Whatever Podcast - Andrew Wilson vs. ANGRY Boyfriend Male Feminist White Knight

Sept. 22, 2024 - Whatever Podcast

02:58:43

Andrew Wilson vs. ANGRY Boyfriend Male Feminist White Knight | Whatever Debates #10

Whatever Debates are LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to a special debate edition of the whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
	I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
	A few quick announcements before the show begins.
	This podcast is viewer-supported, heavy YouTube demonetization, so please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of super chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
	So if you super chat 100, YouTube takes 30.
	If you donate 100, Streamlabs only takes three.
	Streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	Link for that is in the description.
	If you want to interact nearly instantly with us and weigh in on the conversation, consider sending a TTS text-to-speech message.
	Austin, you actually can hide this.
	It's not accurate.
	$100 and up triggers TTS.
	TTS is via Streamlabs only for the sake of a smooth stream and debate.
	If it is too disruptive, we may have to either delay, hold, or boost the TTS trigger.
	Please see the description for all triggers and full details.
	We are also live on Twitch, twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow and a prime sub if you guys have one.
	Without further ado, I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of the Crucible.
	He's a political commentator, blood sports debater.
	His debate opponent is Luke.
	He graduated from University of Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.
	He got his BA in communication, and he also has some criticisms of the show.
	So Luke, we're going to just have you start.
	Let us know if you need us to pull up.
	And I think we will actually pull up because you sent us a DM with some criticism.
	So we'll start there.
	So take a look at that.
	And then also for the Crucible crew who's watching, I know that I've streamed the last couple of days, been really busy traveling around.
	Make sure you send in those TTSs.
	Remember, the show is viewer supported, and Brian graciously has allowed us to come back on into his studio.
	So I just wanted to throw that out there.
	Thank you, Andrew.
	Appreciate it.
	So go ahead.
	What you got?
	Yeah.
	So I think it was about like, what, two weeks ago, my girlfriend at the time was coming on to the show and she at the time?
	At the time.
	Yeah.
	No?
	So she's still your girlfriend?
	Yeah, she's still my girlfriend.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	No, no, I was just saying that at the time.
	She was here and she had been communicated.
	She was invited on.
	She accepted.
	It was about 10 p.m.
	I think she was told at the time that she was going to be here till, and I was waiting, obviously, and there was, you know, earlier arrangements in the morning.
	And I remember thinking, like, you know, this is going pretty long.
	I was watching the stream.
	And the longer and longer I watched it, the more and more I started to see that a lot of the content seemed like it was taking advantage of people that just didn't have all of their logic and their worldviews fully baked.
	And it seemed like they were just being taken advantage of and then not really being presented with the truth upon their, you know, just being humiliated on camera.
	And then on top of that, too, one of the criticisms I had as well too is that people were up very late, including a mom, I believe, who had to step out.
	And when people were asking for the show to end, they were instead offered substances and they kept going.
	And there was even, you know, there's a lot of Twitch chats I feel like that were not the most edifying and kind of degrading that were being read out.
	And I felt like, I believe the term I used was social trafficking.
	And then I felt like it was more exploitative than it was instructional or informative.
	And so yeah, that was the first criticism I had.
	And I'd be curious to hear what you guys think about that.
	Sure.
	So there's quite a bit there.
	Let's start with social trafficking.
	What is social trafficking?
	I would say social trafficking is exploiting people despite, you know, being slightly less intellectual or less studied and then using that for money or for personal gain.
	Okay, so it's taking advantage of stupid people?
	Yeah, I'd say so.
	Okay, so social trafficking just means I take advantage of dumb people.
	For money.
	Okay, got it.
	And how would you quantify that?
	Like, how would we know who's the stupid person, who's the smart person?
	The person who's feeling humiliated in front of a public audience.
	Okay.
	That person.
	Yeah.
	Would it make any difference if that person sucked dick for money on camera as to the level of humiliation that I thought that they would be willing to accept, Luke?
	I'm not sure how to answer that hypothetical question.
	Could you use a different scenario?
	No, I really can't use a different scenario.
	Let us assume the woman who you feel like is being humiliated sucks men's dicks on camera.
	Yeah.
	Do you think that I would think that her threshold for what you might consider humiliation might be slightly different than what you're considering a threshold for humiliation?
	I think she already does feel humiliated in doing that.
	Yeah.
	Even if she says, I absolutely, under no circumstances, feel humiliated by this, I can't wait to get home and do it tonight.
	I'm going to make thousands of dollars.
	Ha ha ha.
	I think we both know that it's not a fulfilling thing to do.
	And I think you do internally feel conflicted and humiliated by that.
	Yeah.
	Are you aware of the idea of pre-lest or a person who is given over to the demonic or reprobate mind that they can be fooled into believing that they're doing something which is fulfilling?
	If you're referencing Romans 1, then yes.
	Not the term you mentioned.
	So if you move over into this idea that these people, you do realize there are people who just really like to be reprobates.
	They actually just like it.
	They enjoy it.
	Yeah.
	Is that in scripture?
	Well, do you disagree?
	Honestly, I don't think I can judge people's hearts.
	I think that's what the Bible says is, you know, wait until the word comes.
	Yeah, do you think there's some people, Luke, who like being scumbags?
	Do you think that they enjoy it?
	Honestly, I think my responsibility is to preach repentance to the people.
	I feel like you're not answering the question.
	Luke, let me ask you again.
	Do you feel like there's some people who like being scumbags?
	They just enjoy it.
	They're deceived.
	Yeah, I do.
	Okay, so they like it.
	So the thing is, is like when you say they look stupid, what if you look stupid because you say something really stupid and it's pointed out, hey, you said something that's really fucking stupid.
	And aren't you supposed to feel stupid?
	Isn't that the idea?
	I think the correct thing to do when someone does make themselves appear stupid and they're really confident and they're asserting it is to actually show them the truth instead of just berate them and show that you're superior to them.
	When you have a worldview and it's false.
	Okay.
	How do you switch your worldview without that one being shown to be wrong?
	Oh, it will be shown to be wrong.
	How?
	How do you show it to be wrong?
	How do you show a worldview to be wrong?
	By revealing the truth.
	Okay, but first, you have to break the worldview down that is false.
	In order to do that, sometimes you're going to have to risk offense and risk making them feel stupid.
	Absolutely.
	And I think you guys do a great job of that here.
	I think modern dating is largely destroying Gen Z and a lot of, especially girls my age.
	And I think that's really good how you guys ask really probing questions to show the gaps in logic, especially.
	Then I don't understand the criticism.
	The criticism is Andrew made woman feel dumb.
	Yes, because I feel like afterwards you didn't present the truth and you instead doubled down and slut-shamed her after she had already said that she felt bullied as a kid.
	Which woman was this?
	Nicolette.
	Oh, the troll?
	Yeah.
	You mean the woman who came in here purposely to troll?
	Yeah, who was trying to derail the show on purpose in order to troll?
	Yeah.
	Oh, you thought I should have revealed the truth to the troll?
	Okay, and you think that the troll, the woman who was here to troll because she was trolling, you think that I would have revealed what?
	What would have been Luke's big reveal?
	I want to hear it.
	I think Christ.
	I'm sorry.
	The reveal to the woman who said that she believed in Christ and was here to troll.
	Yes.
	Your big reveal would have been the thing that she already conceded to.
	I think you should have revealed the true Christ to her.
	Okay.
	Tell me what the true reveal of the true Christ would have looked like to you.
	The true Christ is one who follows after Christ.
	They are known by their fruits, and more importantly, they said they're in Christ's words.
	It's gibberish.
	You haven't shown me how you would reveal that.
	I would preach her the word and the gospel.
	Oh, you were planning when she was trolling to pull out your Bible and start preaching the gospel.
	I think that's a responsibility as any genuine Christian.
	And you think that she would have like looked over and just kind of like mocked you because she would have?
	I mean, honestly, if she does, I don't care.
	I think the important part is being faithful and I just want to make sure I got this clear.
	So on the dating podcast, your big plan was going to be that when a troll began to troll on the dating podcast, instead of you stopping the derailment through quickly humiliating the troll, you would have pulled out your Bible and started preaching.
	Yeah.
	And you think that that would have worked?
	I think so.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, that criticism is addressed.
	That's insane.
	It would never work in a million years.
	And by the way, Luke, demonstrate it.
	Demonstrate it.
	Yeah, find me a troll and go pull your Bible out because they're troll.
	I just want to make sure that you do understand their trolling.
	Do you know what a troll is?
	I know what a troll is.
	What is a troll?
	I think a troll is someone who intentionally comes on, like you were saying, to derail things.
	They know what they're doing.
	They're ironic.
	They're being stupid.
	So if you pull out your Bible, aren't you feeding the troll?
	Yeah, but I think you can say things and seeds will be sown that they can go back and they feel like they won the conversation.
	But in reality, the truth is still sown.
	Okay, so you would have fed the troll.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Brilliant plan, Luke.
	Okay.
	Want to go to the next criticism?
	Sure.
	So while we touched on the, there were a couple of things that you brought up immediately.
	You said that we were, perhaps this is directed more so towards me.
	Taking advantage.
	What does that mean precisely?
	So this is something I'm more passionate about, but I think a lot of people in Gen Z have kind of inherited a lot of bill of false goods as far as what love and what dating are.
	And so on this podcast, I think you guys do, as I said before, an excellent job of revealing just how broken I think the worldview is that's being presented of, you know, having to date around, having to have experience, people thinking that, you know, the double standards, talking about, oh, you have to sleep around to understand if you can marry the person.
	I think all of those things are bankrupt, and I think there is a superior worldview.
	And, yeah, I think most importantly the – sorry, can you repeat the question again?
	The taking advantage part.
	Yeah, taking advantage part.
	I think all of those people are bought into that lie.
	And I think taking advantage of them for content and then clipping it to show how dumb they are without presenting the truth and teaching them, I think it's, you know, it's doing half the job and not completing it.
	I don't feel like I got an argument out of you.
	So when you say taking advantage in this context, what exactly are you saying we're taking advantage of?
	Their lack of intellect going along with what the world is.
	So you think they're stupid?
	No, I just think they're less educated.
	Then who?
	I have no degree.
	You guys are a little bit older.
	You guys have been around.
	No.
	Most of these women are my age.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	A lot of the women who come on the show are my age or only a couple years younger.
	Do you think that like the 34-year-old who I get in an argument with is going to just suddenly become brilliant in six years?
	No, but I think you could show them the truth and maybe they would learn to listen to you.
	They're going to learn to listen to me.
	Okay.
	Have you seen that?
	So when you say taking advantage.
	Yeah, I have.
	I've seen people willing to listen after you completely destroy their worldview.
	They are totally humiliated, have nothing left to appeal to, then they tend to come around you.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So, but when you say taking advantage, would you agree with me that the whatever podcast is one of the largest IRL podcasts in the world?
	I don't know the metrics, but sure.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Would people have an incentive to come onto a podcast like that for perhaps their own personal gains?
	Yes.
	And could those people come on here and just completely annihilate us, destroy our worldview, make us look stupid, completely kick my ass in a debate?
	Isn't that all available to them to do?
	It's possible.
	Okay, so if all those people can do that and they're coming on from the specific motivation of building their own brand and they end up getting annihilated in a debate, even though all of my debates are out there, they can research me inside and out.
	They have every advantage.
	I've never met them once.
	Who's taking advantage of who?
	I would argue, yeah, they're probably not aware of what they're signing up for, and you are doing what you feel like you can do in this podcast.
	What evidence do you have that they don't know what they're signing up for?
	I feel like sometimes people are just led by the people.
	I feel.
	I don't need I feel.
	What's your evidence, not feelings?
	Social media, right?
	People are led by fame.
	People are led by the desire to be liked.
	People are led by, I would say, largely females as well, too, the lust of being looked at and being lusted.
	How's that our responsibility, not theirs?
	Well, I think you guys can correct them.
	Yeah, okay, great.
	But you said taking advantage.
	My argument to you is no, they're taking advantage of the program.
	They want to get on, and they have every opportunity that we do not have, right?
	Because they don't have the social media presence.
	A person can go research my debates for hours.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Look for any logic, little inconsistency, anything that they think could give them an avenue for attack.
	They could do all of that.
	I have the disadvantage.
	I'm meeting with nine complete strangers every single week, know nothing about them.
	I don't get the names until an hour before these women come on, literally.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I get the same information the audience gets.
	The only way I get the names is if I read the thumbnail.
	And I'm like, who the hell are they?
	I don't know who any of them are.
	So I'm at a disadvantage.
	They're at every advantage.
	Who's taking advantage of who here, Luke?
	I would argue that you guys let them on in the first place.
	Why is that us taking advantage of them, the Luke?
	That's what you're not answering.
	Like, them just coming on, you have not demonstrated how that's us taking advantage of them.
	And you've conceded that it sounds like they have tons of motivation to come on.
	I don't understand how we're taking advantage of them.
	How are they not taking advantage of this opportunity?
	They're trying to take advantage to get attention.
	Oh, so they're trying to take advantage of us.
	Yes, on your platform.
	Got it.
	So I just want to make sure when you say taking advantage, I agree.
	Brian, you should not let these women take advantage of you like this.
	And Luke agrees too, 100% just conceded that you shouldn't let them take advantage of you.
	That's not fair, Brian.
	I personally believe that responsibility does come, especially as a man, with education.
	I'm sorry.
	There's men who come on the broadcast as well.
	But I'm wondering why is it that we're infantilizing women and women do not in any way, shape, or form have the capacity to understand that they need to do a research to go on a show?
	Why do women not have the capacity to understand that they could be entering into an arrangement?
	Do you think that women are just children who are infantilized and have no responsibility?
	But like I said before, I was talking about the idea, the broken worldview that they're sold.
	I think a lot of them being raised on social media, not having both parents in the home, are sold this false bill of goods.
	And what about all these women who come on who have both parents in the home?
	They not only have both parents in the home, but their parents go and they pat them on the head and say, hey, good job.
	I'm glad you got gangbanged last night.
	You're making a lot of money, sweetie.
	And I've never seen that.
	Oh, it happens all the time.
	Interesting.
	Not only does it happen all the time, but I call it out all the time and say, what did your dad think?
	And you know what they say?
	That's really supportive.
	Do you think they're being honest?
	Sometimes.
	Okay.
	Yeah, sometimes.
	Sometimes I think they're full of shit.
	But how would I know?
	How would I know unless I asked these kind of probing, inquiring questions in order to draw the worldview out?
	And that's going to risk offense, right?
	Oh, no, absolutely.
	I agree.
	Continue asking the probing questions.
	But I think afterwards, I think you should show them what the truth is to correct them instead of just breaking them down.
	And from, obviously, I haven't watched all your guys' podcasts, and I know you guys have a lot more of a pulse on what dating looks like today versus than what I would.
	But I think it's important to educate where it's like, hey, if you genuinely care about these people, and yeah, they might be coming with false motives to take advantage of you.
	But I genuinely think Christ is, you know, he's the epitome of the logos.
	Yeah, it's important.
	Well, I think that you're conflating two different ideas.
	So you keep on saying, okay, you can show them the truth, this and that, this.
	Okay, fair, fair.
	That's all fair.
	And we can get to that.
	But right now, we're still on this idea of the taking advantage portion.
	I still haven't seen you actually make a good case here for how anybody's getting taken advantage of except Brian.
	Brian has the massive podcast.
	Brian takes all the risk, right?
	And Brian's outnumbered nine to one.
	Now, if there was right now, you were in that seat and there was nine different people right here debating with you and you had to fight every second for speaking time.
	Would you feel like maybe perhaps you were wildly outnumbered?
	Maybe.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, maybe.
	I mean, are they all arguing again?
	That's me.
	Well, that's me every week.
	Are they all arguing against me?
	Because I feel like you kind of come at them as well, too.
	Like, I feel like they're not coming on just to debate.
	Yes, I'm an aggressive debater.
	That's true.
	But it doesn't matter.
	Because you enjoy it.
	It's still 1v9, right?
	Yeah.
	But I'm not complaining.
	I mean, some of the girls are on your side.
	It wasn't one Vina.
	Wait, they are.
	Are we taking advantage of them too?
	No, I don't think so.
	Well, not them.
	We're only taking advantage of the ones I disagree with.
	I think the ones...
	Did you have social media growing up?
	No, I was born for the internet.
	Okay.
	Yeah, and I was raised.
	I don't even think the internet was really a thing until I was like late teens.
	Yeah, like 95 or something, yeah, later on.
	And the reason why I say that is because your home wasn't invaded by a lot of these false worldviews and ideas, and even the temptation just to prostitute yourself out for validation and for money.
	No, those ideas were there.
	What's up?
	Those ideas were there.
	They were just given to you in a different package.
	They weren't hard to access.
	There was plenty of women.
	Now, it is true that the marketing aspect of it for this has become easier than ever with social media.
	But these ideas, the ideas themselves, even in the 90s, there was just as much indoctrination going on, feminist indoctrination, all this type of stuff.
	But Luke, before I let you move on from this, I really do need that demonstration of the taking advantage of them.
	Because I think that largely all these homes have been invaded by a toxic and I ultimately say demonic ideology.
	So confronting that is taking advantage of it?
	I think not presenting them with the truth and letting them sit and just feel shame for buying into this ideology that we all agree is wrong.
	You mean the thing that'll spur them to find the truth?
	Yeah.
	Oh.
	But you don't present it.
	Oh, wait, I'm sorry.
	What spurs them to find the truth?
	Showing them where they're wrong, asking the question.
	So you're saying that because I don't use this as a pulpit for preaching, I don't need to, right?
	That if I destroy an ideology, it's completely in ruins and wrecked, and they're sitting there in shame.
	What do you think that spurs them to go do, Luke?
	I don't know, find a different truth.
	But who's to say they're going to find the right one?
	There's only one, right?
	Isn't that your belief?
	Yeah, I believe so.
	Okay, so from your view and my view, Jesus Christ is the truth, right?
	Yes.
	Source of all wisdom, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay, and knock and what happens, Luke.
	Knock and the door shall be open to you, right?
	Knock and the door shall be open.
	Thing is, it's like all you're saying to me is, wait a second, their ideology is completely destroyed and they're going to start knocking on some doors, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And you don't feel like it's your responsibility to present that as a Christian?
	Do you recognize that I follow up many of these women after the show is known and they follow up with me?
	I didn't know that.
	Yeah, are you aware also that there could be times and places where it's more appropriate to push these views when these women can discuss them outside of the realm of I was essayed by my dad, I was essayed by my cousin, these horrible things happened to me.
	Thanks for not bringing any of that stuff up, right?
	There's a more appropriate time perhaps to go after those things.
	I think that's than in the middle of a dating podcast, right?
	I really think that's honorable, and I'm really happy that you guys do that.
	That makes me really happy.
	Yeah, but before you knew any of that, before you even asked about any of that, you had a criticism, Luke.
	Yeah, I did.
	Isn't that interesting?
	Yep.
	Well, I mean, obviously, I recognize that.
	I mean, Luke, I don't know.
	It sounds like you're here to get a little notoriety.
	Maybe, Luke, you're taking advantage of the whatever podcast right now.
	Possibly.
	Possibly.
	Okay, willing to move on to the next point.
	All right.
	Do you mind if I circle back really?
	Sure, go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Do you feel like you have a platform, right?
	And you were talking about being the number one in the world.
	No, I'm not the number one.
	Number one dating podcast.
	Nope, not the number one.
	I'm saying that.
	What was the metric?
	It's one of the largest IRL dating podcasts in the world.
	Yes.
	Do you think the state of dating, from your personal opinion, is in a state of health or disarray?
	Oh, it's a fucking mess.
	Okay.
	Do you feel any personal responsibility to show people the truth instead of just tearing down what's in disarray?
	I do show them the truth.
	Okay.
	But the thing is, is that you do realize from a secular perspective that you can explain true statements of the metaphysical and of Jesus Christ, even to a secularist through secular means, that they can find this on their own.
	Yeah.
	You realize that.
	Yeah, I do realize that.
	And that that's not only a really good debate tactic, but it's a really good way to not annoy people.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Because you know what really pisses people off?
	Bible thumpers.
	Yeah.
	People who, when you're in the middle of an argument, pull their Bible out and start, well, I don't know, reading scripture to them, which is what your great plan was, right?
	Annoys them to death.
	What doesn't annoy them?
	I've had friends come to Christ though.
	What doesn't annoy them is incremental change.
	Well, yeah, they're your friends.
	They're in your social circle.
	You can work on it all day.
	They weren't until they came to Christ.
	And then I met them out.
	So wait, you were just walking down the street and pulled out your Bible?
	I wasn't the one who read scripture to them.
	That's how they came to Christ.
	Isn't that convenient?
	Isn't that convenient?
	It wasn't you who read the scripture and they turned.
	Somebody somewhere did.
