Whatever Podcast - 1v1 DEBATE: Andrew Wilson vs. They/Them Leftist Feminist Vegan

March 19, 2025 - Whatever Podcast

02:58:32

1v1 DEBATE: Andrew Wilson vs. They/Them Leftist Feminist Vegan | Whatever Debates #12

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.
	We're coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
	I'm your host, moderator, Brian Atlas.
	A few quick announcements before the show begins.
	This podcast is very supported, heavy YouTube demonetization.
	So please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of soup chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
	That's streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	Link is in the description.
	We do prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs.
	To read a message is going to be $99 and up.
	We're going to read those in batches at a couple different breaks throughout the debate and intervals.
	There will be no instant TTS.
	If you want to just tip and have 100% of your contribution go towards us, you can do so through Venmo or Cash App.
	We're also live on Twitch right now.
	You can pull up another tab, go to twitch.tv/slash whatever and drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one.
	Also, we have discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
	We post our stream schedule behind the scenes, hate mail, a bunch of other stuff.
	Now, I want to do pull up, pull this up here.
	So that is Discord.
	Oh, discord.gg/slash whatever.
	Now, on Sunday's show, which Andrew was on, we had a female individual who he referred, a squirrel, I guess?
	I don't know.
	Chipmunk.
	Chipmunk who attacked Andrew, viciously attacked.
	Luckily, I was there to protect him.
	But she attacked Andrew.
	We had to kick her out.
	She started hurling obscenities at me.
	I was capturing it all from my cell phone.
	I posted the point of view, my point of view, the footage to our Discord in the behind the scenes tab.
	She's yelling at me, yelling at Andrew, says some very unsavory things towards me, which isn't captured during our live stream.
	So if you want to support the show, you can join our Discord, discord.gg/slash whatever.
	If you want to see the behind the scenes of what happened on our Sunday stream, where this woman, I think it was an assault, Andrew.
	I think she assaulted you.
	It was assault and battery.
	Was that the.
	Yeah.
	Probably.
	Yeah.
	Anyways, so if you want to see it, the behind the scenes, that's on our Discord.
	And because a lot of people were curious, you know, what happened with the kickout.
	So without further ado, I'm going to introduce our two debaters.
	I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson.
	He's the host of the Crucible.
	He's a blood sports debater and a political commentator.
	Also joining us today is Anne.
	She is a leftist feminist debater.
	She's an outreach coordinator for Planned Parenthood, and she will be receiving her bachelor's in psychology which university or if you don't want to.
	No worries.
	No worries.
	She will be receiving her bachelor's in psychology in May.
	We have a few topics and prompts for today.
	We're going to be talking about feminism, body count, and abortion.
	We'll go over the prompts in a moment, but you each have a five-minute opening statement, and then the rest of the show, it's going to be pretty much open conversation except for those prompt changes.
	And we will have a couple breaks for messages to come through from the audience.
	Andrew Wilson, you're going to go first with your opening statement.
	And then after you, we'll have Anne.
	You will go.
	So go ahead, Andrew.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So I appreciate it.
	Thanks for coming in for this debate.
	And then did you want to read the prompts so that there was no confusion on feminism?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So the prompts are, is feminism good for society?
	Most abortions are permissible, and you shouldn't care about body count if you want a relationship.
	So those are the three prompts.
	Got it.
	So let's start with my first.
	So I have multiple arguments.
	I brought about six arguments to whether or not feminism is good for society, taking the affirmative claim that it is not.
	The first is that feminism erodes the family, and that was always its stated goal.
	So from the position of original feminist thought leaders all the way into modern feminist thought leaders, the idea of eroding what the family is has been a primary goal of every single individual wave of feminism, starting with the first wave on.
	My second argument for why it's bad for society is that feminism has switched women from duty to materialism.
	You see that in the holding of debt by women.
	This was all accumulated in about 100 years since the 19th Amendment was put into place.
	And since feminism became a mainstay, it has switched from the duty-based duty to family over to pure materialism and what feels good, which is horrible for society.
	Three, that feminism has not increased female happiness at all.
	You can find this.
	There's a now famous study called the paradox declining female happiness.
	It's a good one.
	It's by Justin Wolfens.
	It was followed up later on a study by David Blanchflower.
	And in the paradox of female happiness, it states that as the material conditions for women opened up due to the fact that we had a more egalitarian society, they have become far more miserable than ever.
	And male happiness outpaces theirs significantly in almost every single department.
	And this is over all socioeconomic divisions.
	This is over all people groups in all places where this has been studied.
	Feminism has not done anything to increase female happiness, that's for sure.
	Four, feminism leads to male resentment and the use of force doctrine.
	We can touch on that.
	It's not an argument that I'm going to focus on, but it is one that I'm sure that we will touch on.
	My fifth argument against modern feminism is that the language of indoctrination is psychology, which I argue is not only a soft science and I would even say pseudoscientific, but a linguistic indoctrination program, and I can demonstrate that pretty easily.
	My sixth argument against feminism is force doctrine.
	The idea is that my opponent, like most feminists, is likely a moral relativist.
	Though they never claim that they're moral relativists, they always end up being moral relativists when you dive into it.
	And if that is the case, there's really no argument which can be made from the moral side why men don't just use force to enslave all women, which they can do.
	And there's really not much that women can do about that, except we just don't.
	We just haven't done that.
	But in most parts of the world where that is done, there's very little that women can do.
	So essentially, feminists are always appealing to men and men's force in order to protect their rights.
	The very same patriarchy that they're against is the very same patriarchy they necessarily have to appeal to in order to have rights in the first place.
	And so the patriarchy will always be in place.
	I think that this is a logically consistent view.
	And the feminist view that the patriarchy needs to be eroded, even though women cannot force their own rights, absent men, is inconsistent and illogical.
	Those are my six baseline arguments against feminism, and we can stop it with that and move over.
	All right, Ann, I'd like you to respond with your opening statement.
	Yeah, well, I'll make a few points.
	I guess if we're just starting with feminism right now, feminism promotes individual freedoms, which I think at a baseline is what the government's job is to do.
	And so, if you're looking at feminism from a legal or a political standpoint, it's quite literally the government's job to ensure that the type of feminism that I advocate for, which we can kind of get into later, is implemented into policy.
	Now, the second thing that you touched on, and I'll kind of give a little bit of a response to just quickly, is about the waves of feminism.
	I probably think that you find modern feminism to be the most problematic.
	However, modern feminist lens are more of what we would call a critical feminism, and that's what I would probably subscribe myself to.
	Where the goal of feminism is to look critically at the types of structures that exist in society still, whether they are legal, if they're not legal, whether that be social or within family structures, et cetera, in our institutions and our daily lives.
	It's to look at the things and the ways that we interact with other people and what types of things should be deconstructed and what types of things are still being used to oppress women, even in a subversive way.
	Now, you often talk about this whole notion of egalitarianism, and we can get into what you mean by egalitarianism, but I suspect that you probably mean something like equality of outcomes and not equality of opportunity.
	I would probably advocate more for something like equality of opportunity versus outcomes.
	I don't think that men and women will ever be exactly the same, and I don't think that that's the goal of most feminists.
	In fact, I think that might be a straw man of what most feminists are trying to do.
	So, what I would say is that when we look at people in the workforce, the goal isn't to have the same amount of female doctors as male doctors.
	The goal isn't to have the same amount of stay-at-home moms as stay-at-home dads.
	The goal is to give people the opportunity to do those things if they want to, because we agree that personal freedoms, once again, are a good for society, and they are good when they're able to be pursued.
	It's not necessarily that people have to pursue those things, it's just that they have the ability to.
	And so, that's what I would say so far, and then we can get into more of like the terminology stuff.
	Yeah, I mean, maybe we can define some terms a little bit here.
	I mean, there's like feminism, patriarchy.
	Well, I had a bunch.
	I had a few of the semantics I wanted to clear up because I'm not sure exactly what you mean by them.
	And I can tell you what I mean by them too, if you'd like.
	Sure.
	So, let's start with feminism, right?
	My definition of feminism is the movement towards an egalitarian society deconstructing the patriarchy.
	What do you mean by egalitarian?
	Just basic equality between men and women.
	But that's why I made the distinction earlier.
	So, equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?
	Because my goal would be opportunity would be fine.
	I would just grant it.
	Okay, sure.
	Yeah.
	So, and the deconstruction aspect is the patriarchy.
	I don't think that that's a necessary part.
	I think that when most feminists are talking about, like, you know, fuck the patriarchy.
	Sorry, I don't know if I can say that.
	Okay.
	Smash the patriarchy, screw the patriarchy, whatever.
	I don't think they're meaning literally, you know, men can't have power.
	Men can't have 51% of power or something like that.
	Do you think feminists are saying that?
	Yeah.
	If feminism is saying that women are collectively oppressed, who are they oppressed by?
	Well, yeah, most feminists would say that men are okay.
	So you're saying not just men having power.
	Maybe we should define patriarchy then.
	From the father, rule of the father, and men in the position of power, yes.
	Okay, sure.
	Yeah, I don't think women are trying to, especially feminists, are trying to abolish men out of power positions.
	Can men be oppressors if they don't have power?
	No, of course not.
	But they're not trying to rid the power.
	They're trying to get rid of the oppression.
	So, okay, so you don't think then that power necessarily is oppressive?
	No, no, not necessarily.
	Power not oppressive.
	Right, like if you would ask a typical feminist, you know, like, would it be oppressive if we had our first, if Kamala would have gotten elected?
	Would that be like an oppressive matriarchal system or something?
	They would say no.
	It's not just the power.
	So then feminism to you is to try to get men to use power oppressively.
	Feminism's trying to get men to use power oppressively?
	No, to not use power oppressively.
	Yeah, I believe that feminism is about the norms about how we should act.
	You don't think that feminism is just a descriptor of like the world, right?
	Yeah, I think it's just a descriptor.
	Well, in the context of us doing the semantics, I'm just talking about the descriptor.
	Right, but the.
	You're asking within the descriptor, can you make ought claims?
	Sure.
	You can do that with anything, I guess.
	Right, but feminism is like a philosophy about the way the world should be.
	Right?
	Like, yeah, it's a, it's a set of, you know, yeah, but right now we're just talking about the descriptor itself.
	I don't know what you mean by feminism as a descriptor then.
	Well, so right now we're just untangling semantics, right?
	So I just want to know what you mean by the thing.
	If you're saying that feminists can make ought claims, sure.
	Right, but feminism itself is a set of ought claims.
	Feminism isn't just men exist and they have power.
	No feminists.
	Well, feminism to you is this.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So feminism to you is.
	So I'm just trying to get a definition because it's somewhat proprietary still.
	I just want to make sure feminism to you means that a group of women are oppressed.
	The oppressor are men.
	The men in a position of power, their power is fine.
	It's just them being oppressive towards women with their power is not fine.
	So the way that I look at feminism, like I said, is the push towards equal opportunity for both sexes in a society.
	That doesn't necessarily mean that those sexes will take advantage of those opportunities, but that those opportunities are available.
	Okay, so feminism to you just means equal opportunity.
	Church to equal opportunity in society.
	Right.
	Okay, gotcha.
	Because that itself is a normative claim.
	That's not a descriptive claim.
	That's a descriptive claim about what feminism is, but feminism itself is a set of normative claims.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	If you consider it to be a normative ethical worldview, that's fine with me.
	I'm just trying to make sure I know what it is when you say it.
	And then what is harm?
	What is harm?
	There's a few different accounts of harm that I kind of would find sufficient for different instances.
	So there can be harms of deprivation.
	Like I can deprive you of something, that's harmful.
	I can give you examples of things that would be harmful or accounts of harmful.
	There's things like counterfactual accounts of harms where, you know, imagine in another world you would have been better off had something not happened to you that would be harm in that instance.
	There's all sorts of types of harm.
	Well, what do you, well, okay, I guess I should just ask this basic question first.
	Do you base your ethical system around harm?
	Do I base the entirety of it?
	No, of course not.
	Okay.
	So if you had a core principle, would it be deontological or consequential?
	I think it's fine to use a mixture of both.
	Like threshold deontology, something like that.
	Well, I don't subscribe to a particular normative framework.
	That's why I'm saying I'm fine with using principles of both types of marriage.
	Do you think that if not deontology and not consequentialism, then relativism?
	No, I think if no normative framework, likely relativism is what I think.
	I probably lean towards relativism.
	Okay, gotcha.
	So inside of the principle of harm, since it's proprietary, I actually don't feel like I got a definition from you.
	If you want to look a definition up, because it's really hard to find words on the fly, I'm actually fine with that.
	Well, what I'm saying to you is that I find multiple types of things to be harm.
	So it's not just that I have one set definition that fits all sets of things that I count as harm.
	Yeah, but that doesn't tell me what harm is, though.
	Yeah, sure.
	I gave you, look, that just tells me that you think lots of things are that.
	I gave you two examples of definitions.
	So the first example would be if you have a counterfactual world.
	Do you know what that means when I say counterfactual?
	Nope.
	Okay.
	So there's, imagine there's a possible world where, you know, X action or X thing had not occurred to you.
	You know, if you're better off in that possible world where that thing had not occurred, then you've been harmed.
	So that would be like a counterfactual type of harm.
	And you believe that.
	And you believe that?
	Sure.
	Yeah, I think that is the case in some cases.
	Gotcha.
	Okay.
	And then what's the other?
	There's harms of deprivation.
	Okay.
	So, and that kind of ties into the counterfactual account, right?
	Like I can say, if you were going to inherit a billion dollars and I took that billion dollars, I'm depriving you of that thing that you already had claim to.
	So that would be harm.
	Deprivation.
	There can be deprivation harms.
	Gotcha.
	There can be psychological accounts.
	Okay.
	And then my next semantic question for you is: what is a woman?
	So I think a woman, and I do have a definition written down, but is someone who has dispositions towards traits that are associated with females.
	Okay.
	Typically associated with females, maybe.
	Largely based around self-ID.
	What does that mean?
	What do you mean?
	Like, um...
	Self-identification.
	Yeah, self-identification.
	No, I know what ID means.
	I'm asking, what do you mean when you say that that definition is based on traits around what is feminine or what is female?
	Traits that are typically associated with females.
	Yeah.
	So I don't know how you would make the determination that you would associate with those except by self-IDing that way.
	So that's an epistemic claim.
	That's not a problem with the definition, right?
	Like that's a question about, well, how do we find out if someone is this thing?
	That's not a question of what this thing is.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But I'm just asking because you said traits.
	So I'm just clearing up what traits are.
	So, okay.
	So you're asking me how we determine what the traits are?
	No, I'm just asking you what traits are.
	You're asking what traits are associated with females?
	No, just what traits themselves are.
	You don't know what a trait is?
	Well, no, I'm asking you what a trait is.
	A trait is a property of a thing.
	Okay.
	So then the property of the thing in this case.
	Typical properties of the female.
	It's whatever, the association with the feminine or female is what makes woman.
	With females, yeah.
	Okay, got it.
	And that's just one definition.
	There are sufficient other definitions.
	And then what is a woman in the context of women's rights?
	And then I only have one more to clear these up.
	That's actually a really good question.
	It's highly contextual.
	So if we're talking about like women's rights not to be maybe like essayed or something like that, obviously that's going to encompass people who are perceived in society as women because those people, one, have a right not to be, you know, essayed.
	And two, those people are perceived in the same way that females are perceived in that instance.
	But if we're talking about something like, if I want to say, well, women have the right to abortions, I'm talking about people specifically with uteruses that can get pregnant and can have abortions.
	Okay.
	So it's contextual.
	Gotcha.
	And then last, do you believe, well, in this case, standpoint theory?
	Do you know, feminist standpoint theory?
	Are you aware of standpoint theory at all?
	Can you describe what you mean?
	Is that the history should be told through the lens of women, not just through the lens of men?
	Through the lens of women, not just men.
	So both included in the history or?
	Nope, it's that because women have their own proprietary, you know, their own experiences when it comes to A, B, and C, that history needs to be revised also through the view of women.
	That would depend, and I'm not sure I'm not familiar with that enough to come into that.
	No big deal.
	I just wanted to ask, because I would have had a few semantic questions there, too.
	So that's it.
	I'm done with my inquiry on semantics.
	I just wanted to clear up a few of those things.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So, and you know, the main one that I wanted to get clear on was egalitarianism, because I hear you say that a lot, where you say, like, oh, well, you know, it's impossible, whatever claim you make about egalitarianism.
	Well, for the purpose of this, if we're talking about feminism, I do think that there's many feminists who do move towards the claim of egalitarianism being equality of outcome.
	But if you're saying that you're not one of those feminists, it's not really worth harping on.
	So I'm fine with this definitionally just including for egalitarianism the idea of equality of opportunity.
	Sure.
	Yeah, so I'm fine with that.
	Okay.
	I have no issues there.
	I don't know if you had any other semantics that you wanted to clear up before we got into the debate.
	I'm assuming for woman or gender or whatever, you just take the biological definition, adult, human, female.
	Okay, that's fine.
	So do you want to get into like open discussion or?
	Yeah, too open.
	Yeah, now we can move into it.
	So I can, I'll go back to my first argument here.
	Let me pull it up.
	First argument being that feminism erodes the family and that was its stated goal.
	Are you pretty familiar with early feminist writers?
	A few of them.
	Yeah.
	So early feminism, the first waves of them started in like the, depending on what country you're looking at, but mainly in America in the late 1800s.
	And then it moved into the early 1900s.
	And that focused around kind of economic equality, the right to own property, the right to vote, et cetera.
	Yeah, well, it depends on if it was communist, but focusing on America, yes, largely.
	So the idea was to erode the traditional family or the idea of a patriarchal family where the man was the head of the family unit, the woman operated in a support role with children, this kind of thing.
	Would you dispute that eroding that was a goal of feminism?
	That would be an empirical claim that I might not be able to say one way or another.
	There might be feminist theorists who say, like, you know, yes, we want to completely erode every single patriarchal family.
	And there are some feminist theorists who say that.
	A lot of those are later feminists.
	But some of them would go, you know, all we want is for women to have, you know, the right, like I said, the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to get equal access to jobs, equal access to education, things like that.
	Okay.
	Well, then we can just jump to modern feminism then.
	I think.
	So you're fine with that.
	You're fine with granting that version of feminism that I just presented to you, the historic.
	It's not going to hurt my argument at all.
	No, but that, I just want to get really clear that feminism is good for society.
	No, that's not good for, still not good for society.
	So then why are we just going to do that?
	That would tie into that would tie.
	Well, because if you're talking about feminism and modernity, so my argument's basically that feminism erodes the family, and that was its stated goal.
	That's my first argument.
	So right now, I'm giving you my argument.
	So in feminism, in modernity, at least we can agree, is attempting to erode at least the traditional family unit, which you would call the cross-generational or nuclear family unit.
	Who's feminism, though?
