Andrew Wilson vs. Naima (Feminist, Leftist, Anti-Trump) | Whatever Debates #20

Andrew Wilson’s Tactics

1. Core Argument: Force Doctrine

Definition: Feminism seeks to dismantle patriarchy, but according to Wilson, women must appeal to patriarchal systems to do so—therefore reinforcing male dominance.
Key Claim: “Women cannot collectively enforce their rights without men, who have a monopoly on force.”
Logical Framing: Begins with descriptive metaphysical claim (“men control force”), then transitions to prescriptive consequences (e.g., limited democracy, household voting).

2. Argumentation Tactics

A. Socratic Interrogation

He frequently interrogates his opponent rather than presenting his views up front.
Example: Presses Naima with “Why should people vote?” before stating his own position.
Purpose: Attempts to push opponents into contradictions or force them to define terms before engaging on substance.

B. Reductive Framing

Boils complex ideological positions into binary contradictions.
- Feminism = must appeal to patriarchy = self-defeating.
- Voting = tribalism = needs restriction.

C. Descriptor vs. Prescriptor Distinction

He regularly insists he is “not making a normative claim” but simply describing reality.
Tactical Benefit: Shields his views from moral scrutiny while still clearly implying normative conclusions (e.g., repeal the 19th Amendment).

D. Demand for Logical Consistency

Attempts to expose contradictions in the opponent’s worldview (e.g., if laws apply to 16-year-olds, should they vote?).
Builds to an argument that adult suffrage is arbitrary or inconsistent.

3. Common Fallacies and Rhetorical Maneuvers

A. Straw Man

Misrepresents Naima’s claims by inflating them or attaching extreme implications.
- E.g., “So babies should get the right to vote?”—misrepresents her position about legal adults.

B. False Dilemma

Sets up limited options where more exist.
- “Either you disenfranchise stupid voters, or elites will enslave us all.”

C. Non Sequitur

Many conclusions do not logically follow from premises.
- E.g., because “voting blocks exist,” therefore “one marriage voting system” is ideal.

D. Motte-and-Bailey Tactic

Softens extreme views by switching between a defensible “motte” and an aggressive “bailey.”
- Motte: “I’m just describing reality.”
- Bailey: “Let’s repeal the 19th Amendment and restrict voting.”

E. Appeal to Hypotheticals

Uses speculative or extreme hypotheticals (e.g., women blackmailing men via abortion) to justify policy-level conclusions.

F. Appeal to Cynicism

“Most people are too stupid to vote” becomes a foundational premise for restricting democracy—appeals to audience’s frustration.

4. Rhetorical Framing Techniques

A. Masculine Dominance as Inevitable

Positions patriarchy as a metaphysical inevitability—“women must appeal to men for rights.”
Claims strength (force) is the base of all rights and law.

B. Pre-emptive Discrediting

Opens with an attack on Naima: “She never makes arguments, only assertions.”
Frames her as incoherent before she even speaks.

C. Moral Deflection

Avoids answering questions about moral implications by claiming to be “only describing reality.”

D. Philosophical Minimalism

Rejects social contract theories or Enlightenment ideas of universal rights.
Instead roots rights in “force,” not in reason, nature, or law.

5. Notable Ideological Views

Suggests repealing the 19th Amendment.
Proposes household or service-based voting.
Implies democracy should be limited to high-information voters.
Claims that political tribalism is inherent to universal suffrage.

Conclusion

Andrew Wilson’s debate style is:

Aggressive, using confrontational Socratic questioning;
Philosophically deterministic, grounding rights in force;
Rhetorically evasive, leveraging descriptor/prescriptor sleight of hand;
Fallacy-prone, often relying on straw men, false dilemmas, and non sequiturs;
Politically reactionary, proposing regressive voting structures.

Video Transcript

Duration: 03:48:22

00:16 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 before the show begins. This podcast is viewerupported. Heavy YouTube demonetization, so please consider donating through Streamlabs instead chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut. That’s streamlabs.com/ whatever. Link is in the description. And we prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs to read a message is uh $1.99 or excuse me, not $1 199, $200 and up, $199 and up. We will read those in batches at various breaks throughout the debate. There will be no instant TTS and I do ask that the audience has uh good discipline when it comes to the uh super chats and the uh chats. And if you want

01:01 to criticize, you know, uh attack the idea, not the person. Uh now if you want to just tip and have 100% of your contribution go towards us. No platform fees, no cut. You can via Venmo or Cash App, whatever. Pot on both. Link is in the description. We’re also live on Twitch right now. Pull up another tab. Go to twitch.tv/w whatever and drop us a follow on the prime subub if you have one. Quick disclaimer. The views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the Whatever channel. Without further ado, I will introduce our two guests. I’m

01:32 joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible. He’s a Blood Sports debater and political commentator. Also joining us today is Naima. She’s a senior at University of Southern California. She’s a political commentator and content creator. The topic today is feminism. You will each have up to a five-minute opening statement, and then the rest of the show will just be open conversation, possible prompt changes, and we’re going to have breaks for messages from the audience. Andrew, you’re going to go first with your

02:06 opening statement. So, please go ahead. Yeah. So, my position on feminism is that um it’s terrible for society. Um, as we go through this, I’ll kind of flesh that view out using what I call force doctrine so that you can understand why I have that same set. But force doctrine basically just states that uh while feminism definitionally is the movement towards egalitarianism and equity for the removal of patriarchal systems, that feminist will always have to appeal to patriarchy in order to try to remove patriarchy, which is

02:38 ironically hilarious. But a few things I wanted to get to first is that I went through several hours of my opponent’s content, and I’ve actually not ever seen her make a single argument for anything that she believes. Not I’ve seen her assert a lot of things, but not an argument for anything she actually believes. So, I have some notes here, and I was hoping she could help me clear

02:59 some of these things up. From the surrounded September 8th, 2024 episode, she says, “Abortion is murder.” uh or I’m sorry, the prompt is abortion is murder and should be illegal. She asked for a viability time for 20 weeks and thinks abortion before 20 weeks is acceptable. She says the fetus is technically classified as a parasite. The fetus cannot uh exist outside of the womb and therefore is a parasite. The actual definitions don’t support this. an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, multiply. Uh, that would be an actual definition of a

03:34 parasite or someone or something that resembles a biological parasite living off of, being dependent on, or exploring another. Um, fetuses can’t fit that definitionally. Fetus is the same species. Biological parasites are classified as other, not the same species. Also, u mutual biology. Mothers and fetus co co-adapt and mothers are

03:55 actually healthier while they’re pregnant. So, it can’t really be a parasite. Um, and um parasites are rarely temporary and fetuses are. So, and none of that fits the criteria for a parasite. On her video, Middle Ground, progressives versus moderates, and this is from January 19th, uh she says the prompt is does the far left uh make Democrats lose elections? She said Kamla was not progressive enough, not far-left enough. Um, she talks about how women’s

04:25 rights are being stripped, but didn’t give any examples of what those are. So, I’m actually really confused about um a lot of her positions, including in her rematch against Charlie Kirk, that happened March 5th, 2025, why DEI is unlawful. Um, her re her rebuttal to Kirk was bizarre. It just had something to do with there’s no racial factor in DEI, even though Kirk gave a pretty good

04:47 rebuttal for that. So, I’d like her to kind of dive into what she actually believes within within the paradigm of feminism. Um, but for my positive position, I will say I have a logical argument called force doctrine. And my logical argument called force doctrine refutes the feminist ideology and it just works as I explained before um that uh patriarchy must always be appealed to in order to try to eliminate patriarchy. Women can’t enforce their own rights collectively and men can. Therefore, women always have to appeal collectively

05:21 to men for their rights. So, you’re always going to essentially have a patriarchy through forced doctrine and there’s nothing women can do about that. So, I’m willing to logically go through that and have it examined rigorously, but I’m hoping that with that um you can also describe your positions so that I understand them better. All right. Thank you, Andrew. If you’d like to give your opening statement.

05:44 Yes. Thank you, Andrew. Um, you know, I do think that that is an interesting claim that I don’t, you know, state my arguments because I’ve actually been watching some of your content and I’ve noticed kind of a similar trend as well within these debates where you will ask your debate or questions but will not put forth your argument, including in your opening statement. You know, you

06:04 state force doctrine, but instead of elaborating on it, you consistently talk about what I’ve talked about, which only one of those topics was actually related to feminism. Now, when it comes to my actual beliefs, I think my goal and my hope for this country is to see us advance as a society. I would like to see everyone have bodily autonomy and I would like for the vast majority of people, if not everyone, to have their basic needs met. And I would like to mitigate any unnecessary conflict between the citizens of this country. Genuinely, I think that my main issue with the manosphere and with your force doctrine principle is that it promotes and spreads divisiveness against men and women. It promotes and spreads violence against men and women. And it exaggerates and focuses the difference the differences between the genders. I think that men and women I mean I don’t

06:51 think I know men and women are the same species. We are 99% genetically similar. And the obsessive need to define and separate people based on one singular chromosome is doing both men and women a disservice socially, economically, and politically, which we can get into. Um I’m ready to open it up if you want to. Yeah. I guess actually I’d love to start with a question for you. Um I would like to go back to the force doctrine theory if we can. I just kind of want to

07:21 understand more. I’ve know you’ve talked a lot about the equal force objection in the past. You’ve said men have essentially a monopoly on force. Correct. If I’m correct. Okay, perfect. Um and do you want me to walk you through the argument? No, I’m I’m going to elaborate. Thank you. And that rights exist through physical force and that our legal system is based on physical force. Mhm. Um, so I guess I kind of just want to hear you elaborate on that

07:43 now if you’re welcome. So you want my argument for the force doctrine? Yep. Okay. So what force doctrine is saying is very simple that feminism if you at least agree with my definition and it seems broadly feminists do. Yeah. That it’s a movement towards egalitarianism and equity and the removal of patriarchy. They if you can’t have an oppressed class without an oppressor class, at least not from the Marxist feminist view. In the case if women are being oppressed, they’re not being oppressed by wolves. They’re being

08:12 oppressed by men. Right? So if that’s the case, then my argument to them is that whatever you believe this oppression is, you will actually have to appeal to men in order to either relinquish whatever this oppression is uh or um concede to whatever it is that they want because collectively women actually cannot overthrow any patriarchal systems. They

08:36 rely on the force of men. And so if men anytime they want to decide to remove women’s rights, there’s actually not anything women can do about it. But the opposition is not true. The opposite is not true. Women cannot collectivize and take away men’s rights. Okay. So, are you essentially saying that women do not deserve the right to fight for their own freed? Yeah, that’s an a claim. I’m not making an a claim. I’m trying to get us to the

08:59 descriptor first. So, instead of making a prescriptive statement, I’m starting with a descriptive statement. What is true? And then we can worry about what it’s what should be true after we can determine what is true. Okay. But I’m trying to see like structurally how does that work in the real world? Are you saying that women should not fight for their rights because they Listen, let’s back up so I can distinguish two things.

09:20 Okay. Is ought right. I’m not trying to bridge the is ought gap. I’m trying to start with a descriptive claim. So if if the descriptive claim is true, then we can move through the to the prescriptive side of it. But right now, you would either need to agree with me that descriptively I’m right or that descriptively I’m wrong. I can’t agree with you to say that descriptively you’re right until you apply what you’re saying in theory to the practice of

09:47 modern day society. How does your equal force objection how does this principle work in society? What are you saying in terms Yeah. I think that because that is the case that men deserve to have uh various privileges that they’re not given in society. Okay. which they should be given in society. So what are the privileges that you think that men should have that women should not have? Well, primarily I think that if you’re going to look at an equalization, what I would do pre prescriptively would be to roll voting back and that’s for both sexes. I think that rolling voting back for both sexes is a good idea and have

10:24 some sort of perhaps like um one house voting system or one marriage voting system or people who have done some sort of collective service to the state for a voting system. I think that those things would all be very good systems for everybody. Now I would apply that hang on I would apply that broadly to men and I would apply that to women. I think

10:46 that right now men get the shaft because men are men are required to do a lot of jobs that women are not which keeps society going and women are not doing those things and because of that I don’t understand why it is that women can nullify their votes and disenfranchise them and most importantly vote to send them to wars they don’t have to go fight

11:07 in. So you would like to disenfranchise both the men and women’s mostly most of them. Yes, I think would be a better idea. achieve? Well, it would be the it would achieve the same thing our founders basically wanted to achieve, which is that they thought that you would have to have a stake in the country in order to vote. But if you live in the country and if you exist in the country and if you’re being legislated by the laws that the country is making, don’t you have a stake in that? No, not always. In fact, many times you don’t. Many times, many people

11:33 actually get more back from the state than they put into the state. So, that’s at the expense of other people. Who is that? So, there’s lots of people who pay who get a ma a mass amount back from the government that they never pay to the government. This can happen through things like uh social security disability, things like welfare, uh things like even earned income child credit that you may receive even though

11:55 you don’t actually pay anything into the system or very little into the system. But those are it’s a crime to lie on your taxes and commit. Isn’t that tax fraud to claim a dependent? No, no, there’s just tax fraud. I’m saying there’s people who get more out of the system than they put into the system. Okay. But they’re still at stake because they still live here

12:15 now. Are their lives not at stake if we’re legislating them? But that that wouldn’t follow that because they live here, they deserve the right to vote, though. Yes. It’s I mean, no taxation without representation. That’s the point of representative democracy is that everyone is represented. Then how come the founding fathers didn’t give everybody the right to vote from the beginning? I mean, the founding fathers also endorsed and owned slaves. Do you agree with child slavery? Just let her finish. Go ahead. I mean the founding

12:37 fathers also endorsed and own slaves. Do you believe in child slavery? So so you do realize that they could do bad thing right I can agree that’s bad thing but that has nothing relationally to do with how they set up the system of government. I mean I thought this was going to be a debate on feminism. Honestly I think that’s kind of wild because it sounds like you’re disenfranchising men. So who do you think would be are you trying to I’m not disenfranch I’m not disenfranchising men. Calm down. I’ll explain. If you’re taking away the votes of a man because he is not um I guess landowning is that what the what’s the criteria for having a vote? I think ultimately more men would be voting

13:14 because they would have more stake. So can I ask can every man go to prison? Yeah. Okay. If they commit a crime they can go to prison. Yeah. Everyone can do that. Yes. Okay. And everyone is in this country has to abide by the laws of this country otherwise they will go to prison. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So why wouldn’t they be allowed to vote on the representatives that define those laws? If they that is a stake if you can go to

13:38 prison for committing a crime that is created by the government then you do have a stake legislatively in the laws that the government creates that still wouldn’t follow that you would need to vote. Yes, you would need to vote. You want to vote for the representatives that create laws that are just and fair to you. Yeah. Why? Like you could have because you could go to prison. That’s a huge state. Let me show I’ll show you. Right. Can kings put you in prison?

13:58 Yeah. Can kings also pass just laws? Sometimes maybe. Okay. So, if kings pass just laws, why do you need to vote? Well, why did we fight? No, answer the question before you ask another one. I just answered all of yours. If a king passes just laws, why would you need to vote? Because a king can also pass unjust laws. So can legislators. Sure. But if you have a stake in that and if you’re able to represent for your legislator, you can vote a legislator

14:21 out. Yeah. But you can also rebel against kings. So like that’s why I’m saying your position doesn’t follow. It doesn’t actually follow for you to say that because you can be imprisoned inside of a nation that that somehow gives you the right to vote. Well, because you have a stake. You’re saying that Hang on. I’m falsifying your claim. I’m falsifying your claim. If you claim kings make just can make just laws, right? Yes. Then I don’t understand. Why would people need to vote when kings are making just laws? Well, then why would we leave the monarchy of England? If kings can make just laws, why would we leave? Well, in that case, they had you had a nation apart that had a rebellion against the king. That’s what was going

15:01 on. But kings have been rebelled against historically under certain circumstances many times. So, you’d like to go back to feudalism like you don’t believe in democracy? Well, yeah, that is it. Feudalism is under a monarch. It would be called limited democracy, which is exactly what we had here. Do you think we had feudalism because most people couldn’t vote here? We had limited democracy and then there were like several many uprisings against that limited democracy because everyone deserves uprisings really against that. The only uprising that I’m aware of in American history against America was the civil war. The civil war. The civil rights movement voting the civil rights movement. No no no the civil war wasn’t about voting. Well I mean it was about

15:42 the owning of cattle slaves. So not about voting then which is also about human and civil rights but not about voting though. But voting is a civil right. I don’t know. I’m not sure that I believe in this. It’s about freedom and it’s about representation. The point is representation. So let’s back up. That’s what voting is. Voting is representation and democra. I understand. But you haven’t actually made the positive case for why people need to be able to vote. People need to be able to vote because they have a stake in the legislation of

16:07 this country. If you can be imprisoned at this country, if you can be robbed of your bodily autonomy by the legislators of this country, then you should be able to have a stake in the laws that those legislators are making. Well, let’s see if this makes sense. Do you agree with me that individually individual vote v voters don’t actually have very much power at all? Individual voters, no, but that’s the point of a collective vote.

16:29 Yeah, I’m with you. So, individuals already don’t really have very much power just because they can vote, right? Sure. So isn’t it the case actually that what you’re advocating for is political tribalism because you don’t have individual power as a voter. You actually have to tribalize with other voters in order to have any sort of collective power. Right. Well, you’re taking away power from all the voters.

