christian thing to do to take care of the people who are around you.
	For instance, if your brother died or something like this...
	Wouldn't she take care of his kids?
	That's a false narrative.
	No one died here.
	Wouldn't she take care of his kids?
	No, what happened is another man...
	Left your wife, and now you're taking care of them.
	So is that what you're telling us about?
	What's immoral about that, Gary?
	Is that what a good Christian is?
	Yeah, what's immoral about that?
	Hold on, hold on.
	I'm asking if that's good Christian values.
	Yeah, there's nothing wrong with it.
	There absolutely is Christian values.
	Like, what's wrong with that?
	So taking care of another man's kid, simping his Christian values in your book.
	Guys, guys, guys.
	Yes, taking care of people's kids, especially if they don't have a father.
	You heard it here, folks.
	Guys, guys, we've deviated from the Jesus Christ discussion with the Virgin Mary.
	You guys want to move on to ethics now?
	This is ethics.
	This is what do people stand by and what they believe in.
	I'm fine with this, Myron.
	He can continue the inquiry.
	Okay, so this is what we'll do.
	If we're going to go ahead and suspend the debate on the Virgin Mary and et cetera, we'll move on.
	Yeah, we're going to do time limits now.
	We're going to put...
	Are you guys okay with three or four minutes on the clock?
	Whatever he likes, man.
	Which one do you prefer, Andrew?
	Three or four?
	We'll just do three minutes.
	It's fine.
	So we'll do three minutes.
	I'm going to give it to Gary because you brought up this topic of his wife.
	We're moving on from the Virgin Mary conversation.
	And then we'll go three minutes uninterrupted.
	Each person can make their argument.
	And then, you know, if you can see, then I'll bring it back to him.
	And then we can do it as many rounds as you guys need.
	But go ahead.
	Well, it basically goes like this, man.
	If you're going to preach about Christianity and you're going to preach to others about what a good Christian is and how people should become Christians, then the way you live your life has a lot to do with it because you basically have to do what you preach.
	Or you're a fraud!
	So here's what it comes down to, man.
	If you already made vows to a woman...
	And you broke them, and now you're with a different woman.
	A lot of Christians would consider that adultery.
	Quite frankly, your wife, and again, I have nothing against her.
	This has nothing to do with her personally.
	But the fact of the matter is, she has kids from two different men.
	Two different people she took vows to and said, I will love you forever.
	And she has kids from those people's marriages.
	Now, you always talk about a nuclear family, sir.
	What kind of nuclear family is this?
	The nuclear family is the bedrock.
	Hold on, sir.
	The nuclear family is the bedrock of society.
	A mom, a dad, kids.
	Not a Brady Bunch.
	Not an ex-wife and an ex-husband.
	They get a whole bunch of kids from different marriages together and they think everything's going to be kumbaya.
	This is what destroys society from within.
	So if you actually want to be a good Christian or a good Muslim or a good anything, pick the right one.
	The first time.
	Now, I'm going to make this clear.
	I'm a numerologist.
	I'm not divorced like you, brother.
	I'm not divorced like your woman because I picked my woman based off numerology and astrology.
	Come up here, baby.
	We're going to make this abundantly clear, okay?
	When it comes down to it, you have to understand.
	That numerology and astrology is supreme.
	Numerology and astrology will tell you if you're picking the right woman or the right man if you're a woman.
	Not this Christian nonsense.
	You've already failed, sir.
	She has failed twice.
	You have failed once.
	Who knows?
	Maybe you've got another fail in the future.
	I don't know.
	But all I know is I've been married to my baby for 20 years.
	And everything we do is based off numerology and astrology.
	And last point.
	I'm not raising someone else's kids as a numerologist.
	You are as a Christian.
	I yield my time.
	Alright, we'll put three minutes on the clock.
	It seems like this debate is more on ethics and...
	Personal.
	Personal ethics.
	Yeah, I guess.
	At this point, yeah.
	Andrew, we've got three minutes on the clock for you so you can rebut that.
	Go ahead, Andrew.
	Yeah, so anyway, Jesus Christ himself had a stepfather.
	I don't know why you think this is a dunk.
	Yes, of course, the ethical thing and the ethical purview to do is to try to take care and assist people who can't assist themselves.
	There's nothing within Christian ethics or Christian virtues which disallow from you marrying a woman who has children from previous marriages.
	There's nothing there which, dude, I didn't interrupt you.
	Don't interrupt me.
	None of that disallows it.
	Okay, so I don't even know where you're coming up with this.
	I think that what you've done is you've conflated me with, like, some kind of red pill bro, and you think that I'm some red pill content creator, but I'm not.
	No.
	I follow the ideals.
	Stop talking, dude.
	Stop talking.
	You can't seem to help us burn.
	Add 15 seconds for Andrew, please.
	Yeah, within the purview of Christian ethics, not only am I not doing anything wrong, but I'm doing everything wrong.
	All you're doing is affirming I'm a good man.
	You're like, Andrew's a good man and takes care of people.
	Oh, I know.
	Terrible fucking Christian.
	Awful.
	I don't even know how this is a dunk.
	What you're also trying to do is you're also trying to placate ego and materialism by saying, look, I bought this chick for, you know, 100 bucks from whatever Boom Boom country bought her from.
	And we have this wonderful, great marriage.
	And, you know, I'm not raising anybody else's kids and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	I'm a numerologist.
	Buy my shit.
	Buy my product.
	I never said that.
	I never said anything about buying anything, did I? I don't know why you're interrupting me again.
	Why do you keep interrupting me, bro?
	Don't worry.
	We're giving you an extra 20 seconds.
	It's my turn.
	You're good.
	So the thing is, is like for you to just say, well, what you're doing is anti-Christian.
	There's nothing anti-Christian about it.
	This is an old criticism.
	It never done anything to hurt me a bit.
	Most people have mixed families these days because, unfortunately, we had to go through the boomer generation, Gen X, this type of thing.
	You're dealt the hand that you're dealt.
	People have stepfathers.
	They love their stepfathers.
	People have stepmothers.
	They love their stepmothers.
	It happens this way sometimes.
	Is it optimal for society?
	No.
	Does it lead to a massive amount of degeneracy?
	Ultimately, if this is something which is a goal, this is, in other words, something you're pushing society towards, of course.
	That has nothing to do with the personal situation of an individual person or individual circumstances, each of which should be assessed on their own merits within the confines of Christian ethics.
	So the only reason, by the way, you brought this in as a personal attack, and I understand why.
	Most of my critics usually will do this after they've lost a debate with me.
	And that's exactly what's happening now, just like it happened before.
	When I lose the debate.
	Is that it, Andrew?
	That's it.
	Okay.
	All right.
	You had a little bit of extra time.
	We'll turn it back to you, Gary.
	I'll put three minutes on the clock.
	So let's get started, man.
	We have a man here who failed in his first marriage.
	And again, this is a devout Christian man.
	And he married someone who has kids from two different men.
	So he's trying to tell you this is being a good Christian.
	This is being a good simp.
	Okay?
	This is exactly what it is.
	This man is a simp, and he's trying to use religion as a clutch and a cope to cope for a simp.
	Sir, I never confuse you for red pill.
	A red pill would never have someone like your wife who's been with two different men raising different kids, okay?
	So let's not have anyone confuse anyone with red pill here.
	You are a grifter.
	You are a religious grifter who is using it as a clutch to get people on your side, to get other Christians to like you.
	Because even though I'm accused of being in a cult, the actual biggest cult in the world is Christianity.
	2.3 billion people in this cult.
	But remember what this man just showed you.
	He can't prove Jesus is real by any stretch of the imagination.
	All he can tell you is, oh, well, if a whole bunch of people agree on something, that must be real.
	Okay, sir.
	Use that logic the same way you talk to women.
	This man will go on the whatever podcast.
	This man will go on Fresh and Fit and call people cucks when he's a sip himself taking care of other people.
	This is basically what he is.
	He's the fraud.
	He's been proving what he is.
	And at the end of the day, sir, this is what numerology got me, brother.
	You can say all you want, bro.
	This is a 40-year-old woman.
	You want to compare what Christianity got you to what numerology got me?
	This is fact, sir.
	So again, you're a joke.
	You're being made to look like a joke right now.
	So you can keep simping with Christianity.
	You can keep grifting it.
	At the end of the day, sir, you go home.
	To a ran-through woman with a whole bunch of different kids, and that's what you are.
	That's what your legacy is.
