Whatever Podcast - Andrew Wilson vs. Naima HEATED Debate Round 2

Nov. 14, 2025 - Whatever Podcast

03:30:31

Andrew Wilson vs. Naima HEATED Debate Round 2 | Whatever Debates #23

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to a debate edition of the whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
	I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
	A few quick announcements.
	This podcast is viewer supported.
	Please consider donating through streamlabs at streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	We're going to have Q ⁇ A questions, or if you want to leave a statement for $200 and up, well, $199 and up.
	There will be no instant TTS, so these are going to be at various breaks, and they're going to be batched.
	You can see the description for all triggers and full details.
	Without further ado, I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of the Crucible.
	He is a blood sports debater and a political commentator.
	Also joining us today is Naima.
	She's a senior at USC.
	She's a political social commentator and content creator.
	The topic today is feminism.
	And we might hit some other topics too.
	I want a good clean debate, no interrupting.
	I will issue a verbal warning followed by a yellow card.
	Which you cede conversational priority for one minute or until your opponent yields.
	Followed by a red card, which results in seeding conversational priority for two minutes or until the non-afringing, afringing?
	Offending party yields their time.
	There will be no opening statements straight into open convo.
	Let's get on.
	Yeah, I mean, we were just discussing.
	I think it's funny.
	Me and Andrew were actually supposed to do a Jubilee surrounded debate for our kind of part two of this conversation.
	But what ended up happening?
	Now, I don't work for Jubilee.
	I'm not going to speak for their administration.
	But I think the general consensus.
	Do you know what the theme of the video was supposed to be?
	Feminism.
	No, so well, like the people who were surrounded, it was supposed to be like Jubilee all-stars.
	So it was like surrounded Jubilee all-stars.
	And so, of course, we all know each other because like, you know, it's all the people who've been in Jubilee videos before.
	And I think the general consensus was that we wanted to debate someone bigger, to be honest with you.
	So that's why they brought in Charlie Kirk.
	And he actually was assassinated like, I want to say a week before we were supposed to do that debate.
	So I don't know.
	It, yeah, it got completely canceled.
	They like rescheduled it and now we don't know who it's going to be.
	Damn.
	Yeah, I know.
	It was pretty intense.
	It was weird.
	The debate was actually scheduled for the day of his memorial.
	So you guys all said no to me?
	I don't think it was no.
	Sounds like you were saying no.
	Yeah, I mean, it was kind of no.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I mean, not a lot of people really know about the Crucible.
	I mean, a lot more people.
	Not your Crucible.
	A lot more people know.
	Actually, tell me the names of the people.
	Let's see if they do know about the Crucible.
	Who are the names of the Jubilee All-Stars?
	I mean, I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone.
	I know, but what are the names of the Jubilee all-stars who would have been there?
	I mean, lots of people.
	Parker, Dean's.
	Oh, so yeah, Parker knows me well.
	Dean knows me well.
	Who else?
	Yeah, we're not talking about us.
	Of course, we all know people in the podcast.
	I thought you just said nobody knows the crucible.
	Andrew, I'm talking about the world, the audience.
	Everyone in a political sphere, of course, knows each other.
	We're all in an insular community, but outside of, you know, this community.
	Like, do you think you're as big as Charlie Kirk?
	No, of course not.
	But who is?
	Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro.
	I mean, Candacellians wasn't bigger.
	No.
	I don't think any of them were bigger than Charlie Kirk.
	Nick Crowder.
	Nick Crowder?
	Well, I mean, they're all bigger than Crowder.
	Who the hell is Nick Crowder?
	Isn't he that guy who does a podcast where he's all mean?
	I don't know.
	That's kind of all you guys do.
	You mean Steven Crowder?
	Oh.
	Yeah.
	No, Charlie Kirk is definitely bigger than all of them.
	Sorry, I'm not a huge fan of Steven Crowder's content.
	Oh, I mean, were you a big fan of any of their content?
	No, but everyone knew about them.
	Yeah, so I understand.
	No, I get it.
	I mean, I know, Andrew.
	It sucks to hear that.
	But they had reached out to me, not me to them.
	So that's a two-sided thing.
	I guess I don't know.
	You know, I've debated most of those people in the political circles on places like Pierce Morgan.
	I've never seen you there.
	Well, that was kind of part of it.
	Yeah, I actually got invited to Pierce Morgan.
	I didn't do it because they asked like 20 minutes ago.
	How come you, how come?
	Well, now we're speaking about this.
	How come you canceled on Tim Pool?
	Oh, I canceled on Tim Pool because I got a brand deal that was paying me more and I didn't have to leave my house.
	Actually, I can talk about the Tim Pool thing.
	Yeah, because you said that you agreed to come on and then canceled.
	Okay, so it's very interesting that you say that.
	When I met with Tim Poole's team, they were not willing to pay me to travel across the country to debate.
	Well, you're going to take care of your flight and hotel.
	That's not paying me, though.
	That's paying for my flight.
	They would have had to do that for anyone.
	And they also were not, they didn't know who I was supposed to debate yet.
	So I told them, I will agree to do a debate so long as I know who I'm debating and I accept the terms of that debate.
	Has Jubilee paid you?
	Yeah, of course they pay me.
	Everybody pays me.
	What do they pay you?
	That's not your business.
	Well, they pay you $25 for gas, right?
	No, they pay me more than that.
	To show up for the surrounded?
	Of course.
	Well, that's interesting because they don't pay any of the conservatives who show up for the surroundeds.
	Well, that's a shame.
	They should advocate for themselves.
	Just so you guys know, now we know this, that they pay the conservatives $25 to show up, but they actually pay the progressives.
	I don't think they pay all the progressives.
	I don't, like, I'm not every single person.
	Yeah.
	I make them pretty good content.
	I mean, you don't think it's fair for people to get paid for good work?
	I mean, I guess.
	That's fine.
	I just think it's funny.
	It's interesting that the conservatives who are in the surrounded.
	When I first started doing the Jubilee videos, I didn't get paid.
	And then the more and more successful I was on their platform, the more they offered me.
	That's generally how it works.
	It's almost like a promotion.
	I understand.
	That's how most jobs work.
	I get it.
	Okay, cool.
	Yeah.
	So leftists like Parker and Dean, and you guys refuse to debate with me.
	Because you're not big enough, Andrew.
	You don't have a fan base.
	I'm bigger than all of you.
	No, you're not.
	Way bigger than all of you.
	We can go follower for follower.
	How many do you have on Instagram right now?
	Instagram's not a fight.
	You could take your top off and get 800,000 followers.
	But I didn't take my top off.
	I got 150,000.
	So what?
	That's nothing.
	How many do you have then?
	I have over 250K just on YouTube with an average live audience of 7,000 to 9,000.
	What about you?
	Look at how badly you have to prove when you go live.
	Look at how fragile you are.
	Just because I told you nobody wanted to do it.
	When you go live, how many live viewers do you get?
	I don't go live.
	You don't go live?
	No.
	If you did go live, how many would you think you'd get?
	I don't know.
	I don't go live.
	Oh, interesting.
	All right.
	Well, I do a lot better than Dean and Parker when I go live on YouTube, and they do.
	I think that's debatable.
	I'd say Dean and Parker have a significantly bigger following across platforms.
	Adam Wachler, all of these people are bigger than you.
	I don't think so.
	Andrew, look at how badly you have to defend yourself worth.
	This is so sad.
	You're the one who attacked it.
	I'm not attacking it.
	I'm telling you what.
	Nobody wanted to debate you because it was an all-star Jubilee episode.
	We want an all-star debate.
	Figure out guys were all cowards.
	I mean, listen to this.
	If you guys were just all cowards.
	We're not cowards.
	Andrew, if I was a coward.
	Dean and Parker.
	Tell me why Dean and Parker won't actually agree.
	I've said I'd give them $20,000 to show up and do a debate live so they can't get fed answers from their little teams.
	Andrew, if I was a coward, I wouldn't be debating you right now.
	They refuse.
	The point was, it was an all-stars debate, and you are not an all-star adversary.
	Gotcha, you're right.
	I mean, I am.
	You didn't get big.
	But you're here.
	You took your time here.
	I'm ready when you are all-star.
	Okey-dokey.
	So go ahead with your criticisms of my worldview.
	You're not a Jubilee all-star.
	Aren't we starting with democracy or no?
	Whatever you want to start with.
	Okay, Andrew.
	Why don't we start with, unless you want to get into the criticisms of his specific positions?
	I would rather go through all of our positions and then do criticisms of it.
	And then, Andrew, before we get into the prompts, as I understood it, you wanted to respond to some of Naima's specific criticisms that you saw online?
	Maybe we can do that as we go.
	Criticisms of you that I saw online.
	Sure.
	I didn't post anything about you online.
	Oh, yeah, you did.
	I made a TikTok.
	I have clips.
	A singular TikTok.
	I know, but you lied a lot in it.
	I lied in it.
	Andrew, it's all based on a debate we did together.
	I know.
	We were both here.
	Which is why I have all the counterclips for it.
	Andrew, I literally posted a video of you not being able to open a pickle jar.
	What's your counter for that?
	I did open the pickle jar.
	You didn't open an olive jar.
	So not a pickle jar then?
	Did you open the olive jar?
	No.
	No.
	And why did you say?
	The point was that you were supposed to be shy.
	Why did you say that wasn't any point that was ever made?
	You lied.
	Is that not the point of force office?
	No.
	No.
	And by the way, you said it was greasy.
	You said the jar was greasy.
	Why didn't you tell people that?
	Yeah, you did.
	You said the jar was greasy.
	So did you?
	So did you?
	Do you not remember?
	Do you want to pull up the video of him being incapable of opening the olive jar?
	You want to pull up the video of you being incapable of opening it?
	Andrew, I never said I was going to be able to.
	The point is, though, it's like, it's really funny to me.
	Sorry.
	I was trying to pull.
	So the thing is, it's funny is like, you did, though.
	You did say, yeah, it's greasy.
	And then you just omitted all the time.
	No, I didn't.
	I said it's not greasy.
	Nope, you didn't.
	Promise.
	Will you just pull it?
	Hang on, hang on.
	I got a thousand bucks in my backpack right now that I'll bet you that you said it was greasy when you were asked.
	I'll put it on the table right now.
	Put my money where my mouth is.
	I'm not really a betting one.
	Yeah, so you're not really sure if you lied about it or not?
	Why would it be a lie?
	Well, because I think that there was intentionality behind it.
	So you got drunk.
	So what you're trying to say is that you were incapable of opening it up.
	Why do you got to open it because it was greasy, even though you dried it off with several paper towels, your t-shirt, and then your assistant was able to open it despite how greasy it was.
	But you couldn't.
	Andrew, you couldn't.
	And Brian either.
	Neither could Brian.
	But the point was, it was an attempt to.
	But the point was that it was an attempt to emasculate me and show how weak I am.
	And it turns out that you are just as weak.
	How would that demonstrate that I was weaker than you?
	Because neither of us could open it.
	Do you want to arm wrestle?
	No.
	Why?
	It's just ridiculous.
	It's the most ridiculous shit ever, and it has nothing to do with force doctrine.
	You're so pressed about it.
	You just couldn't open an olive jar, man.
	Get over it.
	Okay, bro.
	I'm just telling you that you couldn't open it.
	I've gone out of your way to lie over and over about my position.
	You've gone out of your way to lie.
	Dude, your name is not in my mouth.
	I don't give a fuck about you.
	You're just saying that you lie a lot about my positions.
	I played a clip of you.
	What?
	Okay, but I'm going to play clips.
	That'll show the lies about my positions.
	I made one video about a specific moment.
	You lied a lot about my positions.
	You said things like, this man wants to get rid of women's rights, and you said all sorts of things.
	You said that.
	No, I didn't.
	Yes, you did.
	No, I didn't.
	Andrew, I just watched our debate back.
	Yes, the fuck you did.
	Okay, tell me my positions in.
	What is force doctrine?
	Force doctrine is that whole theory that might makes right.
	Essentially, it is more.
	Okay, then why don't you define your position?
	No, you have to tell.
	Listen, first, you can't criticize a position unless you can stably tell me what you think the position means before you criticize it.
	So what is it?
	What's force doctrine?
	Well, your prescription, your position is descriptive.
	So do you want to define your terms before we argue on whether or not you're not going to be able to do it?
	I want to know what you think force doctrine is because you're critical of it.
	How can you be critical of a position you can't define?
	I mean, I think forced doctrine is generally the belief that those who are stronger physically are able to defend their rights.
	No.
	No?
	No.
	Okay, then explain it to me, Andrew.
	Yeah, forced doctrine is the critical belief that rights come to women specifically from men.
	That women always have to appeal to men for the rights collectively.
	Okay, so do you believe that anybody has like inherent rights?
	Are there any inherent human rights regardless of that?
	Unless you can ground them in God, I don't believe that you can ground rights in anything.
	And if you can, go ahead and do so.
	Okay, so then based on your religion, what are the inherent rights that humans have?
	Well, first, I need you to understand what the criticism is.
	So when I say to you, I don't believe that you can ground rights absent religion.
	Do you agree that that's true or false?
	I believe that that's false.
	Okay, then can you ground rights for me?
	Absent religion.
	Do you not know what rights are?
	Can you ground them absent religion?
	Go ahead.
	Grounding rights absent of religion.
	I mean, there's natural law.
	There's humanistic theories online.
	I don't know which one are you going to go with, but go with one of them.
	Okay, well, let's see.
	Which one would you prefer?
	We could do humanistic theory.
	We could do deontological.
	I literally don't give a shit.
	I just want you to ground rights outside of God.
	Nick, you've got to send me.
	Okay, continue, guys.
	Continue with the debate.
	I guess what do you mean ground rights?
	Do you mean justify human rights?
	I mean this.
	When I say ground rights, what are you appealing to?
	Let's just make it easy.
	What are you appealing to for rights?
	Morality.
	Okay.
	That can either be morality through religion or that can be morality through natural law.
	That can be morality through a social contract.
	I'm not interested in all.
	That can be morality through creating an egalitarian society.
	I'm not interested at all in possibilities.
	I'm interested in the one that you have.
	These aren't possible.
	I mean, any and all of them.
	I just want to know what you ground rights in.
	I ground rights in morality.
	Rights are moral.
	It is just and moral to give people basic rights.
	What do you ground morality in?
	Are you going to keep asking me are you going to actually like make an opinion?
	This is what you do, Andrew.
	You ask questions and questions and questions so that you don't actually have to form an opinion and defend it.
	That's great.
	Stop using descriptive arguments.
	What do you ground morality?
	Make an opinion.
	What do you ground morality?
	Do you believe that humans have inherent values?
	Do you believe that humans have inherent values?
	I can't go anywhere with the debate unless you can tell me what you ground morals in.
	So do you exclusively ground morals in your belief in God?
	I've already said five times yes.
	now i need to know what you ground hold on hold on Listen to me.
	If God did not exist, I'm not interested.
	Would there be zero morals?
	I'm not interested until you tell me what you ground morality in.
	Tell me what you ground morality in.
	I don't even understand why you're asking this question.
	Okay, so you're you said, I asked you, do you believe that rights can be grounded outside of God?
	You said yes.
	So I'm asking what they're grounded in outside of God.
	Social order.
	What does that mean?
	It means creating a society that functions.
	If no humans have rights, then you can't function as a society.
	Everyone would just be attacking each other all the time.
	So you would have a society that functioned?
	No, you would have an anarchic society if there is no social order.
	What would make that unfunctional?
	You just, it would be something that's not.
	I mean, no one would collaborate with each other.
	Everyone would be constantly killing each other and maiming each other and raping each other.
	Do you see how you're just making an appeal that morality just is preference-based, just fits your preference?
	It's not preference-based.
	It's a necessity.
	It's a human necessity.
	It's not necessary for you to do that.
	Rights are necessary for survival.
	The right to life.
	The right to life.
	Yes, the right to life is necessary for survival.
	Do you think that there's a right to life?
	Yes, of course I believe there's a right to life.
	Okay.
	And what do you ground that in?
	I ground that in our ability to survive as a species.
	If nobody had a right to life, then what would stop Brian from just shooting up everyone in this room?
	Force.
	Our society could not function based solely on force.
	Then how come society...
	We would all just be beating each other up all the time.
	And how come societies right now do?
	Societies don't exist solely on force.
	We have tons of other forms of power that exist in society.
	Do you agree with me that there are societies which function purely on force?
	Yeah, and they suck.
	Name a singular one that exists that is like fun to live in.
	Do you see how now you're changing the goalpost?
	I'm not changing the goalpost.
	I'm trying to create a society.
	Remember how we weren't talking about interruptions?
	Can I at least make the goalpost?
	You would interrupt me like five times since we're starting to.
	Yeah, okay.
	Well, so anyway, where you switched the goalpost here was you said that societies cannot exist.
	They can't exist absent rights.
	And my contention here is that they can.
	They can exist just via force.
	Eventually, let me make the point.
	Let me make the point.
	They can exist absent rights.
	And you say that rights are necessary for societies to exist.
	Clearly, that's not true.
	I can point to you right now societies where they don't have rights.
	Name a singular society where no human has any rights that exist.
	North Korea.
	Anything you have that's a right comes from the state.
	They still have a right to life.
	No, there's no right to life.
	They take you out in a field and shoot you if you look at them across the street.
	Why don't you go live in North Korea?
	Is that an argument?
	Would you like to go live?
	Is that an argument?
	Is that an argument?
	Are you arguing in favor of North Korea?
	You think the North Korean government structure is fun?
	A vibe?
	Like, why would anyone want to go there?
	What does that have to do with anything I just said?
	Because it's not a sustainable society.
	It's a society that perpetuates human society.
	Let's try this again.
	Because no one has any free will.
	I know that as we're doing the obfuscation here, I just want to point this out.
	I asked you how you ground rights.
	You said rights exist absent preference.
	And I said, okay, if they exist absent preference, how come I can point it?
	Well, you said you have to have rights for there to even be a society.
	I can point to you a society where humans have no rights.
	And clearly that's a society.
	So I don't understand how it is that you think that you can't have societies which exist without rights.
	And you still haven't given me accounting for where rights come from.
	And so it's critical.
	I gave you my opinion about force doctrine.
	I told you what I think about rights.
	So do you think that's right?
	And so hang on.
	And so I told you what I think about rights.
	Right now, we're just clarifying the language so you can't do the fallacy of equivocation.
	I don't want you to move between separate definitions of a word using vagueness, which is fallacious, a fallacious debate move.
	I want you instead to be very clear on what rights are, what you ground them in, where they come from.
	And that's what we're debating about if we're talking about rights.
	So please do so.
	We're not debating about that.
	We're debating about force doctrine and the morality of force doctrine.
	Do you believe that force doctrine is moral?
	Do you believe that it is moral to take rights away from people on the basis of the world?
	This is pure obfuscation.
	I don't believe in coercive power.
	This is pure obfuscation.
	I do think it's fair for you to answer his question.
	It is.
	I think, honestly, Andrew, my issue with the people who are not going to be able to do it.
	Just want to know what it is.
	You don't care about anything that I'm about to say, then why is it not?
	Where do rights come from?
	I believe that humans have natural rights.
	I believe that humans have rights.
	Okay, natural rights.
	Yes.
	Okay, so natural right theory is what NALA believes, or I'm sorry, not NALA, what is it?
	Naema, sorry.
	Natural rights.
	Okay.
	I don't think they have to be ordained by God.
	I think that everyone has an inherent set of rights.
	They're inherent.
	Yes, natural, inherent.
	These are synonyms.
	So where do they come from?
	They come from our existence.
	What do you mean?
	It's a right.
	It's not a physical thing.
	Like, you get that, right?
	No.
	No.
	Can you explain it for me?
	No.
	Well, the right to life, life comes from being alive.
	So what do you mean?
	Where does it come from?
	Where does life come from?
	No.
	Well, life comes from when a man and a woman are in love and they hold hands for a very long time.
	They can make a baby.
	That's where life comes from.
	So these natural rights that you claim that we have, which are inherent, if they're inherent, does that mean that everybody has them?
	Yes, I believe everyone has them, but they can be infringed upon, and that is immoral.
	I see.
	That is the definition, in my opinion, of morality is infringing on one's natural rights.
	So you're born with rights.
	Yes.
	So they're not social constructs that we make up.
	They exist outside of that?
	Well, I mean, it's not a physical thing.
	Oh, it's not.
	Well, I'll tell you a couple of terms.
	Objective and then subjective.
	Objective means that it does not depend on a mind.
	An example is that tree out there would exist if there was no mind.
	Andrew, I know what objective and subjective means.
	Then tell me what subjective means.
	Subjective is something that is malleable.
	It can change.
	It's not a fact.
	No.
	Subjective.
	No.
	Philosophical subjectivity just means depends on a mind.
	Okay, so that's exactly what I just said.
	No, it's not.
	So anyway, back to this, though.
	I was trying to give you the example so I could clarify the position.
	I want to try to have a good faith debate.
	I don't know why you refuse to clarify your positions for me.
	I just clarified my position.
	Okay, so now clarifying.
	So are rights subjective?
	I believe rights are subjective across society.
	Then how can they be inherent?
	I believe that certain rights are inherent and certain are subjective.
	Okay, so how, so I mean, there's no limit on the right.
	So which inherent rights are objective?
	Which inherent rights are objective?
	I think that the right to life is objective.
	Okay, so then if it's objective and it does not depend on human minds, where can we find it?
	We can find it in being alive.
	What the fuck are you talking about?
	Where can you find the right to life absent the grounding in meaning all minds are gone?
	Remember I told you objective means you don't need any human minds.
	I tried to explain this to you a second ago.
	Now you just walked into a horrible trap.
	Objective means does not depend on a mind.
	What you said just got done telling me is that you have an inherent right to life and it's objective.
	That would mean that that right does not require human minds.
	So you should be able to point to where it is.
	Where is it?
	Andrew, rights are not physical, though.
	Not everything that is objective is physical.
	Okay, then what is everything that's objective if it's not physical?
	Well, you just defined it.
	What?
	You just defined it.
	What are you talking about?
	An objective objective means it requires or does not require human minds.
	Objectivity, honestly, this is getting enough.
	Philosophical objectivity requires minds.
	Put that in.
	No, don't put requires minds.
	Just put definitions.
	I'll do it for both of you.
	Thank you.
	So objectivity, the quality of being.
	Okay, the quality of being objective.
	Let's see.
	You have to put philosophical objectivity requires minds.
	Okay, that way we can clarify it.
	Let's do a basic definition of objectivity and work off of that.
	So objective, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, but fact would have to be material.
	Not all facts are material, Andrew.
	I mean, air, air exists.
	Air material?
	Actually, yeah, air is a child.
	Okay, yeah, air is a job.
	I'll give you that one.
	Oh, God.
	Okay, so we have inherent rights that aren't material, but they're objective.
	Andrew, there are immaterial facts.
	Do you genuinely not believe that?
	What?
	I mean, thoughts.
	Like, humans have thoughts.
	Thoughts are not material.
	Where are they?
	Do thoughts come from something material?
	But a thought is not material.
	Do you believe that a thought is material?
	How do you know?
	When you have thoughts, does steam rise out of your fucking head?
	How do you know thoughts are not material?
	How do you know thoughts are?
	Well, the thing is, is like...
	What thought that you've had is material.
	You would ground a thought in a brain, right?
	Yeah, but a brain and a thought are two different things.
	Yeah, so you would agree with me that if there was no more brains, there would be no more thoughts.
	Well, your brain creates thoughts.
	So without thoughts.
	But a thought is your material.
	Are you really trying to argue that there is a material thought?
	No, what I'm telling you.
	What the fuck are you talking about?
	I'm going to tell you so that you understand.
	Do you agree with me that if we have no more brains, we have no more thoughts?
	Sure.
	Okay, great.
	Then what that means is that you're appealing to something material for thought, okay?
	But a thought is still immaterial.
	But does it mean?
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	The trick here is to understand that when I say objective, right?
	Sure.
	It means it doesn't depend on a mind.