16:49 So to answer my question, please tribalism the idea that you as the individual do not have power, right? You do have to collectivize with other people, right? Okay. But how is the answer? Yes or no? No. Yeah. Okay. No. But here’s my question. How is taking away more people’s votes disincentivizing political tribal?

17:12 Because now I have to band with someone Because now I have to band with someone who has a vote. I don’t even get a stake. So you’re saying because people don’t have enough power to vote. I’m going to take what little power they do have. You’re not answering my question, though. It just doesn’t make sense structure. I know, but you got to answer my question. It just doesn’t sound like you believe in It sounds like you need to answer my question, though. It sounds like your question is meant to trap me because can you just answer the question, please? What’s what’s facious about my argument? You’re saying that people do not have a stake in this country, therefore they do not have a right to vote. It’s not what I said. What you’re doing is a straw man fallacy. Can we go back to you can go back? What I said to you specifically is is what you’re saying doesn’t logically follow. And when I’m talking about political tribalism, do you agree with me that you do if you need to have collectives to have actual political power? Are you not promoting political

18:02 tribalism? If you need to have colle but that’s how voting works. It’s about a majority. So then you are promoting collective political tribalism, right? So voting and then the will of the majority is essentially political tribalism is what you’re saying. Well, it’s not really the will of the majority. Here’s what happens. No, not really. Do you understand how voting works? Do you? Yeah. Okay. Well, then tell me how it’s the will of the majority when a California legislature gets elected. Well, everyone who would like to vote can vote and then whoever the most. What about the people in

18:34 Georgia wins? Well, why would a person in Georgia get to vote on So, it’s not really the collective. It’s the tribe, right? But then Georgians get to vote for their So, it’s a tribe then. And then all of those legislators come together. So, it’s a tribe. So, it’s a tribe. It’s not a tri but those are called states. Yeah. And states are voting for their own interests, right? But states will vote for the governors. Why would I get to vote for the govern listen to me? Why would I get to vote for the governor of, let’s say, Tennessee if I don’t live in Tennessee?

19:05 Makes sense. Okay. So, it’s almost like it’s almost like these individual states, right? They vote along tribal lines for that state’s particular interest. Right. Yes. And each state has a representative collective government. Sure. In the federal government, right? You’re talking about in our Senate and in our Congress, right? Great. So let’s start with this. If it is the case that you have California and Nevada, these are two states which are next to each other. You agree, right? Yes. Can these states vote against each other’s

19:32 interests when it comes to resources in the federal government? Yes. No. Even at the state level, they can, right? Why would they be able to at the state level? I can’t vote for the Nevada governor. I can’t vote for because perhaps there’s something that perhaps Nevada perhaps Nevada has some type of I don’t know assessed tax or something like this uh that they’re able to collect which disproportionately affects

19:54 Californians in some way they can do that right what law is that whatever it would be they can does it exist or does it not exist can they do that can they do that is my question can Nevada legislate against California no they’re not legislating against Listen to my question. Actually, I want you to repeat my question so I know you actually heard it. I’m sorry. I’m not a dog. I don’t Can you Can you repeat it? Well, it’s called steel maning a position. Say the

20:18 question. Okay. Can states vote against other states interests simply by having a neighboring state? Right? Let’s just say for instance that you were to have like, oh, I don’t know, trucks which went between Nevada and California, right? And California took advantage of this by raising uh taxes on gasoline, but only on the border areas where these goods came in. This disproportionately

20:42 hurts Nevada truckers for some reason, right? They can do that, right? Yes, they can do that. Okay, great. So, in California, if that was beneficial to Californians, they would basically be voting for their tribe against Nevada, right? But is that happening or just trying to use a hypothetical? No, there’s tons and tons of instances where different states do various things, even asking for federal money in overages compared to other states for different problems. Same thing with disaster support. They definitely are all trying

21:08 to support their tribe, right? Okay. So, because states can potentially hypothetically vote against another state’s interest, men and women should not have the right to No, that’s not the conclusion. But that’s that was your argument. Privilege is again, do you know what a descriptor is? Sexes, one marriage voting system. Why don’t you understand the difference between a descriptor and prescriptor? What did I prescribe? What you prescribed is one voting system is a voting system in which both men and women are disin what

21:35 I’m doing right now is I’m giving you descriptors so we can determine if it’s tribalism or not because you said it’s not tribalism to have collectivism and voting blocks which is insane. But what you haven’t been able to answer is why disenfranchising more voters is somehow solving political tribalism. Let let her get to the end of the sentence please. Well, let me explain it the best way that I possibly can. Your worldview

21:57 promotes political tribalism. So, what happens is this. NOS’s can go to our government and they can bribe them for voting blocks. And that’s exactly what they do. Non-government organizations do this and lobbyists do this. And what they do is they raid the treasury from people like you and me so that they can bribe certain portions of the electorate in order to incentivize them to collectivize. That’s why black people often vote as a monolith. For instance, they vote monolithically up to 80 90% together, especially in national hang on especially in national elections because they’re promised made certain promises out of the treasury from the electorate usually at the expense of other forms of of uh of voters. This is 100% tribalism.

22:39 So, how are NOS’s bribing politicians influencing who black people as individuals choose to vote for? How do NOS’s do that? I just don’t understand how you’re saying I mean I agree that NOS’s should not be bribing and lobbyists shouldn’t be bribing but instead of I mean that’s what they do though, right? Okay. But we’re trying to get back to your claim that people should vote. Okay. Well, I’m responding because this is a

23:03 conversation. Yeah. Sure. So, we’re trying to get back to your claim that less people from both sexes should be able to vote. Yeah. No, that’s not where we just were. Where were we just That’s your initial. Yeah. But now you’re just pivoting. Where we just were was Well, you’re not letting me finish my sentence. You let me finish my sentence. You’re pivoting. We’re talking right now about whether tribalism is descriptively true in your voting system. I understand

23:26 that, but we’re trying to get back to your initial claim because you have a very important claim to defend. You’re trying to take this away from the American people poorly. But let’s get into it. Um, so NOS’s bribe, lobbyists bribe, and that is impacting who and what politicians are promoting. I would agree with that statement. Would you agree with that statement? uh well not

23:46 just what they’re promoting but uh also they are setting the precedent for laws themselves. Okay. Yes. So they actually I would I would even argue back that NOS’s and private think groups write the laws in which politicians most often execute and so do bankers as well. I agree with that. So why would taking away votes from the average American and singular citizen prevent NOS’s and lobbyists from having an ability to impact and predict and create laws?

24:17 Yeah. So if you’re to if you move to stakeholder democracy, this idea that you had to have some sort of public service or something like this, it actually collectivizes down the voting pool which adds responsibility to the voters who can then be held accountable which right now voters can’t be. That’s why that’s why it’s so important. So you’re not saying can be held accountable. So you’re saying how well legislators will create laws that hold those voters accountable. The ones who have to follow them. Do you not have Well, that’s not you’re being held

24:45 accountable. So it is being held accountable. No. No. So right now under tribalism, you can get laws passed which affect me but benefit you. I can’t go like hold you somehow accountable for that. But that’s how a majority voting work. That’s how I know. Which is why I want limited democracy where we can actually hold people accountable. Want to be in charge. How would I be in charge if it’s stakeholder democracy? Well, you said one marriage voting system. That could be one way of doing

25:12 it. Yes. Okay. What are the other ways of doing it? Another good way would be public service. So, whoever public service perhaps up to 3 to 5 years unpaid or military service would be good. So, during this public service in which people are go working 3 to 5 years unpaid, how are they paying for food and groceries and housing? Yeah. So, the state would take care of that just like they do in military. The state would take care of that like they do in the military. And how do you plan on getting that passed? What does that have to do with anything? Well, because let’s say I could never get it passed. We’re arguing the ideology of this system. What does that have to do with anything? What’s the point in creating an ideology that will never work out? How you going to

25:48 get Marxism passed? You’re not. So, are you aren’t you a Marxist part? But you’re a Marxist, right? How did you know that? Well, I don’t know. That’s what your videos seem to imply that you believe in Marxist feminism. and Marxist. Oh, I don’t know. Are you a socialist on a certain level? So, okay. How you going to get socialist? Like, that’s silly. That us making the comparison contrast between like socialism, capitalism has no bearing on

26:10 whether or not I could somehow get this passed or have some plan to get it passed. Okay. I’m arguing about the ideology here. Do you want to understand my belief or do you just want to guess? Well, hang on. What does I have to do? You know what I just said though? Well, I mean, you just called me a Marxist. Call me a socialist. Well, if you’re not a Marxist, I said we’re doing a comparison contrast of worldviews and ideology. for doing contrast worldview and ideology. It’s a nonsequator to ask me, well, how you going to get it passed? What does that have to do with anything? Well, why would you create a worldview that fundamentally cannot work

26:37 in practice? That sounds like it’s not a worldview that fundamentally cannot work in practice. Even if I couldract even if I couldn’t prescriptively tell you like the next political chain of things we do to get there has nothing to do with whether or not the worldview in practice would work. I do you have any practical guesses for how we could apply this to a modern day society? Well, I just Yeah. Yeah. I just told you how we would apply it. You would have stakeholder

27:00 democracy. Okay. So that’s just so one day we’re just going to flip a switch and have that. Like I don’t understand. No. What do you mean? Okay. You could have an amendment for it. You could repeal the 19th amendment. You could So you want to repeal the right to vote or just replace it? It wouldn’t be. What I’m talking about is universal suffrage. You keep on making a conflation in terms. You think that uh because I say universal suffrage that means no suffrage. I’m talking about limited

27:24 suffrage. So, who gets to decide who gets the right to vote? Didn’t I literally just tell you who gets to decide who or who gets to vote? Okay. So, everyone who participates in this public service gets the right. That could be one way to do it. Yes. Okay. Um and that anyone could do that if you wanted to. Yeah. People could do it if they’re willing to give up x amount of years of their lives on for unpaid

27:49 service so that they could then vote. But it’s not unpaid service because the government would be paying for their food and their housing. Yeah. But you wouldn’t be getting anything additional to that. Okay. Well, why not just have civil servants who are already because civil servants have specific jobs to do like, you know, working at the DMV and stuff like that and working in the social security office. So, you’re basically saying anyone who does community service should get the right

28:10 to vote. Now, some sort of civil occupational service under the state. That could be like civil firefighting work maybe. Uh it could be civil paramedic work. It could be all there’s all sorts of different things you can look at for uh stakeholder democracy when we’ve seen it applied around the world. It’s been somewhat successful. And do the laws apply to everyone in the society or just the people who still apply to everyone? Yeah. Okay. So, how can you create and apply a law to people who are not represented? I just don’t understand morally. How do you justify? There’s nothing immoral about it. There’s nothing immoral about. I mean,

28:43 but that’s kind of like I would say it’s more immoral. Why is it moral for an 18-year-old to nullify the vote of a 41-year-old if the 18-year-old doesn’t even know what they’re voting for? How’s that moral? Well, because the 18-year-old is still subject to the laws of the state. Yeah, but they don’t even know what they’re voting for. Can an 18-year-old go to jail for 20 years? A 16-year-old can. Should they be able to vote? 16-year-olds can’t go to jail. Yes, they can. 16-year-olds can go to jail for life. Should they be able to

29:07 vote? I mean, no. But why would why not? The laws apply to them, though. Why would a 16-year-old be going? Hang on. I don’t Because he murdered someone. Okay, that’s fair. I mean, if you murder someone, that’s a whole So, I don’t understand. Why can’t he vote? The laws apply to him. Why can’t he vote? Yeah, but we all understand that. We all understand it’s not an argument. Why does a 16-year-old get to vote even though all the lies laws apply to the 16-year-old? Why does he get to vote? Not all the laws apply. They start in juvenile detention and then at 18 they

29:34 get the right. So, laws apply to 16. But you’re retrieded at 18. So, laws apply to 16y olds. Some laws, of course. Yes. Okay, great. Why can’t they vote then? So babies should get the right to vote. That’s my question to you. That makes no sense. Exactly. So why do we limit it to 18? Well, that’s the age that we’ve defined as being a legal adult. That’s the age that we as a country have universally agreed with our right to

29:54 vote is Yeah. But what makes that a good idea? Just because you arbitrarily Yeah. Just because you arbitrarily say, for instance, that uh because you’re 18 and you’re an adult, like you can’t buy cigarettes, you can’t buy beer, you can’t rent a car, but you’re an adult and now you can vote in the participation of democracy. At least

30:15 raise it. So, you’d like to raise it? At least raise it. So, you would like to universally a raise the age to vote. I think that would be a better idea than like not No, no, no. What I said is at least do that. But the thing is like you’re actually inconsistent here. You your whole argument is to say if laws affect people, they should have a right to vote. But we have an entire cast of people from the age 17 down who laws apply to and can’t vote. And you just are like you shug that off like you didn’t contradict yourself. I’m pretty

30:44 sure it has something to do with brain development. But we’ve all like you have to have not fully developed till what 25 according to you have a society in which you don’t have an age that someone becomes a leader. I agree. But why couldn’t you have a society in which you had stakeholder democracy? It would be the same logic. So if you’re saying that we should not disenfranchise children, why would you then disenfranchise people who are legal adults? What do you When did I ever make the claim that I wanted children to be able to vote? You just said that if everyone should have No, I told you that your view is inconsistent. If it is the case propositionally, you say, Andrew, if laws apply to people, they should be able to vote. Except, oh,

31:20 I don’t know. Everybody’s 17 and under. That’s inconsistent. Hang on. Hang on. Apply to children. It’s inconsistent and a contradiction. But laws do apply to children. What about the laws that don’t? What about the laws that don’t? What about the laws where you’re 17 years old and you could be tried as an adult? Well, those are to protect like public freedom. I mean, but everyone loses civil liberties when they are a danger to the public. Yeah. But do you do you understand that you’re you’re making a contradiction when you say if laws should apply to all all people should should have a right to vote because they have to they have laws which can be applied. They can be sent

31:53 to prison was your example. That would have to include everyone under the age of 18. But people under the age of 18 don’t go to adult prison. Yes, they do all the time. Yes, they do. That is that is you want me to give you sources of 16 17 year olds tries adults and sent to adult prisons? Okay. But it that’s like an exception for exclusively horrific crimes. I mean those are violent offenders. Does the law apply to them or not to violent offenders? If you are a threat to public safety, yes. Everyone who if the law applies to them and they can be sent to jail, then by your logic, they should be able to vote, which means you’re in contradiction. To those offenders, they are sent to juvenile detention centers until they turn 18 and

32:32 then they are sent to an adult prison. They are still sent often to adult centers, even at 17 to adult prisons. You can be sentenced as an adult, but you can’t be sent to an adult prison at the age of 16. This would depend widely on the state that you’re in. It’s not rigorously enforced across the board like you think. There’s not like I don’t think there’s federal laws which say

32:53 this, but even if it were the case, I’ll just grant it. I’ll even grant the entire thing. It still wouldn’t matter. Laws apply to them. They can still be sent to prison. they fit both of your criteria. Therefore, if you say they shouldn’t be able to vote, your worldview’s in contradiction. Well, then I think that’s wrong. I don’t believe that children should be tried as adults until they have become adults. So, no laws apply to children. No. Well, then why shouldn’t they be able to vote? A threat to public safety is always applies to everyone. Threats to public safety always apply to everyone. Yeah.