	So keep praying, brother, because they ain't gonna help you.
	I'll finish with this.
	2,000 years, Christians have been saying, Jesus is coming back.
	That means tens of billions of people alive.
	Have basically thought that Jesus is coming back in their lifetimes.
	That means tens of billions of people died fools.
	Jesus ain't coming back.
	I can't prove he didn't exist.
	I will give that to you.
	I can't prove he didn't exist.
	But you and everyone like you can't prove he did.
	In closing, my wife came here on a work visa.
	I found her 20 years ago.
	I looked at her birthday.
	I said, loyal woman who's going to be good at raising kids, and that's exactly what she does.
	Because, you know what, maybe to you it doesn't matter that you raise kids that don't look like you.
	To me, it does.
	We ain't the same, bro.
	All right, I'll put three minutes on the clock.
	Go ahead, Andrew.
	Andrew, yeah, I guess this will be the last one on this round, I'm guessing, and then what was the next topic that you guys want to hit with Christianity?
	Yeah, do you?
	Okay, so now you guys, I did not interrupt Gary even once, right?
	Yeah, and don't worry, if he interrupts, you will add time to your clock, so you're okay.
	So imagine the yarmulke-wearing subversive over here pretending that he has kids that look like him.
	I'm sorry, sir.
	I just want to point out to you, the woman you're with, not the same distinguishing phenotypical characteristics that you have.
	So I don't know what fun you're talking about, first of all.
	Did I interrupt you even once, Gary?
	Stop spurging, Gary.
	Calm down, Gary.
	That's one.
	Two, you're not rich.
	You're a fucking fraud.
	You've been a fraud for years, and I have lists of all of the frauds in which you've conducted.
	Which include your fake rings, which include your fake ties to the Trump administration, which you do not have.
	You do not have ties to the Trump administration.
	That's a lie.
	How do I know?
	Well, it's pretty easy to deduce because the people who are in the Trump administration have no fucking clue who you are, Gary, and they're definitely not taking numerological advice from you.
	That's for damn sure.
	On top of all of this, all that you have done is say, Andrew, Because I can't defeat your arguments, I'm going to attack the fact that 20 years ago, or 15, or whatever it is, you married a woman who had kids.
	So fucking what?
	That's not outside of the purview of Christian ethics, one.
	Doesn't prove anything.
	And then two, you also say that I preach.
	I don't preach.
	I'm not a preacher.
	I've never preached.
	I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
	I'm a debater, I debate worldviews, and I debate subversive worldviews especially, but I don't preach to anybody.
	I don't know where the fuck you even came up with that.
	I don't have a ministry, and I don't want one.
	I'm sure I could have one, but I don't want a ministry.
	On top of all of this, your claims are actually quite weak, right?
	The only thing that you can say is like, Well, if you have stepkids, you're a cuck.
	That would encompass so many people, it's unbelievable.
	And also, logically, you would have to take the next step that if you adopted, you were a cuck, right?
	Which makes no fucking sense at all.
	If you were to take care of kids from like a brother or sister who died, you would equally be a cuck.
	Like all of these things, you would have to give a semantic distinction why it's a different thing, right?
	Being a step-parent is not evil, Gary.
	Now, when you're talking about optimals for society, I can talk about what's optimal.
	It is optimal to be in an intact nuclear family.
	Who would know that better than somebody who wasn't in one?
	You're saying that a person who wasn't in a nuclear family could never give a descriptor that being in a nuclear family was better?
	That's fucking stupid.
	That's dumb.
	That's like saying that former drug addicts can't tell people that drugs are bad.
	Like, of course they can, and those are the people you want to say it more than anyone.
	So I don't understand even the logic here.
	It makes no sense.
	But on top of all of that, all of that would be forgivable, okay?
	All of it would be forgivable.
	If it weren't the case, I know you're just as subversive.
	That's it.
	And the only reason you're upset with me is because I'm vastly popular, and I'm going to continue to be vastly popular while you nip on my heels and fucking ex.
	Like the fat, pathetic loser that you are, Gary.
	There's nothing that you're going to be able to do about that.
	And the reason is, is because I am superior at debate.
	I'm superior at politics.
	And I have literally found you out and shown people that you are indeed a grifting fraud.
	And your numerology that you continuously claim has made you rich and has made you this and has made you that.
	Well, that's a fraud too.
	When you are put on the spot.
	For your actual numerological takes, they don't even amount to anything.
	Like when you're talking about airplanes and this and that, 43 accidents, this is all bullshit.
	And people who watch this, even if they walk away thinking, that guy Andrew, what a scumbag because he has stepkids, right?
	Or there was divorces in their past, right?
	Even if they all walked away thinking that, none of them are walking away believing in your fucking bullshit numerology, Gary.
	Not a problem.
	Let's put four minutes on the clock for Gary.
	Andrew went over there, but it's fine.
	I didn't want to interrupt.
	Did you guys want to continue on with this or move to the next?
	Let me respond and then we can move on.
	Hold on, I wrote it down.
	Gary went first.
	Yeah, Gary went first on this one.
	I need to respond to this.
	Okay, whoever goes first gets the last.
	I need to respond to this.
	Okay, let's start like this.
	You're pretty good at your refresh.
	You know what's real.
	Does that look like a fake ring to you?
	And you're a vast expert opinion.
	The weight is definitely there, but I would need a machine to verify everything, but it looks pretty real to me.
	Okay, let's start with that.
	Fresh, I never claimed that I know Donald Trump personally, did I? No.
	Okay, did I say for about three, four months straight, I'm going to get you in Trump's inauguration?
	Yes.
	And was that a very difficult ticket to get?
	Yes, I think 15. Myron, when you were in D.C. with me, did I not offer to take you to Trump's inauguration?
	Yeah.
	Did I not have the tickets with me?
	You did.
	Okay.
	So, again, I never said I know Donald Trump personally.
	I said I know people in his administration, which is what I do.
	And I got Liberty Ball tickets, which, sir, you might be a political commentator, but you weren't there.
	At least I didn't see you there.
	Fresh, did you see him there?
	I didn't see him there.
	But I saw a lot of people who actually mattered, but not you.
	So just the fact of the matter is, because I could actually get people at events, sometimes people who other people don't even want there, I can still get them in because I got pulled like that.
	So you might not believe it, but quite frankly, you don't matter.
	I got a bigger TikTok than you.
	I got a bigger YouTube than you.
	And by the way, I might be catching your heroes on X, which is because I've been suspended 24 times.
	I would have had half a billion followers.
	It was taken from me.
	So, congratulations.
	You beat me on an app that got me 24 times.
	Bravo, brother.
	Bravo.
	Now, this man basically attacked my character.
	Here's the thing.
	I don't care if he believes in numerology.
	He's a pleb.
	Okay?
	I don't expect to win the debates in the comment.
	I'm a Jew.
	Okay?
	Let's face it, man.
	I'm not going to win any debates in the comment area.
	I'm the dreidel spinner.
	We know that.
	So I'm going to take an automatic L in the comments.
	It is what it is.
	Okay?
	So let's keep it real.
	We're not going to judge it based off that.
	But here's the thing, my friend.
	I might be a dreidel spinner, but I married a virgin.
	What about you, my friend?
	Did your Christian values get you a virgin?
	Or someone who has ran through with kids?
	That's what the people here who are watching this debate need to think.
	Is his way of living better?
	Or he has a woman who has kids from different men who he's raising?
	Or is my way of life better?
	My kids actually do look like me, sir.
	Because the fact of the matter is, I would never marry an American whore.
	You did.
	I would never subject myself.
	And guys, if you're out there, these American women are no good.
	Just like Lenny Kravitz said, American women, stay the hell away from me.
	This is why I married a Muslim woman.
	Because Muslim women have low body counts.
	Your Christian women are, you know, have more miles on it than the 1979 Mazda, bro.
	So you gotta be real, real careful if you're gonna go down this Christian route, because the Christian women, especially in the UK, America, all the Western society, they're cooked!
	Just like this motherfucker is cooked!
	Coming home, the kids don't even look like him.
	Yeah, you're better to be.
	In what fucking world, pal?
	Alright, um...
	Yeah, yeah, I guess, unless Andrew has something that you want to go, then we want to sponsor you.
	So, Christianity is not about the embrace of materialism.
	Of course it's not.
	The idea that you think that happiness comes from something as vacant as pure materialism actually shows why the epistemology that I hold is superior.
	You would have to admit that just because you have money...
