Hunter Avallone and John Doyle clash over military diversity, with Avallone citing studies—like Heidi Lamar’s Wi-Fi tech and 45%/70% market gains from racial inclusion—and WWII contributions by Alan Turing (gay) and Granville T. Woods (black), arguing it boosts innovation and morale. Doyle counters by framing diversity as a "jobs program," dismissing claims about women’s problem-solving superiority, and citing The Rationality Quotient, which he says shows men outperform women in logic. Their debate reveals deep divides: Avallone accuses Doyle of ignoring evidence, while Doyle calls Avallone’s arguments cherry-picked, leaving Chapados struggling to mediate. Ultimately, the discussion exposes how identity-based claims clash with historical efficiency metrics, questioning whether diversity truly strengthens or weakens military performance. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm saying that you can't accuse me of just kind of looking at things at face value when that's actually what you're doing.
You're gauging from your own experience and the fact that you talk to some people here and there and then saying, well, that's just how it is.
That's not just how it is.
So for who are Googling, you have a better understanding of what the military is than people who are actually.
I don't have a better understanding of what it's like to be in the military, but I absolutely have a better understanding in regards to the fact that diversity benefits the military.
Yes.
Okay.
No, no, no.
I know you got to get back to your script.
I understand that you have to get back to your script.
Okay.
But hold on.
We're actually talking now.
Nobody watching them actually thinks that your brain's operating at a higher level.
I mean, I'm thinking fast enough.
I haven't been able to say a word, my dude.
You've literally been just talking nonstop.
And the non-biased mod isn't even helping at all.
So this is.
Oh, I'm sorry, Hunter.
I thought when I spoke earlier, I was being too biased.
John, let's give Hunter a few minutes to talk.
Welcome back to Andrew Says.
Diversity is our strength.
It's something we hear a lot in this country, especially from our prime minister.
He says it all the time.
And you've probably seen diversity, equity, and inclusion policies on job listings at least a few times in the past few years.
Now, diversity is so important, in fact, that the government recognizes gender or sexuality as some sort of accomplishment.
It's why you see Kamal Harris celebrated as both the first black and the first Indian vice president at the same time in different articles.
It's so important that it should be injected into the military as well for some reason.
You've seen top U.S. military officials talk about white rage.
You've seen U.S. Army commercials.
They're a joke.
We've also got the Admiral, who might be a man.
We might be a woman.
We're not sure yet.
Commentator Hunter Avone is another person who agrees with at least some of that.
He's here to rebuttal another video about the importance of diversity in the military.
Interesting stuff.
Take a look.
Having women in the military is a massive benefit for the military.
Diversity in the military is a massive benefit for the military.
For people like me who actually give a shit about having a strong military and aren't as concerned about pushing some kind of insane fascistic agenda, I can recognize that having diversity in the military provides more insights.
It provides more abilities for people to connect with certain civilians.
So for example, having women in your military can help with women talking to women civilians.
Andrew, thanks for having me on today.
No, thank you for coming on.
As I'm sure you're aware, it's not easy to get people who disagree to come on to shows like this.
So we definitely appreciate that.
Now, the first thing I want to ask you is, first off, I'll start by saying I'm not anti-diversity in any means.
I just don't know how diversity in and out in and of itself is a benefit and something to strive for in terms of the military.
And we can talk about other things as well if you want, but this is basically what we talked about.
Explain what you mean.
What do you mean by just diversity?
Is it gender, sexuality, race, all kinds?
Can you please explain?
Yeah, I think that diversity, really diverse identities at the end of the day, whether it is race, gender, sexuality, all of that kind of plays a very significant role in the benefiting or in benefiting the military, specifically in the context of innovation.
So when you have a diverse group of people, you have a diverse group of backgrounds, essentially, you have more ideas to pull from, and the innovation is crucial for the military's development and success, largely.
In fact, the military even has what's called the Army Ideas for Innovation program, where people who have ideas can come to this office and submit their ideas.
And basically, by having diverse people, whether they're gay or women or black or whatever, having a diverse group of people contributes massively to innovation and thriving for the military, essentially.
Is there any example you can think of where that has been used to make some sort of new technology, new way of fighting, or anything like that?
Yeah, so there's actually several different inventions that we use today, both in the military and in our day-to-day life that were invented by minorities or were a result of diversity.
So, for example, Heidi Lamar, she invented what was called the frequency hopping communication system.
And what that was used at the time for World War II, but now that invention is actually what fuels Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth.
So we all benefit from that technology, for example.
But how is that due specifically to their race or gender or some sort of diversity out there?
It's not like because she's a woman, that's why she came up with the idea.
It's rather that the more diversity you have, the more backgrounds you have, you avoid groupthink and you're more likely to achieve higher levels of innovation.
I can give you some examples of like private companies that when they're focused on innovation, increases in racial diversity were related to enhanced financial performance.
So the more diverse groups of people you have, the less groupthink you have and the better outcomes essentially you get as well.
So are you in favor of hiring, let's say, having a quota for, let's say, women in the military or in Canada, we have for Native Canadians in the military.
Diversity Fosters Innovation00:04:51
Are you in favor of quotas like that?
Or do you think it comes naturally?
Yeah, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of like a quota, like you must have this amount of women.
I think that that tends to be pretty lame.