33:22 But why shouldn’t they be able to vote if laws apply to them? That’s your example. Laws apply to children, but they are not in practice punished in the same way that they apply to adults. It’s applied to Can they be punished? Of course they can. Then why can’t they vote? But you have to have some way to maintain societal control. Children aren’t just allowed to do whatever the [ __ ] they want because they’re right. You need to be able to have some sort of societal control. So this would mean

33:44 necessarily disenfranchising some people, wouldn’t it? It would mean necessarily disenfranchising children. Yes. They’re not No, it would also mean disenfranchising prisoners. Do you want prisoners to vote on their right to own guns in a prison? Not their right to own guns in a prison. Well, then you’re disenfranchising. think that people who were in prison and then leave prison should then have to vote. But they’re disenfranchised currently under the law, right? No, they’re not. Yes, they are. If you’re a felon, you can’t vote. Yes. Oh, well, once they leave, yes, I do think that that’s disenfranchisement. And I think Florida just rolled that

34:13 back. But what’s wrong with disenfranchising like murderers for life? What’s wrong with disenfranch? Well, they would be in jail for life if they No, no, no. They’re out of jail. They’re just felons, so they can’t vote. Well, they Yeah, I think that felons should be able to vote once they be able to own guns. No, cuz it’s Oh, well, I don’t understand. So, you’re dis again, you are so inconsistent with your disenfranchising. Do you understand what

34:37 disenfranchisement should exist so long as someone is a threat to public safety? The reason why prisoners are not allowed to vote who are currently in prison is because they are a threat to public safety. 16-year-olds aren’t a threat to public safety. No, but they’re children. You can’t allow anyone. You can arbitrarily disenfranchise people based on the fact that you think they’re not capable of making good voting decisions, right? No. A child is legally different than an adult because they can’t make you can’t have sex with a child. That would be because they can’t make good decisions. No. Because they’re legally classified as a child. Do you not understand what because they can’t make good decisions? Because they’re two and three and four. They’re not legally

35:14 involved. So they can’t make good decisions. No, they can make good decisions, but generally speaking, you can’t have children vote. There is a with you. You can’t. But why why is it then that if I were to say that I only want 25y olds to vote, I would be disenfranchising? You say you only want 25 year olds to vote. You say you only want one marriage voting system per household. You you want less of both

35:37 adult men and adult. But do you understand how my view is consistent, but yours isn’t? Because if we if you were to agree with me that you wanted like, okay, Andrew, I would compromise a 25-year-old voting. You’ve now disenfranchised everyone from the ages of 18 through 24. a legal adult, you should be able to vote. That’s my state. If you are considered a legal adult, if you are tried as an adult, if you are allowed to buy a house, have a child,

36:02 but that leads to the problem is is that that leads to political tribalism. So like for instance, why is it a healthy society to have uh men and women who are married voting against each other? That’s a terrible idea because they’re both like but if a man commits a murder, is his wife does his wife go to jail for that crime? No. No. cuz they’re not the same [ __ ] person. What does that have to do with anything? If they’re different people and they’re both tried differently and they both have separate lives and separate bank accounts and separate bodily and physical autonomy, then they should each get a stake in this government. No. Well, I that literally has nothing to do with what I

36:37 just asked. They’re not the same. So, why should they be representing? You remember how I said yes and no to your question? Can you do that for me? Remember how I was like yes and just answered it? Can you actually do that for me, too? I don’t remember that at all. You literally just asked me that question. You said if a husband’s carded off to prison, does her wife go to prison? I said no. Okay. Can you do that for me too and then give your explanation because otherwise I don’t know your actual position thing and then

36:59 gave the explanation. So now I’d like to know, do you think it’s a good idea for wives and husbands to uh be able to vote against each other’s interests? They should both have a vote. Yes. Well, that’s but they can vote against each other’s interests, right? That is circumstantial. They may not. They might. Yeah. They may not. They might. I agree with that. But why is it good that that option is even there? It seems like a terrible idea. Because in a representative democracy, everyone should be represented with a vote. Yeah,

37:25 I get that’s a descriptive truth, but you’re not telling me why that should be the case. If I were to give you the counter claim here, I would say if you had like one household voting or something like this, it would be much more uniform and wouldn’t divide families against each other. And that’s exactly what the vote has done. But they’re both subject to the same legislative. Like they can both be legislated independent of each other, right? No. Well, not really. One cannot at that point make a decision that doesn’t affect the other one usually. Yes, I can. Not really. What I mean, Roie Wade, that only affects a woman’s body, right? No. You think that if a man is married to a woman and she goes and aborts his baby, that doesn’t affect

38:03 him? Of course it does, but it affects him differently than his body. But it’s still But that’s my whole point is is that everything they do in this household is going to affect each other. Sure. So, you wouldn’t want to promote systems which divide husbands against wives, but they’re individuals. No. Are they the same person or not? This is not what’s in dispute. Are they the same person or not? Okay. No. Then why should they not each have an individual liberty? What if they get because you don’t want to set up systems that divide them against each other? That’s a bad

38:31 idea. Marry someone who doesn’t want to vote for with you. But that’s no. Do you understand that like people’s preferences change over time and there could be various reasons in which uh if you have a tribal uh type of mentality like take abortion for instance. Abortion is a great one. Uh do you think that it’s possible that women, for instance, could hold it against their husband and say things like, “Do this or I’ll abort your child.” They could

38:56 actually do that, right? Yeah. Hypothetically, sure. Yeah. And have done that. That would be immoral. And have done that. That would be immoral. Yeah. But but but you wouldn’t say they couldn’t go get the abortion, would you? Well, would you say a man can’t? But hang on, hang on. Answer the question first. What? You wouldn’t say that they shouldn’t be allowed to do that, though, would you? Well, if it would be disenfranchising millions of other women who aren’t need Yes or no, please. You wouldn’t say that you you would not

39:21 actually say that they should not be allowed to get the abortion, right? No, I think everyone should have access to Okay. So, even if it were the case that a woman, right, was holding uh the man basically emotionally hostage with her pregnancy and said, “Do what I say or I’ll get an abortion.” Right. You would not make any claim that she could or could not get that abortion, would you? I would make a claim that what she’s

39:43 doing is immoral, but I wouldn’t make a claim that because should anything happen to a woman who does that? Yeah, I think I mean that’s blackmailing and it’s not blackmail. I think on a level it’s emotional blackmail. I think you should be able to What should happen? Should they go to jail? I mean maybe pay damages or a fine. A fine. Yeah. How much should the fine be? I don’t know. 200 bucks. How much is an abortion to They’ be the same as an abortion. Can I

40:07 ask you a question? So So just to get this right. Well, I want to finish this real quick and then we can move back. Well, no, you can’t till I finish the inquiry. I’m not going to answer your question, but but you can inquire back. I just want to finish this inquiry, the line of inquiry. That’s all. So, just to make sure I got this right, you have now said that the tribal voting does indeed uh pit husband against wife has a

40:29 potential to do so. Right. And I’ve even conceded to specific examples of where it would be in a woman’s interest to vote against her husband to have a right to do something which could be used against him later. And then said, well, the punishment should be like, oh, maybe she pays a fine if something like that happens. And you how are you going to convince people that that’s a better system than one household voting? That’s a terrible system because then the leader of that household or the head of that household has control over the right and the will of every single

40:55 person in that household. You’re fundamentally denying people free will. They’re not allowed to. Yes, they are. Because if they’re fundamental denying them of free will, huh? Because if they’re both legislated by the same government and one of them has no say in who is elected into that government, but still because you’re still free by law, but you’re still impacted by laws. So what? You’re being impacted by laws when you’re 17. They can’t vote. You have a consistency issue. Same extent as an 18-year-old. Not at the same extent. They can have it to the same extent as an 18-year-old in very rare exceptions.

41:26 But you’re But they can then. So you’re disenfranchising people. But look at you. You’re around the fringe. You’re fighting on an exception. We’re talking about the general population. Even in the general population talking about murderers. I’m not talking about school shootings. I don’t think it’s generally speaking good idea to let 18year-olds, 19year-olds, 20-year-olds to vote to disenfranchise the votes of people who are politically informed because they’re being used as a leverage voting block for elitists. And that’s

41:50 what’s actually happening. What’s actually happening was what you just said. You know, NOS’s and lobbyists are lobbying Congress to get various things passed and what they do is they try to leverage the votes uh from a tribalist uh purview in order to get the things that they want, right? And 18, 19, 20, 21 year olds are highly impressionable,

42:12 right? So, we’re 22, 23, 24, 25 year olds highly impressionable. And one way that you could eliminate this idea that they could be gone after by the parasitic nos who run things is by simply liming limiting the ability to vote to people who have such a political interest that they actually do social service for up to 5 years so that then we can trust them with the right to

42:34 vote. Okay. I have two statements. Can you let me get through them? Sure. Okay. So here’s number one. Um I agree that lobbying generally is bad. I’m not here for NOS’s. I don’t think anyone really is. I mean, the whole point of why we don’t like them is because we want to be represented by our legislators fairly and accurately and we don’t want it to be the in the control

42:56 of a private interest group. So, lobbying is bad. Yes. Generally, I think that lobbyists and NOS’s are not good. But what I don’t understand is if that’s the issue, why not ban NGOs? Why not have a platform that’s standing against NOS’s and lobbyist? I think that’d be something great if you did that. That’d be awesome. Yeah. So this is a great question but here’s the problem right this is the leverage of tribalism and

43:18 why you can’t really do that. So on social issue on social issues right there are nos out there for instance who have a vested interest in abortions being legal right this goes out into the social ethos and now we’re battling over the social issue we have become tribal right we become tribal then you have nos who battle against it

43:40 let’s say this social issue they also are making a ton of money off of the counter battle let’s say also utilizing political tribalism the whole idea here is divisive. Tribalism is what enables NOS’s to begin with. They make a ton of money off of it, especially off of race hustling and DEI. So then again, why not just ban NOS’s and lobbyists and allow everyone to still have a vote in a representative? I’m giving you the descriptor. I think it’s hilarious that you keep calling democracy tribalism. It it leads it leads to tribalism. Yeah.

44:11 Yeah. But I mean, full democracy leads to tribalism. There’s no way around it. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. So does sports. Sure. Should we ban sports? No. Why would you ban sports? That has that’s totally nonsequiter. It makes no sense. Why would you ban a huge percentage of the population from voting? Because I would want to avoid political tribalism so that elitist can’t exploit lowinformation voters, which they do

44:36 right now in order to enslave the planet. So you’re basically saying that people are too stupid to have the right to vote. Yes. That’s dumb, dude. Don’t you agree with that? Yeah, of course I think people are stupid. Well, then what are you arguing with me about? If I want a right to vote, then I should give them the right to vote. Why? But that’s But listen, think about what you just said. Yeah, dude. I agree that people are too

44:58 stupid to vote, but give them the right to vote anyway. I don’t think people are too stupid to vote. So, they’re too stupid to function, but they’re smart. Come on. You think that people who go and generally cast a ballot are high information voters or they barely even know what the hell they’re talking about? I mean, do you have a statistic on how many of them are? You could do street polls. A lot of people have no idea what’s even going on with the issues. A lot of people are just bust to poll booths. They get bribed to do it. This happens on both sides of the aisle. Like, how many times have you seen canvasing campaigns who go out there and they’re canvasing? They knock on doors

45:32 that people don’t even know what the hell they’re talking about. So, what you think we should do an IQ test for everyone to have their That’s been suggested, right? But I have a better plan than an IQ test. I would not disenfranchise a person from being able to vote because they have like an average IQ. Yeah, what I would do is disenfranchise a person to vote if they were low information. One way I could find out if they were really politically motivated is if they sacrificed years of their lives to the state in order to get

45:57 that right to vote. So, you want to punish people for being stupid. Uh, no. I just don’t want them to nullify well-informed votes from people who are smart and on the issues and understand the issues. But taking away someone’s vote would be punishing them in a sense. It’s not punishing them. It’s actually stopping them from punishing themselves and the rest of society because they’re

46:17 easily exploited by social elites. That’s fair. I mean, but why not then just target education? Like, why not then? We spend 5% of the entire GDP of the United States on education. It’s the highest anywhere in the world. And we have some of the dumbest people on planet Earth. Our literacy rate is barely, you know what the literacy rate is? Yeah, it’s garbage. It’s trash. And we spend 5% the biggest GDP on planet earth. We spend five total% of our GDP on education. And you think that

46:47 education’s going to solve the problem of the low information. The issue is that people are stupid. Help them be smarter. There’s a lot of that is is a mixture of genes and environment and nourishment and all sorts of different things. It’s like you can’t this whole progressive idea environment and nourishment. then why not this whole stupid progressive idea of like you just can just educate people into whatever it is that it’s like no you really can’t like there’s a lot of people who are

47:15 just going to be [ __ ] janitors. Okay. There’s a lot of Yeah. Okay. There’s a lot of people who are just going to be [ __ ] janitors and who are just going to be [ __ ] toilet bowl cleaners and who are just going to be [ __ ] bartenders and are really not meant to build [ __ ] rocket ships. Okay. No, but they’re still subject to laws

47:36 against frustrating, but it’s just a fact. If I want free will and they want and you want free will and we deserve the right to vote, then they do. No, you’re not eliminating free will by this. You’re protecting the rest of society from low information information voters destroying their lives. Like, do you really think Let me ask you someone else’s free will. Let me ask you this.

47:56 If you were to Yeah, but you’re not really doing that. What you’re doing a vote is an exercise in free will. Let me ask you this. If you had to choose, right, for your family. Sure. And you knew that you could move them to a place where there was a bunch of people who were highly informed on political processes in the local community. Or you can move them to a place where people didn’t give a [ __ ] right? Which place would you prefer them to be? I would prefer them to be in the higher, of course. Right. At the place where the people are the most informed. Speaking of which, my mother’s claiming here

48:24 screener. Sorry, Mom. Love you. Now, if if you were able to if these people were able to cast votes and nullify all of the votes of you highinformation voters, right, wouldn’t it actually be better for them and for you to disenfranchise their voting so that you guys could actually vote on political and policy issues that made sense? Well, I don’t think that stupid people are nullifying all of the votes of smart people. Really? Think about what you just said. Can you think about think about what you just do? You think there’s more stupid people or smart people in this country? Yeah,

49:00 that’s probably more. Okay. So, you really don’t think stupid people are nullifying the votes of smart people on a certain level. Yeah. Because at the same time, they still deserve free will. I can’t really They still have free will? They don’t because they are still subject to law. Voting is a privilege. If you go to Australia and you commit a crime, can you go to jail in Australia?

49:21 Yeah. But you can’t vote in Australia, right? Sure. So, you see how that makes no sense. Like what you’re saying makes no sense. You travel to another country and endanger people. Like that’s a threat. You’re not even endangering people. If you’re just like drunk in public, you can be arrested. That is a threat to public safety. Public intoxication is a threat to public. That doesn’t mean you’re going to actually do anything wrong, right? But you could. Yeah. Or or I mean, drunken people are habitually statistically more violent.

49:45 Or you could break some public ordinance, right? You could break some public ordinance you didn’t know about. Like you’re on a beach, right? and you’re in your shorts and it was supposed to be t-shirts and shorts, you know, something like this. Yeah, but breaking public ordinances doesn’t lead to jail time. It does if you don’t pay the fine. Well, then you should pay the [ __ ] fine. You see what I mean, though? So, you are subject to those laws and you are subject to imprisonment based on those laws. And if that’s the case, you can’t vote in those countries.

50:08 Okay? But you’re not a citizen of that country. You’re still a citizen of this country. If you are a citizen, you live here and you are subject to the laws of this country for your entire life from birth to death. You should have Why do you want Why do you want dumb people to disenfranchise your well-informed vote? That makes no sense. Not only that, you say that you’re actually emboldening them with their free will, right? It’s

50:29 like that’s so silly because ultimately these people who are politically low information, they’re so low information, you’re allowing them to get taken advantage of. Of course, I don’t want dumb people to disenfranchise my vote, but I don’t think that the solution to that is a one marriage voting system or a you have to do public service for 5 years to have a give me an alternative. But can’t dumb people do that, too? Like, couldn’t a dumb person just do

50:50 some [ __ ] community service for 5 years and then get paid? I mean, like, there are dumb people in the army. Listen, I agree with you that there can be some stupid people who get through the system, but they’re not going to be probably low information. You’re not going to go through 5 years of civil service like that for the purpose of being able to vote and be low information or you wouldn’t do it. You have an interest. That’s what the whole point is. Well, I mean, if your housing and your food is paid for, I think there are a lot of people who’d be interested in that. the army. I mean, that’s like exactly in the army, you have to take the the army, you have to take an ASBA test and you have to score X amount of a score in order to even be placed in those things. Big dog. My boyfriend’s a

51:27 vet. He talks about some dumb [ __ ] in the army. Sure, there’s dumb people in the army. But so they would, but to qualify for certain jobs, you can’t be. And for civil service or something like this, you can do intelligence tests or things like that. So, you’re basically saying there should be an IQ test and only those who would like to be civil servants who pass that IQ test. Well, I think you should probably implement an IQ test for the military, too, which they do. Yeah, but

51:49 people suck at I mean, but they do. But they do. Unless it’s in wartime and they’re like, “Okay, well, uh, we just you just need a body in here and then they’ll grab anybody off the street.” But yeah, can we ask right now? I want to confirm that. Of course. Aiden, do you do IQ tests for the military? Yeah. I like Wait, do you is you want boyfriend reveal? Oh, sure. Wait. Oh, go

52:13 the go. It’s okay. Just go around that way. They aren’t playing. Yeah, there are people who are there who are dumb. That’s true. But they Here, baby. Come here. Come here first. If you can just kind of like I’ve heard of that. It’s called a cat five waiver, right? They give them a cap five waiver. Talking about category five waiverss. I’m talking about Can you just baby come here? Shalom. Not shalom. Um, in terms of like people in the army and IQ test like I’ve taken the ASVAB, it is not a very difficult test and a lot of people get their ASVABS taken for them. I knew guys in the army who were like medically diagnosible with metal deficiencies and were still in the army doing jobs that in theory required a certain level of mental faculty. Sure. Yeah. The system

52:52 can get gamed but those are exceptions not the rule. I wouldn’t really go that far to be honest with you. And then also in terms of your you don’t think the majority of people are stupid or in the army are stupid do you? I think that there are a great number of people who join the army because they want a place to live and food which is the system you just described and that that’s pretty much independent of intelligence. They seem to be joining the army based around patriotism, the ability to get paid, the ability to do things like that. What’s that? When were you in the army? I was in the army for a very limited amount of time years and years ago. How long was that very limited amount of time if you don’t let me ask? Um it was it wasn’t

53:26 very about a year. About a year. So what happened? Well, it doesn’t it doesn’t matter what happened. Oh, but we’re talking about service, man. What about it? So, you want to uh disenfranchise people based on military service? I actually know why most What are you talking about? How would I disenfranchise them based on military service? It would be the opposite. You’re requiring people to serve. No, it wouldn’t require them to serve in the army. Literally didn’t say that. I’m

53:50 sorry about that. Yeah, I literally didn’t say that. Thank you for your help. I thank you. Justice. So, now we’ve established that people in the army can very much be stupid. So nobody ever disputed you can have stupid people in the army. Okay. So again, we’re trying to go back. We’re trying to figure out how system would work in terms of those who are participating in

54:13 some sort of civil service. Yeah. So you would have some type of civil service, right? Which a person would participate in for at least 5 years. Five years? Yes. Unpaid. Yes. Unpaid. That’s ridiculous. Why do you think that the person who participated in it for 5 years unpaid would really want to be politically informed by the end of that? Yeah. Maybe, maybe not. That’s five years of not having like that’s 5 years of like housing is paid for service

54:41 guarantees citizenship. So can I ask who’s paying for 5 years of millions of people participating in a civil Well, chances would be pretty good. But it wouldn’t be millions or at least not hundreds of millions of people participating in such a system. You would like to limit the voting block in this country to less than there’s 430 million people in this country and you’d like to limit it to 330 million hundreds of millions. It’s 330 million in the United States. I think 336 million or

55:07 something. Regardless, you would still like to limit it to I misspoke. My bad. But you would still like to limit it to less than You would like to limit it to hundreds of thousands of people. Yeah. You think it’s fair for hundreds of thousands of speak people to speak on behalf of 360 million people? Do you think it’s fair right now to have 100 senators do that? No. But we still vote for the senators for the senator. Do you really think you’re getting They don’t just walk up and say, “Hello, sir. I would think you’re really getting political representation inside of a state like New York with two people.”