	When I say subjective, it means it does depend.
	Hang on.
	Why don't you be very clear?
	Sure.
	It means that it does.
	So when I say where do rights come from, you say rights are objective.
	That means they exist somewhere outside of minds.
	So can you tell me where?
	No, I'm not saying that objectivity needs to exist physically.
	I think that things can be objective without existing physically.
	But why don't you give an opinion on your actual belief?
	Because right now, I'm just trying to figure out what the terms are for rights in themselves so we don't equivocate.
	Do you not know what rights are?
	I don't know what you think they are.
	What are they?
	I just told you what they think.
	Well, you just told me that they're objective, but then you don't give me any grounding for them.
	Certain rights are objective.
	They are objective and grounded in human morality, which can be based on a God as you do, or which can be based on our conception of natural law.
	Does human morality require a mind?
	Sure, Andrew.
	Well, then it can't be objective.
	Yes, it can, because objective things can be immaterial.
	You don't know what objective means.
	You're using one definition you found.
	Can you repeat the definition that you...
	There is a sub-definition, too.
	There is a sub-definition, too, not dependent on the mind for existence.
	Actual.
	I'll repeat hers, though.
	Will you stop throwing them, Mike?
	Andrew, stop doing this.
	Why are you coping so bad?
	You're so dumb.
	I can't believe you did so bad.
	Go ahead.
	Of a person or their judgment not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
	Also, Andrew, did you want me to look up something or?
	just want to know if if rights are objective and they don't depend on minds can you please tell me where i could find them andrew how could you visit there are things that exist that are not physical I'm not talking about whatever you think exists.
	It's not physical.
	There is no limited number of things.
	I just want to know about rights right now.
	It's immaterial.
	Do you understand that?
	It's a concept.
	Do you know what a concept is?
	Do concepts require minds?
	Sure.
	Then rights exist.
	Then where is it in your mind?
	So then they're not objective.
	But something can exist in your mind and still.
	Are we talking about something or are we talking about rights?
	So do you not think that people have an objective right to life?
	Listen.
	Like, what are you arguing about?
	Right now, I'm just trying to get to the point.
	Can I just go ahead?
	You're arguing on a definition because you don't want to actually have to defend your opinion.
	Why would I ever in a million years be required to defend rights if you can't even fucking tell me what they are?
	I just did anything.
	Yeah, but I just pointed out all the incoherency with what you just said.
	It's totally incoherent.
	It's completely incoherent.
	Rights are the immaterial concept that humans deserve certain, I wouldn't say benefits, but I guess like actually, what is a good word for that?
	Not benefits.
	Entitlement.
	Yes, I'll take entitlements.
	I like that one.
	Got it.
	And so they're subjective?
	They're not objective.
	So do you not believe that anyone has any.
	I'm asking you to.
	I want you to define a belief.
	Make a statement.
	That's great.
	Right now, we're just trying to figure out what rights are.
	Are they subjective or not?
	I think that certain rights are not subjective.
	can you demonstrate the rights that are not subjective?
	I think that rights can be infringed upon, but I think that that is immoral.
	Can you tell me the rights that aren't subjective?
	I think that the right to life is not subjective.
	Okay, so if you- I've just said it like eight times.
	So the right, this right which exists for life, that doesn't require human minds?
	Well, everything requires human minds.
	Then it can't be objective.
	Then everything is subjective.
	Wait a second.
	You're so right.
	So from your view, everything that's a right would be subjective?
	I think that everything that exists would be subjective at that point.
	Okay.
	Anything that comes from our minds and doesn't exist in the natural world would be subjective.
	Okay, so then rights are subjective, meaning it's just concepts that we make up.
	I don't think that rights are concepts that we make up.
	I'm sorry.
	I just don't.
	I mean, maybe you don't believe humans have rights, but I do.
	okay then we'll flesh it out again so do you think if it's the case that writes oh god andrew do you Well, this is incredibly.
	Listen, do you understand that what you're saying here is so fucking incoherent?
	It's so incoherent I can't even have the conversation.
	Andrew, do you have your own definition of rights?
	Why don't you give it to you?
	Well, first, first, you can't say to me, I'm giving you some incoherent gobbledygook.
	It's not incoherent.
	I'm going to show you.
	I'm going to demonstrate how it is.
	Oh, my God.
	So we start with this.
	Objective versus subjective.
	You agree with me that objective, right, means does not require minds.
	Hang on.
	Does not require minds.
	Subjective means does require minds.
	You continue, and then you got done telling me, hey, man, everything is subjective and these concepts are subjective by that metric.
	Okay, great.
	But you still believe that there's rights which are objective, like the right to life, but then can't tell me how it's subjective.
	I think that the right to life.
	Hang on, which means that we're now in either A, a performative contradiction, or you're just giving me incoherent babble.
	All right, Andrew, I believe that the right to life is objectively moral.
	How about that?
	Does that make more sense to you?
	And since you want me to define rights so bad, let me just take the Merriam-Webster definition so we can move on and actually have a conversation about opinions.
	Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom and entitlement.
	Okay, will you take that?
	Are those subjective or objective, though?
	The definition of rights is our agreed upon definition.
	No, no, no.
	What's in the definition of rights, is that objective or subjective?
	Well, they come from the mind.
	So based on your description, I would say subjective.
	Okay, so hang on.
	No, no, no, no.
	I'm not done speaking, Andrew.
	You've had a long term to speak, and I would like to ask you a question.
	You can ask whatever.
	Do you believe that there are any inherent legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement that all humans deserve?
	Not objectively.
	Do you think that there's anything that all humans deserve?
	Not on a moral basis.
	Do you think it would be immoral?
	Not objectively.
	So you think it's completely moral to infringe on anyone's rights?
	No, I'm just saying that objectively.
	No, but I'm not asking about whether or not it's objective or subjective.
	I'm asking about your opinion.
	I don't understand that.
	Do you believe that there are any rights that everyone has that are morally unacceptable to infringements?
	Not objectively.
	I don't care about objectivity.
	I care about your fucking opinion.
	Give me an opinion.
	We're in the subjective.
	Do you have a single opinion?
	Give me an opinion.
	Come up with an opinion.
	Okay, so I just want to make sure that we can...
	You're dancing around it.
	You're obfuscating.
	Yes, you are, because you don't want to have to give it away.
	I'm literally making sure we don't argue against.
	I'm literally making sure we don't obfuscate all of you.
	You asked me to define rights.
	I did.
	I accept it.
	Yeah, but the thing is...
	Now, what is your opinion?
	Hang on.
	I just want to clarify to make sure that we get this right.
	So you don't believe that there are any objective rights, right?
	I believe that the right to life is an objective, right?
	But we can disagree on it if you want to.
	We're back to incoherent world.
	No, we're not, Andrew.
	You just don't.
	Andrew, will you answer the question?
	I've answered a lot.
	I don't even know what you mean by rights.
	Andrew, I just defined rights.
	No, listen.
	Are you not listening to me?
	You can't.
	He's not listening to me.
	Did you not understand what I said?
	Do you want me to repeat it?
	Yeah, repeat it.
	Okay.
	So rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement.
	Do you understand what that means?
	And are those subjective?
	Oh, my God.
	What is up with you and subjectivity?
	I'm just trying to get a coherent answer.
	Okay, so let's say that they are subjective for the sake of moving this conversation along.
	Okay, so all rights are subjective.
	What right?
	So is the right to life subjective?
	I'm not asking whether or not it's subjective.
	I'm asking so I can get a fucking coherent answer.
	I'm not asking whether or not it's subjective.
	I'm asking whether or not you think it's available.
	I'm asking you.
	Listen, right to life.
	Do you think that humans deserve a right to life?
	Calm down.
	All we're doing right now is I'm just trying to make sure that you and I have a definition of rights.
	Andrew, it's taking you like an hour to understand this definition.
	Can we move on to the right?
	Yeah, because you don't understand how bad you don't understand how bad this is.
	You're so afraid to make an opinion.
	What's wrong with you, man?
	Just say something.
	You do this all day.
	Yeah, I'm going to do it until we get to some kind of coherent coherent, non-contradictory definition of rights.
	You are so afraid to just give an opinion on rights to the right.
	I'm not going to grant fallacious arguments.
	I'm not going to grant fallacious definitions.
	I'm not going to do that.
	I've agreed with you that rights are subjective.
	Now.
	Okay, so then the right to life is subjective.
	Do you believe we deserve a life?
	Just answer the question.
	Is the right to life subjective?
	Sure.
	Do you believe we deserve it?
	Oh my God, thank God.
	So all rights are subjective.
	Got it.
	Okay, so now that we've agreed that all rights are subjective, do you believe that there are any rights that all humans inherently deserve?
	Not objectively.
	But morality, based on your personal morality.
	I'm not asking you about objectivity or subjectivity.
	I'm asking for you about your personal morality.
	Sure.
	Do you think that there are any rights that all humans deserve?
	No, they're all subjective.
	But just because something is subjective doesn't mean that's not a moral opinion.
	I'm asking for your opinion.
	No, I'm asking for your opinion based on your ethical and moral framework.
	So for me, I would say that you have God-given rights.
	Sure.
	Right?
	But I think you can't ground rights.
	So I don't know how you get to have a conversation with me about rights when you just think rights are opinions.
	So you're grounding rights exclusively in the authority of God.
	I don't think they can be grounded outside of that because they're just saying that they're just a sequence of preferences.
	But we can't talk to God.
	You're just saying they're a series of preferences.
	That's all a right is.
	No.
	Do you want me to define it a fourth time?
	If it's subjective, what could it be other than a preference?
	Legal, social, or ethical principle of freedom or entitlement.
	Do you think that subjectively and morally there is anything that humans are entitled to?
	Subjectively, no.
	Okay, morally.
	Do you think that there is any right?
	What do you believe?
	Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
	Morally, what do you believe are the rights that humans are entitled to?
	That we.
	Well, if you're going to ground rights and ground them in god, then I would say that like, the Ten Commandments would give us some certain rights that would be necessary, like in necessary entailments.
	Okay so morally, so the Ten Commandments are all of?
	Can you actually pull up the Ten Commandments for me?
	Um, so the Ten Commandments are all of the, essentially all the human rights that we?
	No, i'm just saying that those are an example of what we can ground in god.
	There's other ones too.
	There's additional you believe are inherent human rights.
	I just gave you a list.
	You haven't given me any, that's it, just the Ten Commandments.
	Well, I would say that those can be grounded as an example of what can be grounded as a moral objective, but god is subjective, so why are you grounding it in the subjective?
	Again, if god is subjective, god is subjective and all rights are subjective, then how would I be on a lesser playing field than you, even if those rights were subjective, if I believed in them and you believed in subjective rights also?
	So what you're saying is you need to ground your rights in something objective, and the objective thing that you chose to ground them in is go, which isn't objective.
	Wait wait, i'm sorry that's.
	I'm very confused here.
	Help me out.
	If if uh, my preferences align with God's preferences okay, if i'm like, let's just say that i'm a subjective anti-realist or a Christian anti-realist.
	So I believe that there are rights right, they align with God's preferences and my preferences align with God's preferences sure great okay great um, how would that give you any higher standing sin, considering that all rights are grounded subjectively from your perspective?
	Yes, which would mean they're all just preferences.
	But, godive Andrew, why would that matter?
	Because how would that be saying that every, all of my rights are only grounded in subjectivity, and but here, my rights are also only grounded in subjectivity exactly actually, that's my point.
	Okay, so if that's the case, then we have established that you have no moral high ground for making any prescription on rights, because you're just saying they're preferences.
	We do have a moral high ground, though.
	Rights are not preferences.
	We've already defined rights.
	How are they not preferences, then?
	Rights are not preferences.
	Okay, then what are they?
	You think the right to life is like the preference to be a life.
	What else could it be if it's subjective?
	What do you mean?
	What else could it be?
	If subjectivity requires a mind, then what else could a right be other than your preference for a thing?
	What else could it be?
	It's a principle no, and it's your preference to follow that principle.
	Well, it's guided by our human morality and that's your preference to follow those morals sure, so then it's all just guided by preference.
	Okay, but how do you define whether something's morally moral or immoral?
	We would just use preferences.
	That doesn't work.
	But what if every that's the only way you're doing it right now, andrew.
	But what if everyone on earth decided we prefer, if we have one group of people that we enslave?
	Would you then say that slavery is moral?
	Exactly, so you believe that slavery is moral?
	Well, it wouldn't be a belief of slavery justifying slavery?
	No no, no see, i'm.
	So you think that slavery is moral.
	Do you think that repeating the question, as though that's going to help you with this?
	Well, you just did that.
	No, i'm expressing, i'm expressing to you, i'm repeating what you said back to you to make sure you realize how ridiculous it's.
	I'm going to show you how it's.
	Not you ready?
	Tell me how slavery is immoral, except or absent preference.
	It's causing human suffering and it's your preference that we don't cause that.
	So you don't think it's immoral.
	Is it your Preference?
	We don't cause human suffering.
	I asked you.
	My personal preference.
	So I'm asking you, how do we ground a right that humans shouldn't be slaves absent collective human preference, including yours?
	How?
	Well, I think it's inherent.
	I think that there are certain rights that aren't.
	Yes, I believe that there are inherent human rights that violate the basic principles of morality.
	And you just gotta stop laughing.
	Oh my God, this is so funny.
	You can cringe all you want.
	You're the cringiest person.
	I can't believe you just said that.
	You just said all rights are subjective, right?
	They're only grounded in preference, but they're also inherent.
	No, I believe that there are inherent human rights.
	Okay.
	I believe our society would not function if we didn't have inherent human rights.
	Okay, what is inherent?
	We literally would not, like, if it was immoral not to kill each other, what if we all decided to just maim each other?
	How would we survive as a species?
	So it's our preference for the proliferation of our species.
	There is a direct benefit.
	That would all be preference.
	So you want us to go extinct?
	What the fuck are you talking about?
	You prefer that the human species?
	I'm telling you that everything that you're talking about right now is just a set of human preferences.
	Okay.
	So if that's the case, can you ground why it would be that slavery would be immoral outside of human preference?
	Well, you're causing suffering.
	Yes, but that's just a preference again.
	It's just a preference not to cause suffering.
	So do you believe that there's any definition of morality?
	Like, can we, can you actually, do you want to just look at the definition of morality?
	Since we can't agree on a single definition.
	I mean, Andrew, what are you, are you defending slavery?
	What the fuck are you talking about right now, dude?
	It sounds like you're defending slavery.
	For what purpose?
	I really don't understand.
	I know you don't understand.
	Yeah, because why on earth would anyone defend slavery?
	Nobody did.
	You did just now.
	Never happened.
	Why are you acting like we weren't just in the middle of a conversation in which you were defending slavery?
	That never happened.
	You just made it up.
	Are you trying to gaslight me?
	Not only not trying to gaslight you, but the opposite is happening.
	I'm defending slavery.
	Can you tell me how I defended slavery?
	You just said that if everyone wanted, like, rights are based on subjective human preferences.
	So if everyone preferred slavery, it would be moral.
	Yeah.
	You just said morality is justified by human preferences.
	I'll tell you what.
	And if you can ground how morality is not grounded by anything other than preference, I can't wait to hear it.
	To end the proliferation of human suffering and progress as a society.
	That's a preference.
	Those are preferences.
	Everything's a fucking preference.
	Right.
	So if it's just preference, right?
	You're just saying that collectively people have a preference to not make other people slaves, and that's what morality is, is it's a shared set of preferences.
	Then if I say enslavement is just a shared set of preferences, how can you claim that's immoral?
	So you don't believe that there's anything that's morally good or morally bad inherently.
	No matter what, if everyone wanted to do it, it's still morally bad.
	I'm demonstrating.
	If every single person wanted to just like kill this shit out of a baby, I'm demonstrating to you that that's an entailment of immoral.
	There is an inherent definition of morality.
	What is that?
	Why is your sense of morality preference-based?
	Because if you don't ground your preferences or something like this in something which is an unchanging standard for morality, in other words, it's changing just based on preference, right?
	You would need to give me some way to ground this where it's unchanging that would demonstrate for me that slavery is only inherently immoral in some faucet other than collective preference.
	But even when we were existed in a society that collectively endorsed slavery, it was still immoral.
	Do you not believe that?
	Like, do you not believe?
	Are you seriously justifying?
	I'm asking you what made it immoral.
	The concepts of good and bad.
	Do you not believe that there is any inherent definition of good and bad?
	Is it just based on personal preferences?
	I think that from your view, it would be, yes.
	No, I think that from your view it would be a- Then ground it outside of preference.
	Go ahead.
	Fine.
	Will you pull up the definition of freaking morality?
	Since we're only going to argue on descriptors today because Andrew's afraid to give an opinion.
	We can't get past the descriptors because you won't give me anything coherent.
	Andrew, why don't you agree that there is a very basic, like there is an inherent goodness and badness?
	Do you not believe that?
	On a base level, there are some things that are.
	You can justify that from your view.
	And if you can't justify it from your view, I don't need to accept the definition of good or bad.
	So justify it first.
	All right.
	I believe that if something is good when it perpetuates, wait, no, sorry.
	I believe something is bad when it perpetuates and proliferates human suffering.
	That's a preference.
	So, Andrew, do you just not believe in the concept of morality?
	Don't you understand when you're having a debate, when you're actually having a debate and you're asking a person to give a definition of the thing, the actual thing in question here?
	And I ask you, what is morality if we're having a moral-based argument?
	In this case, we are because we're talking about rights.
	And I say, okay, tell me what rights are.
	And you incoherently babble about how they're both objective and subjective.
	They're inherent and they're not inherent.
	They're social constructs and they're not social constructs.
	I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
	It's just babble.
	Andrew, I left the middle of the middle.
	So then I'll define them one more time.
	Rights are a legal, social, or ethical principle of freedom or entitlement.
	And out of those preferences?
	A principle?
	Following a principle?
	It could be someone's preference.
	It could not be.
	Well, yeah, right.
	So what does it matter if it's a preference?
	Why are you stuck on the concept of the future?
	Because if it's the case, because I'm looking for the case of equivalency.
	If it's the case that you think that you have morals which are better than mine or gooder than mine.
	I don't think they're better than yours because you haven't shared yours.
	Or gooder than mine or great or whatever or gooder than anybody's.
	There's not a word.
	Or gooder than anything.
	Or good.
	Or the goodiest of all things.
	Then you would need to demonstrate for me that rights are more than simply preferences of people to invent social constructs that they think might be beneficial to themselves.
	If that is the case, then if I have preferences against that and they're shared collectively with other people, you would have to demonstrate why those preferences are inferior to your own because they're both preferences.
	So Andrew, why do you define morality?
	Like how do you define morality?
	If you don't want to keep dealing with my stupid opinions on the basic definitions of words that you know we both understand, how do you both understand them?
	Okay, then give me your definition.
	How do you why does my definition help your definition?
	Because you refuse to agree to my definition.
	I'm not going to until you give me a coherent one.
	I don't want to give an opinion.
	You are so afraid of sharing.
	We're going to start first with something that's coherent.
	You have to define morality.
	It doesn't matter.
	You have to give me a coherent definition of rights.
	I'm not going to give you a definition of rights.
	Then we can't go anywhere with rights unless you tell me what they are.
	I don't give you a definition of that.
	It's an incoherent definition.
	Andrew, it's the definition that is generally agreed upon by Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionary.
	That is the definition of rights.
	It is literally the definition of rights.
	And are they preferences?
	Who gives a fuck?
	I give a fuck.
	What is morality?
	Preferences.
	You think that morality is solely based on personal preference?
	Yes.
	So something is morally good if you want to do it.
	Yes.
	That's what you believe.
	Yes.
	What else could it be?
	So if you wanted to punch Brian in the face, you really, really wanted to just punch Brian in the face.
	Sorry to use you on this point.
	But if you really wanted to, you believe that that would be a morally justified act.
	For me, yes.
	Okay.
	So if someone really.
	But it wouldn't be for him.
	Because he has a different set of preferences, you see.
	Okay.
	So you define morality.
	So then what happens in that?
	How do we decide if it's moral or immoral?
	Through collectivization.
	So every like, so your definition of morality is based solely on the collective will.
	That's it.
	Well, not solely based on the collective will.
	So then what else is it based on?
	Collective preferences.
	Collective preferences.
	So if collectively we all decided that we wanted to commit a genocide against, I don't know, let's say Germany, the entire country of Germany, kill all the millions of people that were there.
	Every single person in America agreed to do that.
	You believe that that would be morally justified?
	Well, if it was the.
	So let's say there were more people in America than there are in Germany.
	So their preference is to not get genocided, but there's less of them, right?
	And our preference is to genocide Germany, and there's more of us.
	So collectively, that preference is larger.
	You would morally justify that action.
	I think that if it was preference-based morality, it would be justified, right?
	So you believe in preference-based morality.
	So you're going to justify slavery, genocide, all of those things.
	You've just morally justified all of these horrific actions.
	I'm going to tell you the greatest.
	I'm going to tell you the greatest thing in the world.
	And you just completely defeated your own argument.
	That is what your morality is.
	No, that's what your morality is.
	You're basing it off of your negative.
	It's not grounded on anything other than preference if you disagree with me.
	I don't believe them.
	I think that there are, like, I think memorality is about what is good and bad.
	What is good and bad other than preferences?
	I'd say good and bad.
	I mean, why?
	Ah, God.
	What are you doing?
	Dude, you think I would just justify slavery?
	I don't know why you're dancing around.
	What is good or bad other than preferences?
	I would say something is good if it is beneficial to the world.
	So preferences again.
	No.
	When you say something's beneficial to the world, isn't that just things which align with people's preferences?
	Yes, they happen to, but it's not based on the preference.
	Then what is it based on?
	The preference is based on it.
	Do you understand that?
	No.
	We prefer things that are good to the world.
	But things that are good to the world are not good to the world just because we prefer them.
	Okay, then what makes them good to the world?
	What makes them good to the world is if it disincentivizes harm and human suffering or animals.
	That sounds very preference-based again to me.
	It's not preference.
	So then tell me how these people are.
	Someone could have a preference that they want the world to suffer and cause harm, but it doesn't mean that actions that disincentivize suffering are somehow now immoral.
	You got to help me out here then.
	Your definition of moral.
	So how inherently, can an action be good or bad outside of a human mind and preference?
	Well, because we can see the physical consequences of this, not outside of a human mind.
	Yes, the fuck, we can.
	If you punch Brian in the face, we could all see that that would exist outside human minds would see that.
	No shit, I didn't know okay, but it still exists objectively in space and time because it would require a mind and an observer.
	What the fuck?
	What the kind of if a tree falls ass argument is this?
	It's not an if a tree falls ass argument, Brian in the face, it's objective.
	You objectively just did that.
	Like what are you talking about, man?
	What makes it immoral other than your preference, your subjective preference?
	No, what makes it immoral is that you perpetuated human suffering.
	Yeah, but human suffering requires minds.
	You see what I'm saying.
	So, like what I'm asking you, is this sure, if an action is truly good or truly bad, how does that work, that an action is good or bad on its own, absent a human's preference?
	It's consequence.
	An action can be good I mean, there's multiple definitions but an action can be good or bad based on intent and consequence.
	Okay, I'll try this again, if thing good, how thing good?
	Outside preference consequence, the consequence of the action, and people have a preference for consequences they don't want.
	They don't want consequences.
	You're using the preference as what is prescribing the morality.
	It is what's prescribing the morality.
	I don't think morality is inherently based on human preferences.
	I think morality is based on whether or not it proliferates human suffering.
	Or really any kind of suffering.
	But that's just grounded again in preference.
	No, it's grounded in consequences.
	And you prefer not to have those consequences.
	The consequence of human suffering?
	Yeah.
	Then that would be preference-based morality.
	It's not preference-based morality.
	It doesn't influence its morality.
	It's the only thing that's not.
	Even if I had the preference, then what other than human preference would influence morality?
	Consequence and intent.
	I just said it.
	That's all you saying preference.
	No, but the preference is based on the consequence.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So wait, let me get this right.
