Whatever Podcast - 1v1 DEBATE: Jay Dyer vs. NotSoErudite -- Feminism Debate

May 16, 2025 - Whatever Podcast

02:33:07

1v1 DEBATE: Jay Dyer vs. NotSoErudite -- Feminism Debate | Whatever Debates #15

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever podcast.
	We're coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
	I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
	A few quick announcements before the show begins.
	This podcast is viewer-supported, heavy YouTube demonetization, so please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of 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 $99 and up, and we will pull those up in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
	We're also live on Twitch right now.
	You can pull up another tab.
	Go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one.
	Without further ado, I'm going to introduce our two debaters.
	I'm joined today by Jay Dyer.
	He's an author-comedian.
	He's the writer for the Sam Hyde Show and host of the Alex Jones show TV.
	He has a bachelor's degree in philosophy.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And to your mouth.
	Just making sure Google is correct on that.
	He's a political and social commentator.
	Also joining us today is Kyla, or as she goes online, not so erudite.
	She has an undergraduate in psychology and a graduate diploma in psychometrics.
	Excuse me.
	She's a content creator, streamer, and is a political and social commentator.
	The topic of today's, excuse me.
	I'm still sick, guys.
	I'm getting over my illness, so my brain's operating at 10%.
	The topic of today's debate is feminism.
	You will each have a five-minute opening statement, up to a five-minute opening statement.
	The rest of the show is going to be open conversation with a few breaks for audience messages.
	At the end, you will each have up to a five-minute closing statement.
	And Jay, we're going to have you give your opening statement first.
	Go ahead.
	Thank you for joining us.
	Thanks, Brian.
	Appreciate it.
	Yeah.
	So I take the position that feminism is absolutely destructive to society.
	The only healthy society that we can have is a patriarchal society.
	If you look at the history of the world, history of civilizations, we notice that the natural formation, the natural structure that all societies, almost across the board, maybe a few tribal societies have had a matriarchy, but most societies fall into some form of natural hierarchy.
	Hierarchy is found in nature.
	We see it in the animal kingdom.
	We see it in the manimal kingdom that we inhabit.
	And when we look through history, we find certain civilizations have flourished, particularly with a worldview or a philosophy that gives it its social cohesion.
	The longest-running civilization in history, the most successful, the most prosperous, was Byzantium.
	Byzantium was an Orthodox Christian imperium dating back to the time of Constantine all the way up into the 1400s when it fell to Islam due to liberalization, due to forms of modernization, certain economic open borders policy, shall we say, that led to the decline of Byzantium.
	So even in the most successful civilization in history in Byzantium, we begin to notice that the liberalization of that society is what led to its decline and its eventual collapse and even falling to Islam.
	If we fast forward to modernity, if we look at women's rights or the idea of the first wave of feminism, feminism finds its origins in French revolutionary philosophy, which led to the first wave, I should say.
	French revolutionary philosophy with Mary Wollstonecraft and others posited the idea of absolute equality in society based around the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, all which were revolutionary at the time and sought to overthrow not just the church and not just the state or the monarchy or a patriarchal society, but all society, all areas of life had to be revolutionized.
	Since that time, we've had second wave feminism, we've had third wave feminism.
	Third wave feminism, interestingly, which not many people know, was actually funded by very wealthy, powerful, oligarchical elites.
	In fact, in the Rockefellers' authorized biography, there's an entire chapter on Abby Rockefeller's funding of third wave feminism and Cell 16, which was the most radical form of this.
	This is really what prepared the way for the absolute insane degeneracy that we see in today's society.
	Western civilization, in other words, could not have gotten to the point that we're at had we not had first, second, and third wave feminism preparing the way for the absolute and total revolution against all natural order, all biological order, and the notion of patriarchy itself.
	In fact, many of the famous feminists over the last several decades have openly said that in order to destroy Western civilization, they would have to destroy the masculine archetype, the patriarch.
	That is, God the Father had to be destroyed to make way for the rise of the goddess, etc.
	All the various things that we see attending to or accompanying the revolution that is feminism.
	If you look on my wall on X right now, you'll notice at the very top is an interview that the famous director Aaron Russo did with a friend of mine, Alex Jones.
	And in that interview, they discuss Aaron Russo's interview with Nick Rockefeller.
	And Nick Rockefeller said that the greatest tool to revolutionize and control society was feminism.
	Modern feminism changed the landscape of getting women out of the house, into the workforce, quote, so that they could be taxed and that there would be less children, less families.
	So we have from one of the key elites from the Rockefeller family admitting that the purpose of this was to change society, reduce population, tie it into neoliberal economics, taxation on a mass scale for the population, and thus it has been an absolute disaster.
	And it has nothing to do with equality.
	It has to do with control.
	It has to do with social control.
	It's a dystopian.
	It has to do with social dystopian control, putting us into a utilitarian, technocratic society.
	And I would say that this is all an attempt, admittedly, if you go back to people like early feminists like Wollstonecraft or others throughout history, Alexander Kolentai of the Bolshevik Revolution, they all speak about this as intimately tied into not just sexual revolution, but the overthrow of masculinity, ultimately the overthrow of the idea of God the Father, the ultimate patriarch.
	And that's where we are today is in a society that has adopted revolutionary philosophy that is ultimately anti-male, anti-biology, anti-reality, because they all go together.
	In other words, feminism cannot be divorced from the revolution against biology, the revolution against masculinity, the revolution against every area of life that is healthy, wholesome, and based around patriarchy.
	All right.
	Thank you for that, Jay.
	Kyla, would you like to give your opening statement now?
	Sure.
	Mine isn't going to be nearly as long, but that was really interesting.
	And I basically would grant you lots of that stuff.
	I would essentially argue that feminism is not only a necessity, it's unavoidable.
	I think that's where society tends to go.
	I think women joining the workforce, while there's lots of cons with it, one of the biggest pros is the massive boost to GDP and just the competitiveness of every nation that includes women.
	And overall, I think feminism is broadly good for society, but I am sure that I would be happy to talk with you about a number of areas that I think have been harmful for society.
	I think feminism has been co-opted and often twisted.
	I think particularly in the third wave, we saw this by what I would call gender opportunists.
	And so when I think about feminism, I'm more interested in a feminism that is centralized around empowering women and promoting femininity.
	I think when you talk about egalitarianism, I think it's a really interesting concept, but I think we need to be precise in what we talk about.
	So I guess to open, I'd maybe start with a question.
	With your philosophy background, I'm sure you're familiar with Heidegger's concept of chatter.
	No.
	Okay.
	So Heidegger, interesting philosopher from the 40s, but he has this idea of chatter that I think is really interesting for discussion, which is essentially how a lot of times when people have like philosophical and idea wrestling conversations, they use the same word, but they have different meanings for those words.
	And so then the whole conversation is just essentially garbage.
	That's what he calls like idle chatter.
	And so I'm curious if what you'd be willing to do for this conversation is if we could make sure that we agree on what we mean by certain words so that we can actually talk about the ideas underneath them and hopefully come to a better understanding of everything.
	What are the words you would like specified or not?
	Probably for this conversation, we should talk about patriarchy and feminism.
	Those seem like the most obvious things to define.
	And then after that, just if we come to a word that we keep both using, it would probably just be useful to define it and make sure that we agree to what we're talking about, if that works.
	Yeah.
	Would you like to start with your definitions and then Jay can give his?
	Sure.
	So yeah, I'm curious.
	So patriarchy, I would define it as a hierarchical structure where men monopolize soft and hard power.
	I think that they have authority.
	I wouldn't say it's a monopoly on power because women can have a degree of influence and power in society, but it's under the headship of a man.
	So, for example, a job, right?
	As an example, Proverbs 31 talks about women being able to work, but it's sort of under the purview of the husband.
	So it's not independence.
	It's not doing their own thing.
	It's a family unit working together.
	So there's roles.
	Sure.
	So when we're thinking about like a job, so when I think about a monopoly of hard and soft power, in my mind, I'm thinking law, like kind of like men are mostly monopolizing positions in law, but also soft power, like media, and kind of able to kind of set the tone culturally as well.
	So they kind of have these areas of power mostly fully occupied by men, particularly systems where men force it to be the case that it's only men in those positions.
	Yeah, it's just like that.
	Monopoly is a difficult term because it suggests totality.
	And again, there can be a shared situation here that's not a total monopoly.
	Fine, I'll go with it.
	It's fine.
	Sure.
	We can say like a soft monopoly or something like that.
	But essentially a hierarchical structure where men tend to mostly occupy positions of power.
	Okay.
	Feminism, I define it as the empowerment of women and promotion of femininity.
	Do you agree with that or do you have a very different definition?
	I think of it as something necessarily tied to revolution.
	And I think when you say the word empowerment, it's also ambiguous because that could be a lot of things in different contexts.
	So I don't know what you think empowerment is.
	Okay, so by empowerment, what I mean is typically going to be, I'm a very big freedom of opportunity person, liberal, guilty as charged.
	So empowerment would be eroding any obstacles to disadvantages or inabilities to take opportunities that other people would have.
	That would be one way of empowering someone.
	So for example, there's a TED talk about 10 years ago and one of the ladies who was a die-hard sort of CEO out of the academic world, she went into academia and then became a CEO.
	She was bragging that most CEOs now, this was again about 10 years ago, are now women, that we're reaching some tipping point, that there's a large majority of women that are now CEOs.
	Do you think that's good?
	Is that fair?
	Because I would see that as a revolution against male authority.
	I see it, A, I am very dubious of her claim.
	A. B, I see it as like neutral.
	I don't really, I don't really care who trickles up to the top so long as the people who trickled to the top did so because there was free opportunity to do so, right?
	So like in our society, I'm sure here's something we probably agree on.
	Most of the positions of power in our society are occupied men because men tend to be more extreme.
	Like they're just more extreme in Bell curve, like genetically.
	And they don't often take time away from work with kids, so they have a little bit more time to dedicate.
	So we see at the highest levels of trickling to the top, men typically occupy those roles.
	I'm sure you and I would agree.
	Yeah, but when you say extreme, again, this is a very ambiguous term.
	Extreme in their views, extreme on the bell curve.
	Sorry, I meant genetically.
	Like, so because of the why axis specifically, so I don't know if you know anything about IQ research, for example.
	I know some about that.
	So men, while like obviously the average IQ for men and women is 100, because it's normalized, men tend to occupy a bit more of those extreme spaces.
	They're both the lowest and the highest IQ.
	And we see men doing that all the time.
	They tend to just have more extreme genetic traits, both for success and for struggling, right?
	That's why we tend to see men overrepresented on both sides of most things.
	So that's why men often will trickle to the top of most workspaces, for example.
	And you think that's because of extremes of IQ?
	Well, not just IQ.
	that would be extremes of multiple things.
	And also, I think I said a minute ago, Yeah, IQ would be one thing.
	I just don't think IQ is the only thing that would predict trickling IQ.
	So what are the things that led men to be in those positions other than IQ?
	Probably just the ability to work.
	Like they don't take time away from work for children.
	Their wife typically does.
	Could there be anything biological?
	Well, IQ would that be biological?
	IQ would be something biological.
	It's not partly biological, but I'm saying like in terms of what a man is biologically, is there anything?
	Is that anything to do with what might be roles in society, hierarchy?
	I don't think there's super good evidence that like testosterone predicts like anything other than like aggression towards those like equal or lower and like muscle distribution.
	I think it's a lot more going to be.
	Muscle distribution is part of biology, right?
	Sure.
	I just don't think like muscles get you to the top of a Fortune 500.
	What about like being a soldier?
	Does that help?
	Yeah.
	That's why men are significantly better soldiers than women.
	But what about that high IQ, that group of high IQ?
	Does that help get them to the top of the CEO ladder?
	That would definitely help.
	I think it's like a 45% to 60%.
	And you admit that that's partly genetic?
	Yeah, of course.
	Okay.
	So it seems like naturally speaking, when I appealed in my opening statement to what's natural and biological, men are just sort of fitted to those things.
	Their very constitution is for those things.
	Yeah, it's just with in 2025 with women having birth control and tampons, there's less obstacles to that.
	So they might trickle to the top too.
	And I just want a society that would allow them to do so.
	But why?
	That's what I'm getting at is if this is biological and thus, quote, natural to a degree, according to what you're arguing, what's the need for women to do what is then perhaps not natural for them to do in society?
	Because there are lots of women that are still in the high IQ realm that are very capable, that make excellent bosses.
	So exceptions make the rule?
	No, more like freedom of opportunity, right?
	That's my premise.
	It's like the innovator scale, right?
	I don't want to arbitrarily just say 50% of our society cannot be at the top of society because.
	I want to make sure that if they're achieving the top of society, it's because of skill and merit and et cetera, et cetera.
	That's what I believe in.
	And so I wouldn't want to arbitrarily ban women from those positions.
	Right, but it's not, I didn't even talk about banning.
	So that was something that you interjected.
	What I said.
	I'm not saying you did, right?
	Because you were asking what I'm interested in.
	I'm saying a freedom of opportunity.
	So women are just trickle.
	So there's a standard, which you would say that's a better, that's a net good for society if women are able then to interject themselves into that male space.
	To be allowed to do that.
	That's a good.
	Why is that a good?
	Like I said, innovator scale.
	What?
	Innovator scale.
	More people means more innovators.
	You just get the best with crop.
	More people.
	So we should have more people in society?
	Sure.
	I don't know if this is connected to birth rates.
	Well, yeah, because the more people in society would then back up what you're arguing, right?
	Don't we need more husbands and wives to have more people?
	Yeah, I just don't think these things are mutually exclusive.
	How can a wife be a CEO and also raise the kids?
	Tampons, birth control, like support.
	So tampons and birth control raise the kids?
	What do you mean?
	Lots of women find a way to both raise children and work.
	Well, shared parenting, like the husband takes roles.
	Sometimes they get babysitters.
	Sometimes there's intergenerational families.
	There's multiple ways that women share the load of parenting.
	So that's a net good?
	It can be, yeah?
	Okay.
	Freedom of opportunity.
	What is the standard for good here?
	Do you mean like at an epistemic level?
	At any level.
	Good as in.
	In your worldview, what determines the good?
	So in the case of what we're talking about, I talked about the innovator scale.
	So the reason I like women being able to have access to opportunity is because it improves GDP.
	Okay, so the net good for society is just what?
	More fiat money?
	Like what determines that?
	Yep, GDP is a good thing.
	Do you disagree?
	Yeah, I do.
	You don't think so?
	First of all, like what if the money is a scam?
	That doesn't have anything to do with GDP.
	Why would not having more GDP for a country not be good?
	The nature of the money itself, if the money system is a debt-based scam, doesn't have anything to do with GDP?
	Not really, because GDP is about the income of a country, right?
	So like debt is part of how you navigate income of a country.
	Right.
	But our country's income is presently based on pure debt, right?
	Is that a bad thing?
	Our GDP is not based on debt, no.
	It is.
	Well, the whole system is based on debt.
	Gross domestic product is not itself debt.
	I'm saying the economic system itself is based on debt.
	Yeah, like a debt-based system.
	Yeah, like modern theory of like money is very debt organized.
	It's just like debt is not this like boogaloo scary thing in and of itself.
	No, no, no.
	I'm talking about our system is fiat.
	It's not attached to anything hard.
	There's no hard currency that our money is attached to since the shock doctrine of Nixon, right?
	So Nixon goes off the gold standard, so we're now a debt-based system.
	So I'm just saying your highest quality was the best GDP in society.
	So your organizing principle is a neoliberal economic theory.
	So what I want to know is, even if that's itself based on debt, then what's the source of the good here?
	So in this case, what is good for society is having a competitive GDP so that your enemies can't stop.
	That's the highest good?
	That's not the highest good.
	That's the good of what I'm talking about in a case of women entering in.
	What is the highest good that determines that that's good?
	Are you talking about morality?
	Just at all.
	In your system, you tell me what your system's standard of good is.
	So I'm not really sure why we're having the epistemic conversation.
	Why not?
	Because it feels like we're losing the plot of the conversation.
	No, I want to know what your standard of the good is.
	Again, what do you mean by good?
	You said that the GDP is necessarily attached to the highest good.
	I didn't say highest good.
	I said it's a good thing.
	Okay, then I'm asking you what the highest good is that determines that the GDP is better than not caring about GDP.
	So you're asking for my moral foundation theory?
	Sure.
	I'm a divine command theorist.
	From what divine command?
	The Christian God.
	And he says GDP is good?
	No.
	Did Moses come down and say that?
	GDP is moral.
	You just said it was the highest good.
	I didn't say it was the highest good.
	This debate.
	No, I said it's good for society.
	Then it's moral if it's good.
	I don't think it's moral in this case.
	If it's good, it's moral.
	Well, you can have good as an author.
	It's a moral claim.
	Well, of course, you can have functional claims, right?
	So if it's only functional or if it's only pragmatic, then it's not ultimately a good.
	It's just subjective.
	So at a functional level, it is, I guess, do you disagree with this idea that it's good for a state to have competitive high GDP?
	It could be, but I don't think it's the highest good, and I have a standard of good.
	So I'm trying to figure out what yours is.
	Well, what's more important for a nation state than GDP?
	The health of the society.
	Sure, but if the health of society is really high.
	I mean, could you have, let me give you an example.
	Could you have a society that's mass addicted to drugs, but has a good number, a nice income?
	Probably not.
	No, you can have societies that are full of detriment, like full of ghettos, and they're ruled over by organized crime that make a lot of money.
	Typically, those countries, like if you're thinking about like the Congo or like areas that have like high levels of corruption, their GDP is horrible because typically crime is not good for GDP.
	But I'm saying you could conceivably have that.
	It doesn't matter whether there's some exception to that rule.
	It's not exception, I would say.
	The rule is, in general, when you have lots of corruption and drug addiction, it's not good for GDP.
	But I'm saying conceivably you could have a ruling elite that makes a lot of money from drugs and the society itself is living in shantytown, right?
	I don't think that that nation state would have high GDP.
	I don't think there's any evidence of that.
	It doesn't matter if you think that because it's conceivable that you could have that, right?
	You could have a successful oligarchy that makes a lot of money and the people themselves don't do very well.
	Are you talking about like Saudi Arabia?
	Yeah, sure.
	Sure, but Saudi Arabia, again, is not nearly as competitive as somewhere like America or any nation.
	But again, how do we know that competitiveness for women is a good?
	You've just said that that's the case because it increases GDP.
	So I'll just make a circle.
	Okay, if we're going to do trig, like we can do a grip with trilemma.
	It's just useless.
	I can use it at you, too, right?
	Well, but if I'm arguing for a moral ought on the basis of men.
	I said it's functional.
	Yeah.
	Okay, we're doing chatter.
	So now you're when I say functional.
	No, no, in a debate, if you're arguing for your position, then you're necessarily arguing that we ought to follow your position.
	Yeah, I think I said it's a necessity and an unavoidable, but that's not an ought.