55:40 I don’t live in New York. I know. But inside the state of New York, do you really think the state of New York is getting adequate political representation on Capitol Hill with two [ __ ] people? Well, that’s why you have the Senate and the House and the and the House. Two people who are your senator. You really think every state gets two? 100 people are representing 330 million people. At the very top,

56:01 it’s one person who’s representing 330 million people. So, you advocating that we shouldn’t have government? No. What I’m saying to you is that like it’s very silly for me to look at an argument like you’re making and say, “Oh my god, 100,000 people are going to be in charge or 200,000 people are going to be in charge.” Like ultimately one person’s in charge. So you’re saying ultimately one person’s in charge. Do you But there’s still checks and balances. That one

56:22 person isn’t a king. There still would be checks and balances with limited voting power in the There’s still checks and balances with limited voting. Yeah, but we still do not get to decide who is in our legislature. As a voting body, we do not get to decide who would vote. You would still have people from within your various communities who would be voters and they would decide who it is that went to represent you on Capitol Hill.

56:42 That sounds very expensive and very pointless if I’m being honest. How is that expensive? Okay, fine. Because you have to pay for all their houses. Then if you want to do that, there’s another way you could do this, too. If you didn’t want to do like the civil service way, you could do one vote per household. That would limit the that would limit the voting significantly. Hang on. and it would be not expensive at all. But there’s even another way that you can do it on top of that. All

57:04 righty. Right. But let’s just start with like one household voting. Same thing. Go do it. You can eliminate whatever this like perceived cost is that you have. Another thing you could do is just eliminate uh anybody being able to vote until they reach the same age that they could become president of the United States. Is that not 35? Mhm. So you think that everyone under 35 should lo the right to vote? Why shouldn’t everyone under 35 be? the most boomer [ __ ] I’ve ever seen. Why shouldn’t everybody under 35 be able to be the president of the United States? Well,

57:32 because they don’t have the But they’re still Why? Answer the question. Because they do not yet have the experience in politics to run an entire country. Just because you can’t Okay, Andrew. But just because you can’t run an entire country doesn’t mean that you should still not have the right to have one singular vote. It’s one vote. What are you talking about? Yes, you can’t be the

57:54 president, but you are still susceptible to the laws. You can have a kid at 35. You can have a house at 35. So, what does that have to do with anything? But you can’t be president below president. Yeah. Legislatively below 35 from 18 to 34. All of these people are impacted at the same level. No, they’re not all impacted at the same level. In fact, I would say can they all go to jail for committing a crime? Yes, I would say the opposite. I would say like people between the ages of 18 and like 25 are mostly living at home, right? And their parents are the ones who are mostly impacted by legislation, not them. And their parents issue and their parents

58:30 should actually probably have more say than them. Their parents actually have more autonomy than they do because they’re dependent on them, right? Completely dependent upon them. It’s like if I look at the trends, it seems to me like if you eliminated from 18 to 25 or from 25 to 35, if the founders didn’t think you should be president of the United States till you were 35, I don’t think they wanted you to vote

58:50 either. And you know what? That’s why it was never law. Voting rights are affirmed. This is some old [ __ ] That’s not an argument. That’s not an argument. Well, I mean, the reason why the argument is you’re young. You’re old. Like, you are not applicable to this law. What did that have to do with anything? You’re trying to govern a group of people that you are not a member of. So that’s the issue. So what? Everyone should be representative

59:10 government. So how old do you think the average person who’s in Congress is? Hell old. And they’re representing all of you. What do you mean? I hate that. So you you want you think that like 19-year-olds are going to be better governing than 60 year olds? No, but I think a I don’t think an 80-year-old would be a representative government. Glad Mitch McConny are dying in their depends. They’re not governing. What do you mean? Yes, they are. Sleepy Joe.

59:34 Sleepy Joe who who is in his 80s now has cancer and he’s not president because he went off the deep end. I know. And Trump is in his 70s and Mitch McConnell is in his 80s. All of these people are your presidents your presidents and congressmen are running like between the late 40s to 50s to 60s. You don’t really think that replacing them with 20-year-olds is a good idea, do you? I don’t think we should replace them with

59:57 20-year-olds, but first why not? Wait, why not? Why not? Well, they’d have to be elected first now. Yeah, I know. But but even if they were don’t you think that would still probably not be the worst or the that wouldn’t be a good idea if they were elected Uhhuh. through a democratic representative democracy. Don’t you think they would do a worse job though than 40, 50, 60 year olds would? We don’t know who it is. You can’t just say universally I think a 20-year-old would be worse if they are elected democratically. Why don’t you think our founders thought that 35 year old years old was the minimum? I think the founders law 35 should be the minimum because you need experience in government to be the head of the government. No experience in government is even required to become the president

00:35 of the United States. Zero. Sure. So why this age of 35? Well, because you have to have lived in this country for long enough to understand it on a basic level. Because because they also thought you just didn’t have the requisite experience probably in life to govern at all. That’s fair. To govern the entire country. I would say to govern anybody. No. Yeah. Really? Yeah. Really? I think so. I mean, why is it that they didn’t let people vote? Why do you think they didn’t want people to vote? I mean, dude, they were kind of [ __ ] up. I mean, do you really want to base all of your beliefs on the founding fathers?

01:08 They own slaves. Like, so, so the whole world owns slaves. Just because a lot of people do something doesn’t mean it’s right. Yeah. We were some of the first to take people out of slavery, especially the West. Pretty sure that was England. France did a second. The West then. That’s That’s the West. England. That’s not America. That’s the West, which is what I said. The West. The difference. You said we were the first as an American. The West is what I said. I mean, I don’t think we’re the same country as England. Sure. We’re

01:33 like, yeah, but we’re part of the West, right? Like England. We are not run by the same government as England. Fought a whole But we’re part of the West. And I said the West is the ones who uh you can’t take credit for something another country did, dog. Well, first of all, many of the people who came here came here from England, right? The idea of the repudiation of slavery came from those very same uh dogmas.

02:00 So like I don’t know what you’re talking about. We’re at 430. We’re at four. Okay. Dude, you’ve just spent the last hour trying to defend the belief that both that both sexes should be somehow disenfranchised from voting. This whole one per household, the one marriage system. And I think fundamentally you have not been able to create an appeal to like closing statements here. Well, because we’re supposed to be debating feminism. We never even got to it. Well, well, this would be a key a key

02:23 component to this actually. But I’m actually fine with this if you want to move it on to that. Like, but here’s the thing. Never made a single argument. The argument is that people should be legislatively represented and allowed to vote in democracy. That’s just an assertion, not an argument. You just that’s just like I think so. The argument is if people are impacted by the laws that legislators create, then they should have a say in who those legislators are. Yeah. you whether it’s

02:49 a small city, but that’s a performative contradiction because you said that people who are affected by laws who a don’t live here or b are younger than a certain threshold should be disenfranchised. Contradiction. It’s the point of democracy. No, it’s that we should be represented by a representative government. I need to understand this logically that you’re performing a contribution. Makes sense logically because it’s a logical fallacy. You are arguing a logical fallacy. What’s the fallacy? The fallacy is that you’re trying to essentially stop stupid people from voting by making That’s not a logical fallacy. Well, you

03:20 didn’t let me finish the sentence. Okay. You’re trying to stop stupid people from voting by making it so that less people can vote, which is in turn taking away the power of the voter. So, what’s the fallacy? Well, you’re trying to empower voters by taking away voters. Yeah. How is that a logical fallacy? You can’t empower voters by taking away their power. What are what how am I trying to empower voters? What are you talking about? point is that you’re trying to combat tribalism and that you want smart people’s votes and not have to do with empowering voters. I thought that’s why you’re against NOS’s, lobbyists, bribes. You want to empower I

03:56 don’t know what you’re talking about. So, you just don’t want the I don’t even know what you’re talking about. What I’m saying to you is that if you want to eliminate tribalism, you don’t want to have nothing but an unlimited amount of people voting where NOS’s can mark to the stupid people and bend them to their will and now have that entire bracket for whatever it is their political agendas are. So again, why not just get rid of NOS’s? Why is Oh my god, NOS’s are a problem make sure less people can vote. Gee, I never thought of that. Why don’t we get rid of NOS’s, the people

04:24 who are utilizing tribalism so that they exist? Boy, I wish I had thought of that. You’re utilizing tribalism. No, they’re utilizing tribalism so they exist. Okay, but you’re a political pundit. You have the power to help people. Uhhuh. Why not promote a stance that is actually useful to them instead of trying to take away their vote? Great. A stance that would be actually useful to them would be having their well-informed votes not nullified by nonwellinformed voters of what you believe and I believe are more than the well-informed voters. That’s exactly

04:54 something I can do to help everybody. But you’re not helping everyone because stupid people still live here. So what? They still have a right to exist in a society. Who’s taking away their right to exist in this society? Nobody. Yes, you are. Because they if they are still held accountable to the same laws but now have no right or vote or say in who is enacting those laws and who is representing them in government like 17year-olds. Final statement from children on this if you final statement is like her position is a contradiction. She says everybody should be able to vote inside of a a country where they are governed by the laws. The problem is

05:35 is that then she says all sorts of people who fall into the criteria of being supported by laws shouldn’t be able to vote. It’s literally a performative contradiction. Then she moves to my view and agrees with my view that mostly that stupid people outnumber smart voters and and when you’re talking about uh ill or uh ill-informed voters that NOS’s often take advantage of them or I mean always take advantage of them. She literally agrees with all of this

06:01 but somehow still thinks it’s a better idea to allow this to continue because Mafrey I don’t know. She never really gave an argument for that. I don’t really actually know why. My turn. Yeah, you can respond. Go ahead. I mean, I get that you don’t understand why, and I get that you don’t understand my argument, and I’m I’m sorry. I hope one day you do, but what I will say is generally, yes, it’s annoying that stupid people are allowed to vote, even though they

06:27 sometimes make poor choices and fight against their own self-interest. Yes, we don’t like that. Yes, we don’t agree. We do agree that lobbyists and NOS’s have way too much power in setting precedents for laws. Those are both things that we mutually agree upon. However, I do not think that it is fair to create a limited democracy that in turn disenfranchises voters on the basis of being stupid. I don’t think that there is any way to practically enact that. I don’t understand why we would do enact it with a constitutional convention. That’s how you would do it. And you don’t think that the millions of people

07:04 who now have lost the right to vote would they just they’d be like, “Okay.” Uh, well, they wouldn’t have a choice. I mean, sure, protests, riots, there’s all sorts of ways that people have fought against a government. I mean, would you like you’re basically trying to call the country’s bluff on whether or not they care about having the right to vote, which I think is just stupid. I

07:26 think personally, it’s pointless. And I think that the function of a democracy is to make sure that everyone who has to abide by these laws is represented in government. Is that flawed? Yes. That’s not even true. Like, that’s Are you going to let me Did I interrupt? Just let her finish, then we’re moving. Oh, we’re moving on. Okay, so finish your thing, then we’re going to move on. Okay, so anyway, back to my statement. Yes, this government is flawed. Yes, NOS’s have too much power. Yes, it’s annoying when stupid people do stupid

07:50 things. But at the same time, the right to vote is a human right under a representative democracy in the United States of America. To take that away from voters is not the answer to creating a more educated voting body. Like, just genuinely, it’s just not. All right, here’s what we’re going to do. We have a couple chats that are going to come through. Guys, if you want to interact with the the stream, the show,

08:15 the debaters, $200 TTS, and also if you’re enjoying the stream, kindly like the video. If you want to support Venmo Cash App, whatever pod without these platforms taking their cut, we’re also live on twitch.tv/w whatever. If you want to drop us a follow on the prime sub. Also, we have some merch shop. Whatever.com, discord.gg/whatever. We have a message here from One Moment here. He paid 900. Wait, he paid $99 to send a message. Yeah, we have this one coming in from PeaceCraft. Oh, the audio is muted. Uh,

08:49 or actually, it’s not muted. I’m not sure why that’s not coming through. I’ll just read. I have a question for Rick James. If you hadn’t eaten breakfast this morning, how would you feel? Uh, I think that’s for you. Yeah. How would you feel if you hadn’t How would you feel if you hadn’t eaten breakfast this morning? I don’t just how would I feel? Yeah. Hungry probably. Okay. All right. And we

09:12 have a message here from Jason Cassell related to the military stuff. Thank you, Jason. Jason Castle donated $200. Appreciate it. Thank you. Her boyfriend is an ASVAB waiver. You can’t get someone else to take the test. You are have to be verified with ID, fingerprints, birth certificate, SS, etc. Also, you take it during MEPS. Is

09:35 it very good? Thank you, Jason, for that. That’s how I remember it. I remember taking it during MEPS in your singular year in the army. How did you get off with one year? Well, people get hurt. Oh, well that sucks. That’s what happens. You didn’t go back. We have Red Fox here in the military 19 years and run uh MEPS. All applicants take an IQ test. It is called the ASVAB and we take significant steps to catch fraud. the armed services on average. Well, I agree that there can be stupid people who are there. I’m just saying that there are standards which are in place. That’s one. And two, I remember specifically

10:08 taking it when I was in MEPS. So So how hard would this IQ test be for voters on your whole life? Well, I didn’t really advocate for an IQ test. It would just be I would be you would just be looking for like if somebody was going to enter into service that they had at least the IQ capacity to do it so they weren’t like mentally [ __ ] Well, I mean, isn’t the whole point that we’re trying to prevent stupid people from voting? That’s your whole No, no.

10:33 Uninformed voters from voting. Okay. So, how does community service inform a voter? Well, so again, I you keep what you keep doing is conflating like four different things when I say there’s here’s all of our possible options. Yeah. Right. Um and then you’re like, well, there’s problems with this one. I agree. There’s problems within the confines of each of these, but there’s

10:55 some that you just straight up reject and give no arguments for. Like, why is it that we can’t just eliminate it from 18 to 35 if you can’t be president of the United States till you’re 35? Seems feasible that you can’t vote until you’re 35. Well, if the laws still apply to you between 18 to 35. Yeah. So, then your objection is not even to the system. Your objection is actually just still what your argument is, which is a contradiction. What’s Hold on. Question.

11:18 Pause. Pause. But what’s to prevent can a can a person over 35 be an uninformed voter? Yes or no? Yes. But it’s going to be way less regular than people who are young. How are you proving that? Just because if we look at the people who turn out to vote, right, within these demographics, right, it’s much less than in the older demographics. And when they’re pulled, the people in older

11:40 demographics know much more about the issues than the people in the younger demographics. Really? Yeah. I don’t know. My grandma gets all her news from Facebook. We have a message here. Manny fresh question for Naima. Did I say it right? Oh my god. Naima. Okay, just question. Has she ever actually studied Plato’s ship of state? What’s an actually intellectual philosophical counterpoint against this biggest issue

12:01 with socialism and communism? Also, why are you dating your oppressor? What? Typical. Okay, I’m feminist. Let’s No response there. Okay. All right, guys. If you want to get a message in, uh, we’re going to do $200 TTS. Uh, we let a couple below the threshold just come through there. Why don’t we bring it back to feminism, Andrew? Force doctrine. Force. So there we go. Yeah,

12:23 we’re fine with that. But if you if she takes it down a rabbit hole, then we have to go down the rabbit hole. So here’s my argument. Do let’s start with defining these terms. Can we do that? Sure. Yes. So I define feminism, okay, as being uh a movement towards egalitarianism or equity. Mhm. Okay. with the um stated goal of diminishing and eventually destroying patriarchal systems. Sure. That seems to be fairly historically accurate and modernly accurate. Yes. Movement towards equity goal of um eliminating patriarchal systems. Yes.

13:06 Okay, I’ll take it. Okay. So um when I say the word going forward enforcer, what I mean by that word is people who utilize inside of society some form of force or uh in order to either execute laws, right, or keep people safe in some capacity. That would be an enforcer.