	I mean, like you can argue with like hypothetical postmodern feminists, but if that's not me, then I'll argue directly with you.
	Okay, do you promote alternative family units?
	Do I promote them as a better alternative, like as better than a patriarchal family?
	Even equal to.
	Or even equal to?
	Sure.
	I think in some cases they're equal, some cases they're better.
	If you had government programs which promoted the nuclear family or the cross-generational family at a propaganda level, national level, like we would do with patriotism during a war, things like that.
	Do you think that we would have more or less as it came to traditional family units, more or less?
	More or less family units if we put out propaganda?
	Well, I mean, it depends on how effective the propaganda is, but sure.
	I mean, we probably would have more traditional family units.
	Right.
	So then if you do a promotion for alternative family units, that would erode that, right?
	For alternative, you mean?
	Well, necessarily, if it's going to increase the amount of traditional family units, if there's national propaganda to move towards that.
	I didn't say necessarily.
	I said likely, but.
	Okay, but even likely, then it would be likely the other way around.
	Sure, it would be likely the other way around that if we put out propaganda for something that people would latch onto it, most people do.
	Sure.
	And do you agree with me that alternative family units is the propaganda which is now produced mostly out of leftist institutions, out of feminist institutions, and out of feminist propositions to government?
	Well, remember, we're talking about my version of feminism, not your version does that, right?
	Have I given you much of like, I don't think I've told you much about my version of feminism.
	I think you have.
	Your movement.
	So you just got done saying that you would propagate or you would support government, the government itself pushing propaganda for alternative family units, right?
	Wait, that's not, no, I didn't say that.
	I mean, we can watch this back, but what do you mean by that?
	Like at the national level, the government doing things like putting LGBTQ flags all over the White House, maybe putting the White House in an LGBTQ flag, perhaps having NGOs, non-government organizations, which are left-wing think tanks, working hand in hand with government to push alternative family units, which are staunchly feminist and psychological institutions, things like that.
	Okay, so I mean, we could break up psychology, but I'm not sure what that had to do with that.
	But look, so we can say, you know, these are fine.
	These things are maybe working towards normalizing those types of family units.
	Calling them propaganda seems like a loaded way to say that.
	And that's fine.
	If you want to use loaded terms like that, you can.
	That's.
	Well, we can unload it.
	I agree with you.
	Propaganda has a negative connotation.
	I just don't know a better way to say it that people understand.
	So you, okay, well, you think that the normalization or the attempt to normalize something is necessarily propaganda, or you think that there's a difference there?
	No, I just said I think propaganda has a negative connotation, like definitionally a negative connotation.
	But when I say the word propaganda, I think most people understand what I mean by that word, meaning there's a national campaign towards X.
	A national campaign.
	Okay, I mean, if all you're saying by a national campaign towards X is that people want people to be accepted as being gay or people want to be seen as normal for having a gay family where they have, you know, two parents of the same sex and children that live in that household.
	If that's what you mean, then sure, I'm fine with the United States doing things like putting flags on their building, but not for that purpose.
	The reason that I'm fine with that, you know, something like putting a pride flag up during Pride Month, is because that's a representation of civil rights.
	Actually, I spoke, by the way, a little plug for my YouTube channel.
	I spoke at the Florida Senate about a month ago about this.
	It's an infringement on constitutional rights to not allow government entities to do that.
	Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled that way, by the way.
	But that is a promotion of the civil rights of those people, not a promotion of their lifestyle.
	Now, while it might also do that.
	Wait, hang on.
	Back up for me real quick.
	Did you just say that it's unconstitutional to govern for states to govern what now?
	Flags?
	Back that up?
	I just want to make sure I get this right.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	So in the instances, and this is just a descriptor of historically how it's been, the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the types of speech that government entities can employ.
	Government entities being?
	Do you know what a government entity is?
	I'm just asking you.
	No, I'm just curious.
	I just didn't know if you genuinely didn't know what to do.
	So you do realize that you could have proprietary definitions of things that may not.
	But I think it would be charitable to assume that we're kind of using similar terms.
	Well, that's fine.
	I think a government entities.
	Do you mean state government?
	Do you mean federal government?
	Do you mean local government?
	Historically both.
	So when we say government entities, I'm just trying to untangle it.
	That's it.
	Sure.
	I mean, okay, sure, yeah.
	Government entities historically both on the federal level and the state level.
	Okay, so like the Confederate flag.
	Historically, the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional for that to be infringed upon.
	Now, the issue there can be a different argument against maybe why we shouldn't allow them to do it.
	Maybe it's not because it's unconstitutional, but maybe there's some other reason why we should infringe on their free speech.
	Do you think we should?
	On the Confederate flag?
	That would be a conversation about what's the usefulness, what kind of faith is it?
	No, it'd be a conversation about whether or not you're consistent in your view that because states can do this, they should be able to do this or they should do this.
	Do you, okay, that's not true.
	Look.
	What I was saying was that take the instance of putting up a, can I say the word swastika?
	I would just say Swazi.
	Swazi, yeah.
	I put up a nice 1942 flag, you know, on the state building or something like that, and that causes some riot or that causes some violence or something like that.
	There might be an argument there to say, well, because it's had this specific negative outcome, then we should restrict them from doing that.
	However, that's not the case with the symbolization of Pride Month, the gay flags that are put up on buildings.
	The intention there is to represent the civil rights of those people.
	That would be like saying you can't put up American flags.
	This is a civil rights issue on either end.
	Do you think that the Civil War was a civil rights issue?
	No, it's a civil rights issue on either end for the flag itself.
	So you can't say, so if you say, well, this is negative, right, or this is positive, just because one is negative doesn't mean it's not the same civil rights issue that you're pointing at here.
	So if you're pointing at, oh, states historically can't say anything, or government entities can't say anything about what types of flags are put up on, you know, is it state property?
	Is that what you're referencing?
	Right.
	So government buildings.
	Yeah, government buildings, then it would still be a civil rights issue if you're saying that they shouldn't put up the Confederate flag.
	That would still be a civil rights problem.
	When I asked you, do you think that the Civil War was a civil rights issue?
	Do you think that the Confederate flag represents the civil rights of African Americans?
	No.
	Okay, right.
	So that's the symmetry breaker here.
	And then there's also the.
	Well, what do you think a civil right is?
	Do you think that the...
	Don't ask me a question before you answer my question.
	What do you think a civil right is?
	Look, a civil right is something, it's actually, I think, pretty vague in our legal language.
	But civil right is something like a human right that most people would call it.
	So like you have a right to put that flag up.
	Okay, great.
	I have a right to put that flag up too?
	Okay, see, that's where the confusion is.
	So I'm talking about when I say, you know, government entities have the right to put up like pride flags.
	The pride flag is the symbol of the civil rights of gay people to get married, own property, not be, you know, have their house raided while they're having Zyx or something like that.
	Well, okay.
	That's an assertion.
	So let's start with this.
	So you just making the claim like, it is true that this flag represents this.
	That's great.
	It represents that to this group of people.
	I would make the same argument with the Confederate flag.
	Same exact argument.
	That's great that it represents a negative thing towards this group of people, but it represents a positive thing towards this group of people.
	It would be the same thing with the LGBTQ flag.
	It'd be the same argument both ways.
	No, look, the problem here is that the condition that I gave for it being fine for them to use this form of free speech is the fact that it represents the civil right of that group of people.
	But the flag, the Confederate flag, doesn't represent the civil rights of who?
	It would represent the civil rights of any people who wanted to see consistency so that they could have their flag up if they so chose.
	That would still be a civil right.
	That isn't, I mean, maybe there's some vagueness on the civil rights thing, but I don't think that you think that putting a flag up wherever you want on whatever property you want is a civil right.
	You don't believe that, right?
	I think that if you were going to be consistent with your view, you would need to believe that.
	That's not, okay, this isn't answering my question.
	You don't think that it is a civil right to display.
	I think it's a civil right if you put up a gay flag in government buildings.
	Well, I'm trying to answer the question because you said I wasn't answering it.
	If you put it up on a government, if you put it up on a government.
	You didn't ask me a question?
	I was in the middle of asking you the question.
	You said I'm not getting the answer, so I was just giving you the answer.
	So look, the question was, do you think that it's a civil right to see your flag equally displayed?
	Because that was what you started to say.
	No, I think that it would be equally consistent to say if you can have an LGBTQ flag flying on some state building and that's constitutional, then you'd have to say the same thing about a Confederate flag.
	The argument was from the fact that that flag represented the civil rights of that.
	I mean, that's nice.
	What I'm telling you is that that's an assertion.
	Like, demonstrate the assertion.
	That's an assertion based off of the Supreme Court historically ruling it that way.
	That's what I'm talking about.
	I'm not making some, I can make a moral claim and we can talk about like why people shouldn't because I think there might be like violence ensued by one versus the other, et cetera.
	Okay, so why should you be able to have the gay flag up but not the Confederate flag?
	Because I think that one represents the civil rights of a group, whereas the other one doesn't.
	One is more likely to incite violence.
	I don't think that's more likely to be available.
	Do you think heritage is part of civil rights?
	I think that the, do I think heritage is part of civil rights?
	Yeah, when you're talking about the historical use of the LGBTQ flag, for instance, this is going to have some type of like historical meaning to the people in which that flag represents, right?
	Right.
	Okay, isn't the Confederate flag going to have the exact same thing?
	It's going to have some kind of historical meaning when it comes to family lineage for people who live in the South, for people who, you know, they had ancestors who fought in this war, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
	It's going to be part of their heritage and history.
	So don't you think that that would have specific meaning to them as well?
	Right.
	But there might, like I said, be overriding considerations, like if hanging that flag caused violence or something like that.
	Obviously, you would say, like, okay, if we started hanging up Confederate flags and then more violence ensued against like African Americans, you would say we probably shouldn't hang it right now.
	So then by that metric, are you saying that if LGBTQ flags incited violence in people who were not LGBTQ, we should not hang LGBTQ flags?
	Incited violence because of the flag itself?
	Like, if it would have to be a liberal.
	Be the same thing, there would have to be a large amount of violence.
	Yeah, so as long as?
	So, basically what you're saying then, just to make sure I got your view right, what you're actually saying here is, as long as people who don't like the Lgbtq flag being up go ahead and commit a bunch of violence, they should probably take the Lgbtq flag down.
	There would be multiple solutions to that, but that could be one of them.
	Yeah, if there was like, let's say, that was the only way to get people to stop being violent, that might be an alternative.
	Now, that's saying that that's like necessary to do to stop the violence.
	Now, if there's other things where we can preserve, you know, like the protection of the, displaying of it for civil rights purposes, for the, for the representation of civil rights, and at the same time, lower the violence in some other way, then yeah, we should do that alternative.
	And is that?
	You think that's controversial?
	No, but now you're just switching the position, because initially what you said was, this flag, if it it's causing violence uh, because people, it offends them so much that they can't help but become violent at its very, at the very look of it or whatever it is what how, whatever it is that makes them respond negatively and commit violence because of this flag.
	All that that would actually be doing is incentivizing people who are oppositional to the Lgbtq flag to commit violence, because then you would want to take that flag down, right?
	Well, for one, I would say, listen, I would hold the same standard.
	Let's go back to this, because I I would hold the same standard if we had a rule where we said, okay, we can display the Confederate flag and we can display the pride flags, whatever.
	If there started to be violence committed on one end because of the Confederate flag, I would say like okay well, before we move to, you know, taking the flag down, we should move to stopping the violence to whatever metric we can.
	Now there might be other reasons why I think like, maybe we shouldn't display a Confederate flag.
	I think the Confederate flag in and of itself represents the negative part of the history that shouldn't be displayed as if we're proud of it.
	I think it represents slavery.
	You, you don't think it does?
	No, it doesn't represent slavery.
	Represents the heritage of people who had family members who died in the war on behalf of their beliefs, and their beliefs were, well, the beliefs were to their state.
	It was being loyal to their state.
	Most Confederate soldiers didn't have any views on slavery.
	Really, one way or the other, this was a uh, the higher-ups who had views like this, so the average soldier in fact.
	There's one famous case of them saying, why is it that you're fighting in this war?
	You're so poor, you can't own a slave.
	And the response was, because y'all are here.
	So what that means is is that as the North was invading the south, there was a lot of incentive for people to go and fight against it.
	They called it their the war of Northern aggression and uh yeah, they had.
	Many of them had cause.
	They got their houses burned down, things like this during northern marches to assist in combat in that war.
	And yeah, i'm sure that people are very proud of the heritage that they come from in the south, from people fighting for the core beliefs and on behalf of their families.
	Even if you don't like the cause itself, the cause itself is still very much baked into the American history, just like, uh like, for instance, I couldn't ban the the Lgbtq flag because of Hiv right couldn't be like well, that's a stain on our history the fact that there was a bunch of gay sex parties and they were giving it to each other.
	I couldn't do that right.
	I don't think that you can make a good, Honest argument as to why it is that people couldn't be proud of the heritage of their family fighting in the Civil War.
	Look, the flag is a symbol of the leaders of that war, right?
	The people, you just admitted this, the people who respond in that way.
	Oh, well, we're fighting because you guys are here, they're there because they're there.
	I mean, they live there, they're trying to protect their homes and properties.
	That's perfectly fine.
	The problem is, is the people who were starting those wars were the ones who were using those flags.
	That's like saying, like, well, you know, so-and-so wasn't a Nazi in, you know, I don't know if I can say that word, fuck.
	You know, so-and-so wasn't a Schnazi in World War II.
	They just had families that were, you know, Schnazi members.
	Or maybe they were just fighting because they thought it was like a good thing.
	They were fighting the other powers out of me.
	You wouldn't say certainly then that they should allow, you know, Schnazi flags on different buildings.
	If the standard is that we're allowed to put up the flag of our choosing because it has some representation value that we see it as, like, let's say the people saw the Schnazi flag as being something other than IHart Hitler.
	I wouldn't see a problem with that.
	No, of course not.
	Okay.
	So even though that it is linked to that, it is linked to support of Hitler and the LGBTQ flag is linked to HIV.
	Okay.
	That's how I mean people see it.
	People see it as like, oh, wow, AIDS, right?
	They see the rainbow flag.
	I think a lot of people think AIDS.
	Yeah, that's true.
	But there's not like gay leaders that are out there like pushing for AIDS, right?
	There's not like anybody out there pushing for the Confederacy who's pushing for the Confederacy.
	I live in the deep south.
	There's people pushing for the Confederacy.
	Give me a single actual institution of any kind anywhere or any real body of people anywhere who's pushing for the Confederacy.
	What do you think?
	I mean, there have been moves historically to cede some of the states again.
	That's not the Confederacy.
	Because of the Lima speaking, but there have been moves to cede states again for those particular reasons and go back to having the Confederacy again.
	No, there's not.
	I live in the South.
	I'm well.
	Yeah.
	There's not in modernity.
	There's no serious movement.
	You could just say no, but you don't.
	There's no serious movement.
	Demonstrate it then.
	Show me a serious movement in modernity.
	I mean, you could take people like the Proud Boys.
	But the Proud Boys don't want the Confederacy.
	What are you talking about?
	Tons of them do.
	No, they don't.
	Tons of them.
	I know Gavin McGinnis personally.
	I know for sure that he had no plans to institute the Confederate States of America with the Proud Boys.
	And by Confederate states.
	Enrique, the former head, by the way, he's, I think, half black or half Hispanic himself.
	He has absolutely no plans to move towards the Confederate States of America.
	That's absurd.
	They might not have practical plans to, but you couldn't ask some of these people.
	Like I said, I live in the South.
	I mean, like, we can table this here because if it's just going to be like, oh, this is an empirical claim, there's absolutely no one that's pushing for the Confederacy.
	I think that's absurd.
	No, no, no, that's not what I said.
	What did I actually say?
	What was my actual position?
	Repeated.
	My actual position was there's no serious body anywhere, anywhere, not an NGO even that I'm aware of that is pushing for the reinstitution of the Confederate States of America, not a single one that can, and that the Confederate flag, the only thing you seem to be able to appeal to is, well, because in the South there was slavery and this was a flag that the South utilized, that means, therefore, that it's a symbol of slavery.
	That is not, not only is that not logical, it doesn't follow, right?
	But you haven't even demonstrated that the people who want the flag there view it as a symbol of slavery.
	They clearly don't.
	Only the opposition does, right?
	Are you guys okay if we move this back to feminism, though?
	Or just Of the consistency of the world view.
	I just want to make it very clear that Civil War was fought over slavery.
	That has nothing to do with my claim.
	What does it have to do with my claim?
	The Confederate leaders of the Civil War were fighting.
	When did I make the claim that it wasn't over slavery?
	I'm just making that clear for this conversation.
	But when did I make that claim?
	So what are you arguing against?
	That the people who were fighting in the war, most of them weren't just fighting for slavery.
	They weren't.
	But the leaders of those armies were fighting for that.
	Well, some of them were, and some of them even were abolitionists in their own right.
	But I do agree with you that generally speaking, leadership there did want to keep the institution of slavery intact.
	I'm not disputing that.
	What I am disputing is that when Southerners see the Confederate flag as a sign of their cultural heritage, which comes down to their family members defending their homes when the North came in and started burning them out, amongst other reasons, that they want it there as a symbol of slavery.
	And that's the argument you're actually making.
	That's not true.
	Then why shouldn't it be there?
	I said that, well, one, there could be an argument that it incites violence, because it does in some instances.
	It's used as a symbol when violence occurs, especially in the South alone.
	Right, so we have to capitulate to people who become violent because of a symbol.
	Capitulate to people who become violent because of a symbol?
	They're not violent because of the symbol.
	They're violent because they share the values that that symbol represented during that war.
	So then therefore violent because of symbol?
	No.
	No.
	How did you get that from that?
	Well, because I don't understand.
	Why are they being violent because the Confederate flag is there?
	They're violent because they share the same values as the people who flew that flag in that war.
	No, they don't.
	What values are they sharing?
	They own slaves?
	There are people in the South who want to own slaves.
	Yeah, I don't.
	How many people in the South do you think want to own slaves?
	Look, there's groups of people.
	That doesn't matter.
	There's no significant movement anywhere in the South to own slaves.
	Even if they don't desire that particular portion of the negative ideological set of things that people in the South believe during the Confederacy, there is lumped in with that racism because of the fact that it was a tool to push for slavery, right?
	So that their share was racist.
	I understand.
	So why do we fly the American flag?
	It's like a joke.
	No, it's not a joke.
	It's not like a joke.
	I really don't understand the position.
	The position of like, but they see it as being racist.
	They are linking this symbol to their feelings.
	We're not going to capitulate.
	You honestly are trying to advocate that people should capitulate to symbolism under legal expression because it makes them feel badsies.
	And by capitulate, you mean?
	Take it down.
	Yes.
	So you're saying that I think that we should take down Confederate flags if they cause violence and if they're not causing violence.
	And if they are, sure.