And then you kind of leave out a lot of talent because I don't like the idea of hiring someone purely because they are a woman, but rather like what started this whole thing really was John Doyle was kind of shitting on this idea of diversity in the military.
And then John Miller called me a retard for saying that diversity was a strength.
Who's John Miller?
I don't know who that is.
He's a Blaze TV host.
Okay.
And yeah, he called me a retard.
And I think that's how we got in contact to begin with is because I was posting about it.
I don't remember exactly, but I'm not really in favor of like a strict quota, but I'm also strongly against this idea that there must only be like strong men in the military because the military is made up of a lot more than just fighting.
This is true, but I still not able to identify how like having this diversity as a point to like, let's just say you've got 100 white guys or 100 black guys.
I don't understand how having an extra person of either category in a platoon makes them better fighters.
Well, you got to remember that only 10% of the military will ever even see fighting.
There's a lot more to the military than just fighting.
So when I'm advocating for diversity in the military, I don't necessarily mean that's diversity in the actual fighting aspect.
Obviously, women on average are weaker than men.
So having more strong men on the front lines will probably make more sense.
But again, if we're talking about the behind the scenes shit, you know, the analysis that's necessary, the different ideas that come up, the technology that's developed, this all benefits from diversity.
I can give you an example.
So here was a study where they put together three person groups, some consisting of all white members, other with two whites and one non-white member.
And they had them perform a murder mystery exercise.
And to find out who committed the murder, the group members would have to share all the information they collectively possessed during the discussion.
And excuse me, the groups with racial diversity significantly outperformed the groups with no racial diversity.
Being with similar others leads us to think we all hold the same information and share the same perspective.
This perspective, which stopped the all-white group from effectively processing the information, is what hinders creativity and innovation.
But what information was that somebody from a different race had that white people didn't have?
It's not that cut and dry.
It's more so that when you have people of different backgrounds, different experiences, they all bring something different to the table.
And more groupthink leads to lower rates of innovation.
So if you have people that all look the same, even if it's not intentionally, I'm not saying they're all like these evil racists or something, but it's just that when people look the same as you, you tend to kind of think of them as holding the same ideas as you as well.
And that just leads to groupthink.
It's not beneficial for the military.
It's not beneficial for innovation.
I think you're reading the conclusion of some sort of study without really being able to give the examples of what's in it.
But I was in the military.
I don't recall any time.
A couple of my best friends in the Army were African guys.
There wasn't ever a time where any of us looked around and said, we need more diversity.
This is going to help us.
And in fact, when you've got people in an armed forces, when you come together from vastly different places, from the west coast of the country to the center to the east, there aren't these racial thought lines that it seems like you're pointing towards.
Like I got friends from Alberta who live in the country and they think completely different from the guys who live on the East Coast in the Maritimes here in Canada.
And that's partially diversity, though.
There's also diversity of thought, but people of different identities bring different ideas as well.
They have different experiences.
They contribute differently.
Just like having diversity of thought from somebody from Florida working together with somebody from California might have different ideas.
It's not just this like strict identity as if like you are gay, so therefore you have a better idea kind of thing.
But rather when you put people together of all different backgrounds, of all different experiences and different identities, you just get higher rates of innovation.
This has been demonstrated time and time again.
I can give you another study if you want.
The one that I just read, you, I do understand it was a murder mystery.
And the reason that that's important, as cheesy as it sounds, is because that was able to find not a correlation, but more of a causal link between diversity contributing to higher rates of innovation.
But what was the thing that they found that was different from race to race?
I don't, yeah, see, I don't know exactly what the difference was that they found in these things.
I can send you the whole study if you want, but I don't think that's important.
Personal Experience vs. Market Perception00:06:00
What's wrong with you?
You're saying this thing, but you haven't even, it sounds like you haven't read it, though.
I have read it.
I just don't have all the information.
Well, I don't have all the information stuck here right here on my notes, but I think that this is kind of weak if you're going to start accusing me of not reading the full entire study.
When I have, first of all, second of all, this is not what's this, that's not the relevant part.
What's relevant is that when there is more diversity, they perform better.
I can give you another one too.
By correlating diversity and leadership with market outcomes, as reported by respondents, they learned that companies with more diversity out-innovate and outperform others.
Employees at these companies are 45% likelier to report that their firm's market share grew over the previous year and 70% likelier to report that the firm captured a new market.
So the fact that they're capturing a new market is, again, evidence that they are innovating at faster rates.
Well, yeah, if we're talking about marketing and business, I would never say that there doesn't need to be, you know, different viewpoints and say we're marketing towards a different demographic here.
I think that makes perfect sense.
But what we were talking about was stuff in the military and how just placing diversity and putting in not necessarily a strong focus on diversity, but in and out of itself, I don't think it matters at all when your goal here is to fight and your goal here is to fight.
The goal of the military is not to fight.
Okay, what is it?
The goal of the military is really ultimately to keep our country safe.
But again, there's only 10% of our military that will ever even see fighting.
This is oftentimes a straw man that a lot of people build up, which is like, oh, do you really think a weak, frail woman is going to do good on the battlefield?
No, that's not all the military is, though.
There's way more to the military than just fighting.
I'm aware.
I was in the military.
You don't sound like you're aware because you're making the argument that it's all fighting.
I mean, those people support the people that are fighting.
The supply chain and the vehicle technicians.
These are all people who are supporting the people fighting.
It never ever comes up where somebody says, we need more diversity.