	That does not make you happy or content in life.
	And that the form that you have of epistemic nihilism actually leads to a purposeless life.
	For you, you say, even if, like you say, everybody walks away with your claims and says, you're right, this Andrew guy, you know, this whole stepfather thing, this is bullshit.
	But the thing is, is like, just break it down logically.
	Let's say for a second I had no stepkids and married a virgin.
	Let's just say.
	What would Gary's arguments then against me be?
	Nothing.
	His arguments would be nothing.
	Because it would not prove numerology real.
	Nor Christianity false.
	It also would not prove anything about my worldview being false.
	It does nothing to advance the cause of what I'm actually saying or whether it's false or whether it's true.
	The reason that this is the attack vector is because Gary's stupid enough to believe that Christians are going to go, even though it's well within the purview of Christian ethics.
	The only thing you could say that I did wrong was that...
	I took care of people who needed a father in their life.
	Like, what the fuck did I do wrong, Gary?
	What was so terrible about me doing that, Gary?
	Gary doesn't know.
	He just thinks it's a dunk to say, ah, two, three baby daddies, ah, divorce, ah, oi, oi!
	But the thing is, is like, Gary, ultimately, it doesn't matter.
	You haven't disproven a single position that I have.
	Right?
	And even if my entire personal life was a fucking mess and I was a broken down, broke alcoholic like you want everybody to believe, you still haven't disproven a single fucking claim I've made.
	Not one!
	And I've disproven multiple of yours.
	So ultimately, if you think that people are going to walk away with already public information that already everybody knows because I already talked about all of this on the very program you're on right this second, well good luck Gary.
	I don't know what it did for you though.
	I don't know what it does for you.
	You know, basically, you know, proving someone's a fraud, proving that someone who goes on other podcasts and talks shit to women calling other men cucks when he's a simp himself taking care of other people's kids, that's who you are.
	That's not what a cuck is, Gary.
	That's who you are, sir.
	I didn't even call you a cuck.
	I said you're a simp.
	So what would be the problem with me calling to other men who are cucks and simps?
	And you're a simp yourself, sir!
	This is not what people like.
	I don't understand.
	If you call someone a cuck, that has meaning.
	People are not watching this program thinking, I want to be like Andrew Wilson.
	Quite frankly, maybe we should change your name to Joseph.
	I don't ask.
	That biblical name fits you a lot better.
	I don't ask.
	Do you think, Gary, do you think...
	that people follow me because they want to model themselves after my personal life?
	I would hope not.
	No, they follow me because I make compelling and good arguments on behalf of a very coherent worldview and destroy leftists and scumbags and lunatics all over the Internet, like yourself, and destroy their entire worldview, crush their epistemology, and prove exactly what they are.
	Even if my entire personal life was a disaster and I was a secret degen who did all sorts of horrible things.
	It would not disprove any of my positions, Gary!
	Well, you can laugh all you want, but I think the people are laughing at you, Cuck.
	Okay.
	Oh, now I thought I was a Cuck a second ago.
	Now I am.
	Let's talk about...
	Christian women versus Muslim women versus Jewish women.
	Let's go down the road because let's see what kind of values these women have.
	Before we do that, are you cool with that, Andrew?
	You want to go down and have a debate, I guess, on...
	We're talking about maybe the chastity of the different groups.
	Of course.
	Sure.
	We can dive into it.
	Absolutely.
	I'll start.
	You'll start?
	Okay.
	Three minutes on the clock.
	Go ahead, Andrew.
	Sorry, Gary.
	One of the things I'm most proud of in life was I married a non-American woman.
	Because basically growing up in America, I seen what they are.
	They're ran through.
	I want nothing to do with these type of women.
	Okay?
	This is what I'm trying to tell you men out there.
	You want a foreign woman who doesn't have these values.
	And but...
	If America is a so-called Christian nation and the UK is a Christian nation and Canada and Australia, all of this Western society where all these women wear their crosses and then have the OnlyFans, we are to deduce that Christianity is either, one, a failure, or two, leads women to become whores.
	One of the reasons I married a Muslim woman...
	It's not because I believe in Allah or their Quran or any nonsense like that.
	It's because I know that Muslim men have something called honor killings.
	I know that Muslim men have something.
	They will protect the virtue of their women.
	Which is why I knew that if I picked a woman, it was always going to be a Muslim woman.
	Because to me, Andrew, maybe not to you, Joseph, but to me...
	A virgin was very important.
	I wanted to know I was the only one in there.
	Okay?
	Maybe that's not important to you.
	Maybe that's not important to the people who are watching this right now.
	But it was important to me.
	So at the end of the day, my friend, I couldn't pick a Christian woman.
	Because the Christian values is completely down the shithole.
	These women wear crosses and go on OnlyFans.
	So, my friend, I just wanted to ask you.
	Why did you marry a Christian woman?
	Did virtue of a woman mean nothing to you, sir?
	Yeah, so I'll respond to kind of all of this in sequence.
	Let's put three minutes on the clock for Andrew.
	Yeah, so the first thing is, like, Gary's kind of right in some of this, but he's mostly wrong, as usual.
	So I'll give him the granting of the things he's kind of right about.
	It is true that decadence has taken over most of the West, and there's all sorts of subversion inside of the West from a lot of this decadence.
	And there are a lot of people who use a self-identifier of Christian who are not Christian.
	I don't dispute that at all.
	That's a major problem.
	The thing is, is that inside the purview of Christian ethics, we're not going to behead you in things like this for wearing a cross while you do your OnlyFans.
	And we never really had to because we had the mechanism of public shame and public propaganda on our side in order to reduce these types of decadent behaviors from happening.
	This is exactly what myself and many others are fighting to move back towards.
	Now, it's actually secularism and the alternative to...
	To Christianity, which started this.
	Not Christianity.
	It was the secularists who wanted to make porn legal.
	It's the secularists who wanted to make feminism the staple law of the land.
	These are not Christian values, and Christians never embraced these values.
	This was a subversion which happened over about an 80- to 90-year period, and is still going on to this day.
	And yes, it does need to be resisted.
	But when you're talking about Muslims, there's women who claim to be Muslims who are on OnlyFans.
	I don't know if you know this or not.
	I've debated with some of them right on Fresh and Fit.
	I don't know where you're getting this idea that this is only a Christian thing.
	This is regionally true even in Muslim nations.
	It just depends on the one that you're in.
	So some of what you say does have some validity and accuracy to it, but most of it actually doesn't have much validity and accuracy to it.
	And on top of all of that, if you think that virtue...
	It's only around the idea that a woman was chaste.
	Not loyalty, not any of these other virtues are compounded.
	There's many, many different types of virtues which go into a person.
	It's not perfection.
	If it was perfection, your fat ass would have no virtues.
	Because, ultimately, what you do, your whole worldview is designed around numerology.
	It's designed around taking.
	Materially from people and giving less value to them than you get.
	That is a complete materialistic and nihilistic worldview.
	And in the end, if you want to talk about karma, the karma that you'll get is self-imposed.
	It's not because nature is going to come in, the laws of the universe, and destroy you because of this.
	It's because it's ultimately just a void and empty lifestyle.
	When you talk about virtues...
	Virtue is not a single thing.
	Is chastity a virtue?
	Sure, I agree with you.
	But was I chased when I met my wife?
	No.
	So that wasn't even a virtue that I held.
	Nor do I think it was probably a virtue you held when you met yours, Gary.
	So the thing is, again, the only thing you seem to be able to tie any facts to is the already publicly released information that I married a woman who had children.
	Oh, my God!
	Gary!
	Oh, Gary!
	Oh, my God!
	Oh!
	Gary went better, Gary!
	All right.
	We'll put three minutes back on the clock.
	Do you guys want to continue on this thing?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's fine.
	It's fine.
	Let's get started.
	And I'll do a little short break for Super Chats after this.
	Okay.
	Yeah, let me tell you, my friend.
	You're right.
	You know what?
	You're right.
	I am overweight.
	There's no doubt about it.
	I'm overweight.
	You know what's not overweight?
	My wife like yours.
	So, again, here's what it comes down to.
	As long as a man has money, this can be overlooked.
	A woman being fat can never be overlooked.
	You're fucking married to a ran-through whore who has kids by another freaking man, and you're over here virtue signaling?
	Brother!
	No one is looking at me and talking about, yo, he has bad karma.
	Brother, you're going to have the bad karma because you're taking care of kids who aren't your own.
	They're laughing at you.