	I mean, if they are linked to people who are causing violence, right, because they share the same values of the people who initially flew those flags.
	But yeah, I think that's totally reasonable.
	I would really hope you would say the same thing about the Schnazi flag.
	This is a totally insane claim.
	So if somebody's flying the Confederate flag and it's offensive enough, you keep on acting like, well, if the flag is causing violence, the flag doesn't cause violence.
	Flag is nothing.
	It's a piece of cloth.
	It has no ability to cause anybody violence.
	People would be causing violence on behalf of they don't like that.
	They don't like that flag.
	So all you're doing is making an argument saying we should capitulate to mobs who don't like things and are willing to cause violence by taking down the thing.
	That's not a, look, I think that that's a complete straw man of the argument.
	The argument is multi-pronged.
	It's not just, oh, if people don't like thing, take thing down.
	That's not the argument.
	It sure sounds like that's the argument.
	Which part of it am I strawmanning?
	That is a consideration into whether or not we should allow something or not.
	Okay.
	There can be multiple considerations.
	That's one of them.
	Okay, well, I guess we can move on to the second argument then if you want to move past this one.
	Sure.
	So feminism has switched women from duty to materialism.
	can you explain what you mean by that yeah i can't think of a single uh when you talk about egalitarianism being i want so let's start with this i guess Are rights real?
	Real in what sense?
	Do they materially exist anywhere?
	Are they concepts of the mind?
	Yeah, rights are concepts of the mind.
	Yeah, so they don't actually exist, right?
	No, something that's a concept still exists.
	Where?
	Yeah, like feelings exist, thoughts exist.
	Where?
	They exist within the mind.
	You just said that.
	Yeah, where is that?
	In the mind?
	Where is that, though?
	In brains.
	So the brain exists inside the mind?
	The mind is constituted of the brain.
	The brain is the mind, then.
	That might be a semantic thing, but I'm fine with saying whatever, however you want to parse out those terms, that yes, concepts come from minds.
	Minds either are or come from brains.
	Okay, so, well, is the mind the brain?
	Look, that's a complex question I don't have the answer to.
	I don't either.
	So I just want to make sure that I understand where concepts exist.
	I mean, look, if you just want to say the brain, just for simplicity, that's fine.
	I'm not sure, like, are you, like, well-versed on philosophy of mind or something?
	Is that, like...
	I'm not trying to move you into philosophy of mind.
	I'm just...
	I'm just trying to ask you about rights being a concept.
	Because when I say that they're not real, you say they are real because concepts are real.
	But I don't understand how concepts themselves are real.
	Yeah, they're real as in they're, you know, things that are from the mind.
	Okay.
	Like thoughts are, you wouldn't say a thought is not a real thing.
	A thought is a real thing.
	Well, when you say objective or subjective, what do you mean by objective or subjective?
	I didn't use those words, but usually in philosophy, objective means mind independent and subjective means mind dependent.
	Okay, right.
	So concepts then, they're dependent on a mind?
	Yeah, of course.
	Okay, so they don't exist absent a mind.
	They don't exist absence of minds?
	No.
	Okay, so if all human beings were gone, rights would not exist because the concepts would be gone, right?
	Well, I didn't say human minds.
	There could be, you know, some alien, you know, the xenomorphs or whatever, come down and they have their own concepts of rights.
	Then, yeah, I mean, that's still a mind.
	They have rights, et cetera.
	Yeah, no, sure.
	If there was aliens, they would, okay.
	Just to clarify, it's not just human minds.
	It is just minds that can conceptualize of rights.
	Whatever those minds are.
	Sure.
	Okay, got it.
	So when we're talking about rights, though, you exist, they don't exist in any sort of material reality.
	Material, that question hinges upon the, like, you know, is the mind the brain or not?
	You can't taste them, touch them, smell them, see them, that kind of thing.
	Sure, no, of course not.
	Yeah, okay, got it.
	So rights, for all intents and purposes, are just things that we make up.
	Sure.
	That doesn't make them any less real.
	Well, I guess we're going to have to clear this up again then.
	Real how is a thing, is a unicorn real?
	Well, as a fictional concept, yeah.
	As a concept, it's real.
	As a fiction, just to be clear.
	There's a way that fiction is used in a technical sense.
	I'm not super familiar with it, but you can point to things that are fiction and things that aren't fiction.
	So it would be like, well, maybe Spider-Man is real in a sense, but he's real in a fiction way.
	He's still real, right?
	There's still a book.
	There's still movies about him.
	There's still actors that play him.
	In a sense, there is Spider-Man, right?
	Well, there are material things tied to Spider-Man, right?
	But there is a real concept of Spider-Man.
	He's just real in a fictional sense.
	Got it.
	So then for you, rights actually do exist as more than they're not.
	When you say concept, you actually believe concepts are real in some sense.
	I think they're real in a mind-dependent way.
	Mind-dependent.
	When you say, so I think what you're doing here, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.
	I'm making sure we just don't equivocate.
	That, yeah, but it seems like what you are doing might be a little bit of that, but it might seem like you're saying something is only real if and only if it's material.
	Do you believe that or no?
	I don't.
	No.
	I'm just making sure that we get the view clear.
	Sure, yeah.
	So there can be real things, even if we don't have a specific definition, there can be real things that aren't material.
	Yeah, concepts.
	Yeah, sure.
	Okay, got it.
	So rights are a concept.
	Yeah, they are a concept, but they are real.
	Because they're because your feelings are real, just like your thoughts, your dreams are real.
	Got it.
	And concepts are changeable, right?
	Just like rights.
	The concepts themselves?
	Yeah, the way that people think of things, yeah.
	Things can change.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So we've established that rights are just concepts.
	Concepts can be real.
	I'll just agree in that sense because, again, it doesn't really matter, I guess, in this particular confine.
	So when I say duty, duty you would have to exist or you'd have to admit is also real then as a concept.
	What do you mean by duty?
	Obligations that you have absent entitlements.
	And I would classify rights as being entitlements you have absent obligations.
	So you said a duty is an obligation absent an entitlement?
	Yeah.
	And then you said that, what was the second?
	That for a right, it would be an entitlement absent a duty.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So I don't actually see any duties women have in modernity.
	None.
	Like no, no actual duties.
	Duties to what?
	Anything.
	You don't, like in a moral sense or?
	No, in any sense.
	So I see a lot of entitlements, rights, entitlements absent duty.
	So you have the right to vote, no duty to vote.
	Right to own a gun, no duty to own a gun, right?
	You have the right to incriminate yourself or not incriminate yourself, but no duty to incriminate yourself or not to incriminate yourself, right?
	Every one of these rights is an entitlement.
	There's no duty which comes along with it.
	So I think that in a time before feminism, let's say especially the 1900s, that instead of women and men in this case, moving towards a materialistic outlook, they focused a lot more on duties instead of entitlements themselves.
	And I think that that has been very bad for society, the focus on materialism from feminism.
	Okay, maybe just to get more clear on that term duty, being an obligation absent entitlement.
	What you're saying is that, you know, somebody should act or needs to act, right, without being giving anything to act.
	No, they could be given orders to act.
	That could be considered a duty.
	But I'm saying, okay, maybe there was some miscommunication there, but something that you should do whether or not you're rewarded for it or something like that.
	Is that something like what you mean?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So some obligation to do.
	Yeah, some obligation absent entitlement to perform X action.
	Okay.
	Now, that's not a perfect definition, but I think it's like a workable one for the purpose of the conversation.
	Okay, so you think that, you know, women don't have any duties, but they do have...
	But I think men do.
	I think men have duties.
	Can we get clear on if you're making a descriptive claim or if you're making some sort of like prescriptive claim?
	Descriptive.
	Descriptive?
	Okay, so you think that men have duties and women don't?
	Yes.
	And that you think that women have rights and men don't have rights or they do?
	I think that women have more rights than men do.
	So this would come down to my argument for conscription.
	It's very simple.
	Men have a duty and obligation to sign up for the draft.
	Women have no such obligation or duty to do so, but women can still vote to send men to wars and then not fight in them because they can't be drafted.
	So I would consider that to be an extra right that women have that men do not have because they are actually have to sign up and be conscripted during wartime.
	Okay, sure.
	And absent wartime.
	Okay, so this is argument feminism bad because men have to go to the draft and women don't and they both get the right to vote?
	No, this is an argument for materialism.
	I'm just expressing that when we moved away from a duty-based society for women, there's no, I can't think of any actual obligations that women have as far as duties to society, but I can think of actual obligations that men do have still as a duty to society.
	And so it seems that women themselves actually have more rights in modern society than men do.
	And also, right, that a lot of this movement towards the idea of more additional rights comes from materialism itself.
	Everything seems to staunchly revolve around I want me, me, me, me, I want, I want, I want because it feels good.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	I'm not sure.
	Maybe we could get more clear on materialism there.
	I'm not for the draft.
	I am for people voting.
	I think people should vote.
	So if you're making descriptive claims about like, okay, well, you think that this moved towards materialism, and I'm thinking maybe you're talking about like Marxist materialism, or do you mean something totally like?
	Do you mean materialism in a totally different field?
	Yeah, in this case, very simple, right?
	I'm just using materialism in the sense of stuff.
	Stuff in the replacement for something that is not stuff.
	Like, for instance, if we're talking about concepts of God, of country, of nation, of state, things like that, which could be fulfilling.
	And materialism would be the idea that stuff can be fulfilling, like actual material goods, things like this can be a form of fulfillment.
	Okay, so materialism, from what you're defining, is that material goods can be fulfilling.
	Yeah.
	Okay, this has to do what with feminism?
	That what feminism has done is move women more towards materialism than duties.
	Duties would be this idea of the conceptualization of I ought to do things outside of because it feels good, whereas materialism is I'm going to get this stuff because it feels good.
	Right.
	I mean, I can think that people should do things because I think it would have good outcomes for them.
	Like, I think that people should vote because I think that that helps them pursue their political goals more.
	And I think that people enjoy freedom.
	I think that's good for people's well-being, is to have personal freedom.
	It doesn't seem to be.
	Okay.
	It seems to be that limiting people's personal freedoms is pretty good for their well-being.
	Well, it seems, okay, well, in some senses, you would agree with that.
	In some senses, you wouldn't, I assume.
	Yeah, in some.
	You can make delineation thresholds, but everybody voting has been a disaster.
	It's been terrible.
	What do you mean by that?
	I mean that by everybody being able to collectively vote rather than people at stake in the system, what's been able to happen is that the treasury has been able to be robbed by the collective power of the vote.
	So what happens is politicians end up creating blocks, voting blocks.
	They pit the voting blocks against each other.
	All of these various blocks are trying to raid the treasury essentially for their own personal agendas.
	Every single block that I can think of, in fact, is trying to raid the treasury based on an agenda.
	Right, but presumably you think some of those agenda, one, some of those agendas are good, and two, you think that generally there's also good outcomes from everybody voting, right?
	No, there's generally not good outcomes from everybody voting.
	There's not a single good outcome or put it in a monolith, but that's a question.
	I just answered the question.
	I would say I would not say that there's never a single good outcome.
	Right.
	So you just happen to believe that the good outcomes don't outweigh the bad outcomes.
	Well, yeah, that's how I would weigh anything when it came to the political process, right?
	Right.
	So, okay, I mean, we can just take, for example, you think that it's generally good, just prima fascia good, to protect individual freedoms, right?
	Like people to a degree.
	Well, I can give you, I think I can probably give you infinitely many cases where you would say it's good to protect infinite protection.
	I think I can give you infinitely many cases in the opposition where you would think it was really good to limit them.
	Probably not in the real world.
	Like I can take, for example, okay, you waking up and breathing this morning.
	That's a right that should, that's a personal freedom that should be protected.
	You waking up and owning a machine gun.
	Is that a personal right that should be protected?
	That's going to hinge on like an epistemic, like that's going to be some like empirical claim.
	It's not an empirical claim.
	What do you mean?
	No, whether or not I think that that's a right that should be protected is going to hinge on empirical data.
	So whether or not that causes there would be really bad outcomes if you own.
	Probably.
	So you'd want to limit that, right?
	Right.
	What about a battleship with like Uzis strapped to it that did a like 360 turnstile, just mowing everything down?
	I should probably not have that either, right?
	Or hand grenades.
	Right.
	And those are instances that we don't currently have.
	I'm talking about literally from you breathing to you sitting at the table to you holding a pen to you wearing a shirt to you being in the studio to being in America.
	Ooh, sorry.
	To you being able to drink water.
	All of those things are personal freedoms.
	And you believe that all of those things should be protected.
	And there's probably less of those insane scenarios.
	Breathing's not a right.
	What do you mean?
	You don't have a right to breathe.
	It's a function.
	It's a function of what you do.
	It's not an empirical right to it.
	Right, but you have a right to life and stopping you from breathing.
	Do you have a right to life?
	Or do you have a concept that you have a right to life?
	Yeah, but yeah, the right is the concept.
	The concept, yeah.
	So the idea here is the concept.
	Yeah, I'm not sure that people have a right to life.
	Like if you steal my TV, I don't think you have a right to life.
	Well, sure, those rights can be overridden.
	Those are overriding the rights.
	Because they don't exist.
	That's why they did that.
	That doesn't mean that.
	There's not really anything.
	So the concept here, right, can be overridden and changed because the concept itself is flawed.
	The idea of rights themselves are flawed.
	So when you're talking about your First Amendment right or something like this, when you talk about freedoms in general, yeah, I think that we have all sorts of duties which override those rights all the time.
	Right.
	But you have to make the case that this is one of those instances where you should override somebody's rights.
	So when you're in the middle of the women started voting.
	Hold on, don't interrupt me.
	You just told me to give you the answer.
	Very impolite.
	Very impolite.
	Do you think that I'm the only one cutting in?
	I think I've probably cut in far less.
	But look, so you think that there's all of these instances where you shouldn't have your right to breathe infringed upon.
	You shouldn't have your rights XYZ.
	That doesn't mean that those things aren't real just because they can be overridden.
	I don't know what the argument for that would be.
	What?
	So the concepts themselves, right?
	These things are changeable concepts, right?
	yeah all of them are changeable but the concept itself is and where does the concept exist it Does it exist in all brains or does it exist in one brain?
	Well, I think that people have different concepts of rights.
	What I am saying, though, is when people say, I have a right to life, they're not saying I have a right to life in every single imaginable possible scenario.
	Do you know that?
	Do you like know that when you express things that you should express them precisely so that I know exactly what it is that you do mean?
	So when you say like, do you know when people say X, that what they actually mean is Y, it's like, no, I don't actually know that because from what you're saying is when people say X, this is it.
	You just leave it on rights.
	That's what people say.
	And it's like, now you clarify and say, well, when people say X, they really don't always mean X. Like, fair enough.
	I can grant that that is true.
	But you didn't really make that case.
	I'm not just granting that it's true, though.
	Here's what happened, though, is that you said that, well, there's instances where these rights can be overridden.
	So you do recognize that people, when they say you have the right to life, they aren't talking about the right to life in an absolute sense.
	No, no, no.
	So that's a pedantic way to look at my words.
	Maybe my words were sloppy there, right?
	It's just a way for me to categorize the words that you understand what I'm saying.
	So I could say override or something like this.
	If you want to pin me on it, I can use a different word.
	But the entire idea here, though, is that these are just concepts.
	Because they're just concepts, they're very changeable in the human experience as concepts.
	And they only exist in single brains.
	They don't exist in collective brains, right?
	They can't.
	Every single brain has to have some variation of this concept, right?
	Sure, but people have general agreements on what a concept means.
	Sure.
	So they can approximate as close as they can.
	But when somebody says, like I said, they have the right to life or they have the right to breathe, I would think that you know that they're not saying, and also just to reframe this, because you said it's like, oh, well, when people are saying they're X, you're saying they actually mean Y.
	No, I'm saying they mean something like X asterisk, you know, to the right-hand corner.
	So actually why?
	That's not what I said.
	I think that's kind of dishonest.
	Well, it can't be X and not X.
	So it has to be X actually means not X. Right, but it could be X with like an additional clause that's understood to be true.
	Like when you have conversations, there are things that you understand with people.
	Like there's social cues.
	Like people, I think people typically just making sure that if there's a meaningful distinction, we untangle the meaningful distinction.
	If there's not, we don't.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So when people talk about rights, I mean, because I guess we'll just get 100% clear on this now.
	When people talk about rights, they're typically not talking about some absolute ability to do anything, some entitlement to do anything no matter what.
	Okay, I agree.
	Sure.
	But I never thought that that was in dispute.
	What was in dispute is the concepts themselves, right?
	So the idea is, well, I have a right to do X.
	And then somebody comes along and says, no, you don't, and puts a bullet in your head, right?
	Did he have the right or did you have the right?
	Did the person who put the bullet into somebody's head have a right to do that?
	Yeah.
	Not per the person who they did it?
	Right, exactly.
	So then these are just concepts.
	They're individual.
	They're mind-dependent concepts for individual minds themselves.
	They're not even collectivized.
	There can be rights that we like agree upon.
	Sure.
	You can agree.
	You can agree to them, right?
	But you can't really say that when somebody else comes along and says, but I have a right to violate your rights, that they don't have a right to do that.
	That's the problem with them, right?
	Under your frame of rights, they don't have that.
	Per your standard, they don't have that right.
	Yeah, but per their standard, they do.
	Yeah, that's just trivially true.
	If you're just saying like trivial truths are true because they're true.
	So the thing is, is like, yes, it's trivially true, trivially true, just meaning it's true, that if a person says, well, I have the right to kill you, and you say you don't have the right to kill me, right?
	I just want to know who actually here has the right to do what.
	Actually has the right?
	Yeah.
	What do you mean by that?
	Who here actually has the right to do something?
	Who here actually can actualize this right?
	Okay.
	The question is who has the ability to do what they want to do?
	Well, obviously the person with the gun.
	I don't do you think what right did that other person actually have?
	Well, the person, okay, maybe we should get clear on what you mean by a right.
	What do you mean by right?
	I've already told you like 50 times it's entitlement absent of duty.
	Yeah, so, okay, they have the right and these rights are, you know, like I believe that I have an entitlement, you know, to my life.
	Believe.
	Right.
	So if they believe that, to them, they had their right.
	To the other person, they did not have the right.
	Right.
	So in this case, really, what it boils down to is your rights are just force, right?
	Rights just comes down to.
	Force is the way that the rights are protected.
	Well, it's the only way they can really exist.
	No, they do exist.
	you admitted that concepts exist, right?
	So like somebody can, I can grant that they exist.
	Sure.
	Right.
	So they do exist without force, quote unquote.
	Well, no, not actualizing them, though.
	So you didn't get clear what you mean by actualizing.
	So if you want to have the right to freedom of speech and there's nobody around, I suppose you would have the right to freedom of speech because you're the only mind which has this concept in it.
	But if you come in contact with another mind who says you don't have the right to freedom of speech, right?