	But the morality of an action is not based on my preference towards the consequence.
	The morality of an action is based on the objective consequence.
	So imagine you have 20 people and they all like, I don't know, they beat a kid to death, right?
	Sure.
	And there's just you.
	There's just you who sees this and you're the 21st person, right?
	It's only 21 of you on planet Earth.
	You see these 20 kids and they beat a kid to death.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Did all of them do something wrong?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	If you didn't exist, what would make that action wrong?
	It would make that action wrong because it proliferated human suffering.
	The consequence was the death of a child, which I believe is inherently morally wrong.
	You have denied that child the right to life.
	You have infringed upon its rights.
	So when I asked you, whether or not they agree with that.
	So if you're not there, what makes it morally wrong?
	You said, because I think it's morally wrong.
	But you're not there.
	I said you denied the child the right to life.
	That's what made it morally wrong, Andrew.
	I see.
	And you have a preference against that, right?
	I happen to.
	Okay.
	But that's beside.
	So can you ground how that's bad absent your preference?
	They denied a child their right to life.
	And you prefer that they didn't.
	That's not the point.
	It is the very point.
	No, it's not.
	Then tell me.
	Even if I didn't exist and didn't have a preference, that would still be immoral.
	Causing human suffering and denying a child the right to life is immoral.
	Then what that would mean.
	Why are you advocating in favor of that?
	What that would mean is that that morality, that is objectively true, even absent minds observing it, right?
	Okay, got it.
	So it's objectively true that even without minds, if somebody got beaten to death, that would be immoral.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Can you tell me then how you ground that it's immoral other than restating the thing itself as being immoral?
	I just told you it's immoral because you denied a child the right to life.
	Yeah, but that's just you repeating the claim.
	Do you understand?
	Like if I say murdering that guy's wrong and you say, why is it wrong?
	And I say because murdering people is wrong.
	That's not giving a justification.
	You caused human suffering.
	That's why it's wrong.
	Yeah, but why is causing human suffering immoral?
	So you don't think causes.
	I'm asking you a question.
	Why is causing human suffering immoral absent preference?
	Why?
	Because it's wait, causing human suffering is immoral.
	Because you are denying them their inherent rights given by God or by nature.
	You don't believe in God.
	How do you know that?
	You said so.
	No, I didn't.
	When did I say so?
	So you do believe in God?
	So rights come from God?
	I'm not a Christian.
	And I don't believe that all of our inherent rights come from God.
	But I do believe that.
	Okay, so all these rights that don't come from God.
	My morality is not based on my belief in God is what I'm saying.
	Okay, got it.
	So then what would make the action immoral?
	You say, because the action's immoral.
	No.
	Okay, well, then what makes it immoral?
	Perpetuating human suffering.
	And what makes that immorality?
	It's a consequence of the action.
	And what makes that immoral other than your preference?
	What?
	What makes it immoral is that you're killing the species.
	I mean, yeah, that's just restating it again.
	It's a consequence.
	It's the consequence.
	So let me show you.
	Let me show you what keeps happening.
	I say, why is killing that person wrong?
	And you say, it's wrong because he's killing that person.
	And I say, what outside of that?
	I say, what outside of your preference makes that wrong?
	You say, because he's killing.
	Okay, well, try it again.
	What makes it wrong to perpetuate human suffering absent your preference?
	The consequence of human suffering.
	And what makes that consequence wrong absent your preference?
	Absent of my preference?
	It's the perpetuation of human suffering.
	See how it's circular?
	Do you understand now?
	It's totally circular.
	I wasn't done with my sense.
	Okay, go ahead.
	If you're going to interrupt me in the middle of my sentence, I'm going to get hot.
	Oh, you're right.
	Go ahead.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Okay, wait, where was I?
	Go back to your question.
	Yeah, so the question is: what makes an action immoral absent your preference?
	I think an action is immoral if it infringes on the natural rights of an individual and perpetuates human suffering.
	I understand that you believe that, and that's your preference.
	What makes it wrong absent your preference?
	Well, that's why not God.
	What makes it wrong?
	But I believe that they're like, do you not believe that?
	That's your preference.
	That's your preference.
	Sure, it's my preference.
	So what makes it wrong?
	You keep saying immoral.
	Objective truth are like, just because my preference happens to agree with that.
	Okay, so then tell me why it's wrong absent your preference.
	Because I believe there's an objective definition of right and wrong.
	That's your preference again.
	Okay, Andrew, then why do you believe it's on?
	What does it have to do with the...
	What does me believing that that fucking TV right there is off when it's on have to do with your definition of this?
	Wait, that's a red herring.
	Hold on from my bingo.
	Oh my God, that's not a red herring.
	I'm literally trying to stay on topic.
	Wait, here, hold on.
	Where's right?
	Can you ground morality outside of your preference or not?
	Boom.
	Can you ground morality outside of your preference or not?
	You keep on saying it's wrong because it's wrong, because it's wrong, because it's wrong.
	Grounded morality and natural rights.
	I've already done that.
	Now, what are natural rights other than your preference?
	What are natural rights other than my preference?
	Well, my preferences happen to align with our definition of natural rights.
	So your natural rights are just your preference?
	No.
	Then what are they?
	Natural rights are the right to life, the right to liberty, and honestly, the pursuit of happiness.
	And what gives you those rights other than people's preferences?
	It's not people's preferences.
	Well, it's not people's preferences that give you those rights.
	It's just that we are all naturally deserve them.
	Just being alive is what gives you those rights.
	I believe that all humans who are birthed into this world have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
	That's a preference.
	Constitutional founders would agree with me.
	Do you realize that's a preference?
	Sure, but what the fuck does that matter?
	It matters because if you keep on claiming over and over again, rights aren't preferences and everything you give me is just a preference for a right.
	Anytime I ask you what's if you have good, whatever you think good is, what is it outside of what you prefer?
	Andrew, all you want to do is have a descriptive argument.
	I want to actually hear your opinion.
	Listen, the semantics are important to the debate.
	Dude, wait, yes, dude.
	Brian, what time is it?
	4:15.
	I'll sit here all day and do this.
	I'm telling you right now, we're not moving past this until you can give me the grounded claims.
	It's pointless.
	No, it's the most pointed.
	It's pointless.
	You're just trying to evade.
	Because you are afraid of voicing.
	Then all you have to do is tell me how you ground rights outside of your preferences because you keep saying they're not your preferences.
	You are the one who grounded rights and preferences, and that was your justification for fucking slavery.
	You disagreed, though.
	Yes.
	So tell me how you ground them outside of preference.
	They're inherent.
	It's natural law.
	And what is natural law other than a set of preferences?
	Natural law, I mean, it's a concept that there are inherent rights that every human deserves based on the fact that they're alive.
	Okay.
	Which is objective.
	We are alive objectively, unless the whole thing is a simulation.
	Okay, so you're alive.
	Sure.
	You believe people have a right to be alive.
	Yes.
	That's a preference, right?
	It happens to be my preference.
	Yes.
	There are people who disagree with me.
	Okay.
	And is that because of their preference?
	Yes.
	So then what are rights of the world?
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Hold on.
	So question.
	Are they morally justified to kill others if their preference is to kill?
	Yes.
	Because rights are just preferences.
	I'm the one who believes in a preferential worldview, Andrew.
	So do you.
	No.
	I believe in it.
	There is an inherent definition of right and wrong, good and bad.
	Okay, then give it to me.
	What makes a thing good other than a set of preferences?
	I believe that something is good.
	I've already said this before.
	No, actually, no.
	Don't fucking tell me what to do, man.
	Shall we change the prompt?
	I think so.
	I think not.
	I think listen, I'm going to tell you this is.
	No, because all you want to do is debate because you are afraid of what's in your opinion.
	Let me make the case.
	Yeah, let me make the case.
	So the case is this.
	Okay.
	She wants to have a debate, and she claims it's good faith on force doctrine, which is a descriptor about rights.
	When I ask her if rights are preferences, give her her own worldview back to her, right?
	When I say what she says, so all of these genocides and everything else are completely justified because of preferences.
	I literally gave you your worldview back to you and said, yes, they have to be.
	Hang on, disagree with you.
	I don't believe that rights are.
	Am I allowed to finish what I'm saying?
	Let them finish.
	Go ahead, Andrew.
	So anyway, the thing is, is like, if that's the case, I gave you your whole worldview back and showed you based on your worldview, all of those things actually would be justified.
	Yes, because I don't believe that you can ground this concept of good or evil outside of preference, and you haven't.
	And you want me to just move on from, hang on, and you want me to just move on from that.
	And I'm not going to until you either A, concede that your morality is all preferences, or B, justify how it's not.
	I don't believe that morality is based in preference.
	I don't believe that's preference.
	Morality is based in inherent natural law.
	And we've already talked about that.
	But inherent would say that it's, well, here's the thing: inherent would say that that's objective, and you don't believe in objectivity.
	You believe only in subjective rights.
	No, no, that's not true.
	We're talking about morality, not rights.
	You don't believe that there is an inherent basis of morality.
	From your view, there's not.
	I'm not asking you about my view, Andrew.
	I'm asking you about your view.
	It wouldn't matter what my view was if your view is inherent.
	I'm curious.
	That's nice, but I want to know.
	Look, we're not going to be able to do that.
	I'm not moving past it until we get to good and bad.
	We're not doing that.
	I don't believe that there is any inherent reality.
	It wouldn't matter.
	Yes, it does.
	It doesn't.
	It does matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	You have to actually give an opinion.
	You can't just sit here and ask.
	You don't understand.
	I don't know.
	Why don't you understand?
	You can give me the definitions and ask for the definitions of things over and over and over and over.
	You've destroyed the ability for morality itself.
	That's an argument.
	You've destroyed the ability for morality itself, so it wouldn't matter what I claimed.
	You've destroyed the ability.
	I'm giving you all these definitions.
	Because what you're claiming is an anti-realist position.
	It's a moral, anti-realist position.
	You're saying there's no true moral facts.
	Everything is just morality based on preferences.
	That's the opposite of what I just said.
	Then ground it.
	I just said that.
	Bin grounded.
	There is inherent morality based on natural law.
	I just said that.
	Bin grounded.
	So now what is your definition of morality?
	Ground it.
	Do you believe there's inherent morality?
	Answer a question and why would it matter?
	Answer it because I want to know.
	Yeah, sure.
	We're in the middle of the world.
	And I think that all preferences.
	Why am I the only one who is sharing?
	So you don't think there's a problem?
	So the prescriptive morality is not my opinion.
	It's yours.
	It's yours too.
	No, it's not.
	I can't ground it.
	I just did.
	No, you didn't.
	I've done it over and over again.
	You haven't.
	You are afraid to be talking about it.
	What did I ground morality in?
	You just grounded it in prescriptive.
	No, preference.
	You just said that.
	Preference.
	Prescriptive is preference.
	And what are you grounding?
	I'm prescribing morality as a morality.
	What are you grounding morality in?
	I'm grounding morality in the inherent belief that humans deserve natural rights.
	So your preferences.
	But it's inherent.
	It can't be inherent if you're grounding it in your preference.
	There is an inherent right.
	Then demonstrate that they're inherent.
	Demonstrate that what's inherent morality.
	Right.
	Yeah, morality.
	I just did.
	With the.
	Yes, we did.
	With slavery.
	Want to go back to the slavery example?
	So, if an entire society believes that this one society should be enslaved and there's less of them, under your definition of morality, enslaving this smaller group would be morally justified.
	Based on preference.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And I'm saying because morality is inherent, then even though all these people would like to enslave them, it is still not morally justified.
	I see.
	So tell me something.
	These inherent rights, where do they come from again?
	Inherent rights.
	I don't believe they come from God.
	I believe they come from natural law, but God is also an example.
	So is natural law unchanging?
	Yeah, to an extent.
	Natural law is unchanging?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And can you demonstrate an unchanging natural law?
	In order for, well, all humans have to be born and all humans die.
	That's a natural law.
	No, a moral natural law.
	But morality is based on natural law.
	The natural, like natural law is not what is moral or immoral.
	So, wait, now I'm really confused.
	I thought you just said that natural law is what you're appealing to for what is or isn't moral.
	Yes, natural law.
	Okay, so can you give me an example of an unchanging natural law, which is moral or immoral?
	Okay, causing harm creates human suffering.
	That's a natural law.
	We know this to be fact.
	That's a natural law.
	Yeah.
	Okay, can you demonstrate the natural law for me?
	Okay.
	Other than if Andrew punched Brian in the face, Brian, you think that would hurt?
	Yes.
	Okay, so there it is.
	That's a natural law.
	If you caused harm to Brian, it would create human suffering in Brian.
	There it is.
	What if Brian wanted me to punch him in the face because he thought it felt good?
	Well, that's now consensual.
	So I think that's non-consensual.
	So then that's not an unchanging natural law.
	Non-consensual harm.
	There.
	How's that?
	Non-consensual harm.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And when you say non-consensual harm, can a person like, I don't know, consent to things which would harm them?
	And that would be a good idea.
	But it would cause human suffering because they want it.
	I see.
	Okay.
	So when you say suffering, is suffering this idea?
	Is that subjective or objective?
	Do you believe that that's requiring minds or not?
	Well, everything requires a mind.
	Okay.
	So then the ideas for what suffering is right now can change.
	Well, I guess some suffering isn't subjective.
	What?
	What suffering?
	What form of suffering or preference for suffering can't change over time?
	Well, I guess, yeah, you're personal.
	I guess suffering is subjective to each person.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So then preferences for suffering can change over time.
	Well, the definition of suffering doesn't change, but like an individual can feel like something natural law is now rendered incoherent because you said that it's unchanging, but you clearly think that it does change.
	Well, suffering doesn't change.
	Okay, so suffering, suffering.
	It can change between people.
	Then it changes.
	But suffering itself, the concept of suffering is not changing.
	But what we each interpret as suffering on our bodies can change, yes.
	Then it's not unchanging.
	It is unchanging.
	It still exists.
	Well, but how can I understand?
	How can it be an unchanging law?
	Do you not understand what suffering is?
	I don't understand how it can be an unchanging law if it can change.
	What do you think that suffering is, Andrew?
	I don't know, like pain, things like that, I think.
	Okay, yes.
	So pain still exists, but someone's pain tolerance can maybe get better or worse over time, right?
	Yeah, but the concept of suffering and pain is the same, but it can, like, it's subjective to each person.
	Do you understand that?
	Yeah.
	So I'm going to show, I'll show you kind of the line of logic here.
	Okay, sure.
	Okay.
	So if it's the case that you have, you think that morality is an unchanging standard and you're pointing to natural law, right?
	You're saying natural law is unchanging.
	This is the standard for which I base morality on, and it's not preferential.
	Yes.
	Okay, it's not preferential.
	So natural law exists somewhere.
	Yes.
	Absent minds.
	Sure.
	Okay, sure.
	Where?
	Well, there's multiple natural laws.
	Moral natural laws.
	No, not moral natural laws, just subjective natural laws.
	But being born and dying exists absent of mind.
	Pain exists absent of mind.
	How does pain exist absent of mind?
	Physical pain can exist absent of mind.
	How?
	If someone cuts off your arm, it's going to fucking hurt.
	No?
	It's not just that you think.
	Those are both minds.
	It's neurons.
	Those are minds.
	Well, it's not neurons, but it's those are both minds.
	What are you talking about?
	So how does pain exist absent of mind?
	So you don't think like pain exists absence of mind because it's your body.
	Your body is feeling things.
	You can feel things without your mind thinking about it.
	What?
	I mean, it's your central nervous system.
	How do you feel something without a mind?
	You never felt the same thing.
	If you had no brain, you would feel stuff.
	We have multiple.
	If you had no brain, you would feel stuff.
	Well, I've never not had a brain before.
	Do you think people with no brain feel stuff?
	I don't know.
	Why don't we ask one of them?
	What do you think?
	I don't know.
	Where do you think?
	Where are your pain receptors located?
	Aren't they all over your body?
	If you have no brain, how could you possibly feel pain?
	Because you feel pain in your body.
	How?
	Without a brain to process it.
	But who the fuck doesn't have a brain, Andrew?
	Like, who is this argument for?
	You said that pain doesn't require minds.
	So so long as humans have a brain, then we can feel pain.
	So minds.
	Brain.
	Well, what's a mind other than a brain to you?
	Well, the mind is the conscious inside of your brain.
	So it's the brain.
	No, it's not.
	Consciousness is not your brain.
	So then if you don't have a brain, do you have consciousness?
	No.
	Okay, then it's the brain.
	But you can have a brain without consciousness, right?
	Like chickens have brains, but they're still not conscious.
	That's sentience.
	No, it's a conscious.
	Sentience.
	Your conscious is what is thinking, right?
	Your prefrontal cortex is your consciousness.
	No, because you would have unconscious consciousness, which would mean like you could be half brain dead, but still like picture things in your mind.
	Yeah, actually, that's a great example.
	Do people who are brain dead feel pain?
	Shall we switch prompts?
	This is the fucking.
	Yeah.
	Let's switch.
	Can I just finish with one last thing?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	I just want to finish.
	I just want to finish with one last thing.
	I just want to point this out to you so that you understand that you, this whole time, you have not been able to demonstrate moral facts, absent preference.
	Everything that you give as a moral fact, like pain, suffering, things like that, are just things that you're claiming you have a preference against.
	They don't exist.
	Absent minds.
	They're subjective to the individual.
	So if that's the case, you're grounding all morality in preference.
	All of it.
	You're not like, what else could it possibly be?
	And then when I ask you, so if I say, hey, is murdering Brian wrong?
	You say yes.
	I say why?
	Because of this principle.
	I say, well, isn't that adherence to the principle just your preference?
	Yes.
	So what makes killing him wrong?
	It's a massive circle.
	Natural law.
	I literally just said that.
	I mean, honestly, Andrew, I think you're having a hard time listening because you're so focused on justifying slavery, despite, you know, your belief that morality comes to God.
	Do you think that that's going to make a good clip for you?
	Because it's not going to.
	It's not a great clip for you.
	Andrew, I don't really need to clip you.
	Come on, give me a break.
	You're going to try to clip.
	Unless you want to open another jar of pickles.
	Do you think that one's going to be a good one for you, too?
	But anyway, go ahead.
	We can move on to the next topic.
	This was ridiculous.
	I just want to finish this off.
	I do too.
	Go ahead.
	Well, yes.
	Well, you each get you have to do that.
	You just finished, so now may I have my final statement?
	Yes.
	I mean, Andrew, I don't really agree with your basic definition of prescriptive morality.
	I think that prescriptive morality opens the door for so the moral justification for so many aspects of human suffering, including slavery and genocide, which you just justified yourself.
	Now, whether or not we agree on what each natural law is, I think the natural law is what justifies and dictates what is moral and immoral.
	And I mean, if you don't agree with that, then I guess you can just head over to North Korea.
	All right, I'm done.
	Okay, so the next prompt.
	There's quite a few, but while we have a smoke first, yeah, I'll do a smoke.
	You guys want to take a break?
	Yeah, because it's been like an hour now.
	All right, go for it.
	Go for it.
	The next, as soon as they, you can go at the same time if you'd like.
	I'm good.
	Okay, all right.
	Got it.
	So we'll go over just a couple things here.
	The next prompt.
	It's also a break from Andrew.
	That's fine.
	The next prompt, guys.
	Andrew's just taking a smoke break.
	Well, we'll announce it as soon as he returns and if they agree on the exact prompt.
	I am going to, and then we'll also do the QA session.
	So if you guys want to send in a question or statement, you can do so via streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	That's streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
	$199 and up if you want to submit a question or a statement.
	Also, guys, like the video.
	We have about 11,000, 12,000 people watching.
	So if you guys are enjoying the stream, you'd like to see more of these debates, drop a like on the video.
	It supports the show.
	Also, you can support without any of these platforms taking their cut.
	We have Venmo, Cash App.
	It's whatever pod on both.
	Also, guys, go to twitch.tv slash whatever and drop us a follow in the Prime Sub if you have one.
	If you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch and then you can drop Twitch Prime subs.
	It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
	Also, we have some merchandise shopped at whatever.com.
	Also, what was the bingo?
	Well, we can't do it.
	Can you hold the bingo?
	The bingo thing up to the okay.
	So I thought it'd be fun if we did.
	Sorry, I'm like a little autistic with my notes.
	Logical fallacy bingo.
	I don't know if you can see it.
	Move it forward just a little bit.
	So it's actually turn it.
	And you see how it's coming into frame?
	Other way?
	Do you see on the left side of the screen there?
	Turn it the other way.
	Is it?
	Like almost so it's facing behind you almost.
	Wait, what do you mean?
	Turn it like that.
	Oh, like this?
	Yeah.
	Scooted it.
	This camera.
	I see what you're saying.
	Okay.
	There you go.
	Here.
	She did a logical fallacy bingo.
	There it is.
	There it is.
	I don't know if you're going to, it's not necessarily in focus.
	But yeah, this is logical fallacy bingo.
	Did he hit me with an ad hominem?
	Did I miss one?
	I haven't been keeping.
	I know.
	Okay.
	It's possible.
	I think you should start doing these more in debates.
	The bingo.
	We do have bingos.
	Oh.
	Do you usually, I'll send you a picture of it.
	You should do the ad.
	You should do the picture.
	I'll post it on our Discord.
	Speaking of which, discord.gg slash whatever.
	We post behind the scenes, our schedule, hate mail.
	Pull it up really quick.
	Guys, if you want to see all the behind the scenes stuff of our Discord, scroll up a little bit.
	Yeah, we post like all the reasons people cancel.
	We post our legal threats that we get.
	We post, let's see, what was the most recent one?
	No, it's all good.
	Discord.gg slash whatever.
	If you want to stay updated on everything going on in the world of whatever.
	And like, guys, like the video.
	Also, if you want to become a master debater like Andrew or Naima, debateuniversity.com.
	They're both master debaters.
	And if you want to become one yourself and engage.
	You do a lot of debates.
	What are you?
	Are you a journeyman debater?
	Is this a journeyman debater?
	I'm not sure, actually.
	Did you just make that up?
	Like, you know how there's like, there's journeymen, electricians.
	I don't really know a lot about the world of electricians.
	I don't know.
	I think it should be like karate, like a belt system.
	Oh, sorry.
	I think it should be like a belt system, like karate.
	So a worker or sports player who is reliable, but not outstanding.
	You call me a journeyman debater?
	You'd said you weren't a master.
	If you're not a master, what are you?
	Okay, that's fair.
	All right, that's fair.
	Okay, fine.
	Intermediate.
	I don't know.
	Are you intermediate?
	Intermediate to advanced.
	Intermediate to advanced.
	Are there any synonyms for like intermediate?
	I feel like I'm like a brown belt.
	You're a brown belt.
	Right?
	As I go.
	Okay.
	All right.
	That works.
	I think it should be a belt system.
	I think it'd be really fun.
	That works.
	Let's see here.
	I'm going to let some chats come through.
	Oh, no.
	I hate the chats.
	I'll wait for the chats until everybody is back at the table.
	Trying to think if there was anything else that we needed to go over there.
	Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, kindly like the video.
	We're going to be doing a Q ⁇ A session as soon as both participants return to the table.
	So you can do that via streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	Did you want to do your smoke or do you want to just get back?
	No, I want my smoke.
	Okay.
	Never going to say no to a cigarette.
	All right.
	Sounds good.
	Guys, we're taking a brief break to allow the participants to have a breather from the debate.
	Welcome back, Andrew, to the table.
	So I wouldn't touch your eye to the microphone.
	I don't know, I just, yeah, your forehead's good.
	Forehead's fine.
	I wouldn't just.
	I'm looking out for Andrew.
	I don't need this guy having pink eye at debate con.
	Speaking of which, Andrew, do you want to let the people know you got debate con?
	All right, I'll do it for Andrew.
	I'll do it for Andrew.
	Guys, Andrew's going to be participating at Debate Con this.
	Is it Friday, Saturday?
	Friday, Saturday.
	Just bring me some fucking liquor for the love of it.