	They're laughing at you every single day because it is your duty in life.
	It is your karma in life to take care of kids who aren't his own.
	There's nothing, nothing that could ever get me to do something like that.
	What's the karma there, Gary?
	You're taking care of kids who aren't your own, sir.
	Yeah, what's the karma?
	Why would that be bad karma?
	Why would that be bad karma?
	Yeah.
	Well, I'll tell you what.
	Chat, you decide for yourself if it's bad karma to raise another...
	We're not built the same way, brother.
	Why would that be bad karma, Gary?
	Can you answer my question?
	You might be a better man than me, brother, because I couldn't do it.
	Yes, that's true.
	That's why I convert your signal, because I am a better man than you.
	Outstanding.
	Outstanding.
	And you continue to be a better man when you wake up in the morning and feed and dress kids that you didn't create.
	I don't have that problem.
	Do you realize that my stepkids are all adults and out of the house now, Gary?
	Did you even know that?
	Do you know that I do have my own kids who live at home with me?
	Do you even know any of this stuff?
	You actually fed kids that aren't yours.
	You housed kids that aren't yours.
	You wouldn't feed kids that weren't yours?
	You're a sip.
	A woman used you for resources.
	You're a sip.
	Wait, Gary, Gary, can you ask my question?
	You're literally a sip.
	A woman used you for resources.
	Are you saying you wouldn't feed kids that aren't yours?
	Not consistently, no.
	Why not?
	Because I only feed my own kids.
	What's wrong with feeding kids that aren't yours?
	Well, I'll tell you what, sir.
	If that is the life you want to live as a Christian, then live your life that way, sir.
	I am not going to live my life taking care of other people's kids.
	You want to do that?
	Good for you.
	Would you donate to charity?
	Would you donate to charity?
	Of course I have.
	But here's the point.
	You are taking care of kids by a woman who was ran through by one man, ran through by another man, and you're the sip who's...
	She's fucking paying the bill.
	Oh, wow.
	She had a three body count.
	Wow, so high, Gary.
	Well done.
	Everyone wants to be like you.
	Mine was way out of control, but yeah, I guess she got me.
	She had a three, even though I had, well, I don't even want to get into how many, but the point is, is like, dude, probably you did too.
	Great.
	You bought your chick from some fucking country.
	My kids are on my own.
	I'll tell you what, if you're big at the statistic, how about we do DNA tests and see how many of those kids are yours and how many of those kids are mine.
	Would you like to do that?
	I'll be more than happy to.
	Can you just answer my question?
	What's wrong with feeding kids that aren't yours?
	What's wrong with that?
	Do you have any moral objection to it at all?
	Do I have a moral objection to charity?
	No.
	Do I have a moral objection to feeding kids consistently day, day, day, week by week, week, year by year, being a simp for a woman?
	Yes, I do.
	What makes one of those bad and the other one not bad?
	Very simply, because a woman is taking advantage of you and your resources because she was a whore or a slut and basically has kids out of windlock that someone didn't want to take care of.
	And guess what?
	There's always a simp like you who's going to take care of them.
	So congratulations!
	You're showing people what a good Christian man is.
	What am I doing that's immoral, Gary?
	What are you doing that's immoral?
	Yeah, how is that immoral?
	How is it immoral for me to take care of children that aren't mine, Gary?
	It's being a simpy moral?
	Probably not.
	Does it make you look like a fool?
	Yeah, it probably does.
	You can't even say it's bad, Gary.
	You can't even say it's bad.
	That's how dumb your fucking position is.
	Again, again, this man is telling you to be upset.
	After all the steam coming out your ears, you can't even say it's bad here.
	He's telling you, take care of other people's kids that aren't your own.
	Don't be a man.
	Be a simp.
	This is what this man is telling you.
	Can I respond now, Myron?
	Can I respond to all this shit?
	This is your time.
	I mean, you guys are kind of going back.
	Yeah, so anyway, so this is really simple, right?
	He can't even tell you why it's bad.
	That's one.
	And two, I don't recommend for most men that they marry any woman.
	Who has children because being a step-parent is a very difficult thing.
	But I wouldn't chastise them either for doing it.
	It's not a moral conditional that you say you fell in love with a woman who has children.
	There's no moral conditional saying that that's wrong.
	You couldn't do any better, sir.
	That's all it was.
	Gary, calm down.
	It's not any more moral than falling in love with a woman who doesn't.
	Right?
	But there's nothing that you can even say which is wrong, immoral, something like this, about being your stepdad.
	The best you can do is cast aspersions and be like, oh, your wife's a whore!
	Oh my god, she's a whore!
	Based on what?
	Based on the fact that she was super loyal to two men?
	Like, what the fuck is that?
	That's not whorish behavior.
	It's the opposite.
	On top of that, Gary, even if I were to even grant it, you still couldn't even tell me why that was immoral.
	Because from your view, there is no immoral.
	There's just fucking numbers and shit and weird shit.
	So ultimately, it's like, you can make this attack over and over and over again.
	By the way...
	Predicted it before I ever went live.
	I have it right here on the notepad for the audience to see.
	This is the debate.
	This is all Gary wants to do.
	Why?
	Because you think that somehow it punishes me, but it doesn't.
	This has, again, been out there for years.
	Look at the chat.
	Years.
	So what's the next topic?
	Did you guys want to go into more with the Christianity stuff?
	Yeah, let's do a quick break for chats.
	Let's do the chats.
	Go ahead.
	Andrew can start the next one.
	Okay.
	You don't got the what?
	You don't got them ready?
	Oh.
	All right.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Next topic then?
	Yeah, we'll go to the next topic.
	The next topic, what did you want to discuss with Christianity?
	I want to keep going with the virtues of Christianity because this is extremely important for people who want to decide if they're going to be Christians, if they're going to be Muslims, what they're going to do in life.
	Because, listen, here's what it comes down to, man.
	Hold on, are you okay with that, Andrew?
	Sure.
	The virtue of Christianity?
	Okay, and then I guess you're going to kick it off?
	The nuclear family is absolutely broken.
	It's absolutely broken.
	And the thing is, when you look in the Muslim world, that nuclear family is not broken.
	The women are having four, five, six kids apiece.
	I mean, that's basically why the birth rates are going up.
	But in America and the UK, so-called Christian nations, the family unit is...
	Basically destroyed.
	We have a man here.
	And again, he's not the only one.
	He is 100% right about that.
	He is from broken homes.
	So basically you have a woman who came from a broken home.
	And you have a man who came from a broken home.
	And they came together to form a new union.
	The fact of the matter is this.
	That is not a real nuclear family.
	Once you have kids from a different relationship, that is not a real nuclear family.
	That's a foster care center.
	That's what it is.
	And I'm going to tell you guys, listen, accidents happen.
	People die.
	Circumstances happen.
	Yes, it is a good thing that those kids are being taken care of.
	But you know what is?
	What is also a good thing?
	When a man knows.
	He's coming home and working for his own kids.
	To some men, that means everything.
	To some men, they basically want to get out and work as much as they want to provide everything for their wife.
	To provide everything.
	I'm going to say this.
	I'm not Christian.
	They call me a Jew, but I don't practice Judaism.
	I've never kissed the wall.
	Don't let them lie to you.
	I'm not a Mossad agent.
	Whatever else they want to say.
	I am above all.
	Not just a numerologist.
	Not just a millionaire.
	Not someone who's connected.
	And by the way, he said that was a lie.
	By the way, you saw I was connected, correct?
	That is correct.
	So again, now you're questioning him as well.
	So at the end of the day, the number one thing I am is a father.
	Is an absolute father.
	The number one thing I am is the leader of my house.
	That's what I am.
	I have two kids.
	My kid's a Valley Victorian.
	I have a wife that she is still as gorgeous as the day I met her.
	So one thing I'd like to point out is, you know, a lot of you guys marry women and then they have kids and they turn into fat slobs.
	Not me.
	I'm still showing her off all these years later.
	And guess what?
	If you're saying that doesn't matter, you're lying to yourself.
	Every single one of you guys are lying to yourself.
	So yeah, I have a big bag.
	Yeah, I'm going to shout it from the top of my lungs because no one ever helped me.
	I did it in a capitalist society like everyone else should.
	But I don't need Christianity, Judaism to do the right thing.
	I don't need them to say, oh, I'm not going to cheat on my wife.
	I don't need that stuff because I have enough morality of my own to know what is right.