	How do we determine which mind actually has a right here and which one doesn't?
	We can't, right?
	We just say you have a concept in your mind and you have a concept in your mind.
	But this rights thing, right?
	This thing doesn't really exist.
	Just this concept is what exists.
	See, you keep saying it doesn't really exist.
	Of course it exists.
	Like you said, if you're on the island and nobody's there to infringe upon that right, even if somebody does infringe upon that right, you could still say, well, that person has the right to life.
	They have the right to speech.
	Then people have the right to kill other people if they want to.
	Well, that's not what I said.
	Per that person, they're saying to them, that statement would be true.
	Okay.
	To them.
	If it is the case that collectively society decides that they have a right to enslave women, they do in fact have that right in reality to do that, don't they?
	If you're saying that they're acting on what they believe to be a right, then yeah.
	That's what they're doing.
	That's true.
	That doesn't.
	So these are descriptive claims, though.
	That's not interesting.
	So right now we're just making sure that we have this.
	So I just want to make sure I got this right and that we're not speaking past each other.
	Rights are real as concepts.
	Concepts are real.
	Yes.
	So therefore, if it is the case that conceptually people want to enslave all women and they call that concept a right, then they would have the right to enslave women and that would be a real right that they would have, right?
	To them, what you're missing is the index.
	So like when I say I have a right, I am talking, like I said, about more so a belief or a value sometimes is what I'm referencing.
	So when somebody says like, even if someone was in prison wrongfully, maybe, like, they didn't actually commit a crime, but it was believed that they committed a crime.
	And that person said, I have the right to be free.
	Now, they're not saying something nonsensical.
	You understand what that person is saying.
	They're saying, you know, I desire to be free.
	It's wrong.
	And what they mean by, you know, it's wrong is it goes against their values for them to be in prisons?
	It goes against their preferences, right?
	Yeah, in that case, so that statement is true.
	Yeah, sure.
	But it's equally true to say, no, we're going to keep you a slave.
	Not to that person.
	Yeah, not to that person, but just to the other people.
	Once again, not to that person, and not to me, certainly.
	But if it is the case that rights themselves being a value of the concept of the mind, these concepts are real, then that would mean that all people who were slaves had the right to be free.
	That's true.
	But also that all people who enslave people have the right to enslave them, and that's also equally true, correct?
	If what you mean, like we can substitute.
	Now, if what this is what you mean.
	Yeah, if you let me finish sentences, I can do that.
	Okay.
	So when you have the people who are enslaving other people, if what you mean by those people saying, I have the right to enslave these people, is that those people are substituting out their words for like, I have the value that these people are enslaved, then to them that is true.
	They do in fact have that value.
	So for you, a right is simply, wait, I'm confused now.
	Now I'm actually confused on your view.
	You said a right is just a belief?
	Yeah, I think, well, when we're talking about like concepts, yeah.
	Okay, if it's just a belief, then it's an equally true belief that these people over here, their right to enslave you exists.
	It's equally true, and because the wording, I think people use this wording in a weird way sometimes.
	What would be more accurate to say is that that person desires this, they value this, or they prefer this.
	Okay, so what gives them the right to something?
	That's what I'm saying, that the right is, so like usually when you're talking about, well, you can talk about rights as social contracts, and maybe they're violating a social contract in that way.
	But when I say like, I have a right to be free, a lot of the times what I'm expressing is like, you know, a very strong desire or something like that.
	Yeah, just a belief that you have.
	Sure.
	And I mean, that's what those people are saying.
	So if you're just saying it is true that those people, to them, it is true, I have the right to enslave this person.
	And if you substitute what they mean by that by, I desire to enslave these people or I have a strong will to do so, then that's trivially true.
	You don't disagree with that, certainly.
	Well, with your view?
	No.
	This is great.
	You have to concede that the right is real, that people collectively have the right to enslave people and that that is real.
	Concepts are real.
	And what you mean by right is it's real in the sense that they do in fact believe or value that thing.
	Yeah, that's that is true that they in fact believe in value.
	Is that belief that you can hold people in slavery?
	Is that a belief which I mean, obviously you're against it, right?
	I'm not saying you're not.
	Of course.
	But that belief, this value which is real, this concept which is true, they actually do have the right to do this, is that morally worse than your view that they shouldn't?
	To me, yeah.
	To you.
	And that's it, only to you, right?
	Because it doesn't make you feel good, right?
	Well, there's, you can say words like that, like you can say, doesn't make me feel good.
	That would be more in line with somebody who takes some like a motivist view on that type of thing.
	But I'm fine with saying that, you know, there's a proposition that, you know, that is wrong.
	And by that, I mean that, you know, that's something that goes against my values or my desires or preferences.
	So now we've untangled all of that.
	This argument actually becomes much easier.
	So the goal of feminism is to push people or push women specifically towards materialism and not duty.
	And I think that the belief of people in duty is much more important than the belief of people in materialism.
	So I think that the idea of having duties to nation, the idea that having duties to family, the idea that having duties to community far outweigh the idea of the right to pursue whatever trivial, meaningless material pursuit that you have, that duty should come first and that society would look better if they did.
	Well, that's okay.
	There's a few things here.
	That moves from a descriptive claim to like a applied claim or like an order of claim or a pragmatic thing.
	And then there's the other type of thing where it's like, you say feminism has pushed us towards these things, towards these materials.
	Yeah, do you want a demonstration for that?
	Well, really quickly, you think that feminism is pushing people towards subjectivism and that that's bad.
	Like there's a two-pronged claim there, right?
	No.
	Less so towards subjectivism, more so towards materialism.
	Okay, well, it seems, it kind of seems like you were doing a little bit of equivocating here.
	What's the equivocation?
	between subjectivism and materialism but if you're not then maybe we can kind of like i didn't bring up subjectivism there just materialism That was what we were just talking about.
	No, what we were talking about is after we untangle all of the concepts, all we're really talking about is just everything reduces to beliefs.
	So all of these concepts of rights, everything else just reduces, at least to you, to believe, I believe thing, which is fine.
	It's just equal for me to say I believe opposite thing, and those are just as morally valuable as the other, at least from your view.
	That's all I was establishing.
	That's not true.
	That's not true, actually.
	So that's a misunderstanding.
	So when you say that they're equally morally as valuable, well, they're not equally morally as valuable to me.
	Yeah.
	And then there's a pragmatic claim where we can kind of discuss after that, like, okay, well, let's say we have conflicting values.
	Then what?
	You know, fuck do we do?
	It's more so we can then look at, okay, well, what's maybe some underlying values that we share where we can build off of that?
	I'm aware of all of that, but no, that would still reduce to relativism then, right?
	Like, how can you make ever a claim that some other mind, whatever their moral proposition was, if everything is just based on your preference is less good than your preference?
	I don't even know how that can be done.
	You don't under, well, how you just explained it, where you're saying that the things that are good to you aren't the things that are good to me.
	So you might say, well, these are subjectively good to me, and therefore they're equally as good as the things that you believe.
	And my response to that would be, no, I don't believe that because the things that are good to me are my values.
	Your values don't meet mine.
	Perfect.
	So then you believe that you are the architect of all morality.
	And by that you mean?
	Everything for which you believe is the ultimate form of morality.
	Ultimate form in what way?
	There's no other, and no, no countermoral claims made to you are ever going to be as good as the moral claims you make.
	There can be counter moral claims that are made to me that appeal to my values that maybe I'm not aware of or that I have like conflicting underlying values that I'm not good because you then prefer them.
	I'm not thinking about that.
	Sorry?
	The only thing that would make them good is that you then prefer them.
	Yeah, there could be something like that where you would be the ultimate.
	If I adopted them for my morality, right?
	Like that would make that thing good.
	Your morality is the only thing that is good, though.
	To me.
	Well, what else is good except good to you?
	So look, I just said that.
	The thing that I am arbiting is my morals, my moral stances.
	So then the only way we can have good is if it's good to you.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So then if that's the case, then all things, you are the ultimate arbiter of goodness.
	Of my standard of goodness.
	There can't be any other standard of goodness.
	There is.
	Do you think that I am denying that other people have?
	This is circular.
	I'm like, I'm making the argument.
	I don't know why you're not agreeing with it.
	Only things which are good to you are good.
	The things that are good to me are good to you.
	Nothing else is good except things good to you.
	Nothing else is good except things which you've got to do.
	Well, there can be other people who agree with the things that I find to be good.
	So then those things are good to me and good to them.
	Yeah, so but they're only good because they're good to you.
	They're only good because they're good to me?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, there's things that are good to me, and I can convince other people that they should also find those things to be good.
	Can anything be good unless it's good to you?
	Are you saying that can I approve of something and not approve of something at the same time?
	Well, no.
	Yeah, right.
	So then all goodness comes from you.
	All goodness comes from me.
	You have to.
	That my standards of good come from me, of course.
	Is there any other standard other than yours which is good?
	Relative to me, unless it aligns with my idea or value, then no.
	Then you are the ultimate arbiter of goodness.
	Of my own.
	That's the only kind that there is.
	There is no other kind.
	No, there are.
	If you reduce this like six times, it always comes back to.
	If we look at good as values, right?
	I'm not denying that you have values.
	I'm not denying that Brian has values.
	I'm not denying that, you know, Joshua down the road has values.
	So there are things that are good to those other people.
	But relative to me, unless they align with my values, then.
	So then you are a moral relativist.
	Look, I'm fine with if you want to call that moral relativist.
	Well, what else would it be when you say it's relative to you is relative to me?
	So where does that bring us?
	Look, if I just say, look, I am a moral relativist, fine.
	Whatever you want to call it without.
	Yeah, that would be fantastic.
	We at least make some headways because what I'm saying to you is that from a prescriptive claim then, if it's all just relative, then you can't really say that Islam enslaving women is morally bad.
	It's just morally bad to you.
	No, I am saying that.
	It is morally bad to me.
	And because it's, you can only say it's bad to you.
	But because it's relative, right, you can't.
	It's probably bad to a lot of others.
	But you just said it is bad to us.
	But you just said that it's relative.
	Like you can't make the claim, really, since it's relative.
	If it's not good to them, it's good to me.
	Well, because otherwise, then just admit you're the ultimate arbiter of all goodness.
	Look, even if I accepted that semantic usage there that I'm the ultimate arbiter of goodness, which I would add that asterisk on the end that like, no, I'm the ultimate arbiter of my moral values and my goodness.
	I mean, that's fine.
	That doesn't bring us anywhere else.
	I can still look at people and go, the things that they're doing don't match up with my values.
	And that to me is bad.
	Yeah, but my claim is that it would have to then necessarily be, at least it seems to be from all the questions you've answered, that if they don't match up with your values, that is what is bad.
	And only things which match up with your values are what is good and nothing else is good.
	To me.
	don't disagree.
	Do you think it's only focused on you?
	Who else could it be focused on?
	Do you think, well, those people have their own values, and to them, things are good.
	So to them, those things are good.
	To me, those things are bad and they don't meet my values.
	Okay, got it.
	So then when we're talking about duty, right?
	And here's my claim then.
	I think that duty to materialism makes things bad.
	That's my claim.
	I think that, or I'm sorry, materialism itself generally makes society worse for people to live in.
	And so I'm going to try to appeal to your values here and ask you, do you think that materialism itself is good for society?
	Or do you think it's bad for society?
	The way that I framed materialism.
	Material goods can be fulfilling?
	That, no, that the movement towards materialist goods being fulfilling over other things like duty is bad for society.
	I'm not sure what it means to have something like a material good.
	Maybe you can give me an example of that, a material good being over a duty or something like that.
	What do you mean?
	A material good being over?
	Well, so a duty or a value of a duty be some type of conception of a thing that you feel you must do, even if it doesn't give you any sort of pleasure.
	There's nothing that you gain from this, right?
	Generally, materialism is the opposition.
	It's the pursuit of material things for the purposes of pleasure or fulfillment or something like this, right?
	These would be the distinct differences.
	So duty is not actualizing some pleasure center necessarily.
	So it's an obligation you feel like you have.
	So a good example of a duty would be like, oh, you have a child, right?
	That you're in charge of.
	Let's say you're babysitting or something like that.
	You have some sort of duty to make sure this kid is fed, even if you have a bad headache or even if it causes you pain or even if you don't like doing it, right?
	The pursuit there is something greater than yourself, not just your material goods.
	So this is an empirical claim as to whether or not it would be good for society.
	And it seems like you're kind of intermingling.
	Well, I can answer that question, but it seems like you're intermingling the idea of materialism with subjectivism.
	So if we say like, well, the pursuit of material things is good for society overall versus people believing that they have some duty outside of themselves, outside of their values or something like that?
	Yeah, well, what I'm drawing is a contrast between how people lived pre-feminists, which was in smaller societies, smaller communities, where duty was something which was focused and pushed on, versus a modern materialist society where duty is not a thing which is pushed out at all, not by modern feminists at all.
	This is the contrast that I'm showing.
	That, well, I actually would disagree that feminists, you know, at large or something like that probably don't say that you would have duties.
	Like I think that like feminists think that like women shouldn't essay other women.
	I think that they believe that women have that duty, whether or not they're talking like a subjectivist or whether or not they're talking like an objectivist or something like that.
	I think that they do believe those duties exist.
	And that is another empirical claim as to like what they actually believe.
	But if we're talking about my version of feminism, right, like my version of feminism would say, you know, like, hey, I think that, you know, because of my values, I think that you have reasons to do XYZ.
	I think you have, you know, reasons to go vote.
	I think you have reasons to, you know, whatever.
	Okay.
	So let's, I think that it's fair for you to hyper-focus on your version of feminism.
	Obviously, I'll start caveating questions with under your version of feminism, is this true?
	Because otherwise I don't know.
	Under your view then, this argument may be moot.
	Do you think that women ought have some duties to society?
	Some duties in like under my worldview, yeah.
	I think that women should do things that are good for society for my values.
	What?
	Yeah, I think women should vote.
	They should.
	Yeah.
	Or they should have the right to vote.
	Well, I think both things can be true.
	Sure.
	I'm just asking, should they actually go vote?
	Do you think they should go do that?
	Yeah, I think that women, oh my God.
	Like, do they have a duty to do that?
	Sometimes it's so loud.
	Do they have a duty to that?
	Would I prefer them to?
	Yeah.
	I would prefer them to go vote.
	So they have a duty to vote.
	Should there be any consequences if they don't vote?
	No.
	Okay, so there's no enforcement of any duty there.
	No legal consequence.
	No.
	Okay.
	So then I guess what duties should women have where there's an enforcement behind it?
	Like you don't do this duty, there's a consequence.
	Yeah, the same types of ones that men have.
	So if you have a child and you like, you know, don't take care of it, you leave it malnourished.
	I think that you have a legal duty to do that.
	You should be punished in the same way that a man should be.
	Okay.
	So that's one example.
	Okay.
	So they have some ethical duties.
	What about societal duties?
	Well, that would be a technical societal duty.
	Maybe I'm not clear what you're looking for.
	Oh, I'm just looking for like jury duty is a duty, literally, right?
	As his name implies.
	That's like a civic duty or something.
	I think they might have a legal duty to do that.
	Now, do they have like a moral duty?
	Are they doing something like that?
	Correct, right?
	That's why I'm looking at the market.
	Is there a distinction there between the ethical and the civic duty?
	So I'm just asking, what duties do you think women socially should have in society?
	Legally or ethically?
	Legally or well, both actually.
	Well, those are going to be two different answers, right?
	Well, let's start with legally then.
	Okay, sure.
	Yeah.
	I mean, there could be things like legally.
	I think people should be held to go to dirty duty legally.
	I think that people should be, you know, prosecuted for crimes.
	I think they have a duty not to commit crimes against other people.
	And that's both an ethical and a legal one.
	But the ones that apply to men generally, too.
	So I'm not sure what this question is getting at.
	Do men have a duty to protect women?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	I think people have a duty to protect other people when they can.
	Do women have a duty to protect men?
	Yeah, when they can.
	When they can, as they can.
	Okay.
	Of course.
	And this makes society good, right?
	People protecting people makes a society good.
	Okay.
	Do women have a duty to not be promiscuous?
	To not be promiscuous?
	What do you mean by promiscuous?
	Have sex with lots of different partners.
	That I'm not sure of.
	I don't know if people would probably say no.
	I'm asking you.
	I'm not sure.
	The answer was: I'm not sure.
	You're not sure if they have that duty?
	Yeah.
	I'm not sure if they have a duty to society to not, you know, sleep with multiple partners.
	Do they have a duty not to do sex work?
	That one would hinge on some empirical facts.
	Like maybe if it caused a lot of negative outcomes or something like that, and maybe the benefits didn't override those negative outcomes, that might be one reason why I would say, like, okay, well, you know, they do have a duty not to do sex work.
	Do they have a duty to stay with their husband even against their own happiness for the sake of their children?
	I would probably say no in a lot of cases.
	Why not?
	Because I think that infringes on people pretty severely when you're in a scenario like that.
	I don't have, I mean, there could be some negative outcomes for kids.
	Once again, that would be an empirical claim.
	The answer to that would hinge on some empirical facts.
	So if I were to give you empirical facts, and of course, during this little two-hour debate, it's going to be impossible for you to go through any empirical data I would give you in a very like wide overview, right?
	But if you were given facts then, that if women did stay with their husbands, even if they like maybe fell out of love with him, they didn't really like him that much anymore, right?
	Or they really just didn't want to participate in the marriage, but they had children with him, right?
	And we saw the outcomes for children were way better if they stayed, even if it was at the expense of their happiness.
	Would you then advise women to stay?
	That depends on how much of a toll on their happiness it would take.
	I think falling out of love when somebody takes a big toll on their happiness.
	I'm not sure that that's something I can give you an answer to, whether or not they have like some ethical duty to do.
	That is probably going to be a case-by-case thing.
	Like I would have to look at, okay, well, how miserable is this person staying with this person and how much of a benefit is it going to give their kids?
	And do they have access to the knowledge of how much benefit it'll give their kids to say?
	So you don't know if they...
	I think in the general cases, they don't have an obligation to say, because I think the type of things that lead to divorce are pretty severe.
	And in a lot of cases...
	Usually irreconcilable differences, not severe.
	I'm sorry?
	Like, I don't think it's severe usually, actually.
	I think the things that lead to divorce or irreconcilable differences are not abuse.
	And it's not even money usually.
	It's just falling out of love.
	I just don't like this person or I don't like their habits anymore or things like this.
	Well, I'm not sure falling out of love is always reconcilable.
	In fact, that sounds kind of exactly like trying to force yourself to love somebody.
	It's not asking it to reconcile and fall back in love, but whether or not they have a duty to stay with their husband for their children, for the sake of their children, because their children get far more desirable outcomes if they do.
	Right.
	But I think that there's probably something like empirically there.
	Like there's probably a lot of distress that it causes somebody to stay with somebody that they don't love and to not pursue somebody that they would in fact love.