	There's some fucking.
	Oh, God.
	Oh, Timpool tomorrow.
	If you guys want to see more of Andrew, he'll be on Timpool tomorrow.
	And if you guys are enjoying this debate, Andrew was on yesterday.
	He was on Saturday.
	He had a one-on-one debate Saturday, and he participated in our dating talk panel show Sunday.
	The links are just on our YouTube channel.
	I'm sure most of you saw it.
	But if you didn't, those were fantastic shows.
	And, yeah, be sure to check it out.
	Should we get a beer also for our – I'll ask her when she comes back.
	I'll ask her when she comes back.
	So, Andrew, in terms of prompts you'd like to get into once...
	You realize that I can't, like, we can't get into debates if I, like, if a person refuses to even give me simple, coherent, how do I debate with them, dude?
	What am I supposed to do with that?
	Like, it has to at least be coherent.
	I mean, Charlie gave me coherent fucking definite.
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah.
	Like, I have to have something.
	She wants me to argue positions I don't even understand from her view.
	Like, we don't even understand what she's asking me.
	Well, let me tell you the few prompts that we do have available to us.
	And maybe you might find that they're The prior conversation might not apply to these specific topics.
	So, black people can be racist towards white people.
	Feminism enslaved women instead of liberating them.
	Women just as violent as men, if not more.
	Feminism lies about the benevolent nature of men.
	Yeah, we have a lot of problems with democracy.
	Which one?
	The feminism lies about the benevolent nature of okay.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	And then of the other ones I read you, is there, after we do the benevolent nature of men one, is there one that you'd like to I'm going to make a demand?
	I'm going to make a demand.
	It's the first time I've ever tried to make a demand of the whatever audience, but that was like the most painful thing on planet Earth.
	It really was.
	It was just like pure 90 minutes of pure fucking pain.
	And you've got to send some money.
	You've got to send some cash.
	I earned every cent.
	Okay.
	I earned every cent.
	You can't ever say I didn't.
	I do have a bit of a headache too.
	You know, I'm right here.
	You know.
	Let's see here.
	Guys, Venmo Cash app whatever pod twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow.
	Drop us a Prime sub.
	If you drop a Prime sub, we are going to pop it up on stream, shop.whatever.com.
	We sell t-shirts, picklehabbas, the German World War I helmets, and these cups.
	I have like 60,000 of them.
	I need to sell some.
	Discord.gg slash whatever.
	Like the video if you're enjoying the stream.
	And also, I already plugged Debate University while Andrew was out for a smoke.
	But guys, if you want to become a master debater like Andrew Wilson, if you want to watch a person argue against their own worldview for 90 minutes straight and not know that they're doing it, go to debateuniversity.com.
	And guys and get my course.
	Get the course if you want to learn how to debate.
	If you want to learn how to make them argue against their own position for 90 minutes straight, that's how you do that.
	Hours and hours of instructional video on debate.
	Also, guys, Thanksgiving is coming up.
	Christmas is coming up.
	This time period of the year, you're meeting with your liberal family members and you want to really just completely just destroy the relationship there.
	At least you win those Christmas dinner conversations.
	Thank you.
	Or whatever.
	She's talking about how she doesn't like Trump.
	If you're going to have an argument, you might as well win it at the cost of the complete destruction of your familial relationships.
	DebateUniversity.com.
	Guys, as soon as Naima is back, we're going to do QA questions.
	If you want to send in some Q ⁇ A questions, that's streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	Why don't I just read this one from Pelagic?
	He sent a super chat.
	She has nothing to talk about.
	The only thing going on here is typical female gaslighting and manipulation.
	She's just trying to throw Andrew off by using word salad.
	It's rather pointless.
	You're not going to throw me off.
	Thank you, Pelagic, for that.
	Pasty George, thank you for your super chat.
	Thank you for your super chat again, Pasty George.
	Kitty Pride, thank you for your super chat.
	KZ, thank you for the membership.
	Victor Villa, thank you.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you for your super chat.
	Robert Tanner, thank you for the membership.
	Robert Tanner, he did the three hat-trick champagne pops yesterday.
	Tanner's the fucking man, dude.
	He's a fucking legend.
	He's a fucking legend.
	Thank you, Robert Tanner.
	Are we, by the way, Andrew?
	The chat has been asking.
	Do you want to do a jar or?
	I'm not letting anybody this time.
	I'm not letting anybody get out of this by trying to obfuscate or troll or any of that shit.
	It's not going to happen.
	This is straight fucking debate where it always should have been.
	And that's what's going to happen.
	No obfuscation, no clipping to obfuscate away from shit.
	I'm just no fucking way.
	You know, the worldview just has to be put on display, and that's that.
	There it is.
	Nick, can you check on her?
	Some shekels for Paleo Man.
	God bless, brother.
	I was on the verge of an aneurysm listening to her kudos on making her hate her own position without her understanding what she was doing.
	Go ahead.
	You can check on it.
	Let's try to get this going, okay?
	All right.
	She's rejoining us in just a minute.
	I hope you guys didn't mind the little intermission there, but we had to give them each some time for a little break.
	We are going to resume the debate momentarily in just a moment.
	So she's returning to the table right now.
	We're going to get right back into it.
	So what we'd like to do is just move in.
	Actually, hold on.
	We have to let some of the chats come through.
	So we'll do that right now.
	A message from the government of Canada.
	Hello?
	Oh, I see what happened.
	One moment.
	Let me redo that.
	Oh, yeah.
	I apologize.
	Welcome back, guys.
	We're doing the Q ⁇ A session right now.
	It's a $199 an up at streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	If you want to get it in, get them in now.
	All right.
	Hold on one moment while we let these come through.
	Thank you, Pasty George.
	Appreciate it.
	pull that back up here in just a moment sure xd donated two hundred dollars if this is what the left considers an all-star the bend is running real low here i can't figure out if none of them understand internal critique or if this is a strategy to avoid it as a defeater sure Is that our question?
	Just a statement.
	We'll let them all come through.
	Pasty George donated $200.04.
	Thank you, Pasty George.
	To Brown Locks, if everything has human rights, as you have stated so many times, then do unborn babies have rights.
	How about babies aborted before or after 21 weeks?
	This is fetus, not human.
	A quick response.
	This is actually a really interesting question.
	Well, so I think the language here, you see how you said everything has human rights?
	I don't believe that everything has human rights.
	$200.
	Sorry for your pain.
	You can continue responding.
	Yeah, well, I don't believe everything has human rights.
	I believe every person has human rights.
	Every human has human rights.
	And a fetus is not yet a human.
	But I mean, under Andrew's belief in preferential morality, if I preferred to abort a fetus, then it would be immoral.
	So actually, I think he's more pro-abortion than I am on that one.
	All right.
	We have Pasty George coming in again.
	Thank you, Ryan, for a message from the government of Canada.
	Pasty George donated $200.04.
	To Brown Locks, if a tree falls in the deep woods with nobody around, does it make a sound?
	Pasty George, if you donate $400 to ask a question and I don't answer, what happens?
	Then you don't answer a question.
	And he just wasted $200, right?
	Well, be fair.
	You should answer the question.
	Why?
	Because it's a QA session.
	Well, I'm going to say, yeah, it makes a sound.
	All right.
	We have a message from the government of Canada.
	Pasty George donated $200.04.
	To Brown Locke's in natural law, before the days of colonization, I would be able to put an arrow in your head without a second thought because I would believe that I am defending my land from invaders.
	But I wouldn't be on your land if it was before colonization.
	You would never have been near me.
	We have a few more.
	The main community donated $199.
	Would it be moral if China declared war on America to decolonize and liberate the indigenous people of the land?
	And would you support them?
	If not, why?
	No, because I believe violence is immoral and I'm not a consequentialist.
	You're not a consequentialist.
	Andrew, I'm not talking.
	I'm talking to Pasty George.
	I just wanted to clarify: you're not a consequentialist.
	We talked about this in the last debate.
	If you don't remember, you can look at it again.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Pasty George donated $1,000.
	For you, Andrew, you deserve it, especially for putting up with the Latardness.
	So, Pasty, just to clarify, do you want us to pop a ball of champagne?
	Do you, either of you, want?
	I don't want champagne.
	No.
	Can we have it after the debate?
	Because I'll take some later.
	Yeah.
	I don't want something out there.
	I guess I'll just drink the whole most of the bottle then.
	All right.
	A few.
	Are you just going to drink an entire bottle of champagne?
	I'm actually.
	I don't really drink.
	I'm a bit of a lightweight, so probably none.
	Maybe I'll have, if I'm throwing up in the bathroom, I'll have Jake step in as the moderator for the rest of the show.
	Okay.
	Okay, so those are the Q ⁇ As.
	Let me just double check.
	All right.
	We are good to get right back into it.
	So we were considering as the next prompt, feminism lies about the benevolent nature of men.
	Andrew wanted to do that one.
	How's that sound for you?
	Cool, Google.
	Okay, perfect.
	We'll get right into it.
	Okay, Andrew, if you wanted to do that one, why don't you take it away?
	Yeah, hang on a second.
	Yeah, so when I'm referencing the benevolent nature of men, I'm referencing that men can, at any time they want, take the rights away from women, and there's nothing that women can do about it.
	And the opposite is not true.
	And therefore, I believe that men are benevolent, and there should be gratitude shown for them not doing that.
	Wait, so you do believe that men are benevolent?
	So then how is feminism lying about the benevolent nature of the men?
	Because feminism is saying that men are not benevolent.
	That men are the oppressor class.
	And you're saying that men are benevolent.
	Yes.
	Based on the fact that you could rape someone and then you choose not to.
	Based on the fact that kind of the bare minimum, no?
	Yeah.
	Can you repeat back my position so that you know you understand it?
	No, Andrew, why don't you just repeat it if you feel like you want to understand it?
	I want you to steel man so I know you understand it.
	No, Andrew, I'm not going to steel man.
	I don't know where to go with that, Brian.
	Just give me your opinion again.
	I just gave it.
	What do you want me to do here?
	I just gave her the position.
	She won't steel man it.
	Then say it again.
	Okay.
	So one more time.
	Sure.
	Women, in this case, feminists, consider men to be malevolent oppressors.
	Men are the oppressor class, the patriarchy.
	And it's actually through the benevolence of men that women have rights.
	And I think women should be grateful to men that they have rights.
	And how are you defining rights in this instance?
	I would consider rights to be a set of preferences that are shared between people.
	Okay, a set of shared preferences.
	Okay, yeah, so just read that, reading that back.
	Men are benevolent because they could kill women, but they choose not to.
	Yeah.
	Pretty much.
	Yeah.
	But that's kind of the bare minimum.
	Like anyone could is benevolent.
	That's just an assertion.
	Can you substantiate that?
	I mean, what makes it the bare thing?
	Anyone can commit an act of violence against someone that is smaller than them, and we all every day choose not to.
	I don't think that that's not an argument.
	Can you give me an argument?
	Yeah, my argument is that I don't necessarily agree with your definition of the vote.
	That's not an argument.
	But, well, we just had an hour-long debate over definition, so now you're opposed to that when it's your definition of the money.
	You want to define benevolent?
	I mean, honestly, in terms of the premise, I do agree with you that men are benevolent, but I don't agree that benevolence is simply choosing not to commit acts of harm against others.
	Really?
	Because I thought your entire moral stance was about not committing acts of harm against others, and that's what the good is.
	Yeah.
	But that's kind of good.
	Then that would mean men are good.
	No, I mean, good is proliferating positive acts.
	No, that's not what you said.
	I think it's a male.
	That's not what you said.
	I think it's objectively morally neutral.
	Objectively morally neutral?
	Well, oh, God, not the word objective.
	Never mind.
	Cut that one.
	I think it's just morally neutral.
	To decide not to kill someone is a moral neutral.
	You haven't done something good.
	You haven't done something bad.
	You've done nothing.
	Okay, then can you substantiate what moral neutrality is?
	Moral neutrality is when you haven't done something that is good or bad.
	Okay, so and what are we considering bad here from your argument?
	Bad would be the proliferation of human suffering.
	And this would mean then that since men are not proliferating human suffering, they're not doing anything bad, right?
	Yes, but then the opposite of proliferating human suffering would be proliferating something that is beneficial to mankind.
	Like women's rights.
	But you've done nothing.
	Wait, like it's a net zero.
	Like women's rights.
	So you don't think that women had any stake in defining their rights?
	That's not contending with the argument.
	You don't think that, like civil disobedience, is.
	Contending with the argument that's asking a question.
	Yeah, i'm giving you a formal argument.
	You're saying that men just decided unilaterally one day that they were going to give women rights, but that's not what happened, because we know historically, there were multiple waves of feminism in which women participated in civil and disobedience in order to be a woman.
	My argument is, is that if men chose to collectivize, to stop whatever their collective disobedience was, it would have been stopped.
	Okay, so you think that men are good because they could choose to murder all women and they don't?
	Yeah okay sure, and not only that, but that they're benevolent.
	Do you want a cookie?
	Yeah, that's true, I agree, they're benevolent.
	Men are.
	I don't think that all men are beneficial, but there are tons of men who do commit acts of violence.
	So when there are tons of women who do commit acts of violence and those women are and men are not benevolent, so that then when feminists claim that the patriarchy is evil and malevolent, you would claim the patriarchy is malevolent.
	No, i'm wait that I would claim the patriarchy is benevolent.
	You would claim it's benevolent.
	So there we go.
	So i'm sorry, are you saying that i'm claiming the patriarchy is malevolent or benevolent.
	I i'm asking, is a patriarchy malevolent or benevolent?
	No, I believe perpetuating inequality is malevolent, but that doesn't mean that all men are inherently malevolent.
	Well, how does the patriarchy as a menu is a system of inequality on the basis of Gender that is run by men.
	Okay.
	So those men are evil?
	I think that if you are attempting to perpetuate inequality through the oppression of others, that is a morally bad action.
	And how is the patriarchy doing that?
	The patriarchy is perpetuating inequality of women by denying them the right to vote, denying that.
	Didn't they give them the right to vote?
	Well, they didn't give them.
	It was one.
	Well, no, they, again, unfortunately, just seconds ago, you agreed with me that I agree on that if men wanted to take away the rights of women to vote, they could.
	By that logic, then, if the patriarchy could have taken away their right to vote and did not, how could they be anything less than benevolent?
	Didn't they equalize voting between men and women?
	Yes.
	Then how could you say that?
	But the patriarchy isn't what equalized voting between men and women.
	It was women's struggle that is what granted women the right to vote.
	No, it was men who did not get in the way and went ahead and granted it because they could have taken it whenever they wanted.
	Well, I don't think that every man is an inherent master of the patriarchy.
	There are many men who oppose the patriarchy alongside of women.
	Is the system that men or women feminists were fighting against patriarchal?
	Yes.
	I believe that the system is malevolent, but men are not all inherently.
	Yeah, I know, but can I give the argument?
	I'm agreeing with you, Andrew.
	What are you even arguing?
	I'm asking, is the patriarchy benevolent?
	No.
	Well, then we have a patriarchy isn't a person, Andrew.
	I'm not saying it's a person, but if it's men who are in charge of a system and the men in charge of the system allow women to vote, then that would mean that the patriarchy, by your logic, is benevolent.
	I believe that a system that is intended to perpetuate inequality on any basis is malevolent.
	Then can you tell me how the patriarchy is?
	Men are not inherently men.
	Yeah, I know, but can you tell me then how the patriarchy is benevolent?
	The patriarchy is malevolent because it's a system that is perpetuated to increase inequality, which increases human rights.
	Can you demonstrate that?
	Well, before feminism and women didn't have the rights to vote, hold credit cards, own homes, leave their husbands, get divorced, sued and be sued.
	If a woman were to be mistreated by a man, she would have no power to leave that man without sacrificing her ability to have housing, food, and basic human needs.
	So it puts women in a position of dependency on men so that if there is an individual man who decides to behave malevolently, that woman has no ability to get away from him.
	And the patriarchy is preventing women from having access to jobs and the things that would allow them to get their own resources.
	So there's two arguments.
	Yeah, there's two arguments there, so I'll contend with both of them.
	Let's start with the first one.
	If it is the case that the patriarchy was acting in a malevolent way and women appealed to the patriarchy and they granted them these various rights that you considered was unjust, which by your logic they had to, then wouldn't that be the patriarchy acting benevolently?
	But we're not appealing to the patriarchy.
	We're not appealing to the morality of men.
	I don't think that all men are naturally just patriarchs.
	When you were fighting, the patriarchy is a system, but men are not the system.
	Some men are created.
	Did the system give you the right to vote?
	The system did not give us the right to vote.
	Then who did?
	Men who were not a part, who did not subscribe to the system, helped us establish the right to vote through our own work as social markers.
	So, wait, I'm confused.
	Civil disobedience.
	Who was in charge?
	I mean, do you not believe in protests?
	Who was in charge at the time?
	Was it a patriarchal system?
	Yes, it was a patriarchal system.
	And did that patriarchal system give you the right to vote?
	No.
	Well, then how did you get the right to vote?
	And women who were against the concept and the proliferation of the patriarchy fought alongside each other.
	Fought how?
	With science?
	Yeah.
	Oh.
	I mean, it's worked all over the world.
	Marsha Mandela, Gandhi.
	I see.
	There is civil disobedience and it's awarded people rights.
	How did they win it exactly?
	Like, what did they do?
	Well, a law was passed that gave women the right to vote.
	What law?
	Which amendment is it?
	I don't know.
	No, I don't remember which amendment specifically.
	It's the one that gives women the right to vote, but there was an amendment that gave women the right to vote.
	There's also an amendment that gives...
	So then, actually, the established system which was in power, which was patriarchal, passed an amendment for women to vote?
	But it's not a system passing.
	A system is not a person, though.
	Yeah, I know.
	Yes.
	Do people get to vote on amendments?
	Yes.
	So people voted on the amendment.
	That's not the system.
	Can we pull up?
	Do you understand the difference between a system and a person who's not a person?
	I would like to pull up if people voted on the amendment.
	Yes, people did vote on the amendment.
	Okay.
	So you think that all of those people, like, do you think that every man is inherently the patriarchy?
	Hang on, let's do a fact check here.
	I just want to make sure that.
	Well, do you think that every man is inherently the patriarchy?
	What do you like me to pull up?
	Did the people have a direct vote on the 19th Amendment?
	No, it's 19th.
	Glad I didn't guess.
	I was going to say 20 seconds. One moment.
	Sure.
	It says, no, the general public did not have a direct vote on the 19th Amendment.
	But that's not how any amendment is.
	The amendment was ratified through the process outlined in the U.S. Constitution, which involves votes by elected representatives.
	So then people did vote.
	So who was the system?
	Who is?
	No, that wasn't the people voting.
	Yes, elected.
	They just caught the system.
	Wait, hold on.
	Andrew, are elected representatives human or not?
	Are they people?
	Were they the patriarchy?
	No, I'm asking, are they human?
	Sure.
	The question was, did people vote to ratify the 19th Amendment?
	I'm saying yes.
	People didn't vote.
	I'm not saying the people in the entire country.
	I'm saying people.
	You're just gaslighting because you got confidence in the middle.
	No, I'm not, Andrew.
	Now help me out.
	I'm saying people as in.
	Were the elected officials the patriarchy?
	I don't believe that all of the electors.
	I don't know every single elected official.
	Then who was the patriarchy they were fighting against?
	It's a system.
	It's not a problem.
	Who was in charge of the system?
	Do you understand that?
	Who was in charge of the system?
	The system proliferates itself.
	No one is specifically like, do you think there's a...
	How do systems proliferate themselves without people?
	A system is created by people.
	Yes, so a system is created by people and can be amended by people, but the system itself is not a person.
	Do you understand that?
	There's no person who's like, I am the spokesperson.
	Was the patriarchy in charge of the system or not?
	Was the patriarchy in charge of the patriarchy?
	Was the patriarchy in charge of the system?
	Of what system?
	Of the electoral system.
	Was the patriarchy in charge?
	Well, men were in charge of the electoral system.
	Was the patriarchy?
	But the patriarchy's not able to be in charge of the patriarchy.
	What's wrong with you?
	Who's in charge of the patriarchy if it's not the patriarchy?
	Well, it's men, but not every man is inherently a member of the patriarchy.
	Who says every man?
	I'm talking about elected officials.
	Exactly.
	Talking about elected officials.
	Were the elected officials who these women were protesting to to change law, the patriarchy they were protesting against?
	I don't know if every single elected official that voted on the 19th Amendment was for or against the patriarchy, Andrew.
	Were they the patriarchy?
	Are they all the patriarchy?
	I'm not going to make that assumption about then what system are you.
	Then point to what the system is that's the patriarchy.
	What is that system?
	The system of the patriarchy is the government structure that enabled, well, actually, the system of the patriarchy is the structure in government that enables inequality on the basis of gender.
	It's not just one thing.
	It's a series of laws.
	And was that system of patriarchy?
	It was set up by men.
	And was it in place at the time that the 19th Amendment was put in place?
	And so weren't they appealing to that system of patriarchy in order to get the 19th Amendment passed?
	They appealed to men who worked within the patriarchy, but those men don't be the patriarchy.
	So they appealed to the patriarchy.
	But not every man is the patriarchy.
	I didn't say they were.
	In this case, we're talking about a system of elected officials where that system of elected officials are.
	I don't think that the Constitution and the entire government is the patriarchy.
	Then what is the patriarchy?
	There are specific laws that enable the proliferation.
	How can a law be a patriarchy?
	A law can be.
	So it's specific laws that enable the proliferation of inequality.
	That can't be the patriarchy.
	The patriarchy is people, isn't it?
	No, you're the one that said that.
	Patriarchy is not people?
	No.
	It's an inanimate object.
	It's not a fucking person.
	You keep saying the patriarchy is people.
	That's what I'm trying to tell you.
	So what's a matriarchy?
	A matriarchy would be a system of laws that proliferates the inequality of the sexes in favor of women.
	So if you have a matriarchy, would it require that there was women who were in charge and in powerful positions, the top positions?
	Yes.
	Right?
	Otherwise, it wouldn't be matriarchal, right?
	Sure.
	So then patriarchal, it would have to have men in those same positions.
	Yes, but those amendments.
	Let me just follow up.
	Let me just follow up.
	Well, no, I think they, who else would be the patriarchy then?
	It's a system.
	It's laws, Andrew.
	Can you?
	Like, the law that did not allow women to vote is a part of the patriarchal system.
	But it's not one freaking dude.
	Why do you keep thinking that the patriarchy is a single set of humans?
	Okay, well, then walk me through it.
	It can be an ideology as well.
	Okay, I should say.
	So like if you are a man who says, I believe that women don't have a right to vote, then yes, you would be in favor of a patriarchy.
	So when feminists were fighting against patriarchy, they were fighting against an inanimate object.
	We're fighting against a system, yes.
	An inanimate object.
	Do you not understand how systemic oppression works?
	Well, I don't understand how patriarchy works.
	Okay, so you don't understand how patriarchal?
	I guess I don't.
	I'm super confused.
	Feminists were fighting against an inanimate object.
	It's a system.
	Do you know what a system is?
	Can you define that system?
	I think that systems of governance require human beings.
	Yes.
	And I think specifically that— But systems of government.
	I think specifically feminists were pointing at men in the government as being the patriarchy for sure.
	Systems of government require human beings, but systems of government are not human beings.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Those men might have had power because of the patriarchy, but the patriarchy is not defined by those five people.
	If they were to die, then the patriarchy is not dead.
	It's not over.
	And that's the issue with the system is because it's inanimate, you can't just appeal to one group of people and expect it to end.
	That's why there's been multiple waves of feminism.
	If the patriarchy was just the people that ratified the 19th amendment, then we would be over.
	Like there'd be nothing to talk about.
	So when you're appealing to, I want to get rid of the patriarchy, you're saying that you want to just change governmental systems?
	I want to repeal certain laws that proliferate the inequality.
	So patriarchy is just laws?
	Well, it's a collection of laws and systems, yes.
	Well, what system?