	It doesn't mean it's a moral claim.
	It would be like real politic.
	Well, then it's an ought because do you think we ought to follow your arguments?
	Not all ought are moral.
	Ought we follow your arguments.
	As in, like, should you do what I prescribe for society?
	Ought we follow the true arguments versus the false arguments?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Then you're using an ought right now to argue for your position.
	Sure, but this isn't a moral claim.
	You just argue that we ought to follow your position.
	It's still not a moral claim.
	Well, it is.
	It's not.
	Oughts are morals if you're extending them to everybody in the theoretical realm of listening to the debate.
	Do you think that it's moral or not moral to have GDP?
	Do you think GDP is moral?
	I'm pointing out that your position...
	Could you answer my question this time?
	I have a different system than you.
	So it's not going to apply to my system.
	Do you think that GDP is moral?
	Everything in life is conceivably or potentially moral.
	How is GDP moral?
	Because you extended it to, in this argument, the highest good.
	I did not use that.
	You did walk to back after I asked for the highest good.
	No.
	Yes, you did.
	I did not.
	You said for a nation state, I guess it's like one of the higher goods.
	Yes.
	It's not the highest good.
	And what is the good?
	Jay, I don't know how to explain to you over and over that this is not a moral claim.
	It's real.
	You're saying that.
	It's pragmatism.
	You're saying that, but ought we follow your argument in pragmatism here?
	If you want a flourishing society by and large.
	So we ought.
	Logically.
	Sure, but it's not.
	Ought we logically.
	Sure.
	Again, it's not a moral claim.
	It's not.
	Is GDP a moral claim?
	It can be depending upon the system.
	How is GDP a moral claim?
	In your system, you're arguing that what you just said we ought to follow your argument.
	I don't know how many times to tell you this.
	I'm not making a moral claim.
	You are, and you're saying you're not.
	You're just keep telling me.
	Anytime you say that there's an ought.
	That's not true.
	That is true.
	No.
	It is.
	No.
	Even if you redefine it as female.
	Okay, think about this.
	You don't have to have a liberal society that has a high GDP.
	You're just going to get stomped and you'll be a failed nation state.
	It's neutral morally.
	Yeah, but you're missing the point about highest goods for society.
	You're arguing that.
	I'm not engaging in that yet.
	Well, that's.
	Go ahead.
	Oh, no.
	Just if you guys can, try.
	If you guys can, just try to let each other finish your thoughts, but go ahead.
	So this debate necessarily comes down to metaphysical claims and epistemical claims and ethical claims.
	No.
	Yes, it does.
	Because feminism is about morals, ethics, biology, society, social relations.
	You can't divorce ethics from that.
	Now, if you think you can, I'm happy to address that, but that's just going to get you in an even deeper bind.
	I'm not saying that you can't, that you can divorce these things.
	Of course, feminism.
	If you just argued a minute ago that it's not moral.
	GDP is not moral.
	Then you can't divorce these things.
	So you just contradicted yourself.
	So there are lots of elements.
	Okay.
	There are lots of elements within feminism that do make moral claims, right?
	Lots of them.
	When I'm talking about something like an innovator scale, it's not a moral claim.
	It's real politics.
	I understand you think that, but I'm pointing out that it is still moral.
	That's the argument I'm making.
	Okay.
	Do you want to engage with the actual conversation now?
	You saying that doesn't avoid the argument I'm making.
	Okay.
	I know that's what you're saying.
	Why is GDP not good for society, or is it?
	I'm saying it depends on your standard of good.
	And that's what I'm asking you what's going on.
	What's your standard of good?
	I think GDP can be great for a society, but it's not the highest good of society, such as the social cohesion of society.
	That's more important than who's making fiat money.
	Okay, what do you think is the role of the nation state?
	The nation state has the job and the duty to defend its people and to maintain a healthy society to punish the wicked and to reward virtue.
	Sure, yeah, I would broadly agree.
	It's to keep its citizens safe, right?
	Okay, how does it do that at a foreigner?
	So I said reward virtue and punish vice.
	So there's also necessarily an ethical component there.
	Sure, that's your claim, right?
	That's my worldview.
	Yeah, I'm just engaging with it.
	Right.
	Okay, so then how does your nation state in your worldview protect itself from enemies?
	It has a standing army.
	Okay, and how does it fund that standing army?
	Well, nations have gone into debt, or they have been prosperous and used their own treasuries, or they have raised money to go to war.
	So there's a lot of different ways that could happen.
	Okay.
	And so what do you think is the right way to do that?
	It's an oversimplification question because not everything in regard to warfare or history of civilizations is necessarily right or wrong.
	It's a question of what might be the best or the worst.
	So there can be scales.
	It's not just either or.
	There are some things that aren't moral necessarily.
	Some of them are just pragmatic.
	And then there's some things that are moral.
	Everything could potentially be moral, but some things are pragmatic, sure.
	Okay.
	That's basically what I've been saying.
	Yeah, but you were appealing to the good of a nation state.
	You were, again, because you were using the word good in a way that I wasn't meaning it.
	And even though I clarified multiple times that I meant functional, and I even said, what word would you like me to use to describe this?
	I understand that you think that saying that because it's functional, it removes the ethical domain, but it doesn't is the point I'm trying to make.
	Because the question that we're debating is whether feminism is good for society or not.
	That's an ethical moral question.
	Okay, so going back to the chatter thing, how we have to agree about words, okay?
	You're now essentially assigning to me what good means, and it's obvious that I'm not.
	No, I'm doing an internal critique, is what I'm doing.
	You know what that is?
	Assigning to me.
	Do you know what an internal critique is?
	Tell me.
	So I'm criticizing your position on its own grounds.
	That's an internal critique.
	That's what happens in debates.
	Okay, what word would you like me to use when I am describing this non-moral functional element?
	That is.
	The one that makes a non-moral position makes sense of why feminism is a good for society.
	We can get there, but again, we have to.
	You're not going to get there.
	Well, we can, but you're not even, you're not even like, we're doing chatter.
	We're literally doing where you don't understand the issue.
	That's not true.
	All you've done at this point is just like, you've basically, you're just weaponizing trigromers.
	No, you admitted that the debate is about whether feminism is good for society.
	That's a moral ethical domain right there.
	Sure.
	There are some moral elements.
	So when you make arguments about GDP, if it's not moral, then it's not relevant to the debate.
	It's absolutely moral.
	What language would you like to use?
	I said it's not, there is moral elements and there are some non-moral elements.
	GDP is not.
	Is the debate today about something moral?
	I don't know if I agreed to saying we're only going to talk about epistemics and morality.
	Good is, again, this word that we're basically doing chatter around where you're assigning a label to it, and I haven't agreed to.
	I'm trying to figure out your position on the good.
	My position on the good is it's holistic.
	There are things that are good because it's functional, and there are things that it's good because it's moral.
	Right?
	Is the debate today, feminism, about the good of the moral for society?
	It's about, I guess, I would like to make the case for both.
	Okay.
	So functional and that means that everything you've been saying for the last hour is wrong.
	No, because I'm making a case for the functional element too.
	But the fact that you're making the case for the functional element too doesn't matter if you're also talking about the moral.
	You can make both arguments and I would like to engage in the first one.
	Right, because the other one is the one I'm looking at, and that's the problem for you.
	It's not the problem for me.
	No, the problem with this conversation is that essentially what you've done is you've assigned me a bunch of positions that I don't have.
	No.
	You've done a bunch of circle talk about words.
	You've done a couple of rhetorical flashbangs.
	And now we're stuck in the situation where we can't actually talk about the ideas, which is unfortunate because I was really looking forward.
	You're chasing, you're like one foot is nailed and then the other one is going in a circle.
	Like a cartoon character.
	You're like a cartoon character running in a circle.
	If you want to throw Agrippa's trilemma at me, you can, but I can throw it at you too.
	And if we do that, then there's no point.
	We're at an impasse.
	What do you think is good?
	The good ultimately relates to God, the highest good.
	Okay, the highest good.
	So is GDP in direction of that or not?
	All things that exist are good in some way and in some way relate to morals.
	But I do not believe that the GDP is the highest good for society.
	Okay, what is the highest good for society?
	The health and flourishing of the society, which has to exist within some kind of patriarchal norm.
	That's the only way that it can function.
	Gotcha.
	And the ones that don't, they dysfunction.
	Okay.
	And so in your mind, does GDP contribute to any of that?
	It's just one component of life, just like, I don't know, the size of the nation's landmass is one component.
	Sure.
	I would agree with that.
	But it's not the highest good.
	Okay.
	Gotcha.
	So what's the argument that feminism is good for society?
	Feminism is good for society at a functional level because it increases innovator scale.
	I also think it's the right thing to do.
	That's moral odds.
	Yep, I'm giving you a moral claim now.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	And why is it right for society?
	It is right for society because I think in general we should try to treat others well and I think limiting people's opportunity by force is bad for them.
	I don't think God wants that.
	Okay.
	What God?
	The Christian one.
	Okay.
	Where does he talk about this?
	Forcing people to do things?
	No, this idea of what the good is for society, because we have a lot of historical Christian societies.
	Sure.
	Were any of them feminist?
	No, but I don't think in general that God advocates really strongly for a political system.
	Really?
	No.
	What about when Israel was organized?
	Was that a political system?
	Like in 1948?
	No, in the Old Testament.
	In the Old Testament.
	Yeah, it was a political society.
	How was it organized?
	I'm not a Jew.
	What does that have to do with whether it was organized in a certain way or not?
	It has nothing to do with my claim.
	What does the Old Testament say about how God organized that society?
	He gave them prescriptions about how to run their life from Moses.
	How was that society organized?
	It was organized, I believe, in a patriarchal society with matrilineal heritage.
	And it was a monarchy?
	Yes.
	A male monarchy.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	So in that regard, God was not feminist, right?
	I never said that God was feminist.
	Well, I'm asking if there's a history example of where God organized a feminist society.
	I mean, it's interesting because when you look at like ancient Judeo-history, if you're not being presentist, it was like insanely progressive compared to like the pagans around them, like the Assyrians and Babylonians.
	That's not what I'm asking.
	Well, it is what you're asking.
	You're calling it progressive, and I would just say it's healthy.
	So the fact that they had the Ten Commandments.
	God seemed to advocate to some degree for a better treatment of women than any other society around them.
	But that's not feminism.
	To some degree, you could argue that it is if you agree with my definition, which is like the empirical government.
	Well, but your definition is so elastic and broad that it could be anything except for what my position is.
	No, I don't, because I'm not agreeing that Old Testament patriarchal society is feminist.
	You just admitted it's not.
	If you're not agreeing, why did we even define the words in the beginning of the term?
	Can you name a feminist society?
	I'm not interested.
	God advocated?
	I'm not interested to.
	You appealed to God.
	Yeah, I think it's a good thing to treat women well.
	Did God ever, that's not feminism.
	Now you're equivocating.
	I'm not equivocating.
	Yes, you are.
	How am I equivocating?
	Changing the moving the goalposts is what feminism is.
	So it's completely different.
	So if God has equivocating or am I moving equivocating or am I moving the goalpost now?
	It's both.
	It's both.
	You're equivocating on the word and moving the goalpost to make your position work.
	So if there's no feminist, if there's no feminist equivocating on the word.
	That's not what equivocating means.
	I know what equivocation means.
	Yes, it does.
	It means that two different understandings of a word, you're equivocating on the word.
	Okay.
	Feminism.
	And you're defining to say that if God in the Old Testament gives women rights, that's feminism.
	That's not what feminism is.
	Feminism is a modern movement post-revolutionary.
	Why did you agree to my definition of feminism?
	Because it's so broad that that's fine if you want to defend that against patriarchy, but I'm arguing patriarchy against feminism.
	And what you appealed to is moving the goalpost by originally agreeing to a definition of feminism, and now you're saying that can't work anymore because it's defeating my argument.
	The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are the same God, and they never institute a feminist society.
	And women's rights are being made in the image of God, that women are protected now in that status is not feminism.
	What do you mean by a feminist society?
	A matriarchal society or a non-patriarchal society.
	I've never advocated for either of these things.
	Okay, but feminism has never been a societal goal in the Old Testament or the New Testament or the history of any Christian society.
	Again, so you have no examples of this.
	I haven't advocated for any of these things.
	I don't know.
	You appealed to God as your standard of the ought and the right, the moral rights.
	Yeah, it's a moral thing to try.
	And then I said, give me the examples of where that God ever instituted anything like what you're talking about in terms of feminism.
	And there's not.
	There's not.
	There is according to the definition you agreed to do feminism.
	Yeah, the empowerment and promotion of femininity.
	That is not what is happening in the Old Testament.
	Judaism is the most progressive approach to femininity of all of the ancient people.
	Modern rabbinic Judaism is not the same thing as what's in the Mosaic law.
	You asked for Old Testament examples.
	You admitted I just gave you one.
	That's not rabbinic Judaism.
	You admitted that it's a patriarchal society that's not.
	What do you mean it's not rabbinic?
	You don't think Old Testament Judeo-like.
	No, it's not.
	It's not rabbinic.
	What are you talking about?
	It's not the same thing as Rabbinic Truth.
	You don't think that the 1200 BC society that was erected by King David wasn't a rabbinic society?
	Rabbinic Judaism comes out of the fourth and fifth century when the Babylonian Talmud is collected and collated.
	So you don't think that the Old Testament is not rabbinic?
	No.
	Okay.
	And it's patriarchal.
	So even if it was rabbinic, it wouldn't repeat.
	Then there's no examples of what you're talking about.
	Well, the issue for me is that what you're doing is you're creating a false dichotomy.
	You're pretending like patriarchy and feminism can't coexist at the same time.
	They cannot.
	Of course they can.
	We live in one.
	Being feminine is not the same thing as the movement of feminism.
	I didn't say that it is.
	I said that we.
	You said that femininity is promoted in the Old Testament, and you used that as a way to prove your position.
	I said it empowered women and it promoted femininity.
	It empowered women by creating matrilinal lines of inheritance and it promoted femininity by making a whole bunch of female figures be viewed as these like incredible characters to like look up to like Ruth and Deborah and stuff like that.
	Okay, well there's a plenty of money.
	According to the definition you agreed to on feminism would be feminism.
	Then it wasn't quote progressive according to your view because other societies worship the goddess and that would be more progressive than what you said.
	If you want we can go back an hour and we can redo chatter and you can make a new definition for feminism that you like more so that you can apply it more narrowly if you'd like.
	You have moved the goalposts.
	Feminism is to be anything that so is the goddess feminism I don't know what that is.
	Is goddess worship in the ancient pagan world is that feminism?
	It might be.
	Okay.
	I'm not sure.
	I don't know anything.
	So your view so your position is so elastic that it could encompass any possibility.
	Why did you agree to it?
	It's unfault because the way you've framed it was anti-patriarchy and I'm fighting.
	I did not frame it that way.
	The terms of this debate are.
	You want to go back an hour.
	Is feminism good or is patriarchy?
	I wrote it down.
	Do you want to go back?
	The fact that you wrote it down just means that you misunderstand what you wrote down.
	No.
	That's even dumber.
	The issue, rather than you just being bad faith for no reason, you didn't even know what an internal critique is.
	So I'm not being bad faith.
	I've been debating for 25 years.
	It's not bad.
	It's completely fine to not know what terms are, right?
	Sure, but in terms of debate, that's like one-on-one knowing what an internal critique is.
	I understand what consistency checks are.
	I just didn't use the language internal critique, right?
	So if we want to go back an hour, you agreed to this idea of chatter, right?
	How we want to define concepts, agree to them so that we can talk about.
	I'm just kidding.
	Go ahead.
	So if you agree to that and then you agree to the terms, you can change them later.
	I'm just going to be good faith.
	You can change them later if you want to.
	Let's just go back to the terms again and narrow it down to what we can agree to of what feminism and patriarchy means.
	Because now all you're doing is- I gave a very precise definition for patriarchy, right?
	Sure, I did.
	And you gave a very loose definition as to what you think feminism is, which could encompass conceivably anything that helps women.
	And that's an ambiguity fallacy.
	Then provide a different definition.
	Don't agree to it.
	In my opening statement, I said that I believe feminism is a revolutionary philosophy that destroys society.
	It was brought about to change society in total and ultimately to serve into oligarchical designs and people who, and I gave sources.
	You can read the Rockefeller's Authorized Biography.
	We have a whole discussion of Abby Rockefeller funding third-wave feminism and self-worth.
	Sorry, how is this not just as ambiguous as the one?
	It's just a revenue.
	Just as ambiguous, I'm literally giving you the people who funded it and the actual names of the people like Cell 6.
	I don't know why you're paying attention to the people.
	So that's ambiguous.
	I'm not a person to authority right now.
	None of this matters.
	No, I'm not afraid of it.
	That's not an authority.
	That's the people involved.
	It's not an authority pill.
	Yeah, if the people who funded them is an authority for the definition of the people who are in the future.
	I gave them people involved, like Abby Rockefeller, who was herself.
	No, it's not.
	Well, then why are you citing them?
	It's a person who's in the movement.
	It's not just the funder.
	Yeah, you're appealing to authority.
	You don't know what an appeal to.
	That's a fact.
	It's not an appeal to authority.
	You don't know what an appeal to you.
	You're citing them for a definition of feminism.
	Yeah, that's not an appeal to authority.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	You don't know what an appeal to authority is.
	If I said my position is true because I cite the Rockefellers, that would be an appeal to authority.
	And that's a fallacy.
	This is an evidence, goofus.
	Because of the Rockefellers.
	If you want.
	No, I'm not.
	I'm telling you the history of the movement, which you don't even know about.
	Again, I've asked you to define feminism.
	And now I'm giving you the history of that movement, which is three waves.
	Are there three waves of feminism?
	Why can't you give me a definition?
	Are there three waves of feminism?
	There's four.
	Okay.
	So there's three.
	Oh, you didn't know that.
	That's crazy.
	So there are three, correct?
	There's four.
	Right, but that would mean there's also three, even though there's a fourth, right?
	That's true.
	Three is less than four.
	I know that.
	But the fact that there's four, there's still three that have happened, right?
	Irrelevant to anything modern feminism.
	Is that an appeal to authority?
	What authority am I citing right now?
	I'm not afraid of it.
	No, you're citing facts that you think are appealed to authority.
	How many have I cited?
	Name one.
	Name one authority I've cited, Jay.
	Oh, name one authority I've cited.
	I don't understand.
	Jay, name one authority I've cited.
	I'm making a joke because you think appealing to a fact is appeal to authority.
	Those are two different things.
	It's not true.
	In fact, when you were citing Rockefeller, when you're citing Rockefeller as the definition for feminism, the funder is not the definition, you idiot.
	Then why are you appealing to them in any way?
	To prove the history of the movement.
	Yes.
	You know what it teaches?
	I just gave you the example.
	I've been debating for 25 years.
	I know what the appeal to authority is.