	I agree.
	It causes them distress.
	That's what duty does, right?
	Sometimes you have to do that.
	I'm just making an estimate.
	I'm just making an estimate that no, they probably wouldn't have an obligation to do that.
	Now, you've dove into the stats then, so you know, probably that when it comes to abuse of children inside of the home of single mothers, are you aware of where that usually comes from?
	Where the abuse from single mothers comes from?
	For the children.
	Sorry, I'm not sure.
	The children in single mother homes, the abuse rates that happen to them.
	Do you know where that usually comes from?
	You might just have to give the answer.
	I'm not sure what.
	Okay, so here, easy.
	Kid gets abused inside a single mom home.
	Who usually abuses them?
	I would assume the parent or other siblings.
	No, it's usually, see, in these cases, it's most often step parents in single mother homes.
	Okay.
	Right?
	Puts them far more prone for abuse and for all sorts of different things.
	Now, this isn't to say that step parents are bad, because they're not, right?
	There's tons of great step parents out there.
	Nobody's making that claim.
	Only that if you are with your biological partner, right, or the parent, the biological parent of the children, that the rates of abuse drastically decrease inside those homes for those children, period.
	Even if the parents stay and they're out of love with each other, they don't even really like each other.
	You see this often in religious marriages, religious institutions, where they'll stay on behalf of the children.
	The children's outcomes are generally speaking far and away better.
	Really quick, in five minutes, we're going to probably do a prompt change and then we're going to do read some chats.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so continue, but in five minutes, we're going to let a couple chats come through.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	How long have we been going?
	About over an hour, just a bit over an hour.
	Jesus.
	Yeah, it takes a long time just to untangle worldviews.
	It does.
	There's nothing you can do with that.
	I can stick on the feminism for a bit longer, but in five minutes, I need to have a smoke anyway.
	So that's all.
	We have some Zen coming too.
	Good.
	Oh, my God.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so the problem there is, is I think there would probably be a data collection problem there.
	When you have people who are remarried, it's probably easier for kids to report that a step parent is committing abuse versus a biological parent.
	A child might be more trusting of their biological parents, especially if they're still together.
	There might be covering up of abuse that's occurring.
	So that I might have some issues with like gathering that data and actually coming to like a conclusion there.
	So would something like multiple meta-analyses on that data do something to assuage your doubts?
	Meta-analyses on the data that says that...
	Step-parents are more prone to abuse than the biological father.
	Sure.
	I mean, that's fine.
	But once again, I would need to see that data.
	I'd have to go through it, see what kind of methodological problems exist there, because I would suspect that the abuse would go a lot less reported, because that's something that you can't account for.
	If a kid's not going to report it, the kid's not going to report it.
	But you can make an inference and say, like, okay, well, kids are typically more trusting.
	Kids come out years later and say, hey, my biological parents abused me, and I never told anybody.
	And, you know, sometimes they don't even tell teachers.
	Well, I mean, a lot of these studies are, they're going over multiple decades, right?
	And so is the meta-analysis.
	Sure, that doesn't get rid of the problem.
	Well, it gets rid of some of those problems, but doesn't get rid of all of them.
	Not the data collection, not the issue.
	It doesn't make that type of problem go away.
	Why would gathering?
	Which type of problem specifically?
	The problem of abuse being covered up or children being more trusted by biological parents.
	So that, yeah, that could be the case.
	I was just talking when you were saying children could come out later and discuss abuse rates or something like that.
	It's like, yeah, that's true.
	But one way that you could compensate for that is to have longevity in your study, following these same people and then getting back with them 20 years later or whatever, so that you can make these determinations.
	So that would be one way that you could compensate for that.
	Sure.
	And it might still not fully compensate for it, though, if that person still is more trusting of their biological parents.
	Yeah.
	So it doesn't fully get rid of that.
	I don't disagree.
	I was just saying that here there is some things that you could do.
	But I agree, right?
	But I would say that a meta-analysis, multiple meta-analysis, I would at least be something you'd look at.
	I want to make it clear: the claim that I'm disputing isn't necessarily that step parents don't abuse their children more than biological parents do.
	That could be very well true.
	But what I'm saying is, one, we do have an issue finding that out.
	We have an issue of like, you know, children trusting their biological parents more.
	But we also have the issue of like the sorry, I lost my train of thought.
	I'm really thirsty.
	That might be a good time for a break.
	But we do have that methodological issue.
	Over time, it doesn't really get rid of it, though, if children still trust their biological parents more.
	And it could be the case, like parents are covering it up for the other parent, whereas they wouldn't cover it up for like a new spouse or something like that.
	Or they might cover it up to keep the family together.
	That could also be a case that I would say would cause a lot of issues collecting that type of data.
	Okay.
	And those reasons might still, the abuse might still not outweigh the type of harm done to the person staying with the person they don't want to be with.
	All right.
	Andrew, you get to stay just while the chats come through, and then I'll go over some other things just for a little smoke break.
	Sure.
	Firstly, I'm going to let some of these chats come through.
	Guys, if you do want to get a chat in at this moment, you can do so via streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	Read is $100 and up.
	One quick question for you.
	And some people in the chat were commenting.
	Are the glasses prescription?
	They are.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	They are casting a bit of a bit of a glare.
	A glare.
	Oh, my God.
	So if you can.
	I don't know.
	Maybe if I need to clean them or something?
	No, I think it's just the natural glare.
	Sure.
	Yeah, they are prescription.
	I hope you will be blind, yeah.
	Okay, yeah.
	Then keep them on.
	All right, I'm going to let the chats come through.
	We have KK 1200 donated $100.
	Are the glasses functional or are they intended to make you seem more intelligent?
	Because the latter ain't working.
	Sorry, missed the last streams.
	Had to work.
	They all got to work, man.
	Yeah, no, they're totally fake.
	I'm just wearing them to look intelligent.
	Thank you, KK.
	We have Lucas here.
	He says, your incitement of violence argument against the Confederate flag is garbage.
	You're conveniently omitting the part that use of the flag has to be directed to inciting imminent violence continued, where he says, just one moment while we're waiting for his second one to come up, where he writes, in other words, the use of the flag has to be intended for the purpose of violence and the violence has to be imminent.
	That is right away.
	See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
	And oh, by the way, I'm a lawyer.
	I don't know if you want to respond to that or I mean, there's not much to respond to.
	I don't disagree with that.
	I'm not sure if that just wasn't clear.
	Okay.
	Claim donated $200.
	Thank you, Claire.
	I'm pretty sure you could have paid a tree to make her same argument.
	All Hail's enamorphs.
	Andrew, I owe you a bottle of red breasts having to deal with this.
	She does not even understand the arguments.
	She's done better than most of them have come on.
	What do you think?
	She's done pretty good.
	We have Ogle here.
	She's at least engaging.
	She's only done the tone policing a couple times.
	So that's pretty good.
	And thank you, Clay, for that.
	Ogle coming in here.
	Thank you, Ogle.
	Ogle Underscore Glue.net donated $200.
	A plus debate tonight.
	Ogle likes it.
	For once, is giving Andrew some strong opposition and can keep up with him intellectually.
	One question.
	Do champagne pop donors work in the debate series?
	Hot bottle H. I'll leave it up to the two panelists.
	Yeah, send in the champagne pop.
	She doesn't have to have any, but I'll drink one for the both.
	Some champagne if they pop the ball for us.
	Okay, Ogle, that's very kind of you, Ogle.
	Appreciate it.
	And Ogle, we do have the regular champagne bottle option, and we do have the ETH champagne bottle option for a ball of Crystal.
	So those are the two options available.
	We have Super Korean here, and he writes: Don't vegans have a moral obligation to not only exterminate all invasive species, lionfish, python species, feral hogs, etc., but consume them to prevent them from destroying native species.
	And you're a vegan, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's a position some vegans take.
	That's not a position I hold to.
	Got it.
	Okay.
	Well, that is it for the chats.
	Andrew, if you want to take your smoke break, quick smoke.
	And I'll go through over a couple things just while you're gone smoking.
	So, guys, if you're enjoying the stream, if you're enjoying the debate and you want to ask a question, you can do so at streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	Read is $100 and up.
	Also, guys, if you are enjoying the stream, like the video, please.
	And those of you watching on YouTube, if you could do us a massive favor, go to twitch.tv/slash whatever if you have an account over there and drop us a follow.
	And if you have an Amazon Prime account, check if you have a Prime sub available.
	If you've never done that before, through Twitch and through Amazon, you can link your Amazon Prime account to Twitch, and it becomes a really quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
	And you can also drop a Prime sub even when we're not live.
	So if you're watching this back on another platform and you want to support the show, you can drop a Prime sub even when we're not live.
	That's twitch.tv/slash whatever.
	Also, guys, very important: discord.gg/slash whatever.
	Andrew, who just stepped out for a smoke break on our last stream, was attacked.
	He was assaulted.
	You could even say he might have been battered, depending on your examination of criminal statutes in the state of California.
	So that's our Discord, discord.gg/slash whatever.
	You'll note there we had an individual in the red dress there.
	She walked up menacingly, very menacingly, walked up to Andrew Wilson, got in his face, shoved his chair.
	Maybe there's a criminal act there.
	I don't know.
	I got the behind-the-scenes POV from my cell phone.
	She proceeded to refuse to leave after we asked her repeatedly.
	I had to trespass her.
	The police called us.
	It was a whole thing.
	She proceeded to say some very unsavory things to me and Andrew behind the scenes that weren't caught on our live stream.
	So if you're interested, you can join discord.gg slash whatever.
	We've got a really fantastic community over there.
	Post a bunch of cool stuff.
	But if you do want to see that behind the scenes clip, the POV that I took of the attack on Andrew and the kickout, you can join our Discord.
	That's discord.gg/slash whatever.
	And yeah, that was pretty wild.
	I'm going to be also posting a different angle of it.
	We have security cameras all over the studio that'll kind of capture a better angle of the push or the shove towards Andrew.
	So I'm probably going to get that posted either tonight or tomorrow.
	The security camera footage of the attack on Andrew Wilson by that individual.
	So be sure to check that out.
	Also, if you're enjoying the debate, the debate, the stream, you can go to debateuniversity.com.
	It's a course on how you two can learn how to become a master debater like our two debaters here.
	They're both master debaters and they're fantastic at it.
	And they do it all the time, sometimes multiple times a day.
	Also, if you guys are enjoying the stream, I'm sorry, did you want to?
	Yeah, yeah, the restroom just over there and to your left.
	Andrew's almost done with his cigarette.
	Guys, if you're enjoying the stream and you want 100% of your contribution, do I look sunburned?
	What is going on?
	I don't know.
	It's something with our lighting.
	I'm not this red, I promise.
	If you're enjoying the stream and you want to support the show so we can continue, you know, we flew and out there to come do this debate.
	If you want to see more debates, you want to support the show, you can do so also via Venmo and Cash App.
	100% of your contribution will go towards the podcast and facilitate us and enable us to continue doing these kinds of debates.
	I'm going to shout some of you out if any of you want to get any in right now who have sent in.
	So via Cash App, Colin sent in 15.
	Thank you.
	MC Rocker, thank you for the 12.
	Camden, thank you for the 10.
	He says, please tell Andrew what's up.
	Anthony's thank you for the five.
	And Carlos, thank you for the 20 via Cash App.
	Thank you guys so much.
	Really appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	Thank you so much.
	And that is whatever pod on Venmo and Cash App.
	Like I said, so YouTube takes 30% if you send in a super chat.
	If you send in 100, they're taking 30, leaving us with some quick maths here.
	70.
	Pretty sure.
	Yeah, that's how.
	Quick maths.
	It's been a while, you know, since I took algebra.
	So yeah, you can do so through Venmo and Cash App.
	We'll shout you guys out at various intervals.
	KA, thank you for the membership.
	Ray, thank you for the membership.
	We do have our panelists rejoining us at this moment.
	So do appreciate it, guys.
	Last reminder, guys, like the video.
	And also if you want to send in a Streamlabs message, that's streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	$100 and up.
	$100 and up.
	Oh, wait.
	Oh, wait.
	Holy crap.
	Wait.
	One moment, guys.
	Lucas, he says, to the gal's credit, she's no dummy.
	Just young and misguided.
	What is your professional background?
	Are you in law school?
	Question mark, a lawyer.
	I mean, I'm flattered that you think I'm in law school.
	I wish.
	Psychologist.
	I'd probably make a lot more money if I was in law school.
	And then, apparently, hold on.
	Ogle is saying.
	Okalunda's cold blue.
	Wow, he did send in the Ethereum.
	Okay, we're going to pop the ball of crystal.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	Checketh address, Brian.
	All right, guys.
	W's in the guys.
	Can we get some W's in the chat for Ogil?
	He's been a longtime supporter.
	This show is viewer supported.
	We wouldn't be able to do the show without the very generous patronage of our viewers.
	So big thank you to Ogle.
	Guys, W's in the chat.
	And send in the super chat.
	Send in the super chats.
	And we have, I think we have, if you really want to see Andrew just obliterated, tanked, and blasted.
	Well, I do got to fly out tomorrow, bro.
	Well, perfect, perfect.
	But there's the other champagne pop option, too.
	So, okay, Ogle, thank you so much again.
	I'm going to get that sorted.
	And these are some Twitch subs coming through, guys.
	Again, if you want.
	That's twitch.tv slash whatever for those.
	I'm going to get that bottle going.
	So, guys, do you want to continue on feminism or would you like to switch to we have the body count discussion and the abortion?
	Yeah, let's move.
	We'll move the topic.
	Do you have a preference on abortion or body count or just a bunch of people?
	We'll do body count.
	Okay, great.
	So, Anne, it's kind of your position.
	Do you want to go for it?
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, when we look at people's happiness in their relationships versus like the comparison with the amount of people that they've had intimate relationships with, there tends to be a lot of variation in the long-term happiness or success of a relationship.
	You're talking on marriages?
	I'm sorry?
	You mean like marriages?
	I believe the last time I looked at the statistics, it was looking at people who were in marriages.
	So on the lower end of the spectrum, if you tended to have less bodies, and I believe the number is somewhere between like one to three, you tended to have less successful marriages.
	And then as those numbers kind of get up a little bit and a little bit, those are where you kind of, if it stabilizes, you get like more happy, more successful marriages or relationships.
	And don't cite me on the marriages thing.
	It could just be relationships.
	It's been a while since I've looked at that data.
	But then on the other end, where you get into the, you know, the higher numbers, what people would call more extreme numbers, more, you know, more promiscuous people, their marriages also tend to be less happy.
	So on both ends of the extremes, you tend to have less happy marriages.
	And then somewhere in the middle, you tend to have more happier marriages or relationships.
	Those relationships are more successful.
	Yeah, I think I'm familiar with what you're citing.
	I think, now, again, don't quote me either because we don't have the data in front of us, but I believe that this was based around marriage.
	And now, you're not talking about Pew.
	You're talking about, I think there's a specific study on.
	I just can't think of what it is.
	I'm sure we could pull it up or have Brian pull it up.
	But did this account for secular versus non-secular marriages?
	For what, sorry, what was the word?
	Secular versus non-secular.
	So like religious marriages versus non-religious?
	I wouldn't know.
	We'd have to look at the data.
	Because once again, I'm not even sure if they were talking about marriages.
	Well, can we agree that, at least according to modern data, and including Pew Research did a bunch on this as well, that people who are in highly religious marriages, they tend to divorce less than people who are not in highly religious marriages.
	Sure, yeah.
	There might be factors that account for that.
	Like maybe it's looked down upon in their culture to get divorced, even if you're going through something difficult like abuse.
	Because you, I mean, just to get clear on this, you think that people who are being abused should leave their partner, right?
	Depending on severity, not necessarily the first order, but if there's depending on severity.
	Do you think that people who are being physically abused should leave their partners?
	Again, it would depend on severity.
	Okay, so you think even if there is physical abuse present that someone should stay?
	Yeah, I think that two people can get drunk, right?
	And like a woman can smack a dude in the back of the head.
	That would be considered physical abuse and then just never do it again the rest of her life.
	I'm not going to tell that woman to like run out on her marriage.
	I don't or tell that guy like, oh, you know, something like that.
	Or here's another thing that's really common.
	So you see this in just normal relationships all the time.
	Like a guy will make a snipe comment and like let's say they're watching a movie or something.
	He'll make a snipe comment and the woman will kind of like smack him on the arm, you know what I mean?
	Or something like that.
	Is that physical abuse?
	I guess it could be considered that.
	But it's severity.
	It's up to severity.
	I don't know that I would call it in a case of abuse.
	Like if you were messing around with your wife and she like smacked you upside the head as a joke, I don't think you would call that abuse.
	I don't think that's a good idea.
	I wouldn't call it abuse.
	I would.
	Okay, so just for the sake of this conversation, actions that weren't intended to be again, I think it depends on severity.
	You, okay.
	Well, I mean, I think for the sake of this, we can exclude those cases.
	We can exclude the cases where someone just like jokingly pushes you.
	Yeah, I still think that it would depend on severity.
	Like, I also think a woman can get really, really upset.
	And one time she slapped her husband because she was so upset.
	Or let's say she threw a plate across the room and it broke.
	You know, something like that.
	I think that there's some of these things are pardonable and you can work past them.
	I don't think that those are necessarily going to, they could be red flags for sure, but I'm not going to tell a person that they need to give up on their marriage over them.
	Sure.
	Do you think most cases of abuse like are worthy of kind of divorcing your partner?
	Just out of curiosity.
	Well, like physical abuse, maybe.
	What is considered emotional abuse?
	Probably not.
	Right.
	I mean, we can exclude it to, you know, like persistent emotional abuse would be something you would say you should probably end a relationship over, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	We can agree that.
	Persistent emotional abuse?
	Depending on how it's categorized.
	What do you mean by how it's categorized?
	Well, it depends on how you would categorize emotional abuse.
	It's very evasive.
	Okay, I mean, that's fine.
	But we can just say like, you think that the most times when people get divorced over emotional abuse, they're usually talking about those like severe cases, right?
	Like they're talking about like persistent.
	No, I'm not.
	I'm not at all convinced that when people say they're, especially women, that they're getting a divorce based on emotional abuse, that there was anything other than just she just wasn't happy based on other circumstances.
	They called it emotional abuse because it's such a nebulous term.
	Okay, that's fine.
	I might actually be fine with that.
	I think there's a problem with psychology where the average person has adopted terms that are specific psychological terms.
	Like narcissist.
	Everyone's a narcissist now.
	Everyone has autism now.
	Everyone is, you know, BPD now, whatever term.
	Everyone's gaslighting everyone.
	I understand that.
	I think there is some truth to that.
	And to the extent that there is truth to that, it should be like handled and understood by people generally.
	But I would say in a lot of cases that that's the case where you have like severe emotional, what you would categorize, we can just use whatever your standard is.
	For a severe emotional abuse.