	Here's how it really works: people's worldviews do not get smashed all at once.
	It takes time.
	It's incremental.
	Yeah.
	And the process for moving over is incremental too.
	There could be, and I'm not going to dispute this, I'm sure that there are some people who some guy who's super intense and way more articulate and way smarter and way braver and all the adjectives you can think of than me has looked at a woman and been like, stop prostituting, come to Jesus, and she was like okay, I haven't seen it.
	Yeah, I'm sure it's happened, I haven't seen it.
	I do see a methodology, which does work though, which is destroying a worldview and then building that worldview back into something else.
	It's incremental, takes many sessions, but first you have to demonstrate the horrors of the behavior to begin with, absolutely and I think we're we both continue to agree on that point I think it's from that point going forwards I would largely say too, even condemning people of saying like listen, you're wrong, you've done all these horrible things.
	Ultimately, I think that's what actually qualifies someone for the gospel, they have to recognize that they're a sinner, and I think in America we really struggle to take personal responsibility for our sin.
	So I think this platform is a great opportunity.
	Then what the hell is this criticism of taking advantage?
	So not only are you kind of conceding that they're taking advantage the other direction more than we're taking advantage, our direction advantage, but you let them on.
	Yeah, why is that a problem to let them on?
	I mean you can't be taken advantage of.
	If you're willingly letting them on okay, well then they can't be taken advantage of by that same logic, by willingly what coming on?
	Okay thanks, Luke.
	Sure, i'll concede that point.
	Okay, so there's quite a bit more to get through.
	But the really uh, one of the things you brought up was the uh substances.
	You said in your message to us multiple times, women asked to end the stream, to return to their responsibilities, and you instead shut them down and offered substances.
	Uh, can you just clarify what substances were you believe were offered?
	So I may have been wrong, I believe it was maybe just alcohol and maybe caffeine.
	But um, from what my girlfriend said at the time, the population hey, give me a beer, by the way.
	Good timing, just in case you know.
	Substances yeah, and I will say, normally I don't have an issue with substances.
	The only issue is that I believe the show was scheduled to end to the contestant or not contestants.
	Debaters at the time communicated about 10 p.m.
	It was getting late into the night, around maybe 12 to 1230, and some people would ask to go home, including a mother and a woman who was going to do ministry on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood the next morning very early and they were planning on being done at 10 p.m and when they had asked multiple times to leave, they were instead offered alcohol and caffeine to keep them going.
	And then the conversation kept going.
	There was twitch readouts and I felt like that was kind of taking advantage of people's schedule and what you had communicated.
	I'm actually enjoying the framing here, So let me say, maybe taking advantage.
	Let me read the framing here to you.
	Okay.
	So what you would call it, you took advantage by offering by offering substances.
	If we say taking advantage, we're going to get to it.
	Okay, you offered them substances, right?
	And this was untoward.
	You're actually from, what I hear is you were looking after your guests' needs.
	So your guest, if your guest was hungry, you gave them food.
	They wanted a drink, you gave them a drink.
	They wanted alcohol at 21 years old, you can give them an hour.
	Now, I don't know about you, Luke, but if I have a podcast and I have somebody over on a podcast, you want to care for it.
	You know what I also, what I do a lot, I go, hey, man, this is going a little longer.
	You want a beer?
	Yeah.
	And you know what they usually say?
	You'll never guess it.
	They say yes.
	Yeah.
	I say, yeah, sure, man.
	I'd love to have a beer.
	So this is all framing, right?
	You're just framing this.
	Well, in this specific instance that I watched, the person who was offered the alcohol did not ask for alcohol, and more importantly, they had asked on the opposite side, along with two other people.
	What does that mean, asked on the opposite side?
	They had asked to leave.
	Okay, you don't ask to leave.
	Why do you ask to leave?
	I don't know.
	Maybe because you want to follow the rules of the show.
	Yeah, like, Luke, are you being held hostage here?
	No, I could leave.
	Are there men behind you with Uzis who are threatening that if you get up off that chair and walk out the door, that you will be put down?
	Or can you just get up right this second and walk out and nobody would do a fucking thing?
	Maybe they wanted to follow the rules that you guys could rules.
	I don't know.
	So hang on, just to get this right, they're following rules that you don't know inside of some type of contract you don't understand.
	And your criticism is that their needs were being met by whatever they wanted.
	To clarify, I believe my criticism was that beyond what had been communicated before, for the sake of what appears to be financial gain and just clipping people, I think they were offered substances as an incentive to stay on after having asked to leave.
	Yeah, just like I would offer my friend a beer and say, hey, we're going a little long on the show.
	Would you like a beer?
	Yeah, but I think there's a difference too with people that have responsibilities and they want to go home.
	Yeah, but why would that be a criticism towards the show?
	Like, why, that would be like criticizing me if I had a person on my show and said, we're going a little.
	This actually just happened to me.
	I was on a show with Elijah Schaefer.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	And he was like, hey, man, I know that we're going a little bit longer and he had to leave, right?
	You know, would you like a drink?
	And we just kind of barrel through the rest of this.
	Now, I took advantage of my gracious host offering to me this drink.
	It was very kind of him to do.
	You know what I didn't do?
	I didn't go later and go, oh, guys, I couldn't believe it.
	You know, we went over and this son of a bitch offered me a drink.
	This bastard, we got to get him, guys.
	Doesn't that sound absurd to you?
	It could, I think.
	Did you ask to leave first, though?
	Yeah.
	Well, in fact, emphatically, I said, listen, I have a hard out.
	I have a hard out because I had another podcast I had to get to.
	So I was like, dude, I have a hard out.
	We went over the time anyway.
	Shit happens, right?
	Hey, man, can you stay?
	Can you stay?
	I know we're a little over.
	Can you stay?
	And how about a drink?
	Yeah.
	Boy, this is real nefarious stuff, Luke.
	This is some real bad knife twisting stuff you got going here.
	I think the context is different.
	Why?
	Because it's females versus males.
	Oh, because we're back to infantilizing women again.
	No, I think it's.
	Women can't assert themselves.
	They were being held hostage.
	They had no choice.
	They had to be here.
	They have no autonomy.
	And if Luke was here, you would have made sure, right?
	You would have walked him right out the door.
	If they would have asked to leave after the time that we communicated that if we would be done, I would have let them out.
	Might I jump in briefly on a couple things?
	I will try to, at least for the remainder of the debate, be fairly unbiased here.
	But I do at least want to clarify just a couple things.
	So I pulled up the messages that we had with Carly and I said the, and this is what's communicated to almost all the guests who come on.
	So the me time's 4 p.m.
	We wrap around 10, but may go later though.
	Okay.
	And sometimes the communication, depending on the person, it's communicated a little differently.
	We will typically say wrap around 10 or 11, but we may go later though.
	In addition to that, people who typically have days, weeks, or even months to do even a modicum of research can look for themselves and see the length of the individual podcast.
	They can see that it's six, seven, eight hours.
	At times they can sort of do a assessment there.
	Okay, if we're going to meet at 4 p.m., then that means that, and we go live at 5 p.m., that means I should anticipate the show ending anywhere from 10, 11 or 12 p.m.
	I believe we wrapped around sometime between 12 and 12.30 that night.
	It's closer to 1, yeah.
	Well, you know what time that is in my time?
	It's pretty late.
	Yeah, it's almost, yeah.
	Usually I get done 5 a.m.
	Were they taking advantage of you, keeping you up?
	No, certainly not.
	And just lastly here.
	And by the way, if I wanted to, you know what I could do?
	It's amazing.
	You know what I could do?
	If I was like, hey, Brian, you know what?
	I got a heart out and he said no, I could just go, okay.
	And Steve.
	Yeah.
	And there's nothing anybody on planet Earth could do about that.
	Because you're a co-host of the show.
	No, I'm not a co-host.
	I'm a guest.
	You're a guest.
	You're a frequent guest.
	Frequent, frequently.
	He has a good relationship with the host.
	Yeah, but there's other females who are here who are frequent guests who also have a great relationship with the host.
	There's other men who have a great relationship with the host.
	There's Jake Rattlesnake.
	Mason, by the way, who's laid up in a hospital right now.
	Great relationship with Brian.
	Many, many of these people have a great relationship with Brian.
	This kind of absurd idea that there was like some sort of hostage taking going on is that's all rhetoric designed around framing.
	You can even take something as non-nefarious as offering your guests refreshment and somehow turn that into an assault on the guest.
	And you can see from my end how I think that that's so absurd and that you're framing it up to make somebody an evildoer, nefarious character who had no nefarious intentions at all, except to finish out the show strong and make sure the guests' needs were attended to.
	I apologize.
	I may have misread your guys' intentions, but from an outside perspective, it just looked like people were trying to leave after the time that had been communicated.
	And instead, you guys were incentivizing them to stay content for personal gain.
	If I wasn't reading that.
	Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	If you have people who agree to be a guest on your show, okay?
	You're doing the show.
	Yeah.
	You go overtime.
	What in the world would ever in a million years be wrong with offering them incentives to stay?
	I was just refusing their request to leave.
	You can't refuse a request to leave.
	It's not a thing which can be done.
	Like, how would I refuse your request to leave?
	Say no?
	No, Luke.
	You can't leave.
	And then what happens?
	You get up and leave, right?
	I don't really understand.
	Like, I'm really lost on this, Luke.
	I'm not going to lie.
	I'm starting to get lost as well, too.
	But the main point I was getting after was just the time of communication, staying up late, being up to around 12.30 on a night when most people are working.
	And then when asking to leave, just offering it.
	Was this a Tuesday or a Sunday?
	It was a Tuesday.
	It was Tuesday night, yeah.
	I believe it was a Tuesday show.
	Final thing on this, and then I'll just let you guys get back to it.
	The substances component here, that is also a bit of framing, you know, by referring it to as well.
	Give me some illicit substances.
	So like leaving a pizza, wouldn't that be a substance?
	It could be.
	Yeah.
	Here's some trans fat.
	You monsters.
	I do want, and I don't know if it's even worth pulling it up, but I did do a cursory, bear in mind these episodes are seven hours long.
	I briefly went over the transcript.
	You said that alcohol was offered.
	I actually looked it over and I believe it was actually, I don't know if it was me making the offer or if it was specifically Nicolette requesting for alcohol.
	So I'm not, I could be, I don't want to say definitively because I went back and looked.
	I'm pretty sure.
	What happened is Nicolette was, we were talking about how she was a party girl, right?
	She wanted some booze.
	Yeah.
	Monster, you fucking monster.
	You were willing to grant this grown, not infant woman's request to have.
	Now, Luke, to be fair, when you came here, I was also a monster.
	I did offer you a beer.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Did you think that that was nefarious?
	No, I don't think it's nefarious.
	I do think it does help people open up more and helps conversation go.
	Well, and also, people get their nerves racked, right?
	And do you think having one alcoholic beverage can assist with that?
	Absolutely.
	And do you think that a person could request that because they want that?
	Yeah.
	Where's the monster behavior going on?
	I'm not trying to paint you guys as a monster.
	I just want to go back to the point here.
	And like I said, maybe I miswatched the transcript.
	And maybe this is a completely invalid criticism.
	But from what I had seen, I had seen two women, one who was a mother and the one who was about to do ministry in the morning, request to leave after the time that was communicated, going into on a weeknight to leave.
	And then a third request, I believe, from Nicolette saying she was tired and she wanted to go home before being offered.
	I can't believe how irresponsible these women are.
	A mother irresponsibly decided to go on a podcast on a weeknight along with a woman who had another engagement in the morning thinking they could fit all of that through.
	These are irresponsible people, Luke.
	Did you send any of them a DM telling them that it was irresponsible of them when they have children at home that they may have to run back to to go on a podcast on a work night?
	Did you tell any of these women how irresponsible they were?
	No.
	Fucking course not.
	Just Brian.
	Just Brian's fault, right?
	Because the poor women, they're little angels.
	They're angels.
	And Brian's exploiting them for his own personal gain.
	Not a single message, right, Luke?
	Nothing.
	Just Brian.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	A couple other things here on the substances component.
	Again, definitively, I didn't look at the entire transcript.
	I do believe it was Nicolette who she requested the alcohol.
	I don't think I made any offerings specifically of alcohol in an effort to get guests to say.
	I do believe I offered energy drinks because, but it was more so some of the guests, like you said, Nicolette stated that she was tired.
	Some of the other guests stated that they were tired.
	And so they perhaps wanted to leave because they were tired.
	I felt it was appropriate to offer an energy drink to alleviate the tiredness.
	So in terms of offering substances, I believe it was a Red Bull, perhaps a monster energy.
	Don't recall the exact, but I did, I admit I did offer energy drinks, substances.
	I don't think caffeine.
	Yeah, I don't think the substances was as evil.
	Like I said, maybe I was wrong in interpreting what you guys were just trying to care for them.
	But I feel like as hosts, if someone does ask to leave, the most caring thing to do is to oblige.
	I think the most caring thing for a responsible mother to do would be to not come on a podcast like that if she had other engagements with her kid.
	If she was communicated that it would end at 10, she would probably be like, okay, I'll be.
	Oh, so they get a pass.
	So, so wait, so they had an expectation.
	That expectation didn't work out.
	They get a pass.
	He has an expectation.
	That expectation doesn't work out.
	Fuck him.
	What was his expectation?
	The expectation was that you stay for the show duration.
	It could go past X time.
	Very, very fairly communicated.
	You just read the communication.
	Could go past this time.
	Yeah.
	What's the expectation here, Luke?
	Fair point.
	Final thing on the substance thing.
	I do just want to offer this up as a clarification.
	We actually make it a sort of a rule that we actually don't want to offer people any alcohol before the show.
	We don't want any sort of...
	Correct.
	I've got my attitude.
	So there was a time, it was the last time I was down here in person.
	I was around with the girls and there was a chick I'd been on the program with before, and I always bring my beer in here because I'm not going to fucking do what Brian says, right?
	But she was, you know, she was sitting there and I was like, hey, you want a beer?
	She said, sure.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So I gave her a beer and Brian was like, no, with the pre-show, like, no.
	He chewed my ass for it.
	Never did it again, right?
	Chewed my ass.
	We, yeah, we do tend to make it a habit of other shows will sometimes offer alcohol, but it's sort of there.
	There could be some perception of impropriety.
	For example, someone might make a allegation that we are attempting to liquor up the guests prior to the show in an effort to get them to say things they wouldn't otherwise say.
	You mean a guy like Luke?
	To be fair.
	See, I didn't say prior to the show.
	No, sure.
	I just wanted to clarify that for any of the viewers.
	We actually pretty hard and fast rule.
	We don't offer any alcohol to the guests prior to the show.
	The only instance where we do.
	What's that?
	Except for me.
	Well, I offered it.
	And the thing is, he's not the host.
	So the thing is, is like, there's a lot of wisdom in it, right?
	And once it was explained to me why, it was like, okay, you know, because I saw it as harmless.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	That's how I do things.
	I'm in the Midwest.
	When you come to my house, there's three things that are going to happen.
	Cigar.
	The first thing that's going to happen is you're going to get fed.
	And I have no say in that.
	Okay.
	My wife's going to feed you no matter what.
	It doesn't even matter if you came right from a restaurant.
	You're getting fed.
	Yeah.
	Period.
	Doesn't matter.
	The second thing is, I'm going to offer you a drink.
	Right.
	And then the third thing is probably a little bit of gunshoting.
	Right.
	Those are like the big three.
	But at least the Fed and that's just a given.
	That's how everybody does things.
	So I see it as harmless, right?
	Someone's like, hey, that looks great.
	It was a hot day.
	You know what I mean?
	I'm like, sure, you want a beer?
	I didn't think of it.
	Didn't think anything of it.
	Yeah.
	But there was a lot of wisdom in what Brian said, right?
	It's essentially a bit of a liability for us to even to offer people alcohol because, again, they could make some sort of claims that they came on the show, they tried to get us drunk so that we could say, so just sort of across the board rule, we don't offer alcohol.
	The only time is occasionally people will do a donation tier for a champagne pop, in which case they'll have about, they'll get poured about three sips worth of champagne.
	So aside from that, I think actually on the show your girlfriend was on, there's a champagne.
	Cenius donated $100.
	Hey, thank you.
	This gentleman turned used loosely definitely has a humiliation fetish.
	What the?
	He seemed a skilled level of Andrew and knew full well he was going to be the underdog.
	I bet he's at half masked under that table.
	All right, Cenius, appreciate it.
	We'll really quick pull up.
	It's a good roast.
	We'll pull up a super chat here from Pelagic 2.
	Pelagic says this guy's a manipulator.
	He's setting a trap.
	Dangerous to converse with these types.
	Talking about Luke or Andrew?
	I was going to say.
	All right, Pelagic, good to see you in the chat, man.
	Really appreciate it.
	Guys, like the video, please.
	Like the video.
	And then could you also pull up the Twitch and Discord really quick and then we'll get into the rest of the Let's just do Twitch then Discord really quick.
	Guys, go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow in the Prime sub if you have one.
	Really appreciate it, guys.
	And then guys, join, excuse me, our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
	We post all kinds of stuff.
	I've been posting a bunch of hate mail I've received.
	It's really funny.
	Oh, have you read some of the ones?
	It's so funny.
	Go to that Discord all the time and just read it so far.
	It's definitely interesting.
	I don't know if you saw the one about the woman who said she would own and destroy.
	Yeah.
	Oh, man.
	Okay.
	We'll come back to you.
	Noah donated $100.
	Hey, thank you, Noah.
	Appreciate it.
	If anyone offers me a drink in theatrical, I dropkick them.
	They obviously can't be trusted.
	They obviously can't be those psychopaths.
	Those psychopaths.
	Pull up Discord really quick again, guys.
	Discord.gg/slash whatever.
	We post a bunch of the behind-the-scenes.
	By the way, what's up, Noah?
	It's nice to see you, buddy.
	Yeah, thank you, Noah.
	So, guys, we've been posting behind the scenes.
	We've been doing some IRL streams, by the way, guys.
	We posted this clip.
	We were out with Jake Rattlesnake.
	It was last weekend.
	This guy, he's like the stream sniper.
	It's the third time we were out yesterday.
	He's insane.
	We posted the BTS of it.
	We posted some kickouts, so be sure to check it out.
	Discord.gg/slash/whatever.
	And then, really quick, I'll just since it's relevant, but it's below the threshold.
	We had this woman, Pink Pill, on was it the Tuesday show, Austin?
	I think it was.
	Don't offer, yeah.
	We don't make it a rule not to offer alcohol.
	We don't want any even appearances of impropriety.
	So just wanted to clarify that on the whole substance front.
	Let's get into the rest of the, I guess, some of the criticisms here.
	Austin, are you able to pull up the window tab so we can actually see what was written?
	Just okay.
	So I copy and pasted the Instagram messages into a notepad here.
	So can we start with please be respectful of the women you have on in the future?
	We can go to them want to come back.
	Really quick before, actually, I think there were some conversations about Andrew being a frequent guest.
	Nicolette is actually also, she's been on the show, I think, five, six times.
	I just wanted to point that out.
	So she's and also very good sport.
	Yeah.
	Have you seen change?
	No.
	Not at all.
	Okay.
	Are you still following up with messaging?
	I don't think I've received a message.
	Okay.
	Because you were talking about presenting people after shattering their worldview on camera.
	Yeah, usually they contact me.
	Oh, okay.
	Andrew, you wanted to get into the please be respectful of the women you have on in the future?
	Yeah.
	Okay, listen.
	So here's my take on this, right?
	This criticism usually comes from people who don't watch the long form of the show.
	They watch the clips.
	Yeah.
	So when they see the clip, they see a heated exchange, but they have no context for the exchange.
	So I'm just going to be blunt and ask you: is this idea coming from the clips or is it coming from you actually having watched several long-form, whatever podcast episodes?
	I have seen one or two full seven-hour, all 14-hour of your guys' content.
	Yeah, so then I don't understand the criticism because you should know then that almost always the conversations are very kind of mundane and talk about kind of mundane things.
	They only get heated if we kind of brush up against political topics or when ideologies begin to converge, right?
	That's not only expected, but I don't even understand why you would have a problem with that.
	You know for sure that that's the most divisive thing on planet Earth you're carrying around with you.
	Oh, yeah.
	So what the hell is this criticism?
	The criticism, can you repeat the question one more time?
	Yeah, it's be respectful to the women's because you're going to hurt their feelings.
	They won't come back to the show.
	Yeah, the criticism was specifically directed to people who had opened up about being bullied before and receiving a lot of harassment from their character and then doubling down on that after you had already shattered their worldview and like I said, not presenting them with the truth.
	And I ultimately feel like that's more condemning.
	Have you ever heard the term crybully?
	Say it again.
	Have you ever heard the term crybully?
	No.
	So a crybully is somebody who they come on, they do the bullying, but then when you hit back, they cry about it.