	Well, it's within the United States government system.
	Yeah, but what's the system look like?
	Because it looks to me like we have the same fucking system that we had then.
	Yes, but you see how laws can be amended and can change.
	So it's just laws.
	Yes, essentially.
	So patriarchy is just a collection of laws.
	Well, it's the idea that a collection of laws creates a system of inequality.
	Okay, so on the basis of gender.
	Is any law which creates something which is unequal based along gender lines patriarchal?
	Well, if it creates inequality on the ba, like in favor of women, then no, that would be a matriarchal law, right?
	Okay, so matriarchy and patriarchy, from your view.
	It's not a human.
	It's a collection of laws.
	It's just laws.
	Yeah.
	So if laws favor a gender, then it's matriarchal.
	And if laws favor or favor the gender female, or of sex female, then it's matriarchal.
	Yes.
	And sex male, it's patriarchal.
	Yeah, and I'm fine with sex and gender interchangeably.
	I know some will be.
	I mean, I'm not.
	Really?
	Really?
	You don't think that you can use sex and gender interchangeably in this context?
	No, I think that when progressives say gender, they mean something that I mean.
	I use it interchangeably with sex because I mean female and male and they don't.
	So let me ask you.
	In the context of this, I think we should use it interchangeably.
	But that's okay.
	So help me out here with this then.
	I just want to make sure I got this right.
	When we're talking about systems of enforcement for laws, for these laws.
	Yes.
	Is the primary enforcement mechanism going to be men?
	Well, the primary enforcement mechanism for most laws is our legal system, right?
	No, the enforcement arm.
	The enforcement would be the police.
	And would you say that the police are mostly compiled of men?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Would you say that almost all enforcement mechanisms are compiled mostly by men?
	Sure.
	So then if we're talking about just the enforcement of laws that you want, aren't you again appealing to men?
	Okay.
	And?
	I just want to make sure that that's correct.
	Okay.
	Well, then you're ratifying Force Doctrine.
	I'm not ratifying Force Doctrine, though, because it's not a judgment on...
	I mean, actually, I believe in your descriptor of Force Doctrine.
	My issue is that I don't believe in your prescriptor of force doctrine.
	I don't believe you're in your opinion on it.
	Forced doctrine is not a prescription.
	Well, do you have an opinion on forced doctrine?
	Do you believe that?
	It's a descriptor.
	Do you believe that it's moral?
	What?
	Force doctrine.
	Do you believe that using coercive force to consolidate power is moral?
	Sometimes.
	Okay, that's fair.
	Yeah, sometimes it is.
	But not all the time?
	No.
	Okay, do.
	But the thing is, you know, we mostly like agree on this one, right?
	Like, what the fuck are we even talking about right now?
	Well, I just wanted to make sure that, I mean, it actually does sound like you think that if all you're appealing to when you say patriarchy is laws that are passed, right?
	That's it.
	And that's what patriarchy is.
	I think that that is in complete disagreement with the feminist movement and what early feminist pioneers were saying, which is that it's a male-oriented system, not laws.
	It is a male-oriented system.
	And that it's the men who are in charge, which are problematic.
	I believe that the laws are what are basically more.
	I believe that the laws are what are malevolent in this system.
	When it comes to the existence of the patriarchy, it is laws.
	Those laws were created by some men.
	Those men who created laws to perpetuate inequality, they are immoral for that action.
	But I don't believe that all men are immoral just because we live in a patriarchal society.
	I mean, that would be ridiculous.
	How would I do anything?
	How would I have a conversation with that?
	But that's not what I'm asking.
	I'm asking you to.
	You said that feminism lies about the benevolence of men and that feminists believe that feminists do lie about the benevolence.
	They are immoral, and I don't think that all men are immoral.
	Yeah, well, then I don't think that you believe in the same prescriptions that your feminist forebears did.
	My feminist forebears didn't believe all men were immoral.
	It's not all.
	They had husbands.
	They definitely believed, though, that the system of patriarchy was literally men who wanted to be in charge and men reinforcing the system of men being in charge.
	But that's not every man, is what I'm saying.
	I didn't say it was.
	Okay.
	That's not the point.
	But we're talking about the benevolence of all men.
	Yes, I believe that the men who created the patriarchy are immoral, but that doesn't mean that the men who continue to exist in the patriarchy are all immoral.
	And what makes what makes those men immoral?
	What makes those men immoral is that they sought to perpetuate inequality within our society.
	Yeah, what makes that immoral?
	On the basis of gender.
	Yeah, what makes inequality immoral?
	I believe it's the violation of natural rights, but you don't agree that those exist, so I guess it is completely immoral to oppress.
	It's completely moral to oppress people according to you.
	Well, so what natural rights is that you're a definition of.
	Yeah, when you say a natural right, you believe that it's immoral under natural rights.
	Which natural right does that violate?
	Well, I believe that we all have a natural right to bodily autonomy, physical autonomy.
	You do?
	Yeah.
	Really?
	The right to bodily autonomy, yes.
	Everybody.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so if two twin brothers want to have sex with each other, are they allowed to?
	Oh my God, wheat my bingo.
	Wheat my bingo.
	Oh, hold on.
	Can you just answer the fucking question?
	This is so performative and cringe.
	If two twin brothers.
	Can you put the bingo thing?
	Yeah, can we just, it's so cringe.
	Can you just engage with the fucking debate?
	If two twin brothers want to enter into an incestuous relationship, do you have any moral objection to that based on your standard of natural law?
	As you just said, everybody has bodily autonomy.
	So long as it's not harming yourself or others.
	I don't think that this is necessarily relevant to the conversation.
	Can you answer the question?
	Do you know two twin brothers?
	Can you answer the question?
	Do you believe that two twin brothers who have sex with each other, do you think that that's inherently immoral?
	I think it's disgusting.
	Is it inherently immoral?
	I think it's pretty good.
	Is it inherently immoral?
	I mean, to me, yes.
	Well, then you just violated your own definition of natural law, which says that people have bodily autonomy.
	You're saying now they don't, and that's immoral.
	So which is it?
	Yeah, I mean, it's just gross, though.
	Okay, so is it immoral?
	Yeah, I mean, well, what are the repercussions of it?
	Are they harming themselves or each other?
	They're both consenting.
	If two consenting brothers want to commit an act of incest.
	Is it immoral?
	I don't know.
	I think it's kind of a gray area.
	I say it's technically not defying either of their right to bodily autonomy, but I think it could potentially cause.
	Is it immoral or not?
	Inherently.
	I don't know.
	What do you think?
	I'm asking you.
	I'm asking you.
	Answer the fucking question.
	Is it inherently immoral or not?
	I don't know, honestly.
	You don't know if it's inherently immoral after you just said you believe every single individual has bodily autonomy for two twin brothers to engage in an incestuous relationship.
	You don't know?
	I think that if it's harming themselves or others, then yes, that would be immoral.
	If their parents knew about this and it destroyed their family, then yeah, that would be immoral.
	Well, no, because how would that violate bodily autonomy?
	Who cares what their parents know and it hurts their feelings?
	Who gives a shit?
	Do you care about if your parents care about your sexual relationships?
	If it destroyed my family, I think they would care.
	That's inherently immoral if you engage in a relationship your parents don't agree with?
	Well, it's not just that they don't agree with it.
	It's that it would destroy their family.
	So I can make the same argument for a homosexual child.
	Oh, you're having a homosexual relationship and we're heavily religious, so that destroyed our whole family.
	Yeah, but that's on the basis of choice.
	Like religion is a choice.
	Both of these are based on choice.
	No, you can't really choose who's your brother.
	You can choose to fuck him.
	Yeah, that's true.
	But you can't choose who's your brother.
	You can choose who.
	Like you can choose to have an issue with homosexuality.
	That's a choice.
	Both are choices.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I think it's gross and wrong.
	Well, it's not wrong, right?
	It's just, is it immoral?
	I mean, it's not violating their personal bodily autonomy, but it's wrong.
	Okay, what does that mean then, wrong?
	Does wrong mean immoral?
	Yeah, I mean, what do you think, Andrew?
	I'm asking, I want an answer and then I'll give you my answer.
	But for the love of God, answer a question.
	Okay, I'm going to say that there are limits to bodily autonomy and that that is immoral.
	How's that?
	So then what is the limits to bodily autonomy?
	I would say if you're harming yourself or others, that would be a limit on.
	Then demonstrate the harm, the bodily harm to themselves.
	Well, I mean, they would be completely disgraced by society.
	That's a pretty significant thing.
	If I completely disgrace myself in front of society, that's immoral.
	Yeah, you're harming yourself.
	That's self-harm.
	You don't think so?
	Like, if you were to run around the streets naked and get away from that.
	Do you think that at first Martin Luther King was embarrassing himself in front of society?
	Because at first I think he was until he wasn't.
	Oh my God, do you think Martin Luther King was embarrassing?
	Until he wasn't.
	Do you think that Martin Luther King is a moral equivalency to fucking?
	No, I'm doing an internal criticism in order to get you to understand that the concept that you just gave me was if society considers you and your viewpoints cringe, that's bodily harm.
	Do you realize how crazy that is to say out loud?
	No, but society is not considering incest cringe.
	That's different.
	Yes, that's all they're doing is considering it cringe.
	this is different than demanding human rights for black people bro why i don't know why because you brought up mlk because Because I'm just giving an example of if society socially found you to be super cringe, you're saying that that is self-harm.
	I think that it would be self-harm to destroy your relationship with your family and ostracize yourself.
	Oh, do you want me to push?
	I think that it would be self-harm to destroy your relationship with your family and to ostracize yourself from society for the purpose of having sex with your brother.
	Okay, would that apply to just regular homosexuality?
	If you were in a religious community and that was your community or perhaps you're in a religious nation or state and you decided to engage in homosexuality and that destroyed your family, all of society went against you.
	That is now the same, hang on, the same principle of self-harm.
	How would that not equally apply?
	Homosexuality is not a choice.
	Having sex with having sex is a homosexual is a choice.
	So you don't think that any homosexual should be allowed to have sex so long as their family?
	Do you understand that?
	When you just continuously say so, you believe when I ask you a question, that's that that is the cringest thing that you that you do.
	Anytime I ask you a question, you just say so.
	You believe that blah blah, blah.
	I'm asking you bother to share your freaking beliefs that I don't have to ask.
	I literally just got done, even the last one I literally just gave.
	I went through all of my views.
	I just went through all of my views on this and we agreed, and now we're on bodily autonomy.
	So things are.
	Please answer my question and stop obfuscating, stop evading.
	Okay, I will answer your question, shush.
	Homosexuality is biologically natural, like it's a natural part of a homosexual human's biology.
	It's not something that can change.
	Your choice to disagree or be disgusted by homosexuality can change however, your brother.
	Having sex with your brother is not a human necessity.
	Even if you are a homosexual, you don't have to choose to have sex with your brother.
	Therefore, you are causing emotional and physical harm to your family.
	However, being gay is not a choice.
	So if it's the, do you think that being gay is.
	So if it's the case that is, do we would?
	Would you agree with me?
	The definition of homosexuality is attracted to the same sex for the purposes of sexual intercourse, or something like this, yes, great.
	So then, if it's the case that you're attracted to your twin brother, is that a choice?
	To act on that attraction is a choice.
	Well then, I would say the same thing about homosexuality, wouldn't I?
	But it's not not like you can choose who specifically you are attracted to, but the sex of the person.
	You can't choose specifically who you're attracted to.
	That's insane, really.
	You can choose who you're attracted to.
	You don't think that there's any personal.
	If you can just choose who you're attracted to, then why can't homosexuals just choose to be attracted to women?
	You can't Person.
	Yeah, why can't you?
	It's not the general sex of all people you're attracted to.
	So you can choose, you can choose people you're attracted to.
	Andrew, some of them, but not all of them.
	So if you're attracted, so if you're attracted to your twin brother, right, and attraction is something you can't help, that's your justification for homosexuality.
	Then what is the immorality here?
	I think that an attraction to a specific sex or gender is something you cannot help.
	But an attractive person.
	Why not a specific person?
	Specific person is something you can.
	How?
	How do you help who you're attracted to?
	How?
	Really?
	You've never been attracted to someone and been like, oh, I just don't want, like, I don't like them.
	Like, you've never done that?
	Do you realize that you just refuted yourself?
	You've never seen that.
	How do you help who you're attracted to?
	You say you've never been attracted to somebody, and then that already presumes you're attracted to them.
	Yes, you can choose not to be attracted to someone.
	You can't choose.
	You can choose who you're attracted to.
	I mean, I can.
	Maybe you're just like.
	You can't?
	Maybe I'm just built different.
	I don't know, man.
	Okay, do you think most people can choose who they're attracted to?
	I think that the majority of people can decide on a singular individual whether or not they're attracted to them.
	Yes.
	Are you serious?
	Not based entirely, like you can't decide what sex you're attracted to.
	Then why can't homosexual men just choose to not be attracted to all other men?
	Did you just hear what I said?
	You cannot decide what sex you are attracted to.
	No, no, no, they're attracted to the sex.
	I know, they're attracted to the sex, but why can't they just choose to not be attracted to every man?
	You're attracted.
	You cannot, because I'm answering your question.
	You cannot choose which sex you're attracted to.
	They're attracted to the sex, but they're choosing not to be attracted to every man.
	I'm using sex by gender.
	I am too.
	I'm using.
	Listen, I'm so.
	So here, look, it's simple.
	They're attracted to only men.
	This red herring is not a men.
	But because it's not a red herring, yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	So they're able.
	I'm internally critiquing.
	I'm internally critiquing bodily autonomy.
	And all you do is run.
	So the thing is, is like, look, this is super simple.
	Why couldn't you be attracted to an entire sex, right?
	But since you say individual attraction, right, is something which can be helped, then you're only attracted to males as a homosexual.
	But shouldn't you be able to control being attracted to every single individual male who is in that homosexual category?
	No, because individual attraction is different than your sexuality.
	It's a specific person versus an entire sex.
	Yeah, so then you individualize them, and each individual person in that sex category, you choose not to be attracted to.
	No, that would be impossible.
	Why?
	Because it's biological.
	So then if you can't help who you're attracted to, that's the justification for homosexuality.
	Why couldn't that be the justification for an incestuous relationship?
	You don't understand the difference between a sex and an individual.
	You can choose the individuals you decide you want to be attracted or not attracted to, but you can't decide the entire sex you decide to be.
	No, you're attracted to the entire sex, but why couldn't they just say that they're not attracted to each and every individual in that sex and choose that?
	Because that's the entire sex.
	If it's all of them, then that's still the sex.
	Well, then if it's every individual, then that's the sex.
	Then your arguments circular the other way too.
	It's not circular.
	Yeah, they only have one brother.
	If you only have one brother and you're only attracted to your brother, right?
	Or you're only attracted to your family members, or you're only attracted to that.
	If it's the case that you're only attracted to your family members, right?
	How can you help that?
	What version of sexuality is one where you are only attracted to your family?
	Actually, there is a version of it.
	Would you like Brian to pull it up?
	What the fuck is that?
	Pull it up, Brian.
	What do you call a person who's only attracted to family members?
	An incestophile?
	I think so.
	An incestophile.
	Well, we'll find out.
	I mean, that's like a mental illness above anything.
	Yeah, and I'm sorry, but you have to make a justification for why two twin brothers couldn't have sex with each other and why that would be immoral based on your bodily autonomy argument that everybody should have bodily autonomy.
	You have to demonstrate the harm.
	Yes, there's still bodily autonomy, but you would be harming your entire family as well as yourself.
	I can make the same argument for homosexuality.
	Yes, but homosexuality is not a choice.
	Fucking your brother is.
	Do you want the definition?
	Or not the definition, the term, I believe.
	I don't know if this rings a bell.
	Consanguine.
	Consanguinous.
	Yeah.
	Consanguinous.
	Consanguinous.
	Consanguinamorous.
	Yeah.
	A person in a consensual, romantic, or sexual relationship with an adult blood relative.
	Consanguinamorous.
	Your family.
	Okay.
	I tried my best.
	Your family all.
	Wait, I want to know what percentage of the population is.
	Let's try this.
	Thank you.
	Is this a large group of people?
	What percentage?
	No, I'm sure it's very small.
	It's probably a problem.
	It's got to be.
	Why are we talking about that?
	Because we're testing.
	No, actually, I want to finish it.
	I'm almost done.
	Redirect the conversation.
	We can, and I'm almost done.
	I just want to ask one last question.
	I think it's weird that we've been so focused on this.
	One last question on bodily autonomy.
	Just to be fair, I searched her thing up.
	So globally, it says about 20% of the world's population lives in communities where consanguineous marriage is preferred with a rate of 20 to 50% in parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.
	all immoral right so in those countries it's well i mean if they're They're all immoral, right?
	Hold on.
	Can I ask you a question?
	Me?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, wait, I want to go back to more research on this.
	I feel like I can't give you a good answer because I don't really know anything about it.
	Well, there's also cousin marriage worldwide.
	Yeah, because are we talking about like the cultural tradition of marrying your cousins or having incest with a sibling in a society that's not acceptable?
	Well, here, I'll just make it simple.
	I'm just going to make it super easy.
	The question: Your whole family dies in a tragic accident except your twin brother.
	So now you can't destroy them emotionally because they're all dead.
	Is it okay or moral then to have a twin brother incestuous relationship based on your principle of bodily autonomy?
	I guess if you're not hurting anyone, including yourself, then sure.
	But I don't think that this negates the basic belief that bodily autonomy is a human right.
	Because I do think the consequences of living in a society where bodily autonomy doesn't exist are far greater.
	I mean, if nobody has a right to bodily autonomy, then at any point, any of us would be able to just fuck with each other and physically harm each other.
	But don't you want to restrict bodily autonomy constantly?
	What?
	Don't you want to restrict bodily autonomy constantly?
	In what universe do I want to restrict that?
	Well, I don't know.
	Did you support the lockdowns?
	Did I support the logic?
	Well, that again is an exception in the case of creating harm to yourself or others.
	But wasn't that a subjective?
	Those are the two exceptions.
	Wasn't that a subjective harm?
	Millions of people died.
	Is that subjective to you?
	Well, I mean, it's a subjective harm that you lock people in their homes or lock down their businesses.
	Millions of people died, though.
	It's not subjective that those people died.
	They objectively died.
	Yeah, but I mean, did you know anyone who lost their life?
	Here's the problem with COVID.
	Yeah, of course.
	It was prudent on that.
	Yeah, of course.
	But the thing is, how could it be bought?
	So you don't really believe in a principle of bodily autonomy.
	But it's foreseeable risk.
	Like, there's a foreseeable risk that if you go outside, while there is a contagious, deadly disease and you continue to spread that contagious, deadly disease, you could foreseeably cause it.
	So bodily autonomy should be restricted as long as we can justify that there's some sort of harm to other people.
	Is that right?
	Yes, to an extent.
	To an extent.
	I think that there are certain exceptions, but I think on a general principle, yeah, I agree with that.
	So why shouldn't we stop women from having an abortion if half of us perceive the harm of it?
	Well, because you haven't proven that that's a legitimate.
	Why do we need to?
	All we have to do is perceive it that way.
	No, you have to prove that there's legitimate.
	Then why do we care about this?
	Foreseeable risk, like in on a legal sense, you have to be able to prove foreseeable risk.
	Then why do we care about you just go based off vibes?
	Then why is it that we care about you hurting your entire family because it hurts yourself again?
	Because that's just perception.
	Because there was a proven foreseeable risk.
	Like legally, there was a proven foreseeable risk that going outside could potentially cause bodily harm.
	And by the way, isn't going outside always potentially something that can cause bodily harm?
	I mean, I was also in like alive during COVID.
	People still left their houses all the time.
	People threw parties.
	Like people did tons of stuff to do.
	They resisted the state-sponsored bullshit.
	That's true.
	But it wasn't a mandate.
	Like, it wasn't forcing you to get it.
	They did force businesses to shut down.
	Yes, they did.
	Okay, well, you could still go outside.
	And progressives wanted COVID passports.
	Where are your paper checkpoints?
	Right?
	Very fascist dystopia.
	So that you can't spread a disease that was killing people.
	So then restricting.
	Do you think that you should just be allowed to spread a disease?
	Well, I think that your principle of bodily autonomy is making less and less sense because it seems like as long as we subjectively can claim that you're going to do something which we perceive as being harmful, then we can restrict your bodily autonomy.
	No, it's not subjectively can claim.
	It's objectively can claim as long as you can objectively claim that there is either foreseeable risk of causing bodily harm or you are actively causing bodily harm to yourself or others, then an individual deserves bodily autonomy.
	Then why don't we restrict swimming pools?
	Why would we restrict it?
	Because there's a massive foreseeable risk that you're going to cause harm to yourself, your family, or other people who come swimming.
	I don't think there's a massive foreseeable risk.
	Also, that's why we have lifeguards.
	There's a much bigger chance that your percentage as an individual would die probably in a swimming pool than from COVID-19.
	But swimming pools are voluntary.
	We're not forcing everyone to go into a swimming pool.
	This is so funny to me.
	I thought it was about bodily autonomy, not about anything else.
	Yes.
	Swimming pools are voluntary.
	And you want to restrict bodily autonomy.
	If you want to get everyone to go into a swimming pool, then yeah, that'd be fine.
	Then why wasn't it voluntary for me to walk into a fucking shop if I wanted to without a mask on?
	Well, the shop voluntarily chose to close.
	If you wanted to open it up, they didn't.
	The state mandated that they close.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, that sucks.
	Restriction of bodily autonomy.
	Like, all of your principles are completely fucking incoherent.
	They're all incoherent.
	No, I'm not.
	No, it's not.
	There's no foreseeable risk.
	There was a foreseeable risk that people were going to die.
	There's foreseeable risk with everything.
	I mean, but also, Andrew, like if you were to open a store during COVID and a bunch of people went to your store, got COVID and died, they would sue the fuck out of you.
	I think they're not going to be able to do it.
	Isn't it their choice?
	Isn't it people's choice?
	Isn't it people's choice?
	Just like the swimming pool.
	Just like the swimming pool, going into a restaurant and opening yourself to foreseeable risk.
	Yes, and lots of people chose to do that.
	And then why is it that you just five seconds ago said that these restrictions and the lockdowns were totally fine from the state mandating what people do voluntarily?
	Brian, look up how many people died during COVID.
	You just said the voluntary nature of swimming pools, why we don't restrict them, even though they cause bodily harm.
	Why is the voluntary nature of people engaging in society during COVID not the same?
	If you don't voluntarily spread disease, you can't be like, hey, I'm not going to spread disease to that guy because he's immunocompromised.
	I'm going to get it.
	That guy had the choice to stay home or go out, right?
	But you live with other people.
	That was the issue.
	If some members of a family went out and then some left and then came back and exposed their immunocompromised family members to the illness, they could die.
	Then the problem you have again.
	COVID sucked.
	It was a bummer and it was horrible for businesses.
	But I would rather have to stay inside or go to a park or go to a public space than risk killing my grandma and the other immunocompromised people in my life.
	Should people who all voluntarily are always voluntary.
	Well, progressives didn't want it to be.
	7 million.
	So 7 million people died, Andrew.
	Yeah, how many people die every year of the common flu?
	Sure.
	You don't think that's enough of a foreseeable risk?
	Let's see how many people die from the common flu.
	Wait, are we talking U.S. or just the one I provided, the 7 million, I believe that was worldwide.
	And that was for how many years?
	Let's do just U.S. for both.
	Just U.S. for both, one section.
	Yeah, because we're talking about the U.S.
	I mean, other countries don't have the same access to medical health.
	Some of them have much better.
	Yeah, I know.
	So globally, the estimates that seasonal flu causes about 290,000 to 650,000 deaths each year.
	That seems like a lot of less than 7 million.
	That's worldwide, and that seems like a lot less than because can we do U.S.?
	Yeah, calm down.
	I'll do U.S. There's no uh-oh.
	Well-low.
	Andu, I think you're wrong.
	That's a foreseeable risk, isn't it?