	That's one right there.
	Okay, so that's the appeal to authority.
	Can you appeal to irrelevant people that sound authentic?
	It's not irrelevant.
	It's not relevant.
	The history of feminism is irrelevant to you giving me a definition of feminism that I can operate.
	Is it a historical movement?
	Can you give me a definition?
	Is it a historical movement?
	Yeah, of course.
	Then the history is relevant to the definition, you idiot.
	Then give me the definition.
	You can do it, Jay.
	It's really nice if we can.
	You can do it, Jay.
	I believe in you.
	It's like talking to a five-year-old.
	Yeah.
	Well, you're a big boy, so this should be really easy for you.
	Define feminism.
	Go ahead.
	Feminism is a historical movement that's concerned with the rights of women, including egalitarianism, the idea that women and men are equal.
	If we go back to Wollstonecraft, if we go back to the suffrage movement, if we go back to the notion of women not being married at certain ages as children, so the first wave wanted not just suffragism, but they also wanted to not have child brides and that kind of stuff.
	I'm really proud of you guys.
	But they also listen.
	I'm not shut up.
	We're super proud of you.
	Shut up and let me finish.
	I'm not done.
	I'm not done.
	They also wanted better work hours.
	They wanted women to have inheritance rights.
	They wanted women to be able to get jobs and they wanted women in the workforce and to be in positions that they didn't have.
	So they wanted certain social rights that women, like voting, right, suffered right.
	Those are all first wave.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	This is your definition of feminism?
	Okay, I'm writing it down.
	Are you serious?
	Look, I'm so dumb.
	You asked for the history of it.
	I didn't ask you for the history.
	I asked you for it.
	I said that it's historical.
	Okay.
	And I'm giving you the movements.
	I'm not asking for the history.
	I'm asking for the future.
	You said it is historical, so I have to go back to the people.
	So dumb that you can't conceive of a position apart from the people who came up with the position.
	I'll do.
	So, Israel, I can define Israel without going through the entire history of Israel.
	Feminism, while it does.
	You can't actually.
	Yes, of course, you can.
	No, you can't.
	Because for the sake of conversation, you admitted it.
	It's a historical movement.
	Therefore, it can't be divorced from the people in history.
	I'm not asking you to do it.
	Do you think it came out of the sky?
	Did it come into people's minds out of the sky or from the history?
	You're doing a false dichotomy again.
	What are you, dude?
	You don't even know what it is.
	You're acting like you can't define it without the history.
	I'm telling you.
	Correct.
	It's a historical movement by your own definition.
	That doesn't mean that you can't make a definition for the words.
	You have to go to the people.
	Where do you think words come from?
	From people.
	They don't drop out of the sky.
	They come from people.
	Jay, I know you can do this.
	You can define a word without giving me a five-minute monologue on the history.
	No, you can't.
	So there's no way for you to define feminism.
	Would you go to a dictionary?
	That's an appeal to authority.
	It's not an appeal to authority.
	Okay, there are appeal to authorities that are fallacious, and their appeal to authorities that are non-feminist.
	Oh, like when I give the examples of the funders of it.
	It's not just a funder.
	Abby was involved in Cell 16.
	She's not just a funder.
	That doesn't matter.
	It does because it came from them.
	That doesn't mean that she's a relevant authority to cite.
	The one who funded it and got it going at Chicago University is not relevant.
	Portions of the third wave, yes.
	That doesn't mean that she's a woman.
	No, it comes out of her money.
	No, that doesn't mean that.
	Millions of dollars at Chicago University.
	That doesn't mean that she's the definer of feminism.
	I didn't say she was.
	I said she was.
	You cited her as a definer of feminism.
	She's involved in the third wave movement.
	What's the definition of feminism, Jay?
	You're so stupid.
	I've got three things from you, so far.
	Feminism equals rights of women.
	Men and women are labor rights.
	I mentioned three things.
	What else is feminism?
	Inheritance, Jay.
	In terms of first wave feminism, I mentioned child age of marriage as another element of it.
	Okay, so in terms of the first wave.
	Civil rights, let's just call those civil rights.
	It's not civil rights.
	Oh my gosh.
	It's prior to the civil rights movement, you idiot.
	That doesn't mean that it's not civil rights, Jay.
	I'm just trying to create a way to make this succinct so we can get a fucking definition because you don't like mine, which is fine.
	I said your favorite.
	That's why I'm just trying to get a new one.
	That's fine.
	Make your own.
	I'm giving the historical definition.
	I don't need my own definition.
	It's your position, you goofus.
	No.
	You debate positions like when you debated Jim Bob and you tell people to define your position.
	This is how silly you are.
	No, Jay.
	I gave a broad definition.
	I gave you a definition and you.
	Which is too broad.
	That's fine.
	Make your own definition and then we can work from there.
	You can make a definition.
	Yes, you do.
	If you have rejected my definition, you now have to supply one.
	Yes, I'm going to the people who came up with it.
	Correct.
	Rockefeller didn't come up with it.
	I said Mary Wollstonecraft in my opening statement is one of the first feminists in modern society.
	Do you want to supply a definition?
	This doesn't matter, Jay.
	Just make a definition.
	The people who came up with it don't matter.
	They matter if you can get to getting a definition out of your fucking mouth.
	We've got three.
	We've got four elements of feminism now.
	Okay, so we've got rights of women, like men and women are equal, egalitarianism, labor rights, and civil rights.
	Is there anything else you would like to add to that definition?
	As we move into modernity, we get more radical versions of this, particularly with Cell 16, which becomes almost a revolutionary terrorist movement, which wants to engage in radical action and Skittles rights, shall we say.
	So they move into it being Skittles as well.
	Okay, so I don't care if you reject that.
	Trans rights.
	I don't care if you reject that or accept that.
	Because I'm looking at this as a historical movement, because guess what?
	Feminism is a historical movement.
	That's what we're debating.
	You might not believe me, Jay.
	I'm so disappointed about this conversation.
	I talked about chatter because I was interested in a good conversation.
	Saying chatter doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I did an internal critique and you didn't know what that was.
	And then I started going to the history of feminism and then stuff right now.
	You're just saying stuff.
	Yeah.
	There we go.
	So going to chatter, the reason I asked you about it is so that we could have a decently good conversation so that we weren't quibbling over the definition of words and we could actually engage in conversation.
	If the only way that you can debate for the last 25 years is to just quibble about semantics of words, I'm sorry, you're not a king debater.
	You're just bad faith.
	You asked me the last 30 minutes to define a word.
	So you're the one that's quibbling about semantics.
	I'm literally not quibbling.
	I am writing down your words.
	Oh, so if you're writing it down.
	I'm granting, it's not semantics because I am just granting your definition.
	No, it's not.
	It's not semantic debating because I'm not disagreeing with you on your definition.
	I'm literally begging you to just give me one.
	I'm begging you at this point because you don't like mine.
	So let's give yours.
	I don't care what your definition is because all I have to do is critique your position internally and point out your own.
	You do have to care about my definition if you're going to do an internal critique.
	That's the fundamental of a fucking internal critique.
	Oh, now you do know about it.
	So you just learned about an internal critique about 10 minutes ago, and now you're going to lecture me on it.
	You're a really good teacher, Jay.
	What can I say?
	The debate's over.
	You do care about...
	She admitted she's learning.
	You do care about feminism and my definition of it because you need it for the internal critique, which you've already done.
	I don't care about it because it's not a definition.
	Now you've rejected my definition of feminism.
	So again, I know being mean to women is your fallback.
	If you have nothing to do with it, there we go.
	Now, there we go.
	It's not an ad hominem.
	I didn't say that you're not to you?
	No.
	I didn't say you're wrong because you're being an asshole.
	I just said you're an asshole.
	Now you're getting your feelings.
	That's not an ad hominem.
	My feelings are not a problem.
	It's not an ad hominem.
	No.
	Insulting people and being mean is an ad hom.
	You should know this.
	You can Google it, Google it at home.
	An ad hom is when you use the insult of a person to discredit them.
	So if I said, Jay, you're wrong because you're mean.
	Now I'm ad homing you.
	As a debate bro of 25 years, you should know your fallacies better.
	You've already been wrong about multiple fallacies.
	Really?
	And you can't, yes, and you can't define feminism.
	Do you want to get there?
	You've already admitted that I gave you four elements.
	It seems like you have four, actually.
	I think that you want to add.
	You actually think, like, maybe a 100 IQ person that the way that you define something is you literally just look at a definition in a dictionary and then you just list it out and that's the definition of the word.
	That's false.
	Really?
	Yeah, I've never seen that.
	Because I'm giving you the entire context of the history of feminism, and you're saying, I need a fucking definition as we're working through the actual history of it and the definition of what it is.
	You admitted that it's a historical movement.
	That has nothing to do with you giving me a definition.
	You admitted that it's a historical.
	So the history has to do with it, you idiot.
	I don't need the history for you to give me a definition.
	You idiot.
	You have to go to the people who are the philosophers of it.
	You can just define it.
	Like Mary Wollstonecraft and her position.
	You can just define it.
	Like egalitarianism.
	You can just define it for you.
	I'm defining it for you.
	I've been defining it.
	You just keep yapping and melting down over your notes.
	No, the issue is that it has taken me pushing you to be specific over and over for 45 minutes.
	We have five points now.
	Because you don't have anything other than this.
	That's false.
	How does any of this prove your position that feminism is good for society?
	As a feminist, you're showing us that you're not good for society.
	So you're actually proving my point as you yap and argue.
	That's actually a great example of an ad hom.
	That is an ad hom.
	But it's an illustrative ad hominem.
	Yes.
	That's true.
	It was a very creative ad hom.
	Okay, so we have five points that you would like to define feminism.
	Is there any other points that you want to define feminism with?
	Yes.
	Who funded that also said that they like the movement because it destroys the nuclear family, gets women in the workforce, taxes the other half of the population, and reduces the population because there's less families.
	How do you want to summarize that?
	Why do I have to destruction of nuclear family?
	Remember what I just said?
	You can't remember four sentences I just said?
	No, I can remember.
	I just want to like, you're such a, you're just very yappy, and so I'd like to make it succinct.
	Yes.
	To give me a definition, you've had to give me an entire century's worth of history, even though like when you admitted that it's a historical movement, so it can't be divorced from the historical feminism.
	What you could have done?
	You could have just said, to me, so that we can move forward with this conversation, feminism is the rights of women.
	Men and women are equal.
	Labor is not a problem.
	So I'm not going to grant simple answers in a debate.
	Why wouldn't you just define a word?
	I don't know if we can owe you a definition.
	Maybe we could avoid some of the insults.
	And if we can, also allow people to finish their thought.
	Let's try to interruptions, but go ahead.
	I want to know how this, any of this, helps your case to prove feminism is good for society.
	Well, we can get there now that we've defined feminism.
	So destruction of nuclear family is another one that you would like to add to your definition of feminism.
	That's why the people who fund it matter is because they say that.
	Okay, I would argue that the destruction of nuclear families is not inherent to most feminist movements and is bad.
	So I reject that part of your definition.
	So the people who want that in society and say that it does that don't matter?
	They're not the feminism that I'm fighting for.
	Because you have a definition that is so elastic to make it anything that you think helps women.
	And that's why I've said you've already lost the debate because you're elastic.
	Well, you define.
	Empowerment of women and promotion of femininity.
	So empowerment means things like removing obstacles.
	Ambiguous.
	And promotion of femininity would be like making feminine traits viewed as respect worthy.
	Like submitting to authority in men.
	Is that a feminine trait?
	No.
	I would say that.
	Oh, so it's not clear.
	It's ambiguous.
	Okay, submission is.
	You have to define it.
	I would say submission is feminine, but I don't think it's to men specifically.
	No, it would be like to any authority, right?
	To any authority.
	Yeah.
	Are most authority men?
	A lot of them are, but some are.
	So it would be to men.
	Nope, it would be to authority.
	Men aren't a class.
	Men aren't a class.
	But most authorities are men, and they are submitting to that, right?
	So it would be.
	Yeah, but the idea, okay, you love semantic rights.
	No, it's called a debate.
	I can do that too.
	If you want me to just like mock you every time you stutter, we can have a super function.
	This is just how debates work.
	I'm sorry.
	Mocking people when they stutter is not.
	Rhetoric is part of debate.
	This is not rhetoric.
	This is just you being pregnant.
	If you're watching an Oxford Union debate, they make fun of each other.
	I'm fine with making fun of each other.
	That's what I've been doing.
	Okay.
	Would you like to have a productive conversation too?
	Or do you want to just?
	I'm having a great time.
	That's fine.
	We can just continue to circle the drain.
	And how does this prove feminism is good for society?
	Okay, so I already said I would reject the destruction of nuclear family.
	I don't think it's central to most feminism.
	I think most of the time.
	Was it central to Cell 16?
	It sounds like it was, but I would say most fourth wave feminists, for example, are not very pro-destruction of nuclear family.
	In fact, there's like an entire like barefoot pregnant movement within the fourth wave that is very much about embracing being pregnant, being motherhood, and like promoting that as a good thing.
	Is that the attitude that most feminists in society have?
	I would say a lot of young feminists are directly.
	Women the most.
	I wouldn't.
	No, they're not.
	Most also don't want to destroy the nuclear family.
	Well, in academia and most feminists want to get married and have kids.
	Does this worldview promote, in general, in society, in academia and in the corporate world, the destruction of the family, or does it help it?
	It tends to promote it.
	Yeah.
	They want women to be mothers who can also.
	Feminism promotes women in society in general.
	I would say fourth wave feminism is very pro-mother.
	I asked you about the majority of feminism.
	Most of them.
	Feminists are fourth wave.
	Institutionalized.
	Yet, most institutional academics are fourth wave.
	And they want people to have kids.
	Yes.
	They're not antinatalists.
	Some of them are, but most of them are not.
	Institutions?
	Yes.
	No, that's crazy.
	I don't know what to tell you.
	I've been reading lots of people.
	I mean, I've been in academia.
	I've been in an institution.
	I've never met a feminist in academia or institutions who thinks that there should be more people and more kids.
	They all believe in depopulation, the ones that I've met.
	That's crazy.
	I've just met lots of feminists that don't believe that.
	And regardless, those feminists who are like basically death cult feminists, I'm not interested in advocating for the worldview.
	That's fine.
	I don't have to own that.
	But the history of feminism.
	It's like you don't have to own like Protestantism.
	Most feminism, right?
	So you've got a nuanced feminism, I guess, is your take, right?
	I just have like a pretty traditional, like, fourth-wave feminism.
	Okay.
	So, but it's not historic feminism, right?
	Or is it first wave?
	It's fourth wave.
	So it's tied to history?
	Of course, because there's tied to history.
	Yeah, but the waves of the waves is that they're.
	I've never ever said that feminism isn't tied to history.
	You've just made that up.
	I think we could go back about 20 minutes.
	So you can do what I do.
	You know, we go back 20 minutes where you said that the history doesn't matter.
	I said for your definition, it doesn't matter.
	You can hold your feminists.
	You just literally have doublethink going in your brain.
	Have you read 1984?
	You can hold yourself.
	If you're in 1984.
	Right.
	You know what doublethink is?
	Yeah.
	It's the ability to contradict within a couple minutes.
	I didn't contradict.
	If you remember, we can roll back the tape.
	We were talking about defining.
	Do you think definitions are relevant?
	Can I finish my thought, or are you just going to interrupt me?
	Because I'm trying to.
	Can I finish my thought?
	I'm trying to hone in on what this weird mistake is because it's weird.
	Guys, if we can't, at least we'll let the insults go.
	If you guys want to insult each other, we'll allow that.
	But at least let each other finish their thoughts.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	The reason that we went into the history and why I said I don't care about the history is I was asking for a functional definition so we could move past that part of the conversation.
	I always acknowledged that history was part of the feminist movement and it's tied to history.
	Yeah, I reject that there is a definition divorce from history.
	I've never said that there's a definition of divorce from history.
	I said I don't need to do it.
	You did because you asked me.
	You said I don't need the history lesson.
	I don't need the history lesson.
	You asked me.
	You got all anything to say.
	You got to let me finish, Jay.
	You asked me because you're lying.
	You asked me.
	You said divorce from history.
	What is your definition?
	That's what you said.
	Yeah, I didn't want the history from you.
	Thank you.
	So you just contradicted yourself.
	No, I didn't contradict myself.
	You're a machine of contradiction.
	You're desperate.
	You're so desperate.
	You're like, God, how do I get this win?
	I asked for you to stop giving me all of the history and just give me a definition so we can move the fuck on.
	I just want to say that there is a definition of divorce from history and you just admitted that you can't do it.
	So you don't have the brain capacity to define something without a five-minute monologue about the feminists.
	You just admitted you can't do that.
	Define Israel.
	Are you going to go back 3,000 years to define that?
	Correct.
	Yes, because it's an ancient historical nation.
	So you can't define Israel without giving me a 10-minute monologue.
	It's a false analogy because feminism is a modernist movement.
	It's a modern movement.
	It's not an ancient civilization.
	It doesn't matter.
	It does matter.
	You're just saying it doesn't matter.
	It just shows your lack of time is not all a false analogy.
	Extent is the same.
	You are melting down right now because you contradicted yourself.
	I'm melting down because you said that you had 25 years of debate history and you can't.
	You can't get a single fallacy.
	Look at you.
	You're melting down.
	You said a false spiral.
	How is that a false analogy?
	How is that a false analogy, Jay?
	Because it's a modern movement.
	It's not an ancient civilization.
	What does that have to do with anything when it comes to comparing that?
	It has nothing to do with the false analogy.
	How is that a false?
	That's how you lose a debate, correct?
	How is it a false move?
	Contradicting is where you lose the debate.
	You can define Israel without giving me the centuries of history.
	Is that what you're telling me?
	I didn't say that.
	You just said that.
	You said it was a false analogy.
	You said it's a false analogy.
	I never said that.
	You said that you're yapping because you got caught.
	I didn't get caught.
	You did.
	Again.
	You said that history, you said history doesn't matter.
	Give me your definition.
	And then you just said history matters.
	It's part of the definition.
	I did.
	You contradicted yourself.
	I did not say history matters as part of the feminist.
	You did.
	Yes, you did.
	Part of debating, part of debating is holding frame, right?
	Would you agree?
	Like when you did that, is that holding frame or what is that?
	No, that was making fun of you, obviously.
	So part of debating is holding frame.
	Like putting dongs in your mouth.
	Is that holding frame?
	I don't know.
	No, that's funny.
	Yeah, we're all laughing about it.
	Yes.
	Or are we laughing at you?
	Kind of the same thing.
	That's kind of what performers do, right?
	Yeah.
	So.
	Part of debating is holding frame.
	Is any of this going to prove that feminism is good for society?
	We literally can't get there because you are still.
	You make my case.
	I'm not making your case.
	Again, just an ad hom.
	You love fallacies.