	Hurt people, hurt people.
	Right.
	You're this, you're that, you're this.
	Yeah.
	You hit them back with one thing, and suddenly, oh, I can't believe you said that to me, right?
	If you've watched these long form episodes, you'll note that most of the time I just match energy.
	So if you're like, if you're pretty chill, you're pretty laid back, I'm pretty chill and laid back.
	If you're kind of loud and obnoxious, I'll be loud and obnoxious.
	If you want to move into personal attacks, I move right into the personal attacks, right?
	But what that actually does is it de-escalates a situation.
	So generally, when a person knows, it's just like the idea of the person who thinks they can punch you.
	If they know you'll punch back, they're less likely to punch you, right?
	It's the same exact mentality there.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	So the idea is not to escalate, it's to de-escalate.
	And the best way to do that is when somebody is giving you a certain type of energy, if you kind of give it right back to them, they tend to kind of chill out a little more.
	Like, you're not the guy who I want to do this with.
	Yeah, you're pushing back, turning.
	Right.
	Do you actually see anything wrong with that?
	I understand it.
	I think I would, from a more biblical standpoint, I've looked a little bit into Eastern Orthodoxy.
	Nice eyebrow.
	Theosis, process of becoming like Christ, right?
	I don't think I see that behavior in the world.
	You mean pit of vipers?
	Right?
	You're going to go to hell.
	You're going to go to hell.
	You're a pit of vipers.
	Those people were prideful and they would not recognize their sin.
	Oh.
	And I think you're in a situation.
	Wait, really?
	They were prideful, wouldn't recognize their sin, push back against Jesus, said he was a false Messiah, ended up putting him on a cross, killing him.
	Yeah.
	Those guys?
	Yeah.
	I'm thinking that in the situation of the adulterous woman, Christ actually said, I do not condemn you.
	He said, go and sin no more.
	Yeah.
	John 8.
	Go and sin no more.
	Now, did she fight him?
	Was she arguing with Christ?
	Before he was talking about Christianity.
	She wasn't arguing with him.
	She never argued with Christ.
	Did she go, you're not the son of God?
	Nah, I am queen.
	I am queen of the desert.
	I am queen of this desert.
	You are not the son of God.
	Did she do any of that?
	Or did she agree with him?
	And then he told her to go sin in no more.
	Go sin no more.
	So have you ever heard a woman go, Andrew, I agree with you.
	I should stop being a prostitute.
	And I was like, no, no, that's not good enough.
	You must be punished.
	Has that ever happened?
	I haven't watched all your episodes.
	Has it ever happened?
	But I would say that sometimes you could have the discernment to see someone who is projecting and who is a hurt person that is hurting other people.
	And you could meet them with compassion and say, listen, I'm actually not going to engage and go tit for tat with the name card and with all of these things.
	And you've actually exposed one of the reasons why you're probably doing this because of a prior wound from someone else.
	And then you could.
	You mean them?
	Yeah.
	They're exposing from the wound.
	They're exposing the wound.
	Yeah, that's all pseudo-psychological nonsense, right?
	Sure.
	It could just be because they're a bitch.
	Did you ever think of that?
	Like, it could just be that the makeup of this woman, there is no prior wound.
	There is no prior thing that happened.
	There is no real crutch for them to lean on.
	They're just kind of a rotten bitch.
	Like, has that ever even occurred to you that there's a possibility that some women are so entitled and have their asses kissed all day long that just hearing a tiny bit of pushback triggers them and makes them completely irrational, turning them into like nonsense babbling lunatics?
	Like, is that possible too?
	I think Christ died to save sinners of whom I am chief.
	And I don't want to judge others and knock them down.
	You're judging me.
	I'm not trying to judge you.
	How are you not judging me?
	You're making all sorts of value assessments and value judgments based on preconceived notions.
	And you don't even have, in many of these cases, the correct information.
	How is it okay, though?
	I think the only reason you feel like it's okay to assess and judge me is because you think he can take it.
	I'm not trying to judge you.
	I'm trying to show what I believe the truth to be and the correct way to go about the behavior.
	Go and sin no more.
	Yeah.
	What does that mean?
	Telling them to stop and forsake their sin.
	Yeah, so do they have to acknowledge that?
	I think so.
	If they're arguing with you, are they acknowledging that?
	Maybe.
	If they're arguing with you, they're acknowledging that?
	They might be.
	You can't tell.
	What?
	Well, if I couldn't tell, then how could I make that assessment?
	If you can't tell, you have to make the assessment.
	I think, regardless of what they're saying back to you, your message always still has to be compassion and repentance, even if they're pushing back.
	Yeah, but telling the truth is going to, to a person who believes the things that these people believe, it's going to be mean from their perspective.
	It's going to be cruel.
	It's going to be awful.
	It's going to be horrible.
	You're going to be a monster.
	How can I assess if a woman is still arguing with me that she's coming to the message?
	That makes no sense, dude.
	You tell me, how could I assess that ever?
	Maybe the fact that they're revealing their prior wounds, like I was saying before.
	When they say they're proud of them?
	I mean, do you really think they are?
	Sometimes, yeah.
	For sure.
	I would probably disagree there, but yeah, I know, but you wouldn't base it on anything.
	You would have nothing to base it on.
	How can I make an assessment on what a person, what's in their heart other than what comes out of their mouth?
	Yeah.
	And I apologize.
	I might be projecting here, but I will just say from a personal experience, especially with talking with people that do want to push back and argue, I usually come from the perspective of this person, I need to share Jesus Christ to this person.
	Not only his judgment and his conviction of sin, but more importantly, repentance and the kindness of God that leads us to repentance.
	And I think that's an element that I always want to infuse, even if they are pushing back.
	But there's a time for placement of that as well.
	And that's discernment.
	Yes.
	Is knowing the time to place this.
	But this really avoids my question.
	How can you make a value judgment or a value assessment on somebody who's arguing against your position and think, oh, they get it?
	How could you ever do that?
	I don't think you can.
	You can't do it.
	Right.
	So then I don't understand the criticism of saying, but Andrew, you have special discernment that nobody else on planet Earth has that I'm aware of, where you can discern based on, I don't know, some like ESP or something like this, what's actually in their heart.
	How could I ever do that?
	This is where I would probably say it would be the Holy Spirit.
	Yeah, okay.
	You couldn't do that.
	You couldn't make that value assessment ever.
	You just admitted that.
	You couldn't do it.
	Yeah, you well, but when you say the Holy Spirit, you could think something's a Holy Spirit and it's not.
	You still have to gauge and judge things with when you say discernment, that's what we're talking about here, right?
	If everything that's coming out of your mouth is counter to what I'm saying to you or to the argument that I'm giving to you, there is literally no reason you could ever give me why I should think, oh, they get it.
	Yeah.
	How could you ever know that?
	But I think you could still be led to say things that wouldn't make sense in the time based off of your own judgment from God.
	Yeah, through the argument, though.
	It's still going to be placed in the argument.
	Right.
	Like, where else is it?
	Where else are you going to put it?
	But you could divert and just talk directly to them, talk to their heart instead of just the words they're saying.
	Yeah, you can make emotional appeals.
	That's true.
	They don't last long.
	And they're very poor because you know what happens?
	Somebody else makes a counter-emotional appeal.
	Yeah.
	So I was arguing with a woman the other night on Twitter.
	This woman was stupid, right?
	But she said her entire argument was, but abortionists have been able to convince me multiple times on the SA thing because it tugs on my heartstrings.
	This means that what she's actually saying is people have made great logical arguments to me.
	And I agree with them.
	But once that emotional appeal is made, I still want to lean towards it, right?
	So you have to get in that worldview.
	Now, I can't make great emotional appeals because I'm not really an emotional guy, right?
	It's not my thing.
	But I can make great logical appeals.
	I can make great logical arguments.
	That's the best way I know how to interact.
	Yeah.
	Then maybe we just disagree or we agree to disagree and we have different styles and how we would show someone the truth and how we would try and counter them and point them to Christ.
	I can't really kind of let you get away with this, though, because of this.
	Yeah.
	Because you said, and I'm going to try to quote you.
	Quote me.
	You said that the best way, well, I can't quote you.
	I'm sorry.
	I didn't write it down.
	I wrote something else down.
	The best way to do that.
	I want to make sure that I don't strawman this position, so I'll just ask you again.
	If you're in an argument, you, with somebody else, and they say to you, I disagree with everything you're saying right now, and you're completely wrong.
	How could I ever make the value judgment that they think anything other than that?
	You can't.
	I can't.
	Short of the Holy Spirit's inspiration.
	Yeah, well, I mean, I guess, but even that would be very hard to detect, right?
	Even that would be like, I think that that's an appeal that you're making an appeal, a standard appeal, that you would never have towards anything else, right?
	You'd be like, in that case, the Holy Spirit should have filled you up, Andrew.
	And it's like, well, what does that look like?
	Yeah.
	Right?
	It would look like being given the words to say, boldness, confidence.
	But I can easily make all of those kind of right appeals, right?
	But I'm just not arrogant enough to think it's because the Holy Spirit is necessarily directing me, right?
	Like, I'm just not going to be arrogant enough to state God's speaking through me right now.
	I'm just not going to be arrogant enough to do that.
	I mean, you don't have to say God is speaking through me directly.
	Yeah.
	But I mean, so when you make that appeal, it's just, it's just, to me, it's just kind of a nonsense appeal, right?
	Yes, the Holy Spirit moves through people.
	I've seen it myself.
	I know for sure that that happens, right?
	I have no idea how you would place that in an argument, though, and say, other than what's coming out of your mouth, this is what I hear, this is what I see.
	How else I make the value judgment, at least in a way that's rational and reasonable.
	In 1 Corinthians, I believe 14, it talks about a word of knowledge or a word of wisdom, a gift of discernment.
	And I think that might just be something that we see differently, of being able to see someone and see the words they're saying and see a different approach or their heart posture behind it.
	But that's, like I said, that's where I'm coming from in this.
	Okay.
	We can move that one on, Brian.
	I don't know where else to go with it.
	Sure.
	Austin, can you pull back up the notes?
	All right.
	So we address the please be respectful of the women.
	Second, your treatment of Nicolette was inexcusable.
	She is clearly broken.
	That was the whole point of the stream, right?
	Show how logical and dumb she is.
	This is something that...
	Oh, well, we'll let this...
	Living Anders co-donated $100.
	Thank you, Living.
	Question for the factor from White Knight during an apocalypse.
	Nice.
	Thank you, Living.
	You somehow got around the filter there, but appreciate the message.
	Why don't we go ahead and pull it back up?
	Did you want to be respectful of the women?
	I want to make sure.
	I just want to make sure I get the right people here, right?
	I talk to a lot of people.
	Was Nicolette the one I said had a gun?
	I don't think so.
	I don't remember that one.
	Was that the one?
	That was the one.
	Okay.
	And I disavow the guns comment.
	Of course.
	I disavow the guns comment.
	But I wanted to make, I think that that creates a reference for the whatever audience.
	They know what's being referenced.
	Yeah.
	That's all.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So anyway, it was that girl.
	Yeah.
	The horrible troll.
	I don't remember seeing, I don't remember hearing that word, but sure.
	Maybe I should have just not even brought that up then.
	Yeah.
	It's more ambo to my side.
	Do you want to?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Can you pull the criticism back up, Brian?
	So the treatment of Nicolette was inexcusable.
	She's clearly broken.
	It's not clear.
	So when you say, so these are like loaded terms.
	You're using kind of loaded terms here.
	When you say things like it's very clear, X is true, it's not clear, X is true.
	When you say it's obvious, it's not obvious, right?
	I would take, so I'm going to take issue first with the idea of what is clear, what is obvious.
	It is not always obvious to me.
	In fact, it's almost never obvious to me.
	What's going through a person's brain until they verbalize everything that's going through their brain, why they think the things they do.
	People have such a wide array of motivations.
	Some people could be on the troll for the show for the purposes of trolling or derailment.
	Some people could be on the show for the purpose of pushing their own agenda.
	Some may be here for just really good faith dialogue.
	I like all of it.
	For me, all of it's fun.
	The whole gambit, if you're a troll on Tuesday, I like dealing with that sometimes.
	I like dealing with the great faith combos, and I like dealing with the heated arguments.
	I like the full kind of spectrum of that.
	But when you use loaded language like this, when you say it should be clear or X is obvious, that to me is again just framing.
	You're just saying you should have known better than X.
	And so now's the time where you get to demonstrate.
	Now's a time where I get to listen and you get to demonstrate how that was clear, that treatment of Nicolette was inexcusable and how it was clear that she's clearly broken.
	I would say it comes to the point where the person has talked about their wounds earlier on, the reasons why they were bullied or harassed or they were made fun of.
	And then you lead them to the point where they're literally saying, yeah, I think I'm siding with the devil instead of God for doing OnlyFans.
	You broke them to that point where they really.
	That is not the same chick.
	Nicolette did not say that.
	Nicolette said that.
	Sorry, could you just repeat what she said?
	I can't remember what she said.
	You were questioning her because she had claimed to be a Christian.
	Yeah, yeah, that was a different chick, though.
	pretty sure that that's not nicolette i don't think nicolette would honestly like maybe i'm wrong but i don't think that nicolette would say if if you asked her what would god prefer that you do this versus that i I don't think that she would take the gambit on that.
	The one that I called.
	What did she say?
	We can look it up.
	Specifically, you guys were asking her, I believe Andrew was, he was asking a very probing question if you guys were following off of like, all right, you believe in God.
	Why are you still doing OnlyFans?
	And it came to a head where you say, okay, who do you think, who do you think wants you to do OnlyFans, God or the devil?
	And she said, yeah, well, probably the devil.
	That was Nicolette, though?
	Or was that another girl on the panel?
	I think that that was the other girl.
	I think it was the girl who was sitting there.
	I mean, we're going to have to just shoot in the dark at this point.
	Helping God transcripts.
	We can look.
	The red-headed woman who was dating.
	No, it was the one next to her.
	Like the quiet girl, I think.
	She was kind of quiet.
	You'll have to give me a few moments to look this up, but.
	I'm not sure.
	Yeah, I'm not actually sure that that's the right girl.
	Well, so the one on that.
	Nicolette was just kind of like a trolling brat, but I'm not sure that she would.
	So, I mean, on that panel, the only two women who were involved with OnlyFans were Nicolette and then the red-headed woman who claimed she dated Tristan Tate.
	Was it Nicolette?
	Yeah, I mean, it was most likely, I think, it was most likely Nicolette.
	Really?
	Okay.
	This was the Satan God question?
	Yeah.
	I can look up the transcript.
	I'm pretty sure you posed it to her, though.
	Was it?
	If you want definitive, I can look up the transcript, but I do think you might have posed it to her.
	I mean, I don't remember.
	But go ahead with the criticism.
	The point being said, I think we both agree.
	Do you think it's a positive or a negative for a woman to be doing OnlyFans?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Negative, right?
	Yeah.
	Do you think positive or negative large scale for our generation?
	Yeah, it's negative.
	Negative.
	Okay.
	So she's clearly shown.
	You've gapped her logic and she's showing the fact of where she's coming from with a place of hurt.
	And I think it's that.
	It's the last part.
	But it's hurt?
	Yeah, that's.
	Do you think people go into OnlyFans just being super confident and self-secure and then they're okay?
	Yeah.
	I think that people will, I think I have never ever endorsed nor bought into this kind of stupid idea that people themselves are not capable themselves of evil or themselves of adjudicating what they think evil is for their own personal motivations.
	While I think that the devil leads the world astray, I have never taken the responsibility off of the human being themselves for engaging in evil behavior.
	And so when you say the idea of, well, it's broken, well, that's not clear, or there's past trauma, well, that's not clear.
	The only thing that's clear is I've made the decision to do that.
	What you're doing there is creating an inference that actually removes the gap of responsibility by giving them something else that they can point to other than them for this is why I do what I do.
	Why do you think that that's appropriate?
	I don't think I want to absolve them of responsibility.
	I think responsibility is actually the highest form of agency and that that is the one thing you do bring to the scandal of the gospel and the fact that there's only one thing you bring to the cross and that's your own sin and the person has to take responsibility for it.
	And I think you were at a prime example of showing her the gospel and showing her Christ and instead that was not made and you incentivize her.
	That was not the point to beat her over the head with the Bible.
	That was not the right point to do that.
	You just agreed that it's better for her not to be doing OnlyFans.
	Yeah.
	Do you think there's a better way to remove someone?
	Yeah, but listen, from her view at that time, it wouldn't matter what woman you were talking to at this point, unless you can provide credible evidence of what this hurt or thing that must have happened that led you to do X, right?
	I just don't have the same faith in, I guess, in these women that you do, where you think that they're just kind of like born angelic or something.
	I don't know.
	They're not.
	They have all sorts of their own motivations, all sorts of reasons they want to do things, totally external to the kind of motivations I think you think they all have.
	I just think it's good old-fashioned American greed.
	They want money, and this is a really easy way to get it, and they don't give a damn.
	Couldn't that just be the simple explanation?
	That could be a simple explanation.
	So if that is the case, and let's assume she said it, because I usually do make them say it, right?
	I usually do get to the heart of the motivation.
	Assuming for a second that she did, that's what I have to go on.
	That would not have been the key place to insert gospel.
	It would have been the key place then to continue down the avenue logically of, do you think it's okay to be a selfish person and why?
	Have you look at yourself in the mirror and go, oh shit, maybe being a self-centered, nihilistic piece of shit who does this horrible thing to myself and society isn't very good.
	That might be the good time to interject a different worldview, right?
	But again, that's also kind of up to the person in the argument when to insert these things.
	Not up to you, the viewer.
	Yeah, you're absolutely right.
	So how does this like, I don't even understand where this criticism is.
	I'm following down, I saw instead slut shaming.
	Good.
	What's wrong with that?
	You've already shown that they're broken, and I think you don't need to condemn them anymore.
	No, no, no.
	Me showing you a thing is different than you accepting the thing.
	You saying you already showed her this gap in the logic.
	You get to have this great primo seat.
	The whole audience right now, right?
	All of you looking at the camera, that whole audience gets this primo front row seat, right?
	They're sitting down on the couch.
	They've got their popcorn, right?
	Or whatever they're eating, right?
	I hope you guys are having something delicious right now.
	They're having a beer.
	They're enjoying themselves.
	They have the primo front row seat where they can be like, okay, from the bird's eye view, here's what I think is going on.
	You, the person who is the interlocutor, the engager, right?
	You have a different perspective than the external viewer.
	You would agree that that's true, right?
	Yeah.
	So from the perspective of the internal viewer, the idea here is, no, you're not actually taking responsibility.
	No, you're still fighting against this.
	Yes, you may have accepted that what I've said is true, right?
	But you have not admitted yet that it is true.
	So, you know, kind of the placement of where you're going to insert ideology to, that's a much harder thing to gauge, right?
	Much harder thing to gauge.
	Yeah.
	I agree.
	I think where you go with the ideology and where ultimately you do present the gospel depends on the person, it depends on the situation.
	It has to.
	But I would say I don't think slut-shaming has any part of a gospel presentation.
	Why not?
	What's wrong with slut-shaming?
	Jesus says that we will be held accountable to every word that we speak and that by our words will be justified and by our words will be condemned.
	And as he says, but the plank of your eye, be judged by the same standard for which you judge others.
	So that means that I should be willing to accept being slut-shamed.
	Yes?
	I think shame is where I draw the line.
	Why?
	That's not, wait a second.
	Now you're conflating two different ideas.
	Do you agree that the standard from which you judge is a standard for which you will be judged, according to Matthew?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	You agree with this?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So am I judging by a hand standard that I'm refusing myself to be judged by?
	You're judging a hand.
	Am I judging by a standard that I refuse to be judged by?
	I'm going to have to think about that one for a second.
	No.
	Okay.
	Ready to move on when you are.
	Oh, I thought the whole is slut-shaming wrong conversation.
	You guys want to keep going?
	He just agreed with me.
	It's not.
	It was an entailment of his logic.
	Oh, okay.
	All right.
	Austin, are you able to pull back up the, let's see.
	So you also wrote, and when she admitted to her past bullying, you instead doubled down on the slut-shaming.
	She only played along because that is how wounded girls receive validation.
	I think that's already been addressed.
	Yeah, no, that's that.
	No, we got to get along.
	gotta get into this okay so i i want you to see what you can you can you read out what you wrote out loud there for me if you don't mind Oh, which part?
	Oh.
	So right there with and.
	So this is going to be paragraph 40.
	And when she admitted of her past bullying and harassment, you instead doubled down on the slut shaming.
	She only played along because that is how wounded girls receive validation.
	Yeah, so not only do I reject categorically the entirety of that statement, but I would again ask for the demonstration that that is what women do.
	Pull it up again.
	I want to make sure I get the words right.
	She only played along because that is how wounded girls receive validation.