13:28 Okay. So my argument here is that men ultimately uh are the enforcement arm of everybody’s rights including other men’s and that women always have to appeal to other men and so they can’t actually get rid of the patriarchy but must instead comply with the patriarchy. Okay, that’s my argument. Sure. Do you want to repeat that for me just

13:53 so I can take a little note? Yeah. that that women basically feminists always have to appeal to the patriarchy for rights no matter what. And so feminism isn’t even possible. It’s not even a possibility. Okay. Um appeal to patriarchy for rights. Okay. So can I ask Mhm. Do you believe that free will is a privilege or a right or a privilege? Do you believe free will is a right or a privilege? Does free will just mean do whatever you want? um within the extent that you’re not hurting yourself or others or becoming a

14:28 danger to society. Well, then yeah, it sure sounds like you’re saying it is. I’m sorry. What? Then it would be trivially true that it would have to be if you’re saying that that means you can do whatever you want unless A, B, C, and D, then it would have to be a privilege. Well, okay. So free will, as I’m defining it, is the right to do with you what you want so long as you are not infringing upon another’s free will. Then it would trivially have to be a privilege. It would have to be a privilege. Like by that logic, it would there would be no way around it. It would have to be a privilege. Why would it have to be a privilege? Well, because

15:01 the second you do infringe on someone’s whatever, right? Yeah. Do you have free will? Well, yes, to an extent. Okay. So, free will with some limitations. Let’s say is free will with the limitation. Then it’s not free will. Well, what do you want to call it, Andrew? I mean, I just maybe will. Okay. Do you think that human will is a right or a privilege? Um, I’m not trying to figure out what you mean by this. Human will like do you think

15:35 that we as a societ How about maybe I can just do it this way. I don’t believe that human beings have inherent rights. Okay, thank you. There we go. Human beings have no inherent rights. Mhm. Yeah. Correct. I think instead what we call rights are actually just collective intuitions which are in appeal to to force and then force

15:59 enforces them. Okay. So all law are you trying to say that basically all laws are enforced through force or just Yeah. So all all laws ultimately all laws are enforced by force. Okay. Yeah. So if you think about this the way that I would say is like do you agree with me that rights themselves are a social construction?

16:22 I mean, not really. So, my right to own a gun is not a social construction. Yeah, but I’m talking about free will, not like human like what is that? I don’t understand though. Like you being able to act in will. I wouldn’t dispute with like you can that’s what I’m saying. You can have you can take actions with your will. But when you say rights, you’re saying that those are privileges absent duties. That’s a right. And then a uh a duty, right, would be essentially the opposite of

16:53 what a right is, right? Yes. Okay. So these privileges that you’re talking about, I think if that’s what a right is, a privilege absent a duty, then they all seem like they’re privileges. Okay. But like you don’t think that I guess my issue with this argument is that it’s claiming that power is based

17:14 solely on force which to me seems like it’s advocating on behalf of violence. I mean in order to enforce and maintain well yeah that’s that that’s what force would be. Raw force would be violence. Okay. So that’s what it does. Like we we advocate that police be able to use violence in order to enforce laws. Right. But we would prefer that they

17:36 avoid it, right? Yeah. But ultimately the what what makes people comply? The threat of violence, right? But there are other ways to get people to comply now. Yeah. But what if they don’t? Well, I mean, yes, but I feel like that’s a bit of an extreme. Like, no, it’s not a bit of an extreme that people don’t comply. But how does the president have power? He can’t threaten violence against all he does. He is the commander-in-chief of the United States

18:01 military. But he can’t threaten and com. So basically you believe that we function in a society solely because if we don’t we will be violently hurt by the military. What? No. I believe that what that all of your privileges that you have in society that you’re calling rights only

18:23 actually exist because of force. The idea of force and force doctrine and that that is basically 100% men who provide that. Okay. So you’re kind of giving this like might makes right argument. Just makes not makes right. So just might is right. No, just makes not makes right. Right would be a prescriptive ought claim for morality. I’m making a descriptive claim which is

18:49 that descriptively might makes. So do you not believe that violence is immoral? Uh of course not. Depends on the circumstance. You generally just don’t believe that violence is immoral. It depends on the circumstance. I mean violence in an attempt to control others and use again that depends on the circumstance. I think there’s plenty of times where you and I would agree that using violence to control others is totally acceptable. I feel like violence is necessary in self-defense and the No, you don’t. You think that violence is

19:17 completely acceptable to control prison inmates probably to uh uh to execute certain laws and search warrants to do all sorts of things. Violence is very again those are both actions in self-defense or defense of others. How is that two inmates are fighting? When you’re when you’re saying you break up that fight violence to but it’s violence to control others, right? But it would

19:38 be in defense of others. Yeah. But it’s still to control others. It’s in defense of others. What if those people like inmates don’t want to be defended? So that’s what we’re talking about. Well, I mean, if someone is beating another person to death, I’m sure that the person It’s mutual combat. They both want to do it. The the guards then go and break it up. They’re definitely using violence for control. not die but

19:58 fight. Okay, but if someone is beating someone else to death and you are using but you see how you see how you negate the claim. So you move to the next claim. Can two people be fighting and then you use violence to break that up? Yes. Okay, great. So then you can use violence to control people and it’s perfectly acceptable. It’s not acceptable though because it’s it’s the

20:18 reason it’s acceptable is because it’s in defense of another person. Those people want to fight. Who are you defending? If one of them is dying or if one of them is one of them is not dying. They just want to fight. They’re not dying, but they just want to fight. Okay. Sure. So, two prison inmates. But again, you’re using these like really really really stringently specific. Yeah. Because if I if we go too broad and too general, then if we hone it down, then I can negate your stance because what

20:46 you’re saying doesn’t actually make logical sense. But you’re honing it down to a specific example that is not representative of the entire population of the United States. I feel like we should use an example. What is representative of the entire population? Not two prisoners who choose to fight to the death. I mean, that’s the furthest thing. No, no, but do you when you make a claim, you make this claim, you say, Andrew, um, violence is only just or you violence isn’t justified to control groups of people. And I’m like, “Yeah,

21:15 but you don’t really believe that because I can give you examples of groups of people who you would want to control with violence and you think it’s totally acceptable.” And you’re like, “Yeah, that’s true.” Well, those people have lost by committing, but but hang on. You go, “Yeah, that’s true.” But right, I still now don’t want to use that example. It’s like, “That makes no sense. It it’s it’s a reputation to your position. That’s why I hone in on it.”

21:37 Okay. So people, we know this through the constitution, essentially relinquish their right to free will by threatening the free will of others. That’s why prisoners are allowed to go to jail and that is constitutionally accepted. Yes. Say that. Let me make sure I got that right. Say that again. People essentially relinquish their right to free will, the right to walk around and be free in society as a prisoner because they have committed a crime that is a danger to themselves or others and

22:04 threatens the fabric of society. So why do people go to jail? Why are crimes crimes? Why are things that are bad? People go to jail because we force them into jail after they commit crimes, not because they’re willingly going to jail for I understand that they’re not willingly going to jail, but what I’m saying is the forced relinquishment of free will in this instance is morally acceptable because they have committed a crime that threatens themselves or others. Yeah, I’m not disputing whether or not it’s moral. That would make my

22:30 point for me, though. So, I’m not trying to talk about those who have already had their free will relinquished on the basis that they have committed a crime that threatens themselves or others. I’m trying to talk about people who are not criminals, who have not relinquished their free will, who are here in this country and deserve the right to choose what they do with themselves and their bodies.

22:52 No. Okay. Well, I mean, you’re making a lot of suppositions there that I just kind of like don’t agree with. So, you don’t think that people deserve the right to bodily autonomy? No. What makes someone deserve the right to bodily autonomy? Well, when you say bodily autonomy, would you agree then that a fetus has bodily autonomy? I’m talking right now about human beings. Well, I consider those human beings, though. I’m

23:16 talking right now about people who can talk and walk who are independent singular organisms. So, people who are in comas, they they have no rights. Dude, you keep doing comas and prisoners and fetuses. Just talk about a [ __ ] person. What about you? That is a person. Just talk about a person who is not an exception, who is not in a medical state of physical. But what

23:38 we’re trying to determine right now is is the worldview. You say people deserve to have uh bodily autonomy and then you give me the criteria for bodily autonomy and then I can instantly point to an example where you agree that that’s not what we’re trying to do. What you’re trying to do is create a gotcha. So you don’t have to answer the genuine question that I’m asking. What’s the genuine question you’re asking? The question is, do people, regardless of

24:01 outliers, does the average person who has not committed a crime, who is not inside of another person, who is not brain dead or in a coma, deserve bodily autonomy, depending on what you mean by that. Bodily autonomy being defined as the ability to choose what you do with your body so long as you are not threatening other people’s bodily autonomy. No. Why not? Because uh I would say that things like laws against unaliving yourself would be completely appropriate and things like this, which would be a violation of your bodily autonomy by your criteria.

24:36 So you think that because people can’t unalive themselves? No, I’m saying you gave me the criteria for what bodily autonomy means, right? You asked me what an objection would be against it and I just gave you one. Okay, so let’s cut out that outlier. Do you think that people who are not inside another person, who have not committed a violent crime against themselves or others and who have not are not currently brain dead and are conscious and capable of perceiving the world? Mhm. Do you think that those people deserve bodily autonomy? No. Based on the example I just gave you, just because people have the capacity to unalive themselves, no one deserves bodily autonomy. By the definition that you just gave, we could not give them bodily autonomy definitionally by that definition because definitely by that definition. Definitionally by that definition. Yes.

25:27 So I could say definitionally by some other definition, but I’m giving you the reference to your definition. We don’t deserve bodily autonomy. Not by your definition if because that would prevent us from preventing people from like doing suicide and things like this. So we don’t deserve bodily autonomy because under my definition of bodily autonomy, we cannot prevent someone from killing themselves. Correct.

25:48 But that’s not a violent act. Like why? Yeah, that’s a real violent act. Why can’t under my definition you can’t prevent someone from killing themselves? Because it it it would know it would violate your rule for what bodily autonomy is. I said so long as you are not a threat to yourself or others. So that includes you. So you would relinquish your bodily autonomy if you were a threat to yourself. Then I think that it would then just be trivially true that you don’t really mean bodily autonomy anymore. Because what you do is you say bodily autonomy with all of these exceptions where we can violate

26:17 bodily autonomy. But that’s like three exceptions. It’s exceptions that it’s not like three exceptions. It’s many exceptions. What about somebody who’s just like cutting themselves with a razor blade? Can we stop them? What about a person who just says that they want to cut off their right arm cuz they think it’ll be fun. Can we stop them? Like there’s so many examples I can give you of where we would violate people’s bodily autonomy. What about a person

26:38 who’s having like a manic episode and doesn’t want to go to the hospital? Can we violate their bodily autonomy? They’re a threat to themselves or others. So again, that would fall in the What if they’re not a threat? What if they’re just having like a manic episode? They don’t want to leave their house. You just perceive it that way. That happens all the time. Exactly. So you we violate that whatever you consider what you’re by your definition of bodily autonomy. and you say, “Do people deserve that?” And I say,

26:58 “Absolutely not by that definition because I can point to 300 different reasons why we would need to violate it.” So, is there any definition of bodily autonomy that you think that a Not that I’m aware of. I’m not aware of a definition of bodily autonomy I would agree to that I wouldn’t think we should be able to violate. So, you don’t think that people should have the ability to control themselves and their bodies under any circumstance because I didn’t say under any circumstance. What’s the circumstance in which people should have the right to control their body? Yeah.

27:27 So, well, for me, I would say that if it’s in some type of case of will um that you could do that, but I mean ultimately I think free will. Yeah. No, in case of will. So, I’m not sure that I believe in some universalized right for bodily autonomy. And you haven’t really given me any definitional reason why I

27:48 should have. But I don’t understand why you don’t believe in bodily autonomy. Why don’t My understanding of what bodily autonomy is is that you basically have the right to do whatever you want absent the infringement of somebody else’s bodily autonomy. Yes. Why don’t you think people should because I think that I need to many times infringe on people’s bodily autonomy for their good or societies. Why are you constantly infringing on other people’s bodily autonomy? What are you up to? What do you mean what you just said? I feel the need to Yeah. Well, I would use force doctrine for that. Meaning voting, things like that to violate a forcing. When are you forcing when I go vote? I’m forcing my will when I go vote on other people through forced doctrine. No, you’re not cuz they all have a vote. Great. Can I vote? Not according to you,

28:32 but I can I can vote and you can vote, right? Yes. Okay. You want abortions to be legal? Yes. If I vote against that, am I voting against your bodily autonomy? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Can we move on now? No, we can’t move on. No. No, we can’t move on. Okay. Well, Andrew, you still haven’t explained why humans don’t deserve bodily autonomy. Like, what are I just explained it to you. So, then who could should control people? I Well, in this case, we would use we would use groupings of laws under from my view, it would be like Christian ethics. From your view, it would be like

29:02 I don’t know, shared bizarre intuitions or whatever where you think that I don’t know. I don’t know where it is that what I believe. So, do you believe in God? I’m on the fence about then it’s just intuition. So everything that you believe probably just intuition. So you believe Well, I mean there’s also facts and like physical evidence, but you know. Um, so you believe facts and physical evidence require an interpreter, right? Like eyes and ears. They require they would require you to

29:28 interpret them. So you’re saying that facts are different for everyone regardless of how they interpret. Well, they require an interpreter and the interpreter can interpret them however they choose and then can make moral prescriptions based on those. But when we get to the moral prescriptions, facts don’t change based on your but your moral prescriptions based on the facts do. That’s why they’re Yeah, they require interpreters. So I’m not really

29:50 willing to kind of seed the ground. But you are your own personal interpreter now. Yeah, I interpret things. Correct. Yeah. Yes. Okay. And so do I. That’s just we all see facts and then we make judgments about those facts, right? But I have an epistemic foundation that I appeal to for foundational morals. You don’t you would just that everyone should have to subscribe to the Christian God and that is who decides who has free will. I think that Christian ethic I’m confused as to what that we’re not even we weren’t talking

30:17 about free will. Okay. So then what we’re talking about bodily autonomy now. Okay. So then based on based on your definition of bodily autonomy the one that you gave me. We would definitely need to violate it and you even agree to that. And what just for abortion or what? No, for the purpose of like suicide, cutting yourself with razor blades, uh all sorts of various things that you could do to yourself for self harm that we would step in and violate your bodily autonomy

30:43 over. Okay. So, outside of those specific examples in which someone is committing an act of harm, which I also remove from my definition of bodily, then I don’t consider that bodily autonomy anymore by your definition. Your definition would have to be something different. The right to go to the [ __ ] grocery store. Who has that right? Who are you saying under your standpoint of government, what is it based on your equal force objection can women do that they should not be

31:10 allowed? So let’s untangle some ideas. When you say who has a right to go to a grocery store, who has an inherent right to go to a grocery store or who has a a physical right enforced by men to go to a grocery store? Which thing are you asking? What do you an inherent right or some external subjective right that is enforced? Which thing are you asking? I’m saying who has an inherent right to move their body in Nobody. Nobody has an inherent right to do anything. Nobody. Nobody has an inherent right to do

31:38 anything. So then how do we gain the physical right to go to the grocery store? Through force. Exclusively through force. Yeah. The only reason that like so if like let’s say the Taliban took over like the the grocery store area, do you have the right to go to the grocery store now? No. But that’s an anarchy. Then you’re agreeing with me. So then you’re saying there’s no inherent right. It sounds like you’re advocating for anarchy and the only way that people advocating for anarchy. The only way that people gain a right is through force. Then we’d all be fighting each other all the time to gain the right to just cooperate for the purpose of force doctrine. We do it constantly. What do you mean? No, we don’t. Cuz we don’t live under a force doctrine principle. Yes, we do. Well, how would old people have the power to do anything? How would disabled people have the power and no one can defend themselves? Because they have people who have force which enable them to do those

32:24 things. That’s how. So then there is power that comes not from force. If people who do not have the power to force can utilize the strength of others on their behalf, the strength of others would be force. Okay. But how did that person at the top who doesn’t have force utilize the strength of others? He’s utilizing other people’s force. Okay.