	My favorite thing about you is that you cite fallacies constantly.
	You don't know what they mean and you can't define them properly.
	Like how history is not part of feminism.
	How is it a false analogy?
	To compare Israel, defining Israel?
	Because it's an ancient nation state.
	Because feminism is a modern political social revolutionary movement.
	They don't compare.
	So why does the extent of the length of history make them disanalogous?
	You've already lost the debate because you admitted that the definition can't be divorced from the history, and then you said the opposite.
	That means you've massively contradicted yourself within the last five minutes.
	Again, you're just making shit up.
	I'm glad that the made-up narrative.
	I mean, everybody heard you.
	Okay, all this.
	Jay just lost the debate because he's strawmanning me and putting words in my mouth that didn't happen.
	Wow, I'm really good at debating.
	Do you want to go back to the actual conversation?
	Sure.
	Okay, so why is it falsely analogous when you're saying that to define words, you must include the entire history to define the word?
	Why is it disanalogous to compare feminism to Israel?
	I asked you to define feminism and I asked you to define Israel.
	I asked you if you could define Israel without the three centuries of history.
	And you said, well, it's different.
	It's a false analogy.
	That's a false analogy.
	Why is it a false analogy?
	Because they're two totally different things.
	And you already admitted that feminism is a historical movement and that it can and can't be divorced from the history.
	So is Israel.
	That's making my point.
	You goof us.
	No, it's not.
	It is.
	I'm saying you can obviously define Israel without going through three centuries, which you agreed to.
	That's why you.
	It's a false analogy because you won't define Israel with the three centuries because it's just long.
	It's an ancient nation state.
	Modern feminism only has 100 years, so I can give the history of that, but I can't give the history of Israel to define it because it's too long, essentially.
	That's your argument.
	Yes, that is your argument.
	It is not falsely analogous.
	And also, comparing two different things is the point of fucking analogy.
	The more that you talk, it makes my whole case here that feminism is a net negative for society.
	Thank you for representing.
	Honestly, all you're doing is making me be like, maybe the Rad Froms are right and men got to be out of power because they cannot keep up.
	If this is what like two masters and a philosophy degree do.
	Right, you literally contradicted yourself with the bad people.
	I think the conservatives are right.
	Don't go to college, guys.
	You're going to end up like this.
	Not good.
	I don't recommend people go to college, by the way, because you are the people that teach at college.
	So you're actually, you're like the college professors I debated, the women I debated, you're like them.
	So they should go to college if you want them to be in your position, right?
	No, if they end up anything like you, they should definitely not go to college.
	You're like, I had a philosophy degree and I don't know what fallacies are.
	Did I say that?
	Basically.
	Was that a cutdown?
	Yeah.
	Good one.
	Try again.
	This would be a perfect moment to read a couple chats here.
	We have Kat, who gifted 50 memberships.
	Thank you so much, Kat Guy's W's in the chat for Kat.
	Thank you for the gifted, 50 whatever memberships.
	Robert Tanner, thank you for the gifted.
	50 whatever memberships.
	Thank you so much.
	We also have Rachel Wilson in the building.
	Thank you for the gifted five memberships.
	Really appreciate it.
	And then we have a couple chats coming in here through the Stream Labs.
	Let me get those pulled up.
	If you guys want to get a message in, it's $99 and up.
	We have Intel Wilde.
	Oh, it's coming in as a TTS.
	Intel Wilde donated $100.
	Not so bright.
	Do you like BDSM because you are getting spanked by Jay?
	Ah, classic.
	When you can't defeat a woman, you just have to sexually defend yourself.
	Like when you do the dongs in your mouth, like that.
	Is that a good example of what you're talking about?
	So I can't defeat a woman, so you put dongs in your mouth because it's funny.
	You can't defeat a woman without sexually degrading her and then making a joke.
	Like when you put dongs in your mouth.
	Is that sexually degrading?
	Oh, by yourself.
	Okay.
	So it's all subjective, like relativism.
	Usually you can make jokes about yourself that I'm not.
	Do you believe in relativism too?
	Yeah, I do.
	Really?
	Is it self-refuting?
	No.
	Is relativism true?
	Depends on what you mean by true.
	Is everything relative?
	Yes, but that doesn't mean it's like subjective.
	It means the same thing.
	No, it does not.
	Yes, it does.
	Something being totally relative means that it is subjective.
	No.
	I'm sorry.
	That is like a philosophy 101.
	No, it's correct.
	Philosophy 101.
	You would learn that if something is completely relative, then it's purely subjective.
	It's the same.
	No.
	Yes, it is.
	No.
	You're conflating subjectivism to cultural relativism at best.
	I know the difference between your position is.
	What do you think the opposite of relativism is?
	Now that you've admitted that everything is relative, what do you think it is?
	The opposite of relativism.
	There's epistemic relativism.
	There's cultural relativism.
	There's ethical relativism.
	It's broadly the opposite of relativism.
	Everything is relative to your vantage point, your perspective.
	Perspectivalism.
	No, it's not.
	You are an idiot.
	It's absolutism.
	It's not objective.
	Relativism is not absolutism.
	No, the opposite of relativism is moral.
	It's objectivism.
	No, it's not what it is.
	You're an idiot.
	You don't know what it is.
	You've never had.
	I don't know if it's crazy.
	That's crazy.
	I've debated all the top atheists and philosophers, and you're- I'm not gonna lie, I didn't expect that.
	You should definitely.
	The opposite of relativism is objectivism.
	It's absolutism.
	It means the same thing.
	No reality.
	Yes, it does.
	No, it does not.
	You have a problem with words that you think that two different words can't mean the same thing.
	Okay.
	Moral absolutism is when you can apply things universally.
	Objectivism is that something can be like capital T true.
	These are not the same thing.
	You can use the terminology.
	You're arguing.
	These are not the same thing.
	Yes, they are.
	No, they're not.
	Moral objectivism.
	What is that?
	Moral objectivism is believing that there's like a capital T true close and find.
	Yeah.
	That's not the same thing.
	No, it's not.
	Kant is not.
	Moral objectivism.
	You don't know what you're talking about.
	Moral objectivism is that there are moral absolutes.
	It's that simple.
	No.
	Yes.
	What do you mean, no?
	That's crazy.
	Can I get so now she wants to run and get water?
	No, I'm not running.
	I'm actually just, I'm thoughts matched.
	There's some underlying student doesn't have a lot of money.
	Essentially, you have an elementary school level education, and you're actually debating people who actually know what philosophy is.
	That's crazy because despite my little education, you still don't know what relativism is versus like absolutism and objectivism.
	That's fine.
	We can move on.
	I've debated the dude from the Objectivist Foundation, the N Rand Foundation, so I'm pretty sure I know.
	Again, then you would know that he represents the position.
	You understand that a word can mean different things in different contexts?
	So if I say that something is morally objective or that it's morally absolute or that it's not relative or subjective, it all means the same thing, even though it's different words.
	Did you know that?
	That's crazy.
	Okay.
	That's crazy.
	That words can mean the same thing is crazy.
	That you don't have any concept of the philosophical compass is crazy to me.
	The philosophical compass.
	Yes.
	So memes, meme-level philosophy.
	It's not meme-level philosophy.
	It is a meme.
	It's a meme.
	It's meme-level philosophy because you thought that words didn't mean the same thing.
	Okay.
	We have a chat coming in here from Robert.
	One sec, guys.
	Let's get that pulled up.
	There it is.
	Thank you, Robert.
	Appreciate it.
	Robert donated $200.
	Hey, Brian, comment on this discussion.
	Bloomberg just reported two days ago that for the first time ever, white men are slightly now less than half of board members at S ⁇ P 500 companies.
	Progress on GDP.
	Thank you, Robert.
	Do you guys want to discuss that?
	I don't know if that's even true.
	If that's true.
	I feel neutrally about it.
	Okay.
	It depends on why it's the case, right?
	I think white men in general are being pretty shittily treated by society right now.
	I think there's a fair bit of persecution.
	So I suspect that the reasons behind that is bad.
	But maybe it's neutral, but probably it's bad.
	But maybe it's neutral.
	All right.
	We have three other chats, unless, Jay, you wanted to weigh in on that.
	No, I agree.
	Okay, bad.
	Sure.
	We have whatever fan.
	Thank you, WhateverFan.
	WhateverFan donated $100.
	I'm enjoying J-Barbecue cooking her puppy cheeks better than Gordon Ramsay like a donkey.
	Okay.
	They like my cheeks.
	That's all I heard.
	We have.
	You got cooked, is what they said.
	I know you can't hear something.
	There was a nice one that came through about you.
	Oh, I saw.
	All right.
	We have grandma sweaters coming in here in just a moment.
	Grandma's sweaters, excuse me.
	Grandma's sweaters donated $100.
	Erudites that makes no sense.
	Feminism is a populist movement where each rep in history interprets the definition.
	Feminism hold ancient beliefs and utilize history as foundation for their beliefs.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	It's not a refutation of anything that I've said.
	Right.
	If you guys want to.
	I can't say that you can't understand a bad thing.
	If you want to engage with me, I'm right here.
	But if you want to keep fighting like someone.
	But you're arguing in yourself, in your head, it's like a hamster wheel running, and you're not actually in the debate.
	I've definitely times.
	I did a lot of labor to do it.
	Did you hear about it?
	I bet you couldn't restate my internal critique, could you?
	Of me?
	Yeah.
	It was something about how you think that I'm like self-defeating because you think that my definitions necessarily contradict each other, which they don't.
	It was just a false economy.
	No, that wasn't the internal critique, but good try.
	Okay.
	Do you want to remind me?
	Got more?
	Yeah.
	We have Rachel Wilson.
	Thank you, Rachel.
	Appreciate it.
	The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is kill it.
	Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, first wave feminist.
	Feminism is intrinsically antinatalist.
	Yep.
	I just disagree.
	Okay, good job.
	Thank you, Rachel Wilson.
	Appreciate that.
	It's almost like there's lots of camps to a large movement.
	So it's elastic, exactly.
	Thank you.
	To some degree, yeah, we would agree that there's heterogeneity within any movement.
	So it can be defined the way you need it at whatever point in the debate.
	I defined it really clearly.
	Like broadly so that you could move it later.
	And it didn't work.
	Why'd you agree to it?
	Why'd you agree to it?
	Because I was setting you up to lose later.
	That's why.
	Oh, it was an 8D chess plan.
	And then it took you 45 minutes to define it later.
	No, I just let you sink your own, dig your own hole.
	Okay.
	Whatever you need to tell yourself to do.
	I bet you 95% of the chat's going to agree with me.
	I'm sure that this is dumb.
	Oh, really?
	So everybody in the chat's dumb.
	Thank you.
	Oh, I didn't say that.
	I said I'm sure chatters agree with you.
	I just don't.
	But you think that my arguments are dumb, so they're dumb.
	I'm not super interested in what chatters have to say.
	Viewers are a very different breed.
	Optics and who won the debate is judged by the audience.
	Yeah, but the audience isn't just chatters, right?
	It's also viewers.
	And these are not the same person.
	I bet the comments are going to say otherwise.
	I'm sure the comments on a very right-leaning, decently Eastern Orthodox that has already accepted most of your presuppositions for the show are going to agree with you.
	Right-leaning.
	Right-leaning?
	Yeah.
	I'm sure that they're going to agree with you, but that doesn't mean that you've won, right?
	Just like if you, if I put this on my channel and then all of my left-leaning audiences said I won, that's not evidence that I won, obviously.
	Are you sure?
	Yeah, obviously.
	That would be like a super solemnity.
	Because debates are for audiences.
	Sure.
	Did you listen to anything I just said?
	What's a selection bias?
	Well, it's when you choose the evidence based on what you want.
	not a selection bias that's called well you're talking about you're talking about audiences and like my audience would like my stuff so So if they like me, then I think I won because my audience liked me.
	So I selectively chose the audience is what you're saying.
	No.
	Okay.
	No.
	So you know what?
	Never.
	You're wrong.
	No, that's what it is.
	It's crazy.
	I don't know what any of these words mean.
	You've really impressed people.
	Like how the word objective just means absolutely.
	Selection bias in science means that like a naturally arising population that you are testing might end up having some emergent trait that you think is a construct true of that group when actually you've already set up the prerequisite methodology to find that trait within it.
	So my audience is going to like my shit more and your audience will like your shit more.
	Literally what I just said.
	Yeah, but the issue is that you're not.
	But that's what I just said.
	You were defining.
	That's what I just said.
	No, you said that you definitely.
	That's what I just defined, you idiot.
	No.
	You're stupid.
	Like I literally just defined the same thing that you said.
	Do you think that when you call me stupid, you win?
	What's the purpose of factually demonstrating what is the case?
	Again, do you think that you're winning?
	You literally give the same definition I did.
	I don't care.
	No, the issue was that you were doing the cherry paper.
	Oh, I thought you knew the fallacies.
	I thought you knew the fallacies.
	I do.
	I just don't remember the team critique.
	But you don't.
	You don't.
	Because you didn't know what an internal critique was either.
	Do you remember what the word is for when you selectively pick your pick your evidence?
	What's the word for that?
	Well, there's two fallacies.
	There's the sharpshooter fallacy and the gambler's fallacy.
	So you might be referring to Edith Libo's.
	No.
	Just cherry-picking fallacy?
	It's not cherry-picking fallacy.
	It's called.
	He doesn't even know the fallacy.
	I do.
	No, you don't.
	Yes.
	What's the gambler's fallacy if you know the fallacy?
	What's the false analysis?
	What's the gambler's fallacy?
	I don't know.
	You just said you knew the fallacies.
	I know lots of fallacies.
	That doesn't mean I know every fallacy.
	That's one of the most popular ones.
	You don't know?
	Nope.
	Incomplete evidence.
	Fallacy of incomplete evidence.
	No.
	Suppressing evidence.
	Okay.
	I can't think of the word.
	It starts with a C.
	Sure.
	We have a few more, excuse me, a few more chats coming through.
	Thank you, Christopher.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you, thank you.
	Absolutism is a form of objectivism.
	They are intrinsically bright.
	Oh, you thought words only had one meaningful thing.
	You thought words only had one meaning.
	I'm sorry.
	Sometimes they can mean two different things.
	It's called a word concept fallacy.
	Did you know about that one or no?
	I should write that one down so that when later you get mad at me for using the word for two minutes.
	Texas sharpshooter, go look it up.
	Word concept fallacy.
	Look that up.
	Can me.
	Gambler's fallacy, go look that up.
	And internal critique.
	Thank you, child.
	By the way, guys, we did set a super chat goal.
	We're at 13 of 50.
	We have about 15 minutes left on it.
	Kyla will wear a hat.
	If you give me part of that, I will give you a $2 billion.
	If I'm the reward for it, I'm getting some of that money.
	But I'll definitely wear the hat.
	We'll talk about this.
	We've got to see if we hit the goal, but we can hit the goal, guys.
	50 minutes.
	Let's see here.
	We're all cut up, caught up.
	We should give $100 to whichever chatter can figure out why Jay doesn't understand what a false analogy is and was incorrect in the use of it.
	I know what a false analogy is.
	That's true, but then why do you use it incorrectly?
	I didn't.
	You did.
	Comparing the nation-state of Israel.
	Comparing the nation-state of Israel to the history of feminism is a false analogy.
	What was I comparing?
	You asked for a definition that was not connected to history.
	And then, by the way, you said that history is bound up with a definition.
	So I asked you to define Israel if you could define Israel.
	You said, can I do it without going to the history?
	And you said, yeah, I could.
	No, I didn't.
	Yes, I said that you could define Israel without.
	I said I have to.
	And the reason why you said that it's disanalogous is you said Israel has too long of a history.
	You just yapped and didn't listen.
	I said you can't define Israel without going into the ancient history.
	You said that I don't want to, and that it's disanalogous because Israel has long history and feminism has short history.
	That would contradict what you just said.
	That would contradict what you just said, like two minutes ago.
	That doesn't matter.
	I was kidding.
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	So contradictions don't matter in a debate.
	Your contradictions matter, yes.
	Oh, my gosh.
	You just admitted that you contradicted.
	And now you're saying that I'm not.
	No, I did not.
	You did?
	No.
	You said they don't matter.
	No, I said that when you were trying to, when I asked you to define Israel, I asked if you could define Israel without going through these centuries of history.
	And you said that you could.
	No, I said no.
	You said that you could.
	The reason why it was a false analogy is because you're losing your mind.
	You're crazy.
	You can't hold your crane.
	This is.
	I said you can't because in the same cases as feminism, you can't.
	You know what?
	If you want to retroactively change your claim and correct it, fair enough.
	I think maybe you misheard.
	No.
	Because it wouldn't work for my argument.
	If I agree.
	That's why it was stupid of you to say that.
	I didn't say that.
	I said that neither feminism nor Israel could be defined apart from their history.
	You said that Israel is listening to the list.
	And you're lying right now.
	No, I'm not.
	You said that.
	You are lying.
	You said that you wouldn't outline.
	The reason why these are disanalogenesis.
	The reason why these were disanalogenous is you couldn't go through the centuries of history for Israel because of the extent.
	And this is why I laughed at you and I said, they're disanalogus because one has long history and one has short history.
	You're misheard because you don't listen.
	Maybe you misspoke.
	You can't understand.
	I can grant you that you misspoke.
	Maybe you misspoin.
	No, I didn't miss.
	You obviously did.
	I didn't misspeak.
	You obviously did.
	It's disanalogous because the two things are different.
	Separate from that, I said that I can't define Israel apart from Israel.
	Disanalogous.
	You don't even understand what I'm saying.
	You can compare two different things.
	The things that I'm comparing is defining things without their history.
	And you said that I could define Israel without this entry.
	That's fair that you misspoke.
	No, I didn't misspeak.
	You just don't listen.
	Okay.
	We got a chat coming through here.
	We got Ali Burr Knight.
	Thank you for that.
	Appreciate it.
	Allie the Knight donated $100.
	Thank you for that.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Knight.
	Please remove Andrew Tate from your Twitter banner.
	Your not worthy occult feminism will help with the after code.
	My favorite thing is dumbasses who think that I have up there because I like Andrew Tate.
	It's clearly a meme.
	It's obviously a meme.
	Earlier on in the discussion, you said that feminism is unavoidable.
	I think during your opening introduction.
	Unavoidable and necessary, yeah.
	Do you want to get into that a little bit?
	Like why, I guess why is it unavoidable?
	I think because as nations grow, essentially, eventually you will want women to join the workforce to be able to compete at like a global scale.
	And therefore, it becomes inevitable because you need women to join the workforce.
	And as soon as women join the workforce, they now have way more leveraging power by having money and certain rights.
	And once they have those rights and those leverage powers, they're necessarily going to leverage that power to give themselves more freedom.
	That they obviously wanted.
	What are you asking right now?
	If it didn't exist for thousands of years in history, then it wasn't necessary.
	I'm pretty sure you literally said that multiple countries fail because of liberalization.