	I don't think statistically it's a high enough foreseeable risk.
	How many people get the flu every year?
	Wait a second.
	How many people do you think 7 million people is as a percentage of the global population?
	Isn't the global population like 8.2 billion?
	Uh-huh.
	Yeah.
	There's a bit of a range, but 21, for 2022, 2023, the CDC estimates about 21,000 deaths due to influenza in the USA.
	Okay.
	And then you wanted me to look something up.
	Yeah, but hang on, hang on.
	Wait, no, let's go.
	You got to do that not during the COVID lockdowns.
	That's the important part.
	Wait, no, let's keep going.
	Because during the COVID lockdowns, they reduced significantly.
	You want me to check?
	Oh, wow.
	Isn't that nice?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, true.
	If you lock people in their houses, they won't spread any illness.
	Yes, that was the point.
	There was multiple illnesses going around that were subjecting people to apes.
	So what percentage is reasonable for us to implement against bodily autonomy when it leads to death?
	It's 7 million people yearly.
	Well, I think you have to ask a lawyer, Andrew.
	I'm asking you.
	Because there is actually a legal precedent for that.
	I'm asking you.
	Well, I'm not a lawyer.
	You should ask a legitimate lawyer.
	I need to ask a lawyer how many people you think it's legitimate to restrict their bodily autonomy for?
	Well, it's a law.
	Like, it's a literal law.
	You don't base your morals on law.
	You're basing them on bodily autonomy.
	No, I'm basing it on the concept of, I'm basing bodily autonomy on the concept of foreseeable risk, which is a law.
	So why would you?
	So $650,000 a year isn't enough of a foreseeable risk?
	Worldwide?
	Yeah.
	I would say no if there's 8.2 billion people.
	Why 7 million if there's 8.2 billion?
	Do you not know the difference between 650,000?
	Yeah, I'm trying to figure out where the threshold breaker here is.
	It's a lot bigger.
	Well, it's not up to me.
	But I'm asking because of bodily autonomy, you support this stuff.
	Yes, I support saving people's lives.
	Yeah, so where's the threshold where we can lock people down and restrict their bodily autonomy?
	Well, there is a legal threshold.
	What is your threshold?
	I don't.
	You don't have one.
	Well, it's based on a legal precedent.
	Why should every single individual person just get to decide, I think it's this?
	I'm not a lawyer.
	This is so ridiculous.
	It's not ridiculous, Andrew.
	What is the point of asking me a legal definition when I'm not a lawyer?
	What do you guys think about this one?
	Black people can be racist towards white people.
	Would you guys like to do that?
	I'm fine with that.
	Sure.
	Yeah, I think that before we move on, should we define racism?
	Yeah.
	How do you define that?
	Semantics?
	Yeah, we should just get the semantics out of the way so we can actually have a conversation.
	Yeah, sorry.
	It keeps annoying me.
	So I would do the I have a more classical definition.
	Okay, let's hear it.
	Which would be the hatred or bigotry of an entire race.
	Is that it?
	Hold on.
	So the hatry or bigotry of an entire race on the basis of what?
	Race?
	Or most of the race.
	On the basis of race, yes?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And that's your only definition of racism?
	Yeah, I think that, yes.
	Okay, cool.
	Do you mind if I pull up the dictionary definition of racism?
	Well, you can pull up whatever you want, sure.
	Okay.
	Well, so there's, I think there's two main types of racism that are involved in what you just said.
	So what Andrew just described perfectly was interpersonal racism, which is prejudice, discriminatory actions between individuals based on their hatred of the entire race.
	And then there's also what we see in this country, which is systemic and structural racism, which is, again, since we have to define systems, a complex system of laws, policies, and practices that create and perpetuate racial inequality.
	So this would be essentially the patriarchy, but on the basis of race, if we're going back to our definition of the patriarchy.
	Now, where I agree with Andrew is that anyone can be interpersonally racist.
	Okay, well, then that's the end of that prompt.
	No, it's not, because there are multiple forms of racism.
	What's the prompt and the power?
	Read the prompt.
	Blacks can be racist towards white.
	I mean, dude, we agreed on the last prompt and we still talked about it for like another hour.
	So let's get into it.
	Oh, hang on.
	Hang on.
	I just want to make sure that the, can you read the prompt, Brian?
	Yes.
	Black people can be racist.
	And you're agreeing that that's the case.
	I just read that.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Shall we move to a different prompt?
	No, I think we should continue with this one.
	Actually, it was the one that I thought was the most interesting.
	I mean, you want to talk about systemic racism?
	We can't.
	I guess if you don't want to move on, if you want to move on to another prompt, we can.
	But all I will say is, although blacks can be racist towards whites, the system that perpetuates inequality works in favor of white people.
	So while, yes, it might hurt your feelings, it doesn't have a broader impact on your life, like genuinely decreasing your quality of life and standard of living.
	It's not backed by any power.
	Why don't I read some of the other prompts?
	And if you want to return to this one, we can.
	Okay.
	So we have feminism enslaved women instead of liberating them.
	That one I think is hilarious.
	I would do them to that one.
	Women just as violent as men, if not more.
	Problems with democracy.
	Forced doctrine, the discrimination.
	Let's do women more violent.
	Okay.
	It sounded like you wanted the feminism to be a little bit more.
	I'll do either one of those.
	I like both of them.
	Okay, so we'll do feminism enslaved women instead of liberating them.
	Or are you really keen on the other either way?
	Okay, well, neither one matters, but I would, it's 5.30, just real quick take a smoke break and then get back to this while you take some super chats.
	I'm team.
	Yeah, we're going to be able to do that.
	The one thing that we can agree on today is smooth breaks.
	I love that.
	Can you guys do it simultaneously then?
	No, because part of it is a bit more like what's that?
	No, because part of it is you get a break from the debate, some fresh air, clear your head, come back, be locked in.
	Yeah, I'll take five.
	Yeah, so what?
	Can we do each get a five?
	You'll have five, but Nick can bring you somewhere else.
	Somewhere else.
	Okay, just go with Nick.
	You got it.
	Yep.
	All right, guys, they're taking a brief break, brief break.
	They're each smoky man bad, smoky girl bad.
	They're just going to take a quick smoke break.
	So really quick, guys, as soon as they come back, we'll actually do a Q ⁇ A session super quick.
	So if you guys want to get in a question, streamlabs.com slash whatever, streamlabs.
	All right, now that they're gone, chat.
	Now that they're gone, what do you guys think?
	Who's winning the debate?
	Should I do a poll chat?
	What do you think?
	Should we do a poll chat?
	Bran Wolf, thank you for the super chat.
	Baby, thank you for the super chat.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you guys.
	Couple quick messages.
	Guys, if you want to support the show, you want to support the stream, and you want to do it without these platforms taking their cut, YouTube takes 30%, by the way, of all super chats.
	So for example, if you super chat 100, YouTube takes 30, you super chat 200 like this, YouTube takes 60.
	And then if you're doing it on an Apple device, Apple takes 30% on top also.
	So if you super chat 200, they're taking 100 of it basically.
	So streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	Get your Q ⁇ As in, guys.
	Also, guys, like the video if you're enjoying the stream.
	They should be back here in just about three minutes.
	They're taking a smoke break.
	I'll pull this up a little bit later.
	Oh, let me shout out the people who sent in some things via Venmo and Cash App.
	Guys, Venmo and Cash App.
	If you want to send something in, let's see.
	Lee, Lee Pittman, thank you for the 20.
	Brian, thank you for the three.
	Marissa, thank for the five.
	George, thank for the 10.
	Johnna Jaina, apologize if I'm mispronouncing that.
	Thank for the five.
	Appreciate it, guys.
	Thank you, thank you.
	Also, guys, go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow and a Prime sub if you have one.
	If you have Amazon Prime, you link it to your Twitch.
	It takes about two minutes to do.
	I know a lot of you have the Amazon Prime.
	You get, you know, the two-day delivery, all kinds of perks on Amazon.
	You link it to your Twitch account.
	You can create a Twitch account if you don't have one already.
	If you do already have one, you just link it up.
	It's super easy.
	And then every single month, you can basically support the show for free.
	Obviously, you have to pay for the Amazon Prime sub, but included with your Amazon Prime, you get a Twitch Prime.
	It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
	And it enables us to do this show.
	We don't do sponsorships because the topics we cover in the debates and on the dating talk panels are of a oftentimes controversial nature.
	Sometimes, you know, certain words are used that are going to get the video flagged.
	Oftentimes we lose our individual video monetization on these videos because we are talking about either controversial topics or keywords get used and the YouTube has an audio algorithm that is going to immediately just flag a video if you say certain words and then you're just going to lose the monetization.
	So because we don't do sponsorships, because a lot of our stuff gets demonetized, we are viewer supported.
	So if you guys want to support, we have a ton of options.
	We have the Twitch thing, VenmoCashapp, shop.whatever.com.
	Get yourself some merch, guys.
	We got some great designs.
	We sell t-shirts.
	You can get yourself a mug.
	We're selling these cups.
	By the way, you can't get these anywhere.
	Trust me.
	You can't get these solo jazz cups anywhere.
	I had to go to the manufacturer and I ordered 60,000 cups because I have issues.
	Anyways, somebody told me to get therapy today.
	Maybe that's it.
	Discord, join our Discord, guys.
	Discord.gg slash whatever, discord.gg slash whatever.
	Andrew's just returned from his smoke break.
	We are about to get right back into it.
	Give us just one more minute, guys.
	Also, guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video.
	Guys, like the video.
	I'm trying to see what we're at.
	What are we at right now?
	What are we at?
	If you guys can get the likes to, you guys get the likes to 7,000, 7,000, because there's 12,000 people watching.
	Get the likes to 7,777.
	You know, I may or may not have, we got pickle jars, olive jars, peach jars.
	You need an energy drink, Andrew?
	You need a...
	I got enough patience for one more prompt, dude.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And this is infuriating because she just refuses to answer questions.
	She just prattles for hours and just won't answer any questions I ask her.
	What are the questions that you want her to answer?
	Well, I want her to answer her questions on morality.
	She tried to evade on the incest question.
	I had to beat that out.
	It took me like 40 minutes to beat a basic question because I can't move the conversation forward.
	Let's do this.
	If sometimes I'm preoccupied with some of the stream stuff and I'm not always catching if she is being evasive.
	If you just want the immediate answer, just appeal to me and I'll insist she give an answer.
	How does that sound?
	This is, I mean, it's just ridiculous.
	They just don't answer any questions ever.
	Speaking of which, guys, Andrew's back at the table.
	He is a master debater.
	He's a master debater.
	I've got to get the program debateuniversity.com.
	It's instructional video, hours and hours of instructional video, debateuniversity.com.
	Guys, we're going to do a QA session as soon as Naima returns.
	Let me try to get them to hustle back here so that we can get this going.
	We're just taking a brief intermission to allow a breather for the debate participants.
	Hold on, let me text.
	All right.
	Thank you guys for your patience.
	Kenneth Wallen, by the way, says, W, Andrew.
	Thank you, Kenneth, for that.
	I'm sure Andrew appreciates your Wing.
	Appreciate it.
	Let's see.
	Some of these I'd like to wait to pull up just for, I think this one came up.
	RB.
	Oh, he's asking about the tribe.
	RB, thank you for your super chat, man.
	Do appreciate it.
	Do appreciate it.
	I'm going to let something, some from, oops, hold on.
	Pasty George here is coming in.
	Speaking of which, guys, now's the moment.
	If you want to get a QA in, do it now.
	Do it now.
	We'll get into the QA before or as soon as Naima comes back.
	We have Pasty George here.
	A message from the Government of Canada.
	Pasty George donated $200.04.
	That pop was for Andrew and whatever he wants to get, whether it be beer or some drink or cigars.
	Would you like maybe I'll send Nick to do a run.
	You want some beer?
	You want a refresher on anything?
	No, I'm good.
	You're good?
	Okay.
	I guess I'll get pasty.
	We'll get Andrew a burrito.
	We'll get Andrew a beer.
	We won't do it on stream, you know, but yeah.
	Is your flight tonight or early tomorrow?
	Tonight.
	Tonight, yeah.
	That's why I got to go.
	All right, they're back.
	They're back.
	Let's get it going.
	Let's get it going, guys.
	And hold on.
	Is that what you're saying?
	Tom A. Bear donated $200.
	What do you personally think about the Orthodox faith after sitting in with Orthodox debaters?
	God bless.
	Sorry if too personal of a question.
	Is this directed at him?
	Or me.
	I believe it's directed to you.
	What do I think about the Orthodox faith?
	I don't know, man.
	Whatever floats your boat.
	Like Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox Judaism?
	Christianity.
	Christianity.
	Orthodox Christianity?
	I think that's for you.
	Scuma Bear, appreciate it.
	We have a question.
	Message from the Government of Canada.
	Oh, boy.
	Oh my God, not Patsy George.
	$200.40.
	Dude, this man is going to drain his brown.
	Did you feel kind of bad?
	Slavery was good, and I let him know why.
	If slavery never existed, we wouldn't have the innovative music we have today.
	Minus the devolving rap for braindead thug wannabes.
	What is he talking about?
	If slavery would have never existed, we wouldn't have.
	So you think we should have slavery is justified because it made good music?
	Should I disavow that?
	I don't know.
	Do you want to.
	Come on, Brian.
	That was a rough one.
	Like, you got to admit, that was just stupid.
	Hey, you know, I mean, that is maybe the props to you, Patsy.
	I think that is one of the worst justifications.
	Pasty.
	Oh, not Patsy.
	Not Patsy.
	Oh, it's Pasty.
	Sorry.
	You can call him George or Pasty.
	Pasty.
	Pasty.
	I think PG.
	I like pasty.
	Props to you, Pasty.
	I think that might be one of the worst justifications for slavery I've ever heard.
	Mr. Fernand Garcia, thank you, man, for the soup chat.
	If morality is subjective, I think suffering is good.
	Hypothetically, I have a big army and more willing and capable to enact force than you outside of God.
	How am I wrong?
	Well, I don't think morality is subjective.
	I think morality is based on natural law, which is objective.
	All right.
	Guys, if you want to get the message in again, $200 Q ⁇ A, let's get into the next prompt, though.
	Welcome back, everybody.
	All right.
	Do you guys both smoke Marlboros, by the way?
	No, I smoke Turkish royals.
	I see.
	Okay.
	Do you have thoughts on you guys want to debate the best cigarette?
	You smoke cowboy killers?
	Yeah.
	I don't hate them.
	I feel like everyone starts with Marlboros, so I feel like they're kind of basic.
	I feel like the Marb goals are better, but.
	All right.
	I don't spice my food either.
	You don't spice your food?
	I'm kidding.
	It's a memeing to me.
	Next prompt.
	I'm sorry.
	That just sounded like something you would do.
	Feminism enslaved women instead of liberating them.
	Yeah.
	Okay, Andrew, I think you got to start because I genuinely just want to.
	Yes, Andrew, if you'd like to start on this.
	Yeah, so the first thing is I'm going to tell you all the things I don't consider to be slavery.
	Okay.
	So I don't consider not having voting rights slavery.
	Okay.
	Do you want to just define slavery instead of telling me everything that's not slavery?
	Yeah.
	Well, hang on.
	I will.
	I'll define that too.
	Well, you need to skip to the good part.
	Calm down.
	So I don't consider not having voting rights to be slavery, and I don't consider having certain social benefits instead of voting rights to be slavery at all.
	So I don't consider lack of suffrage or an inability for like, I don't know, other things like higher education, things like this.
	I don't consider any of that to be slavery, even if it were the case that we didn't quibble over what that means.
	I also don't think that those.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So I don't think that women at the time of feminism were slaves at all.
	Okay.
	I don't either.
	I mean, black women.
	Do you want me to give the at the time of the 19th Amendment?
	No, I thought you were talking about like during slavery.
	What?
	It's legitimate like American slavery, no?
	What?
	No.
	What do you mean?
	What are you talking about?
	Anyway, so I don't consider women at the time of women's suffrage to have been slaves at all.
	Okay.
	I do, however, because slavery is very nebulous.
	Brian, if you can pull up a few definitions.
	I can just give you the Merriam-Webster definition.
	I literally wrote it down.
	Yeah, but the problem is, is that there's a bit of nebulousness here that I think we need to clarify in the semantics for what slavery is.
	Okay.
	So go ahead and pull up the definitions, Brian.
	Well, it's good.
	Okay.
	I mean, it's the state of being a slave.
	I don't know if that's pronounced.
	That's not good.
	Can I give you a practice?
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	So here's what, because I know it's when you look it up, it's always the practice of being a slave, which is stupid.
	Slave definition.
	Here's what I would say: I would say forced and/or involuntary labor without pay.
	No.
	You want me to?
	But here, no, here's why.
	Here's why I would just say.
	Why?
	Do you want to know why?
	Sure, I guess I do.
	Because I'm not sure that that encompasses another type of slavery.
	What's the other type of slavery?
	Well, indentured servitude.
	Do you want me to read that?
	That is without pay, though.
	So it would be a good idea.
	No, it's not really.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	Just let me make the case.
	Do you want me to read it?
	Do you know what indentured slavery even is?
	Indentured slavery or indentured servitude.
	They're the same thing.
	Indentured servitude is when you essentially got a patron who would allow you to come to America or this country, and then you had to work off your time spent, yeah, your debt for coming to this.
	So it wasn't without pay.
	Well, I think that it was essentially not enough money.
	Like, the amount, seven years of indentured servitude is not equivalent to one.
	Well, maybe not.
	So I would say that's not.
	But I consider that slavery.
	And I consider that indentured servants who were coming in, I think that they were being paid.
	They were just paying, all their pay was going to a debt.
	So that's the distinction that I would make there.
	No, I agree with you.
	And I think that to that point, sharecropping would also be slavery because it was a similar, all of your money was going towards a debt.
	So my basic argument here is-I still think that we're agreeing on our definition, though.
	Can we just define our terms?
	Are we going to be able to do that?
	Do you want me to read the few definitions?
	Yeah, sure.
	Just for slave.
	One, a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property, an enslaved person, next one, a person who works very hard without proper remuneration.
	Oh my God, I'm sorry.
	Remuneration.
	Remuneration?
	I'm sorry.
	Remunerations.
	Remuneration.
	Runner and M and M M and M M. Remuneration or appreciation.
	Oh, my God.
	I'm so embarrassed.
	No, Brian, it's okay.
	A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something.
	An ant captured in its poopal state.
	So hang on.
	The previous definition of the pressure.
	I do just want to say, Brian.
	Read the previous definition.
	Yeah.
	I just want to say, Brian, 54% of the population reads below a sixth grade reading level.
	So you're doing pretty good.
	Thank you.
	A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something.
	A person who's excessively dependent or controlled.
	I agree that that would be a form of slavery.
	So here's where my essential argument is: is that women could not incur debt.
	And I consider that a massive incurrence of debt, like what you would get with indentured servitude, that you then have to work doing things that your preference is definitely against doing, is a form of slavery.
	And so my argument here is that ultimately what has happened through the idea of all women need to go to college, which has been a massive feminist talking point, is that they're under crushing student debt, generally speaking, for degrees they don't even need.
	And I would say that that is not liberating at all.
	I would say that women have become debt slaves to the economy.
	And before feminism, they could not incur debt themselves under coverture laws.
	So I would say that they have a form of slavery, or at least more akin to a form of slavery under state debt than was worth it for a right to vote that barely makes a significant difference anyway.
	Okay.
	So to those points, I cannot speak for other feminists, but I will speak for myself.
	Nobody is forcing women to go to college under feminism.
	Like, yeah, sure, we are encouraging women.
	And part of the feminist movement was to fight for the right, or I guess fight isn't the right, but to advocate for the right of equal education opportunity.
	But the difference is that it's not involuntary.
	Yeah.
	It's voluntary.
	Like a woman today.
	So was indentured servitude, and you agreed it's slavery.
	Yes, but a woman today could still choose not to be a student and go to school.
	They could choose then not to be indentured servitude.
	Higher education.
	They could agree then not to be indentured servants.
	It's the same principle applied.
	No, it's not the same principle because what we're saying is leaving.
	Like if you're leaving a potato family, you don't really have an option.
	Either you're dying or you're now in a city.
	Do you still have options and it's your choice?
	And the same reason that many women will incur a massive amount of college debt is because they're trying to conflating two things.
	They're trying to leave terrible economic conditions.
	That's why they do it.
	Yeah, of course it's not.
	So I would argue that the burden of these massive student loan programs, which are designed specifically to incentivize women to incur huge amounts of debt, which they do, has actually been more of a form of economic slavery than anything that they had pre-feminism under coverture laws where they were not allowed to incur debt.
	They did not have debt, which they could.
	Under curvature laws, women were also not allowed to keep their earnings.
	All of the money that they made from doing literally anything had to go to their husbands.
	That is not true, especially with inheritances.
	But going back to this belief that incurring debt through a university that you voluntarily choose to go to is somehow slavery, then wouldn't anyone who takes out a loan be a slave regardless of whether or not they're a man or a woman?
	I think usury is real bad.
	So you believe that every single person who is going to college voluntarily and voluntarily taking student debt is now a slave to that university.
	They are.
	Okay, so either you don't understand slavery or you don't understand higher education.
	So tell me what the distinction is between that and indentured servitude, which have the exact same qualifiers.
	Well, the difference is, first of all, we're in a much different society in which voluntarily taking out a huge sum of money and then paying it back through work, right?
	And you have to pay that money back or else there's serious fucking penalties for that, just like there is for student loans.
	In principle, what is the distinction here?
	They're both voluntary.
	Both.
	The principle is that under an indentured servitude, you're working for seven years and you're owner.
	You're working for a lot longer than that often with student debt.
	It's the concept of ownership.
	You are not owned by a company.
	No, no, no.
	It wasn't chattel slavery.
	You weren't owned the same way.
	No.
	But you were responsible to pay that debt off via the agreement of the contract, just like you are with one of these huge student loans for useless debt.
	Look, I'm not.
	Hang on, it's not just that debt.
	But it's not slavery.
	It's not just that.
	It's got to be, like, be so for real, man.
	It's not slavery.
	Then you shouldn't have agreed that indentured servitude is slavery because it meets the same qualifiers.
	It does not meet the same qualifiers.
	What's the distinction?
	Because the owner of the indentured servant, and I'm going to use owner in this scenario.
	They're not owned the same way as you owned to chattel slavery.
	Yes, but during indentured servitude, they would often push the goalposts and be like, oh, you owe me more and more and more money.
	They do it the same way with compound interest rates from student loans.
	But we understand the interest rate.
	It's upfront.
	They understood the interest rate because it was upfront.
	That's why they signed contracts.
	Yes, they had to adhere to the contracts the same way.
	No, they didn't.
	Half of them weren't even literally.
	Yes, that's confusing.
	They did.
	And just because people are doing things which are illegal, it was within the confines of the law.
	They had to adhere to the contract.
	These were supposed to be free white men.
	That's different than chattel slavery.
	That's why they had certain things afforded to them that were not afforded to chattel slaves.
	So then I guess you've defeated your own purpose.
	Yeah, you've made...
	So you've argued against indentured servitude being slavery and...
	No!
	No, I'm arguing, like you are, that it was slavery.
	You're convinced that you're not.
	I'm saying that this is the same thing.
	It's a form of economic slavery along with the propaganda, which is trying to push women for useless degrees, especially, and giving them loans, which they didn't get penalties on.
	And they do get penalties.
	So, what is your solution, Andrew?
	To what?
	To eliminating the slavery.
	It doesn't need to have a solution.
	We just need to agree that this is a form of economic slavery.
	That's it.
	I don't believe it's a form of economic slavery because it's a choice.
	Then neither was indentured servitude.
	Okay, sure.
	So indentured servants weren't slaves?
	Fine.
	Okay.
	I'm willing to do it.
	If you, as long as you bite that bullet.
	Next prompt.
	Yeah, next problem.
	I guess that's why they called them indentured servants and not indentured slaves.
	All right.
	So you don't wait.
	Go ahead.