Oh, if only we had people from this place or this place or who thought this way, we would have been better off.
That sort of stuff never comes up.
And it comes to my broader point: when you make these videos and you're shitting on people and you pull up the like, I went through your Twitter a little bit yesterday, and it's mainly reacting to people that you don't like and saying how stupid they are.
And you take these broader concepts and take them at face value.
Like in one point in that video, you read about something off the American Immigration Council as if they're as if their goal is not to advance the public image of diversity in the military.
You talked about martial law.
There's one point where you're taking apart what John says about people having mental illnesses in the military.
And you Google a part that says you don't have to be really mentally competent to apply for the military.
And then it says educational achievement, cognitive testing, and cursory psychiatric evaluation.
And then you take that and you're just like, well, that settles it.
So I feel like, no, it's that if you say that there are a bunch of mentally ill people in the military, that doesn't really add up if they need to pass a cognition test in order to even begin serving in the military.
See, I don't know.
That's the point I was making.
See, you don't know what it is.
Okay, good.
That's not true.
You keep on bringing up your own personal experience with this.
I'm not saying that all the soldiers are hanging out saying, man, where's another black person?
It's that, again, the military is made up of a large group of people.
It's not just fighting.
It is a large group of people that contribute to different facets of the military.
And when you have diversity, again, you have more innovation.
And honestly, there are even studies showing that when you exclude people, when you are obsessed with this idea of cohesion on the basis of race or sexual orientation or gender identity, you actually weaken the military.
You weaken the morale of the military.
And you basically undermine the perception that people have of the military as well.
Because now the military no longer resembles the demographic of the country.
This has been demonstrated.
I could send you a peer-reviewed study that studied the UK military, for example, and found just this.
So again, I'm not saying you need to have quotas to force diversity in everything.
I'm saying that the argument that I was responding to as far as John Doyle and John Miller was that they were saying diversity is not a strength of the military.
And I'm saying it is.
Again, you say I'm like, I'm saying from my personal experience, it's not just my personal experience, it's how it is.
Like, for example, if I was to say there was a fitness test and obese people didn't make it, that's just not my personal experience.
That's how it is, and that's how the military operates.
So it's not just me talking from my experience of what I saw, you know, day to day between and had conversations between people.
It's how it actually is.
And I feel like you take these surface level arguments and you say, oh, that's how it must be.
I've Googled this definition and I've Googled what mental acuity tests they do and they do this cognitive evaluation and therefore no there can be no sign of you know people with poor mental health in the military.
You're saying well I was in the military and this was my experience.
So no no I just told you that's not no it's not just my experience.
It is how it is though.
Like if I say how do you know that you're taking it at face value.
You're gauging from your own experience.
So I never talked to anybody.
I never knew anything about what was going on while I was there.
I'm not saying that's at all.
I'm saying that you can't accuse me of just kind of looking at things at face value when that's actually what you're doing.
You're gauging from your own experience and the fact that you talk to some people here and there and then saying, well, that's just how it is.
That's not just how it is.
So from your Googling, you have a better understanding of what the military is than people who are actually.
I don't have a better understanding of what it's like to be in the military, but I absolutely have a better understanding in regards to the fact that diversity benefits the military.
Diversity And Critical Thinking00:18:34
Yes.
Okay.
I don't know if we're going to get anywhere with that.
I did want to bring in another guest, Olivia.
You want to go ahead and put them both on?
Well, wait, who are you ambushing me with?
Because we're not even done with our discussion yet.
Andrew.
Hey, John, what's up?
Ladies and gentlemen, we are entertainments here to discuss diversity.
Here to discuss the military.
Nice.
Hunter, how are we doing?
Finally.
I'm doing good.
We took so long to get this set up.
I'm actually, I'm happy to see you, John.
How are you doing, man?
That is true.
I'm doing pretty well.
You know, I don't want to stand on ceremony with this sort of performative fraternity, Hunter.
You know, you had some very abrasive things to say about me in your video, which admittedly I didn't watch.
Admittedly, I also didn't re-watch my video in preparation for this because, of course, I wanted to give you the biggest advantage possible.
So you're going to have to refresh me a little bit on your critiques as we go along here.
But yeah, I'm excited.
Yeah, the main critique that I had was just you seem to be very much against this idea of diversity in the military.
And that's just not true.
Like, I thought that that was quite delusional, to be honest, because virtually every single study we have, whether it's of a private business or of the military directly, we can see that diversity contributes to a significant amount of innovation.
Right.
So for those watching, people of Hunter's kin like to do this thing with studies where they basically use them like Pokemon cards.
So Hunter is going to take his studies and he's going to say, look, this study says this thing, blam.
And it's like his argument is the title of the study.
You know, he doesn't believe that people, like as we saw with what Andrew was saying, can experience things, can infer data, can use their inductive reasoning, things like that.
So that's why, you know, it's always studies and data.
So, you know, people like Hunter also, it's not a coincidence that they're so obsessed with things like the Marvel cinematic universe, right?
Like they conceptualize.
I never even watched Marvel.
Like, no, Is this actually your argument right now?
It's the idea of shitting on data and factual information because you think that feelings outweigh facts?
Is that it?
No.
I never said that.
If you would listen to my argument.
I know this isn't one of your reaction streams where you're going to pause what I'm saying and have your little question.