	I'm just asking you.
	Liberalization and giving women more rights.
	Did it exist for thousands of years until modernity?
	Not all the forms of modernization.
	Okay, so then it's not necessary and it's not inevitable.
	It's absolutely necessary at this point because if you did it for thousands of years, then it's not necessary and inevitable.
	I'm going to teach you something crazy.
	You're not going to teach anything.
	Over time, technologies develop, which means that the way that you're just yapping and talking and asserting that literally.
	You got to let me talk.
	The way that the Romans worked their world is not the way that we can work our world, obviously, because things are not.
	Then it's not inevitable and it's not necessary.
	It is inevitable because just let her finish.
	Let her finish.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, for example, if you don't update to technology, your society tends to fall behind.
	None of this is relevant.
	So technologies that made.
	Let her finish.
	So, technologies that make feminism necessary and unavoidable would be things like tampons and things like birth control.
	This is absolutely true, and they're never going back in the hole.
	We're never putting the Colgate back in the fucking tube, right?
	So, Poland is a great example of a country that didn't update its technology, and as a result, it got stomped.
	When the beginning of, I believe, World War I or World War II, they invested in cavalry because the Polish cavalry was like the greatest thing, the Wing Tassards, everyone loved them.
	But tanks became a thing, and they got absolutely, utterly dumpstered and destroyed.
	Which is why, for societies to compete at a global geopolitical level, you have to keep up with technology.
	The reality is that China wants to win over America, which means they're going to allow women into the workforce.
	They're going to give them tampons.
	They're going to give them birth.
	You have to do it.
	None of that proves that it's necessary and inevitable.
	It proves that it's necessary and inevitable because the technology changes at a global level.
	If you compete at a global level, you have to allow women to the workforce.
	So she just yaps.
	This is like her whole thing is to just yap.
	If it didn't happen in Rome, then it wasn't necessary and inevitable, and that proves my point.
	Do we live in Rome anymore?
	Oh my gosh.
	Are you serious?
	You're that stupid.
	Do we live in Rome anymore?
	Or the technology?
	You said necessary and inevitable?
	Yes.
	Was it necessary inevitable in Rome?
	Again, the technology.
	Or do we live in Rome?
	Do we live in Rome?
	So then it wasn't necessarily inevitable.
	Are the technology?
	Can you follow an argument that isn't just gapping and asserting your position?
	Jay, can you follow me?
	What's the argument?
	It was not necessary in Rome because they didn't have tampons.
	Then it wasn't necessary inevitable.
	Thank you.
	It is inevitable because we now have to be able to do it.
	You just said it's not necessary.
	Do tampons exist?
	That refutes your position.
	Do tampons exist?
	No.
	Did they exist in Rome?
	No, they don't exist.
	Did they exist in Rome?
	There are no tampons.
	There's no such thing as tampons.
	No.
	Okay, great.
	If the tampons are saying, did they exist in Rome?
	No.
	So tampons are not real.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	Well, if we're doing this type of debate, I guess that's true.
	And the sky's purple, and I'm a 12-foot hippopotamus.
	We have some chats coming through.
	We have Flowerpot.
	Flowerpot 91 donated $100.
	You two just need to bang already.
	You are obviously secretly in love.
	I'm married.
	I think I'm in the middle of the moment.
	I'm also married.
	They're both married.
	Thank you, though, for the message, Flowerpot.
	We have Lucas here.
	He says, Dear God, is this the exemplar of today's U.S. education system?
	This woman is an amalgam of feckless vapidity combined with unearned high self-esteem.
	Do you want to respond to that, Kyla?
	Or?
	I'm Canadian.
	Huh?
	I'm Canadian.
	Oh, right.
	Even worse.
	There you go.
	All right.
	Actually, Canada is like one of the most competitive education systems.
	No, it's worse because it produces examples like this.
	We have Intel Wild.
	Thank you, Intel Wild.
	Intel Wild donated $100.
	Not so bright.
	You look like you have gained some weight lately.
	What the f?
	Yeah, I just finished my bulk cycle.
	So I'm about 15 pounds heavier than I am, and I'm about 120% more muscle than I want.
	And I started cutting two days ago.
	That has nothing to do with it.
	I'm answering why I'm fat right now.
	Are you building muscle bulk or fat bulk?
	No, no.
	I just said I gained 120% of the muscle that I'd ideally like to maintain after my career.
	That's why I said, is that part of your feminism regimen?
	Nope.
	It's just part of putting on muscle, which you would not know about, I guess.
	We have Giovanni $100.
	It's not too much to demand definition for the entire topic of the debate.
	A good faith debate is contingent on being charitable to the others' intention.
	Gay sophistry to secure W is lame a F. That's true.
	It is pretty gay.
	Is this direct?
	That's crazy.
	You knew that was about you.
	Oh, my God.
	Thank you.
	That's so fucking funny.
	Dude, you're so cringe right now.
	He's like, I know that's me.
	I'm doing the gay sophistry.
	That is so funny.
	Well, if any of you want to get a chat-in, it's $100 for a TTS at streamlabs.com.
	If you put in enough money, I'll wear a MA hat.
	Yeah, let me see where we're at on that.
	So we're at 17 of 50, so we need 33 more to hit the goal.
	We got about 40, 40, 45 minutes.
	You got to do 10 and over super chats over there on YouTube.
	Or if somebody does a champagne pop, we'll just do it right away.
	Is that like a big donation?
	Yeah, it's through Stream Labs.
	They have to, you know, they do it through Streamlabs.
	Or if we have Crystal here, they have to do one Ethereum.
	So that's another option.
	One Ethereum.
	One Ethereum for.
	How much is that worth now?
	It's like, I think $1,700, $1,800 last night.
	It's around there.
	Holy shit.
	It went down, but it's a little back up.
	You're high class.
	That's expensive.
	I've got some Crystal here if you guys want to get liquored up.
	So, okay.
	I would like to continue on a little bit with the debate here.
	Do you guys want to shift the prompt to we could talk about patriarchy specifically?
	Pick a word and we'll fight about the definition for another fourth.
	Do you guys want to talk about immigration or something?
	No.
	No.
	Not really.
	I didn't prep for immigration, so I wouldn't want to talk about immigration.
	I'm just, at least with a feminism-related topic.
	Trying to think here.
	Any suggestions?
	I mean, we could talk about whether or not you think it's biological or not that men have an innate role to lead or not.
	Because when you debated Jim Bob, you seem to think that soldiers are who puts on a costume.
	What?
	You said that a soldier is anyone that wears the costume of a soldier.
	I'm pretty sure I was making fun of Jim Bob when I said that.
	I don't know.
	You were arguing that there's no difference between a soldier who's a man and a soldier who's a woman because anybody who puts on the uniform becomes that.
	I feel like you must be citing Ken.
	I think Ken was somewhat equalizing the genders.
	What are you asking about?
	No, no, you were just asking about whether or not men should be the frontline soldiers.
	You and Jim Bob particularly.
	We're going back and forth.
	I'm fine with men being frontline soldiers.
	Why don't you just ask me a question?
	Rather than putting words in my mouth, just ask me what you want to ask.
	I did just ask you a question.
	I said, do you think that there's a gender or natural component that men have that makes them leaders and women not leaders in general?
	Yeah, to some degree.
	Yes.
	And then I think that gets reinforced culturally as well.
	What does that mean?
	What's the biological pieces?
	No, what do you mean when it's reinforced culturally?
	Like what?
	What is that?
	Multiple things.
	It would be multifactorial.
	So, okay.
	Fancy word, I know.
	I don't know big words.
	Go ahead.
	You do.
	I'm sure you know what my word is.
	No, I don't.
	I don't.
	What does multifactorial mean, Jay?
	Make your argument.
	Okay, sure.
	So when I say multifactorial in a cultural way, I mean things like epigenetics, right?
	So I think when we have a culture that reinforces certain things and makes people more successful as a result of those expressions, we'll also reinforce it through epigenetics.
	It'll turn them on more often.
	But also then it builds a cultural social identity of like what it means to be man.
	And that's both testosterone and neurochemical, but it's also slightly epigenetic, right?
	But it's also on top of that, it's things like culture in society and what we do.
	So there is a component that's biological that's genetic, but there's also a component that you think is cultural.
	Of course.
	Okay.
	So if it's natural and biological, why ought we put into place a position or a system that is counter to that?
	That would make that position or system unnatural.
	That's what I argued at the beginning, trying to make that point again.
	Because it's not just biological, right?
	But the fact that it's not just doesn't address the question that's being asked.
	Because by limiting people arbitrarily.
	That's a parse hole fallacy, by the way.
	Did you know that?
	Because by limiting people arbitrarily, I think you decrease yourself.
	It's not arbitrarily.
	It is arbitrarily.
	So, for example.
	You just admitted that there's a difference, so it wouldn't be arbitrary.
	It would be arbitrary.
	So, say, for example, well, you don't want to do ecological fallacies on me, right?
	So, if we have like a bell curve, right, of men and women, and men tend to be a little bit more extreme, and say we're selecting for a job that's purely repeating the first 20 minutes of this discussion and ignoring what I just asked you.
	If you want me to respond to you, I can.
	If you want to just like blow VHS, but you're not responding, you're just trying to 20 minutes.
	I'm trying to give you a response.
	It's not a response.
	Okay, I can just sit here and you can be like madam.
	Fallacy, fallacy.
	Or do you want me to respond?
	You can try.
	Okay.
	You sure?
	You're the leader here.
	Try.
	Okay.
	So at an individual level, right?
	I don't want a system that would limit any single individual from achieving higher levels than they can otherwise achieve.
	What?
	Why are you mad?
	It's just like talking to like a child.
	It's just okay.
	What word are you mad about?
	I know words are very sensitive for you.
	What justifies the position that you're arguing for that patriarchy should not be the norm, but feminism.
	I've never said that.
	Oh, my God.
	I've just, I've literally never said patriarchy.
	It's mutually exclusive.
	They're not mutually exclusive.
	Yes, they are.
	Feminism is a revolutionary.
	We live in a patriarchy and feminism exists.
	That doesn't mean that they're not mutually exclusive.
	That's a stupid argument.
	No, it's not.
	That's an appeal to the fact that it is so, then it must be good or must be right.
	I'm not saying that it's good or right.
	I'm saying that they both exist.
	The fact that they exist doesn't mean that the positions are coherent.
	They're just mutually exclusive.
	They can be ideological or epistemically incoherent, even if they exist at the same time.
	You don't know that?
	Okay.
	So how are they mutually exclusive, Jay?
	Because they're contrary positions.
	Patriarchy is an anti-feminist position.
	That's what I'm arguing.
	I would not agree with that, by and large.
	Do you think patriarchy just means that it wants to oppress and crush women?
	You admitted that feminism is a historical movement.
	All of its proponents are revolutionaries who wanted an egalitarian society and did not want a patriarchy.
	They're mutually exclusive.
	So you've redefined the position to be your own feminism that's not relevant to what we were debating.
	I don't have to argue for those women.
	I don't think that they're mutually exclusive.
	But your position is stupid then because it's an ambiguous position that's just anything that you subjectively think helps women.
	Nope.
	I just don't think that.
	Nope.
	Yep.
	I don't think that feminism is doing a good job by just dismantling patriarchy unless the patriarchy is enforced.
	We haven't heard why feminism is good other than GDP.
	That's because you didn't give an argument.
	You just said GDP.
	You're just sibling over words.
	You said GDP.
	You didn't give an awful.
	And then you got like super.
	Epistemic.
	I called you out on aught.
	Which you can't do.
	I will use literally any fucking word because I know you really love words to try to get it.
	It's crazy.
	Why ought we have to say that?
	Why ought we have to be afraid of that?
	She can't tell us why we ought to have feminists.
	She can't give them a chatter.
	What's the ought?
	I don't even want to go there because you don't have an argument.
	No, because you can't engage with me because you get so personic.
	What is the argument that feminism is right for society?
	It is beneficial to society because it improves innovator skill.
	It allows more people to be able to get to the business.
	So GDP again.
	Yes, GDP is one of the things that we're doing.
	And why are we supposed to think that's the good?
	Because I think it is morally good to allow.
	You think that.
	Why is that the good?
	Because I believe that it is good.
	Oh, so it's you subjectively saying because it's the good.
	No, I'm a divine command theorist.
	But when we went to God, God didn't ever give us a feminist society.
	Yeah, but I don't think that.
	Actually, I think we by my definition of feminism, we both agreed that ancient Judeo-Christian Christianity was feminist.
	No.
	And then you're like, moving the doorpost.
	Never mind.
	Feminism is not that thing anymore.
	It's not moving the goalpost.
	It's not moving the goalpost in any way, shape, or form.
	have had you admitted that the society of the fucking you admitted the society you just don't like no you have an elastic broad definition that you allowed to specify it as much as possible Monarchy in a patriarchal society in ancient Israel.
	That doesn't help feminism.
	That's not your position.
	Absolutely.
	There's no feminism then.
	Because it gave women rights to owning.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	Yes, it is.
	Feminism is a modern revolutionary movement, you idiot.
	It's not an ancient movement.
	This is unironically right because the Civil Rights Act didn't exist.
	You're debating feminism, which you said is a historical movement.
	You said it's a historical movement.
	I agreed, but that I, yes, it's a historical movement.
	So it's not an ancient civilizational movement.
	It's a construct of movement.
	It's a modern revolutionary social movement.
	That doesn't matter.
	That doesn't mean that it doesn't mean that.
	She just lost the debate again for the fourth time.
	This guy just lost four times in a row because he didn't even know that there are four waves of feminism.
	And he just kept on going, but there's three, but there's three.
	Yeah, if there's four, there's also three.
	That's a point I'm making in terms of stupid argument.
	No, it's not.
	Yes, it is.
	There's still three if there's four.
	You just know that.
	There's also two, and there's also one.
	Chat, he didn't know.
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter how many.
	I don't mind.
	I don't care about that.
	History matters, but it doesn't matter that there's four waves.
	But history matters, but it doesn't matter that there's four waves.
	No, there was three, so it doesn't matter that there was four.
	You're not defending your position.
	She doesn't even listen.
	There's nothing to listen to.
	Like, you're literally just like, you're doing a lot of things.
	But you literally didn't know that.
	You said that you're a relativist.
	Yes.
	You just said that it's your definition and you're the source of your argumentation.
	I'm sorry.
	That means you lost the debate because you can't appeal to anything outside of yourself.
	That's not true.
	Again, if you want to do Agrippa's dilemma, you're just falling into dogmatism.
	Dogmatism's stupid too.
	No.
	Infinite regression.
	I do internal critiques.
	I do world critiques.
	How do you solve infinite regression and dogmatism?
	Because I don't know.
	As in your worldview, how do you solve them?
	How do you solve Tragrippa's dilemma?
	How do you do it?
	Because I'm not a foundationalist.
	All axioms are circular, fundamentally.
	All axioms.
	That's my position.
	I know.
	Yeah.
	That's why I'm in epistemic holist.
	How do you solve that?
	By worldview apologetics.
	None of these things matter.
	It's all circular, anyways.
	No, not everything is circular.
	How do you solve that?
	Fundamentals.
	Why are you yapping if you don't want to know the answer?
	I'm just doing what you're doing.
	I'm not going to lie.
	I just, I've put on the clothing of Jay, okay?
	I'm performing now.
	I don't have the good of hair, though.
	Or sunglasses.
	I don't have as good of hair to perform as Jay.
	Or sunglasses.
	Okay.
	Keep answering.
	I'll keep doing it.
	Watch.
	So there's a difference between something being circular at a normative level versus paradigm, fundamental, epistemic holism.
	Aren't actions all circular, though, Jay?
	Didn't you just agree to that like two minutes ago?
	See, he's contradicting himself.
	He doesn't even know what he's talking about.
	This is crazy.
	I just won the debate.
	Yep, yep, yep.
	Sperg, Spergs, Berg.
	Yeah, doing exactly what you do.
	That's true.
	All right, we have a couple chats.
	We have Dank Naked with the 50.
	Thank you for the soup chat.
	Kat, thank you for the soup chat.
	We have Lucas again.
	Yes, dear, what this chatter says, parentheses, yours truly, is indeed true.
	I'm on my firm's associate hiring committee.
	I would describe you as a quote-unquote mediocrity, but in all candor, even that would be gross hyperbole.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	Response to Lucas or no?
	Lucas, does your girlfriend know that you masturbate to bullying women online?
	Because I don't know if she'd like that.
	She might be watching with him.
	Maybe they both wrote this together.
	Thank you, Lucas, for the soup chat.
	I do appreciate it.
	We have two chats coming in here through Streamlabs.
	One moment.
	Have the great one sec, guys.
	It is loading.
	Every day I'm struggling says, asks this.
	Every day I'm struggling donated $100.
	Not so erudite, what is the ontology of logic from your worldview?
	Are ethics universal?
	Do you want to respond to that?
	I'm a divine command theorist.
	I believe that God is fundamentally relative in how he approaches things, and I do my best to use exegesis, isegesis, and divine revelation to understand what God's will is and to enact that in my life and understand.
	Pure gibberish.
	So there's no such thing as divine command theory that is relative.
	Yep, you found one.
	Pure gibberish.
	Cali, can I?
	You just scoot your microphone to the edge of the table there.
	Perfect.
	And then we have Intel Wild.
	Hold on, let me read this before.
	Probably shouldn't read it if you're cringing that hard already.
	It's...
	It pertains to destiny.
	And like my sexuality?
	No.
	Is that relative or is that part of objective morals?
	Is it circular when you ask that question, or is it part of like your absolute morality?
	Do you know what you're even talking about?
	What is your opinion on destiny allegedly recording your good friend having sex without her consent?
	And why not?
	I mean, it's off topic, Intel, but if you want to.
	Yeah, if he did that, it's bad.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Thank you, Intel Wild.
	Guys, $100 TTS if you want to get a message in here.
	If you're enjoying the stream, you can also support VFMO Cash App.
	They don't take any cut like how YouTube and Streamlabs.
	And apparently, also, you guys, do you stream on YouTube at all?
	So apparently, I don't know if you know this.
	So YouTube takes 30% cut.
	It's up to 45% if it's below $10.
	Wait, really?
	Yeah.
	Here's the other thing, though.
	If they're using an iPhone or another Apple device and they use the YouTube app to send it in, Apple takes 30% first.
	So if somebody donates, for example, they send in a $200 super chat.
	You're going to be left with $98 of the $200 super chat.
	So they take a lot.
	Take a lot.
	Just, you know, for those of you who support Kyla or you support Jay here, just consider sending it through either Streamlabs or some other method.
	And then if you're enjoying the stream, guys, like the video.
	Also, if you guys are watching on Twitch, drop us a follow on the Prime Sub if you have one.
	Thank you guys.
	Shall we get back to the debate?
	We have maybe about another 30 minutes or so.
	Sure.
	Jay can just pick a word to define and then prattle about it.