	Can you demonstrate that for me in a million years ever?
	How would you ever demonstrate that?
	It's a heart posture, right?
	People seeking validation.
	So you just thank it.
	Sure.
	I would say it's a conviction I have.
	And I've talked to people that have.
	But why should I believe it?
	Because I've talked to people in relational currency.
	They've talked back to me and admitted in the past when they were the most broken were looking for the most validation in the most cheap, lustful, usually online ways.
	Yeah, you ever heard of a guy named Ed Schultz?
	No.
	Yeah, probably not, way before your time.
	He was this big fat Democrat, right?
	Just a real piece of shit.
	Yeah.
	He came to the Democrat Party because he was a Republican and he had an epiphany while he was eating a bologna sandwich that Republicans were evil.
	I'm not kidding.
	You can look this up.
	He had an epiphany.
	For some reason, this baloney sandwich gave him the epiphany that he needed to switch over to become a scumbag Democrat and go on, by the way, to do horrible things.
	Okay.
	The idea, do you think that he was wounded?
	No.
	But why are the women then?
	Why are the women always wounded or have some trauma that we have to base their decisions on?
	I don't understand this view.
	This view really bothers me because this is actually, I think, in this way, I have way more respect for women than gentlemen like you do because I do not infantilize.
	I'm not trying to infantilize.
	But how is that not infantilization to make the statement that the reason you're doing what you're doing is because you're broken rather than maybe they're not broken?
	They made this choice actively and they like it.
	What about that?
	I would say my approach comes from a place of compassion, knowing that the person is not yielding the fulfillment that they wish to from that and that there is a greater way that comes through Christ.
	And I think approaching people knowing that they are searching and that no one's completely content and fulfilled in their sin from my perspective, like I said, I see that in scripture.
	I see that God commands everywhere to repent.
	He says that no Andrew, it all goes back to childhood trauma.
	Hasn't Desiree taught you anything?
	You need to revisit the bad bitch handbook.
	I'm sorry, Giovanni.
	I'm sorry.
	My bad.
	That came in automatically.
	Do you want to, Luke, if you want to just.
	I was just finishing the point that says scripture is clear.
	1 Timothy 2:4, I think it talks about that it's God's desire that all men are saved.
	And I think it is our responsibility as Christians to echo that and call others to repentance and also realize too that people choose sin for a reason.
	Yes, obviously it is enticing, but they also choose it for negative reasons.
	And I think that all of those negative reasons and all those desires that are unfulfilled, if eternity has been written on our human hearts and we are searching for life and life abundantly, I think instead of just dragging them to go ahead, you're thinking.
	No, I'm listening.
	Oh, yeah.
	If they're searching for life and life abundantly, I think they can find that in Christ.
	And I think more importantly too, realizing that meeting the sinner with a place of compassion, especially when they've recognized that their sin is ultimately wrong and they don't want to be attached to it anymore.
	But you also have to keep in mind that, like for myself included, I used to be addicted to pornography for a lot of my early childhood.
	Is that like the porn stash?
	Is that where that comes from?
	Is that my friends like it?
	You got the porn stash going, bro.
	I'm just saying.
	Appreciate it.
	Okay, anyway, go ahead.
	So used to be addicted to it for a super long period of time and a lot of other things, body dysmorphia, eating disorders.
	It's all part of my testimony.
	And until I actually read the word of God, none of that actually changed.
	And the word of God started to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart, right?
	And I knew that my sin was bad, but I couldn't actually walk away from it because I lacked the power to.
	And once I found that in Christ, I realized, okay, I actually do dislike my sin and I want to walk away from it.
	So I come from a place of compassion when I see other people that are also bound in sexual sin.
	And I say, listen, I want to come with compassion in the same way that I felt in the past as well, too.
	There is a greater way that you can be let out.
	And I mean, into the audience, too.
	There is hope.
	There is a way to get out of pornography.
	And that way is Jesus Christ.
	So let me give you the olive branch of some agreement.
	Okay.
	And then I'm going to give you some criticism with the agreement.
	Yeah.
	So the first idea is: I am very glad that you got away from all of that.
	And I'm very glad that you found Christ, right?
	Though I may not agree with your theology, it's still far better for you to be going down this path, which will eventually, by the way, lead you to orthodoxy.
	It's far better for you to be going down this path than down some other path.
	So we'll just concede that.
	See, I think that that's the compassionate statement.
	The thing is, though, is that I need you to also admit that based on what you call your testimony, that you could be operating from something which is called affirmation bias.
	And this is the idea that because this was your walk and because you had other externalities which were influencing your behavior, that then you kind of suppose that onto other people.
	Isn't that a really reasonable thing for me to think?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	No, it absolutely is.
	I've talked with a lot of young men, even women too, that are bound up in sexual sin.
	Sure.
	I've talked to them all, and it all does come from a place of, listen, I know, you know, like what Paul says in Romans, like, I know I shouldn't do this, but I still find myself doing it, and I lack the power to be free.
	Then he goes on to say, thank our Lord Jesus Christ, who has set us free.
	And so when I come across with the message of compassion, I see that not only in Christ, who wept over Jerusalem because they wouldn't repent, and he, you know, he used largely tax collectors.
	But isn't compassion, the idea of compassion, me telling you what's true, even if you don't like it?
	Yeah.
	And isn't that really what I'm doing?
	Just telling you kind of, like, you probably didn't want to hear that you could be suffering from affirmation bias.
	Yeah.
	But your logical brain went, there's a good possibility here that that's true, right?
	Yeah.
	What's non-compassionate about saying that to you?
	No, I mean, I think I value that insight that you're saying.
	I might be coming from an affirmation bias.
	I've just seen so far what I've run on when I talk to people when I talk about sexual sin is that you do a place of compassion, obviously responsibility, and you hold them accountable for their actions.
	But at the same time, compassion as well, too, knowing that they have usually been, like I said, bought a bill of goods.
	But the trick to affirmation bias is that all the contact that you have with people within the frame of the worldview is going to be moved to leading some type of evidence towards your affirmation bias.
	So in other words, this becomes part of the worldview that you view everything in.
	You turn everything into part of that worldview to support the affirmation bias, right?
	Like that's what happens.
	That's what that means.
	So while you say, okay, anecdotally, though, Andrew, most of the people that I've engaged with who are engaged in sexual sin, whatever that sample size is, right?
	Let's say it's huge.
	Let's say it's like 20,000 people.
	It's probably not, right?
	But let's just say that it was.
	If you then said, and my experience is that all of them X, and it just so happens to correlate with this other thing which happened to me, doesn't that kind of seem a bit biased and moving towards that, considering how widely different people are?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it just sounds like affirmation bias.
	Okay, it's affirmation bias.
	Do you think there are people that are bound up in sexual sin that don't regret it at all?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I would, I would agree.
	I really do.
	I think that the idea here of pre-lest.
	Since I hippo donated $100, Desiree flashes her nasty booty in Andrew's face and risked harming the stream.
	Yet this feminist is constantly acting like men must be responsible for these women's actions.
	Yeah, but this is loud.
	Hang on, this is good, though, because he is listening, right?
	So I'm going to listen to him, and he's listening to me.
	So back to this.
	This idea of prelest, which I believe is a real thing.
	Define the term.
	Yeah, that's what I'm doing, right?
	So what pre-lest is, is that somebody has submitted so much to the demonic, right?
	That, no, they don't have these kinds of same sincere regrets, things like these types of people that you may be a serial killer.
	Let's look at that, for instance, right?
	You've given over so much.
	Now, that doesn't mean that you can't be saved, but you've become so rotten to your core that you reject even the idea of salvation.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And I think it's absurd to think that those people not only don't exist, but that we don't deal with them all the time.
	We just kind of pretend there's this kind of crux where, no, it's external factors.
	It's always something else.
	And it's such kind of like female psychoanalysis babble when they always are, people are always trying to find an externality.
	It's going, you know, people have the capacity and free will to make choices.
	And sometimes they might make the wrong choice for the wrong reason and know it and just not give a shit.
	Would you say that you have an evidence to prove that people love it and they genuinely don't have any regrets?
	All we can do is go off of what they say.
	What else can you, like, what else can you do other than you used for the reprobate?
	What was that term again?
	What, the reprobate mind?
	Pre-lest.
	Pre-lest.
	Okay.
	Is that not in scripture, I'm assuming?
	Is it somewhere else?
	It's part of the Orthodox teaching.
	Yes, everything is backed in Scripture.
	Is the word Bible in Scripture?
	No, it means collection of them.
	Okay, yeah.
	So, no, the word Bible is not in Scripture.
	So the idea is that you can use words which are not bound in Scripture, but that Scripture reinforces it.
	I mostly mean the idea being taught.
	How about the word Trinity?
	Is that in Scripture?
	Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
	Yeah, but it's a human term that we need to.
	Yeah, it's a human to write.
	So the thing is, is like me giving you the idea for what the thing is.
	When I say in Scripture, I'm sorry.
	Sorry.
	Finish your sense.
	I don't want to interrupt.
	Yeah, so me giving you the idea for what the thing is.
	The word itself does not need to appear in the Bible.
	Jesus Christ himself said his wisdom would fill the enormity of all libraries, right?
	And of course it would.
	You cannot, you have to extrapolate all principles past just the Bible.
	That's why you're given those principles.
	Yeah.
	When I say in Scripture, I mostly, sorry if I communicated just the word.
	I mean the idea where it's saying, listen, yes, the idea of pre-list is all over scripture.
	You can read it in Matthew, you can read it in Luke, you can read it in John.
	Yeah, I want to read more on this.
	Could you have the references?
	Yeah, I'll send you all the references.
	Perfect.
	Yep.
	Thank you.
	Yep, on pre-list.
	And you'll see the theme all through there.
	Yes, of course, there are going to be people who choose these things.
	What do you think free will is?
	If you don't have free will, right?
	How could you choose to do the evil path?
	You wouldn't.
	Yeah, otherwise this would be predetermination, which is a Calvinist belief, right?
	It's not even possible for you to reconcile that there couldn't be people who freely choose to do evil because they just like it.
	Yeah.
	Like, I don't know how you logically get around that if you really think you have free will.
	I think there's people can be double-minded.
	I think they can like something and also regret it at the same time.
	And I would rather appeal to the side of them having a conviction.
	But that's not based in logic or reason.
	You're just saying, you're just saying this.
	You're saying, I have no evidence of this, right?
	No real evidence of this.
	But I do know.
	Other than personal anecdote.
	Yeah, but I do know free will exist.
	But for some reason, I'm choosing to believe that nobody's free will would ever lead them to go down the path of doing horrors because they just want to.
	Like, that's not free will then.
	That would be something else that's other than, right?
	There's the two members in Romans, I think it's still Romans 7 that work within you and they pull you either way.
	And I know myself, too, I have to struggle with two wills of, you know, what I know I should do and what I don't want to do.
	Sure, but is it going to be true of everyone that even if they have a pulling force, let's say left and right in this case, just to like simplify it, that some people may not even acknowledge either and don't care and just do what they want.
	Yeah.
	And they have the willpower to do that.
	They are given that great gift of free will, right?
	Yeah.
	So I just don't know a way around that logically.
	I would just say when I approach someone, I see those two wills, the left and the right, and I would always want to pull on the right versus shaming them for the actions that they take when they're not.
	Okay, but what if you had a crystal ball?
	Okay.
	And inside this crystal ball, it said, okay, if you shame this person, right, they will move to that tug right.
	Would you shame them then?
	I don't like the word shame.
	Yeah, I know, but you didn't answer the question.
	Would I shame them?
	No, I probably wouldn't.
	Even if you knew that the result would be, what if it was the only way?
	Like, that's the only way they would respond to the message of Christ was to make them experience shame and do it on purpose.
	If you had a crystal ball, it was clairvoyant.
	You knew for sure that was the only, would you do it then?
	Titus 3.2 says to speak evil of no man.
	So personally, a conviction I have is not to do that.
	These are subjective terms.
	Yes, but you're setting me up with a false dilemma.
	No, I'm setting you up with a hypothetical.
	There's no dilemma here, right?
	That's false.
	It's hypothetical.
	It's designed to be false to test the logic.
	So the idea here is, would you, if you clairvoyantly could look ahead and see that only shame could be applied to bring the ex-person to Christ, would you do it?
	No.
	No.
	From personal conviction.
	Yeah.
	So, okay.
	So then, backing up, right, if that is not the case, would you shame somebody else who would shame somebody if it brought them to Christ?
	I don't think I would shame them.
	Then what would you say?
	I would try and correct them.
	Okay.
	So if you're unwilling to use shame as a resource, right?
	And another person is, but you're unwilling to shame the fact that they shame people, why should they even respond to anything you say to them?
	Why shouldn't they just be like, well, this is really effective.
	You're not going to say anything about it, right?
	How effective is that?
	I don't believe that the Holy Spirit works to shame.
	I think it does all the time.
	I think he works to convict, but I don't think he works to condemn.
	I think it works to shame constantly.
	Look, what is hell to you?
	I mean, do you want the literal answer?
	Yeah, the literal answer.
	What is hell to you?
	It's the eternal torment.
	The eternal torment.
	You can experience shame?
	Probably.
	Does God allow this to happen?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, so I don't understand.
	Inside a biblical text itself, shame happens all the time.
	The money changers were experiencing shame in the temple.
	That's what that was.
	A corded whip.
	You're being shamed out of here.
	Shame, even the woman at the well, the idea there was shaming her.
	Yeah.
	Like, how do you get around that?
	I think shaming is part of your identity.
	I think when you communicate with someone, I think you don't want to default to the fact that your identity is wrapped up in your sin.
	I think you want to communicate the fact that their sin is pulling them towards that place of eternal torment.
	Yeah, I don't, but I don't disagree that that is true.
	What I'm disagreeing with is the pathway of getting there.
	Clearly, shame is a highly effective tool.
	Yeah.
	Even your friends going, hey, you packed on too much weight, that's a shaming tactic to get you to stop eating.
	You said you had an eating disorder, right?
	Were you ashamed of it?
	Yeah, that's exactly.
	Wasn't that a powerful motivator?
	It was a powerful motivator.
	I don't understand the problem here, bro.
	I think it's externally projecting shame onto other people, saying you should be shamed for your actions.
	But somebody externally projected shame onto you, and that was a powerful motivator for you.
	Not for the eating disorder.
	What?
	Nobody gave you any shame for the eating disorder.
	Some people did, but I ultimately, actually, the more shame that they gave me, the worse it got.
	Oh, I see.
	So in this case, again, we're not dealing with affirmation bias because in your particular case, when you felt shamed, you refused to do anything about the behavior.
	You doubled down, which is a source of pride, right?
	But you do realize that other people respond very well to shame.
	Many, many times they respond well to shame.
	Like even in your own life.
	For instance, with a kid, right?
	Would you ever spank a child?
	Spank a child.
	Sure.
	Yeah, it says in Proverbs.
	Would you ever do it in public?
	Probably not.
	Why not?
	Because I think discipline is something that's domestic, should be done inside the home.
	Why?
	It doesn't say anything about that in Proverbs.
	That's just what I think.
	Yeah, right.
	It's just what you know.
	Is it okay for someone else to spank your kid in public?
	It's probably their own personal conviction.
	I don't care.
	I think it depends on the society and where you are.
	Is there a little bit of shame?
	Do you think the kid feels a lot of shame when you take him over the knee and you swat his ass in front of everybody?
	Is there a little shame involved there?
	Yeah, probably.
	Yeah, probably.
	And does it, and is the Bible specifically saying in Proverbs, spare the rod, spoil the child, right?
	Yeah.
	It's literally giving you the antidote here.
	Now, do you think that spanking the kid or the Bible is saying to abuse the child?
	I don't think he's saying to abuse the child.
	Is it saying to beat the child?
	No.
	Is it even saying really to hurt the child?
	No.
	So then what is the effectiveness of the spanking?
	The effectiveness of the spanking is discipline.
	It's the shame.
	I don't think it's the spanking.
	It's the shame.
	Dude, how could it not be?
	I've seen kids, for instance, their mother has spanked them, and the spanking doesn't even hurt them.
	Their mom's hands are so weak when they paddle their ass, right?
	It doesn't do anything to them.
	They cry anyway.
	Why?
	Because it hurts and their parents.
	Because they feel ashamed.
	No discipline for the present time is pleasing.
	They feel ashamed that their mama spanked their ass.
	They're ashamed, right?
	That's why they're crying, even though they're not in any physical pain.
	How can you say that this is a bad prescription when it's a biblical prescription?
	I think a good parent would be able to communicate the fact that I still love you.
	I'm doing this for your own good.
	I'm not trying to.
	It's not going to lessen the shame.
	Okay.
	How would that lessen the shame?
	Oh, I love you.
	You had it coming because you fucked up.
	You did A, B, and C. You weren't supposed to do that, right?
	Yeah.
	The shame is what's making them cry, right?
	The shame is what makes them want to adjust paths.
	We're awfully in the weeds here.
	I don't think we're off in the weeds here.
	I think that we are doubling.
	We're coming down to your idea of what shame is.
	You say it's never okay to correct via shame.
	And I'm giving you a direct example that you believe in as a correction, which causes shame.
	I think verbally versus physically, I think they're interpreting it as shame, but I think you could commune.
	What is shame other than interpretation?
	You could communicate verbally that you're not trying to shame the person while still applying to something.
	So what?
	It's still, if you verb, okay, so wait a second.
	So if you walk over to a woman who's really heavy set and you say, hey, you bitch, right?
	Yeah.
	I'm not trying to verbally shame you, but.
	You just did.
	Well, okay, right.
	So then if that is the case, how would that not be the case with spanking?
	Would you say, oh, I wasn't trying to shame you, right?
	As a punishment.
	Yeah, I wasn't trying to shame you, but I'm shaming you.
	I mean, that's why you're crying, right?
	You're crying because you're ashamed of what it is that you did.
	You're ashamed that I had to spank you.
	You're ashamed of all of this, right?
	Isn't that why kids are crying when they're not feeling physical pain from the actual spanking, but they're feeling shame that their mama had to spank them?
	Sure.
	I'll concede your point on spanking.
	But then that's a prescription for shame.
	You're prescribing shame.
	Not verbally.
	I don't know, man.
	I don't know what the distinction.
	So like physical shame is okay, but not verbal shame.
	Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
	Could be.
	I'll just say from my personal experience and where I've been and the convictions that I've been led to, I don't see it's ever fruitful to shame someone for their actions.
	I think Paul, you know, he definitely people cried, right?
	Okay.
	The godly sorrow that leads to repentance.
	I think that it's important to speak the truth, but it's always important.
	Knowledge, 1 Corinthians 8 says, knowledge puffeth up, but love edifies.
	I think you always do want to communicate discipline in love, calling someone to a higher standard, versus I think the enemy does a great job when people have issues and things that they already feel ashamed for and they don't want to bring it to light.
	When you then project, oh, your identity is this and your identity is that, I'm just going to continue to double down and slut shame you for your actions in the past and things that you actually do regret, which I still do believe.
	I do believe people have some inkling of conscience that convicts them.
	I personally, in my wheelhouse, do not want to use shame as a motivator.
	Okay.
	Let me ask you one more follow-up here.
	Okay.
	So this reminds me of an anecdote I'd like you to speak to.
	Okay.
	So when I was a kid, I was inside of a little like mini mart with my dad.
	I was maybe five or six years old.
	I stole a candy bar.
	Okay.
	Snuck it, put it in my pocket.
	Yeah.
	Now, I was stupid, right?
	When I got out in the vehicle, I just like pulled the candy bar out and started eating it right in front of my dad.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	And he was like, where'd you get that?
	And I was like, oh, well, the guy gave it to me when you weren't looking.
	Right?
	He gave it to me when you weren't looking.
	Yeah.
	Now, I got to ask you: are children more vulnerable than adult women?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	And are adult men less vulnerable than children?
	Yeah.
	Okay, great.
	My dad marched my ass in that convenience store.
	He paid for the candy bar, right?
	And he gave me the worst verbal lashing you could ever imagine.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	I was in tears.
	I was apologizing to the clerk, right?
	He just tore into me.
	Got back, got in the car, and I said, Dad, I feel terrible.
	And he said, Good.
	Now, you know what I never did again?
	Guess.
	Stole.
	Never.
	Yeah.
	How is that not 100% the walk of shame?
	He walked me in.
	He shamed my ass in front of that clerk.
	He shamed me, made me take the walk of shame back out.
	Then he got home, told my mom, right?
	She went in on me, right?
	This was like, it was just a pylon Andrew Wilson jamboree.
	Okay.
	I'm sure, I don't even remember, but I'm sure even my brother probably went by and was like, and that's what you get.
	I never stole another thing in my life.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	How is that not totally effective and totally what Proverbs is really trying to get across here?
	Well, I argued that it might be effective and it might have worked for your personal anecdote.