Well, this isn't one of your videos where you can just make up a bunch of lies about what I think.
Let's just go on.
Let me just finish my opening monologue here.
My point was going to be that people of Hunter's coalition, maybe not him necessarily, since we want to get specific here, they can only conceptualize diversity like a team of superheroes, right?
Or like the, what was that Pixar movie, Inside Out, where you've got like this guy with this strength, and then this guy is really good at this thing.
And they all come together and then they beat the bad guy.
That's not actually how it works.
And, you know, what it comes down to basically in brass text is that anything the military is doing besides focusing on destroying enemies and their resources and securing our borders is by definition operating at a less efficient way than it should be.
And so the whole idea behind diverse identities, as Hunter articulated, is this idea that like, oh, well, you know, if you've got the white guy, he's going to have this way of looking at it.
If you've got the black guy, he's going to have this way of looking at it.
And when they all come together, you know, they can sort of figure out the best way possible because you have all these different perspectives.
I wanted to set up a debate between you guys.
Hunter refused, and then he did not refuse.
I said that I had one at eight.
Hold on, wait, wait, wait.
You said I got to go get that.
I'll never.
I said that I wanted a non-biased moderator.
Yeah, and have I said, no, how?
Have I said anything?
I haven't said anything.
I haven't said anything.
No, if I could just comment on the structure of the debate, typically the way these actual debates, as opposed to internet blood sports, go is one side will speak for five, ten minutes, the other side will speak for five, ten minutes, there's questions, etc.
That's kind of the impression under which I was operating.
So I'd like to be able to speak for a few minutes on an interrupt.
I just wanted to interject with the fact that I haven't said anything and he's saying there's a debate on a moderator on your side, and this is why he refused to come on.
But I'm perfectly able to sit here, as I've shown, and not say anything and let you guys talk.
So let's go back to Brother.
You're not letting me talk right now.
Because you just made a claim that I'm respond to anything that John said, or is literally ample time.
You just got to be patient.
Delay graphics.
Are we going to do a five-minute, five-minute thing?
Because I'm not doing that.
That'd be great.
Can you speak for five minutes extemporaneously?
Are you afraid of that?
No, it's not that I'm afraid of it.
It's that a real debate is you say something, that I ask a question, that we kind of build upon that and have more of a conversation, not just you get a lot of people.
It's not accurate.
You know, I didn't even go to college, Hunter.
I know that collegiate-level debate, there's the first affirmative, there's the first rebuttal.
I mean, it goes in blocks.
So I'm going to continue with what I was saying.
This is an informal debate.
Well, it is.
You know, I would like to think that we can operate at that level.
You know, I have a great amount of respect for you, believe it or not.
I believe that your version of a debate, you're so scared to actually just talk back and forth.
Are you afraid of my soul?
Why is it not letting me talk?
My brother in Christ.
You got to stop.
I'm going to just continue.
My brother in Christ.
You will shut the fuck up.
The idea.
You're so tough, dude.
Like, I don't understand.
I never agreed to this.
You're literally just ambushing me and then saying, oh, it's a formal debate now.
So you have to be quiet for five minutes.
It is.
Real.
Let's actually talk about it.
Why do you think that diversity does not benefit the military?
What's your evidence of this?
See, I was going to continue.
Anyways, the idea that diversity does inherently benefit the military, like in that video in particular, I think I was mainly talking about diversity in terms of sex and in terms of sexuality.
So literally, if you're going to argue that diversity in terms of sexuality benefits the military, like they could read something written by Von Clauswitz or something written by Sun Tzu, and they could actually amend that text and have a better idea of how to conquer enemies and defend borders than these people.
And this kind of gets into the other thing.
Well, even if not in terms of strategic innovation, in terms of technological innovation, you know, they have something to offer there because he mentioned as well on the battlefield, only 10% of people are going to see combat, right?
Now, in my opinion, that's more of an argument against the fact that the military has basically become a jobs program, less against the fact that, you know, it's not actually going to have a lot of people on the battlefield.
But you've got the innovation, at least, if not the combat aspect.
The thing with that, though, is if you say you're going to have a million people that can be in the military, just to use that number, if you're going to just stock it with people for diversity's sake, you're going to want to stock it with the most people who are the most likely to innovate.
Because obviously, you know, I'm less innovative than the woman that he mentioned who created that technology.
But on average, I think that's what's important to look at.
And if you look at virtually 95%, which is an actual figure, 95% of the innovation, both scientific and technological, that took place on this planet between, I think, 800 BC and 1950 AD was done by European men.
I don't know why that is, but that just happened to be a fact of the matter.
No, it isn't.
Excuse me.
That just happened.
Are you serious right now?
You're actually just going to do it.
I'm going to hang up and leave, okay?
If you don't let me actually talk and respond to some of this, I'm almost done.
I promise.
I promise.
You think this is one of your videos right now?
You've made like 50 claims.
I'm not going to be able to respond to all of them.
You're trying to dish gallop me, John.
You're trying to dish me.
You're so mad right now because you don't like the idea of having a conversation.
You're used to just sitting down and saying, heck off, commie, L-O-L-O-L.
You're breaking from your script.
I know.
You're really scared right now.
So again, I'm afraid to talk for five minutes.
You can't do it without a bad thing.
I'm not afraid to talk for five minutes.
I'm actually interested in talking to you, not just.
I'm going to have little bullet points out here.