	Sure, yeah.
	Whatever your standard is for severe emotional abuse and severe physical abuse, you would think that that would be more likely to be covered up in, let's say, like religious families, right?
	I don't think it's more likely.
	In fact, I think that the reason it works is because you're more likely to get help.
	So because you have an ecclesiastical structure and traditional church functions, you have a community which is there that's able to actually assist inside of these relationships for these problems that come up, whereas a lot of other people don't have resources or they have secular resources.
	So you think that, okay, I mean, maybe that's like an empirical claim, once again, because it's kind of hard to just say that like, oh, well, there's a lot of good evidence for this.
	So the fact of the matter is, is that you, I mean, you would just logically agree with this, probably, that if you have community which you can turn to for assistance in your marriage, that's probably better than not having a community to turn to for assistance in your marriage.
	Yeah.
	That's probably always the case.
	But if that community reinforces ideas that like, you know, men are supposed to have power over women and in sometimes a physical sense.
	That shouldn't be problematic if within the view of the religion, both partners believe that.
	Right.
	Sorry.
	I'm going to wait for him to do that.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	You're like scaring.
	I've like waiting for it.
	It's like someone's popping a balloon.
	I'm just like waiting.
	You guys continue.
	Okay.
	Sure, there can be these structures, but if these structures reinforce the idea that it's good to stay with your partner no matter what, like there are sects of like Catholics who believe that you should never get divorced.
	Like it's bad anytime that you do it.
	There are sex of Baptists or Protestants.
	Catholics are under one single ecclesiastical church authority, and the doctrines are uniform across Catholicism itself, or you're not in communion with the church.
	So that being the case, their ecclesiastical authority is going to be an unchanging standard from their view.
	So it's not going to change.
	It's going to be, and if you're not part of that, you're not part of the Catholic Church.
	And it would be the same thing with like Orthodox Christians.
	You would not be a part of this body itself by its own ecclesiastical rules.
	That's like church politics.
	I mean, that's fine.
	You can say that, like, okay, well, if they, if Catholics claim this, you'll be all right.
	That was underwhelming.
	Okay.
	I was like, don't worry.
	I had my hands.
	You like hyped it up.
	I had my hands on these.
	These glasses are real.
	Please don't test that.
	Thank you, Ogil.
	Appreciate it.
	I'll get you guys the.
	Go ahead, continue.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Yeah, but you can boil that down to like church politics.
	Like they can call them not real Christians or not real Protestants, not real Catholics, whatever, if they choose to follow this doctrine that's not.
	Protestants can do that, yeah.
	But yeah, I mean, that's fine.
	You think that there's some like pretty blasphemous or like uncertainty?
	No, no, no, that's not Catholics.
	I'm not even talking about that.
	I'm just talking about so not every single church authority has an ecclesiastical or governmental structure.
	So you violate the structure.
	You're not a part of this.
	That's really clear guidelines for what makes you the thing or not the thing.
	Like we have clear guidelines for what makes us the United States of America.
	So there are church authorities which have very clear guidelines to what makes you a part of that authority.
	If you violate it, you're not a part of it.
	That's right.
	You can say that they're not a part of the over head.
	Like they're not under that domain anymore.
	That's fine.
	But they're still, they have all of the other properties that go along with that.
	No, they don't, or they would be part of the thing.
	I think this is just semantics.
	No, no, but it is semantics, but it's really important when we're talking about this because what we're discussing is, you know, if you're a part of this religious denomination and it's giving you kind of this bad advice, et cetera, et cetera, should you be relying on them as a community?
	And then when you bring up Catholicism as an example, it's like, well, I want to make sure that you're not strawmanning what Catholics believe before you make whatever the empirical claim is.
	I'm not.
	I'm just saying you agree that there are some.
	Yeah.
	So we'll do a cheer, a quick cheer.
	Cheers.
	Ogle, thank you for the crystal champagne bottle of pop.
	Salu.
	Salute.
	Cheers.
	So there are, I mean, there are people who still claim that, though.
	They still claim the church and then they go against maybe some, you know, typical teachings of the church.
	That's fine.
	Okay, so there's no disagreement there.
	When they say Catholic, you think they're just lying or you think they're not just a church.
	No, no, no.
	When they say Catholic, I'm just saying there's actual specific criteria for what makes you Catholic.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	That doesn't change.
	And none of my argument hinges on that.
	Like none of the questioning we're talking about hinges.
	Okay, that's fair.
	But yeah, look, so if these certain sects of Christianity, whether that's Protestantism, whether that's some weird off-brand Catholic that is claiming they're Catholic and you don't really believe that they're Catholic or they're in fact not Catholic,
	if those people are in those situations where those ideas are reinforced, that you should stay together because marriage is holy, you shouldn't violate marriage, you should uphold these beliefs about staying together for kids, like maybe their religion promotes nuclear families.
	And so they hold that above severe physical abuse.
	You think that that's wrong and you think that that's probably more likely that they'll stay together.
	I think it's unlikely that you're going to find any mainstream church denominations which uphold abusive relationships.
	They don't necessarily have to overtly uphold them.
	Can do it in subvert ways.
	Like, like reinforcing, like telling their members privately to keep this private.
	We don't want this to look bad on the church.
	We don't want this to look bad on your family.
	It looks bad on God.
	Secularists do the same thing within their own family dynamics and be like, well, we don't want this to get out.
	It could be embarrassing, et cetera, et cetera.
	So my whole point, though, was that if there is a community present for marriage, generally it's a good thing.
	And it generally helps marriages.
	It doesn't hurt them.
	And so one of the things that we see is that people who are rigorous with their church authority tend to stay married longer.
	And it's exactly because of those concepts, in fact, that is reinforced by the community that's so helpful to these marriages.
	Right.
	But there could be concepts in the community, like no matter what, it's still bad to divorce your partner, even if they're abusing you because it goes against God's will, because it goes against XYZ, insert whatever religious reason that they want to give.
	So gathering data on that is going to be really hard.
	That's the only point that I'm making here.
	It's like gathering data on whether or not they're actually having a happy life.
	Gathering data on almost anything is really hard.
	There's some instances where it's exceptionally hard, and that is one of the cases.
	Yeah, I'm not sure.
	I'm not sure if that's one of the cases.
	Like when we're talking about, I mean, there's exceptional record keeping kept, especially by things by like Catholic churches.
	So exceptional, in fact, that they kept all the records of like the abuses that happen with underage kids and this kind of thing, right?
	They do pretty exceptionally keep records and they do get reviewed by their priests, parishes, oversights by bishops, all sorts of different things.
	And it's like, I think that if such things were happening in mass, we'd be hearing about them.
	Not saying that some churches may not have things like this going on just like some secular families could based on, I'm an internet personnel, I don't want it to get out, or I have a big reputation.
	I don't want you to, you know what I mean?
	Same, it's the same, same example.
	No, I agree.
	I think that that does happen in Hollywood a lot.
	I think that happens where they go, well, we don't want this movie to look bad, so let's cover up this thing that Johnny Devin.
	Prestigious.
	Just anybody in a prestigious position or doesn't want embarrassment or whatever.
	But the church is not exempt to that.
	So when you say, like, oh, well, people in religious institutions tend to stay married for longer, there might be some issues with that because of the fact that there's this image to uphold for religion itself and for the church and institution.
	I mean, they wouldn't be the only ones beholden to it.
	And the correlate there is so strong that the more rigorous, so here's the thing.
	We know this because we can look at people.
	So various churches have different sacramental or religious functions that you need to follow.
	The more you follow X function, the longer you stay married, right?
	Now, is that causation?
	Probably.
	There could be other things.
	In fact, there is going to be other things, right?
	But it's a pretty strong correlate there.
	It seems like there's an equivocation, though, between a long marriage, like a long-lasting marriage, and a happy marriage.
	And even, and here's the thing.
	But happiness is done by self-report, right?
	Well, that's probably one of the best ways that we have access to people's happiness.
	Yeah.
	And so these people are self-reporting happiness as well.
	In fact, women who get married as virgins, their self-reported happiness in their marriage is much, much higher in the opposition.
	And the most recent study that I read on that, so the reason is, is because there's no sample size for comparison against that.
	So if you've only ever slept with one man, essentially you don't know what you're missing if you are missing anything.
	And so you're just kind of happy and content.
	That seems like it's pretty good for society.
	It might be good, but you could say something like there's wrong under, you know, there's something bad happening in like a counterfactual sense.
	Like maybe, you know, their happiness level is maybe like innate with this person that is the only person that they've ever met, the only person they've ever interacted with.
	And then you could take, well, there's a possible world where they meet somebody who's far better.
	Maybe, you know, they like the temperature the same, you know, in the house all the time or something like that.
	They want the same amount of kids or something like that.
	So you can make that argument for everything.
	There could be.
	Okay.
	Yeah, you could say, well, Andrew, you're in a very happy marriage and you're very happy with your marriage, but there could be a world which exists somewhere where you could have met a woman who's even better than Rachel.
	And so.
	I mean, you could apply that universally to every marriage which exists currently.
	Every relationship exists currently across the board.
	I'm not sure how that would be helpful to this.
	Right, but so remember what we were talking about was the sample size for the individual being very small.
	If you've had a larger sample size, then that kind of mitigates that factor there.
	So when you look at somebody who has maybe two partners that they've dated before and they're marrying their third partner or something, they at least have a data set to look at like, okay, well, here are the possibilities of things that I like and things I don't like.
	And I've kind of been able to weed through and have the opportunity of having a more fulfilling relationships with a third person because I have been able to weed out, you know, these are the type of people I maybe am not as compatible with.
	Whereas that person, the person who hasn't had any other experiences, and I'm not saying that that's a bad thing.
	No, that's not.
	I'm not saying it's necessarily bad.
	Well, it's actually strange, in fact, because they would still be at the mercy of the same thing.
	Perhaps, though, if they hadn't gone off and had the second or third relationship and had only stayed in the first relationship as a virgin and had nothing to compare it to, then in an alternative world, they would have been much happier by that standard.
	And that's like, it would be the same thing applied here.
	Yeah, I'm fine with saying that those people in those relationships are happy, but there could be something where they are happier once they have a bigger data set.
	So it's obviously with more knowledge about the world, like you have the ability to pick and choose better.
	You're more informed on the things that will make you happier, right?
	Well, you become, I would agree that you gain more experience in the things that are happening around you, perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those are positive experiences or that you wish that you had known them.
	Yeah, they don't have to necessarily.
	I'm just saying that with the bigger data set, you have more of a likelihood of finding the thing that's going to make you more happy.
	But wouldn't this imply that the data set which was done on virgins and their happiness is somehow smaller than the data set which is done on people who've had two or three partners?
	Unless you're just saying, well, it's just trivially true that the people have had two or three partners have had sex with more than one person, so we can just view them in a different light.
	No, maybe just to clarify, I'm not talking about the data set.
	Do you mean the data set of people like surveyed?
	Are you saying that you think that I'm saying that?
	No, no, I think what you're saying is that women who have had two or three partners necessarily have more experience than the virgin.
	And so they don't know what they're missing.
	They don't, the virgins, like people who are virgins, don't know what they're missing.
	Yeah, I think they have less of a data set.
	That's a good idea.
	But why would, okay, they have less of a data set when it comes to sleeping with more people, right?
	Sure.
	Yeah, but why would that be a bad thing?
	Right, because they have the possibility of looking for people or things that they're more compatible with.
	So let's just say like the virgin, you know, this person who's dated one person only has access to the data set of this person that makes them like, you know, eight out of 10 happy or something like that.
	Whereas the person who's had access, you know, and engaged in intercourse or maybe had just, you know, personal romantic relationships with other people, they have access to data sets of people who make them like, you know, a level 10 happy or a level eight or a level seven or something like that.
	They have more access, they have access to more data, right?
	That individual has more access to data about what causes them to be happy in a relationship.
	Okay, but again, Couldn't I just apply this to anything?
	Couldn't I be like, well, there's not enough of a data set for us to really determine that if people don't drink gasoline, that they wouldn't be happier if they didn't have the experience of drinking gasoline before.
	We do have a, I mean, we unfortunately have data on that, and it's really, really bad.
	And it's a pretty large sample size of virgins.
	Okay, so what's being confused is not that the amount of people who are virgins.
	There is, because you're saying the sample size of virgins that we have.
	You're equivocating.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Breathe.
	You're saying right now that the amount of virgins that we have is less.
	I'm not saying that.
	We could have 50 virgins and 50 people who have had sexuality.
	I know you're not saying that.
	What you just got done saying was, what we do understand the correlation between gasoline and people's happiness.
	It's like, okay, but we do understand the correlation between virginity and virgins' happiness in marriage.
	It's the same.
	It's the same thing back and forth.
	What would be the experience differential there?
	Why shouldn't I go drink gasoline to know that drinking gasoline, it probably is going to make me happy?
	Okay, so here's, okay, let's get this clear first.
	I will say this: the person who decides to go drink gasoline, let's just say you have two people, one who has never drank gasoline, the other person is going to.
	Both of them have the same knowledge about the facts about what that would do to them.
	But there's also, you know, some like non-zero probability that they could live a happy life and love drinking gasoline.
	And that's, you know, their thing.
	Which there are people, I guess, who do.
	But anyway, there are freaks.
	But yeah, look, so these people, the person who did, in fact, drink the gasoline, and regardless of whether or not the outcome was good, if they hated it, if they loved it, whatever, that person does, in fact, whether that's for the worse or better, have a bigger data set to go off of.
	Do you agree with that?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	But should they do it?
	Should they?
	No, obviously not.
	Well, then we're back to this.
	We know about the significant negative outcomes.
	I would just make the same argument back for this: that if they shouldn't drink gasoline, because we know that there's significant bad outcomes for that, but your argument for they should have more than one sexual partner, even though we know the negative outcomes for that, and you say, but there's a possibility that they just don't know what they're missing.
	I just make the same argument with gasoline.
	Well, just to be clear, because going back to the prompt, the prompt wasn't that people should have multiple partners.
	The prompt is more so about, and maybe you can read it back specifically, but it was about the fact that if you're looking for a partner, the main concern shouldn't be the amount of partners that that person has.
	I don't think it's main concern.
	The prompt was, you shouldn't care about body count if you want a relationship.
	Yeah, shouldn't.
	Right.
	And by that, I mean that that shouldn't be your main concern.
	I mean, I can, I'm allowed to clarify, right?
	Sure.
	Okay, sure.
	I think that that's totally fair.
	Yeah, so you're not actually saying that she should.
	That in no case you should ever care.
	Yeah, no, you should care in some cases.
	Of course.
	Yeah.
	Like, so if it is the case that I have good evidence to support that a woman staying a virgin, right, and she's religious.
	Like, for instance, let me give you an example.
	If you're a religious man, right, and you would have certain virtues which are attributed to your religion.
	Sure.
	One of which could be to marry a woman who's virtuous and a sign of chastity.
	A sign of virtue could be chastity.
	That's in Christianity, for instance, chastity is overwhelmingly large when it comes to the idea of virtue.
	So you would think men like that actually should be selecting for body count, right?
	They should if the person isn't currently acting in that way.
	So the problem that you run into here is like, obviously, people who were prior atheists can be reformed.
	They can find Christianity, they can find God.
	Totally agree.
	And maybe they've had some, you know, harlot past where they've gone out and they've slept with 50 men and done all these terrible things and extorted people and all sorts of things.
	But when that person, and maybe this could end up being like a semantic thing, but when that person, you know, comes to the faith and they find God, that body count still exists, right?
	Unless you think that it doesn't.
	It still does.
	Right.
	So you agree that there could be a perfectly suitable partner for a man who is a Christian, right?
	And one of the things that happened to be in her past was that, you know, she had all of these sexual partners, but now she has found Christ.
	So in that case, yeah, it wouldn't be right for him to consider that if she's changed.
	No, it would be totally right for him to consider it.
	Why would he consider that?
	Because it would still show a pattern of not upholding the same virtues he's looking for.
	In the past, but not currently.
	But if she's currently upholding those values.
	Well, your past behaviors is generally a really good indication of your future behavior.
	Yeah, look, that's perfectly fine to say.
	But if he has really good overriding evidence that she will never do that again, that she will go forward and be.
	I don't know what evidence he could have for that.
	Let's just say he has some evidence, regardless.
	But if he has that evidence.
	Yeah, if you were to say he had a crystal ball in front of him and he could see the whole future, sure, I wouldn't dispute that.
	But that would be baked into the fact of knowledge itself.
	He has pre-existing knowledge this will not happen or some really overwhelmingly good, compelling evidence it wouldn't.
	But absent that, which I would argue in most cases, they wouldn't have, then it would show a pattern of behavior against the same virtues he's looking for, where he could select for somebody who's upheld those virtues.
	There's also, so that's fine to say that if he has reason to believe that she'll still engage in those behaviors, regardless of whether or not she's in a committed relationship with him, that's a kind of separate question, but an adjacent question.
	Because the question is, is she going to be promiscuous in this relationship?
	Presumably, like if you take somebody who has a large body count, they're usually not in relationships with those people.
	No, it's not.
	Unless you disagree.
	I dispute.
	Well, I dispute the premise here a bit.
	I'm going to quibble a little bit, but I think I'm fine quibbling on this point.
	So my quibble is not, it's not really necessarily even a sign that she will be promiscuous, though I think it's there.
	Only a sign that she's perhaps not upholding virtues.
	She doesn't have a pattern of upholding virtues.
	So I think that like any behavior, like if you're a practicing Christian or a practicing Muslim, let's say, they hold set values for what virtues are.
	And just like language, communication, and all forms of different habits, which are formed in people, they're done by exercising them over and over and over again.
	So if you're a person who is high in virtue, you're probably consistently exercising virtues as part of your habit, right?
	And you're stopping on the, let's give a stupid example, like you're always stopping on the side of the road to help people or you're always, you know what I mean?
	That becomes habit after a while.
	After a while, you almost can't help but pull off on the side of the road to help somebody because it's so habitually built up in you.
	So I think that for them, this could be a great red flag sign that, wait, these habits, these virtue habits aren't really formed yet, especially if you're a new Christian, right?
	Or you just came to Christ in this sense.
	These habits haven't even had a chance to flower yet.
	And if you could select for somebody who's upheld them, why wouldn't you do that?
	Right.
	So then it's not the necessarily body count thing.
	It's more so about whether or not the trend that happened in the past will continue and whether or not that person will adopt to the virtues that you're.
	Well, it is body count, though, because body count would be the virtue which is being broken.
	Right, but they're breaking that when they're not a Catholic or not a Christian, right?
	So it's kind of like you're saying, like, okay, well, I want to hold you to the standard of this religion where we have these specific virtues, but I'm going to hold your past self who's not involved in that religion to that standard.
	And that doesn't quite make sense.
	So there could be, and I think in most cases, probably, when you look at people who come to Catholicism or to the church in general and they say, hey, I'm Reformed.