32:45 But what is he doing to utilize their force? Cuz he somehow has power over them. How he doesn’t have well it’s agreed to power. But the thing about power dynamics, which is interesting, is that if you have control over force, if that were to shift, like let’s say the president said some [ __ ] that you really didn’t like and a big ass mob showed up to take him out, right? And nobody opposed that. Who has force doctrine on

33:07 their side? That’s fair. So, I want to go back to this claim. You said, “Hang on, hang on. Before we go back to my claim, Hang on, hang on, hang on force.” Wait, wait, wait. And I would like to just ask Hang on. You said that’s fair, though, right? You said that’s fair. No, I’m You said that’s fair. I’m responding to the words you’re saying. If you said agreed to power based on force. Yeah. And that those who are disabled are protected and their will is protected and those who are elderly are protected and their will is to protect if there’s force. Yeah. Then why can’t you do the

33:36 same thing with women? Why do women now usurp their right to protection and bodily autonomy under there’s not rights. These aren’t rights. It’s just force. Can like can women like manipulate men to use force on their behalf? Sure. that’s happened before. Great. But they’re always going to have to appeal to men’s strength for force no matter what. But I don’t think society is intrinsically and implicitly governed by force. And I think advocating for

33:59 that, which part of society violence, which part of society is not governed by force? Which part? Um I mean, schools aren’t governed by force. Yes, they’re governed by force for sure. Really? So kids go to school because they’re afraid they’re going to get No, they’re not going to school because they’re afraid they’re going to get hurt, but there’s security guards who are around. There’s police officers are around. There’s people who enable that nothing bad’s going to happen to those kids. There’s teachers who are there much stronger than the students to keep potential threats away from the students. All of

34:26 it’s governed by force. Okay. But you’re talking about force for protection versus force for the utilization and monopoly of power. It’s all the same thing. It’s not the same thing. If you’re protecting people’s right to be somewhere, then that is a different use of force than But they’re both force. Sure. Okay. Great. Then they’re the same thing. Force. Sure. But why are you just because you have a monopoly on force? What gives you the will to usurp

34:52 someone’s right to very basic bodily? They don’t have rights. Rights are not by your agreement inherent. So then what’s to stop a bigger, stronger man from just beating the [ __ ] out of you? And now you don’t have right. Nothing except force doctrine. That’s the whole point. Then why would you want to live in a society in which everyone is like I didn’t say you have to live in a society in which individuals can get beaten up

35:15 by somebody who’s next to them. That’s what force doctrine is. No. Force doctrine would be like the cops would show up and beat that guy down with ba billy clubs, drag his ass to prison, then he would get thrown into a prison where guards would make sure he stayed there. Okay. So force is appropriate through force doctrine. Well, I don’t even know what that means. What are you asking? So the force and the power to I

35:38 mean you’re basically saying that women do not have the right to I don’t know because you won’t define what rights are to do really anything. Okay. I’ll tell you again. What did I say? A right is a duty. I’m sorry. A privilege absent a duty. And you agreed to it four times. Some women have no privilege of a duty. Stop. Stop. I just want to point out

35:59 your lie. You said I so frustrated. You said I keep lying or you keep lying. So when did I lie, Bookie? You just said I never defined privilege. No, I didn’t. Yes, you literally just said that and I defined it four times. You didn’t say you didn’t define privilege. You didn’t define privilege. You defined it right. Oh my god. A privilege absent duty is what? A privilege absent of a duty. I’d say like free will. A right. It’s a

36:29 right. I defined it multiple times. So what are you trying to say? That because women cannot defend physically their right to do things that they do not deserve rights. Is that the point? They can’t enforce their own rights. So that’s okay. So because someone cannot enforce their own rights, they don’t deserve rights. Well, they don’t have them.

36:49 But do they deserve them? Well, you’re at again moving into a different claim. So, if you want to get into like what people deserve or don’t deserve, right? Uh, we can get into that, but can we at least agree on the descriptor of how it works first? No. Okay. Because women I’m trying to understand why women don’t deserve rights because they cannot fight. That’s a different claim. I just asked you if we could agree to the descriptor before we moved to that claim and you said no and then brought that claim up again because the claim doesn’t make sense. I don’t understand your claim. make the claim. I’m literally answering all of your questions for this claim. Not well though. Like what are you saying? Which question? Which thing am I not answering? If women do not have a monopoly on force, cannot control their own bodies, why don’t they deserve basic human

37:39 rights, basic equal rights. Okay, let’s try this again. It’s like talking to a [ __ ] child. Okay. Do you have Do you agree with me? No. Okay. Do you agree with me? I’ve never seen you this pissed off. This is [ __ ] hilarious. Oh my god. I’m not pissed off. I’m just Yes, you are. And they say women are emotional. Look at him. You’re the one freaking out, not me. I’m not freaking out. I think this is hilarious. For me, it’s extremely frustrating

38:03 talking to someone doesn’t actually understand the words that are coming out of my mouth. He’s sounding very emotional right now. Andrew, can we go back? Would you like to get some water? Yeah. Can we go back and go through all If you need to cry, that’s okay. Can we go back? I’m here for you, my friend. Can we go back through these descriptors now? Sure. Okay. All righty. You guys want to keep defining words? What is Marian Webster over here? What is right

38:23 from your perspective? Okay. I mean, I’m fine with your definition on those descriptors. No, but I want your definition. I’m fine with your definition of that. Then why do you keep contradicting yourself if you’re fine with my definition? I’m not contradicting myself. Your claim just doesn’t make sense that humans do not deserve rights specifically because they cannot physically. When did I say they didn’t deserve them? You just did. Like I said they don’t exist inherently.

38:44 Right. Okay. So whether or not it doesn’t exist inherently, does someone still deserve that right? just because they cannot physically defend themselves. How do you deserve something that doesn’t exist? But it does exist. Okay, so now it exists. Does it exist or not exist? I mean, do I have bodily autonomy currently? Yes. Can I go walk around my house and do what I want? Yes.

39:06 So, on a certain level, it does exist. Where? I mean, right here, right now. I’m here on my own free will. So, because you can do this, pissing you the [ __ ] off. So, because you can do this, you have the right to do this. I’m trying to see what extent you think women should not be allowed to do things because they cannot monopolize and control others based on Do you understand that like I just don’t understand practically what you want out

39:28 of this. So women can’t force it’s hard to it’s hard to argue with you because you don’t have any understanding of philosophy at all. So when I bring these things up that’s not the issue. The issue is that your philosophy is flawed. It’s on it morally doesn’t make sense. Okay. I’ll tell you what. Negate it. negate the proposition. Okay, sure. Um,

39:48 with what I said before, so you’re basically saying that people who utilize force to execute laws are those who have the ability to control those laws. My issue is that and in terms of a movement towards equity or a goal of eliminating and in terms of feminism, you’re saying it’s a movement towards equity with the goal of eliminating patriarchal systems. My issue is that I fundamentally do not believe that laws should be exclusively enforced to the benefit of those who

40:18 have physical power. Okay, that’s not a negation of force doctrine. So like I don’t know what to you’re you’re so philosophically illiterate that you actually don’t even understand what I’m saying to you and you’re just regularly illiterate. I mean dude, like then just argue the claim. I did argue the claim, but it doesn’t make sense. Then falsify it. Okay. Just because

40:38 someone can do something does not mean that they ought to do it. Just because men can force women to do what they want doesn’t mean that they ought to. So then descriptively do you agree with force doctrine? I mean I believe on a like blanket I believe on like a smaller level. I think that interpersonally someone can um use force if they have more force

41:03 over something. Okay, let’s try this. What is force doctrine? Force doctrine is your whole thing that men have a monopoly on force and human beings have no inherent rights. All laws are enforced by force and violence is used to maintain um societal regularity on a certain level and that women have to appeal to men for the their monopoly on force in order to secure their whatever needs or rights or whatever it is they want. Right. That’s part of force doctrine.

41:33 Sure. Okay. Do you then do you agree with the description? Do you agree the description is true? You said I agreed with the description. That’s I asked you four times if you agreed with the description. I agreed with it four times. Well, one time I said no to piss you off, but then the other times I said yes. So, you agreed with me that when it comes to force doctrine, you agree to the descriptor

41:55 being true. Sure. Okay. Now, we can get somewhere. Maybe that’s what I said. Oh my god. I mean, you never did, but okay. I did, Andrew. So, now that we can get uh past that, now that you’ve agreed to force doctrine, can you tell me why men should enforce women’s rights? Why men should enforce women’s rights? I don’t necessarily think that I Well, I think that free will is honestly a privilege. I mean, not a privilege. I think that free will is a right. I think that everyone has the right to bottle then. You don’t agree to force doctrine. Why’d you lie to me? Why did you lie to me? You asked me if I agreed with your definition. I agree with your definition of it. I don’t morally agree with it. That’s Well, if we don’t agree with the descriptor, then we again we have to argue the descriptor until you either falsify the descriptor or or agree with the descriptor. It can’t be either or. It has to be either or. It can’t be can’t be anything else. It’s either true or it’s false. I just want to understand your moral justification for controlling

42:52 someone else’s body. I’m talking on a moral basis, not that you can’t physically. I understand that you can physically. I agree with the premise. That’s nice. But I should ask why. But I asked you a question and he didn’t answer it. Why should men enforce women’s rights? Why should they? Because it is morally inaccible to control others. It is morally impermissible. That’s the opposite. You’re not controlling. If you’re

43:19 enforcing their rights, it sounds like they’re controlling you, right? Like how are you controlling them by enforcing their rights? But right is simply as we’ve defined it a privilege without a diction. So why should men enforce women’s privileges? But they don’t have to. So what are you defining? Answer my question. Why should men enforce women’s privileges? They don’t have to enforce women’s privileges. Great. I think I think I Great. I believe the exact same thing. Perfect. I’m going to go. They don’t have to enforce Oh my goodness. He’s a He’s coming back. He’s just going to do a little smoke. He’s quit. Are you kidding? You just agreed with my entire

43:56 position. Oh [ __ ] The misogynist quit. Agree with you that men should not enforce women. Well, you didn’t let me finish the sentence. Well, I don’t really need to. You conceded the debate. No, I did not concede the debate. Andrew, you’re just walking away cuz you’re mad. Well, I’m going to go have smoke like I do every time I do a debate. I’m He’s just taking a brief brief break. Oh, stay. Can you We’ll have you stay at the table. Oh, I want to smoke though. That’s not fair. Why does he get to smoke? You want to smoke with Oh, no. Oh, is he going to come

44:26 back? Yeah. Yeah. So, usually we’ll just have one person take a break at a time. Yeah, sure. While we do that, I’ll allow a couple chats to come through. Give me just a moment. I don’t want to talk to the chat. [ __ ] those guys. Give me one moment here. All right. So, guys, if you’re enjoying the stream, $200 TTS, if you want to get a message in a question

44:46 or something for Can I just finish the basic point that I was going to make now that he’s not here to answer? You you may want I’m totally fine having you finish the point, but I think we should wait until Andrew’s back so he can hear it and respond to it. Well, I’m going to go smoke after he comes back. So, then do it once you’re both back at the table. So, just hang tight. He’s going to do a quick smoke, then you can take a brief break. I’ve never seen you smoke. You smoke cigarettes or you you vape?

45:11 No, cigarettes. Oh, okay. Gotcha. Okay. Uh I’ve never seen him so upset. This is hilarious. I thought women were supposed to be more emotional. Well, I’ll let him respond to that when he’s back at the table. Guys, if you want to get a message in, streamlabs.com, whatever $200 TTS, we have 18,000 people, 18,000 concurrent viewers at the moment. That’s just on YouTube and I think we have over a thousand over there on Twitch. Speaking of Twitch, go to twitch.tv/w whatever. Drop us a follow and a Prime sub if you have one. If you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch. It’s a quick, free, easy way to support the

45:46 show every single month. Also, guys, if you’re enjoying the stream and you want to see more debates, like the video. Also, I just figured I’d do this announcement now. If there’s anybody watching and if you’re a content creator and you’re interested in doing a debate, uh, you’re welcome to DM us and we’d be happy to host the debate, the whatever podcast is looking to host more debates.

46:10 So, feel free to DM us there. Also, you can support the show via Venmo and Cash App, whatever pod on both uh Venmo, Cash App, they don’t take any platform fees. So, with Streamlabs, it’s 3 to 4%. YouTube takes 30% and then on top of that, if you’re using the uh the YouTube app on a Apple device, iPhone, iPad,

46:34 whatever, they take 30% too. So, if you were to send in a $200 super chat, they take half of that. Apple and YouTube collectively take over half of a $200 soup chat. So, be sure to do it through either Streamlabs or Venmo Cash app. Also, we have a Discord, discord.gg whatever. We post behind the scenes our

46:57 stream schedule on there. And also shop.whatever.com if you’d like to get some merchandise. Some people were reporting that there were apparently maybe they’re just trolling some video and audio issues. All you have to do if that occurs just refresh, reload the stream and we’ll get right back uh to it. So Andrew’s rejoining here. Did you want to take a little quick smoke? I

47:19 should have actually just had you guys do it at the same time. That’s what I said. Brian, I Yeah, you know, that’s my bad. That’s my bad. Uh, so we will continue the uh we’ll continue the show. Where do I go this way? Uh, just write out there. Yeah. Uh, we will continue the stream in just a moment as soon as she returns. Reminder guys, $200 TTS. That’s streamlabs.com whatever. Uh, a Oh, we have a couple chats coming through. I’ll

47:48 get to those as soon as she is back. Andrew, tell the audience to uh like the video. Like the video. That’s it. It’s like talking to a It’s like It’s like talking to a toddler. That’s it. Uh, do you have a light that she could use? What? Oh, [ __ ] Sorry. Light. Do we have a light for her? Uh, yeah. You can use my lighter. Wait, I

48:15 found one. Okay. Oh, no. I don’t. Oh, no. I don’t. Can I have Andrew, you’re light. Oh, you need my light. Please would be nice. Please. No. Really? Really? No. You got All right. I’ll be back. Go across the street. Uh, all right. Fine. I’ll give you the damn lighter. I’m joking with you. Calm down. Here. All right, guys. Uh, give us just a

48:50 moment while uh, Revenge is mine, so sayeth the Lord. Uh give us a moment here while we’re just uh taking a brief intermission to uh allow our debaters to take smoke breaks. You guys should quit. You know, you ever We should just let us smoke in the studio, bro. Get a studio. I will get evicted. Get us get a studio where we can smoke. It’s not a bad idea, though. I mean, I would have no problem

49:18 with it, but Okay. I must abide by the landlord’s rules. Okay. So guys, if you’re enjoying the stream, just uh hang tight, stay tuned. She’s going to take a quick smoke break and we will be right back. And let me see if there’s anything uh we can get pulled up or any announcements. Speaking of which, guys, if you’re enjoying the stream, we are planning to do uh Andrew’s final show tomorrow. I’m not going to be there for that. No, no, I got to go back up one day early. I didn’t get a chance to talk

49:47 to you when I got here. Okay. Yep. All right. So, the DGEN panel, I think. Yeah, we’ll have to talk about later. Okay, we’ll talk about it after the show. Uh, let’s see here. We have Tinkerton. Thank you for the gifted five subs. Really appreciate it. Uh, I’m going to read this one from ET. Whenever Andrew gets her on a point, she immediately tries to say he’s mad because she’s not smart enough to

50:08 understand or she makes up something he never said. You and your ASVAB waiver boyfriend deserve each other. Uh, thank you for that message, guys. if you our read threshold is uh a bit higher, but I’m just going to read a few if we have time. Once we got to the concession though that men shouldn’t enforce women’s privilege, there we go. We got our a claim. That was it. Done. So great, she agrees with me. That’s the end of that. Done. And thank Laura for the $5 on Cash App. Rachel, thank for the 20 on Venmo. Brian, thank for the 50 on uh Venmo. and Justin, thank for the 10 on Cash App. Thank you guys. Uh, Venmo, Cash App, whatever pod. If you want 100% of your

50:51 contribution to go towards the show, uh, since we have some high viewership, I’d like to remind you guys our stream schedule. We do our dating talk episodes, Sundays, 5:00 p.m. Pacific. And in addition to that, um, also subscribe to The Crucible. Do it immediately. Hurry up, faster. Hurry up. you’re not over there subscribing quick enough or sending in the super chats. We need all the super Where’s all the super chats? I was told there’s like 18,000 live watching. Yeah, there’s uh you

51:24 know, the viewership’s uh declining here just cuz we’re taking a brief intermission, but there’s currently Yeah, there’s just under 18,000 concurrent viewers. You know what? While I need to make an appeal to the viewers and audience here really quick, I’ve been having a lot of issues with my ex account lately. If anybody has a connection uh over there at Twitter at X, I’ve been trying to get it fixed.

51:44 It’s been going on like seven weeks now. Uh an issue with my ex account. Uh I’ve tried to reach out to support. No responses. So um if somebody has you’re going to in order for this to be fixed, I’m going to need to get in touch with somebody who has an connection or even works there at X at Twitter who can uh help me out. So you can DM me at whatever on Instagram. You can email me brian whatever.com. B R I an whatever.com if you’re able to assist.

52:12 We got some super chats here that we’ll read. Uh she had to appeal to Andrew’s force possession just to light her sig. There it is. Uh cool. Thank you, Brian S. Patriarchy’s hoarding all the resources. Thank you guys. Guys, if you’re enjoying the stream, like the video. There’s uh 17,000 people watching. Guys, just hit the like video really quick if you want to see more debates. Uh, we’re trying to do more of

52:37 these. So, if you like this, you want to see more of them, hit the like video or hit the like button, excuse me. And, uh, like I said, if anybody’s watching and you’d like to do a debate, hopefully, you know, we we’re going to want to select from people who’ve done at least some debates or do content creation so we can uh, vet you a little bit, but we

52:58 are looking to host more debates. So, if you’re interested in that, sure, she doesn’t steal your lighter. And specifically, we’re looking for debate opponents for Andrew Wilson here. If you’re uh if you’re a feminist, if you’re liberal, if you’re a Democrat, uh if you if you disagree with Andrew Wilson here on something, we’d love to schedule more. If you’re interested in debating Andrew, feel free to uh and

53:18 you’re and you, you know, you disagree with him, you’re a feminist, liberal, or whatever, send me a DM on Instagram, whatever, and we can try to arrange for that. Especially feminists like some of their actual champions because they have way better champions than this. Can you check on her, please? Um, we have Chef I have a connection at X. Just

53:41 kidding, man. Sorry. Lol. Andrew, make sure she doesn’t steal your lighter. I’ll get the lighter back. Thank you. Thank you for that. I do appreciate it. Here, Mary, pull up Oh, wait. We can’t do the We can’t pull up Discord. Never mind. Um, one of our monitors bugged out right before the show. Of course, guys, if you’re like, if you’re enjoying the stream, twitch.tv/w whatever, drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one. It’s a quick, free, easy way to support

54:05 the show. Uh, and also, I think it’s been a couple minutes since we last got a Prime sub. So, check if you have a Prime sub available. If you have Amazon Prime, you just link it up. Super quick and easy way to support the show. Uh, all right. Let me see here. Uh, Andrew, are there any uh I think we should try to get back to uh kind of the main topic. Well, we’ve been discussing

54:34 it, but are there any other topics you’d like to hit on? Yeah, I’d like to move into feminism now. I stood up to her internal critique, and now it’s time for her to stand up to mine. Okay, got it. So, we’ll do uh feminism. So, force doctrine. She did an internal critique. She agreed with forced doctrine ultimately. So, now I’d like Here we go. All right. Thank you for the light. That was a little That was a little very harsh. I did not mean The table is very slick. Um Oh, wait. I’m going to refill my water. Mary, can you do it for her?