	And when it's wrong, I don't need fear of a book that God is going to punish me.
	I already know what the real deal is.
	Okay.
	Go ahead, Andrew.
	Anyway, well, I don't, this is like just Gary's mental mind state, just assertion after assertion, no arguments, no nothing, right?
	I'm just going to assert, why are you interrupting me, Gary?
	Didn't say a word the entire time you were speaking.
	So anyway, it's just assertion after assertion.
	He's not actually saying anything to you.
	Let's correct the record on a few things.
	Christian ethics isn't telling you, and Christianity isn't telling you, that you need to go marry a woman with children.
	It's not telling you you need to marry a woman at all.
	It's not telling you which woman specifically you can have a preference for or not have a preference for.
	What it's allowing is it's allowing for the conditionals that if a woman has children, you can marry her.
	That's okay.
	And Gary's, by his own admission, he says, is it a good thing those kids are taken care of?
	He says yes.
	He literally started this by saying that's a good thing.
	Now his moral claim has changed.
	Not only is it not a bad thing, But now it's a good thing.
	Now we've gotten into ought do because it's good.
	So Gary's own admission, now am I not doing anything wrong?
	I'm doing something good.
	So that's what, it's really funny.
	And then he strawmans and characterizes Christianity as being something which is making a determination or a dictation that you must do X. Christianity is not postulating that you must be a stepfather or a stepparent.
	Many men have a preference not to do that.
	Who the fuck would ever tell them that was wrong or improper?
	They can have a preference for that.
	Also, he brings up Muslim nations and says that their birth rates are on the incline.
	They're not.
	They're on the massive decline.
	You should check Iran, for instance.
	Many Middle Eastern nations are on a massive decline.
	In fact, the only places really in the world where birth rates are increasing is in some parts of Africa.
	It is true that some of those are Muslim areas, but many of them are also Christian areas.
	So Muslim birth rates are in mass decline as well.
	I don't know what the fuck he's talking about, but...
	Also, with Muslims, that is the case.
	I just don't know what the hell he's talking about.
	You can go country by country by country, and this can be demonstrated pretty easily.
	So, again, I don't know how this is a criticism of Christian ethics.
	When Christian ethics isn't saying that you must have a preference for any type of woman or ex-woman or whatever, only that if she follows the same virtues and value structures that you do, you can marry her with the blessing of your priest in church.
	That's it.
	Who the fuck is telling you you have to do these things?
	Nobody.
	Gary, on the other hand, is postulating you should be a numerologist.
	You should follow his system.
	He's going to get you rich.
	You're going to be rich.
	You're not going to get rich.
	What you're going to do is you're going to pay for a bunch of bullshit cold readings, and you're going to lose your ass, like many people already have, and you're not going to make any fucking money.
	The only person who's going to make money in the transaction that you have with Gary is one person, and that's Gary.
	Now, you know what's really funny?
	Me as a political commentator, the only person who's ever going to make money at my political commentary is also me.
	But at least I'm fucking honest about that.
	At least I'm honest about that.
	And I can guarantee you that I've given way more...
	Back to my audience than you fucking ever have in a million years.
	And on top of all of that, right, as if that wasn't bad enough, just try to remember this, that in this huge bill of sale that Gary's trying to kind of sell you, Andrew's a grifter, he's this, he's evil, he's blah, blah, blah.
	Look at what he did with his wife, everything which is well within the purview of Christian ethics.
	Gary has not demonstrated any fraud on behalf of Andrew Wilson.
	He's not shown that I've ever taken a dime from anybody in an illicit or malicious manner or a malevolent manner or that I've never done business with anybody in a way which wasn't completely on the up and up.
	He's not demonstrated any of that.
	And yet the cases of Gary doing this are fucking innumerable.
	The amount of people that claim that this guy has huckstered them, defrauded them or caused problems for them is is enormous.
	Where are those cases for me, Gary?
	Where are they?
	Where's my victims, Gary?
	Where are they?
	Where are mine?
	Well, we can get into...
	Where are my victims?
	You don't have haters on Twitter?
	So do I, bro.
	Wait, did I take money from those haters?
	Well, let me put it like this, man.
	I have 5,000 students.
	I would say 99.9.5% are very happy with my services.
	Yes, you're going to have people who are unhappy.
	I'm sure there's people you've ran into life that don't like you.
	None of them are saying that I defrauded them, Gary.
	I mean, listen, people with frauds will say anything they want.
	I'm sure you heard that.
	Nobody's saying in a very long, illustrious career so far on the internet.
	And I've taken in a lot of cash on the internet, Gary.
	Not a single person has accused me of defrauding anybody.
	I've taken millions and millions from people, and there's going to be...
	Put in the GG33 hashtag.
	I don't believe you have taken in millions from people.
	How about this?
	You know what?
	How about this?
	We can do a certain thing.
	So I can show Fresh, and then he can tell you.
	How about that?
	What does that do?
	I'll show Fresh that I make millions, and he can say yes or no.
	Yeah, but we can't.
	How do I verify that that's true?
	How do I verify you have any kids that you're owed?
	What, are we going to take DNA tests, bro?
	Hang on, you're the claimer here.
	You're claiming that you take in millions.
	Let's see it.
	100%, man.
	And I'll be more than happy to show Myron and Fresh, and then they can go out afterwards and say that's true or not.
	Well, you seem, for a grifter, I must be really terrible at it, because there seems to be a very low list of people accusing me of defrauding them, and a very high list of people who claim that you have defrauded them.
	Your life is a fraud.
	You go on other people's podcasts, call people cucks, when you're a simp yourself, taking care of...
	Okay.
	You're taking care of a little bit.
	You can call me a simp, Gary, but you can't call me a cuck.
	I'm calling you a simp.
	And me calling someone a cuck isn't the same as calling them a simp.
	You're going out there talking shit to other men when you're a simp yourself.
	That's what's hilarious about this.
	What's the hypocrisy, Gary?
	What's the hypocrisy?
	You're taking care of Kids.
	That's not cockery by your own admission, Gary.
	You are taking care of a ran-through woman.
	That is who you are.
	What makes you ran-through, Gary?
	You couldn't do any better.
	I married a virgin.
	Let's compare what you did to me.
	You didn't marry no virgin.
	You married a ran-through woman.
	What is better?
	Can your woman even speak English?
	If they want to be like you, so be it.
	Can your woman even speak English?
	So be it.
	You are a freaking fraud the way you live your life.
	How do I live my life that's fraudulent?
	How?
	I literally was on that show, and Myron asked me about all of this, and I told him all of it.
	You got the lowest hanging fruit when it came to a woman, and that's what you basically have to show out there, that you have a random woman as your wife.
	Where's the grift?
	I was on that very program with Myron and with Fresh, explained all of this.
	Everything you're currently talking about, I did it all live on air.
	Where's the fraud, fuckhead?
	The fraud is very simple.
	Where?
	Don't go out there and call other men cucks when you're a simp.
	You're not living your life right.
	Yeah, you can call men cucks when you're engaged in cuckoldry.
	Why are you calling other men?
	I'm sorry, do I let other men purposely fuck my wife?
	No, that's a cock, dude.
	What are you talking about?
	You actually want to project...
	The way you talk to your wife, and you go on whatever and talk shit to women because you're projecting what you want to say to your wife.
	So you're a feminist now?
	That's the feminist critique.
	That's literally what every feminist critique of me is, Gary.
	Now you're a feminist?
	I mean, I'm telling you what it is.
	You're projecting, Andrew.
	You really wish you could just lay into your own life, Andrew.
	Now you're a feminist?
	I'll tell you what.
	I'm never a feminist, but I'll tell you what, bro.
	I never would be stuck with the ran-through, fat broad you have.
	Okay.
	You're stuck with a Malaysian non-English speaking box order bride.
	Shut up, Gary.
	Nobody's buying your bullshit, Gary.
	That chick looks like she's been a fucking piece of chewed up bacon that's been left on the side of the fucking road, dude.
	What are you talking about?
	Why are you...
	Why is it that you feel so justified in seeking attacks?
	Baby, they say you can't speak English.
	Say hi to Andrew.
	Or say hi to Joseph.
	Hi Andrew, how are you?
	I can barely understand what you're saying.
	Can you say it again?
	Joseph, say hi to Andrew.
	Hi, Joseph or Andrew.
	How are you?
	Joseph?
	Who the fuck is Joseph?
	Well, that's who you basically...
	That doesn't sound like the English to me.
	What's Joseph?