	We're going to the next app.
	So wait, no, no, no, no.
	Go back.
	We'll go to the next slide.
	Hold on, Brian.
	All right, I got it.
	So then, Andrew, if I'm conceding that indentured servitude isn't slavery, then are you conceding that feminism is an enslavement?
	No, I'm still going to, I'm still literally going to stick by the definition that almost all sources would consider indentured servitude a form of slavery due to the crushing debt and the lack of choice that that brought.
	I'm going to argue that the same thing is the case through all forms of crushing debt, which are brought by corporate or state bodies against people's forms of slavery that women did not have to deal with before feminism, that feminism introduced.
	Therefore, I think they're less free now than they ever were because of the word feminism.
	First of all, I don't think you can blame feminism for this.
	They're the ones who advocated for it.
	We're not forcing women to go to college.
	We're giving them the option of going to college.
	And it doesn't matter what you call it.
	You can't go to college.
	What if a woman could just afford to go to college and she wants to go?
	Until you can tell me the distinct criterion difference between the crushing debt of indentured servitude and the crushing debt of college loans, which are often targeted at minorities and people have very little in the way of means to pay these loans back, and they give them to them based on useless degrees often, right?
	I'm not arguing.
	I don't understand how you could say that not only you would have to admit that not only is that that's a bad thing, but how's that not a form of economic slavery?
	Andrew, I'm not arguing any of these points.
	I'm arguing that this isn't the responsibility of feminism.
	Feminism created an option, but the concept of college debt was not made by feminism.
	Who pushed for it?
	Who pushed for college debt?
	Who pushed for women to go to college and have it financed by the government?
	No, no, no, no.
	Who pushed for college?
	Who created college debt?
	Yes.
	Feminists pushed for women to go to college and take out student loans.
	This is the third wave feminist, by the way.
	Who does the question?
	Hold on.
	One of those questions.
	Do you want me to reiterate the question?
	Who created college debt?
	Created it?
	Yes.
	Financial institutions.
	Okay, so then financial government institutions are the slavers, not feminists.
	No, because it's feminists who.
	What's the prompt?
	That feminism did more to enslave women than to free them, right?
	Or to keep them or give them more rights or give them more freedoms in society.
	That's what we're talking about.
	But you can't.
	And here's the truth.
	Feminists.
	Feminists, I can, and I am.
	Feminists did.
	Well, it's stupid.
	Well, let me make the argument and then respond to it.
	Sure.
	Feminists did absolutely push for women in higher education.
	They pushed to have it financed by the state.
	And by the way, modern feminists still push it.
	Modern feminists right this second are still pushing that women go to college and take on college debt, if necessary to get a degree.
	That's what they push more than anything.
	In fact, what we were pushing is the right to go to college, the right.
	Do you understand that before feminism, women were not allowed to pursue a degree?
	In history, pushing for the right to indentured servitude, we're not okay.
	But we didn't create feminism, didn't create the quote-unquote indenture service.
	They did of the.
	No, we didn't, they did.
	Who created college debt?
	If there wasn't, if there wasn't this massive Incentive, right, for these companies to create these diploma mills, because, and the only reason they're creating these diploma mills is because the student loan programs, which are coming out of the federal government, okay, that's what's going on.
	I'm sure you have student loans and it sucks.
	Like, I'm sorry.
	That sucks.
	It does suck.
	You know, the saddest part is, I agree with you.
	And I'm sorry that you're being crushed under that weight, but I'm telling you right now that that was not done by the malicious patriarchy.
	This is feminists and feminists, even currently, who really pushed hard that all women need to go to college.
	They all need to go.
	They all need to go.
	And all these student loans and the crushing debt now, and women are responsible for so much of that debt.
	I would argue that that is way worse that these women now have to go work these menial fucking jobs and shit like this to pay back their student loans to the fucking federal government.
	It's so bad now that now you have a new wave of feminists trying to come out and just ask for free everything.
	They're like, oh, just please, student debt forgiveness.
	They crushed.
	Go ahead.
	I mean, Andrew, I completely agree with you.
	I mean, I'm literally having this conversation with you right now to pay off my student debt.
	But my issue is that I don't think, like, all of these problems are real, but I don't think the blame and the onus is on feminists.
	I think the blame and the onus is on a capitalist system that is designed to fuck all of us.
	It's not even just women.
	It's men, too.
	Like, men are.
	Loans from the federal government isn't capitalist.
	I mean, men are also.
	Oh.
	No.
	So you don't think that's a college fund.
	I don't think that.
	I don't think that private equity funds.
	You don't think that these diploma mills are based on capital.
	The private equity firms, right, would not be financing people who are going to school for fucking basket weaving, okay?
	Because their chance of getting paid back would be way less.
	It's because these loans are backed by the federal government that they're even possible because equity firms would laugh at them.
	So the thing is, is like, look, as we look at this from the like bird's eye view, right?
	You and I agree that that system is fucked, okay?
	Yes, I do.
	And yes, absolutely, feminists push for that system in a big way.
	And my argument essentially is simple.
	It's just saying, and you know what?
	You could even caveat it.
	You could be like, you know what, feminists did a lot of great things.
	This one wasn't it.
	And if you, as long as you're willing to make the concession, like, look, that sort of financial slavery is way worse than what they had pre-19th Amendment, because it is, then I think we have an accord and we can move to the next prompt.
	I will, can I do a closing statement?
	And if you feel like we're done, then I'm good to be done with this one.
	I think the main point that I will make is that feminism was not about forcing women to go to college, but before feminism, women physically could not go to college.
	It was about creating equal opportunity.
	Because although colleges are fucked with the way that they absolutely steal from students by proliferating college debt, some degrees are a form of financial slavery.
	Yes, but some degrees are actually worthwhile.
	Look.
	And women should have the right to pursue those degrees as well.
	I just want to point out that it shouldn't, it's the inequality that women that feminists are fighting against.
	But in no universe are we trying to force every single woman to go to college, even if they don't want to and it doesn't make financial sense for them.
	No one is advocating for that.
	I am an avowed feminist and I would never say that to another woman.
	So anyway, these were the same arguments that were being used for the pushing of indentured slavery, indentured servitude.
	Same exact thing.
	Nobody's forcing you to do it.
	We're just making sure that people have the ability to do it because they don't have enough money to get here.
	Hang on.
	Yeah.
	I didn't interrupt your closing.
	That's right.
	Okay.
	The indentured servants, they want to come here.
	They just can't afford it.
	Okay, so we can charge them whatever they want.
	And doesn't that really just make their life better because we're giving them the option to do it?
	These are the same exact arguments that were made for that.
	Same exact thing.
	And so the thing is, is like, look, fine, that's great that you like want this option, right?
	But that doesn't change the fact that feminism created the conditionals for this, not the patriarchy and not coverture laws.
	Feminism, hang on, created the conditionals for this.
	And since they did and they advocated for it, they pushed everyone into it, they made a bunch of economic slaves out of otherwise viable women in their fertile years who could have gotten married.
	I mean, can I just respond to that?
	The thing, though, is that it wasn't that women weren't allowed to be indentured servants and then only men could be indentured servants and then feminists pushed for women to be indentured servants.
	Like the issue is that men could go to college, but women couldn't.
	We didn't have the option.
	We were fighting for the option.
	Most men only got the option to start going to college en masse, right?
	Only slightly before women did.
	That's one.
	And two, let me just point this out.
	That if college was really about rewarding the best and the brightest, not everybody could go.
	And the entirety of the push for this should always have been for that anyway.
	And what happened is feminists made a bunch of economic slaves out of women that they really didn't need to make out of women.
	And they still, by the way, on every mainstream network, this is what you'll see female feminists in modernity saying, go to college, go to college, go to school, because a lot of them are paid fucking shills, in fact.
	Okay?
	So yeah, feminism did bring the conditionals for this.
	They did make economic slaves.
	And here's the thing.
	As long as you agree, and here's maybe the olive branch that we can get.
	Fine, you don't want to call it slavery, economic slavery.
	Don't call it economic slavery.
	I think that in any other conditional, though, an avowed socialist like you would use that exact language, economic slavery.
	You just don't want to blame it on feminism.
	You want to blame it on capitalism, but it's like, even if I say, I agree with you that the system is, but even if I, I don't believe that we have an olive branch, can we have an olive branch then that, um, that forms of, of bad capitalism mixed with bad feminist ideology created the conditionals for this.
	Maybe that's the olive branch.
	I think it's forms of bad capitalism that created the conditionals for this that everyone experiences.
	And I also feel like you're kind of downplaying what men have to deal with as well.
	I mean, men are in this same freaking boat.
	No.
	Like, no?
	Well, not really.
	Men are moving towards the trades.
	They understand that there's a massive scammery going on with college.
	They're moving into trades and they don't have to spend as much.
	In fact, they get paid.
	Most of the time when you're training, most of the time when you're training for a trade, you get paid a high amount of money.
	Most trade schools that you go to, you know, maybe you go for six, eight weeks, and then you're assigned as an apprentice.
	Or sometimes you just start as an apprentice and you work for four years and you're getting paid the entire time.
	That seems like the opposite of economic slavery.
	This seems like it is.
	And I think that feminists created the conditionals and I'll leave it there.
	But feminists also gave women access to go to trade school as well.
	Like all forms of higher education, feminists fought for the right to women to attend to.
	And then we can choose among them.
	It was higher education.
	Women weren't fighting to get into trade schools.
	You don't think trade school is a form of higher education?
	Hey, man, don't think that's true.
	They weren't fighting to go weld.
	Okay.
	It's the equality of opportunity.
	They weren't fighting to go well.
	They don't understand what the equality of opportunity is.
	No, give me a break.
	That wasn't what it was about.
	It was about a bunch of industrialists horn swaggling you into becoming second-class citizens because you became economic cogs.
	Okay.
	I'll just close this out.
	I think we can agree that the college education system needs some severe reformation.
	And I think that we can agree that it's a fucking a lot of Americans, both men and women.
	Where I disagree is that I don't think that feminism is the cause of this, I guess, universal fuckage.
	Instead, it literally created the ability for women to choose this.
	And it's not forcing it on women.
	If they are going to go into too much debt and it's not economically feasible to go to college as a feminist, I'm telling you right now, don't do it.
	If it's not worth it, then don't.
	Yeah, that's great, but that's like counterintuitive to what your whole movement said for the last, you know, 60 years.
	I don't think you understand my movement, Andrew.
	I think I'm the only one at the table who does.
	I would disagree.
	We have three prompt options.
	Problems with democracy.
	Women just as violent as men, if not more, and force doctrine, the descriptor for earth.
	Yeah, do you want to do force doctrine?
	Because we never got to that.
	Oh, yeah, that's true.
	We didn't.
	Honestly, I kind of wanted to do problems with democracy.
	Yeah, we'll do that too.
	problems with democracy to find you want to start with problems with democracy and then move on to what was the other one I like women are more violent too.
	Do you have a preference?
	Let's do problems with democracy.
	Okay.
	And then force doctrine and then time permitting.
	Well, I don't think we're going to have time after this one.
	Force doctrine is going to be really long is what I'm saying, is what I'm thinking.
	Well, then let's do force doctrine so we can get out of the way.
	Let's do force doctrine then.
	So Andrew, it's your claim, if you want to.
	Yeah, so force doctrine is a descriptor which just describes that men gain or women gain their rights from men.
	That's the descriptor.
	Okay, so why do women gain their rights?
	Do you want to define force doctrine and why do you believe this is?
	No, you didn't.
	What am I leaving out of my own definition?
	Well, why do women, like, because why do they have to appeal to it?
	Yes.
	Women gain their rights.
	Because men have a monopoly on force.
	And since they have a monopoly on force, women always have to appeal to them.
	Example, if women right this second who were in some Middle Eastern nation, right, wanted their rights from the men and the men did not want to give them any rights, can you demonstrate for me a single shred of recourse that they could have except appealing to other men or the men that are not giving them rights?
	I mean, well, they could invent a bomb that would just like destroy everyone.
	Can you give me a single historic example of women ever successfully using physical force to overthrow when they're considered second-class citizens by the men?
	No, but I honestly believe physical force is immoral.
	I guess my issue with force doctrine is like, so what?
	What is your point?
	Like, sure, that's your definition, but why is this?
	My point is, is that it's very clear, again, that men are very benevolent.
	So you just want a pat on the back?
	No, I want, I want, I would like to see gratitude in the world for men because it is indeed the case that they have the monopoly on force and at any time, according to their own preferences, could just enslave all women.
	And, you know, it's really funny because it's like.
	So wait, I'm sorry.
	hold on imagine saying like you think that women should thank you for deciding not to enslave us I mean, the idea here is simple.
	The idea is that if it is the case that you have people who are drastically weaker, one people group than another people group, okay?
	And they can.
	They can do anything they want to you whenever they want.
	And half the world demonstrates that that's the case.
	At least in this half of the world, we don't do that.
	And because we don't do that, women take for granted that the men here are so benevolent that they could take what they wanted and they don't.
	And it's like, yeah, it's not just about a pat on the back.
	It's about actually thanking them for every breath of every day because ultimately they could do this and you can't refute that they can.
	Well, do you believe that there is a moral obligation?
	I don't believe that you can justify a moral obligation.
	Well, then I want to ask you, do you think that there is a moral justification?
	No, it's not an odd claim.
	Well, no, it should be.
	I would like to.
	It should be a claim.
	I would like to hear your prescriptive.
	I would like to hear your presentation.
	It's not a prescriptive claim.
	It's a descriptive claim.
	I know, and I want it to be prescriptive.
	I just want to hear what is your moral justification for why you believe that doing the bare minimum is somehow some great thing.
	Like, what's your moral justification?
	Do you mean gratitude?
	No, not your moral justification for gratitude.
	I guess what I'm saying is, so under your analysis, every man at any point could just overpower a woman and force his will on her.
	Right?
	And they choose not to do it.
	They choose not to do it.
	So what if they did choose to do it?
	Do you have a moral justification for why that would be okay?
	But I believe that only my view gives a moral justification, and I believe that your view does not.
	So I'll give you mine.
	Okay, so my moral justification is that I make an appeal and I ground my epistemology and ontology in Jesus Christ.
	And I think that you can't get to knowledge philosophically without having grounding.
	So the thing is, is like, that's how I would ground my morals for you ought not do that.
	However, the problem that you have is that secular states are rising up everywhere.
	And the appeal to Jesus Christ is not rising up.
	And so if it's the case that secularism cannot make an appeal for why men ought not do this outside of preference, then aren't you just laid bare by men's preference?
	Like whenever they decide that they prefer to do this, right?
	What moral thing can you appeal to other than your own preferences that they don't?
	Wait, so you exclusively believe that something is moral or immoral based on whether or not God told you it was moral?
	Based on Christian ethics, divine command, and church history, apostolic succession, the grounding of understanding the transcendentals, which are required to be grounded in God for them to even exist.
	Okay, but the wisdom of God has to be translated through man.
	So what?
	So then your morality isn't based on God.
	It's based on somebody else's interpretation of God.
	Okay, sure.
	So then if all it does is get us back to preferences, right?
	I'm fine with that too.
	So you're back to this preference-based sense of morality.
	So if that's the case.
	Which was justifying slavery.
	Okay, so can I just.
	Yes, your morality justifies slavery.
	I agree.
	Yes.
	No, but Andrew, you're the one who believes in preference-based morality.
	You have said that.
	So do you?
	No, I don't.
	Then give me the grounding where it's not preference-based.
	I believe that morality is objective.
	You don't?
	Yes, I do.
	I've said it multiple times.
	Objective means exist absent minds.
	Yes.
	I do believe that morality is.
	So where does it exist?
	Absent minds.
	Well, it's not a physical concept.
	Then if all human beings die tomorrow, is there things that are still moral or immoral?
	Yeah.
	How is that possible?
	Well, there's other life on earth, Andrew.
	So if a lion eats a fucking rabbit, is it moral?
	Well, no.
	I mean, yes, sorry.
	It is?
	It's a form of sustenance.
	I mean, we eat chicken every time.
	Wait, wait, so wait a second.
	So you don't believe that?
	Hang on.
	So if it's the case, hang on.
	I'm making sure I got this right.
	If it's the case that all human beings on planet Earth are dead, there's no more minds.
	There is still objective.
	Hang on, there is still morality?
	But there are still minds.
	Yeah, I know.
	Monkeys.
	I know.
	No, There are still minds.
	Oh, okay.
	So how does morality exist now?
	Is it monkey morality?
	I mean, yeah, kind of.
	So is there objective human morality?
	I think that there is objective human morality.
	Okay, so how does it exist absent mind?
	You got to get her to answer, dude.
	She's just going to pivot.
	Because there's other animals on earth.
	You got to answer this question.
	Listen, you have to answer this.
	All human minds are gone.
	All of them.
	Everyone.
	There was a plague and every human died, right?
	What would then make a thing objectively moral or immoral?
	Meaning there's no more minds and it exists somewhere as being moral or immoral absent an interpreter.
	Yeah, I mean, the concept of objective morality would still exist.
	How there's no mindset?
	There's no one there to see.
	Then who could come up with the concept?
	It already exists.
	How could it exist without you coming up with it?
	Because we're already alive.
	We're here right now.
	So just because we died tomorrow doesn't mean what happened hasn't already existed.
	If you're all dead, if everyone's dead, how can concepts exist?
	Okay, Andrew, I'll humor you.
	If humans never existed, then human morality would not exist either.
	No, so if humans no longer exist, then human morality also no longer exists.
	Well, it was already invented.
	It already exists.
	So yes, we would be gone.
	Like we wouldn't be there to record it, but it still exists.
	It's a concept.
	Where does it exist?
	The concept is immoral.
	It's immortal.
	No, concepts are not immortal.
	People wrote them down.
	So there, it's there.
	Who's there to read them?
	Nobody.
	So it doesn't get to them.
	So then how did they exist?
	It doesn't matter, but it still exists.
	No way.
	Something can exist.
	Where?
	Where could it possibly exist?
	In a book.
	Have you seen one?
	A book that nobody can read?
	Yes.
	Because nobody's there?
	But it still exists.
	How do you, how does a concept?
	Andrew, there is a difference between existence and whether I would agree.
	A book would exist, and a book would have words on it.
	So if somebody wrote down all of the objective moral principles that we have learned through humanity and basic human instincts and human experience, it would still exist.
	No, just a book would exist, not the concept.
	The concept is in the book.
	There's words in books.
	That's why we read them.
	Doesn't a book require a mind to interpret it?
	Sure, so it wouldn't matter, but it still exists.
	Only the book exists.
	Yes.
	And the book has the concept in it.
	Oh my God.
	There is a recorded version of this concept.
	So it continues to exist, but there is no one there to observe it.
	Do you not get that?
	Nope, not at all.
	How does a concept exist if somebody's not around to observe it?
	If a tree falls, it exists because it was created and documented, right?
	And now humans no longer exist, but the concept is still there.
	Just like the diary of Anne Frank still exists, even though she doesn't, right?
	The concepts that she wrote in that book are still there, even though she isn't.
	That's why we fucking write things down.
	Do books require interpreters?
	Yes, so it wouldn't matter at that point, but it still exists.
	So hang on.
	A book exists.
	A concept does not exist because it requires a mind and an interpreter.
	The concept does exist.
	It just doesn't matter.
	No.
	Yes.
	No.
	Human morality would still exist, but if there's no humans, then it doesn't matter.
	Help me out here.
	Let us pretend for a moment that you came across a book full of alien writings that had all of their morals in it.
	Sure.
	And you couldn't read the book.
	Okay.
	How could the and all these aliens were dead?
	Okay.
	How could the concept now exist?
	Well, the concept is still there and it still exists, but the humans don't.
	I mean, or the aliens don't.
	Andrew, do you not understand when something can be objective without being physical?
	Like, something can exist if it didn't have a physical form.
	Dude, we got to put you in like a biology class or something.
	How do you not get this?
	Like, why are we going around in circles about this?
	It's kind of a basic concept.
	Yeah, and I'm basically trying to figure this out.
	And you're basically struggling.
	That's true.
	I am totally struggling with this.
	You don't think that something can exist even after it doesn't matter.
	It's not important anymore because humans aren't there, but it still happened and it still exists.
	So do you think that if I write a concept down on a piece of paper, like do not kill all men named Chuck?
	Okay.
	All men named Chuck, right?
	And I die.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And there's nobody around.
	Is it now objectively true that it is immoral to not kill Chuck?
	Well, you don't get to decide objective morality as an individual.
	Then who does?
	It's a collective.
	So the collective gets to decide.
	I mean, so you think that it should be skydaddy, and I think it should be based on the will.
	The collective will.
	It's an object, it's object morality on the basis of the experiences of the collective.
	Okay, so I do think that there is an objective good and bad.
	So if I write now, the whole of the law shall be: you do not kill Chuck.
	And the majority of people agree with me before I die, and we all die.
	Is that now what's objectively moral?
	What the fuck are you talking about?
	Go back.
	Most people agree with my only commandment of do not kill Chuck.
	And almost everybody agrees with me.
	And we all die, but I have left behind this little pamphlet that says, do not kill Chuck, and it's now written down.
	Is that objectively moral now?
	Well, it doesn't matter because we're all dead.
	So sure, maybe it is, but it doesn't matter.
	That's what I'm saying.
	It can still exist, but it doesn't matter.
	This is literally the point.
	So is that objectively moral or not?
	What the fuck?
	We're not talking about whether or not that is objectively moral.
	We're talking about whether or not something can exist after the human race dies.
	No, we want to.
	Yeah, that was what you were not.
	We're only discussing objective versus subjective morality.
	The idea here is very simple, right?
	You keep on claiming that I believe that morality is based on preferences, but I keep demonstrating over and over again, so do you.
	And I don't know why you won't concede the point.
	You look ridiculous.
	I don't look ridiculous.
	I'm not the one who just justified slavery based on your own.
	You don't understand how bad this is going to be.
	I'm telling you, you don't even understand how bad this is.
	Well, I'm sure your fan will really appreciate it.
	No, it's not my fan.
	Can we go back?
	We can't because we don't want to have to defend the morality of force doctrine.
	That's what this is about.
	We don't want to defend the morality of using coercive power.
	Is force doctrine objectively not moral?
	I think that using coercive power against the consent of those you are using that power on is immoral.
	Prove it.
	It's immoral because it's causing human suffering.
	And what grounds human suffering as being what is immoral?
	I believe that natural law dictates human suffering is objectively bad.
	And so does your God.
	We both agree on that in my secular framework and in your religious framework.
	Well, hang on, hang on.
	Wait, you believe in a God?
	No, I said in my secular framework and your religious friends.
	I see.
	So what grounds natural rights as being objectively true?
	I believe natural rights are grounded as being objectively true based on human experience.
	So if humans have the experience are not true, are they still true?
	What?
	If a human being has an experience that tells him natural rights are not true, are they still true?
	Well, that's a singular human.
	This is collective human experience.
	I'm not a collectivist, just to clarify.
	Okay, so collectively, if collectively human beings experiences that natural rights are not true or natural law is not true, then natural law is not true.
	Collectively, humans experience that natural laws are not true.
	Well, certain natural laws are just like killing issues.
	Answer my question.
	If collectively human beings don't, through their own experience, do not believe natural laws are true, are they still true?
	Well, let's pick a natural law.
	Suffering causes harm.
	So, or harm causes suffering.
	No, not always.
	Harm causes, okay.
	Physical harm causes suffering.
	But only sometimes.
	Non-consensual physical harm causes suffering.
	Even if every human agreed that non-consensual physical harm causes suffering, if somebody stabbed Brian in the neck and he suffered because he was physically harmed, it's still true.
	Sorry.
	It's true that he got stabbed in the neck.
	It still causes suffering.
	I haven't demonstrated how it's true that that's immoral.
	Because it's objectively true.
	No, him getting stabbed in the neck is true, but how is it immoral?
	I'm talking about natural laws being objective, even if it's not.
	Isn't natural law the basis?
	I agree with them.
	So is natural law a descriptor of like things that happen?