So this idea of getting up to like it's actually respond to.
This is how debates work, dude.
Like, this is not how a debate works.
Anyways, this is not how a debate works, my dude.
So the idea This one anecdote.
We have this one anecdote of this woman who invented this particular piece of technology, this minority who invented this particular piece of technology.
In a vacuum, if you were to keep pumping the military with, say, European men, which is traditionally the founding stock of our military, eventually they would have come up with that technology.
That's just a fact.
Eventually, they would have, because we can infer that from the fact that they've invented like virtually everything else.
So I guess then that has anything to do with the fact that oftentimes like white people were dominating the country.
So, for example, you could say, why would they be good at innovating stuff?
Well, no, no, you could say, like, hey, how come black people didn't really present any good inventions during the time that they were enslaved or during the time that Jim Crow was in place?
Like, I don't think it's fair for you to just say, well, look, Europeans did this, and that's just because they're European, LOL.
That's not how this works.
What it is is that oftentimes Europeans held more power and they were in a privileged position where they were able to innovate at faster rates.
But it doesn't mean that that is intrinsic to the fact that they are, in fact, European.
And again, I'm- Okay, I have a question then about you.
You keep trying to call what I'm saying like an anecdote.
That's an example of some things that that's some of the things that women have contributed or gay people have contributed, sure.
But it's not just that.
Again, it's that by having diversity, you avoid this idea of groupthink.
You break away from groupthink and you are able to innovate faster.
Groupthink is good.
Okay, so we're going to talk about that.
Let's go point by point.
No, it doesn't.
Let's go point by point then.
I want to talk about the Europe versus Africa thing.
Colonization.
No, we're not going to talk.
This has nothing to do with the actual military thing.
I know that you.
No, no, no.
I know you got to get back to your script.
I understand that you have to get back to your script.
Okay.
But hold on.
We're actually talking now.
Nobody wants them actually thinks that your brain's operating at a higher level.
I mean, I'm thinking fast enough.
I haven't been able to say a word, my dude.
You've literally been just talking nonstop.
And the non-biased mod isn't even helping at all.
So this is.
Oh, I'm sorry, Hunter.
I thought when I spoke earlier, I was being too biased.
Okay, John, let's give Hunter a few minutes to say what he wants to say.
I didn't want to appear too biased because, you know.
So let it be known that I said that I was more than happy to debate John Doyle.
You did not.
No, you said I was.
So I said, I was more than happy.
I'm going to go ahead and mute.
So I said that I was more than happy to debate John Doyle for Modern Day Debate.
Okay, on that one.
He said, I'll never muting.
On modern day debate, they reached out multiple times.
John Doyle never responded.
And I directly said, I'm not so sure I want to debate on your platform, Andrew.
He said, I'll never debate John on my show.
And I haven't said that.
And I said, because you were going to be biased.
And I'm going to ask John because you've let John ramble on to the next one.
And as soon as you complain, and as soon as you complained, I said you can have the floor now.
And John just agreed.
So instead of complaining further, just say what you want to say.
Okay.
So again, my claim is not that we need to impose diversity on the military.
My claim is that by letting more people into the military of all different diverse backgrounds, you are benefiting innovation.
And John, I know that you say, like, that's not true.
That's not true.
Blah, blah, blah, wow, wow.
But you need to tell me then, how come we have found not one, not two, but multiple different studies that have all shown that when there is more diversity, the companies innovate at faster rates?
Can you please answer why that is the case?
Yeah, I actually do want to address the one study that you cited in particular, the murder mystery study, which you said was proof that diversity is good.
On the surface, it's like murder mystery being equivalent to warfare.
Okay.
But you have to look at the difference between the two.
I mean, you have something like a murder mystery, right?
That's like a social deduction scenario.
You have a finite pool from which to draw, and then maybe you can find who did it, so to speak, versus like literally open modern warfare.
Right.
So what I'm familiar with in terms of the literature, I know you have low impulse control, but you just have to stop, okay?
You want to go back and forth and we have to go back and forth.
So in terms of the literature that I think alludes to some of this, like corporate diversity being good, military diversity being good, oftentimes what they find is exactly that perspective thing that you're talking about, where if you have a more diverse group of people, then they're better able to assess situations critically.
That's the problem, because all of the literature that's supporting that claim, you have to be careful with what that is implicating, because they're not saying that they're actually better at producing the correct outcomes for situations.
Literally, what they are saying is they are better at critical thinking.
Why is that?
That is because when you have more people from different backgrounds, they are more likely to disagree on things, which they define positively as critical thinking.
I would disagree with that because, again, I want to get back to the Europe versus Africa thing because you said that the reason Africa didn't have a competent military or innovation, so to speak, was because of European oppression.
I didn't say Africa.
No, no, that's not what I said.
I was just saying.
We talked about European thinking.
But hold on, what you just said so far is that.
Really, I just have one question.
I just want to shut up what you said really quickly.
Because you didn't answer my question either.
But first of all, when you have people, you just admitted it.
That when you have people, you have a lot of different ideas.
You have a finite pool of information to pull from.
And that is a benefit of diversity.
Second of all, the study that I just referenced to you was not actually the murder mystery one.
I was bringing up a study which looked at different banks and they found that innovation-focused banks increased or innovation increased in racial diversity, that that was clearly related to an enhanced financial performance.