	Joseph is the guy in the Bible who is taking care of other people's kids.
	So I thought I'd give you a Christian name that fits your values the most.
	So you will forever be called Joseph Wilson from now on.
	Oh, no.
	You're going to name me after one of the finest patron saints of the Orthodox Church.
	Oh, my God.
	Oh, my God.
	You're going to compare me to the Father of Jesus Christ.
	Holy shit, Gary.
	You really don't get on me today.
	Hey, brother!
	Wow!
	You're really getting me with these zingers!
	Sip with the year award goes to Joseph Wosid.
	Congratulations, sir.
	I think we've made the point very clear, your stances on each other.
	We're good, man.
	We're good.
	So we'll do some chats here as we've got the girls show coming up as well.
	One chest eight.
	OneChase8PatTrucker says, Shuttle Castle Club Premium made $10,678 in January because of the network and online fitness training.
	Shout out to you, bro.
	Good job.
	Saved $6,000 plus on my custom cabinets because of the CCC Premium Network.
	His name is Edwin C. from Chicago.
	Just joined C. from the network to see if I can add some value.
	25 is starting off well.
	All thanks Castle Club.
	Crisis King, by the way.
	I believe that as well.
	There's 12 people who put in deposits for the Chicago Tough Mudder Saturday, August 23rd.
	All Castle Club members are welcome.
	Excited to have Myron and Walter there.
	Shout out to you, bro.
	We'll talk about that behind the scenes.
	Quick Slap says, Before Constantine the Great was a Roman Emperor, he was fighting in a war and was outnumbered.
	He saw the cross in the sky when he was a pagan that he would win, so he ordered his soldiers to put the cross on their shields, and he won the war.
	He converted to Christianity at the time when Christians were persecuted, and no other reason to convert unless what he saw was real.
	Christianity is real.
	Okay?
	Rebel Overdose says, Nice to meet you, Gary.
	What concrete evidence that you will have or prove that or that I can search up that zodiac signs and neurology is real and help someone to find a comparable relationship?
	You want to respond to him?
	Yeah, sir.
	Basically, when it comes to astrology and numerology, there are certain numbers that are more compatible with others.
	Certain signs that are more compatible with others.
	That's why I picked—I'm born in the snake year.
	My wife is born in the rooster year.
	Those are the two most compatible signs.
	We're married 20 years, no issues.
	So, basically, if you go by the system, you're not going to have a 50-60% divorce rate like these Christians do.
	Yeah, well, here's the actual system, just so you know its roots.
	It was developed, at least by legend.
	By some emperor who had a bunch of animals race each other.
	And then the position they came in...
	They assigned them to a star sign.
	It's completely arbitrary.
	It's totally meaningless.
	Literally means nothing.
	The entire thing is counterfactual any time Gary is asked to present real evidence on behalf of his worldview.
	He always claims it's math.
	You'd think there'd be mathematical formulas all over the place to prove this, but he never has any.
	He just shows you these really, really tiny data sets that he comes up with, which just affirm his belief, and the second they're questioned, they fall apart.
	Okay.
	What's next?
	Junebug.
	Gary, she's old as fuck.
	This isn't a W. I hope your woman looks like that when she's 40 and a fat pig like most of these Americans are.
	You guys have also been married for 20 years.
	You met her when she was 20, right?
	Yeah, bro.
	That is time for you.
	Junebug says, Gatti, I think he's Gary, stop having this old lady massage you.
	You're not Andrew Tate.
	I don't have my shirt off either.
	So, no, I'm definitely not Andrew Tate.
	I didn't pimp women to get money.
	So, no, I'm definitely not Andrew Tate.
	Patman number one.
	Andrew, I'm in the UK. I will not get a single mom, but in my day, it's different.
	You're just different, and you slay a brother.
	Fuck Gary.
	Win Andrew, win Rachel.
	Yeah, well, again, even to the casual observer who understands that life is not simplified, it's complex, and that each individual situation for each individual person is a different set.
	It's a different set of circumstances.
	When we discuss optimals, we can say things are optimal.
	And that is true, that a thing is optimal.
	And there's nothing wrong with saying that, but also saying at the same time, there can be cases of nuance where you can make the most out of a bad situation, or you can make mistakes, recover from them.
	There's all sorts of different individual circumstances.
	Gary himself, remember, admitted, it's good to take care of kids like this.
	It's good.
	He says, a declaration of affirmation towards the moral prism of Christian ethics.
	More proof from my worldview is more coherent than his.
	Would you want your child to get married to a single mother with kids?
	I think that that generally wouldn't be optimal.
	Okay.
	There you go.
	At least you're being honest.
	So you're telling people...
	When has that never been my position here?
	Don't follow your footsteps is what you're telling the people who are watching.
	I also tell them not to smoke, Gary.
	I tell them not to smoke.
	Gary, I tell them not to smoke even though I smoke, Gary.
	Do you tell your 12-year-old to smoke a blunt with you, Gary?
	Do you tell your 12-year-old to smoke a blunt with you?
	Gary, do you tell your 12-year-old to smoke a blunt with you?
	Not until he's 18. I don't understand, though, Gary.
	You fucking hypocrite.
	Why can't he smoke it when he's 12?
	Why not, Gary?
	Mine's not developed enough.
	What do you mean?
	It's developed enough for 18?
	Yeah, I would say so.
	At 17 and a half, is it developed enough?
	Probably, maybe.
	Depends.
	16 and a half, Gary?
	Nah, probably not.
	It's just fucking arbitrary, these metrics, right?
	You know why it's completely fine?
	Maybe you want to marry a nine-year-old next time.
	I'm sure you probably would have no actual argument against doing that since you love Muslims so much, Gary.
	Well, actually, there's a lot of Christians who actually married 12-year-olds, too, in the 1300s.
	Oh, yeah, for state unions, not because the prophet married one.
	Not because the prophet married one, Gary.
	Sir, sir, at the end of the day, let's face facts, man.
	I've been married for 20 years to one woman.
	My kids look like me.
	You have been married to a woman who's not only fat, who's not only been ran through by other men, you are taking kids of not your own.
	She gave me kids, you fucking lunatic retard!
	Would you want your kids to live the life you live?
	You said no!
	So basically, by your omission, you're a failure!
	That's not a failure for me to point out.
	Like, okay, if I had been in a car accident...
	And I advocate that other people don't get in a car accident?
	This means I'm a failure?
	You're comparing car taxes to getting...
	Yeah, I'm just showing you the extension of how stupid your logic is.
	Your logic is very stupid.
	So, like, if you come from a broken home, if you come from a broken home by Gary's logic, if for any reason...
	If for any reason you say, you know, that really wasn't optimal, then that means you're some kind of fucking hypocrite.
	Like, it makes no sense whatsoever what he's saying.
	And also, he can't have it both ways.
	He can't say it's good what you're doing, Andrew.
	But also, it's bad you're not adhering to the very virtues of other people's kids.
	Gary, Gary, I just let you talk, Gary.
	It's just not going to be me, pal.
	It's not going to be me.
	It's going to be you.
	Calm down, Gary.
	Calm down, Gary.
	You can't say it's good.
	And then at the same time say Andrew doesn't adhere to his own virtues that you claim are good.
	Of course I do.
	When have I ever been dishonest about any of this?
	Never.
	It's always been up front.
	So call yourself a simp.
	Right?
	I'm not a fucking red pillar.
	So call yourself a simp.
	Do you think I give a shit?
	Call yourself a simp.
	Do you think I give a flying fuck if some fucking retard is like, oh, you're white.
	Oh my god, you're white.
	They have no arguments, Gary, so I don't care.
	Of course it.
	Tell people that you're a simp.
	Put down the cigarette and tell people, do not be like me.
	Do not take care of single mothers because I'm going to be the guy who takes care of other people's kids.
	They actually ran through her.
	So every man's stepfather is a simp.
	Other people have basically ran through the woman and you were paid for the bill, sir.
	Gary, every man's stepfather is a simp, Gary.
	If they're taking care of other people's kids.
	So every man's stepfather is a simp.
	That's Gary.
	If they're taking care of other people's kids.
	They are a simp!
	Yeah, so any of the people who are enrolled in your class right this second who have stepfathers, their stepfather is a simp and you're saying that their mother has mediocre pussy.
	Is that correct, Gary?
	Well, I mean, you said the second part yourself, but yes, they are a simp.
	Yeah, well, what does simp mean?
	Suckers idolizing mediocre pussy.