	Actually, could you give me the history of a word?
	You asked me for the definition.
	So I don't know what you're talking about, me prattling over the words when you asked for the definition.
	I asked for definitions and you prattled for 30 minutes.
	No, I gave you definitions connected to the historical.
	No, you didn't do anything but talk yourself into oblivion.
	I pulled it out of your head.
	You didn't do anything.
	No.
	We did it.
	So you haven't explained why this is.
	I'm sorry.
	Hold on.
	I'm going back to the bottom.
	We've been circling this.
	Let's go.
	But you haven't explained.
	Just for content.
	Can you restate what your argument is as to why it's good other than GDP?
	Is that your only argument?
	I also believe that it is good because I think it is a liberal value to give people free.
	Why are liberal values good?
	I think it leads to the highest level of flourishing within a society.
	Okay, so it's a circle.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	Good job.
	All axioms are circular.
	Good job.
	No, no, no.
	They're not all circular.
	Yes.
	I'm not a foundationalist.
	They are circular.
	Right, but I'm not a foundationalist.
	It doesn't matter.
	All axioms are circular.
	Not everything.
	No, listen.
	God is good.
	How do you know that all axioms are circular?
	It's fundamental.
	It's fundamental to philosophy.
	Can I just claim that it's fundamental?
	Does that make it so?
	This is like being like, how do you know?
	Correct.
	Yeah, it's called epistemology.
	Is the probability factor?
	It's like epistemology.
	That's what it is.
	It's called epistemology.
	So what's the justification for that?
	For which?
	That all axioms are circular.
	Because they're foundational.
	They're foundational ideas.
	That would mean that they're circular, right?
	So that's a circle.
	So your argument for how you know that is that it's a circle.
	I'm saying, no, what I'm saying is when you refute, when you refute my claim by going, I'm asking you.
	All axioms are circular.
	How do you know that is what I'm asking?
	It's foundational.
	It's just like basic.
	Okay, so basic presupposition.
	You understand?
	You don't even know what a presupposition is, what presuppositions are.
	No, you don't.
	Because if you can do that in a debate, that means I can do that in the debate.
	So there's no debate possible.
	I can just say all of my beliefs and my positions are foundational and axiomatic.
	It's almost like I said I could grip a trilemma you too, and then it would be stupid.
	That's not what we're talking about.
	That's exactly what we're talking about.
	Tell me what an epistemic is.
	Typically, when we engage in debates, we grab the level of normativity of each other's world so that we can ask you.
	What is an epistemic justification?
	I don't know.
	Define it for me, Jay.
	Well, I thought you knew all about philosophy.
	No, you've been teaching me.
	No, you told me.
	You said you were going to instruct me in philosophy.
	I'm really dumb.
	Just tell me.
	You said earlier that you knew philosophy, so what is epistemic justification?
	I'm pretty sure I never said that I knew philosophy.
	No, you did.
	You said I knew nothing.
	I knew no fallacy.
	I laughed and said it's insane to me that you have a philosophy degree because I'm assuming you know philosophy, but you don't know multiple fallacies.
	And you unironically are trying to say that the optimists are not aware of the problem.
	So you're male.
	I'm sorry that you're having a hard time, but this is how we do debates.
	Okay.
	What's the argument for feminism other than GDP?
	And it's just good and it's liberal?
	Okay.
	So do you understand that I can then come to the debate and say that it's good because it's not liberal.
	Okay, and then I would say, why do you not value liberalism?
	You're missing the point.
	Why do you not value liberalism?
	It's not...
	That's not an argument.
	I think liberalism leads to higher levels of cursing based on every single statistical norm that we have that exists out there.
	That's what I value.
	I think that when people are doing that.
	The fact that you value liberalism happier, healthier, wholeer, better.
	The fact that you value that doesn't make it an argument.
	That's the point.
	I believe that God wants us to be happy, healthy.
	Just appealing to that doesn't do anything for your case.
	I'm telling you, Jay, there's nothing I can say that you're not going to be circular.
	Because you're not making an argument, correct?
	That's what I'm saying.
	You're unwilling to grant any level of normal are not arguments.
	Okay.
	Yeah, in a debate, I'm not going to grant you normatively.
	I've made assertions.
	I've supplied evidence for it, and then you've just gone, it's circular.
	No, you're the one that's like losing it.
	No, I've said GDP.
	I said flourishing is good because it improves.
	Why is that the good?
	I believe that it is good because I think the fact that you believe that doesn't make it.
	Because I think that God wants us to be happy, healthy, whole, and good people.
	And I think that liberal societies.
	You haven't demonstrated that those things are.
	I think that liberal societies produce all of those outcomes to the highest level.
	That doesn't mean that I think that God is a liberal by any means.
	God is so much more and beyond all of that.
	But I think by and large, the liberal system is the greatest.
	Then he would be a liberal.
	God is so much bigger than any label or construct that any human can apply to him.
	I don't even know why you're saying that.
	Because it's a dumb argument.
	You're right.
	It would be a dumb argument for me to apply any political fucking label to the omnipotent.
	You just said that liberal societies are good.
	That's what you appeal to in terms of divine command theory.
	So that would make God illiberal.
	No, it wouldn't at all.
	Because I'm sure you can conceive of a world.
	I'm sure you can conceive of a world where God is more than any political system.
	Just saying God's more does my best possible.
	If I promote liberalism, then I'm a liberal.
	I don't see anything.
	So you have conflicting positions.
	I think liberalism strikes as close to it.
	No, not at all.
	You're just not engaging with it.
	You literally can't think through your own arguments.
	You can't.
	You actually can't understand that.
	You said that liberal society is what God wants, but God's not a person.
	I didn't say that.
	I didn't say that.
	I said that what God wants is for people to be happy, healthy, whole.
	That's your liberal society.
	I think a liberal society leads us towards that.
	The best that we have created so far.
	And God wants a liberal society.
	I'm sure that God wants something more for us than that.
	That's a part-to-fallacy.
	No, it's not.
	No, it's not.
	The fact that he wants it more doesn't mean that he doesn't want the liberalism.
	No.
	God is not afraid to follow an argument.
	No, God is not a liberal.
	I'm not applying.
	Your own position would mean he is.
	No, it wouldn't.
	I already know.
	No, Jay, I've already said that God is.
	The fact that he's more doesn't mean that he's not promoting the liberalism that you just argued he does.
	Okay, Jay, can you summarize my argument in any way?
	It's not, there's no argument.
	It's literally child yapping.
	It's like a three-year-old.
	Then it should be really easy.
	There is no argument to summarize.
	Summarize it.
	Anyway.
	Happy, healthy, whole, flourishing society is liberal, and that's what God wants.
	Therefore, God's a liberal.
	No, none of these are my arguments.
	It would follow.
	No, it wouldn't.
	That's literally what you just said.
	No.
	You said God wants a liberal society.
	I said it's the closest approximation to what I think God wants.
	Then he wants that.
	No, he probably wants something more for us than that.
	Then it's still part of that.
	No, it's not.
	It's possible that it's fucking 200 gives you a whole debate.
	You've misunderstood what part-whole fallacies are.
	When you go home, I want you to get on your computer and I want you to watch a few talks on what a parts-hole fallacy is because you've made that multiple times.
	And I want you to look up what an ad hole is.
	No, but I'm actually telling you how you would do battle.
	I know you don't understand right now because you're in your emotions because you're an ecological fallacy.
	I'm not losing.
	You're just not engaging.
	You're losing it because you don't know what you're saying.
	It's just endless.
	Like, if you don't want to engage with that.
	So you would be a better debater if you knew what a parts hole fallacy was.
	I'm trying to help you.
	I'd be a better debate.
	I'm trying to help you.
	If you could even slightly engage in my normativity so that we could have a conversation.
	I'm not going to grant you that.
	It's a debate.
	The way that you think about how debates work to basically.
	She wants me to grant her her position in the debate.
	Yes.
	Typically, when you engage.
	No, no, yes, yes, yes.
	So debates work by granting positions.
	This is what she thinks.
	You grant one another's normativity framework.
	No, you don't.
	Yes, you do.
	You don't.
	Yes, you do.
	You grant that.
	Then you end up at Agrippa's Trilemma.
	No, you end up at you floundering and losing your mind and flaming out.
	Flaming out.
	Why does God want the world that you want?
	I can make that argument.
	Make it.
	My worldview is coherent.
	It makes sense.
	Why does God want?
	All of history has been patriarchal societies in terms of Christian and Old Testament Hebrew revelation.
	How do you know that God wants that, though?
	By your own argument, you argue that it's divine command theory in the Old Testament.
	So you already admitted it's patriarchal.
	What's the worst value?
	What God value is coming out of that?
	God, the Father, is a patriarch.
	God wants patriarchy specifically?
	The Father is a patriarch.
	Because he's a patriarch.
	So, oh, isn't that a little circular?
	I don't have a problem with circular arguments.
	Oh, interesting.
	Okay, so God wants a patriarchy because he's a patriarch, therefore God is good, and patriarchy is good because God is a patriarch.
	That's a really nice circle.
	See how we can just end up in Agrippa's trilema together and it's stupid.
	So instead.
	There's a difference between.
	Instead, what I do is I will just grant you elements of your will so that we can engage in the films.
	No.
	I'm a presuppositionalist.
	That's why I don't grant your position.
	This is probably why you're a really annoying person to debate.
	And that's why I know you're not 15 years, but you think that you're five years.
	You're not winning.
	You're not winning by just engaging in Agrippa's trilemma.
	All you're doing is.
	You don't even understand the debate.
	Yes, I do.
	No, you don't.
	What's up?
	You don't understand what a paradigm level critique is.
	You know what a critique is?
	You don't understand what a paradigm-level critique is.
	Before I keep going, can you define a paradigm?
	You don't understand what a paradigm-level critique is.
	What's Agrippa's trilemma?
	I'm not going to answer your questions because you don't know what a paradigm-level critique is.
	Okay, well, how is anyone?
	Why would that happen to me?
	Where is the proof for feminism?
	What's Agrippa's critique?
	Where is the proof for feminism?
	What's Agrippa's trilemma?
	Where is the proof for feminism?
	I gave you multiple pieces of evidence.
	So you don't have an argument for feminism for evidence.
	No, evidences are not arguments.
	Evidences are arguments.
	No, they're not.
	Yes, they are.
	No, you are not.
	Yes, they are.
	Evidence is backup arguments, you idiot.
	An evidence is not an argument.
	Yes, you use.
	Oh, my God.
	You're so.
	So, evidence is not an argument.
	It backs up.
	That's Agrippa's trilemma.
	An evidence is not an argument.
	You use evidences supports arguments, you moron.
	Wow, you're so smart, Jake.
	You really got me with that one.
	You literally got me with that one, bro.
	The argument for feminism.
	What's Agrippa's trilema?
	What's the argument for feminism?
	What's Agrippa's trilemma?
	What's the argument for feminism?
	I've made it multiple times.
	You gave evidence is not a trilema.
	Just because you don't like it, not an argument.
	What's Agrippa's trilemma?
	You gave evidences, not an argument.
	My argument is supplied by the evidences.
	It is good for society.
	That's my argument.
	And I said, what's the good?
	That relies on the good, which is what?
	Flourishing, happiness, well-being.
	And God's a liberal.
	God's a liberal because he wants a liberal society.
	God is a liberal.
	I said, of course, God is so much more than anything we could ever apply a construct to because I'm not a fucking heretic.
	Are you crazy?
	I would never apply.
	You don't see the divorce between those two.
	I would never apply.
	I'm sorry.
	It's like talking to a woman.
	God is sacred to me.
	I would never apply a label to God ever about anything either.
	So he wants a liberal society, but he's not a liberalist.
	Even my own.
	So he wants a liberal society, but he's not liberal.
	He wants so much more.
	That's a parcel of fallacy, you idiot.
	That doesn't matter.
	Oh, fallacies don't matter.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	When you abuse them incorrectly, yeah, they don't really matter.
	Do you think that God is any political system?
	What political system do you think God wants?
	Yeah, I think God wants a patriarchy.
	Patriarchy is in a political system.
	It's a hierarchical system.
	It's to a political system.
	That doesn't matter.
	There's patriarchies in democracies.
	There's a monarchy in the Old Testament.
	So God wants a monarchy?
	Yeah.
	He was a patriarchal deity.
	Oh.
	Has Christianity had anything but monarchies for the last time?
	You are comfortable capturing the entire visage of God in a single political system.
	You're comfortable with that.
	Did I say his visage is encaptioned?
	You said that God wants a monarchy, so God's a monarchist?
	Correct.
	Wow.
	That's crazy.
	Patriarchal.
	I'm not heretical like that.
	I don't know what to tell you.
	Heretical.
	Yes.
	I would never apply.
	I know.
	You have no idea what heresy even is.
	Okay.
	What's Agrippa's trilema?
	Do you want to answer that?
	What is an Orthodox Protestant, first of all?
	The thing that you made up and put in your bio?
	What is that?
	It's a branch of theology that is postmodern and it more or less tries to engage with the heresy.
	Postmodernism is heresy.
	That's not heresy.
	Yes, it is.
	Yeah.
	It has nothing to do with Christianity.
	I'm sorry if you're not afraid of the people.
	Can you name any Bible in the way that it was written in the world?
	Can you name any Christians in history that were postmodernists?
	The original ones, yeah.
	Really?
	Like Paul?
	Yeah.
	Paul was a postmodernist.
	Yeah.
	So a 20th century philosophy that developed out of France.
	Paul was a postmodernist.
	This is how stupid you are.
	You have no clue what you're talking about.
	So how did you think about it?
	You're a total suit.
	How did Paul engage in the world?
	Did you think that because you knew destiny and just yapping really fast that you would be a good debater?
	How could Paul be a postmodernist?
	Do you want me to answer that question?
	Was Paul talking to Derrida?
	Was he talking to Derrida?
	Remember how?
	Just because they weren't invented yet doesn't mean that you can't apply it.
	I have no idea what you're talking about.
	Now you're making my argument.
	Think of my argument.
	You were admitting my argument two hours ago.
	No.
	Good job.
	You just lost again.
	Wow.
	This is crazy.
	I won.
	He just made weird noises.
	What's Agrippa's trilemma?
	You don't know.
	You're avoiding this because you have no idea.
	What's your argument for feminism?
	What's Agrippa's trilemma?
	What's your argument for feminism?
	I haven't heard anything other than way more than GDP at this point.
	Why is GDP?
	What's Agrippa's trilemma?
	You said God's a liberal, is what you said.
	What's Agrippa's trilemma?
	Why is God a liberal?
	I don't know why you can't answer this.
	Why is God a liberal?
	I've never applied that.
	That's your straw manager.
	Why is God a liberal?
	Why are you strawmanning me?
	Why is God a liberal?
	Why are you strawmanning me?
	You said that he wants a liberal society.
	Nope.
	Therefore he's not a man.
	I never said that.
	Yes, you did.
	Now you're lying again.
	Nope.
	You said 30 minutes ago he wants a liberal society.
	I said it's the closest approximation to something that God wants.
	Then he wants that.
	No, he would want so much more for us.
	The fact that he wants more doesn't mean he doesn't want that if he's pushing that.
	You just argued from divine command theory, that's what he wants.
	No.
	Yes, you did.
	No, he wants more.
	Yes, you did.
	No.
	The fact that he wants more than that doesn't mean that he doesn't want that.
	No.
	It's part of the more.
	Do you think he wants more than monarchy?
	It doesn't matter to the argument.
	Does he end it?
	So you can't do a parts-hole fallacy.
	Does he?
	It's a parts-hole fallacy.
	If you want to do a fallacy game again, tell me what Agrippa's trilema is.
	I'm not answering any of your objections.
	It's because he doesn't just so just so you're aware.
	He just trilema is really important to understand.
	Anytime a person tries to hit you with this circular, like normative, like no argument you made.
	You're not even doing that.
	What you have to hit them back with is essentially Agrippa's trilemma, which is a very important thing.
	She's just repeating what she heard destiny.
	She's just repeating some bullshit from Destiny.
	I don't think I've ever heard him ever talk about it.
	What's the argument for feminism other than GDP and God liberalism?
	Also, when you're dealing with people who just constantly fall back.
	None of this stuff makes any sense.
	Agrippa's trilemma basically points out that every single argument fundamentally at like a foundational level never truly makes sense.
	There's some level of like ambiguous lack of up here.
	I'm thinking there's nobody up there.
	I'm right here.
	Why are you wearing a silly shirt?
	How come you have to close your eyes?
	Why do you have floaters in your eyes?
	It's so stupid that.
	Yeah, it's stupid.
	It's stupid.
	I'm not saying it's a sick burn.
	I'm pointing out how silly your behavior is.
	So do you want to engage in Agrippa's trilemma?
	Because then you and I can just do turtles all the way down if you want to.
	Which is part of Agrippa's trilempers.
	You don't even understand.
	He doesn't know what it is, and he won't divide it.
	He's just going to run away forever.
	I don't accept the infinite regress at all.
	Oh, wow.
	How do you do that?
	How do I do that?
	I don't have that philosophical system.
	But how do you solve it?
	It's not a philosophical system.
	Infinite regress is not a philosophical system.
	It's a foundational issue to every single philosophical system.
	I'm aware of that.
	I'm a presuppositionalist.
	I know how that works.
	Right, so there's always a why behind your presuppositions, right?
	What does that have to do with it?
	That's what infinite regress is.
	Yeah, there's a why behind it.
	That's what an infinite regress is.
	You're not going to convince anyone in the audience that you're trumping me here.
	Because also.
	You say that, but he still won't define it.
	Every time I try to answer, you just keep yapping at me.
	Yeah, it's only me that's interrupting.
	You're right.
	You don't shut up when you ask the questions.
	I have a worldview view of apologetics and debate.
	Okay.
	It's epistemic holism.
	I said that like 10 times earlier, which you didn't hear, it didn't register with you.
	So I'm not subject to a position that's a foundationalist critique.
	Okay?
	I'm not an epistemic foundationalist.
	So that doesn't apply to me.
	I don't have that system.
	Wow, you've solved Agrippa's trilemma?
	Yes, because I'm not in that system.
	That's crazy.
	That's not possible.
	Just over here.
	That is impossible.
	Tell me what a presuppositional argument is, since you're saying that this is my position.
	What is it?
	A presuppositional argument is where you have like a presupposing of God.
	Like God is a presuppositional argument.
	There's some foundational initial cause, and everything kind of comes from that.
	No, that's the cosmological argument.
	That's not the presuppositional argument.
	Okay, why don't you tell me what it is?
	It's just simply an epistemic position that all arguments at root are circular.
	Not every argument, but foundational commitments in a worldview are circular.
	So my fundamental commitment to God or to teleology or to causation or to morals or ethics is going to be self-referencing to God.
	But not all arguments and positions are circular.
	So the trilemma or the problem or whatever you're giving to me doesn't apply to my position.