So when you say they're not looking at the outcome, they are looking at the outcomes.
The outcomes are specifically benefiting by having more diversity.
And this isn't just in private firms where this has been discovered.
Even the military itself has found that when women are involved in complex problem solving, they solve problems at faster rates than groups that are just made up of men, for example.
So what's wrong with this?
Why don't we want our military to be strong and efficient?
I would be curious to see the sample size from that one pertaining to women because men are more rational than women.
And so I would imagine that's no, it's not a lie.
That's a lie.
It is.
It's absolutely not a lie.
There's even studies supporting that too.
No, there isn't.
But anyway, there's studies reporting the complete opposite.
But I know that you kind of have to just make up stuff.
But okay, go ahead.
What were you saying?
Well, anyways.
So it's like if you take a sample size of high IQ women and compare them to average IQ men, they're going to be better at solving those problems.
But if I took 100 women off the street and 100 men off the street, I mean, you would be delusional to suggest that the women would be better at solving the problems than the men would.
I mean, this is just a fact.
In terms of the social deduction, it is true.
Dude, like, I don't know.
I'm not sure if you're lying.
I don't know like what kind of bubble you live in to actually believe this.
It reminds me of the Trump tweet.
Like, is this even possible to believe?
You haven't provided any evidence.
You're just saying, like, obviously this is the case.
I have evidence after evidence after evidence that shows that the Marine Corps, for example, found that including women resulted in just as good, if not better, cognitive performance with these challenging problems.
I have information showing that when women are involved in high firm companies, they perform better the more diversity is implemented in those companies.
This is a clear evidence that women are not less rational than men.
You're going to have some women that are less rational than men.
You're also going to have some men that are less rational than women.
They have done studies where they presented men and women with complex moral problems.
And at the end of the day, men and women were just as rational.
This is just a lie that you're saying right now.
No, no, it's not.
There's a really good book that I don't think you'll read, but if anyone's interested, it's called The Rationality Quotant and how to quantify actually thinking rationally.
And they found like, I think, a 0.67 or 0.68 advantage in terms of rational thinking for men.
So again, I don't even think this is worth addressing.
But again, what you're arguing, I'm frankly much less concerned about like all of the studies and things like that.
I'm talking about like what we know about world history.
What you are arguing is that all of the conquests of, for example, the Roman Empire would have been better if you would have had more women involved or more gay people involved or things like that.
And this is why, I know, I don't know why you are so like afraid of this comparison, but when you're talking about like, you know, Africa was at a disadvantage versus Europe, well, why then was Europe able to come in and colonize Africa?
If we were really at a level playing field, they have more natural resources than Europe.
Why weren't they able to man the defenses?
I understand that, but listen to what I'm saying.
I'm saying that innovation is more likely to come from European men as evidenced by literally 95% of all of it.
You're saying no.
I'm saying, okay, well, if that's not the case, why was Africa not able to defend itself from European colonization?
These are all, these are completely unrelated.
The European humanization had everything to do with advanced levels of technology.
Even climates.
Hold on.
Even different climates had an effect there.
This idea of, well, Africa couldn't defend itself, therefore minorities are not good for innovation is irrelevant.
This is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard.
We need to combine and look at how diversity interacts with the military and in actual companies, because that's how the military is.
You keep saying, well, what about the fighters?
I exactly agree with that.
The military is a company.
Look at that.
Well, no, no, no.
It's not just the company, but it's a group where there is a large amount of people that are all working towards a common goal.
And if you want to talk about, if you actually want to talk about world history, I mean, you can look at historical examples.
Since the 1800s, for example, armies with high rates of inequality have done poorly according to all kinds of measures.
One statistical analysis focused on armies with high rates of inequality, and they found that that increased the odds by 50% that an army will suffer more casualties than it inflicts on the other side.
So that's some world history for you right there.
When you are discriminatory or when you don't properly include minorities into your group, you lack positive outcomes.
You weaken the military.
You weaken the morale.
And again, I don't know why you keep going back to this Africa thing.
At the end of the day, we have multiple different studies that have shown that when women and black people and minorities are included in these firms, they do better.
You're just denying this.
You're just denying it right now.
Okay, I have another question.
Help me understand.
If we know that if you have a group of like, say, 50 bland vanilla white men and you throw in the black people and women, you're saying that that'll help that company do better, that military operation do better.
Then why then, in the places in the world where we see the most black people or the most any sort of minority group, why then are they not doing as well as where we see the most groups of like white male dominated spheres?
If that's the case.
I can answer that.
Yeah.
The answer to that is not that, oh, just because they're black, they somehow have a better idea, lol.
What you're doing is stripping this of all nuance, and you're looking at this in one of the most delusionally reductionist ways imaginable.
What it is is not only diversity, it's how you properly implement that diversity.
Obviously, just having a large group of black people is not going to necessarily lead to any better or worse outcome than having a large group of uneducated white people or something.
That's not the key here.
Why Diversity Enhances Cohesion00:06:17
The key is that when you have a business or a company or something like the military and they all have a common goal, implementing diversity in the proper way, mind you, leads to more innovation because you're pulling from a larger pool of information.
There is more experience behind that.
And then, like I've already demonstrated, that leads to higher rates of innovation.
This benefits the military immensely.
Like, I want to see the military get stronger.
I want our country to be kept safe.
And that's what the military does.
And so it only makes sense to have a larger pool to gauge information from.