55:04 Oh, actually, no. No, no, no. She has one there. Never mind. Oh, wait. I can’t. I’ll do it. I’ll do it. Force doctrine. There it is. See right there. Mhm. There you go. Thank you, sir. Force doctrine applies to pickle jars as well. My cat’s name is P. We’ll do a a pickle jar pop if somebody sends in. Are we opening pickle jar? Although I am as I am an exceptionally physically weak

55:31 woman. I don’t know. You You look pretty. Do you lift or You’re funny. All of 98 pounds. Um we’ll do a pickle jar challenge. Uh if somebody sends in a $1,000 TTS, we’ll we’ll order a pickle jar to the studio and we’ll Okay. We’ll we’ll see. I got to get a pump going though. Uh, I’m going to let a couple messages come through here

55:52 really quick. Okay, we have uh say wizard. He says, “What can women joking?” Oh, no. Okay. Women do without men enforcing their rights. If men collectively remove any right from women, who can put them back? Remember, no men on your side. PS. Force doctrine is a man and men. Mhm. Okay. Okay. Uh, couple more chats here really quick, then we’ll get right back to it. Uh,

56:18 someone looks like they bought a hoodie and a t-shirt on their merch shop, shopwever.com. If you want to get yourself some merchandise, we have Pasty George here. Oh, Jesus. Pasty George donated to roast a little bit. Just warning. Yeah, this female with locks on her head is a troll and argues in bad faith. I understand Andrew’s frustration because he is debating with a mentally handicapped

56:43 person. I actually would love to respond to that. Um, so if I’m being completely honest with you, Andrew, I’ve been watching a few of your debates and I’ve noticed that you like to troll women specifically, there was a video in which you made fun of disabled p person. You made fun of their deaf accent. Um, you do that consistently. You’ve called women [ __ ] You’ve called I don’t I literally just watched a video. You didn’t watch a video of me. You called her a satanic prostitute [ __ ] You like If she was a prostitute and a Satanist. Yes. Well, she wasn’t a Satanist. She

57:16 was a sex worker. But no, she was she was a Satanist. Am I answering the question or are you answering the question? Yeah, but yeah, I’m not going to let you direct. I’m not going to let you lie. She was a question. If a person is a Satanist and a prostitute, are they a satanic [ __ ] But she didn’t call herself. Can you answer my question? She didn’t. She didn’t identify. You see how that works? Yeah, I see how that works. Do you Do you

57:40 Here’s what I’m trying to say. You’re so emotional. Calm down. Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question. Are you trying to upset me? Answer the question. It’s not working, baby. I don’t know. It looks like it’s Looks like it’s working. It’s really not. It looks like it is. It’s really not. Yeah. So, is a woman who is a Satanist and a prostitute a satanic [ __ ] Yes. No, the question directly. Thank you. So then I was right. And it’s funny because you just said you don’t call women [ __ ] and then you just

58:03 called her a [ __ ] But no, I make descriptive statements on what is a [ __ ] Ask a question. I don’t think it was right. make a descriptive statement a ridiculous amount of money to ask me a question and I would like to answer it. I can’t wait to hear it. Okay. To be honest with you, Andrew, I think you debate in bad faith. The whole concept of I’m trying to dominate my opponent is not necessarily the way to debate. If you’re trying to reach a common ground and create a mutual consensus, that is a bad faith debate. I literally just entire worldview to be up for internal critique. I didn’t even push back once and you still came to my conclusion without me pushing back at all. That is the epitome of good faith. We haven’t gotten to your conclusion, Andrew. We did. You agreed that men have no obligation to enforce male privilege after saying you descriptively agree

58:52 with force doctrine. But men also That’s it. Done. Okay. But men also have no obligation to enforce their own rights. Great. So me like how do you create a society in which all rights and all privileges are based specifically on force? To me that sounds like you already descriptively agreed and conceded that point but I’d like to move into feminism whenever you’re ready. I do not concede that point. I mean you

59:15 did but we have we have other topics to move into specifically your feminist view. And since I stayed up to internal critique it is now your turn for your view. Okie dokie. I fundamentally I mean I just don’t think it’s morally correct to say you do not deserve rights unless you What do you base your morality on? I base my morality on like basic concepts

59:35 of ethics. Contian morality. Rouso’s philosophy of ethics. I think that so contean ethics you’re a universalist ethicist. You’re a deontologist. No, I wouldn’t say honestly. I feel like neither consequentialism nor deontological ethics like fully encount. So you’re a threshold deontologist. I don’t know. I think there’s merit to both arguments. Okay. Okay. So what do you base your morality on? I think I base my morality on physically how you are impacting other people. If you are hurting that would be consequences.

00:04 Sure. But intent does play kind of a part in consequence. That would be consequences as well. So if I have the intent to do good things and bad things happen to you, you’d say I shouldn’t do be doing those good things to you, right? No. That’s why I’m saying I think that there’s a gray area between consequentialism and deontology. So threshold deontology. So okay, great. So you’re a threshold deontologist. Can you tell me what you base that on other than

00:24 your own personal perspective? Do you not believe that it’s immoral? It’s not my turn to answer questions. Your turn for the internal critique. I just Well, I believe it’s immoral to hurt other people. It is inherently wrong to hurt others. And what makes it inherently wrong? Well, hurting other people is not You think that’s good? That’s just you making the claim and then make you’re it’s called question begging. It’s a question begging fallacy. When you you’re questioning you continue to add,

00:47 do you even know what question begging means? What does it mean? Oh my god. What does it mean? You’re trying to catch me in a logical I’m answering. You’re trying to catch me in a logical fallacy. That’s not answering. What does it mean? Question begging. You’re trying to catch your opponent. What does it mean? It doesn’t mean you’re trying to catch your opponent. That’s not what question begging means. Will you will you let me

01:10 finish? Yeah. Okay. What’s it mean? You’re trying to catch your opponent in a logical fallacy by asking them questions that inherently create a dissonance. What the [ __ ] are you talking about? That is not what the question begging fallacy is. So then how do you define it? When I It’s not a definitional thing. It’s a facious thing. When I ask you, is this inherent? You say, listen, it’s inherent because it’s inherent. It’s inherent because it’s inherent. That’s not what I said. Great. What makes it inherent? What makes your morals inherent? What makes

01:41 not hurting somebody else being bad inherent? You don’t think that hurting other people That’s asking me a question, not answering it. What makes hurting other people bad inherent? Inherently, you are denying them the right to their bodily but what makes that bad? It’s bad because it’s hurting them. Hurting but what makes that bad? You don’t think that hurting something? That’s asking me a question, not answering it. It’s bad because it’s immoral. It’s bad because

02:06 it’s bad. Now you have done a circular facious argument. What is bad? This thing over here that’s bad. What makes it bad? The fact that it’s bad. Why is it bad? Cuz it’s bad. Is that why it’s bad? Is it bad because it’s bad? Because it’s bad. It is inherently wrong to hurt other people. Yeah. What makes it inherently wrong to hurt other people? It is inherently wrong to hurt other people because you are denying them their free will. You are causing them physical pain and you are participating and exacerbating in suffrage suffering. What makes that bad though? You don’t think that causing other people to asking me a question, asking me what makes it bad doesn’t describe for me

02:43 what makes it bad. Hurting someone is bad because because you are denying them their right to but what makes that part bad and perpetuating suffering. But what makes that part bad? You don’t think that suffering is bad? No, that has nothing to do with what I think it does have. Here’s what here’s here’s how this conversation is going. Just so you know, I’m like, is eating candy bars bad? And you’re like, it’s bad. say, “What makes candy eating candy bars bad?” And you say, “Well, because it’s unhealthy for

03:08 you.” And I say, “But why is being unhealthy bad?” And you say, “Cuz eating candy bars is bad.” You are causing physical harm. Okay? You are disrupting society. So eating a donut is immoral? I’m not talking about candy bars immoral. Is eating a donut immoral. Is eating a donut immoral? No. Because you’re not causing a physical harm to causing physical harm to someone else. It is an exercise. So is making donuts

03:29 immoral? No. But you’re even if people are going to eat them and it causes them harm. But eating one doughnut is not going to cause someone physical harm. If you eat a doughnut in excess, then that causes someone physical harm. But that is not something that you are policing. If you make donuts and then force someone to buy and eat 10 donuts in front of you, then that would be causing a physical harm. When you say the word inherently, what you mean is something which is like based inside the human experience. What do you mean by inherently? I mean on an instinctual

03:56 level, does it not hurt someone to cause harm? Although of course there are people I’m just asking sociopath. What do you mean by inherently? I mean inherently as in on a very basic it is a fact. Inherent fact in inherently it means it’s a fact. I’m just saying inherently as in it is implicit throughout every culture. Well not every

04:17 culture but like it’s implicit. Okay. Inherently means implicit. So it’s so it means always like always something. It’s inherent. It’s like always this thing. Is that what that means? I’m getting confused. What the [ __ ] are you talking about? I’m asking you what inherently means. Why don’t we just Google it? Why? I’m not I’m actually okay with you if you want to Google the definition of inherent. Yeah, Brian can pull it up. I’m not trying to get a a got you on the definition. I just want the definition.

04:43 Okay. Yeah, then let’s pull it up. Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or character characteristic. That’s what I said. I said always. So, I just want to make sure. Hang on. Existing. Read the rest of it. There’s a few others. Do you want just the first one’s fine? Okay. existing in something as a permanent essential or characteristic attribute. So it is a permanent

05:05 attribute from your view that hurting somebody else is bad. Yes. Why? Because you are causing them physical harm which is a disruption to a disruption to social order. Why is that bad though? Well, because you would have no social order. we would not be able to progress as a society and physical harm is

05:27 painful. You are causing someone pain. It is bad to cause someone pain. I think that’s but you just keep do you understand like what you keep saying is it’s bad because it’s bad. Well, it’s causing it’s bad because it’s bad. You are taking something away from someone which is their physical like just capability. So if if it were the case

05:48 that most of society most of society believed that enslavement was fine because it was inherent that some people were allowed to own other people. Would that be bad? But that’s not an inherent truth. Well, what makes physically hurting someone else an inherent truth? Physically hurting someone else is an inherent truth because you are denying them bodily autonomy and the ability to control what happens to their body. and you were causing a net negative to that

06:18 person. Yeah. But you haven’t actually told me why that part of that is bad though. Causing a net negative to others is bad on every single moral. Like as a Christian, you should know why c hurting other people is bad. I know why Christians think so. I don’t know why you think so. I think so. Because again, you’re robbing them of their bodily autonomy. Yeah. But you don’t tell me why that’s actually bad. So you start, this is what makes it question begging. You start with the assumption as the conclusion. You start with the premise as a conclusion. Hurting people is bad because it’s bad to hurt people. Yes, that’s your position. No, I’m saying hurting people is bad because you are robbing them of their physical autonomy and you are creating a ne negative to

06:59 another person. So, if you could hurt people collectively in some way and it causes good outcomes, would that be bad? Yes. Well, then you just negated what makes it bad. Well, that’s because I’m not a consequentialist. Then why are you making the claim that this is bad if even the good results are still bad? But it’s not a good result if you are hurting people at a net negative. If it is a net negative, then it is not good. If hurting people Uhhuh. is a universal net negative to those people. Yeah. And the more people you hurt, the more negative it is. Yeah. Then hurting

07:36 people in that instance is also bad. What makes it a net negative though? Physically harming someone is negative to them. You are causing pain which is a negative to them. Okay. And do you agree that there are some groups who maybe have negative outlooks that you need to cause pain to? If they are hurting other people and the negative of those people is outweighing the negative of hurting them then potentially. I mean what if

08:00 they just refuse to comply? But that’s why like going back to the force theory, that’s why force is used in some situations to control others. Mhm. And it is used immorally when it is not controlling someone who is comp who is putting a net negative. I want to tell you about a little island called Papa New Guinea. Oh god. On this little island called Papa New Guinea, uh there’s a tribe called the [ __ ] warriors of Papa New Guinea. You might think I’m making this up. if I’m not. No, I feel like I’ve heard of this

08:33 before. This isolated tribe in Papa New Guinea, what they enjoy doing is um well, they have the the Yets of the tribe, the younglings. Yeah. Um who are male go over and blow all of the adults essentially the YTS. They go over and like service them, let’s say. Okay. That’s what they do. Yeah. However, when

08:56 psychologists go and look at this, the kids there actually demand to do this because it’s a part of their culture. Now, me as a Christian, I would say that’s inherently bad, right? Why would you what what basis could you have to justify if there’s no negative outcome, which is what you’re saying bad is? If there’s no negative outcome, well, there is a negative outcome. They’re

09:20 demanding to do it. Yeah. But psychologically, pedophilia does have an inherently negative outcome. PDF, let’s say PDF, right? But on top of that, right, even when you say that, the psychologist said that they were demanding to do this. It’s part of their cultural right. They’re demanding it. They don’t want to not be adults in the culture. Me as a Christian, I would go in there and put an end into that [ __ ] [ __ ] in one second. I would put bring my military in there and I would kick them on the [ __ ] ground and I’d take those kids out of there and be like, “Fuck that. A tribe like that doesn’t even deserve to

09:53 exist. That’s what I would do.” Okay. Okay. But from your perspective, why is that bad? If there’s no psychological damage, they’re demanding to do it. Why is that bad? Yeah, I don’t really know honestly. I’ll concede that one. Now, I do have a question in terms of the use of force. You don’t I just want to make sure that it’s on record that you just said that

10:19 you don’t know why it is that an entire tribe that does this with children is bad. I just want to make sure that you are clear that you just said that. I think it’s bad because P3DO is inherently bad because it is inherently psychologically damaging to children even if they demand to do it. Even if there’s no even if the ramifications of the removal of them doing that, the kids fight tooth and nail to go back to do that because they want to be part of the manhood of the tribe.

10:49 I’m sorry, what? So even if you try to get them away from doing that, they demand to go back and do that, right? They they’re demanding it. What’s the greater psychological harm then? The greater psychological harm is in I would say it’s a net negative to encourage and endorse pedophilia. Well, you’re not you’re not it’s an isolated tribe. It’s not being endorsed by anybody anywhere. Well, I mean, if you were there and you had the opportunity to prevent it and

11:16 you didn’t. Yeah. But why would you from your worldview try to prevent something which is only bad by the metrics that you stated that it causes harm when this isn’t causing harm? I don’t believe that psychologically it doesn’t cause harm though. But okay, but wouldn’t there be a worse psychological ramification if you separate them and they absolutely demand to go back and like willing to kill to get back to their tribe to do

11:38 this? Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, I don’t know. It sounds an awful lot like you’re defending PDF file. I don’t think I’m defending PDF. It sounds like you’re defending PDF files. PDF file is immoral. Well, but why? You just keep saying because inherently it is. Even though you can’t give the causal for bad. P3DO is inherently negative because it has a psychological damaging effect on children. Well, if we can’t even move into what bad is other than what is bad,

12:04 what is bad, what if I use So, how do you define that? Yeah. So, I’ll use this. Well, you’re under the internal critique now. I just defended my worldview. Now, it’s your turn. So, I will. So, moving on to your next What do you want me to define it then? Well, you don’t need you. I mean, I I guess you can try real quick if you want to do that on the social side, or we can just move right into your feminist worldview of what is bad. What would be the difference between a feminist? Well, I’m trying to I’m trying to make the determination then if it is the case that all I have to do is prove to you that feminism has caused negative outcomes, then you would concede that

12:39 feminism is bad, right? But feminism hasn’t caused negative outcomes. But if I could demonstrate that it has, then you would concede it was bad. But it hasn’t. But if I could demonstrate that, you would have to concede it’s bad, right? But you can’t. But if I could, you can’t. But if I could, would it would you concede it was bad? I want to hear your definition of what is bad, though. Why? Why would my definition of bad have anything to do with what your definition of bad? Throughout this entire debate, you have been advocating against the free will and the bodily autonomy of a significant group of people. You wanted Hold on. You want to disenfranchise voters. My whole view was already up for internal critique. And I gave you the entire internal critique of my argument of force doctrine for an hour and a half.

13:23 And now it’s my turn for the internal critique. An internal critique of the argument of force doctrine for an hour and a half. Let’s calm down. Uh what do you know what time it is? Yeah, it’s about to be 5:45. Yeah. So it was about an hour and a half. So here’s here’s the thing, right? We get into feminism itself. If I can demonstrate to you that the outcomes of feminism have been bad, will you concede that it’s bad? If I could, if you can demonstrate that the outcome of feminism is bad, how would you under the force doctrine, then that would be saying that to has nothing to

13:54 do with my view. You’re now under internal critique. I’m saying that under the force doctrine, the only way to remove feminism would be through force. If we can both agree that’s not the only way to remove feminism. Really? But I thought all power comes through force. So So what? How would you remove power from the fundamental building blocks of power would still be there, but it would not be the only way to remove feminism.