	How do you solve dogmatism with that?
	All positions are dogmatic.
	And so coherentism, coherentism is the solution that you're looking for.
	True.
	Okay, so you solve yourself.
	Coherentism is the solution that you're looking for.
	Gotcha.
	Okay.
	Can you tell me what that is?
	Coherentism would be like something's consistent all the way through.
	Correct.
	Yeah.
	So I'm a coherent.
	So I get like a head hat.
	I'm a coherentist.
	There's the answer to your question.
	I'm not a foundationalist.
	Gotcha.
	You're a foundationalist.
	That's why I didn't grant you the normativity at the beginning of the debate.
	Gotcha.
	Well, you know what?
	If he's going to answer for me, then I honestly probably don't need to be here.
	You could just make my arguments for me.
	There's no point.
	Answering your question that you asked me.
	You said, How do I solve these dilemmas?
	And I gave you the answer.
	Here's the difference, right?
	You just don't like the answer.
	No, I'm just willing to grant you your worldview.
	I'm fine with that.
	I don't do that in debates.
	You have to.
	Otherwise, you end up.
	You don't grant a person the cohesion.
	Otherwise, you end up at dogmatism, and I end up at infinite regression.
	That's why I did an internal critique.
	Okay.
	That has to do with coherentism.
	Yeah.
	The problem with dogmatism is that it's circular, and the problem with infinite regress is it fundamentally is circular.
	All positions are dogmatic at root, is what I'm arguing.
	So it's a question of coherence.
	Which is why you allow coherence and why your position is incoherent.
	Why you grant some level of normativity?
	No, you don't.
	Yes, you do.
	No, you don't.
	You must.
	You don't understand debate.
	The issue is that my positions are coherent as well.
	I think of them.
	Yes, they are.
	They're just coherent in your head because they're self-referencing your own.
	You just don't like it.
	You literally grounded it in your own subjective.
	That's not an argument.
	Why aren't you making an argument?
	What?
	What do you mean?
	You're not making an argument.
	You appeal to yourself.
	What do you mean?
	That's not true.
	I'm a divine command theorist.
	Were you not listening?
	You saying that is not an argument.
	Your argument.
	That's not an argument either.
	That's a two-quo quay.
	What's your position?
	That's a two-quo-quay.
	That's not a two-quo quay.
	How is it not?
	Because a two-quo-quay is an ad hom based on hypocrisy.
	I didn't accuse you of hypocrisy.
	You said that's your position.
	You just literally just did that.
	She knew that.
	Oh, no.
	You used a fallacy wrong again.
	You literally just said that to me.
	I'm realizing that to debate Jay, I just have to memorize every single fallacy because I think you use them all.
	You're not going to use Faust analogy incorrectly.
	No, I didn't.
	You have a two-quo-quay incorrectly.
	You made the false analogy, you idiot.
	No.
	No.
	You made the false analogy.
	You engage in an ecological fallacy.
	You made the false analogy, and then you misstated what my argument was because you can't follow it.
	The key to debating Jay is memorizing lists of fallacies.
	Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the laws of thought.
	He uses that.
	The laws of thought matter in a debate.
	I'm pretty sure.
	You knew that.
	I'm pretty sure the laws of thought matter in a debate.
	Were you misciting two quo quay intentionally?
	I didn't cite it wrong.
	I cited it correctly.
	No.
	You literally just turned it back and said, Will you do this?
	That's not a two-quality question.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy.
	Yes, you did.
	No, I did.
	You said that I was making the same argument.
	That's not a two-quo quay.
	Yes, it is.
	You're calling me hypocritical.
	That's not hypocrisy.
	I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy.
	Hypocrisy would be if you say one thing and then do a different thing.
	Like if you're like, don't smoke.
	And I'm like, but you're smoking, Jay.
	That would be a two-quo-quay.
	Don't smoke is a completely valid argument, regardless of whether you smoke or not.
	I don't know what you're yapping about.
	That's crazy.
	You just actually cite fallacies incorrectly.
	No.
	And then you hope that your opponent does.
	You have a foul-level understanding of what the definition is at a website.
	That's fine.
	And what you did is that it's not a problem.
	That's an ecological fallacy.
	So here we go again.
	You can't even talk like a normal person.
	Neither can you.
	You literally lose your mind rolling your eyes.
	Where are you looking right now?
	You're basically having like an epileptic episode trying to debate because you can't handle a normal conversation.
	So I started very good faith.
	Where are you looking right now, Jay?
	Directly at you.
	Why?
	Why are you doing that?
	Because normal people look at people.
	They don't stare up into the sky and have that blood excellent.
	Oh, yeah, you're right.
	She's so wrong because you looked into the sky.
	Got him.
	No, you're just yapping and you don't even understand the things you're talking about.
	I am literally, I don't know.
	So, chat, just so you guys realize, what I've done for the last hour is unironically just employed J-isms back at him for an hour straight.
	That's what I've been doing.
	So her.
	So if it sounds really, really stupid.
	Her tactic was to not actually debate, but to just mimic men.
	There's no way to debate.
	Which is interesting when you won't, when you're relying on an emotional dilemma.
	Women basically just mimic men.
	And the moment that somebody's in the middle of the day, the moment that somebody falls back on like basically circular reasoning and just insisting that you were talking about that.
	There's an impact.
	There's just no way to talk about these things.
	So instead, all I opted to do for the last like hour and a half is your behavior.
	There's no one over here.
	I'm looking at the camera.
	But you know, you're looking at the wall.
	Jay, I don't know why you're so having an epileptic episode.
	Why are you worried about that?
	Do you need a medicine for the epilepsy?
	Why are you worried about where I'm looking?
	This is funny.
	Because you can't.
	I'm not even sure that.
	You can't have a conversation.
	I can look in the person's eyes.
	Yes.
	When I think I look up.
	Good for you.
	Good point.
	Got them.
	Destroyed.
	What is the argument for feminism other than GDP?
	Is that it?
	I believe that it's good for society because it leads to overall flourishing.
	Which was economic.
	Well-being.
	What does that mean?
	Well-being typically is measured by positive mental health, some level of eudaimonic expression, and some level of self-report of eudaimonic expression.
	It also leads to things like less missed work, greater social connections, greater access to opportunities, all sorts of things that I think are broadly good for society, leads to better outcomes, leads to happier people.
	And I think by and large, God doesn't want us to be punished arbitrarily for no reason.
	So I think he more or less wants a society that allows us to express in the way that we want to.
	Which is a liberal society.
	There's probably multiple societies that would allow this in the future, not just a liberal one.
	Does he want a liberal one right now?
	I don't know.
	But earlier you argued that it was God wanting to do it.
	I hope so.
	Yeah, I hope so.
	I believe so.
	But now you don't know.
	You said God earlier, divine command theory, now you don't know.
	So which one is it?
	Well, it's both, right?
	Because I don't know.
	It's both I don't know and divine command theory.
	Yeah, I'm not like when it comes to my faith, I try to answer.
	Well, you contradict it.
	Well, to some degree, yeah, I think there's a paradox.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, there's a paradox.
	There's a paradox of faith that you have to hold where you're signing up.
	A paradox is not a contradiction.
	They're two different things.
	Did you know that?
	That's true.
	It's almost like I'm doing it.
	So now you're appealing to a paradox to get up to the forest.
	Do you want me to answer you?
	Okay, do you want me to answer you?
	Please contradict the way.
	Okay, so I think when it comes to things like my faith, I try to engage in some level of epistemic humility where I both do my best to understand what God wants through divine command theory, through exegesis, esegesis, and divine revelation.
	However, at the same time, I maintain a level of epistemic humility of recognizing that I could be wrong about the infinite God.
	Which is why I said, I don't know, but I hope so.
	So the appeal to divine command theory actually doesn't work.
	No, it does work.
	Not to ground your position.
	Sure, it does.
	How?
	Because I'm using exegesis, eisegesis, and divine revelation to try to understand.
	That's executes doesn't mean that it actually works for an argument.
	It does work for an argument.
	It's rattling out the terms.
	What's exegesis?
	That is looking at a text and getting out of the text what it means.
	Isogeses.
	And what's isegesis?
	It's reading into the text.
	Yeah, and what's eisegesis?
	Eisegesis is reading into the text.
	And then what's divine revelation?
	All the teachings of Christ contained in scripture and tradition, in our view.
	And I'm sure you would agree that these are typically the three things taught in most theological schools that you should utilize to try to understand what God's will is and what his principles are.
	But that doesn't mean that you have an argument because you're appealing to what's taught in seminaries.
	That's what I'm trying to get you to do.
	My argument is based on divine command theory, and I use exegesis, isgesis, and to try to understand what I think God wants.
	And then I try to apply that to the world.
	Yeah, but I'm not telling you why it's not a good argument.
	If it's coherent, you just don't want to.
	No, it's not because you just said that I don't know if it's right.
	And so I can't appeal to the divine coin.
	Do you know exactly what God wants in all ways?
	You just know all of God.
	And now it's not divine command theory.
	Of course it is.
	But you don't know what God wants.
	I do my best.
	Do you think that you know?
	Do you know what he wants or not?
	I think so, yeah.
	That's what faith is, right?
	You think so?
	Yeah.
	Was that an argument?
	That's an honest response to my relationship with Christ.
	Are you like that?
	But how is that an argument?
	Confident that you know what God wants?
	How is that an argument?
	Are you 100% confident that you know what God wants?
	My subjective state of confidence doesn't matter about an argument or not.
	Do you think that you know 100% what God wants?
	This is the problem is that you think that your subjective state of argumentation or of being convinced relates to an argument and doesn't.
	Nope, not at all.
	Do you think that you know what God wants?
	Yeah, sure.
	Oh, so would you say that you're using your subjective state to interpret the world around you?
	Do you think that because everyone has a subjective state that everything is subjective?
	Nope, I don't.
	Okay, so then there's your answer.
	Okay, interesting.
	So I also would agree that just because I'm using my best interpretation, it doesn't mean that it's subjective because I'm using things like exegesis.
	Exegesis is not subjective as much as possible, right?
	You're using ancient tomes, you're looking at Greek literatures, you're listening to rabbis and the original readers of the language to try to understand what like Exodus means, right?
	That's exegesis.
	And so that is not subjective.
	Ideally, ideally, the goal is to be as less subjective as possible.
	That would make my point that it's not subjective.
	And so you are appealing to something that you claim to know.
	But then eisegesis is reading into it as well, which we have.
	What does that have to do with this?
	Because that's the level of like self-interpretation that every single Christian is doing.
	In fact, you're doing to try to understand your divine command theory.
	What does this have to do with proving your argument?
	Pointing out that we're doing the same thing.
	But that doesn't mean you're getting to the same conclusions or it's a good argument.
	You're right.
	We do come to different conclusions.
	But that doesn't mean that mine is somehow.
	How does this relate to your argument?
	Because we're using the same thing.
	So what?
	So the use of the thing has nothing to do with it.
	And you're using your own logic to establish why I am being co-conference.
	I want to know your argument.
	I've already.
	You're just saying that I use these things.
	I've already done it.
	Good job.
	How is that an argument?
	It's an argument.
	It's not.
	It is.
	Using the things is the argument.
	No, it's not.
	My argument is that feminism is good because it does a number of things, which I've listed multiple times.
	And you appealed that on the basis of divine command theory, and now you say that I don't know what's happening.
	Why don't we have an interesting conversation and you argue with me about like GDP or like whether it actually leads to the brain?
	Because we're going to the thing.
	We're going to presuppositionalism.
	Because it's what your argument's based on.
	If I undo that, your argument falls.
	That's why.
	And it did.
	It didn't.
	You just don't like it.
	We're using.
	You gave a dumb argument.
	No, we're using the same system.
	We're using the same system.
	How does that help your argument?
	Because what it means is that we're both being coherent, but we still end up with the same thing.
	I don't have your system.
	I don't have your views.
	Yeah, you do.
	You're divine theorist.
	I don't have your views.
	Aren't you a divine command theorist?
	I have a different account of what that means.
	Do you understand?
	You don't use exegesis, isegesis, and divine revelation.
	Do you not use these three things to understand?
	Using them has nothing to do with whether that backs up your argument.
	Interesting.
	So you will agree that basically you're doing the same thing as me to build up your presuppositions, but somehow my presupposition is coherent, but yours is super coherent.
	How does the use prove that your conclusions are correct?
	It doesn't.
	Thank you.
	But it doesn't prove yours either.
	It doesn't prove yours either.
	Even if it doesn't, it means that your argument doesn't prove feminism.
	And your argument doesn't prove anything either because of feminism.
	You're here to prove that patriarchy is good.
	If you failed in your argument, then you've lost.
	You have to prove feminism's bad.
	You have to do the same thing.
	By you just giving a bad argument.
	I did that.
	I'm going to internally critique you and let you flounder and refute yourself.
	And then no one else.
	That's not an argument, though.
	That's not a debate.
	It's not a debate.
	No, it's not.
	You're seeing interesting in any way.
	I don't care if it's interesting.
	It's going to happen.
	You're subjective.
	Is that like your desperate feminist?
	You're subjective, so she's right.
	This is why you're yelling and melting down is because when you got it.
	I'm yelling and melting down, Jay.
	Because you can't listen.
	I have to talk over you because you're losing here.
	You didn't give an argument.
	I've given an argument.
	No, Your arguments are not arguments, they're assertions.
	Okay, Jay.
	Gotta let some chats come through.
	We're about at the two-hour mark, so we'll get the closing statements in just a bit.
	The TTS has been lowered.
	We're gonna do a roast session if you want.
	$69 TTS, streamlabs.com/slash/whatever, if you want to get a roast.
	And also, be sure to stay tuned, guys, as we're winding down this debate.
	Kyla here is sticking around for another debate.
	We have Jim Bob in studio.
	I think we're going to go live in about an hour, hour and a half.
	We're going to break for a bit.
	Let me let these chats come through.
	We have Chef Dill Pickles.
	Thank you for that.
	Dill Pickles donated $100.
	Did not So Bright ever kick that wine habit?
	She isn't slurring tonight, but none of her arguments have improved.
	Wine drinker.
	Nope, not really.
	Okay.
	We have Silent here with a $100 super chat.
	Thank you so much, Silent, for your $100 blank super chat.
	Thank you so much, man.
	Lucas follows up on his previous super chat.
	Yes, my wife is actually watching me bullying you online and always watches whatever with me.
	She's quite entertained.
	That said, you call it bullying.
	I just see it as calling a spade a spade.
	Sorry, truth can sometimes be disquieting.
	You want to do a quick response to that?
	There's nothing to respond to.
	Yeah, me and my wife both enjoy being mean to women online.
	You're welcome for the foreplay, I guess.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	There you go.
	Thank you, Lucas.
	Always good to see you in the chat.
	Thank you, thank you.
	We have Christopher Scott here with a message.
	Thank you, Christopher.
	Christopher Scott donated $100.
	Wait, did she just God?
	So relativist week he approaches things.
	What nonsense is that?
	Any response?
	Yes, I said that God is a relativist.
	You can just look through scripture and see that he is constantly saying for example, there's multiple verses where he says like things that were wrong back then or weren't wrong back then were not wrong because they didn't understand.
	Yes, he regularly updates.
	Yes, it is.
	It is absolutely relativism.
	It's understanding people within the context of where they are and applying relativism.
	That's not relativism.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it isn't.
	That does not make God a relativist.
	You were indoctrinated with postmodernism, and that's why you thought St. Paul was a postmodernist.
	So you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
	Okay, good job.
	All right.
	We have another chat here.
	We have Grid One, big grid one.
	Thank you, man.
	Oh, there it is.
	Grid one Motorsports donated 200.
	Erudite, it is super interesting to watch you try and walk the line trying to claim patriarchy and feminism.
	I'm not at odds when feminism has its space in the destruction of patriarchy.
	Yep.
	Yeah, I just think that when feminists do that, it's harmful.
	I don't think that patriarchy by itself is bad, but I do think that patriarchy that is enforced is bad.
	And so feminism is at its root trying to block the obstacles by which we make patriarchy a necessity rather than allowing patriarchy to emerge naturally.
	So another way to show that she lost the debate is that her position is unfalsifiable because anytime it gets challenged, she can redefine the terms to be whatever it needs to be at that moment.
	And if you go back and watch the debate, she did that multiple times.
	I've used the same definition.
	But the definition was broad enough to fit this.
	It wasn't actually broad enough to do it.
	And again, if you didn't like it, you thought ancient Israelites.
	If you didn't like it, Jay, you shouldn't like it.
	You thought ancient Israelites were feminist.
	Yeah, to some degree.
	Feminism is a historical movement, you goober.
	Again, just because modern movement.
	Do you think that trans people only existed after we made up the word?
	The trans movement is what's being debated.
	Not, it's literally, it's literally not.
	It's feminism.
	No, I'm pretty sure.
	It's a concept.
	The title is feminism, right?
	It's a concept.
	It's not, is the feminist movement?
	The feminist movement is what I'm debating.
	That's not what I came here to debate.
	The question is, is feminism good?
	You did come to debate feminism.
	Do you think that trans people began to exist after the word was a feminism?
	That was the only time that trans people did it.
	Feminism is the thing that we're debating, which is a historical movement.
	Do you think that like anyone who doesn't exist until we made it?
	You already admitted it's a historical movement.
	Like crocodile until we made the word crocodile.
	We already admitted in the debate.
	It's a historical movement.
	Of course it's a historical movement that just has nothing to do with anything because feminism Fourth time you contradict yourself because you said that.
	As a great man today said, a word can mean two different things.
	Feminist as a movement is not what I'm here to defend.
	Feminism as a concept is.
	You admitted an hour ago that the movement is necessarily bound up with the history, you idiot.
	That has nothing to do with the concept.
	Thank you.
	So you've lost again for the 10th time the debate.
	Again, if you desperately need all of history to define a concept, that's fine.
	For historical concepts, yes.
	Like movements, like social movements that come out of the French Revolution.
	Yeah, so a movement can create a concept, and then the concept can then be retroactively applied to other instances that you saw in history.
	It's not retroactively.
	Absolutely true.
	This is why Paul's not a postmodernist humorist.
	This is why we can call democracies before Paul is not a postmodernist.
	This is why Paul is not a postmodernist.
	This is why, for example, this is why, for example, we would say that the founding fathers created a democracy even though they didn't invent the word democracy yet.
	You can retroactively apply concepts.
	Yes, you can.
	Paul is not a postmodernist.
	I'm sorry.
	Paul is not a postmodernist.
	This is so stupid.
	This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
	Engaged with the Bible.
	He engaged with the Bible the same way that I've never heard of it.
	Which is a postmodernist.
	You're a stupider statement than that.
	That's because you don't even know what I think, Jay.
	You have elaborate the most insane spaghetti statement.
	What is diarrhoea?
	What is Protestant?
	What is it?
	What is it?
	What's radical orthodoxy?