	Some of them, somewhat.
	I mean, suffering causing harm is not just a descriptor of things that happen.
	Let's start with this.
	What is natural law?
	Let's just make sure I get it right.
	Natural law is the collective belief that humans can define their, that there are objective truths about morality, about good and bad, based on human experience.
	So it's collective belief.
	It's not collective belief.
	You just said natural law is the collective belief.
	Okay, well, it's some people's belief that things can be objective, that actions can be objective.
	So what is natural law?
	What is it?
	It's the objective belief that some things are objectively good or bad.
	What?
	Oh, my God.
	Andrew, you just really don't want to have to defend this.
	This is what I am defending it right now.
	You're not defending the morality of forced doctrine because you have not made an opinion on whether or not forced doctrine is moral or immoral.
	I did.
	I literally told you what my morality is.
	So you believe that force doctrine is moral.
	Sometimes.
	In which instances?
	Well, I would say if you're utilizing forced doctrine, you know, in the reasonable response to how the Lord would ask you to operate, then it would be fine.
	In what instances would the Lord justify harm?
	You mean harm?
	Whoa, all sorts of different instances.
	Self-defense, for instance, warfare, for instance.
	There could be possibilities where you need, well, you could.
	What warfare has been justified by God?
	Well, tons of warfare has been justified by God.
	Which ones?
	You mean in the Old Testament?
	No, I'm talking about currently what human warfare.
	I mean, God, like deciding to smite someone is aware of.
	Do you think that human warfare has been justified by God?
	I don't know what that means.
	Justified by God.
	When did we, as a species, go to war and God was like, that is good?
	Oh, I mean, there was tons of times in the Old Testament where God actually wanted God ordered them.
	Sure, I'll pull up the scripture.
	Do you want the scriptures where God ordered people to go to war?
	Here you go.
	I mean, that's fucking crazy that you don't know this, but here you go.
	All right.
	Man, this is your religion, Andrew.
	You shouldn't have to Google it.
	Well, I just want to be precise.
	That's fair.
	Okay.
	Old Testament, God commands war.
	I mean, he wiped out the Nephilim.
	I mean, he did all kinds of things.
	So, yeah, key examples include the conquest of Canaan, where God commands the destruction of the Canaanites.
	I mean, that's one example right off the top of it.
	But he's actually many times creating justifications for war.
	So I guess I want to understand your morality a little bit because you have to familiarize me because I'm not myself a Christian.
	So because God justified that instance of war, do you believe that God is justifying all instances of war?
	No.
	Okay, so according to God, when is war justified and when is war not unjustified?
	Well, that's a loaded question, but I'll try to answer it as best I can.
	Concepts of war are generally justified through the ideas of self-defense.
	The rigors of what would happen inside of collective warfare would be, it would necessarily have to follow Christian ethics.
	So you couldn't do things like essay women.
	You couldn't do any of those things.
	They would be restricted by the New Testament gospels.
	Okay, so would you say that it's fair to assert that God generally, because I know that do not kill is a commandment.
	Do not murder.
	Well, killing and murdering are equivalent.
	No, they're not the equivalent.
	To an extent.
	Not to an extent.
	For the context of this debate.
	Oh, so now you're a lawyer.
	Okay.
	So we know that God said.
	This is basic philosophy.
	Hold on.
	I actually want to look that up.
	Yeah, killing and murder are two different things.
	I agree that killing murder.
	One is justified, one is not justified.
	No, I agree that killing and murdering are different things, but I didn't know that God justified those.
	Oh, yeah.
	So it's thou shalt not kill.
	Okay.
	It's thou shalt not murder.
	I mean, the actual quote in the Bible is thou shalt not kill.
	Not in the Septuagint, which is the origination of the Bible that we're reading.
	It's thou shalt not murder.
	So you're not using the King James edition of the Bible?
	The NKJV.
	So you just wrote your own thing.
	In KJV, we use the Septuagint.
	Where did the King James Bible come from?
	Do you even know?
	No.
	What are you talking about?
	I have no idea about the historic standard.
	It is thou shalt not murder.
	So you just got the quote wrong, though.
	What?
	It's literally ask Google while I'm sitting here.
	Is it thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder?
	Ask it.
	In older translations, it is phrases, thou shalt not king.
	And in newer ones, it's thou shalt not kill.
	Oh, so I was right again.
	I mean, we were kind of both.
	No, you were just wrong.
	It's thou shalt not kill me.
	You've been wrong this whole debate.
	Thou shalt not kill it, murder in others.
	No, in the original.
	No, the tree.
	In the original, it was thou shalt not kill.
	No, it's murder.
	It's murder.
	But it's both.
	It was both.
	Like, anyway, so God just only, so you cannot murder according to God.
	But the only justification for murdering or killing either one is self-defense, according to your God.
	Well, it depends on what we're considering self-defense to be.
	There can be other instances where there could be justifiable killings that fall outside of self-defense.
	Well, like, I don't consider it murder if I'm working on top of like a fucking bridge and I accidentally kick a wrench off and it falls down and it hits somebody in the head and they die.
	Well, I think that's negligence.
	I don't consider that, but it's killing someone, but I don't consider those categorically the same because I think murder requires intent.
	You don't or God doesn't.
	Same.
	It'd be the idea of intentionality.
	Okay, so under your religious framework, intentional murder.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Intentional murder is bad, right?
	Can't do that.
	You're going to go to hell.
	So then under your religious framework, force doctrine is immoral.
	No, it's not.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	I mean, it is.
	But why do you deserve a cookie from women for not choosing to murder?
	You're changing the goalpost.
	You just said under my religious framework, force doctrine is immoral.
	Now, fucking demonstrate it.
	Stop playing that.
	Force doctrine isn't.
	Excuse me.
	Like, literally demonstrate it.
	Oh, my God.
	Demonstrate it.
	I love it when you get mad.
	Demonstrate it.
	I mean, under your definition of what is moral and immoral, based on your God, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but under that definition, it would be immoral to suddenly impose your will using coercive power on a woman and kill her or murder her.
	Wait a second.
	Either one.
	I'm sorry.
	How does this in any way dispute force doctrine?
	It disputes the morality of you thinking you deserve a pat on the back for choosing not to murder women every day.
	Wait a second.
	I'm sorry.
	I mean, you started this.
	Hold on.
	Let's go back.
	Because you started this debate by saying that women.
	I just can't even believe this.
	No, I mean, Andrew, I feel like you're just struggling to understand your own ideas.
	I am struggling to understand.
	You started this debate by saying that women deserve, should thank you.
	We should thank you so much.
	We should, yeah.
	For choosing every day not to violently harm us and murder us and kill us.
	That's right.
	But your God tells you not to.
	So why should we thank you for following the basic rules of morality set by your God?
	So then I thank you.
	You haven't done me a favor.
	So then in this case.
	You've just gotten yourself into heaven.
	So isn't the logical extension of this that you should thank my God?
	That's not you, though.
	Like, why do you deserve credit?
	Then say thank you to my God.
	I'm not saying thank you to you.
	Well, then, what are you even talking about?
	But you started this debate by saying I should say thank you to men, to you.
	Why do you?
	No, I actually started this debate explaining.
	You were actually just proven wrong because you wanted me to.
	Not only was I not proven wrong, but instead, I should be thanking you.
	You got to stop filibustering.
	You just conceded.
	Are you going to let her filibuster the whole thing?
	You got to let them speak to you.
	Okay, well, after your discussion, all you do is filibuster.
	So look, we're going to make this super easy.
	Actually, at the start of the debate, you're wrong.
	I said, only through my view can rights be justified for anybody, including women.
	Only through my view of God can rights be justified.
	And what did you end up doing here?
	Proving that the only justification we've ever come up with for why any of this would be wrong, right, or otherwise is my God.
	You have presented.
	You have presented nothing.
	I mean, stop filibustering.
	Fuck, stop filibustering.
	All you do is filibuster.
	Just let him finish, though.
	Well, I mean, at some point, you have to let the other person speak.
	So the thing is, is like, look, not only have I have we demonstrated that it's only through my God, and I guess you should thank him by your own logic, but you've never created a single standard yet for how your morality is anything other than preference.
	In your internal critique just now, all it did was ratify what I said at the beginning of the debate, which is that I don't think rights can be grounded through anything but God.
	And guess what you established?
	Well, guess what, Andrew?
	Rights can't be established by anything but your God.
	You're right.
	They can't.
	I agree.
	And on top of that, let me just point this out.
	The entire first part of the debate on the preferential end, all you did was describe how morality is preferential over and over and over again.
	So if it's the case, only through Christian ethics can this be grounded, right?
	And in your worldview, now, through your worldview, can you explain how forced doctrine is wrong outside of preference or not?
	No, Andrew.
	By the way, what I was just doing is proving through your own ethical framework why you don't deserve shit.
	You don't deserve a thank you for women from following the teachings of your own ethical framework brought to you by your God.
	Whether or not I agree with you.
	Whether or not I agree with the framework, you have created an ethical framework that puts the moral onus on your God.
	So you acting morally is not some gift to me and to womankind, but it is what you were told to do by your God.
	So why would I thank men?
	Why should women thank men?
	That's what you wanted.
	You wanted a thank you from women for not killing us, for doing the absolute bare minimum, which your own ethical framework acknowledged is the absolute bare pointing minimum.
	But that's my, just making my point.
	And by the way, let me just point this out.
	Me to thank God for making men do this.
	Let's just point this out.
	Let them answer.
	Are all men Christians?
	No.
	Then should we thank them?
	Well, yes, they're following their own secular ethical framework that is teaching them not to just maim others.
	So you should say, so you should thank men.
	Well, I mean, not you.
	But you should thank.
	I didn't say me.
	I said men.
	So you should thank men.
	I guess I should thank natural law.
	Thank you, natural law.
	I agree.
	How does that, what?
	Because it's objectively immoral.
	Because it's objectively immoral to kill people.
	No, it's objectively immoral.
	I just can't demonstrate it.
	Do you not think that killing is objectively immoral?
	Only from my view, but not from yours.
	No, from everyone's view.
	No, not from literally immoral.
	It's not literally from everyone's view.
	Kind of, yeah.
	Kind of, no.
	Kind of, yeah.
	Okay.
	From a Muslim's view, is it objectively immoral to take away rights from women?
	I mean, I'm not Muslim.
	Oh, my God.
	From a Muslim's view, is it objectively immoral to take away rights from women?
	But I haven't studied the Quran, so why should I be the one answering on behalf of Muslims?
	Is there anybody in the world?
	Does North Korea take away rights from women?
	North Korea takes away rights from everybody.
	Didn't you say you wanted to move?
	And women?
	Well, everyone.
	It's an equal opportunity for an oppressor.
	Sure, yes.
	And women.
	Okay, great.
	Yeah.
	So the case is, is like, if South Korean men go in there and put a stop to that shit, should the South Korean women at least thank them?
	The South Korean women?
	Or the North Korean women?
	The North Korean women.
	Should they at least thank them?
	The North Korean people?
	I mean, North Korea is not as important.
	Are the women, they're not people?
	Shouldn't they thank them?
	Not in a state that is oppressing based on gender.
	So, should they thank them or not?
	If South Korea decided to come in to North Korea, wage war to liberate the North Korean people and they wanted this, then yeah, the entirety of North Korea should probably thank South Korea for being liberated.
	Okay, got it.
	So, the only qualm that you have here is that you shouldn't thank Christians because we follow our ethics, but you should thank secularists because they have no ethics and just don't do it anyway.
	But the difference is the doing versus not doing.
	Like, Andrew, in North Korea, the South Koreans would have to actually go to war, fight, and potentially die for the freedom of another person.
	But here, all you have to do is just not murder women.
	Like, how hard is that to just not murder?
	But that's not an argument.
	Yes, it is.
	Why should I thank you for doing nothing?
	Thank men.
	Why should I thank men?
	Because at any time they want, they can collectively enslave all women and they don't.
	But at any time we want, we could collectively do all kinds of horrible things.
	Like, why do you think you should deserve a treat for doing the bare fucking minimum society?
	Here's the thing.
	I mean, anyone could abuse their child.
	Do you think that children every day should wake up and thank their parents?
	Thank you for not abusing and killing them.
	Yeah, I think that they should be grateful to their parents.
	Yeah.
	I mean, everyone should be grateful to a good parent, but you really think that we, like, as a society, have an advantage to the menu.
	It's like a contradiction machine.
	Let each other finish.
	You like a contradiction machine.
	I mean, you should thank your parents if they're nice parents, but Andrew, you should thank your parents because they're nice parents, but not because every day they choose not to abuse you.
	Again, these are the bare minimums.
	You know, it's funny.
	Like, it's the not, like, it's just not doing something.
	It's funny to me because, like, there's such a lack of cogency here.
	You say that you should thank secular men, right?
	And you should thank them because they're following natural law.
	I don't think you should thank secular men.
	You literally just got done saying you think we should thank secular men.
	Let each other finish.
	Let each other finish.
	Which is your form of morality?
	Yeah, that's makes sense.
	Then why should we thank your form of morality for doing the bare minimum?
	You're just following your own morals.
	What?
	Yeah, why would you thank men who are just following natural law?
	I wouldn't thank them.
	You just said I wouldn't.
	Hang on, you wouldn't.
	No, I wouldn't thank you.
	Then why did you say before you would you would?
	I would not thank men.
	I literally thanked natural law like 30 seconds ago, Andrew.
	You're just not paying attention.
	So then shouldn't you thank my God then for creating a moral system in which you decide to thank natural law to murder.
	If we should thank natural law, shouldn't you thank my God?
	No, I should, but I'm just not going to.
	Oh, okay.
	So you're just a contradiction machine, got it?
	No, I'm not a contradiction machine.
	I just don't agree that you're the human being.
	Andrew, it's not a concession.
	You believe that you deserve a pat on the fucking back for doing nothing.
	And I'm saying I don't believe you do.
	If anyone does, it's God or natural law or the concept of morality.
	I know.
	Whatever it is that prevents you from doing horrible things to other people.
	I know.
	But you don't deserve a cookie for sitting on your couch.
	Like, why do you think that?
	Every day, we could all go out and choose to commit an act of violence and we don't.
	You're not special for that.
	Yeah, I know.
	I got it.
	I get it.
	Okay, then why do you think you deserve a thank you?
	Can I close now?
	Sure.
	Okay, great.
	So now that you're all done prattling, so you just made the concession.
	You literally just made multiple concessions there that you don't even know yet you made.
	The first one that you made is, well, I'm not going to thank your God, even though he's responsible for this, but you should thank natural law, the moral system that I utilize, which it's incoherent, I've never explained, for why it is that secular men aren't.
	And it's like, that's the most hilarious contradiction I've heard this entire debate.
	And on top of that, it's like, look, yeah, do I think that women should probably be just a little bit grateful that it's considering that women are enslaved on half of planet Earth or at least have way less rights to the point where you would consider them enslaved to at least acknowledge that men could do this and are benevolent and don't and should be thankful for it?
	Yeah, but you know what?
	You don't have to.
	What you can do instead is you can be like, you know what?
	I'm a big, strong woman, and all women are super strong, and we're awesome.
	And so, here's the thing: fuck men.
	Who care?
	They don't get a cookie.
	That's the least that they should do.
	But none of that refutes force doctrine, and none of that shows how it is that men couldn't do this and why it is that you shouldn't actually be kind of thankful that they don't, or at least perceive them as being benevolent.
	So, what about you, Andrew?
	Do you think you should?
	Did you finish your clothes, by the way?
	No, she always interrupts every time I'm talking.
	Is this the close just on this prompt or your total close?
	Yes, my total close.
	Total close.
	Okay.
	So, not only that, your massive contradictions on morality were so absurd.
	I don't even think you realize how bad it was.
	You have a circular argument that we went over multiple times, and you just never got that.
	If it, no matter what you were reduced to, you just came back to your own preference.
	It was completely circular, just over and over and over again.
	I even demonstrated this by presenting as an anti-moralist Christian, an anti-moral realist Christian, in order to say, Well, mine's just preference.
	And you spent almost 50 minutes arguing against your own moral system because you didn't even understand what was being said.
	And so, it's laughable to me that as the debate continued and we got into other moral predictors and we got into things about feminism, you contradicted thing after thing after thing after thing after thing.
	You just contradicted yourself on natural law.
	You contradicted yourself on natural law again when you said you shouldn't appeal to my God and be grateful, but we should appeal to your moral system and be grateful.
	You contradicted yourself on your definition of slavery when you said indentured servitude and then said it wasn't.
	You contradicted yourself literally, I don't know, 20 minutes ago when you gave a definition for natural law and said it's a collective belief.
	And then literally one minute later said, No, it's not collective belief.
	You're a contradiction machine.
	You have no coherent, no coherency at all in your worldview.
	And it was completely crushed.
	Mine stood up to scrutiny fine.
	You didn't even understand what I was saying half the time.
	It's like it's very frustrating, but this was like, look, your first showing, I think you got away with it because of the jar thing, but like this was terrible.
	You just got absolutely decimated this fucking debate.
	It was bad.
	Yeah, you said that last time.
	You did it.
	Well, you did then, too.
	There was an obfuscation you had then that's not there this time.
	Are you done with your clothes?
	Yeah, I'm done.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	Give me one second.
	While she's collecting her thoughts, guys, we'll do a QA session right after.
	Then we're going to wrap the debate.
	So go ahead.
	Okay.
	This debate, I think, was very interesting.
	Now, first, I just want to respond to your final claims on our last prompt and then get into my actual closing statement.
	So, what?
	Well, you finished your claim on the final prompt.
	It's closing.
	Yeah, Andrew.
	You can include it in your closing.
	Thank you.
	That's what I'm saying.
	All right.
	So, first of all, Andrew, I don't really think anyone should thank anything for just choosing not to commit an act of harm.
	And if we should, then I think that you should thank every man that's stronger than you for not choosing to, you know, bend you over and rape you, because that's something you would have to be subjected to too, under your own force doctrine.
	As a man who physically could not open a jar of olives, you're also putting yourself at risk of being overpowered by other men and then therefore losing rights that I guess you don't believe exist.
	Now, I guess my issue with Andrew's debate style is that he only uses descriptive arguments.
	He wants to argue over semantics.
	I think collectively we took about three hours today arguing.
	Well, the debate was three hours.
	So I'll say two and a half, arguing solely over semantics.
	And I think the real reason why you do this is because you refuse to defend your positions.
	You don't want to have to stand up to any scrutiny because you refuse to present your arguments.
	And the few times you did, you ended up justifying slavery and genocide, which to me is kind of one of the most disgusting things I've heard in a debate.
	I think that generally you are confused on, maybe the reason you want to debate definitions so frequently is because you're confused on them.
	You don't really understand what slavery is.
	You don't really understand what feminism is.
	You don't really understand what rights are.
	You don't really understand, we didn't get to democracy, but what democracy is.
	And instead, you simply want to ask over and over the same four questions to try and create a gotcha moment that won't exist.
	And, you know, I guess this was an interesting social experiment in how much two people can annoy each other.
	And the answer is a lot, but I had a good time.
	Okay, I'm done.
	Does that conclude your closing statement?
	Yes.
	Okay, we have two chats.
	If any of you want to get them in.
	Oh, oh, it's going to be, it's going to be, what's the same?
	$199 QA.
	Final call on this if you want.
	We have a few minutes here at the end.
	Final call if you want to get some in.
	Norris donated $200.
	Thank you, man.
	Rights are entitlements absent duty.
	Privileges are entitlements under condition.
	Aren't U.S. citizens without rights since they can be taken by judicial system?
	Let's make Bill of Privileges.
	W. Bree Drew.
	Big J. Norris, thank you for that statement.
	We have Pasty George here.
	Oh my God, it's a great question.
	Pasty George donated $200.04.
	To Brown Locks, please elaborate on why men should be thankful to women.
	Why should we be grateful to just our mothers for giving birth to us?
	Oh, Pasty, I'm not saying that men should be grateful to women.
	I'm saying that under Andrew's belief that women should thank all men for choosing not to harm them, then weak men should thank stronger men for choosing not to harm them as well.
	Because there are men who are also in a position of vulnerability against physical harm.
	And if a man chooses to not do the absolute bare minimum and commit an act of harm against another man, I mean, I don't believe that they should have to be thanked, but Andrew does.
	So anyway.
	All right, we have, hold on.
	I'll just read this from Pelagic.
	Typical of a narcissist to double down on the gaslighting and ad hom attacks when they are getting smoked.
	She has said nothing and made no point.
	Just another manipulative woman.
	I didn't add hominim, Andrew, a single time, but okay.
	All right.
	It looks, oh, we have, hold on.
	I believe that's it.
	If any others trickle in, I'll be sure to get it.
	But hold on.
	Let's see.
	No, I'll give one or two more minutes to allow for a few more QAs.
	Otherwise, we'll get this wrapped up.
	Andrew, would you like to plug anything here at the end?
	And then Naeem, I'll give you a chance too if you want to.
	Yeah, I've got debate con coming up.
	Hope to see everybody there.
	It's the 15th and 16th.
	It's going to be a huge event.
	We've been kind of traveling all over the U.S. to promote it.
	So I hope we can sell it out.
	I know that we're pretty close to doing so.
	So get your tickets while you still can.
	Anything for you you'd like to plug?
	Yeah, okay.
	Okay.
	All right, guys.
	Well, if you want to support the show, Venmo, Cash App, whatever, pod.
	Guys, final thing, Nick, if you could pull up our Twitch.
	Guys, if you're watching on YouTube, you're watching on Twitch, drop us a follow, drop us a Prime sub.
	If you have Amazon Prime, you can link into your Twitch.
	Quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
	Guys, it's been one hour since we last got a Prime.
	I think it's bugged, boys.
	I think it's bugged.
	Can somebody test out the Prime sub?
	Also, guys, you can get some merch, shop.whatever.com.
	Nick, if you can pull that up super quick.
	I'll see if we have one in the studio.
	Guys, get some merch, shop.whatever.com.
	Also, join our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
	If you enjoyed the stream, you want to see more debates, like the video, guys.
	Like the video.
	Like the video on your way out.
	Also, final thing for this, guys, if you want to learn how to become a master debater, debateuniversity.com.
	You want to become a master debater like Andrew or like Naima, debateuniversity.com.
	You can check it out there.
	Final call on the QA.
	You guys have one minute to get a final QA statement in $200 QA via streamlabs.com slash whatever.
	Thank you guys for all the memberships.
	Really quick, just shout outs for people who sent in something via Venmo or Cash App.
	We have, let's see, we have Douglas.
	Thank you for the $5 in Colin.
	Thank you for the $10 via Cash App.
	Thank you, guys.
	Really appreciate it.
	Guys, like the video kindly on the way out.
	Like the video on the way out.
	Thank you for tuning in, guys.
	Also, Andrew did a debate on Saturday, which was phenomenal.
	You can check that out.
	That was also live.
	Also, we did a dating talk yesterday.
	Andrew was also on the panel for that.
	Be sure to watch those if you haven't already.
	Believe Pasty George is going to have the final message here.
	Of course he is.
	A message from the government of Canada.
	Pasty George donated $200.04.
	It is good that Brian brings on these feminist women on here because it helps us identify feminists on how they operate, including their brainwashed prattle.
	Do you have a response to George on that?
	Oh, do I need to?
	Yes, you have to.
	Okay.
	Well, you're welcome, I guess.
	You're welcome, Pasty George.
	Yes.
	All right.
	I want to thank both of you for joining me for this debate.
	Thank you both for your time.
	Appreciate it.
	All right, guys.
	07s in the chat.
	I hope you guys enjoyed the stream.
	Mads, thank you for the gifted 10.
	Like the video on the way out.
	And then as soon as the stream ends, if you guys can, leave a nice little comment.
	You know, leave a comment on the YouTube video.
	It helps with the algorithm.
	Guys, we are going to be live next Sunday.
	We have a great dating talk scheduled.
	Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific.
	That's the next time we're live.
	Thank you guys for watching.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Thank you both again for doing the debate.
	07's in the chat.

▲