That was your argument at the beginning of this.
Right.
So, again, it's like even in recent history, our military hasn't been able to do really anything quite effectively.
I mean, we got embarrassed in Afghanistan.
We were embarrassed in all of our campaigns in the Middle East.
And now it's like, I'm really, I really kind of want you to just think about what you're saying to me, which is that, you know, if we are to increase, like, what experience do you think, if you just had to guess, maybe there's not a study, if you just had to guess, what experience do you think the average black guy has in terms of dealing with high-level military operations, small unit tactics that the average white guy just like doesn't have?
Like, what is that experience that you think he could really bring to the table there?
I don't think that anybody, white, black, gay, straight, women, whatever, have like some intrinsic understanding of the military.
They would be well, then why would you need them for military diversity to make it better?
That's the essence of your argument.
No, I think that you're literally thinking that my argument is like, just take a random woman off the street and plop her in the military, therefore military gets better.
According to your argument, that would increase innovation.
No.
But if only my argument is that when you train, obviously to get somebody in the military, they're going to have to train to be in the military.
Obviously, I'm not talking about.
66% of women fail, but yeah.
I'm not talking about just grabbing random people and then saying, oh, look, they're black.
They must have better ideas.
It's that, again, I've said this now five times.
When you take a large group of people of different identities and they're all focused on a common goal, after all going through the same training, mind you, to get to where they are in the military or going through the same process to be hired in a hypothetical firm, then you will see higher rates of innovation.
I'm not saying that some black person just has an intrinsic understanding of the military, but guess what?
Neither do any white guys, okay?
They all go through a proper training.
And then once they do, when they're all put in a group where they have to have a common outcome or a common goal, we see the diversity and the different experiences and different backgrounds lead to less groupthink and more innovation.
And also, one more thing I really want to quickly address.
You said, like, oh, we haven't really seen our military do anything recently, yada, yada, yada.
I mean, you might be right.
I don't know.
You might be wrong.
But at the end of the day, if you want to look at all of the different innovation that was contributed to our military during, say, World War II, for example, there was a multitude of benefits that were brought to our military from minority groups, whether they were black, women, or gay.
So I don't think that you can necessarily just say that they must not have an understanding or they must have the understanding.
What were some of those multitudes?
I'm going to say multitudes.
There's so many examples.
Give me one from World War II.
Sure.
So Alan Turning, he was a crypto analysis for the British government during World War II.
He was also a gay man.
His code breaking skills played a pivotal role in intercepting coded German messages.
I can give you another one.
The multiplex telegram was used in World War II, was invented by a black man named Granville T. Woods.
He also invented the first prototype of the gas mask.
If you want another one, Heidi Lamar, she's a woman.
She invented the frequency hopping communication system, which now gives us Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth.
These are all things that have benefited the military that were brought to the military from diversity.
So you need to tell me, why are you in favor of weakening the military just because you don't want there to be diversity?
Can you explain that one?
I'm not even anti-diversity.
I just fail to see the logic behind thinking that the less cohesive you make a group, the more likely it is to be able to successfully fulfill a task which would require it to be cohesive.
You know, there's a reason when you're, as you would know, Andrew, there's a reason that when you get into the military, they haze you and they shave your head and they basically tell you that you're disposable.
I mean, the whole idea psychologically, and again, only 10% are in combat.
The whole idea psychologically is to remove any sort of identity you have and tell you that like you are a unit and you are going to maybe die and like that's fine.
And so this idea that like, oh, well, this guy happened to like anal sex and that's why he was able to create this piece of technology and that made it better.
It's like, you know, don't ask, don't tell.
I'm not saying you need to kick people out of the military.
I'm just saying that this effort to purposefully have diversity, which is what we have, is a waste of military resources.
And diversity in general, I mean, I have yet to see any real evidence.
I mean, I haven't, I'm not familiar with the evidence that Hunter's presented.
I'd like him to email it to me.
But, you know, the most comprehensive, yeah, the most comprehensive study I think we have on diversity in terms of like ethnicity is, of course, the Putnam study from 2011.
Famous social scientist from Harvard, and he found that as you increase ethnic diversity in a community, everything goes down.
Political involvement, trust, everything goes down.
The only thing that goes up when you increase diversity is the amount of people protesting and the amount of people watching TV.
That's it.
So I fail to see and I fail to conceptualize how, you know, the great militaries throughout the world would have been better if they simply had more people from different groups or more women or more gay people.
I just, I don't, that doesn't compute.
And, you know, on paper, it sounds like it makes a lot of sense.
But when we square that with what we know about how humans behave and interact with each other, I think it really doesn't make sense.
And I think that's actually why he relies so heavily on papers and studies and things like that, because he doesn't seem to want to argue just from like his own logic.
He wants to, again, play the Pokemon card.
I've got my EX card.
It's peer-reviewed.
And it's like, my brother in Christ, you just can't really argue from within, from what you know.
So Charizard cards going for hundreds of thousands of dollars these days.
I'd like to implore you guys to watch some pawn stars maybe.
Hunter, you got the floor for up to five minutes.
Say whatever you want.
Why Diversity Strengthens Not Weakens00:03:03
Go right ahead.
Yeah, I'll go ahead and just respond to all the really retarded things that John Doyle just said.