	So, therefore, if it is the case that any of your...
	Can you say, Gary, can you affirmatively say that anybody who takes your course, who has a stepfather, that their stepfather is a simp, simp meaning sucker idolizing mediocre pussy, which means that their mothers have mediocre pussy.
	Gary, can you just be at least honest and say any of your customers?
	No exceptions to the rule, sir.
	They are a simp.
	Including your customers.
	That's what you are!
	Okay, got it.
	No, I actually ask people before they join my classes in an interview, are you a baby daddy?
	Are you a baby mama?
	I don't want those type of people in my class.
	Those are actual questions I ask people.
	So no, I don't want sips in my class.
	No hope for those people.
	Of course not.
	They're just worthless scum, even though you say it's good that they're taken care of.
	Just contradict yourself every five seconds, Gary.
	Listen, it comes down to this, man.
	You need people to clean the toilet, but it's not going to be me.
	You understand?
	You need people to go in and get all the shit stains off.
	Yeah, what we need is more materialism, Gary.
	Those people are good for society.
	Gary, if we only had more materialism, that would solve the problem.
	It's not going to be me.
	So you're that guy who fucking cleans all this shit off the toilet.
	Gary, can you just say if we had more materialism, life would be better?
	Can you just tell people that strict materialism is the best thing ever?
	No, no, my family is the most important thing I have.
	My kids are the most important thing I have.
	But money actually means something.
	Yeah, so wait.
	You're spending your money taking care of other people's kids.
	So let me ask you a question.
	Congratulations, sir.
	Well done.
	So I just want to make sure I got this right.
	If you died, right, if you died, you would not want your wife to remarry, and you would not want your kids to have a father role model in their life.
	If I die, my wife has enough money.
	To take care of my kids for the rest of her life.
	Yeah, but if she didn't, Gary.
	No, there's not no ifs.
	I'm a man.
	I already make sure she does.
	I could drop dead right now, and she's taking care of her whole life, and my kids are, bro.
	Yeah, that's nice, Gary, but if you didn't, Gary, if you didn't, Gary, can you answer my question, Gary?
	There is no hypotheticals like that.
	Just answer the question, Gary.
	There's no hypotheticals.
	If it were the case that you did not have enough money for her to live forevermore, or let's just say the government came in and took it all away for some reason because they just didn't like your face.
	That could happen.
	Would you say then that your wife shouldn't remarry and that your kids should not have a positive stepfather in their life?
	Would you say that?
	I would say that my brother would come in and he would basically start...
	Is he going to marry her?
	No, no.
	Is your brother going to come in and marry her?
	We don't do that bullshit that you Christians do.
	What are you talking about?
	Let's put that down.
	If your wife got remarried...
	Kids would fulfill a father role.
	But you're giving me hypotheticals.
	These are straw man arguments.
	The fact of the matter is, if I die today, my wife and my kids are taken care of for the rest of their lives.
	If you die today, are your wife and kids taken care of?
	If you die today, are your wife and kids taken care of?
	Yeah, they are.
	Congratulations, Ben.
	But I also would not want my wife...
	If I die tomorrow...
	I would not want my wife to live the rest of her life lonely, and she would not want me to live the rest of my life lonely either.
	Gary, calm down.
	She'll find a new one within six months, bro.
	I'm trying to answer your question, Gary.
	She'll find a new one within six months, bro.
	She has a pattern here.
	Gary, calm down, Gary.
	So anyway, the point is, is that you would want the same thing by your own admission just now.
	You just said, yes, of course I'd want them to have that.
	It's like, well then, essentially what you're saying, all you do, dude, all you do is contradict yourself.
	Every fucking view you have is self- It's contradictory, Gary.
	It makes no sense.
	And again, at the end of the day...
	I want you, the people who are watching this, to decide.
	How do you want to live?
	Do you want to live like a guy like this who can't prove anything he believes in with Christianity?
	Can't prove anything whatsoever?
	Do you want to live like a man who takes care of other people's kids?
	Do you want to live with a woman who's not only fat but ran through?
	Is this what you want?
	And if it is, Andrew Wilson is for you!
	But if you actually want someone who understands how the world works...
	If you want to be a lying grifting piece of shit like Gary who can't prove numerology...
	Who knows billionaires.
	Who actually talks to people who are billionaires.
	Unlike Andrew Wilson, who never talked to a billionaire in his life.
	Then you have to understand, numbers do not lie.
	Yeah, just Gary lies.
	So the thing is, again, over and over again, Gary contradicts his own positions over and over and over and over.
	And on top of that, I've disproven his numerological bullshit a million times.
	Why do you think the guy filibusters the entire time?
	He just filibusters.
	He doesn't want the opposition to talk.
	No matter how much you let Gary talk, Gary will never let you talk.
	Because Gary's always terrified of what the truth is.
	Bro, you have no truth.
	He thought coming into this debate this would be some major dunk that's already publicly known by everybody information.
	You really got me, Gary.
	So every time you talk to a girl on the whatever podcast, she's going to call you a sip.
	That really did me in, Gary.
	You're an absolute sip.
	Do you understand?
	Look at the mirror.
	Look at your wife.
	No one will be with her, bro.
	You're a pile of fucking dog shit, Gary.
	You're the most laughed-out man on the internet, Gary.
	Yeah, I'm sorry that, yes, it is true that if you follow Christian ethics, you will be a moral man.
	That's true.
	And you're garbage, Gary.
	Say that you're a simp, sir.
	I'm a numerologist.
	You're a simp.
	Say you're a simp, sir.
	No, you're not a numerologist.
	You're a con artist.
	Okay.
	Well, again, we can still go around to people in the streets, random people.
	You put a thousand down.
	I put a thousand down.
	And we see where this takes us.
	I mean, we can do that.
	We can do it live on video, bro!
	Can we actually use a real experiment where half of them are rigged and half of them aren't so that we can determine which of your actual readings are not tailored via cold reading?
	Why does it always have to be rigged, bro?
	Why does it always have to be some rigged job with you?
	That's how you do an experiment for proof.
	Why do people have to rig things?
	That's not a lie.
	You bring people to me, they give me their birthday, and I read them like a book.
	That's what's going to happen, just like I read Fresh's friend today.
	What happened, Fresh?
	Yeah, I was on a date, and called Gary, got her birth date, and he read it like a book.
	Yeah, he's an excellent cold reader.
	Most con artists are.
	Did I see what she looked like?
	No.
	No, there you go.
	You don't need to see what a person looks like if you're a cold reader.
	It's just basic cold reading.
	The reason Gary won't do a controlled experiment is because if he did a controlled experiment, he'd be found to be a fraud.
	How much money do you want to put on it?
	On a controlled experiment?
	Whatever you want.
	I'll match it.
	On a controlled experiment.
	You want to go 50, 100k?
	What do you want to do?
	Yeah, I'll do a $100,000 controlled experiment.
	As long as that is put in an account which Myron Gaines can pay out.
	100%.
	I'm good.
	So how are we going to do this?
	As long as that's the case.
	So we're going to do this.
	You're going to come to Miami, because no one wants to go to that shithole that you live in.
	You're going to come down to Miami.
	We're going to put random people here, and then I'm going to read them like a book, and they're going to decide if I was right around.
	No, that's not the controlled experiment.
	I'll give you the parameters for the controlled experiment.
	Because you know more than the people I'm going to read.
	Yeah, so I'm going to give you the parameters for the controlled experiment.
	And these are the same type of parameters you would find from the Skeptic Society.
	So what we would do is we would have a bunch of people in there, and half of them would be legit, and half of them would purposely give you false information.
	And what they would do is before they ever went in that room, they would write out all of the true information that they had and see if based on your reading, right, that compared to the...
	True information that they were giving behind the scene versus the false, if it compares up to the true information, you're cold reading.
	That's the experiment.
	So if I say someone had a bad year in 1996, and that person agrees that that was one of the worst years of their life, that's not enough evidence for you.
	Well, we wouldn't allow vague questions like that.
	We'd make them much more precise.
	Oh, that's vague to you.
	That's pretty specific when I say a year.
	No, that's very vague.
	I can say any year.
	I point that year.
	What is it?
	Does that mean like...
	I broke my foot, that's a bad year?
	Or does that mean I lost everything and that's a bad year?
	That's very vague, Gary.
	I basically messed up my Achilles last year.
	That was horrible.
	And yes, I predict it for myself, too.
	But for some people, that would be a bad year.