	I think when it comes to discipline, when it comes to correction, I think shame based on the opinions of others and their opinion of you ultimately does take away from finding your identity and opinion of yourself in Christ.
	I think understanding that when you are born again, you do have the righteousness of Christ.
	I think shame is an attack from the enemy to make you think that your actions are what your identity is based out of.
	You couldn't say that shame itself was evil itself.
	That's never stated anywhere in gospel.
	No.
	That's one.
	And two, I've given you now multiple examples where shame can be used from the place of pure love in order to get you to stop a horrific behavior you would not ordinarily do.
	When you're five, six years old, you can't understand conceptualizations of ownership yet.
	Yeah.
	What conceptualization can you understand?
	Shame.
	Punishment.
	Punishment?
	Shame.
	You can definitely understand shame.
	People don't like when I do this, right?
	Everybody really doesn't like when I do this thing.
	That is social shaming.
	That's the same thing with the brothel, right?
	If you had a brothel in town and everybody came in the town to say, this is awful and you need to stop doing it.
	That's a form of social shame.
	How's that not effective or exactly in kind of the line of what it is that you're talking about through salvation?
	Do you think Christ shamed any of the prostitutes or adulterous women that came to him?
	Saying, go and sin no more is a form of shame.
	It's saying the things you were doing before were sinful.
	You must not do them.
	That is part of the shame of that.
	It's the same thing when Paul had his vision.
	Paul was shamed in that vision for killing Christians.
	He was shamed.
	Wasn't he?
	He was exposed to the truth.
	Yeah, and he felt great what?
	Shame.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	I'll leave it there.
	All right.
	We'll get through some more of the notes.
	Austin, if you can pull back up the rest.
	So, Andrew, you call yourself a Christian.
	Act like it.
	How did Christ address the adulterous woman?
	How did he address the woman who wiped his feet?
	How did he address the Samaritan woman?
	How did the Lord command Hosea to pursue his bride despite her past?
	So, Andrew, you call yourself a Christian, act like it.
	Do you want to respond?
	Yeah, I think as we've gotten through this conversation, we've actually addressed a lot of this, which is interesting, right?
	But I don't think that he's saying I'm not a Christian.
	No.
	He's saying that he wants me to act in such a way which confers with what he believes to be the image of Christian.
	To be, yeah, to be Christianity.
	I want the same thing in reverse.
	And since I've given you these kind of great logical arguments, then you've refuted none of them and you've demonstrated none of your worldview, like none of it, right?
	And I've been willing to hear it out, have these arguments and these engagements, you should maybe set the pride aside, right, and come and conform more over to this side, right?
	Where I'm trying to explain to you, wait a second, I'm not disputing that Christ is pure love.
	There is no dispute there.
	My dispute is in terms.
	When you say things like shame, you have a loaded version of this.
	When you say things compassion, you have a loaded version of this, which doesn't, I think, take into account the entirety of what these words are trying to encapsulate.
	Christ himself engaged in shame.
	Telling people they're in sin is shame.
	That is shaming.
	I don't see a way around that.
	I really don't.
	That's fair.
	Like I said, it comes from different ways of reading.
	I would say you were talking about pure love, the definition of love.
	And 1 Corinthians 13, talking about believing all things, bearing all things, hoping all things.
	I read that as genuinely seeing other people and believing in them and hoping them for what they can become in Christ.
	Do you think I want to hurt these people who are here?
	Or do you think that I'm here to engage?
	Now, I do find it fun, right?
	That's my vanity.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	There's nothing I can do about that.
	I think it's a blast.
	Is that always good for me?
	Probably not.
	But I do have a lot of fun arguing.
	I do have a lot of fun debating.
	Can that lead to other things which are sinful?
	Of course it can.
	Playing the guitar too much could lead to sin.
	Literally.
	Not kidding.
	I haven't had that happen yet, but yeah.
	It could.
	Okay.
	Eating too much could.
	There's all sorts of different things that could.
	But you can't honestly believe that my intention here in arguing and tangling with these people who do these horrible things and there's almost nobody representing the worldview that you have, except maybe just some guy who lives on a farm somewhere who's really good at arguing, right?
	You can't possibly think I'm after trying to like hurt in any way these ways.
	I've never gone after any of these personal.
	I've never even talked about them kind of post-show.
	I don't even do kind of reacts to my own con.
	I don't do any of that.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	The idea is in the moment, you tangle with the idea, you beat the idea, and you hope, right?
	That in this like session of a few hours, you can get your worldview across.
	It's like the best you can do.
	Yeah.
	So, you know, that's like, that would be my one rebuttal there.
	Yeah.
	I agree.
	I think that obviously it sounds like we read the character of Christ differently based off of the loaded terms and the approach that we've had and the background and our personal anecdotes.
	But yeah, like I said, I think it all largely comes back to when you're talking with someone genuinely believing in them and having hope that they will accept Christ and they will turn.
	And I, like I said, it's just the tools and the arsenal of how you would go about doing that and breaking down their worldview, afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.
	Well, okay, that's fair.
	So you say we have some distinctions in Christology.
	I think that that's fair.
	And look, I'm a layman, right?
	I'm not here to like, I'm not here to pretend that I'm clergy or have all the answers here, right?
	I'm just kind of giving you the broad worldview that I have.
	I'm still a Padawan, right?
	I'm still a Padawan learner.
	But I would like you to retract some of these statements because you have not been able to demonstrate the statements.
	So, I mean, kind of going in order in ones that...
	Which statements, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I'll go in order here.
	The first is on this kind of loaded idea that Brian is giving drugs to the women, right?
	And you said, you know, substances and this kind of language, this vague language is veiled to say there's some kind of nefarious purpose, right?
	That's what we say when we say substance abuse, things like that.
	It's clearly cloaked in a criticism of you're giving them some kind of nefarious thing to drug them up.
	And I wonder if you could retract and just briefly clarify that.
	I'll briefly reclarify my statement that I sent over text very late at night.
	So the point I will retract is that I think I misread your guys' intentions with both due to lack of sleep and obviously knowing someone that was on the podcast that wanted to leave.
	And so I apologize for insinuating that you guys had a malicious intent in offering substances to keep people on your platform.
	Okay.
	Well, I believe that it could be read that way when the platform does go later than insinuated for financial gain.
	But yeah, I'll retract the statement.
	Now, in many of these, you're going to get a lot of charitability back from me.
	Yeah.
	Not on this one.
	Okay.
	And here's why, right?
	Because it infers almost like in the modern feminist gynocentric world that we live in, it almost infers that Brian is like drugging these women for the purposes of just getting like entertainment out of them for a bunch of, you know what I mean?
	That's where the criticism leads.
	So I'm not really going to be charitable back on this one.
	You were just wrong on this one, and you need to just eat that.
	The second one, if you can pull that list up real quick, Brian.
	Scroll up, I think.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So when it gets into the you don't know what paperwork she signed, keeping her until midnight despite multiple requests was incredible disrespectful.
	Okay, so from this one, I can see from the external view that you go past time, someone's trying to convince you to say you could assume that that's disrespectful.
	However, with context, I wonder if you would be willing to retract that statement as well.
	As you agreed, it takes two to tango.
	They willingly came on the show and you had evidence that Brian did tell them that it may go past that.
	And so that really isn't a fair criticism, ultimately.
	I don't think I have enough information to fully retract mostly because of the comment of just, yeah, not, I don't, did you guys communicate to them when they would be able to leave?
	And if they weren't going to be able to do that.
	Well, no, it's open-ended, right?
	It could go from A to B to Z.
	But that's every podcast, by the way.
	That's basically, if it's IRL, if it's like a show, if you're on CNN, right?
	You get nine minutes, and that's all you're going to get.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Because that's the format.
	An IRL podcast, though, which goes anywhere from four to six to eight hours, there's no real good, reasonable expectation I think a person would have that if we go past time, there was some like kind of nefarious purpose behind that.
	It's kind of silly, right?
	Yeah, it might be silly on my part, and I do apologize.
	Obviously, you are correct in calling out, I probably have a lot of pride baked into this, and I apologize.
	I'm sorry if I did come across in a way that was judgmental.
	Okay.
	Genuine.
	I do want to learn and I want to be.
	I think it's okay to assess judgment.
	Like that's it's okay to judge things.
	Otherwise, how do you get through life?
	Like you have to make at least value judgments, right?
	So this value judgment, I can at least charitably say I understand why you made it.
	Yeah.
	But perhaps now with more context, we can just get like kind of a basic retraction there.
	And then can you pull the list up one more time?
	It'd be a good clip.
	Second, your treatment of Nicolette was inexcusable.
	She's clearly broken.
	So on this one, again, going to be very charitable back.
	I understand the worldview that there must be some kind of like trauma or externality, especially considering your history and how you came to Christianity and all of this.
	So I'm going to take like all those things into consideration and say, I understand how you came to that view.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	But can you concede that from my purview, from my view, no, there's really no good evidence that a lot of these women are broken and whether they're just making the choice to do this thing because they really want to do it.
	Because there's a lot of money.
	They make a lot of money.
	I'll concede that, yeah, from your worldview that you've explained to me, I think it makes sense the behavior that you do to go about your way of tearing down their worldview and yeah, communicating with them.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And then last one, Brian, if you don't mind.
	You go down.
	Third, and we didn't even get to this criticism.
	Yeah, there's still some more to get.
	Yeah, yeah, I'd like to address this one.
	Just one moment.
	Dane underscore Snyder donated $100.
	Thank you, Dane.
	Appreciate it.
	Paul said he'd go to hell if his brothers would be saved.
	This guy doesn't know God or what's at stake because he won't use shame to save the lost.
	Repent.
	This is why the American church is so weak.
	But we're still going to try to be charitable with it, right?
	I agree.
	I actually agree with what Dane's saying here, but in the spirit of being charitable, I at least now understand why you came to your view, how you came to your view.
	And so I have some respect there.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, that's, I can still disagree with the view, but have respect for how you came to the view.
	But this one, the third one, we didn't get to.
	Do you agree with the statement that I don't know God?
	No.
	Okay.
	Well, here's the thing, right?
	My parents are Protestants, right?
	And I remember asking a priest, you know, like, I came to this through Protestantism.
	He's like, yeah, all of American Orthodoxy basically came through this through Protestantism.
	I would never, and no Orthodox, by the way, will ever make a salvific claim or say that you don't know God.
	That would never be a claim that we would make.
	We would claim that you don't know the fullness of the truth.
	That's what we would say.
	But anyway, back to this.
	The third one here.
	I'm sorry.
	Third, Carly holds her person con personal convictions regarding bowing to her husband.
	Yeah, that's a good one.
	Because the Lord's guidance in her past, you are right.
	It is not specifically commanded in the Bible, but submission to authority is granted on the fact the authority does not command you to sin.
	Okay, so let's find a halfway point here.
	I totally agree that authority that commands you to sin is authority that must be resisted.
	Yeah.
	Okay, it must be resisted.
	But I would argue that the way that you know sins through reason and the compliance of God's nature is the low-key.
	Logic, reason.
	Yeah.
	Okay, it's part of God's nature.
	You would agree that that's true.
	And so we would have to determine which way you're being led based on reason and if you're being told to do something unreasonable.
	Would you agree with that?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	How is bowing unreasonable?
	This is what I'll have to default to her on.
	It was a personal conviction.
	I think, as I outlined in scripture, I think causing someone to stumble, even though they don't have the full knowledge, right?
	That like, you know, eating meat offered in the temple to idols, like there's no other gods, right?
	But some people still didn't have the full conscience and the knowledge of the truth, and their conscience was still weak.
	So Paul's like, yeah, if that causes someone else to sin and their faith is weakened, yeah, I won't do that.
	I won't command them to do that.
	And so that was the standard where I was going by in that.
	But that would comply with reason.
	Sure.
	Yeah, so this is in compliance with reason.
	This doesn't actually answer as to how bowing is.
	I don't think bowing is sinful.
	So if a husband says to a wife, like, look, I am insecure.
	Yeah.
	You know what, baby?
	I'm insecure.
	And you know what makes me feel really good when you bow?
	Yeah.
	Shouldn't she bow?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think that would help her husband grow in Christ, personally.
	Why?
	Because he's finding his validation.
	If it just helps his insecure.
	Because he's finding his validation in someone other than Christ.
	I'm sorry.
	If a man cries, right, and his wife is comforting him when he's, is that finding validation in other than Christ?
	I think his wife can support him, but I ultimately believe his wife should point him back to Christ.
	Yeah, but he's not lost Christ.
	Where's the loss happening here?
	You, so when you're talking about idolatry here, idolatry is the replacement of God.
	Yeah.
	You're not replacing God by, you know, your wife crying on your lap, for instance.
	She's not idolizing you.
	That's not a replacement for God.
	I mean, we're getting into the weeds here basically.
	I don't think we are.
	No, I'm going to keep going on this.
	Okay.
	But mostly this comes from the biblical understanding of how I see husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church.
	And I don't think Christ demanded that sort of bow and that sort of okay.
	Could be getting in the weeds there.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry.
	Didn't people get on their knees and worship Christ?
	They did.
	Oh, that's interesting, isn't it?
	Yeah, well, I mean, obviously, understanding the husband, can you worship your husband?
	Are you supposed to be the child?
	And who's the bride?
	Who's the bride?
	And so the church got on their knees and worshiped.
	And I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I got this right.
	Are you not commanded wives?
	As unto who?
	Okay, and everybody bowed to the Lord.
	Yeah.
	And everybody bowed to Jesus Christ and worshiped him openly, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay, well, I don't understand how you reconcile that.
	I think if for someone with a heart posture and a conviction and a past that would cause them to tend to idolize the person they're submitting to and show reverence for God, I think that could be communicated in a healthy relationship.
	I get it.
	So let me make sure I get this right.
	I'm going to steel man it.
	If bowing, if a woman has a past where she thinks that bowing to her husband is going to somehow lead her away from Jesus, she shouldn't bow.
	Yeah.
	Got it.
	I agree 100%.
	But shouldn't that comport with reason?
	Yes.
	And if it doesn't comport with reason, isn't she just being kind of an obstinate brat?
	Maybe.
	Yeah, so I mean, so if your wife is just like, I'm not going to bow to you, even though you've commanded me to do so, and it comports with reason why you want to be bowed to, she should fucking bow, right?
	I don't think husbands should demand respect.
	I think they should earn it.
	Well, that's not demanding respect.
	Maybe you just like to watch her bow because it's fun.
	Like, what's wrong with that?
	I don't think that's a good example of Christ-like love.
	Should we play the bowl?
	Yeah, but the thing is, is like, this is where you get in the idea of submission and obeyance, which is always so bothersome to me.
	To submit is to obey.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	To lead is not to justify.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	So if that is the case, why do I need to justify why I want you, the obeyer, to do the thing I want you to do, who you're supposed to obey, as long as it comports with reason?
	Because I'm going to go back to the model of Christ in the church.
	Okay.
	I think obedience is for your benefit.
	And I think demanding justification.
	Agreed.
	Demanding justification is not always to your benefit.
	No.
	But I do think things that come out of a place of insecurity and then demanding obedience in those ways.
	You, the obeyer, are not the determiner of whether that's a justification.
	That's requesting justification for the thing.
	To request the justification is not obeying.
	It's the opposite of obeying.
	Why does a husband need to endlessly justify the things that he wants from his wife?
	He's the leader.
	She's the obeyer.
	Why is this kind of idea of like endless justification necessary?
	Unless he asks you to do something directly which is sinful.
	Shouldn't she do it?
	Depends on the relationship.
	I would say largely, yeah, she should obey.
	She should obey.
	Yeah.
	So bow.
	When you serve my food, bow.
	What am I asking you to do that's a sin?
	Tell me.
	Why does he need her to bow?
	He doesn't have to justify that to her.
	We've established this.
	Why does he need to justify endlessly what he's asking her to do?
	Again, if Christ told his apostles to bow, does he need to justify it?
	Christ was God incarnate.
	Yeah, but I'm sorry, what are we representing here in marriage?
	Yeah, it's a type.
	Absolutely.
	And you're supposed to, as unto who?
	As unto the Lord.
	Okay, so very strange that now I have to justify, even though I'm supposed to be the representation of Christ who did not have to justify.
	So this is where I think modern women get submission wrong.
	They don't seem to understand that in obeyance is not the request of justification.
	That is not, oh, to obey, that is to not obey.
	For me to ask you to endlessly justify everything you do, if you're not asking me to do anything that does not contort to reason, how is that me obeying?
	There's a lot of words.
	How is it, well, let me simplify it.
	How is it me obeying to ask you to justify the thing that you asked me to do if it's not a sin?
	You're right.
	You have a point.
	I think the important part, too, is understanding, like I said, the heart of obedience and that you would obey someone because you see what their point and what their goal is.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so that's fair.
	Okay, so I would say if there's a point and there's a goal, like this is a humiliation ritual designed to punish you.
	You know what I mean?
	Or something like this, that would lead to sinful behavior.
	I can get that, right?
	But what I don't get is the idea that modern women, and this is a pure feminist take, I'm just going to tell you, right?
	It's a pure feminist take.
	There's an obeyer and then there's the obeyed.
	If the husband is the obeyed, the obeyed did not need to justify to the obeyer.
	And we have the clear criteria of to sin.
	So to sin would be when you no longer obey.
	So if you're being requested to do a thing and it's not to sin, don't you think they should obey?
	I think, but they could also communicate, if it was a healthy relationship, they could communicate that they're being tempted.
	But it's also healthy to not do indulgence and constantly have to justify everything you do, especially if you're trying to lead.
	You can imagine, for instance, a general having to tell a second in command justify every move he wants to make on the board.
	It's not for him to question.
	It's for him to obey as long as it comports with reason.
	So if the general says, go surrender to the enemy, well, now we have a problem, right?
	Now we have a problem.
	But before that— Because the goal is in question.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, because now the goal is in question.
	But before that, any order he gives is lawful, right?
	And so should be obeyed.
	How does this not conform the exact same way?
	I think the relational dynamics are interesting because bowing does significate, I think, difference in equality and level of authority.
	And I think the authority can be given to the husband.
	Yeah, they're not equal.
	You're not equal.
	Well, I think they are.
	No, they're not.
	I think they're equal in value.
	Value is not the same as being equal materially, meaning this.
	They're not equal in role, but same in value, but different in role.
	Yeah, then that's not equal.
	Because you can have some roles which are more significant than others.
	That's not equality.
	It's the opposite of equality.
	So for instance, I agree with you that a woman is equal to a man ontologically.
	Her soul is worth just as much.
	She's every bit as valuable unless we're on a ship.
	Unless we're on a ship, or requires a lot of physical strength, this type of thing.
	Her physical value now is not anywhere near what my physical value is.
	Do you think her intellectual or emotional value would compensate?
	No.
	Okay.
	Why would it?
	What about her ability to...
	What is her emotional investment in running the...
	What is that going to do?
	It doesn't assist with the running of the ship.
	So when you make it this kind of like role differential, your role is to lead and your role is to follow, you're actually saying point blank, you are not equal here.
	One is the obeyer, right?
	And one is to be obeyed.
	You're making a category error.
	You say, both of you are 100% equal, ontologically, your soul.
	The thing that makes you you, totally equal to the thing that makes me me.
	Yeah.
	I have no dispute with that.
	I have a dispute when we get to the role idea, though.
	You are not equal in role.
	You are not.
	You are to be obeyed, and they are to obey.
	That is submission.
	I don't see a way around that.
	Yeah, I think it just comes at the heart of why you're commanding the thing.
	Yeah, but why do you need to justify that?
	Because I think you're supposed to model Christ.
	Yeah, but Christ didn't have to make these justifications.
	But Christ laid down his life to serve, not to be served.
	Yeah, but what does that mean exactly?
	That when he lays down his life to serve, right?
	He says, I am the way, and you must obey me everything.
	Everything that he commands, you must do.
	Because you love him.
	Yeah.
	So everything that he commands, you must do.
	Okay, so if the wife is supposed to treat the husband as unto the Lord, everything he obeys, which is within the criteria of what Christ commands, she must obey.
	I think in imitating Christ as a husband, operating out of insecurity, to ask for a bow would be in direct contrast to the character of Christ.
	Yeah, but when you say insecurity, I would say the opposite.
	I'd say it's the most secure thing you can do as a husband to not endlessly burden your family with nonsensical justifications from women making endless demands for them when it's unnecessary.
	For instance, do you think it's good for your wife to constantly second guess you?
	No.
	No, it's not.
	But that's a justification.
	Second guessing is the asking and requesting of justification.
	That's second guessing.
	Yes.
	But I think you would be showing her through your character and she would eventually learn to trust you based off of your intent and your purpose to get you.
	She doesn't need to learn to trust you.
	She's your wife.
	That's already inferred.
	That's already implied.
	That's already done.
	Otherwise, why'd you get married?