So first and foremost, he complained last time in his video about a bunch of sexual assaults happening in the military, and he attributed that to gay people, when in fact, the sexual assault rise in the military is actually a result of hazing.
So oftentimes we see sexual assaults at skyrocketing rates because straight men will literally go and sexually abuse other men simply for the sake of hazing.
This is a huge problem.
You can read about it on army.com if you don't believe it.
So very good argument, John.
Not sure why you're in favor of more sexual assault.
Second of all, Putman study.
Very funny that you referenced that one.
The Putman study was actually, the reason that they found that result was not because of diversity.
It was rather because there were racist dipshits like you, John, who were angry that black people were there.
So because there were racists, that negatively affected the cohesion, not having black people.
In fact, there are way better studies which have shown that when you put white and black people together in the same community, excuse me, white people tend to become less racist because they no longer perceive a threat by people that look different from them.
Okay.
Second of all, when it comes to the military, minorities fare just as well in the military when the military emphasizes the end goal of the mission rather than getting hung up on unique individual traits.
You talk about cohesion.
I agree with you.
A unit that is not cohesive will not function properly.
But you are wrongly attributing this idea that having diversity is somehow going to harm cohesion.
That's not true.
Cohesion actually benefits when you accept more people because again, you lower the perceived threat and in turn, you then get a benefit, which is more innovation.
So there have already been studies, for example, that have shown that when people are hung up on gender identity or sexual orientation, they actually destabilize their military rather than protecting their own capabilities.
That harms the military at the end of the day.
So again, not sure, John, why you're in favor of a weaker military.
And lastly, you say, I'm just relying on studies, using them as Pokemon cards, yada, yada, yada, this thing and the other thing, instead of feeling what's within.
I'm sorry, I don't know why you seem to be operating on a very womanly kind of basis here, but in my mind, I like to put facts over feelings, okay?
And right now, for somebody like you who unironically said that women are less rational, I'm not sure why you are now relying on your own FIFAs to come to a conclusion when that's not how the world works.
If we went ahead and went by your logic, we would all be here believing the world is flat.
Now, I don't know what you believe.
Maybe you do believe that.
But for most rational people, we recognize that the world is actually round, even though we've never seen the round earth.
We don't gauge within our own logic and our own little feelings.
We look at studies and data.
And when you look at a multitude of studies, I'm not just pulling one fucking study out of my ass here.
We have a plethora of different data points, all showing that diversity integrated into companies betters the company.
Opening Statement Conflicts00:03:11
Diversity integrated in the military betters the military.
The reason our military is the strongest and most successful military in the entire world is largely attributable to diversity.
All right.
Thank you, Voice.
Thank you both boys for coming on.
Andrew, hold on.
I will give you that 30 seconds in a moment.
Thank you guys for coming on.
If you guys want to come back on in June, we can get you back on for a more structured debate with more with more particular questions for you both to respond to.
Hunter Avalon's YouTube channel and Instagram and Twitter.
You can find him on his own name, I believe, A-V-A-L-L-O-N-E, and on his Discord.
John Doyle, of course, heckoff call me on YouTube.
He's also often on Blaze TV, slightly offensive, and all those wonderful shows.
John Doyle, you were called a racist, so you want to get 30 seconds for that?
Yeah, I'm actually the least respond from there.
Sure.
I'm actually the least racist person, but in our follow-up debate, in the meantime, I would be curious, and I'm sure he'd be more than happy to send me all the information which he was citing.
And I can assure you that in the first part of our debate, if I'm allowed to speak uninterrupted, I will refute one by one every single study he cites because it's wrong.
And I don't know the studies because I don't really keep up with that kind of stuff, but I know they're wrong.
And you can laugh, don't believe me, but just at least remember that I said it because that's what will happen.
I'll prove to you that they're all incorrect.
In terms of the Putnam study rebuttal, he pronounced the name wrong of the author, but claims to know like the ins and outs of it.
It wasn't actually racist white people because they didn't trust each other either.
If you read the study, you would know that trust as a general, as an aggregate, went down.
So if what you're saying was the case, measuring trust is just like that, it'd be like white people mad at black people.
But white people didn't trust each other anyways.
Also, in terms of John, I don't want to kick anybody out.
They're lowering the bar to allow these people into the military.
That's my problem.
Hunter, 30 seconds, really tight.
Tighten it up.
So first and foremost, again, we're seeing John relying heavily on his fee fees.
I don't know if maybe he's still a snowflake in need of a safe space here, but I don't.
No, I'm staying in 2016 because they still bothering you, and I think that's very funny.
So again, I rely on the data.
John relies on his feelings, as demonstrated by him saying he's never read the studies, but I'm sure they're all just wrong LOL.
Second of all, I don't care if I pronounced the author's name incorrectly.
The reason the trust was lower was because there was a higher rate of racism.
Racists are scared of black people.
And if they act racist, that lowers the trust that black people have in the general community as well.
This is why we have seen that accepting all identities benefits cohesion when it's implemented properly.
Okay, back to me.
Thank you both.
Hunter, you're going to come back for a debate with John Doyle?
Yeah, maybe.
All right, yeah, we got a yeah, maybe I never got an opening statement either.
So you'll get sad but you'll get a big opening statement next time.
Thank you everybody for watching.
Thank you both for coming on.
I appreciate you both.
It's hard to get people to come together and talk like this.
Thank you guys.
I'm holding on way too long, and I don't know why.