	For some people, it wouldn't be a bad year.
	Listen, people can go back and they can put in Dwight Howard numerology and they can see where I predicted this guy's injury before it even happened.
	And I've done that many times.
	And by the way, I've been on the news.
	If you make predictions every single day, some of them will come through.
	People can Google this.
	People can Google this.
	I've been on the news.
	And I call it the biggest comeback in NBA history.
	When the Cavs were down 3-1 to the Golden State Warriors, I said they would come back.
	That was never done in history before.
	How many years ago was that?
	That was 10. And it's never happened since.
	So when it happened, I called it.
	When it happened, I called it.
	You also called the wrong president multiple times, didn't you?
	No, I basically said Trump would win many times.
	No, no, no, no.
	Before that, you said that Trump wouldn't even be the nominee.
	So it's like, you make such a slew of predictions.
	I also said that Joe Biden would step down.
	I also said Joe Biden would step down.
	And he did.
	So I was right about quite a lot, my friend.
	Now, am I perfect?
	No, you were wrong.
	Am I perfect?
	Because here's the thing.
	I am only a human being.
	The practitioner makes mistakes.
	Who is mostly wrong.
	Yes, you're a human being who makes mostly wrong predictions.
	I agree with that.
	I'm mostly wrong, and that's why I said I'm playing Crash on the 29th, and it happened two days later.
	Interesting how that works.
	Oh, wow.
	If you continuously make that date for 10 fucking years, it's going to happen eventually, Gary.
	About 3.5 million people have seen that in the past 24 hours.
	It's going to happen eventually, Gary, if you make the same prediction for 10 years, the likelihood that one of them happens is very high, Gary.
	Do you understand that?
	That the likelihood that if you make the same prediction for 10 fucking years, that the likelihood that it will happen eventually is high?
	And I said it two days ago, sir.
	Yeah, after doing it for 10 years.
	Remember, when it was 10 years, that wasn't enough evidence.
	Then I did it two days ago, not enough evidence.
	No, that proves my case.
	This guy keeps moving the goalposts.
	No, that proves my case, Gary.
	That's what it is.
	It proves nothing.
	It proves my case.
	You are absolute fraud.
	If you make the same claim for 10 years, eventually you will be right.
	And I look forward to taking your money, because the next time we do this, there's going to be...
	You're not going to take any money, Gary, you're going to lose.
	You're not even going to do it anyway.
	You won't do it because you'll be a found out.
	You'll never agree to a controlled experiment.
	You know what?
	We can up the stakes.
	We can up the stakes.
	Not only $100,000, the loser deletes his YouTube account.
	Yeah, okay.
	Let's do that.
	Will you agree then?
	The loser deletes his YouTube account.
	I got a quarter million.
	How many do you have?
	Calm down.
	Will you agree then to allow the Skeptic Society...
	To run an experiment.
	I don't care.
	I don't know anything about any skeptic society.
	I don't give a fuck about them.
	Can you stop for 10 seconds so that we can at least have agreement?
	If you just filibuster Gary, we can't come to agreement.
	We will bring 20 to 30 people and they will decide.
	You won't decide.
	I won't decide.
	The people I'm reading will decide.
	And that is the only fair way to do it.
	If not, you're a fraud.
	And keep running, bro.
	Keep running, bro.
	That's not a controlled experiment.
	You might find another kid to take care of.
	Anyway, the skeptic society who has been finding out frauds for years and years and years.
	If we can agree to have the Skeptic Society run a controlled experiment, which you pre-agree to, we'll put all the terms out publicly, to test whether or not your numerology is correct or incorrect, I will pay to have that done.
	You won't have to pay a dime.
	Okay, all you have to do is show up, and then on top of that, Gary, here's what we'll do on top of that.
	If I lose, I'll delete my YouTube channel and give you $100,000.
	Okay, so...
	That's pretty fair.
	So, I'll take a look at your skeptic society and see what their parameters are.
	I'm not going to agree to anything without any parameters.
	That's right, because you're a known fraud.
	No, no, no, because I need to know what the rules are before I start playing the game.
	It's just going to be a controlled experiment, Gary.
	Oh, I mean, listen, I need to know the parameters.
	I don't actually sign things without reading them first.
	Yeah, of course.
	Of course you can read it.
	I'm just letting you know that after they come up with a controlled experiment, you're never going to do it.
	Because it'll be a controlled experiment.
	I'm more than willing to take your money and...
	You know how many psychics have said the same exact thing?
	I'm not psychic.
	I never claimed to be psychic.
	It doesn't matter.
	A con artist is a con artist.
	You get found out quick.
	Okay.
	So I think this was definitely a heated debate.
	Both sides had...
	Good talking points.
	And look, I respect you both individually as men.
	You guys both speak very well about your topics.
	And listen, at the end of the day, this is a great back and forth.
	I think you made your point, Gary.
	Also as well, Andrew.
	What I will do is close this out with the last thoughts on this debate.
	Gary, you go first, and Andrew, you can leave off with closing thoughts or remarks.
	I'm not a simp who fucking married a woman who's ran through, who has different kids by different men.
	So, again, I'm feeling really good about myself.
	I'm feeling really good about the fact that I have kids that are basically mine.
	And Andrew over here, no matter what he tells you, he can't prove anything.
	He's a freaking simp.
	And if this is the way you want to live your life, then...
	Joseph Wilson is for you.
	I close.
	Okay, and then I'll close with this.
	I'll just say very simply that not only did I once again disprove, and by the way, right in the beginning of the debate, disproved him even on his own date system, but also let us remember that the only thing that this guy could bring to the table was an attempt to assault my character.
	Based around the idea that he thinks a red pill community is going to rally around a known con artist when they've been trying to move them out as much as possible.
	Regardless of what you think about my personal life, which is fine to think whatever you want, I am consistent in my worldview.
	There's nothing I'm saying which is incorrect, which is why Gary had no arguments against me whatsoever, especially not with Christian virtues.
	He even said what I'm doing is good!
	On top of all of that, just try to notate that Christians don't make an ought that you must marry single mom or you must not marry single mom, right?
	That each circumstance is different based on the virtues of the man and the woman who are practicing the religion, who are trying to come to the fruition of a family.
	So what Gary will say is there's Gary's way, the con artist numerology way.
	And then there's Andrew Wilson's way, which is the rejection of materialism and the movement towards something which is fulfilling.
	That can have many roads in a pluralistic religion that understands there's many pathways to achieve those virtues.
	There are men out there who are going to marry women who have children who are going to be very happy men for the rest of their life.
	Is it optimal for most men?
	No.
	Would I ever say it was?
	Of course not.
	Have I ever?
	No.
	And so what Gary does...
	He tries to do yet another con where he says, Andrew Wilson is trying to tell you this is the past.
	No, when?
	I don't ever do that.
	It's all just made up.
	And the reason he makes it up is because that's the only way to attack me.
	How else can a con artist do it?
	Where's my victims?
	Gary can't provide any.
	Where's all the people who have taken their money and are out there screaming about how he screwed up?
	They're nowhere because it doesn't happen.
	But it does happen with Gary.
	And so all he's left with.
	It's to try to convince you that I'm a man of low character, even though I'm the only one here with a consistent position, which he even agrees is good!
	And with that, I'll close.
	Yeah, it's good to clean toilets.
	Someone has to clean toilets.
	Ain't gonna be me.
	So again, is it good to take care of kids who are basically being raised by single mothers?
	Yes, it's great.
	But I'm not gonna be the one to do it.
	Maybe you want to be like Andrew and you can actually join him and be a good man like him.
	But I'll end there.
	Go ahead.
	This was the last thoughts on each member's taker.
	Listen, guys.
	Comment below who won this debate.
	Don't in the comments.
	Not the Jew.
	Never the Jew is going to win this debate.
	Honestly, it was very heated.
	We got a lot of views today.
	Shout out to everyone for supporting.
	Go follow Gary on his socials.
	What are your socials?
	Matrix Prime on IG. GG33Academy on TikTok.
	You too.
	And Andrew, we're going to find you as well?
	Yeah, you can find me over on The Crucible.
	I'm the host of The Crucible.
	I appreciate you guys again having me on.
	It was very kind of you to facilitate the debate.
	That's another place you can find me is at PaleoChristCon on Twitter.
	And you'll see many, many great debates that I do in the past and in the future.
	We have a lot of great stuff coming up.
	And with that, that's really all I have to say.
	Appreciate it.

▲