	I think it grows with time, right?
	Yeah, maybe, but right from the beginning, are you saying we can only have a biblical marriage after seven years or can we do it right away?
	No, you start from the beginning.
	Yeah.
	It's not for her to endlessly question the authority of her husband.
	It's not for her to do.
	And this is a modern, a modernist Christian view.
	This has never been the view historically in Christianity ever that you were to consult your wife about.
	It's never been the view, ever.
	When has that ever been the view, honestly?
	I don't think, obviously, church history, I haven't studied church bowing and husband-wife relationships, but I would say just being pure in heart, especially me and wanting to guard my intentions and actions and why I would demand that from someone, like I said, maybe it's a personal bias.
	Maybe I'm reading into this too much.
	But I would say that coming from that perspective, I don't think that's something you could justify, largely speaking, because I think the tendency would be to come from a place of pride.
	Then let me ask you this, if you think that that's actually true.
	Do you think that the world right now, the United States, would be a better place or a worse place if wives mostly did what their husbands said?
	I don't know if I can answer that question.
	Think about it for a second.
	Do you think that the United States would be a better place?
	I'm defining which one do you think is more right?
	No, just which one do you think has the burden of responsibility?
	And if it's their job to lead, it's your job to be led.
	And if you won't allow yourself to be led, how can anybody lead?
	It's this adage of what men have the authority.
	Why won't you give it to them then?
	Well, they have to earn it.
	Well, then they never had it.
	So the question becomes to you, would the United States, do you think, be better right now if wives did a lot more listening and doing what their husbands said or less?
	I think I would still need more time to think about it.
	Yeah.
	Take as much time as you need.
	All right.
	Austin, can you pull back up the sheet, please?
	Wrong one.
	Okay.
	Yeah, what does that mean that she doesn't push her convictions on the who are we talking about there?
	Well, so, and just to finish, I guess, reading this, Carly does not want to put herself in a situation to idolize a man, bowing itself is not a sin, but that movement encourages that heart posture.
	A true husband would never have any reason to ask her to bow short of his own insecurity.
	If you want scripture to back this idea up of offending another's conscience, please consult Romans 14, 12, 23, and 1 Corinthians 8, 45.
	Yeah, actually, we can consult both.
	When you're talking about the offense to the conscience, I think in this context, it's food.
	Yeah, well, yeah, but what we're talking about specifically here is not offending somebody's conscience.
	What if their conscience is wrong?
	Yeah, you would inform them.
	Yeah, you can inform.
	Well, not only that, but you can't, you have to risk offense to inform them.
	I would say you inform them before you demand the action.
	Yeah, but you still are—so what did the apostles get killed for?
	Wasn't it for offending the conscience of others?
	No, I would say it was for preaching the name of Christ.
	And what did that do?
	Then the Holy Spirit said it, and people decided whether they wanted to repent of their sin or not.
	Yeah, and it offended the conscience of the powerful.
	Right?
	And in turn, the powerful killed them.
	Isn't that true?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So I'm going to take this, and I'm going to say this of mischaracterization.
	I don't even think discourse is possible without risking offense to the conscience.
	If you're talking about worldviews.
	I mean, you can imagine if you break a person's worldview down to the point where they go into cognitive dissonance, that is like the most offensive thing possible that you've done.
	It's actually physically painful, by the way.
	You know this.
	It's physically painful.
	So I don't really understand.
	Maybe you can just clarify it for me.
	Repeat the question.
	The question is the offense of a person's conscience.
	You should never do this.
	I think offending another person's conscience and causing them to stumble in their walk is directly from what I've read in my forte in scripture is a command not to do.
	That you're not supposed to violate another's conscience.
	You can instruct them in love, like I said.
	Love edifies versus just knowledge.
	Okay, well then, yeah, I think we're just talking about two different things then.
	So if you're saying that you're not supposed to cause them to stumble towards Christ, yeah, I agree with that.
	But I think that that's different than the offense to the conscience, which I think moves people towards Christ.
	So I just want to untangle those.
	Maybe you can explain it better for me.
	I mean, yeah, I think the conscience is towards what does not proceed from faith is sin.
	And so if someone, like I said, 14, Romans 14, he's talking about people feeling like things are sins that actually aren't because of the true knowledge of coming to Christ.
	And so I think the loving thing to do is to instruct them, to let them know, obviously in the time being, yeah, listen, we can eat food offered in the temple.
	We can do these things because there's nothing inherently sinful with them to cure all things or peace.
	Yeah, because we're talking about intentionality.
	Yes, intentionality.
	But at the time being, when the person's conscience is still convicting them, you wouldn't say, hey, eat this meat.
	My approach.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I see what you're saying.
	So you're saying that at the time, if you were to move in to say that, right, that would actually be counterproductive moving towards Christ.
	Then why earlier did you give me the criticism that I didn't pull out my Bible and start reading it to a woman, even though it would have done exactly the thing you just described and offended her conscience?
	It would have enlightened her conscience, because I think you're right.
	It would have offended it.
	It would have offended it by that metric.
	Do you know that?
	Well, but here's the thing.
	Here's the thing.
	Paul isn't saying you will know when.
	You will know when it will.
	He's saying you have to assess the situation and then you'll know.
	So if they are eating this, right, while they're eating it, maybe not the best time to go over and say, oh, hey, by the way, that's a sin what you're doing right now.
	Probably not the best time, right?
	So he's saying, okay, now we have the intentionality portion here.
	Isn't that what you're saying?
	Yeah, I think in 14 he's talking, but he also says, too, like, if eating meat causes another one to sin, I will never eat meat again.
	And so he actually sacrifices his personal liberty.
	Yeah, so if he's in vegan, if he's in vegan land preaching to the vegans, right, he's not going to come in and eat a bunch of meat and risk offense in this context because they'll never hear his word.
	These people are hearing what the words are that I'm saying.
	Yeah, I'm not risking offense by even engaging in discourse in this way.
	So I don't even really see how they're comparable.
	But yeah, I'm good there if you want to move it to the next one.
	Okay, really quick.
	I'm going to read this super chat from Pelagic.
	Pelagic says, Thank you for the super chat, man.
	I know thy works that thou art neither cold nor hot.
	I would thou wert cold or hot.
	So then, because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
	Revelation 3:15, 16.
	Yes, I just want to be really clear, and maybe the Christians in the audience will laugh hysterically at me, but I've read Revelation now multiple times, and I still don't understand a word of it.
	So makes two of us.
	Literally, just don't understand hardly any of it.
	And anybody that you go to to get it kind of clarified says, Well, nobody really understands very much of it because you're not really supposed to understand too much of it.
	So I appreciate the quote, but I'm just being completely honest, right?
	Multiple times, I still don't really understand it very well.
	Andrew, you asked him a question, and you needed a little more time to think about it.
	It was a question about wives, I think, listening to their yeah, would America be better if more wives listened to their husbands?
	Can I opt out of this one?
	I mean, if you don't know the answer, that's fine.
	If you just say, I don't know the answer, but I would ask you to give me like your intuit, your intuitive answer, the thing that you would just kind of intuit off the cuff, and I won't hold you to it.
	Yeah, that's fair.
	So, generally, my thought process behind all of this is that I do think biblical submission is what would generally fix most marriage problems.
	The problem is, I think commanding submission because of submission and just I have the authority, I have the authority, is wrong.
	I think all submission should come out of a place of love, knowing the person is actually laying down their life for you in an effort to grow you and allow you to flourish, and you obeying them actually is a mutually synergistic combination.
	Yeah, but I don't think that the dispute is around whether or not when you say synergy, that a man and his wife are supposed to work well together.
	Nobody's disputing that.
	It's the operation of how they work well together that we're that is in dispute here.
	Okay, so the question is: if more wives obeyed their husbands, right, instead of second-guessing and questioning every single justification they have for why they want a thing done, do you think that this country would be better or worse?
	Generally speaking, I think I could say yes.
	It would be better.
	Yeah, yeah, I agree.
	And so that's what I push towards is the actual idea of what submission really is through the logic of trying to bring people through point A to point B. What is actually rational here?
	Yeah.
	But I think as men, speaking to other men, we actually need to call men to a higher standard to lay down their life like Christ.
	And then you won't have to command the wife to submit because she will already submit because of the respect she has for her husband.
	Yeah, but this is just creating a dualistic standard.
	And now you've ruined the synergy.
	So when you're talking about a synergy between a husband and a wife, your role, your role.
	Yeah.
	This is the two.
	And if we combine these two rules, roles, now we have synergy, right?
	But the second authority is questioned.
	This role is now not in its role.
	And this role still is.
	So for you to say, okay, wait, wait, right?
	Your authority has to first be, oh, I don't know.
	She has to, you know, feel a certain way, or she has to be kind of brought to it a certain way, or this type of thing.
	If you're married in a Christian relationship, this is part of your vow taking.
	Okay.
	You're already there.
	Yeah.
	By her not holding up her end, that whole obeyance thing, she's already destroying the synergy.
	Yes.
	You cannot strip a man of his authority and then say, How dare you not leave me?
	I think I can agree with your statement and say, yes, in a biblical marriage context, it would be much better if wives submitted to their husbands.
	Yeah.
	Obeyed.
	Obeyed.
	Yeah.
	Obeyed.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Final question, Andrew, this has come up on previous shows.
	Perhaps we maybe touched on it a little bit tonight.
	I don't know if you recall, there was this woman who told a story about a female jiu-jitsu practitioner who broke two legs of a male assailant.
	But speaking with her, I think...
	Living Underscore donated $100.
	I've never seen Andrew this chill.
	I'm claiming big old Brian gave him a tranquilizer.
	It's true.
	I agree with Luke the Transformation.
	Horse tranquilizer.
	I've been shaming Brian on waiting away for the year.
	No results.
	It's true.
	I've been, I'm probably the number one target for fat shaming and body shaming online.
	But thank you, Living.
	Appreciate it.
	And I did give Andrew some horse tranquil.
	Well, I've been dropping weight, so there's that.
	Yeah.
	So this woman, I've heard this from some atheists, agnostics, Christians, that Christians, it's un-Christian-like to judge.
	Christians don't judge.
	I'm trying to think the specifics of how they frame it.
	But I don't know if you recall her specifically saying it's wrong to make these sorts of judgments.
	Luke, do you think it's the case that Christians should not judge?
	Sorry, there should have been a period there.
	Just in general, I think we should default judgment.
	The Lord says vengeance is mine.
	I think ultimately we can only judge the outward actions and he can only judge the heart.
	But I think we can operate on the fact that we know how he works on our hearts and we can reach out to others in the same way that he has reached out to us.
	I would read in 1 Corinthians, I believe, 4, that he says, judge nothing before the time until the Lord comes, who will bring both to light the hidden things of the darkness and reveal the counsels of the heart.
	So that would be my scripture to back that up of.
	I'm open to being open-minded.
	Obviously, I know Jesus commands that you should judge.
	He says, judge unless you judge others.
	And then he says that the same measure used to judge others will be used.
	Will be used to judge yours.
	Yes.
	And I think there's a difference between Jesus made judgments daily.
	Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
	But obviously, Jesus was God incarnate, and we're operating under his authority.
	And I think he will give us conviction that we will be able to make a righteous judgment to discern.
	But I think the judgment of value, being able to say, listen, Christian, not Christian.
	And you take a stand and you step up.
	And I think you ultimately, like Paul says in Romans 2, right after the reprobates, the whole thing, he says, like, and who are you to make the judgment?
	Because you're standing above the law and pushing down on people the law that you're literally still breaking.
	And so I would default to say, no, you should not judge.
	But then there's things like, okay, what's healthy for me?
	Should my daughter or son go to this school?
	And those are judgments that you're making, but ultimately it's for the benefit of the person versus the outcome of trying to judge the person and shame them.
	How do you know if a person's a Christian?
	You can't.
	Only the Lord knows.
	I think you can observe their works.
	James 2, 24 talks about, you know, faith is accompanied by works.
	What if they just tell you they're not?
	They tell you they're not a Christian, then you would preach the gospel to them.
	That's yours.
	Yeah, we would assume that they're not.
	What's up?
	You would assume that they're not.
	Honestly, I assume a lot of people don't know the Lord.
	And if they do, it's just a healthy surprise.
	Yeah, I know.
	But if they tell you that they're not, are you making a judgment that, okay, I'm going to believe you?
	I'll take them at their word and I'll tell you.
	Take them at their word, right?
	So in other words, if people tell you what they are and who they are, believe them.
	Sure.
	Right.
	So if they tell you that they're a horrible fucking monster, you should probably believe them, right?
	If they tell you that they have no remorse whatsoever for any of the things that they've done, in fact, they recommend other people do them.
	Yeah.
	I should take them at their word.
	Sure.
	And then how is that?
	You're circling back to the point.
	Yeah, but how is that judging their soul or judging their salvation, taking them at their word that they believe the things that they believe?
	Why would that be a judgment or a value assessment that you yourself wouldn't hold?
	Because I just don't feel comfortable doing it.
	I'm going to be honest with you.
	I've been on both sides where you tell people that they aren't saved.
	And for me personally, when I do talk to people, I just always point them back to scripture and I let the Holy Spirit, he says he comes to convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
	And I do believe that the word is living.
	And I think, especially when mixed with faith, when you point someone to what the standard is for what salvation is, you save yourself a lot of trouble when you're just trying to tell people that they are or are not saved.
	1 John was written.
	Yeah, you say you don't feel comfortable with it, but why wouldn't you take them at their word?
	That's what I don't get.
	Because I think that's only what their words are saying, and I think the intentions of the heart are different.
	Yeah, but you have no way to assess that other than with their words.
	And most of the time with their words, wouldn't your value judgment be correct?
	If somebody tells you, for instance, I went out and did all these crimes, right?
	Wouldn't your value judgment of believing that they did probably steer you the right way into solving crimes?
	Like, wouldn't it?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	It would.
	I think we're talking about we're confusing general judgment with salvific judgment.
	Well, okay.
	If somebody tells you they're not saved, how are we confusing anything?
	Then you would probably agree with them.
	You'd say, you know what, listen, you're confessing that your heart, you've revealed the fact that your heart is far from the word.
	And now we're going to work to reconcile that.
	Yeah, but that's what I'm saying is that you shouldn't.
	I'm not saying that you should judge a person's salvation.
	I'm just saying the only means for which you would have to make these assessments is the words and the things that they do.
	So obviously, if a woman is literally telling you, okay, last night I was engaged in a multitude five-man gangbang, okay, or I went up to Australia and fucked 500 virgin men, right?
	Do you think that maybe it's okay for me to make the claim, maybe your idea of what Christian is is not what Christian is.
	Don't you think that that's a totally fair assessment?
	I think it's a fair assessment.
	Do you have weak moments in your faith?
	Not where I go fuck 500 virgins.
	No.
	No.
	I'll just say that.
	I've largely reaped a lot of negative fruit from making those quality and value judgments on people.
	And it's usually, I mean, Christ says like the people that have forgiven much will love him the most.
	Sure.
	And so I think with those people.
	But how do you forgive people who don't want forgiveness?
	How does he forgive people who don't want forgiveness?
	He doesn't.
	He doesn't.
	You present the kindness of the world.
	He says, no, if you don't come to me, right, and proclaim that I'm the way, the truth, and the light, there is no forgiveness for you.
	You have to request it.
	So if somebody's unrepentant, like this Australian chick, I remember who was here who said that she went and took like 300 or 500 men's virginity over a weekend.
	You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want.
	You're really telling me you think it's inappropriate to make the value assessment at that point.
	You are not a Christian and you should not say that you are because you're not.
	I think I wouldn't want to make that value judgment.
	I would want to stand on what the word says and I would say.
	The word tells you that that wouldn't be a Christian.
	That's why you have all that criteria there.
	They're not walking according to the scripture.
	And so, yeah, my inclination would be this person probably does not have the Holy Spirit convicting them of sin.
	This person has not come to Christ.
	They actually haven't repented of their sin in the first place.
	But I don't want to say that.
	But what would it take?
	Like if they were on a stage, like just slicing up a live baby in front of you and saying, I love Jesus, though.
	Like, would that be enough?
	Yeah, that would be enough.
	I would say that's what I would say.
	I'll step up and say, you need to stop.
	Right.
	You need to stop because, no, that, and you would say they weren't a Christian, right?
	Wait, I just want to make sure they're slicing up a live baby.
	You can say at that point, you're not a Christian.
	And this is where I think we disagree on a lot of the things.
	I'm coming from a place of personal conviction based off of anecdotes I've seen of people that have made those value judgments about close friends and other people based on their actions in a moment of weakness.
	You think that it would be a moment of weakness that they were up there slicing up a baby in front of people?
	Yeah, I think generally speaking, yeah, slicing up a baby, probably not someone who's operating under the conviction power of the Holy Spirit, and they're not born again.
	Yeah, and if they were up there, if they were up there saying I'm a Christian, would you correct it?
	Yeah, I would step up and say, listen, this is what the word says.
	I would not say, oh, listen, like, you know, I mean, now I'm going to decide your eternal fate based on one action.
	You should.
	You should condemn that.
	You're instructed to condemn it.
	You're instructed to say, you're not a Christian.
	This is not Christianity.
	This is all wrong.
	They're slicing up a live baby.
	It's totally immoral.
	We're calling to stand up and say it.
	But also, there's usually a lot of women that actually have abortions do realize the depth of their sin and they come to Christ following that.
	When the Catholic Church was burning witches who were giving out abortions, were they wrong?
	I think that's out of my scope.
	Why?
	I would need more details.
	Was it moral or immoral?
	Were they giving them a chance to repent?
	Well, this was now a crime.
	You gave an abortion.
	That's it.
	Yeah.
	Death penalty.
	I mean, they're going eye for eye on that.
	Yeah.
	Was it eye for an eye?
	I mean, they're killing someone else.
	They get killed themselves, right?
	Is that, or is it you're such a greater threat to society that we can't let you get back out and kill other people?
	I'm still, I'm still reading scripture.
	I have friends that are, you know, anti-death penalty, pro-death penalty.
	I think Christ's commands are along the lines of, you know, love your enemies, pray for those that persecute you.
	And I think usually, historically, every time the church takes the sword, usually doesn't paint well for them.
	Well, I don't know.
	Saint Olga.
	Saint Olga went and took out an entire, well, people.
	They took out really an entire people in a massive town, killed them all for the sake of revenge.
	Saint.
	Interesting.
	Well, who declares him a saint?
	Well, the church.
	The church declares him a saint.
	Of course.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, saint.
	Saint Olga.
	Look her up.
	By the way, saints have killed more people than you could ever imagine and done it for all sorts of really, really sound reasons.
	So this like idea of hippie Jesus, sissy Jesus, sissy Christianity, this is like a new kind of idea which comes from a feminized arm of humanity.
	And I don't, I literally see it as part of gynocentrism.
	Because when I look at church history, here's what I see: I see things like the best way to deal with a heretic is a sword through his gut.
	I see Saint Olga.
	I see, like, I see this over and over and over and over, where it's like, look, there is a time even for the pushback, right?
	There is a time even for us to hit back.
	And in order to do that, we would have to identify who is or who is not the thing.
	Yeah.
	So that's all I'm saying.
	That's fair.
	I would like to learn more about that.
	Obviously, I'll be writing down and researching St. Olga.
	Yeah, DM my wife, Rachel.
	She'll give you tons and tons.
	Do you have scripture too on death penalty?
	Of course.
	And okay.
	Fantastic.
	The Orthodox view.
	Well, the Orthodox view and the Catholic view on the death penalty is mixed.
	I'm not for the death penalty, by the way.
	Me personally, I'm not.
	So it's like the one progressive view maybe I hold.
	We got a chat here from Sean, $100 Super Chat.
	Really appreciate it, Sean.
	Won't let me send in a TTS.
	I don't know why, but seems like this guy is mad because his girl couldn't hold her worldview.
	Just seen a little of this debate, but what Andrew is saying is the truth.
	And it looks like you maybe wanted to come in on something not related to the super chat.
	Yeah.
	Go ahead.
	I mean, you're responding to that.
	No, I don't think.
	Yeah, sure.
	Maybe part of me is mad that I think she did hold her worldview pretty well, but I think it was a conviction of the conscience.
	And I think I stand behind her conviction.
	Yeah, that was the chick sitting next to you, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	She was a nice chick.
	I didn't have any issues with her.
	I think the only thing we tangled on was the bowing.
	Yeah.
	I think that was it, which is a pretty milquetoast conversation to begin with.
	Really?
	That triggered you bad enough to send all that in?
	No.
	That wasn't even that bad of a.
	I don't think it was that.
	It was the treatment of Nick Colette.
	And largely, I mean, if you want me to come fully clean, exactly why I'm here, because I feel like this is a platform and an opportunity to preach the gospel to a generation that's lost and been sold a false bill of goods on what love is and what Christ is.
	Yeah.