	I want to get my life turned around.
	I want to stop drinking.
	I want to stop partying, whatever XYZ that you would find to be like vices.
	I think that it's probably likely that that person should take that as a strong consideration into the relationship.
	You didn't actually give a reason for why that doesn't quite make sense, though.
	You said that doesn't quite make sense, but then you gave a reason that actually still makes sense.
	You can indeed hold people to your ethical worldview and ethical standard even before they adopted it.
	And you can say, based on the pattern of behavior pre-adopting my standard, you did not uphold to it.
	So I have good reason to believe you will not in the future, at least as of right now until otherwise demonstrated.
	Like we would do with all pattern recognition behavior.
	Yeah, that's fair.
	So what I'm saying here is that there's overriding considerations.
	I'm saying that like if you talk to a person, which I would assume this would be the case in like the, you know, the courting sense, you typically don't just like have someone be your girlfriend the next day, especially not in like religious traditions.
	It's typically that, you know, you get to know the person first.
	So with that assumption in mind, I would say that you're probably getting to know this person first.
	And then you're saying, okay, well, how much confidence do I have that now that they're a part of the faith, now that I know this person, that they're going to uphold these values in the future?
	And are they going to uphold them under the conditions of this religion?
	Because in the sense we talked about this earlier, they are likely not in relationships with those people.
	So what you're asking is, you know, are you going to stay in a relationship with the person that you're like sexually active with or something like that?
	And we have good reason to believe at that point, perhaps not.
	Sure, you might have that as a consideration.
	Sure.
	But the consideration of like in the Catholic faith, like I said, you don't get into a relationship with somebody the next day.
	So it's likely for the average person and for Catholics, I would say.
	Yeah, but you see that there's a fundamental flaw there, which is, yeah, that's true.
	You don't get into relationships with them the next day, but this would give you good cause to not ever get into the relationship at all.
	This is the problem, right?
	After you've gotten to know the person.
	No, no, no.
	Sorry.
	Not giving a chance to even know the person because you just go, okay, because I'm a pattern recognition machine, right?
	This isn't what I'm looking for because there's too much potential for X based on how many of these virtues that you have routinely broken, right?
	And so I don't want to waste my time with you developing good habits for virtues again or something like this.
	They have good cause to just pass those women up completely.
	Well, those women have a reason to follow the virtues now, whereas they might not have when they were atheists.
	So something, sorry, go ahead.
	That's kind of like saying, you never gave me a reason for, you know, riding my bike being wrong.
	And then suddenly all I adopt this religion where riding my bike is wrong.
	Well, obviously I'm going to have a pattern of doing very wrong things under this religion.
	But once I adopt this religion, I now have a reason to adhere to that.
	So those women do have a reason to adhere to that.
	Yeah, but the reasons can't, the problem with that argument is that the reasons can be as superficial as I want to buy a new reputation.
	Example, let's say you're an OnlyFans model and you decide that you don't want the societal or social stigma that comes with that anymore.
	And one venue that you've seen other women successfully have this stigma kind of removed from them is by converting to a certain religious sect.
	Inside of that religious sect, then they're essentially using that now as some type of purpose to buy a new reputation, whether they actually believe in the dogmas of it or the virtues of it or not.
	Right, but you would say that in, like, I'm not disputing that.
	I'm not disputing that people don't, you know, go around, make mistakes and then like want to rebrand themselves and kind of be perceived in a particular way.
	Of course, people want to be perceived in specific ways all the time.
	Agreed.
	What I am saying, though, is that if a Catholic were to meet someone else in the Catholic tradition, they would have overriding reasons not to consider body count so strongly because they know that this person has now adopted the Catholic faith, or at least they have good reason to believe so.
	I mean, I would assume that you don't just like go around thinking people are just like lying or you would think you have a good reason to believe.
	Well, inside of religions, Christianity particularly, we have various ways of testing what we would call perhaps the fruits of the spirit or the sins of the flesh or various things like that.
	Within Orthodoxy, for instance, the example is all sin, right?
	Like let's say you have that cup.
	Let's say sins could be considered, I guess, equivalent to each other in badness, but one sin can fill this cup up way faster than another type of sin, though it's just as bad, right?
	The sin itself, the corruption that's left behind by the sin could be worse.
	So inside of this tradition, let's say.
	If that's the case, then a person who has had their cup filled to the brim with sin, right, probably going to take much longer time for them to develop good habits to not do those same corrupting types of behaviors.
	So it would actually give people a fairly good reason to steer clear of promiscuous women, right?
	Or women who've slept with many, many people when it comes to the virtue of chastity, especially, because they would see this as, well, though you have been forgiven for these sins, right?
	And you will be continuously forgiven for these sins, you haven't actually built up the habits for being able to exercise not filling that cup right back up, right?
	That's the idea there.
	Sure.
	I mean, look, I'm fine with saying that there's some people who have reason to reject some people based off of their body count.
	Now, whether or not that's like on value.
	In some scenarios, maybe this is probably a miscommunication thing or kind of like what we talked about before, where people, when they say things, they usually don't make universal statements.
	That's true.
	Where it's kind of like, okay, you think that I'm saying X, but I'm really saying X, like with an asterisk.
	And that's why I brought up that statistic about the people who are in between on body count numbers, like where the people who have low body counts tend to have high failure rates and the people who have really high body counts tend to have high failure rates.
	Whereas the people kind of in between have decent marriages, decent relationships, whatever they're doing.
	You could chalk that up to things like impulse control and all sorts of other things, I'm sure.
	Well, sure, there could be tons of things, but that's what I'm saying.
	Your average person probably doesn't have a good reason to say, like, okay, well, that person has a specific body count, and my number is three and my cutoff is.
	Well, I think the average person, if the average person still is following Christian ethics, which I would argue inside of this country, at least so far, it is still the case that most people are trying to follow some variation of Christian ethics.
	Like that would be the overarching prevailing ethical system in the nation, at least as of now.
	Now, that's changing, but I think that that's the purview.
	that's the purview, then I would say that probably the majority of men who are within, you know, whatever that majority minority is, do have great cause to question body count and to look at it from a virtue standpoint as like, look, this is really bad, right?
	This is a really bad behavior.
	And can I bypass this behavior to go with somebody who does uphold these virtues?
	Or do I stay in, or do I select for this to begin with to even try to kindle a relationship, knowing the amount of work that could come into flexing these new virtues?
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah, like I said, so because what you're doing here is taking the set of people who are Christian or Christian adjacent-ish who might want to uphold the same types of values.
	And then you're taking a subset of people who it might be good for them to weed people out for like having a higher body count.
	I would just take the men, yeah.
	You don't think that women should weed out for like high body counts amongst men?
	Yeah, I think they should.
	Okay, okay.
	So I was just curious why you're saying that.
	I just think from their end, well, because here when we're talking about body count, I assume that we were discussing it between should men care about it, right?
	Because it seems to be that men care about it a lot more than women care about it.
	And there could be evolutionary arguments for why that is.
	But regardless of that, from the Christian view, yes, I even think that women should be looking at that as well.
	Like if you're a chaste virgin woman, right?
	Yeah, I think you have totally great cause to look at a man's body count and assess that as being potential behavior for whether or not he just wants to deflower you.
	Don't you agree with that?
	I think that that would be a consideration if you knew more information about people.
	So it's kind of hard to tell there in those cases.
	And that's why I say it's like very individualistic.
	And I think, well, I mean, something as simple as just, he has a profile where he's like, I've screwed 150 women.
	Like, isn't that enough?
	Like, what more information do you have?
	Well, that's why I said like the general cases.
	Like, I think your general person might have some concern there.
	But the difference here is like the cases.
	This is obviously given the case where you're interested in dating somebody and they've kind of also affirmed that as well.
	Because what we're taking here is a data set where like people aren't interested in dating somebody.
	Obviously, it's kind of impossible for your average person to like have sex with 200 people, you know, over the span of a few years and also be in relationships with all of those people.
	So you're taking the standard where they're not in relationships with people versus where they're in relationships with people.
	Because the concern there would be either, you know, just hooking up with me to, you know, leave me alone or the concern would be like cheating.
	Well, it doesn't increase the probability that they're going to cheat because before, prior, that wasn't cheating, right?
	So the concern there is them leaving you.
	Well, if you know information about that person that would lead you to believe that they actually do want a relationship, something like they're reformed in the faith or maybe they've just changed their standards over time and they've shown you behavior patterns like this.
	This would kind of be like, I wouldn't jump into a relationship with somebody like that anyways.
	So why would I, and like that, I don't mean body count wise.
	I mean like I wouldn't jump into a relationship in that manner.
	So why would I like jump into them like without knowing their body count?
	That kind of thing would come later after I already know that person.
	Why select for them anyway?
	Why select for them?
	Yeah, if other options are available for women who have a lower body count, thus at least giving an immediate demonstration that they uphold at least some of the chastity virtue, why not just move and select for them instead of selecting for the ones who have a higher body count anyway?
	Why, in other words, if you only have X amount of time to find the type of partner to fit your preferences, why not just go ahead and bypass this under the assumption that, hey, I have good evidence, reasonable evidence immediately to believe that there's going to be a lot more work that goes into her trying to exercise these new virtues if she's a recent convert or if she was a convert before, like let's say she was born into it, something like this, and just violated it over and over again.
	Now you have evidence to the contrary that she's following the faith anyway, right?
	Yeah, that's an additional factor to account for.
	So that's kind of where it gets a little bit tricky there is the person who has been in the faith and then has either left the faith or violated it or something like that, where they've shown like a clear disdain for those values.
	That might be something to take into account for.
	And that's fine.
	I'm fine saying with that, that body count is something that can be factored in.
	I just don't think for a lot of people, it's the main thing that should matter.
	I think that if you meet somebody, you shouldn't even be like, you know, in a relationship with them in the first place, just off the bat.
	I think that once you get to know them, you should have that judgment, you know, whether or not they're good.
	And then you can factor in.
	Yeah, when we're speaking past each other, is you keep on bringing up, well, you're already getting to know them to be in a relationship with them, right?
	What I'm saying is that if you have this pertinent information, why even bother selecting for it to begin with?
	And I do think that you are underestimating how valuable this information is.
	And here's why.
	There isn't that much which you can point to immediately for the purposes of virtue to know, you know, based on a person's past history, unless it's criminal or something like this or gossip, right?
	That I can really point to immediately where I could say from a Christian worldview, ah, that right there shows a lack of virtue, right?
	Or shows a pattern of behavior of you doing something that you're really not supposed to be doing.
	That's something super immediate that you can point to right away based on past history that you can ascertain reasonably quickly.
	I can't think of too many other things in the virtue department you can do that with.
	So I do think it is important.
	Okay.
	So I mean, I kind of already went over this and maybe this point wasn't like made or honed in enough because you're, once again, taking the subset of people who are religious who think that those are religious values, because you could very well have like somebody who's religious who just thinks that it's like a virtue to go and sleep with everybody and anybody as soon as possible.
	Well, not that you're not a majority minority, but yeah.
	Sure, right.
	But I'm saying that you're taking this set of people who believe these particular like values or virtues or whatever.
	And then you're saying, okay, well, some of those people have reason to select for people with lower body counts.
	And even then, they still have data that kind of goes against that and says, like, okay, well, with the data, you know, maybe they are following the virtues, but there's actually less success in these relationships where the body counts are lower.
	No, the data doesn't show that with virgins.
	I would have to look at the data again.
	Yeah, it doesn't claim that.
	But they don't have, that is not the case with virgins.
	They do not, it does not show a lack of success, especially if the husband and the wife are virgins.
	Then it becomes even more successful.
	Right.
	And then there's more issues with the methodology there in collecting that data.
	And it's not on the, I'm not saying it's on the fault of the researchers.
	I'm just saying that it is one of those things that we can't do.
	We can't quibble over the methodology that we can't assess.
	We're not a psych major.
	That we can't assess.
	Hang on.
	That we can't assess right now.
	We can't quibble over the methodology because you don't know what the methodology is off the top of your head.
	It gives me reason to be suspicious.
	And I think that you.
	That's fine.
	You can have reason to be suspicious, but I'm just saying that the data itself at least isn't showing.
	You can quibble about the methodology of it, and you can say, here's what I don't like about it.
	Here's what I do like about it.
	That's totally fair.
	But I didn't even present that argument to you.
	I'm just saying I'm taking that off the table because it's not provable or unprovable, at least for the purpose of the debate.
	Well, what we can at least logically demonstrate is that a good subset of people do hold the values of virtue in Christian ethics, and that this body count is an easy thing to ascertain, whereas other virtuous behavior is not immediately apparent.
	That one often is.
	Of course, I would actually reject that.
	I think that it's easier to ascertain information about people's virtuous data.
	It's like, say they used to be a consistent liar.
	Say they used to be a consistent thief.
	or something like that.
	Well, you can ascertain like, okay, well, you know, they did this before they were religious.
	Maybe they have been a few years clean of doing this before they became religious.
	So you can ascertain that that person probably is adhering to the values not only beforehand, but during this relationship.
	So that's what I'm saying that.
	Yeah, but I wouldn't disagree with that.
	I'm not saying that they, do you think that what I'm saying is that religious people can't or should never take into account this body count?
	No, no, no.
	I think that you're saying it's, I just think that what you're doing is you're grading the impact of it lower than where it actually should be graded.
	So I think that it is something which is major that is a portion of men's concern when it comes to Christianity, the body count of a woman.
	Other things that they could take into account would be children with other men.
	That would be another good one.
	Or, you know, there's all sorts of various different things that could show that perhaps they're not exercising the virtue if they have children out of wedlock, various things like this.
	On the other hand, you can make an argument, well, it's perhaps more virtuous in some ways because they kept a child and didn't abort it.
	Maybe that is in comport with the ethical system.
	But the body count itself outside of marriage, easy one to point to because it's just always universally in basically every Christian denomination going to be considered non-virtuous behavior, right?
	It's going to be considered a violation of the ethical purview of Christians themselves.
	So it's an easy one to point to.
	And I haven't actually heard a refutation to that.
	Just, yeah, but there could be other factors you could point to as well.
	It's like, yeah, maybe, but I haven't heard why this one should actually be trivialized.
	I'm not saying that it should be trivialized.
	And that's like, I think there's some Christian men and probably a lot of them who probably should value the people who have their similar ideals about like intercourse with people.
	I think there are a lot of men who are Christian who should do that.
	And I think there's a lot of Muslim men who should do that.
	And I think I'm just saying that when the body count discussion is framed as this is an immediate disqualifier of somebody, I think that removes all of the nuance out of dating and relationships.
	And I think that like one of the Christian values is to find nuance, find compassion for other people.
	And I think that you're exhibiting a virtue of compassion when you kind of look and say like, hey, I know everybody's history isn't perfect, but I want to get to know this person for who they are now, for who Christ has made them now.
	And I think that that's virtuous on its own.
	And I'm, so just to once, you know, for all say this, I don't think that there's nobody who should ever take body count into, you know, consideration.
	I just don't think for the average person, it should be the main focus of considering someone as a partner.
	Okay.
	Well, then let's move from the Christian perspective just to the secular then.
	My argument from the secular perspective is that body count would also be a great indicator for you just based on revolt factor for preference.
	So most men, they find it revolting that women sleep with tons and tons of men, right?
	If they find it to be revolting and that's within their preference, there's nothing wrong with that and they should select past it so that they're not trying to have a relationship with a woman that they're actually revolted by.
	Yeah, I think for those men who it's like extremely revolting and there's no way to get around that for them, then they probably should.
	But I think there's a lot of men who under who, if they had like relevant data about the types of relationships they could cultivate with people who have had higher body counts in the past, that they would probably, and by higher, I mean, we can put a number on that if you really want to, but I'm just talking about people in that like mid-range.
	Do you think that if men had relevant data that they could have great and fantastic romantic homosexual relations with other men, that they would suddenly have a preference towards having a homosexual relationship, even if the data said that it would end well for them?
	Some of them might lean more towards that.
	Almost none.
	You really think that men would go, oh, I'm totally straight and attracted to women, but now that I see that I could like, I don't know, have a bigger house in a pool if I become a homosexual, I'm going to suddenly start having gay.
	You really think that?
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah, there are people who do that.
	It's kind of like saying, no, not there are people.
	Most men would not go for that, right?
	I didn't say most men.
	I didn't say most men.
	I say, you think most men would go for that?
	And you're like, yeah.
	No, no, I said that that would lean most people more towards possibly developing a preference for that.
	So it's not that most men would, in fact, become gay.
	Like, that's, I didn't say that.
	Or even engage in homosexual.
	I mean, if they find homosexuality revolting, there's no amount of data that you're going to show them where they're like, oh, well, now that I see that I could get a bigger pool, the act of gay sex is less revolting to me, right?
	I think, have you ever heard the phrase, like 20 bucks is 20 bucks?
	I mean, like, come on.
	Like, yeah, I think people generate that.
	That's literally making fun of degenerates.
	Do you say that?
	Because it's making fun of degenerates.
	You don't think there's actually people?
	I mean, there's a whole, like, there's actually a wonderful sociologist, and I will shout out Dr. Johnny Suber for doing a presentation on this.
	There are people who will go gay for pay.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	People are incentivized to do things when they realize that there's positive outcomes for them.
	Yeah, there are some, I would never put it in a monolith, that there could be some men.
	Like, for instance, in the adult corn industry, there's men who have, you know, gay, who are apparently straight, according to what they say, right?
	They have to have fluffers, though, come in and, you know, get them to the point where they can do it because they can't do it on their own, right?
	Because they have no zero traction there.
	A lot of them even find it revolting.
	Do I think that there are some men who would sell out for this?
	Sure.
	But that was never a dispute.
	I'm just saying overwhelmingly, no.
	You're not going to be able to change men's mind by saying, well, this could be a positive romantic outlook that you now have, or you could have a wonderful life with a man of the same sex.
	If you find it revolting, that's not going to change most of their minds.
	Do you think most men are most, at least, and I mean the overwhelming majority, like I would say like 99.9% or higher, you're not going to change their minds.
	Sure.
	Do you think the overwhelming set of straight men are more adverse to like the thought of themselves having like homosexual intercourse than they are to like a woman with a slightly higher body count number than they prefer?
	Yeah.
	You think they're more adverse to the homosexual.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Right, right, exactly.
	So then when you take that into account with that, you're saying like, okay, well, look, yeah, they might be completely repulsed by the thought of having homosexual sex.
	But when they're given other incentives to do so or more information about the facts of what it would cause for them, then they're more likely to do that.
	Whether or not that amount is like a matter of time.
	Let me counter with this real quick, which would just be, yeah, I agree that there's a lower subset of men who are revolted by promiscuous women than are by gay sex.
	But within that subset of men who are revolted by women with a high body count, it's just as bad as the men who are completely revolted by gay sex.
	It would be the same thing.
	You're saying the amount of men is lower?