	I don't know what you've made up.
	You shut your mouth.
	So you're just admitting now that you don't even know what I'm saying.
	I'm not supposed to know you're made-up Protestantism.
	You're attacking me for it, so you should, yeah, probably have an idea of what it is.
	It's gibberish.
	It's made-up nonsense.
	There is no such thing as your made-up radical Protestant orthodoxy.
	I'm sorry, radical orthodoxy just isn't.
	I don't know what your position is.
	It just is a theological branch.
	I don't know what to know her position is.
	You could ask me and then engage with me based on.
	I don't care about your crazy position.
	Then why are we debating it all?
	Why are you here?
	You came to defend your position.
	You came to defend your position as well.
	And you haven't given an argument for feminism.
	I have given an argument for feminism multiple times.
	If you want to keep laughing about the Paul postmodernist thing, you can just ask me what I mean by that.
	But you don't want to.
	You just want to be bad faith.
	You just want to be bad faith and then blabber on so that like your audience.
	It's such an absurd statement.
	And if this guy's wonderful, because he keeps saying that he's wonderful.
	It explains how you're able to read back into history all these positions.
	I know that you're smarter than this, which means that I know that you're being bad faith right now.
	And there's nothing that I can do in a conversation other than be bad faith back.
	There's nothing.
	There's no running impasse.
	Just keep talking.
	It's convincing everybody in my position, please.
	Speaker.
	All right, let me let the chats come through.
	We have Nolly looks like bought something at shop.whatever.com.
	She bought a hoodie.
	Thank you so much.
	Or maybe it's a guy.
	Thank you, Nolly, appreciate that.
	Giovanni.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Giovanni Jade, you donated $100.
	Thank you, Giovanni.
	You are absolutely a heretic kerodite.
	This would have been way better if Jay in good faith pushed Pterody's understanding of Christianity with an intention to correct her.
	Well, the debate wasn't Christianity, the debate's feminism.
	Yeah, that would be stupid.
	Also, just want to be clear: as a Christian, you should be really, really.
	So I think that what he's applying to like one thing is heretical.
	I don't think that Jay is a heretic.
	And as a Christian, a Christian, you should be really, cautious when commenting on the state of people's salvation.
	Like, just in general.
	And I'm sure you would agree with this.
	I'm not at any point going to say that I think Jay is or isn't saved.
	Somebody saying that I'm an outright heretic is essentially implying that I'm going down.
	Thank you, KK.
	She keeps bringing up the trilemma.
	You can keep asking, but he's asking for evidence to back up your claims.
	At equilibrium, asserting a belief, someone then asking why and why you believe that, and so on.
	Yeah, so we did that, and I gave reasons why, and then I started getting into evidence, and then he said, Oh, evidence is an argument.
	So then we circled all the way back up.
	Well, you know, it's not, right?
	You know that it's evidence is not an argument.
	Yep, and so we circled back to my thesis, and then I proceeded to my thesis, and then I outlined my arguments and evidence again.
	And then he said, Oh, that's not an argument, that's evidence.
	And so we circled back and back and back because Jay can't actually engage with a concept, he has to just constantly attack basically semantics.
	I'm gonna tell you this one time, and I'm not ever gonna say this again.
	Tampons do not exist.
	That one's true, actually.
	He's cooking with that one.
	Okay, there you go.
	We have Cleathap.
	Is it gonna come through?
	One sec.
	There it is.
	Thank you, Cleethap.
	Appreciate it.
	Cleethap donated $100.
	If NSC believes ancient Israel was a feminist society, would she be happy with us moving to their gender norms?
	If not, doesn't this demonstrate Jay's points that her definition is too broad?
	Quick response to this.
	Yeah, I don't believe that Israel was broadly a feminist society.
	I think that it had more levels of feminism that I was talking about than other societies around it.
	But by no means would I like encapsulate that is like that's not feminism.
	Yes, it is feminism is a push.
	Feminism is an action.
	It is a movement towards empowering women with a historical movement.
	It's not an ancient Israelite movement.
	That again, you can apply words that were invented later historically, which is why we can say the founding fathers invented a liberal democracy, even though they didn't use the words back then.
	Yes, you can't.
	I'm sorry, you're fundamentally wrong about this here.
	You absolutely can.
	And if you won't do that, that's why it's an ambiguity fallacy, because you can make the position unfalsifiable.
	I'm not making it unfortunate.
	If that's the case, I could say that everything in history is patriarchal.
	All you have to do is history was patriarchal.
	All you have to do to dismantle my argument is prove it doesn't empower women.
	That's all you could do.
	You could do that.
	The internal critiques already did that, which you didn't even understand.
	Nope.
	Again, you just all you did is remind you like that.
	I'm just going to have a meta-conversation.
	Just for sake of time, just got to move it on, though.
	Grandma's sweaters, thank you for $100.
	I don't mind women in the workforce.
	Thank you.
	It's not inherently bad.
	The fundamental issue is feminism also divorces God and God's reps, trad males, which leads to polarization and societal conflict for GDP.
	What?
	I see a question mark at the end there.
	This is problems with GDP.
	I'm not really sure.
	Grandma's sweaters, if you want to send in a clarifying message, you can.
	At $100.
	Intel Wilde donated $69.
	Not so bright as a miserable woman on the inside.
	She is also a degenerate, woke pig snake Kuma Gremlin.
	What is a Kuma gremlin?
	I don't know.
	I don't know what that is.
	But I have a feeling that if I had an OnlyFans, this guy would be subbed to it for sure.
	He would be subbed, okay?
	All right, Intel Wilde that I don't have one, and I never will, but Nick donated $69.
	I have one.
	People can go to my OnlyFans.
	She couldn't get a lot from OnlyFans.
	It's me and yoga pants.
	That's it.
	All right.
	Doing yoga or just standing around?
	Just standing.
	I don't know how to do yoga.
	All right, we have Inquisitor Zeal coming in here in just a moment with a message.
	If you want to get your own in $69 TTS, streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	You want to get a little message in here.
	Inquisitor Zeal donated $100.
	It took two hours, but she finally said, God wants a society that allows us to express in the way that we want to.
	Her god is individualism, just like every feminist which destroys civilization.
	Agreed.
	Five more absolutely agreed.
	Are you opposed to individualism?
	This is not a straw man in my worldview.
	I don't think it's the highest value in society.
	Of course, it's not the highest, but are you opposed to individualism?
	Again, that's an ambiguous term.
	Depends on what you mean.
	So you just won't answer the question, okay?
	No, it's literally an ambiguous term.
	This words don't like them.
	Can't do it.
	Again, 100 IQ, maybe.
	Mac, thank you.
	Thank you.
	Although I agree with Jay, this debate was kind of unwatchable due to the constant childish mocking.
	Having said that, Erudite should have let Jay give the definition in his terms.
	My Jesus fucking Christ.
	I give, I give I would have loved for Jay to just define his words.
	That would have been amazing.
	I agree.
	Honestly, Mac, true.
	Jay, you should have defined your words if you didn't like my definitions.
	Holy shit.
	Why would I define your words?
	I rejected mine.
	Yeah, but debates are for you defending your position.
	It's not for me defining the words for you.
	If you don't like my definition, then you should supply your own.
	I don't have to supply your position.
	Then there's no point in talking after that.
	If I say feminism and this is a problem.
	I just don't understand what a debate is and however.
	If I say feminism is this and you go, I reject that, then the only thing that's going to be a good idea.
	I'm going to let you make your mistakes in a debate.
	I'm not going to make them for you.
	I'm not going to help you in a debate.
	I'm going to let you define things in a dumb way and then call you out later.
	That's what I'm saying.
	If you won't supply a definition and you won't engage with my definition, how do you even talk about feminism?
	If you don't understand how debates work, that I'm arguing the position against your position, that means you define it and you defend that.
	So I defined it, the concept, and I let you make the mistakes.
	And you didn't like it, which is fine.
	No, I said that it was inconsistent later on.
	No, you said it was too broad later on.
	Because you moved the goalpost.
	I didn't move the goalpost.
	You did.
	Because you tried to make ancient Israelites feminist.
	That's moving the goalposts.
	You said it was feminist for its time.
	Thank you, Clay.
	I appreciate it.
	Is feminism bad?
	Name one society where it would work that wasn't in a Wonder Woman movie.
	I'm going to go have a steak.
	Good to see you, Clay.
	Be back to watch her get demolished by Jim Bob.
	Wrong time of the month to have her on.
	Do you want to do a quick response to the first?
	Feminism is not like a societal hierarchy system.
	Maybe you're talking about matriarchies, but matriarchies are broadly not that successful.
	I don't know.
	So it's not useful to define.
	Jordan, thank you, Jordan.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you, thank you.
	Please grant my definition of good in the?
	Is feminism good debate?
	Sad, exactly that you would come to a debate and think that people grant you the positions that you're defending, why you lost this debate.
	All i'm learning is that Heidegger, you're learning that you don't know how to debate.
	No, i'm learning that you literally don't want to define words because that way you can pretend to win by just no, I let you hang yourself.
	I let you hang yourself.
	You literally didn't.
	I let you hang yourself.
	You acted like a petulant.
	You misdefined the words I didn't and moved the gold paste.
	Nope, I didn't do that either, you did.
	You said ancient Israelites were feminists because they had based on my definition, because they had a high view of women.
	Yeah, because I.
	I defined it as like an action word, feminism, the movement that we're debating.
	You goofers define feminism differently and we can quibble about that.
	That's the historical movements I mentioned.
	Okay yeah, there we go, Jay.
	As long as I quibble about words, then I can pretend I won't donated 69 dollars to anyone who thinks whatever only brings on dumb women.
	I present to you Jay.
	I love whatever.
	I love Andrew.
	I hate Jay.
	She tried to try to be good faith.
	He wanted to be nothing but bad faith.
	i guess i gotta retire no more debates for me ever again i'm retiring i think our debate could be like you're you're actually such a smart person and you're so informed we could no you just don't understand debate literally like it's i'm doing a debate at this level and you're debating Should never be good for you.
	No, you just don't know what we're talking about.
	Literally, it's too childish.
	What I was saying is too childish.
	I don't know if you're not.
	You shouldn't debate.
	I'm trying to tell you right now.
	I was giving you a compliment and saying it would have been.
	Yeah, but I'm helping you and giving you a compliment and saying you should not debate.
	That's not a compliment.
	It is.
	It's not a compliment.
	Because you're good at other things.
	Like what, Jay?
	Not debating.
	Okay.
	What I was saying, Jay, if I could just finish this thought, is that I was actually looking forward to a really interesting discussion because I think you are really philosophically grounded out and I think it could have been interesting, but instead you wanted to quibble over words and just like do dumb gotchas that are meaningless.
	And therefore we didn't put forward anything.
	So the debate's happening at a level that you're interrupting me instead.
	We have get back in the kitchen.
	Get back in the kitchen.
	Woman donated $69.
	I am asking the most important question we men want to know.
	Woman, what sandwich do you make the best and most often?
	Also, evidently the new Pope is a woke cast bag.
	El Catholics.
	What is your favorite sandwich to make, I guess?
	Probably just like a panini with like lots of meat and cheese, high protein.
	Love the protein.
	We got Shaw here.
	Shaw.
	Thank you.
	XT donated $69.
	Jay, love the Miami Vice look, brother.
	Erudite, are something something.
	Good try.
	Looking forward to JB Dog walking you.
	Oh, Jim Baba.
	Okay.
	And then, guys, we're going to do, if you want to get one couple more in, last call on the TTS Roast that streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	I'm going to let this one come in.
	Then we're going to do closing statements and get this wrapped.
	Thank you, Giovanni.
	They would agree that the OT patriarchs were Eastern Orthodox and worshipped the Trinity, even though that concept, as we understand it, didn't exist.
	Can absolutely retroactively apply newer concepts.
	Giovanni, thank you for that.
	Appreciate it.
	Oh, interesting.
	So what we're going to do now is I'm going to have each of you give an up to five-minute closing statement.
	Kyla, you'll go first.
	Jay, you'll go after her.
	Go ahead.
	Sure.
	Since we basically didn't actually talk about the topic today, which is unfortunate, I guess I would say debates are like this thing that I love a lot.
	It doesn't mean I'm perfect or awesome at them necessarily, but they're supposed to be this Socratic thing where we engage in trying to find better ideas and better truth, essentially.
	And you do that by being good faith to some degree, by allowing and granting certain norms of one another and engaging with one another in their thought, and not just like constantly falling back to like whining about words and just like based basically just trying to insist that your opponent makes no sense, based on almost nothing at all, but like whining about words, just like semantic arguments, which is unfortunate, because I think that this could have been a really meaningful conversation.
	I think feminism as like a concept can be really valuable and I defend it a lot, but I'm extremely critical of the feminist movement, which I make a distinction From.
	Maybe that would have been helpful if I made that more clear.
	I'm not, probably not, actually.
	The feminist movement has been full of lots of pretty bad gender opportunists, which is unfortunate.
	A lot of civil rights movements get hijacked by bad actors.
	And I think as a result of it, it's left a lot of men with a bitter taste for feminism in their mouth.
	And to be clear, I don't think most men should be feminists.
	I think women should be feminists because it's about women.
	And I think when women lie and pretend that it's about both genders, it's cringe and stupid.
	Overall, I think a society that gives women more options and choices so long as they're not harming others is a good society and tries to incentivize good behavior.
	I think it leads to better flourishing.
	I think it leads to happier people.
	And I want a world that goes towards these things.
	What Jay wants is a world where he can yell at everyone from the top of his crown-wearing throne about words and tell them that they don't know anything that they're talking about.
	And then agreeing that they basically have the exact same type of coherent presuppositional system, but then insisting that you're stupid and wrong and don't know anything because he essentially disagrees with my worldview without ever actually dismantling why I'm wrong about like GDP for women.
	He just literally couldn't even engage with that.
	Maybe he doesn't know what the word GDP means, but he's smart.
	So he probably does.
	I'm not actually sure.
	We could have had an interesting discussion.
	Instead, Jay robbed you of that for I'm not really sure.
	And then he's going to end this by insisting that he won because he caught me in all these contradictions while also just like misquoting fallacies.
	And I guess to liberals, pro tips, when you debate people like this, you unfortunately just like have to be bad faith.
	And it just turns into like annoying dunk sessions where you are mean to each other.
	And that's all you can basically do, which is unfortunate because I think we could have had a better discussion.
	And people don't win because they say the things that you like.
	They win because they engage in better ideas.
	And this, unfortunately, didn't happen.
	I don't think anyone won.
	I think everyone lost, including the viewers.
	So sorry about that, guys.
	All right, Jay, your closing statement.
	I don't know if that was a diary entry or was that a closing statement?
	Because it sounded like a diary entry, but yeah, so, I mean, feminism is not beneficial to society.
	I laid out my case, why both historically and in terms of, especially not in terms of scripture and divine revelation, which she claims to agree with or believe in.
	I mean, Paul says to Timothy that women should not teach, women should not be an authority in the church.
	The church is a historically patriarchal institution.
	We don't have women preachers, women ministers.
	And so women have a degree of rights, or we could say their dignity is because they're made in the image of God, just like men.
	But that does not translate into equality of roles.
	And of course, the New Testament is abundantly clear about that.
	As I said, when Paul tells Timothy that women are not to preach or teach, but should be in subjection and should be silent, especially in the religious realm.
	So most of what she argued for today was her own subjective relativist positions that she wants, that she thinks she thinks that eisegesis and exegesis back up this idea that because God is bigger than the idea of modern liberalism, even though he's willed modern liberalism, that that's what's good for society.
	She equivocated multiple times.
	She committed multiple fallacies throughout the discussion.
	I never heard an exact clear argument as to why we ought to choose feminism.
	She spent the first 45 minutes talking about how oughts are not relevant here because this was pragmatic.
	No, no, I think if you know about debates, debates are about making the argument from an epistemic, justified, true belief position.
	That's what epistemology is.
	It's concerned with justified, true belief.
	And I asked for that at least a couple times in debate.
	I never got that.
	So I don't think that any of us heard any compelling arguments other than just GDP.
	Well, GDP is not good enough to show us why we ought to have this position or this ideology unless GDP is somehow the highest good or the best thing that we should shoot for.
	So that's precisely why in the debate, I kept asking for what her basis for the good is.
	She didn't want to talk about that.
	She said that was a meta discussion and it was a circular discussion, all these deflections away from the fact that everything that she argued for, she based on a thing that was subjective.
	That would make ultimately her arguments subjective, and thus she lost the debate.
	So I don't think we heard any convincing arguments for feminism.
	And in fact, I think we heard that a better case for patriarchy from her own position because she claims to be a Christian.
	And clearly, feminism and Christianity are absolutely antithetical, unless you think Paul was a postmodernist.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Oh, there you go.
	Very good.
	There you go.
	Very talented.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Thank you both for joining me today for this debate.
	It was certainly a lively one.
	I guess that would be a good way to characterize it.
	We do have one last chat that looks like it's made its way through.
	Did we make the Intel Wildlife?
	Thank you, Intel Wild.
	Appreciate it.
	You were brilliant today, as always.
	Not so bright talk to your daddy destiny next time for the proper talking points.
	All right.
	I'm telling you, he's subbing to my OnlyFans if I have one.
	Oh, wow.
	Intel Wild.
	I don't have one, but I see you.
	Well, guys, if you enjoyed this stream, if you enjoyed this debate, we have one right after it.
	We're going to take about 30, 45 minute break in between.
	Kyla will be debating Jim Bob, who you've seen before on the show.
	And that'll be great.
	So be sure to stay tuned.
	Mods, if you can spam the link for that, I'm going to spam it in the chat too.
	Also, we're going to just do an auto redirect.
	So if you guys want to just make sure you head on over to the waiting room for that live stream, it's on our channel, youtube.com/slash whatever.
	And let me just double check, make sure we're all caught up with everything.
	Oh, we have one more chat here coming in.
	And Lucas says this.
	Thank you, Lucas.
	Appreciate it.
	$69.
	Not so erudite, aka the female reincarnate of Christopher Hitchens, or better yet, Gore Vidal.
	I don't know if that, depending on how you feel about those two people, it's either a really big compliment or an insult.
	I'll take it as a compliment.
	Yeah, is it a Kyla?
	Hitchens is a pretty sharp guy.
	I'll take it as a compliment.
	All right.
	Well, guys, thank you so much for joining us today.
	Hope you guys enjoyed the debate.
	Once again, be sure to stay tuned.
	We're doing one right after this.
	30 minutes, 45 minutes.
	So let me just double check, make sure we're all good.
	Guys, like the video on the way out if you enjoyed the stream.
	Also, if you're watching over there on Twitch, we'll be back up on Twitch, twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow in the Prime sub if you have one.
	And let me just make sure we have no other chats that just came through.
	No, we are all good.
	Okay, 07s in the chat.
	07s in the chat.
	We'll see you guys shortly.

▲