	I mean, great.
	That's fine.
	So you are using.
	So you are using this platform, taking advantage for your own gain.
	Not my own gain.
	Right.
	Because you believe that doing a cost-benefit analysis, right, that the benefit of this is worth the cost.
	Yeah, that's the same exact argument that I just used against you, the same exact argument he just used against you, same exact argument everybody would use against you.
	Yes, I'm here because I do the same thing, the cost-benefit analysis.
	Destroying your worldviews, you fucking feminists, you crazies, you lunatics.
	The cost of doing that is great, but the benefit of it is way better.
	Yeah.
	I think the highest gain and the highest goal you could achieve is preaching the gospel and laying down your life in service for others from a place of love.
	Yeah, but I'm going to take you back to your own view on Paul when you said that Paul says, okay, in this case, we do not want to offend the conscience, meaning from your view, from the way that you explain this to me, that you think he means while you're in the engagement of sin, you actually will offend their conscience by reading them the gospel at that time.
	So, yeah, that's what you're saying there, man.
	I don't remember saying that.
	Well, then why can't they eat the meat?
	Why not go to them with the sin while they're eating the meat?
	Why?
	Because Paul's saying he doesn't want to offend their car.
	Right.
	That's it, right?
	Because Paul's saying he don't want to offend their conscience.
	So don't come to them with what the word is while you're engaging in this.
	Don't suggest or invite them to encourage me.
	Right.
	So this is your own worldview here.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	It's just not being consistently applied.
	You know who is consistently applying it?
	Me.
	Because I'm not doing the exact same thing that you just said you shouldn't do, which is while we're in the middle of engaging in this argument, right?
	The worst time in the world, at least according to you, would be right then to pull out that pipeline.
	I think it depends on how you go about it.
	I agree.
	Context is key.
	There could be times, right?
	But that wasn't it.
	At least not from my view.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Couple things here before we wrap up.
	We will do roast session.
	What do you think, Andrew?
	Of course.
	10-minute roast session.
	TTS has been lowered to $20 and up if you want to get a little bit.
	Got to send those super chats in, boys, so we can keep hosting these great debates right here in studio.
	Got to get them in.
	There you go.
	Really quick.
	We're going to read this from Pelagic.
	Pelagic, thank you for all the soup chats tonight, man.
	Good to see you in the chat.
	Really appreciate it.
	He says, judge not that ye be not judged, for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye meet.
	Did I say that right?
	Meet.
	It shall be measured to you again.
	Matthew 7, 1, 2.
	Pelagic, thank you very much for the soup chat, man.
	Really appreciate it.
	We have one from Sean here.
	And Brian, I'm a fan of your show and the crucible.
	The cruise.
	That's like the gay version of the crucible.
	You know, like how gay men like cruise and stuff?
	No.
	You don't know how to do it?
	Well, that's not like C-R-E-W, right?
	No, like to cruise.
	You know what I mean?
	Like gay guys cruise?
	Like, this is the gay version.
	You should release a gay version of the crucible.
	Brian, Brian.
	But you, Brian.
	Sorry.
	But you, Brian, sorry, you need to start trying to lose Weight Pro.
	Better yourself, but you're right.
	Hey, I'm working on it.
	I'm working on it, but Brian's weight loss is bugged, boys.
	it's bugged by the way i'm pretty sure i just the crucible meme is it's now a meme It's now a meme.
	Sean, really appreciate the counter meme.
	And then we will let the TTSs come through.
	So we have, sorry, I had to pause it temporarily to get through a couple things.
	We'll do a couple announcements, then we'll go through the show.
	Darren Jones, thank you.
	Senior co-donated $100.
	Did this boy's girlfriend school give him permission to be here today?
	Do you want to respond to that, Luke?
	No.
	Okay.
	All right.
	CNES, appreciate the TTS.
	Appreciate it.
	Actually, really quick before I allow the last of the messages to come through, $20 TTS, just a reminder.
	Austin, really quick, let's do Twitch, Discord, and debate you, please.
	By the way, you guys got to get over to Debate University.
	You got to pick up the course today.
	We're going to be adding a bunch to it soon.
	We have some content we're going to be releasing towards the end of this month.
	You got to get over there and get it, guys.
	Yeah, we'll pull it up here in just a sec.
	Austin, pull it back up, please, if you can.
	If you can get the.
	All right, guys, go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a fall in the Prime Sub.
	It's been three minutes since we last had a Prime.
	I think it's bugged, boys.
	I think it's bugged.
	Let's see.
	And yeah, follow Prime Sub over on Twitch.
	Also, guys, we have a Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
	If you guys, hey, Joe Brogan, thank you for the gifted five subs.
	Discord.gg slash whatever.
	We post a bunch of really cool stuff on there.
	BTS.
	I've been starting to post all the hate mail I've gotten.
	There's some crazy stuff on there.
	They come for me, come for Andrew.
	We're posting a lot of the BTS on there.
	That's discord.gg slash whatever.
	And also, guys, go to debateuniversity.com.
	We're going to get that pulled up here in just a moment.
	So debateuniversity.com.
	The course is verbal combat.
	Now, guys, October is almost here.
	Thanksgiving, Christmas.
	It's around the corner.
	If you want to dominate your liberal family members at the dinner table.
	All of them.
	And I suppose the liberals can also use this course too if they want to.
	No, just conservative.
	Okay, just conservative.
	You got to go to debateuniversity.com.
	If you want to learn how to become a master debater like Andrew, you want to learn how to think, debate, and craft arguments.
	You want to be able to debate like Andrew Wilson.
	You need to get the course of verbal combat, six hours of instruction, 80 plus different educational videos.
	You can find it at debateuniversity.com.
	Even more being released, the hidden rachel content coming soon.
	Been looking forward to that.
	And also in the next couple of months, we're going to make some additional addendums.
	We're just always going to keep kind of working on this as we go, guys.
	Perfect.
	Cool, cool.
	And again, that is debate university.
	That is debateuniversity.com if you guys would like to check that out.
	I'm trying to think if there's – oh, I think closing – Would you guys like closing statements?
	Sure, sure.
	Yeah, you can go ahead.
	And then we'll let the messages come.
	This is like a quick question for the closing statement.
	I asked this, I'm not trying to judge.
	I asked this in love.
	Have you felt conviction about cussing or course joking or filthiness in your role?
	Yeah, so just so you know, here's my view on this.
	Intentionality is the borrower of the offense.
	So if a guy snubs his toe and he says, oh shit, this does not give offense in my view to God.
	What gives offense in what is foul or evil language is based around the intentionality of that language.
	So if you say like, what the fuck are you talking about to your best friend, right?
	Who are you offending here?
	Like, where's the offense?
	Right?
	I read Matthew 12, 36, where he says that you will give an account for every idle word you utter.
	And that made me realize that there are things that are insinuating things that I know the Lord does not approve of.
	Yeah, but no, that's not what it's saying.
	Okay.
	If you're giving an account for every idle word you say, then give the account.
	But what if the account has no offense?
	Do you want to stand before the Lord and say the insinuating marriage?
	Well, what is an idle word?
	What is an idle word?
	It's an idle word that you're uttering without thinking about it.
	Yeah, so that's, you know what I do all the time?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I walk around my house all the time muttering to myself.
	Are those idle words?
	I don't know.
	You don't know?
	No, I don't.
	Well, then how do we, if we have no standard to which to use here to kind of make these assessments on what we should be doing, then I don't even know how to respond to that.
	Like, what is an idle word?
	I mostly just asked about your conviction.
	I was curious.
	Yeah, I don't think it comports to reason to say that if a man snubs his toe and says, oh, shit, that this is giving offense to the Lord.
	For instance, if somebody else, let's say an immigrant got here, here's my demonstration to you, got here, had no idea what shit meant.
	But he heard a guy say, hand me that shit.
	So he goes over to somebody and he says, he says to him in broken English, hand me that shit.
	Do you think that that's different?
	Do I think that that's different?
	I know, because I don't think he knows what the word means.
	So the intentionality?
	Maybe, but I think you know what the words mean.
	Yeah, I know, but what about the intentionality?
	Like, shit only means what you want shit to mean.
	Same thing with like, here, let me give you an example.
	Pack up that shit, right?
	Move that shit.
	Right?
	This shit sucks.
	There's like a million and one different uses for this word that has nothing to do with human excrement.
	Zero.
	So it's like, yeah, I don't think I've never really had a very convincing argument on this from any side.
	Do I think that if you're a representative of the church, for instance, right?
	Probably not a good idea.
	But I am most certainly not that.
	Why is it not a good idea?
	Because I think that through the cultural taboo of the usage of certain words and language, that you can draw people away from the church.
	But that doesn't mean that you're actually doing anything wrong or risking offense.
	Impact is even greater than the intent, even if the priest didn't mean it.
	I'm only saying it goes to the idea of everything could be that way.
	So it's possible that, yes, that would be that.
	That's impact is greater than the intent.
	It could be.
	Okay.
	Do you think?
	But that's everything, just so you know.
	That's everything I can think of.
	Do you think yourself, do you view yourself, you know, you've subscribed to Eastern Orthodoxy as a representative?
	I am not a representative of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
	No.
	Not at all.
	Do you think yourself as a representative of Christ?
	Again, this is kind of loaded.
	Yeah, sure.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	I'm just curious.
	I guess in like the best way that I, the best way that I can to understand what you mean by that, then I would just concede yes, right?
	But I also think, like, what about this?
	Like, just kind of turn this around a little bit.
	If I'm on a construction yard, right, and I go in and I like have a little mouse voice and I'm all prim and proper.
	And I'm like, well, now, listen, gentlemen, you really shouldn't be blind than that.
	And instead, I come in and I kind of talk like they do, and I'm a little gruff like they are, and this and that.
	Wouldn't they actually respond better?
	To what end?
	I mean, what do you want to do?
	To the end of moving them towards the gospel of Jesus Christ.
	Sure.
	All things to all people.
	Yes.
	So this is a double-edged sword.
	That's both ways.
	I'm not short of sin.
	And I think as Christians, you're called to be holy and set aside.
	Those that call upon the name of the Lord are supposed to depart from iniquity.
	And we're also supposed to be above reproach.
	So what is a den of vipers?
	I mean, is that a swear?
	I don't think so.
	I don't know the context of that.
	What is a swear?
	Calling a person a viper and condemning them to hell?
	Is that swearing at them?
	I will say general principles extracted from James.
	He says that if you cannot control your tongue, your religion is worthless.
	Yeah, that's true, but he's not talking about cuss words.
	In three, he starts talking about what's true and what's untrue.
	Yeah, but these aren't references to cuss words.
	These are references to the idea of what's defensible.
	From my personal reading in Ephesians 5, he talks about the things that you don't want to be speaking of and not even be named among you.
	And the reason why is because they're insinuating things that the world would normally just consider base and things that I think Christians can easily ask the Lord for help and self-control in and be above reproach.
	Yeah, but again, it's back to my personal good to be a greater representation of Christ and the church when you do clean up your speech based off of the perceived impact of the people.
	And you also agreed that that's true with literally everything on planet Earth.
	Why aren't you in a suit right now?
	Personal conviction.
	But don't you think that that would be the most bestest way that you could possibly convict the most people?
	You have a greater impact.
	I don't think a suitable thing.
	What about that stash?
	A lot of people aren't going to like that stash.
	Don't you think that you should do a bunch of poll research to determine whether or not you should shape that stash before you go on a show like this?
	Because I don't think my shirt and my suit insinuate the base things that Ephesians 5 is talking about.
	And I don't think saying the word shit when you snub your toe is either.
	Well, why don't we do this before I was, we didn't really even get to closing statements.
	I can just go if you want.
	Why don't we let some chats through?
	And then we'll see if we can do it.
	Well-meaning young man who seems convinced.
	Problem is if he goes home to his GF and says Andrew made me think then he's toxic and she leaves.
	Regardless, he needs to do it.
	Palpatine voice.
	By the way, these are okay.
	I'll do the Palpatine voice.
	I'll do the Palpatine voice.
	Come to the duck side.
	Paul Glanos donated $20.
	You can't meet the delusional in their space to discuss reality as it is lost in translation.
	Gotta shake the tree a bit to jog their world.
	I completely agree with this.
	Thank you.
	100% true.
	You have to break the delusion first.
	Joe Brogan, thank you of the gifted five subs, and these are going to come through pretty much one right after the other, just letting you guys know.
	And by the way, you're going to have to do that.
	Guys, we learned that bowing is misogyny.
	Brian needs to lose weight, and refreshments are from the devil himself.
	Thanks, gentlemen.
	Speaking of which, beer, beer, beer me.
	Rem, thank you for the sub.
	Appreciate it.
	Senior Sunday score donated $20.
	Andrew, you are the inspiration that all young men should look up to.
	The world would be a much better place.
	Fuck the live charts that have turned society into a beta soy hellscape.
	Yeah, I agree with that.
	Hashtag Andrew for president.
	I agree with the guy wants to appeal to the Bible yet has repeatedly shown that he will disregard even what Jesus commanded because he feels it's wrong.
	Submit to their husband.
	How does that make sense?
	Smoking Patriot donated $25.
	Andrew, would you let this man into your roving post-apocalyptic war band?
	Seems like the kind that would be good bait.
	He can come.
	Yeah, he can come.
	You know, with Paddocks with Principles donated $20.
	Thank you, Paddock.
	The only thing that would make this better would be if Rachel was there.
	I'm not sure how much this guy thinks can be accomplished in one podcast.
	Keep up the good work, Andrew and Brian.
	Hey, Paddocks, thank you.
	Appreciate it, man.
	GMD Jim donated $20.
	Good to see you, Jim.
	I was going to give the W to Andrew.
	But when I see two men debating Christianity in this fallen world, the W and glory goes to the Lord God and his only begotten Son, Jesus.
	Big W. Thank you, Jim.
	Anon donated $20.
	When will you get a proper atheist debater on to challenge Andrew?
	This cuckraising another man's children only argues from a base that God exists.
	He would get teared up by any non-of-girls/slash 20 years kid.
	Well, it's a good thing I've debated with the best of them in the world in one, but okay.
	You keep on with your delusions, bro.
	Destiny.
	Destiny, Matt Dillahunty, the best of the best of the best that you guys have.
	All of them.
	I've taken them all on multiple times, wrecked them multiple times.
	You can go watch it on thecrucible.video for yourself.
	There you have it.
	We have Trough.
	Bro's wrong, but he's man enough to show up.
	God bless you.
	Much respect.
	Much respect for that.
	Thank you, Truff, for the super chats.
	Spyro, Floropolis, Canadian 20.
	Luke, when Jesus drove out the tax collectors with literally whips, who do you think there?
	Who do you do?
	Do you think there was an element of shame there?
	Might he have possibly used offensive language or swearing at the time while very angry?
	And then we have, oh, do you want to respond really quick?
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	Sean, Crucible.
	Sorry, other spell, but I support you both.
	Ha, the memes destroyed.
	Oh, I mean, I knew that's what he was trying to say.
	But the crucible.
	The crucible.
	The crucible.
	It's the alphabet version of the crucible.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Yeah, no, I'm a good question, obviously.
	I think the character of Christ, especially when he does the splits.
	See me as under $20 after this one, my bad.
	Andrew, I saw you shaking your head at me, calling you a role model.
	Don't be so humble.
	You may have flaws, but you're very close to the ideal man for a thriving society.
	My flaws are overwhelming, bro.
	Honestly.
	They're overwhelming.
	Model yourself after any man in the world who has accomplished kind of these great feats.
	You know what I mean?
	I'm not that.
	I'm just some guy who argues on the internet.
	That's it.
	Follow Christ.
	You wanted to respond to one of the channels.
	No, no, definitely.
	As when it comes to the judgment and the shame that Christ was using when he was driving the tax collectors out.
	You know, I think we were obviously given a narrative account.
	I don't think we can give the full insight to what he was doing and how he was saying the things.
	But I do think it's important to, with the definition of shame, I realize that with the loaded terms, obviously can mean different things.
	I think shame pushes people down a road of saying you have to fix yourself.
	And I think genuine accalled repentance, maybe there is some shame involved, but it's the action item of, listen, you are wrong.
	Here is the confrontation and the path to being correct.
	And before you jump in, I'm actually just going to agree and split the difference.
	What if we just split the difference?
	Yeah, there we go.
	What if we just say it can lead to bad?
	Yeah.
	And it can also lead to good.
	That both tactics can work and do work.
	Sure.
	Can we just agree to that?
	And if we can agree to that, I'll just concede that that's true.
	Okay.
	I would take that out.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Why don't we get the closing statements from both of you?
	Then we'll let the last few remaining chats come in.
	So I think we do closing statement for you first, right?
	Since he went to the next one, he went first.
	You go first.
	He can close last.
	That's just the last word.
	Yeah.
	So, first, Luke, thanks for coming in.
	Great being.
	Yeah, it really was.
	And I really enjoyed kind of the spirited back and forth.
	As I told you before, I don't hold any grudges.
	I think that conversations like this are necessary.
	I will say that some of the criticisms I think came from a place of serious emotion with a lack of information, right?
	It's really easy when you're looking through the prism of a screen to make tons of assumptions, especially about the people who are behind it, until you kind of have more knowledge or you get to even meet the people or things like this.
	There are conspiracy theories about me abound everywhere, right?
	And Brian, too.
	And anybody who's a prominent internet personality, there's all sorts of wild shit that's out there.
	And like 99% of it is completely false for almost all of these different personalities.
	I think that the criticisms which were the weakest that you had were like the substance abuse was a really bad one.
	The idea of social trafficking was really untenable there, especially when we got into it and you basically conceded, look, if they're here of their own free will and you're there of your own free will, the criticism both way kind of negates itself.
	I think that you made some pretty good points when it came to shame, but ultimately ended up kind of agreeing on the spanking argument.
	And then I think ultimately the two of us can just agree that the outcome either way could be good or bad, but that both are legitimate tactics when it comes to either A, preaching the gospel or arguing either direction, right?
	So ultimately, I'm actually going to end this with some build-ups, right?
	Tell you all the things that I think he did really good at.
	Okay.
	You did pull off the mustache.
	Barely.
	Okay, barely, but he did kind of pull off the mustache here.
	He did pull off the mustache.
	You came in super prepared.
	I see all the little sticky notes in the Bible, and I actually saw you out front writing, right?
	Just like prepping for this debate.
	That I have a lot of appreciation for, right?
	So many times I get in debates with people who do no prep, no nothing.
	They just think this is the easiest thing in the world to do, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
	I also appreciated the kind of cost-benefit analysis that you did, where you said, my conviction is worth more than the blowback.
	That's why any of us who are in this field who believe in what we're doing do it, right?
	So my hat's kind of off to you for all of those things.
	I thought your arguments weren't great and you had to retract a bunch of them as well.
	You deserve one of them I wasn't charitable to, but for the rest of it, kind of my proverbial hat's off to you.
	Appreciate it.
	Go ahead with yours.
	Yeah, thank you for arriving in person.
	Thank you for pointing me back to the word in areas where I was definitely still underexperienced and looking for more insight and providing wisdom that has been from the church.
	And obviously, ideally, my entire life is dedicated to serving Christ and what he looked like and what he acted like here on this earth.
	And I would hope to model that in my character.
	And obviously, some of that is influenced by my anecdotes and the people I've interacted with and my own personal testimony.
	And obviously, some of that will have to come in alignment with the truth.
	But I do believe, too, when it comes to, if you talk to people that were saved in the book of Acts, they all had a different story of how they came to repentance in Christ.
	It obviously was all submitted under the total truth of who he was, but the way that he worked to produce repentance in people's lives differed according to their story.
	And some people already acknowledged it when they came in, and some people, like I said, he had to afflict the comfortable.
	And so, and then, yeah, like I haven't been personally led to use shame yet, but I'll look into the word.
	I'll look into the understanding and understand the gospel too.
	Like, yeah, it should produce godly sorrow, should produce an understanding that your identity is wrapped up in your action.
	But at the same time, too, it should be pointing, like we agreed, pointing to an action versus just turning to a corner and dunking on yourself over and over again because you keep giving into the action.
	James says, humble yourself in the sight of the Lord, and he will exalt you.
	And so, my last thing I want to ask, if we can just do one challenge for you, would you be willing to go to one divine liturgy in an Orthodox Church?
	Just one.
	Sure.
	One.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	You know that there's a great one right here in Santa Barbara?
	I've heard.
	Yeah, it's really good.
	Yeah.
	Really good.
	So you promised one.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We have a couple super chats and a couple messages to allow to come through.
	We have Alex.
	You and your husband.
	Have a good night.
	Andrew Wilson.
	Thank you, Alex.
	Appreciate it.
	That was a reference to a debate, not to you.
	We have John, Get the Cult Feminism: The Secret History of Women's Liberation by Andrew's wife, Rachel Wilson.
	Do it.