	Yeah, so if you just say the amount of, well, isn't the amount of men who are repulsed by gay sex going to be higher than the amount of men who are repulsed by women with a high body count?
	It's like, yeah, but that really doesn't mean anything because we're looking at the subset of men who are, they're equally repulsed, right?
	They're just repulsion is repulsion.
	I'm not actually convinced of that.
	I'm far more repulsed by the thought of like eating dog shit than I am at the thought of like eating pickles.
	And I really hate pickles.
	So you're saying like, oh, you're saying that.
	Yeah, you can have that trivially, right?
	And maybe I can concede a bit.
	Maybe I am quibbling a little bit.
	But what my point is, is that just because there's a larger subset who finds this to be repulsive with gay sex, there is a large subset of men who find it repulsive that women have a high body count.
	And I think it's higher than your aversion to pickles.
	And I think it's less high than the aversion to homosexual sex.
	Right.
	But we can take a pull of the people in this room.
	Like, would you rather have sex with like a woman who has a high body count or would you rather have sex with a man?
	And I think most of the people in this room would be like, I'd rather have sex with a woman with a high body count.
	So that's just evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
	Yeah, but they would.
	But it's to the matter of degree.
	Like I said, it's higher than your aversion to pickles, but perhaps less high than homosexual sex.
	But the point remains that if they're repulsed by it and that's within their preference, it seems a perfectly good argument to say it's not my preference and then just avoid those women altogether because it's outside their preference.
	Right.
	But just like the case with the virgins, what that does is when you say, I'm just averse to it.
	And like I said, I'm excluding these extreme cases of like aversion.
	I think that those people who have extreme aversion to this thing that like the aversion can't really be manipulated or changed or to have better outcomes, I think those people probably should.
	And that's the same thing that I would say.
	I think people who have a really strong preference against eating pickles, those people probably shouldn't eat pickles, even though they really want to have a bigger data set about what it might be like to eat pickles or something like that.
	So the point stands there is that I think there's far more men who would have intercourse with a woman with a higher body count.
	I think that that aversion can be manipulated so that their data set can be expanded and they can find happier relationships.
	Would you apply that same logic to conversion therapy then?
	To convert, in what way?
	In the same way that if it is the case that they're opening up their experience to the fact that they could see that their life would be far less stigmatized if they became heterosexuals or only engaged in heterosexual sex and that they would have far better outcomes, that there's a lot of gay men who could be convinced, as it were, to do this thing that they found repulsive.
	That's an empirical claim.
	So if you're asking me if I need one final statement on the body count question from each of you.
	Okay.
	Well, I'll just let you go ahead and end and then I'll end.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And then we'll do chats, then we'll do clothes.
	Cool.
	Yeah, I think in quite a bit of cases, I would be able to say that, you know, for most people, it would be worth it to consider somebody with a higher body count than they have a preference for.
	I believe when you look at the preferences for body count amount, it's actually pretty low.
	And it probably falls into that lower end of the spectrum where you have like people who are like from the one to three-ish range.
	And I think for those people, which I would say is the majority of people, they should open up their range to the kind of middle ground where people tend to have more successful relationships.
	Yeah, well, I would just say that my opponent never actually made a really good claim for why men shouldn't care about this, only that there's a possibility that some men can be rehabilitated against their revulsion from a secular aspect.
	Now, of course, that would bring up the can of worms of conversion therapy, right?
	Same thing when it came to the revulsion of homosexual sex.
	And then further, I would say from the Christian sense, she didn't really make any refutations at all, only saying that, yes, from the Christian angle, it seems that body count itself would be very important for somebody who was looking for virtue in a partner and that she's not averse to that at all.
	So I don't really understand.
	I still don't really understand the position.
	I'm trying not to strawman it.
	I'm trying to steel man it, but I feel like that rendition of events is actually pretty accurate.
	There might have to be a further conversation on that because there is still some confusion, but I will.
	Okay, yeah.
	We're going to let a bit of chats come through here.
	The TTS has been lowered to 69.
	If you want to get some end of the show here, and then before we do that, though, guys, we do have another debate immediately after this.
	So if you guys want to tune into that, that's going to be a 2v2.
	So be sure to stay tuned for that.
	The link for that has been posted in the chat and in the description.
	I'm going to let some chats come through.
	But really quick before we do, if you guys are enjoying the stream, like the video.
	If you guys have a Twitch account, twitch.tv slash whatever, drop us a follow in the Prime Sub.
	Also, discord.gg slash whatever.
	Final reminder on this.
	Join the Discord, guys.
	I posted the behind the scenes footage of our last stream with Andrew Wilson here where he was attacked brutally absolutely.
	You're recovering.
	Absolutely brutally.
	Are you trivializing my trauma?
	No, I just thought it was funny.
	And so you can see the point of the dude.
	She was crazy.
	She was quite the character.
	So you can do that there.
	Also, send in more super chats.
	Yeah, do it, guys.
	Do it now.
	Do it.
	So guys, debateuniversity.com.
	If you want to learn how to become a master debater, Venmo, Cash App, whatever pod, if you want 100% of your contribution to go towards us, and we're going to do a $69 TTS, I'm opening that up.
	Then we'll have the two panelists do their closing statements after that.
	We have Ray Bovis here with a $200 super chat.
	Thank you so much, Ray.
	She says, can she address Rachel's point?
	If there's no objective standard to judge morality, then it just comes down to preferences.
	There's an objective standard for what is good, and it is from God quick response on this.
	Sure.
	Yeah, there is some problems within philosophy regarding this issue, calling God's standards objective, because although his standards are independent of human minds, they're not independent of his mind.
	So he still has a mind.
	So his stances are the thing that is good, unless you're saying something different there, and then that would have to be something we would have to get into.
	Well, can you say, though, just to follow, because I understand your question, is there any good objective reason, objective, that you can, a morally objective reason you can give a person to not be a Christian?
	A morally objective reason?
	No, if I think that reasons are the type of thing that are subjective, right?
	Because I take a reason to be something that's like motivating towards an end goal.
	Yeah, but you agree.
	And motivators are like subjective.
	But you agree that almost everybody can give people subjective reasons for why they shouldn't do X, right?
	Sure, of course.
	I mean, they could appeal to some underlying values they have or something like that or point to some contradiction in their currently held views.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	We have some chats coming through.
	We have Deez Nates.
	She won't have as much experience.
	Why does a woman have to cross the sexual line to gain meaningful experience from relationships?
	Virgins can have gained plenty of experience before marriage.
	Do you want to do a response to that?
	Does she want to have as much sexual?
	Why does a woman have to cross the sexual line?
	Yeah, I didn't say that.
	I'm not sure where that person pulled that from.
	Well, you kind of did because you said that absent having multiple sexual partners, she's depriving herself of those additional experiences, so she doesn't know how happy she may not be.
	Yeah, she could have less information than if she had those partners.
	Yeah.
	But that's the same argument you would make with poison again, right?
	Same thing.
	Right, but that's.
	I just know that poison doesn't make you happy until you drink it.
	Right, but you have good overriding reasons.
	Just like you've had good overriding reasons.
	I mean, we can get back into the debate unless we're trying to get away from that.
	All right, that's fair.
	That's fair.
	There's always like a little bit of back and forth when the super chats come up.
	Sure.
	We have Lucas here.
	He says, you're wrong on the body count divorce stats.
	Women with zero to one have the lowest divorce rate.
	The quirk you're referring to is that women with exactly two bodies have a higher divorce rate than, and he continues by, I'm going to just pull it up and read it, than women between three to nine body count, women with 10 or more have the highest divorce rate.
	That's a study from the Institute of Family Studies.
	Sure.
	I have qualms with the Institute of Family Studies.
	I'm not totally dismissing any data that comes from them.
	That's perfectly fine.
	Sorry, it's kind of hard to keep up when it's like separated like that.
	But that would be something I'd have to go back and look at the empirics at.
	Okay.
	We have Fimone coming in here in just a second.
	Lucas, thank you very much for your Streamlabs message.
	If you want to get your own in streamlabs.com/slash whatever, just waiting for Fimones to come in.
	There's a slight delay.
	And she writes, pause, pause, pause.
	There it is.
	Great debate.
	Curious to her thoughts on allowing people on government assistance to be surrogates and if classism is to blame.
	Is classism to blame on whether or not we don't have money for surrogates?
	Like, is that what the question is?
	I think we should probably give government assistance to people who want to be surrogates.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Fimone, thank you for that.
	And then we now have Lucas coming in with another one.
	Slight delay.
	Apologies, guys.
	Streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	Your position on body count shouldn't matter from promiscuous women that have now turned to religion is delusional and impractical.
	What do you let, would you let a saved PDF file watch your kids?
	No, you would exclude them stat.
	Your response?
	I think that's far more severe than having a higher body count.
	There's a safety concern involved there as well.
	Yeah, but from the perspective of the Christian, you're talking about the violation of the virtue, right?
	These are virtue violations.
	Right.
	And for some people, they hold that to be a virtue that they would consider highly.
	We talked about those cases.
	So those cases, like the people who hold those virtues very, very highly and think that that, like, I think, look, there are people who are justified in excluding people.
	I don't think we disagree there.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And then we do have Graffito tagged.
	Haig Raffito.
	Thank you, man.
	Good to see you in the chat.
	So the takeaway message here is some amount of money this woman would accept where she'd be willing to eat a dog doo-doo.
	No amount of revulsion to enact for a person is absolute?
	I think that's very trivially true.
	If I offered this guy, what's his name, Graffito tagged, like $6 million to eat dog shit?
	I guarantee you he's going to eat dog shit.
	I wouldn't.
	Really?
	$6 million?
	Damn, I'd take the $6 million.
	I can't, but I can't be bought.
	It's one of my virtues.
	Maybe, is Ogle still in the chat?
	We could possibly arrange $6 million, but we'd have to stream it, though.
	Okay.
	Stream.
	I mean, look.
	That's probably exactly eating dog shit.
	That's a good thing.
	Six million.
	Six million, man.
	All right.
	Guys, final call if you want to get any TTSs in.
	If any of those come through, we'll get them after they both do their clothes.
	So if I recall, Andrew went first with his open.
	Yeah, so I closed last.
	So you now get to go first with your clothes, and then Andrew will close after you.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, sure.
	I think there was a lot we didn't quite get to, which I wish we would have been able to.
	I'd love to talk to you about veganism someday.
	Momentarily, wait.
	Wait, can you, Mick?
	Can you mute the audio really quick just so I can go over some things privately with a guess?
	It's the audio mixer.
	Sorry, guys.
	It's the audio mixer.
	You see it on the far left?
	Nope, no, Here, audio mixer in OBS.
	It's going to be on your, I think, the right of the screen.
	Do you see the audio mixer?
	Where, I'm sorry, where are you?
	Here, the mouse, the orientation is different, so move it to the left, please.
	Yeah.
	Do you see on the this would be on the left of the screen?
	You see the green bar that you moving back and forth, the audio mixer.
	Okay, just click that.
	No, no, no, the other one.
	The one that's moving.
	Yeah, click that.
	Okay. Come on.
	All right.
	Okay, I apologize for that, guys.
	We had to clear something up super quick.
	Didn't mean to interrupt you there for your closing statement.
	No worries.
	Please go ahead.
	Sorry about that.
	Yeah, so I think there's probably some things I wish we could have gone more into depth with.
	I would have loved to go over veganism, but I know that that's a whole thing that we can talk about.
	I think a lot of the things that we talked about, there probably wasn't disagreement on, and I think that that was made apparent when we talked about feminism a lot.
	And I think that what I've noticed that when I've seen your debates on feminism, specifically on like what rights women should have, et cetera, a lot of them are simply descriptive claims, whereas like my focus would be something like a normative or prescriptive claim about what I think that we should do.
	And I think that's probably far more productive going into the future with debates with people.
	Because you can say men are stronger than women, they can take away rights, blah, blah, blah.
	And then what?
	Where do you go from that?
	Like, should men take away rights?
	Should men stop women from voting, et cetera.
	I mean, that might be a better way to get straight to the point.
	I don't think any of the points made about materialism were super, super convincing.
	Maybe that just hinges on some empirical facts or empirical data.
	Sorry.
	And I think that there might have been a lot of confusion with subjectivism versus materialism.
	And maybe sometimes the lines between those things weren't clear.
	Because it also doesn't follow if you take the descriptive claims, going back to that, about reality, about like, you know, men, because that's why I made that point.
	You know, men are stronger than women.
	They can take away women's rights as far as pragmatically.
	They can enslave women.
	They can do XYZ, whatever they want to them.
	But that doesn't say anything about what they should do.
	Because we can talk about that.
	Like we can talk about like, okay, well, white people can enslave black people.
	Well, should they?
	I mean, then we can have that type of conversation about like, well, no, obviously me and you would agree that they shouldn't.
	At least I would hope that we would.
	But that's, you know, just on me.
	The actualizing talk doesn't seem to make a lot of sense there.
	But yeah, I think overall, we can look at body count.
	I think body count is something that can be taken account in some cases.
	Probably shouldn't be taken into account or less into account in other cases.
	And that's not to trivialize that.
	I think that some Christian men who hold really strongly to virtues should, you know, discriminate against some women about body count.
	And I think women equally who hold those same exact virtues to the same exact extent probably should discriminate in the same way.
	But I think for the average person, they're probably good just taking somebody who's somewhere in the middle.
	Yeah.
	All right, Andrew, if you'd like to respond to your close.
	The thing is, it is true that we went over a lot of descriptive versus prescriptive, though we did get a bit into prescriptive.
	We did talk about rights and we talked about who should have them and who shouldn't and that it's not very good for everybody to vote.
	And here's why we started to get into all of those things.
	So I'm happy to talk about prescriptives and not just descriptives.
	The reason this debate, we had to talk a lot about descriptives is first we had to get the semantics out of the way so that we even understood what the hell we were talking about, what your view is, what my view is.
	And then from there, you actually made a lot of contradictions and ended up having to adjust your positions multiple times based on my inquiry.
	So what you say is, well, you were talking descriptively.
	And it's like, well, even within the descriptives, we were going in circles on some things because we were trying to get them ironed out.
	And I don't think that we got a lot of them ironed out because when you would see, wait a second, as I'm navigating this conversation, this leads to either a dead end or it sounds silly.
	I'll go ahead and revise what my claim is.
	And now, a good example of this is when we discussed body count.
	And you were right in your opening saying, hey, actually, you know, men really shouldn't worry about this.
	Here's why they shouldn't worry about this.
	It's not really that important.
	And then you immediately began to revise your position based on the tack I took for religiosity and virtue.
	You didn't really have an argument against that.
	You didn't have an argument based on the relativism either.
	So, you know, ultimately, I think that what you are considering things like, oh, we didn't get into this, we didn't get into that.
	I think you just made multiple concessions on many points and you just kind of don't want to admit that you made the concessions, which is fine.
	I grant that you think that.
	And I'm happy I didn't interrupt you.
	Are you having self-control issues?
	So anyway, what I would say ultimately is like, I enjoyed the debate.
	And in good sportsmanship, I will say that it was one of the more engaging ones I've had in the last few months.
	I do like to just do straight logical debates sometimes.
	And sometimes I like to, and I'm happy to go on your stream and argue about the meta-ethics of veganism if you want.
	I'm happy to do that as well.
	I have no problems with it at all.
	Though I think you might get upset about the presuppositional stances that I may take with veganism and the applied ethical stances even.
	But I'm happy to do it.
	So with that, I appreciate it very, very much.
	And again, guys, there's not enough super chats coming in.
	There was 10,000.
	I went and checked.
	There's 10,000 live who are watching just Brian's channel alone.
	And all we got was a little bit of crystal.
	What's going on here?
	You guys, you need to up your game in a big way.
	He went out of his way to put all of this together.
	It sure was kind of him.
	So with that, I will end my opening statement or closing statement.
	And thank you for the debate.
	Great, guys.
	And I do want to do another big thank you to Ogle for the crystall pop.
	These are like $400, $500 balls of champagne.
	So W's in the chat again for Ogil.
	Thank you, Ogle.
	Appreciate that.
	Let me just check if we have, we do have graffito tags coming out here.
	And he writes, I can guarantee there is no amount of money that you could pay me to do something I'm revolted by.
	That applied equally both to before and after.
	I could afford to frivolously spend money on super chats.
	Yeah, maybe those men were just like less revolted by gay sex, which is why they would do it anyway.
	Saying they would do it anyways kind of sounds like they were just going to do it without the pay or whatever.
	But there are people who are, you know, getting their pay.
	All right.
	Thank you, JJ, for the super chat.
	Okay, guys, like the video.
	Drop us a follow in the Prime sub on Twitch.
	Check out the discord.gg slash whatever.
	We posted the BTS of Andrew being attacked on there.
	If you enjoyed the stream, debateuniversity.com.
	If you want to learn how to become a master debater, there's a final call here for the, if any of you want to get in the TTS before we wrap.
	But guys, like the video kindly.
	And I think this was a fantastic debate.
	I'd love to get you guys, both of you back on for a follow-up so we can perhaps flesh out some of the topics we already talked about and then hit on some of the ones that we weren't unfortunately able to get to.
	So guys, if you enjoyed the stream, kindly like the video.
	And what I'm going to do right now, we have a subsequent debate scheduled for, we're probably going to get that going at, let me check here, at about 7 p.m.
	So about 7 p.m.
	That's going to go live.
	I'm going to put that link in the description and it's also in the chat right now.
	If you guys want to head over there and be in the waiting room for the follow-up debate, that's going to be a 2v2 with me, Andrew versus, well, you'll see.
	It'll be a good, that'll be a good show too.
	So thank you guys again for tuning in.
	And let me just double check, make sure.
	Oh, we have one more chat coming in.
	Don't want to miss it.
	One second.
	None of them are for you.
	You don't get to answer any fun questions.
	Like, would you eat dog shit for $6 million?
	Look, I get put to the question on every show I go on.
	Occasionally, I don't get put to the question, and that's just nice.
	Yeah, that $6 million could send your kids to college and get them a house and a car and all that shit.
	But then you have to eat that.
	It's for your kids, man.
	It's for the nuclear family, Andrew.
	It's for the kids, exactly.
	All right.
	Wouldn't that equally apply that you should eat the dog shit so my kids can go to college?
	Of course not.
	No, of course not.
	Yeah, fuck it.
	Right, exactly.
	Fuck your kids.
	All right, guys.
	Thank you so much for tuning in.
	Like I said, we have a debate right after this.
	Again, I'm just going to blast the link for that one more.
	Just be in the waiting room.
	We're taking a 30, 20, 30 minute intermission.
	So there it is.
	There's the link in the YouTube chat.
	I'm going to post it.
	Oh, well, the Twitch just stays the same.
	So guys, thank you so much for watching.
	And thank you for coming.
	Andrew, thank you for coming.
	Stay tuned for our next debate.
	07's in the chat, guys.

▲