	Get the book.
	We have Marley, but as a Christian, shouldn't we be an example to others?
	Yeah, not sure what this is in reference to on if any of you want to.
	Maybe swearing or church or possibly, yeah.
	All right.
	Thank you, Marley.
	Darian Murphy, some Christians mix the faith with feminism.
	When such Christians talk about judgment, you never mention how Christ spoke to the Pharisees.
	W. Andrew, W. Crucible, W. Whatever, Darian Murphy.
	Thank you very much.
	And we have Sean here.
	Come on.
	It's the goose mustache from Top Gun.
	It is.
	Yes.
	So cool.
	Come on.
	This guy nailed it.
	That is the goose mustache.
	He's got the goose gun.
	Denida.
	Can we get the Zoom on the goose?
	I don't know if we can.
	Yeah, I'm thinking we're lying on right at the camera.
	This, ladies and gentlemen, is the goose mustache.
	It's true.
	What was like a quote from that movie that Goose said?
	What was it?
	Turn and burn.
	Was he turn and burn?
	What was his, I don't remember.
	He just died.
	Yeah, because he died.
	He died in the movie, too.
	Thank you, Sean.
	Appreciate that.
	And then I'm going to let some of the chats through.
	Guys, just a reminder: TTS is $20 if you want to get last one in, and then we're going to wrap the show.
	Thank you, guys.
	Keep kicking, ass.
	I'm assuming it's ass boys.
	Feminism sucks.
	Long live the patriarchy, soy boy pornstash is weak.
	Do you want to respond to no?
	Okay, all right.
	Thank you for the message.
	i applaud them for coming on christian questions donated twenty dollars genuine question from my own conviction how does smoking not violate first corinthians 3 17 Really quick.
	How does eating a donut not?
	Oh, just really quick before you guys jump in, just and also to the last TTS.
	You said he's weak.
	I mean, I actually want to really applaud you for coming in and having this discussion.
	We have a lot of people who will DM us often with much more aggressive or insulting or negative, you know.
	I actually posted on our Discord we had in the hate mail section, discord.gg/slash/whatever.
	We had this woman say that she was going, personally attacked me, personally attacked Andrew.
	She said that she wanted to come on and destroy, she would absolutely destroy us and that we would be too pussy to have a conversation with this woman.
	I even offered to offer to fly this woman out at my expense to come on the show, and then she ends up blocking us, totally ducks.
	So credit to you because most people who DM us and say, I'd love to have this conversation, and you did so actually, you know, even though I disagreed with some of your assertions, you did so relatively politely.
	Yeah, and so.
	And also, I think respect is always given to people who have criticisms, but take those criticisms directly to those who they're criticizing so that that person can give an account and a defense for themselves.
	And that I have a lot of respect for because it's rare.
	Now, really quickly, the smoking thing, can we?
	Yeah, I just said how does it not apply to eating a jelly donut?
	It's the same application.
	I would comment on that not being given to things.
	Paul says that all things are edifying, but all things are permissible, but not all things are educated.
	Non-donated $20.
	Thank you, Non-Don.
	He's some liptard leftist.
	If you think he's the best your soul in still seen you argue one person who would be above room temperature IQ including today debate Sam Harris I'm happy to do it.
	Let's do it.
	Have you ever spoken with Sam Harris?
	No, but I'm sure we could get him on whatever.
	Let's do it.
	And also really quick on that, I think we've put out an open challenge to any feminists, any atheists who want to come on and debate Andrew.
	If you want to come on and debate Andrew in this sort of similar format, we'll host it.
	We'll try to make it work.
	We're flexible schedule-wise.
	But a lot of people, even with these open invitations, they don't take it up.
	Well, the thing is, we would like to keep it around still the ideas and the themes that are talked about on the show.
	And so the one thing I never wanted to do was insert too much religiosity into whatever.
	And the reason is, is because it turns a lot of people away from moving into what the content is about.
	And so it slipped in where it slipped in.
	And I think that that's good.
	Though I wouldn't be opposed to having some religious debates, I'm okay with that.
	I think it's still better to keep things around kind of normative politics, feminisms, you know, things like that, rather than kind of making too much of a primary around religious debates.
	That's not really the format for this channel.
	The Crucible, on the other hand, might be a better place for those.
	I would keep this kind of in the realm.
	If you're a feminist, you're an egalitarian, you want to do political debates, I'm happy to do those.
	Kind of bogging the channel down with kind of the open religious stuff, I think, would not be good for whatever ultimately.
	Okay, all right.
	Let's see.
	We'll let the last ones come through.
	Mecha Wing Zero donated $20.
	What is this guy's explanation of 1 Peter 3:1?
	This verse does not support the idea that husbands have to earn submission from their wives.
	Quick response.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Read it.
	Hang on, read it out loud.
	Read out.
	Likewise, be submissive to your own husbands that even if some do not obey the word, they without a word may be won by the conduct of their wives when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.
	Do not let your adornment be merely outwards arranging the hair and jewelry.
	So that means even if he's telling you to do shit you don't want to do, by doing it, you're able to convince him better to stay within the confines of what the Lord is commanding.
	And I think that's in 1st Corinthians as well, too.
	Yeah, no, good point.
	I definitely was not thinking of that scripture when I was coming here with my opinion, and I was mostly coming from an anecdotal conviction from my girlfriend.
	So I am emotionally implicated in that as well.
	I will recognize.
	But I will say that Anthony Edwards isn't dead.
	Sorry, I'm reading this.
	Okay, I'll read these.
	Okay.
	Max Summs.
	Hi, Brian and Andrew.
	Andrew, you're very smart and well spoken.
	One question: Can I be on the show and you don't have to pay me lol love from Australia?
	Well, you're not even from a real place, so the answer is no.
	There you have it, Andrew.
	Andrew has spoken.
	Anthony Edwards isn't dead from John Mayer.
	Thank you for the $20 super chat.
	I don't know what this is in reference to, but thank you, man.
	All right, let me allow these to all go through, guys.
	Last call, $20.
	Brian's number one simp donated $20.
	W Brian.
	Thank you.
	W Andrew.
	Thank you very much.
	Appreciate it.
	Thanks for all the show support today, guys.
	That's what keeps the lights on here and allows Brian to have me out.
	Thank you, guys.
	That man is a better Christian than you, Andrew.
	He forgave the blank girlfriend who got more red flags than a Chinese parade.
	Cast not stones when you never came back from getting the new force.
	All right.
	Leave my fictitious black ex-wife alone.
	Senior Sundays core donated $20.
	Andrew, all I'm saying is when, not if, society crumbles to the liberal apocalypse that has been manifesting for the last 10 years, I want to be in your corner fighting to rebuild an ideal civilization.
	I don't know if I can make it without the Marborough.
	Paddocks with Principles donated $20.
	Thank you, Paddocks.
	I appreciated how respectful this was.
	BTW, I've seen his wife Rachel talk about women from the show coming to Andrew afterward.
	Much more open to change because of his skill.
	Food for thought.
	And I try not senior Sundays core donated $20.
	Today, Andrew set this boy on the path to becoming a man.
	I hope if there were any other boys watching, they learned something.
	Seniors, thank you for the TTS.
	Really appreciate it.
	But you just, I mean, you recently finished your degree here.
	MD Jim donated $20.
	Thank you, Jim.
	Trust in the Lord and the Holy Spirit will convict you of the correct tactics to use in any situation.
	Big W to the Lord and to all of my Christian brothers and sisters.
	Giovanni Jade donated 20.
	Appreciate it.
	What happened then, on whatever they say, that the Wilson's small heart grew three sizes that day loots the night man.
	God bless.
	Quit being a profit though.
	Thank you, Giovanni.
	I donated $20.
	I thought this guy was going to be another Kuma Gremlin.
	He turned out to be okay.
	I want a refund.
	Hey, look, they can't all be horrible abominations, okay?
	Thank you, Ed.
	Really appreciate the message.
	Thank you so much.
	Spyro, thanks for becoming a member.
	Six pack chat donated $19.99.
	Goose, you conducted yourself better than the vast majority of the people who appear.
	Props to you.
	Andrew's black ex-wife would approve.
	It's true.
	Have to meet her.
	Wicked Wally donated $20.
	Brian, you might like to know the term vile strumpet is used repeatedly to address the queen in the new Elden Ring expansion.
	I'll hand it to my good pal Andrew to cope about how the game is too hard.
	Shut up, Wally.
	Shut up, Wally.
	Thank you, Wally.
	Appreciate it.
	I actually heard the term strumpet in this TV show, The Tudors, and his, I forgot the guy's name.
	By the way, I hear that Wicked Wally is now a five-time champion on verbal combat.
	Really?
	Yeah, he's doing pretty well.
	Hell yeah.
	Awesome.
	Good job, Wally.
	Lol Paladins donated $20.
	Haven't seen any of the show today, but I just watched the first few minutes and I assume it's almost over.
	I'm sorry I didn't watch this dumbass get schooled live.
	Lol Paladins thank you.
	Beaten Cheeks donated $21.
	Thank you, man.
	Andrew, I am so glad I taught you well in debate.
	You are my best pad on.
	Glad those Destiny courses helped you out.
	Thank you, Master.
	Thank you, Master.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you, Cheeks.
	Good to see you in the chat, man.
	Oh, I forgot to mention.
	We are streaming tonight.
	We're doing a little special something, a little IRL stream tonight.
	Lund donated $20.
	How is it the same as a donut if you use smoking as an escape?
	You can use donuts.
	Like this bats, you can eat doughnuts and they are bad, but I think by smoking, don't we idolize the substance?
	There's no idolatry.
	So the idolatry of you replacing God.
	Denius Underscore donated $20.
	I'd love to see Andrew debate Richard Dorcas.
	Isn't he dead now?
	Richard Daisy?
	I'm pretty sure he's still alive.
	Are you thinking of Christopher Hitchens?
	That's too bad.
	Oh, wow.
	Okay.
	I mean, yeah, yeah.
	No, I'd love.
	Yeah.
	Would you be on evolution?
	That would be really fun.
	I actually have had some interesting people contacting me recently.
	We'll talk after the show about some.
	Let's see, we got Durandi donated $20.
	Thank you, man.
	Good show.
	Tonight, boys.
	Cheers.
	Thank you, Duran.
	He's a big supporter.
	By the way, guys, can we get the hats off for Brian?
	Excellent moderator.
	Considering how especially this had a lot to do with Brian, he really moderated this quite well.
	Frequency donated $20.
	Andrew, I'm fairly certain the term you were referring to is confirmation bias, not affirmation bias.
	Thanks for the show.
	No, I think I was talking about affirmation bias specifically, honestly.
	Lund donated $20.
	Thank you.
	Much love.
	Great convo.
	Thank you for the amazing content.
	Hey, appreciate the support.
	Thank you so much, Lund.
	Lund.
	Are you Swedish or something?
	We have Shredface Andrew.
	What do you think of husbands that push their wives to the brink of suicide with verbal and manipulative abuse?
	Yeah, so what you're looking at there is the same idea that we agreed upon, which is that this does not comport with reason in our standard for what reason is is sin coming from the idea of the logi and the nature of God and Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity.
	So no, that would be bad, right?
	That would be bad to push your wife to the brink of suicide, verbal, manipulative abuse.
	That would be bad.
	Nobody would ever disagree that that was bad.
	That's not even, we weren't even in that universe of talking about that.
	And then last super chat, Darian Murphy, the reason Andrew's approach of destroying the secular worldview through secular means before sharing the gospel can be found in 1 Corinthians 2.14.
	Thank you, Darian Murphy, for the super chat.
	Really appreciate it, guys.
	Okay, that's oh, we have another one from Sean.
	Sean, thank you, man.
	Sean, love both your shows.
	Wish you all the best and God bless.
	Are you talking about the crucible?
	The crucible.
	The crucible.
	The cruisable.
	Thank you, Sean.
	Appreciate all the support, man.
	Thank you so much for the sweatshirt.
	Pretty nice sweatshirt.
	I like the sweatshirt, man.
	It's pretty good.
	I brought one for Brian.
	I brought one for Brian.
	By the way, Andrew claims he lost his whatever cup.
	I mean, just be honest, Andrew.
	You just want a second cup.
	I do want a second cup.
	I wanted to say Rachel.
	I need $20.
	We'll give it to you.
	Could we keep the continuity of these crazy IRL debates if he shows you his ass like Jesse?
	What?
	Thank you, Jim.
	Appreciate it, man.
	Maddis Rychair donated $20.
	Longtime watcher first time TTS.
	This was great.
	Brixon, please have more male guests.
	Yeah, I thought it was very good.
	Actually, about a month ago, Andrew, we did a 2v2 debate, although I didn't say much.
	You did, yeah, you did.
	Yeah, the two guys.
	Yeah, that was great.
	That was a great debate.
	If you like this one, then you'll certainly like that one.
	It was about a month ago.
	Just look under the live tab.
	Andrew Wilson, me versus two male feminists.
	Been a lot of viral clips going from that one.
	That was a brutal slugfest debate, too.
	So that's for those of you who haven't seen it, go watch it.
	It was good.
	Say so NZ donated $20.
	NZ.
	Would love to see Andrew debate someone intelligent.
	I don't know if he is a good debater or not, because honestly, I have never seen him debate someone intelligent and have watched every single one.
	Well, who the fuck are all these intelligent people?
	How are the best left-wing debaters not intelligent?
	Just like, it's just like nobody Andrew debates is intelligent, which either tells me that maybe people are way stupider than I thought, or I'm way smarter than I think.
	I don't know.
	Also, like this, this.
	Are you familiar with the term pub stomp?
	You've never heard pub stomping?
	So pub stomping is like in a video game term where you know how they'll be matchmaking, where as you like kind of rank up in the game, it'll start matching you with people of similar skill.
	Yeah.
	So what a pub stomp would be is like you essentially recreate your account.
	You still have the same skill, but you're going to get matched with newbies and you just go in there and stomp them.
	Pub stomp.
	So we have an open invitation.
	We've posted on Twitter, we've posted in streams of if you're competent, you want to come on and debate, we'll have you.
	It's not like, in fact, the debates where your opponents give you pushback are better.
	So it's not like we just want to pub stomp people.
	It's just we find people perhaps hesitant to come on and debate Andrew because of his he's going to spank him anyways.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	You can find debates with some of the most prolific of the at least internet personalities that I'm aware of right on the crucible.video.
	And we have had great debates on whatever.
	And by the way, I just want to point this out that some of what you consider to be the like smarter, smarter leftist debaters, many times the kind of like poly sci graduate, psychology graduate, OnlyFans girls, often they give better debates than some of these kind of like prolific personalities.
	So make of that what you will.
	And I'm trying to think what was the other thing here.
	Oh, I'll just read the chat.
	No, I fixed it from Auto Spell so Brixon just lose weight.
	Oh, okay.
	Thank you, man.
	Working on it.
	It's in the works.
	We have Silent Zero.
	Please bring Jim Bob and Andrew on a 2v2 on evolution.
	Yeah, that would be a lot of fun.
	Yeah, definitely down for that.
	And Sean, thank you for that.
	Yeah, Jim Bob said he would definitely come out to Santa Barbara to do a 2v2.
	I'd like, need you to get Parker and Dean, the two of them, to come down against me and Jim Bob hilarious.
	Well, we have some debates scheduled in the coming week or so.
	I'm speaking with Parker.
	I'll talk to you after the show about that.
	But I would like to get you.
	Parker's very sharp.
	Parker's very sharp.
	You say so.
	Well, okay.
	I mean, I thought he did quite well against Charlie.
	Charlie's not a debater.
	Fair enough.
	I've tangled with Parker before.
	You just didn't know it was me.
	It wasn't great for Parker.
	And we have this coming through.
	Say so NZ.
	Come on, look at this guy today.
	He's maybe ADIQ on his best day.
	Destiny's even lower debating OnlyFans Girls and these leftist porn stars and Twitch streamers like Destiny is not some big win.
	Well, who?
	Was Matt Dilla Hunty?
	Like who?
	Who?
	We'll host it.
	I'm open to hosting it.
	I don't.
	So, anyways, let's see.
	I think we're all caught up.
	You should come in and do a debate and just watch you like petrified on the other scene.
	Let's see what else do we have here.
	Oh, we are doing a IRL stream tonight.
	That should be live at about 10 p.m. Pacific.
	Are you coming for that, Andrew?
	Or we'll talk after the show and see we'll figure out.
	In any case, we are doing an IRL stream.
	We've been doing this new format, these IRL streams on the street.
	Madison's kind of been taking the charge on those.
	I have the link for that in the description.
	We're going to do a redirect to that, so you guys can be sure to tune in.
	I think that's it for all the TTSs.
	I don't see any other supers that came in.
	So I guess final thing, guys, twitch.tv/slash whatever.
	Go to twitch.tv/slash whatever, drops a follow and a prime sub if you have one.
	And guys, it's been seven minutes since we last got a prime.
	If you're watching over there on Twitch, drops a follow.
	If you have a prime sub available, maybe just check and see if you can drop us one.
	It's a quick freezy way to support the show every single month.
	We have our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever, where we post a lot of cool stuff.
	We post some BTS stuff.
	This crazy guy's been messing with our IRL streams.
	So be sure to check out the BTS tab over on our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
	And also Debate University, final shout out on this.
	Guys, go to debate university.com.
	Get the course Verbal Combat.
	If you want to learn how to become a master debater, you've got to be sure to check out the course.
	And yeah, guys.
	So, oh, could you click the link for it?
	Yeah.
	DebateUniversity.com, guys, debateuniversity.com if you want to check that out.
	All right.
	I'm pretty sure that's.
	Closing statement.
	Oh, did we not do the closing statement?
	You started.
	No, we did.
	No, I think we did.
	Yeah, we did.
	You did, right?
	I feel like you said he was going to start, and I want to feel like I got to finish because we jumped into a question on swearing.
	No, I think I went through, gave you a whole bunch of like compliments, feedback, and then, yeah, I think you did do yours.
	Okay.
	If you want to add a final point, the title said I was what?
	Angry?
	Angry boyfriend.
	Hold on, let me.
	Angry boyfriend.
	Oh, my computer just turned off.
	It actually did, by the way.
	White.
	Massage.
	No, no, no.
	Well, you are white, but it was white knight.
	Okay.
	Yeah, white knight.
	I think that's fair.
	I think that that's a fair character.
	Yeah, it is a fair characteristic.
	Also, like angry boyfriend, white knight.
	Yep.
	Male feminist, male feminist.
	I'm male, but I'm not a feminist.
	Only the first two waves.
	Okay.
	Well, then that's feminism.
	No, the third wave is not.
	He's still a feminist.
	The third wave took him out of the home.
	Yeah, left-wing that I'd like to see, but would probably never happen would be Jordan Peterson.
	Oh, yeah, that would be so close to being smart, but held back by his cultural indoctrination.
	I've reached out a couple times to Michaela and Jordan.
	I have not, I'd love to have them on.
	I think Michaela would come on and do one.
	But haven't been able to do that.
	I've gone back and forth with her a bunch of times on X.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah, the title.
	The whole reason.
	Hey, we got to have good titles.
	We've got to have good titles, you know?
	It's good for clicks, but the whole reason behind my title.
	You seem to lay it.
	Okay.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	I didn't mean to interrupt you.
	Go ahead.
	The whole reason, like I was saying, was with Nicolette and with the other situations, was presenting Christ.
	And so I'd be remiss if I didn't say very quickly, Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
	And most importantly, the Bible says that he's pleading on our behalf, actually through us, be reconciled to Christ.
	You will have to give an account for all of the actions, all of the thoughts, all of the intentions of the heart that you have done.
	And short of Christ, you will fall short.
	And that's the message, and that's the gospel, and it will change your life because it's changed mine.
	And Jesus is alive, and he's still saving people today.
	All right.
	Okay, cool.
	Well, we're going to wrap up the show there.
	I want to thank both of you so much for coming and doing this debate.
	It was great to have you guys in the studio and I thought it was a wonderful debate.
	So guys, we are doing an IRL stream later tonight.
	We'll be live at 10 p.m. Pacific.
	With that, my laptop just died, so I don't have my notes here, but I do want to say thank you guys so much for watching.
	Thank you to everybody who so generously supported the chat.
	If you guys can like the video on the way out, it would really just, I guess, helps us out in the algorithm.
	Really appreciate all the support again.
	We have Andrew in studio for dating talks the next week or two.
	We've got debates scheduled, so stay tuned for another great one to two weeks of some what should be.
	Jake Rattlesnake will be here too.
	Jake will be here too.
	So that's first time in person for the two of us.
	It's going to be great.
	Yeah, so we got some great content coming up for you guys.
	Thank you guys so much for watching tonight.
	I hope you guys have a great night.
	Tune into the IRL stream tonight, 10 p.m. Pacific.
	07's in the chat.
	I hope you guys have a great night.

▲