14:16 So, you believe that there are other ways to fundamentally have and consolidate power besides force. Well, it’s not just a matter of power though, right? So, but that is this is this is the big problem. Like you don’t even you don’t even understand what’s being said. But here’s the thing back to this uh on feminism. Do you agree with me that feminism has not kept its promise of protecting women? Um, I think it’s making progress. I

14:44 think it’s done better, but I don’t think it’s Well, how how is it done better if we’ve had now about 150 years of feminism and women are in more dangerous situations they’ve ever been in the history of the United States? Why do you believe women are in more dangerous situations now? Well, I’m sorry. Do you do you agree with all of the reign statistics on sexual assault and all these various things? Well, sexual assault statistically has

15:06 increased, but again, the amount of reporting has also increased. And so has STDs before sexual assault. So as so has STDs. So men. So have mental ill not as much as it does women. And not as much hang not as much as mental Hang on. I’m going to give you the laundry list. Mental illness much higher in women. Single motherhood much higher in women. Right? Divorce A much higher. Right? All of the by every single conceivable uh metric for negative outcome. You would have to concede that we’ve had nothing

15:33 but negative outcomes from feminism. The intact family home has been completely eliminated due to feminism. That’s not true. Yes, it is true. Why are you conflating causation and correlation though? Okay. I’m sorry. Is it feminist? How are you feminist organizations that push for no fault divorce all over the United States?

15:54 Sure. Yes. Yeah. And I’m sorry, but do you think that we have more or less intact families because of that? Okay. But living in an unhappy home, like why should people be subject to live in to live in sub What about the positive outcomes for children? Like even if it were the case that you didn’t really like your husband, but your children had better outcomes if you stayed with him, shouldn’t you? Your children will not have better outcomes if they did,

16:15 wouldn’t you? I personally would rather live in a family that is separated, but both of my I know that’s great. What you would personally like to do, but if it were the case that I think most children would though. I mean, if you’re in if it were the case though, okay, but what if you’re in if it were the case though that you were to be in a relationship with a man, you didn’t particularly liked him, but you stayed together and your children had better results because you stayed together, right? Would you stay together with him? That’s my

16:40 question. Yes. But what if you’re you’re forgetting about but you’re forgetting about abusive relationships. You’re forgetting about a relationship in which one parent is an addict. You’re forgetting about one parent and one parent is a cheater. We’ll go over those. child would be significantly it would be significantly more beneficial to be removed from a I’ll give you the stats there as well. So as we dive into this, understand that cohabitation between men and women is what leads to mostly abuse, not marriage. The marriage rates of abuse

17:06 are very low in comparison to cohabitation. Cohabitation is the standardization which you see with divorce. That’s where most of the abuse comes from. Where it doesn’t come from usually is from the husband in the home. But you’re saying that cohabitation is leading to abuse and marriage is cohabitation. No, no, no. Cohabitation would be you’re living with a man without being married to him. Okay.

17:27 Okay. So you think that they should marry but like that would be having a child out of wedlock which is yeah you don’t need to have a child out of wedlock either you like these things are not mutually exclusive. So if it is the case you have cohabitation it leads to more abuse. The prescription for that for the less negative outcome would be marriage right. No the prescription for that would be to separate those two people. If cohabitation of two partners who are not married is leading to abuse then why should those people then get married? Yeah that doesn’t make any

17:51 sense. Okay. No no no. The fact that they’re married and the fact that when you’re married there’s less abuse than when you cohabitate would point and indicate that cohabitation is a bad idea. Not that marriage is a bad idea. No, I think it would point and indicate that couples who cohabitate without being married. It’s better. Why should they get why should you get married to

18:12 someone who you cannot even cohabitate with? Because abuse rates skyrocket when you cohabitate and are not married. So those who are cohabitated in an abusive relationship once they get married you’re claiming the cohabitation itself leads to more abuse. Okay. So then why would the remedy of that be for those two people to get married? Because often times the

18:32 cohabitation begins from divorce. So you’re saying that cohabitation what the [ __ ] does that even mean? It means that post divorce women tend to cohabitate more especially when they have kids. And it’s the cohabitation with these people which leads to the abuse in their kids or the abuse of them. So you’re saying that they should stay in an unhappy relationship instead of only if we care about outcomes. And you said if it is the case that I stayed with my man and the outcome for my kid was better, you

19:00 should probably do that. So if it’s the case that I can demonstrate for you that when women leave their husband, the abuse rates for them and their kids skyrocket for cohabitation. But what about the outcome for that man? My turn. I mean, that’s a net negative for two adults versus a net for a child. Here’s what you said. You said specifically, if it is the case that I’m married and uh the results are better for my kids, wait one second. One second. One second. Filibuster the debate. Hold on. Why is your mom calling you in the middle of a debate while she’s doing that?

19:35 There we go. Hold on. Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Now chats come through. Pop champagne. Yeah, that’s for the the olive jar. Bring it. Savage destruction tonight. Andrew, I don’t want a pickle jar. It’s an olive jar, so it might be easier. We weren’t able to find Sorry, we couldn’t find the pickle jar. Go ahead. Put it on the corner there. You paid $1,000 for a pickle jar. You should

19:56 get a pickle jar. You know, actually, uh, I’ll see what I can do. Okay. Uh, can you Do you have a source on You You got to open it. Oh, I have to open it right now. Yeah. Okay. Yes. It’s It’s easier because it’s an olive jar, though. Wait, put it My nail is [ __ ] me up. Yes, I do have a source for that if you would like it. It’s from the NIS. Anybody can find it. I just cited all of the statistics on it yesterday. Uh oh. Come on. You can do it. Put it Put it right side up. Just You can do it. You got this. All right, bro. I can’t do it. Here. All right. Oh my god. Uh you I guess Yeah. Andrew, go ahead. I’m supposed to open the pickle jar. It’s like a Yeah. Oh jeez. I do. This seems a

20:37 little immature. I know. for the guy sent $1,000. Yeah, but it seems slightly immature. It’s all [ __ ] now. I got to grip it. Uh oh. Andrew, if you can’t open it either. Well, your hand greased the whole top of it. My hand or mine here. High five. Literally. It’s Look, feel it. Tell. Isn’t that greasy? It was like that already. Oh my god. No, it wasn’t. You greased the top. Use your shirt. Andrew, if you can’t open the olive jar, you cannot blame my While

21:04 we’re doing the olive jar. If you’re so strong, you should open it. Yeah. I got to be able to grip it. Okay, we’ll grip it. Let’s go. It’s literally slippery. Uh-oh. Back. Grab me a paper towel so I can dry the top of it off. Okay, once the top is dry, you still Do we now need to allow her another opportunity with a Yeah, give her the paper towel so the paper I think you should do it. Andrew, you’re the big strong man. There you go.

21:26 Come on. Here. I’m going to let some We got some chats while they’re working on that. Red Fox. Thank you. Deontology prioritizes intent, but threshold exceptions introduce consequentialist reasoning. I’ll let you go first if you want. Andrew, I agreed it all up. There you go. Are absolute. Introducing a threshold is ad hoc. Uh, Red Fox, thank you for that. Uh, appreciate it. Did I can’t grip the [ __ ] Uhoh. Like, I got to have a way to grip it. Jungle,

21:59 I’m sorry. It’s not My fingers slip right off the lid. My fingers are literally slipping off the lid. I just can’t grip it. You know what? Maybe the olive jars are hard harder than the pickle jars. They’re not hard to open, but I can’t grip anything. Watch this [ __ ] So, you can’t blame me for my greasy fingers now. Like, god. It’s still greasy. The top of it. Like, you tried it with like four. Feel it

22:20 yourself. Tell me. You know what? Is that not greasy and sticky? Yeah, it’s pretty [ __ ] greasy. I’m going to let uh But Lulu donated $200. Lulu, thank you for this. Aara, you got good morals, but you’re not engaging with Andrew on the level in which he’s challenging you. Oh, he’s calling me think you believe in the philosophy book. Here. Go, go, go. Yeah. Just can’t

22:44 rip the Okay, now I want it to be like pisses me off. Should we have Jake? You’ll see the same thing. It’s It’s just greasy. It is. See, it’s [ __ ] greasy. It just slides off of it. Yeah. Okay. It’s just too [ __ ] greasy. Yeah. You know what? You’ll get the same. Come in here, Jake. You think? Come on. You’ll see for yourself. You can’t get your [ __ ] hand on it. Try it. No, you [ __ ] That was [ __ ] [ __ ] I loosened it for you. I just want to save a record. We got a little olive juice out. Let’s get off the

23:19 table. So, does he have your Does he own your free will now? Cuz he could open it and you couldn’t based on Forest. Wipe it up. He could He could at least grip it, I guess. So, I don’t know. Here. Wipe it up though. Yeah. Yeah. I’ll get it. Brian, calm down. It’s all good. Here you go. Yeah. I got to keep the table clean. Oh god. Is Brian going to I’m going to lose my mind. I’m going to lose my mind.

23:43 Is that Is that good for you now, Brian? I just want to remind you, Andrew, that Jake just totally mogged you. Well, didn’t didn’t Jake just totally mo you? Well, hey, I only got it. He mogged all of us. Didn’t Didn’t Jake just mo you? You had it for a minute, Andrew. and you were greasy as [ __ ] and I couldn’t standing up and [ __ ] I got one more chat coming through and let’s try to bring it back to feminism. Avatar Avatar Gloavius donated $200. That’s a great

24:11 question actually. Do you think misogyny is worse than Missandry? If so, why? Here’s what we’re going to do, though. Yeah, I like that question. I mean, I have a quick answer. I think equally bad. Time is limited, so we do uh have to kind of rapid fire through it. So, if you guys want to have a brief back and forth, I don’t I want to get back to the view. I agree with that. Um, no, I don’t

24:32 think misogyny is worse than misinjury. I think they are both equally bad. I think that specifically I think that the point should be to create a society in which both sexes work together. I will acknowledge that there are differences between men and women physiologically, but at the same time, I do think that mentally both groups are

24:54 an inherent net positive on our society. And I think that it is better if both groups work together. And anyone who is willing to sew divisiveness between men and women, I do not agree with. By the way, I just want to point out to the chat to go over to Jake’s travel blog and watch as he couldn’t [ __ ] a rifle. And I had to literally grab it from him and [ __ ] this rifle cuz he couldn’t do it. Just want to point that out. He’s salty in that.

25:21 Yes, the jar. It’s Indiana Wilson in the jar of doom. Uh, is it would it be worth covering uh male privilege, for example, as it relates to feminism? Um, wait. I just wanted to really quickly say on the topic of cohabitation versus marriage in necessarily an unhappy home as we both agreed that ad feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of equality and equity of the sexes. To be

25:50 able to promote that women can also get a divorce as well as men, I don’t think is advocating in favor of cohabitation. And both can be true. I don’t think that those are mutually exclusive. There’s better topics to cover. I think the problem with that is that we’re using your metric for what is bad. Under your metric for what is bad is the negative outcomes. There’s negative outcomes with those relationships. Therefore, they are bad. I already told you that I’m not an

26:14 inherent consequentialist. Yeah, I know. But every time I try to get a justification out of you, you just went back to negative outcomes. Otherwise, bad is bad is bad is bad is bad is bad. Okay, but you can’t really quantify the net negative outcome of something that doesn’t happen. Actually, I can quantify the negative net outcome. I can look at what happens to the children who are abused. I can give you the stats from the NIS. I went over all of them yesterday right here on this very program with a different feminist

26:37 debater. So then what you’re arguing is against cohabitation but not against the right to unless it’s feminists who are doing everything they can in order to produce the outcomes for marriage and cohabitation. I mean, I don’t know who you’re talking to, but I’m talking to reduce the outcomes against like you can say that cohabitation is bad, but women still deserve a right to divorce a husband.

27:00 That is Okay. Well, let’s move on. We’ll move on to the next one. I’m fine with that. Yeah. And we’ll do the final internal critique for the debates. Done. What’s the next topic, Brian? Or do you want me to bring one up? You have something you I mean, we could cover uh differentials when it comes to privilege, male privilege versus female privilege. What’s the question? What’s the Do you believe that uh there’s Do you think male privilege exists? Yeah. I mean, and is it greater than female privilege? I think that we all have inherent privileges and I think it’s important to talk about intersectionality when we

27:36 talk about privilege because Yeah. But what’s the question is asking specifically? Do you think that Andrew, you don’t let me finish my statement? You want me to finish the statement because you don’t know where I’m going with it. Yes or no? Do men have more privilege in society? I think some men do. Yes. But again, like I would think that a disabled man probably has less privilege than a able-bodied woman depending on what his disability is. If we were to take all women and put them collective as a group and all men collective as a group, would you say that men are more advantaged or have privileges over women or that women are privileged and have advantages over men? Yeah, I would say collectively men probably have more privileges than men.

28:12 Okay. So now we understand exactly what it is that we’re arguing. So let me just start with this. What about the draft? What about the draft? So how is it that men are privileged over women when men can be drafted, women cannot? Well, that wouldn’t be an example of when women have a privilege over men. I don’t think the draft should apply to anyone though, to be honest. It does apply to men. I know. And I don’t even think we should have a draft. I think inherently immoral

28:36 as well. Yeah, but we do have a draft. We do descriptively. I know. Oh, and and how could it be that men, young men especially, can be drafted at the age of 18, 19, 20 years old, be sent to fight wars often on behalf of women who can vote them into those wars, right? How is that a privilege that men have? And what is the if you had to pick anything that you could point to for women that is on par with that duty that men have? I want to hear what it is. I would say probably

29:03 the societal role of the traditional wife and the inability for certain women or the promotion of an idea that women should not be allowed to work. Who promotes that women should not be allowed to work? You do. No, I don’t. So, you think that women should be allowed to work? Women have always been able to work. And you think that outside of the home? Yeah, of course. They’ve always been able to work outside the

29:25 home. Okay, that’s great. What does that have to do with anything? I mean, part of the whole manosphere and like the promotion of these social norms and social rules. That’s where you’re wrong. You see, really the the actually you have the more misogynistic view. No, but I’m you have the more misogynistic view. The truth is is that what the manosphere would say is that a lot of them say, “No, those women need to [ __ ] work otherwise they’re in a position of

29:51 privilege being at home.” So, let me ask you this. Are women in a position of privilege podcasters. Oh, you hear them say it all the time. Are women in a position of privilege saying that Gaines isn’t saying that? Yeah, they do. But here’s the thing. I’ll demonstrate it for you. Are women in a position of privilege when they’re stay-at-home moms? No. Are they in a position of privilege when they’re working? Unless they I mean, I think that they’re in a position of equality or equity. That’s

30:18 the goal. But so then that would mean by that logic they’re oppressed by being stay-at-home moms. I think that if they are not using their free will to decide whether or not they’re a stay at home mom. Yeah, they’re a stay-at-home mom. Okay. Are they privileged or not privileged? Is it a privilege to be a stay-at-home mom or is it not a privilege to be a stay-at-home mom? Or is it a privilege for women to work or is it not a privilege to work? I think it depends circumstantially. If a stay-at-home mom is choosing and has her free will to be a stay at home mom and that is an arrangement that she made

30:47 with her husband who would also like to do that, then it can be yes. But if a woman does not have the right to make that choice and if you are you know proposing a society in which we follow strict gender rules and societal rules in which Yeah. But gender gender norms show women always working always having worked. Yes. The idea is gender norms what they don’t show is that it’s a good idea for women to take their reproductive years and work outside of the home. That’s stupid. That makes no sense. Yes. Of course. How do you establish yourself in a career if you like actively have a child at home? You establish yourself in a career after your childbearing years like everybody

31:26 else would. So you have to start work at like 40 versus having children at 40. Well, you don’t have you can do both though. But here’s the thing. This is what’s so funny. Establish a career. Do you think then that if you split moms split their attention between their children and their career that their children are going to get as much attention as they would if the mom

31:46 didn’t have a career? But why should a mother not have the ability to have a career for their children? Well, then just don’t have children. They would, right? Exactly. This is my point though, right? It’s like, so why would But women make up 47% of the labor force. Literally, millions of women do this every day. Yeah. And you know what happens? Our birth rate. Do you know what it’s at? It’s a lot lower significantly. Why?

32:10 Because women are having kids older. But that’s free will. You can’t just user someone’s right to have free will because their job is. So let me ask you, is it a negative thing that the birth rate is declining to the point where we can’t even sustain our population? Well, we could if we allow immigrants to come in. But wait, wait, wait. So you want to replace the population? No. I’m not a replacement theorist. But you want to replace the population? Can we go back? No, no, no. We can Can you answer the question? If it is the case that our population is massively decreasing, which you just conceded it is, because women are having children older, which you just conceded they are, and you say that’s a good thing. And then say it wouldn’t it wouldn’t go down if we had immigrants come in. How’s that not replacing the population? I’m not saying

32:53 that’s a good thing, but I don’t understand what your solution is. Should women not be allowed to work until it’s your internal critique time now? Tell me, will women not be allowed to work until they’ve had children? Why are you asking me questions of answering them? Now it’s my turn to ask the question. So why is that? Because you just open you just internally critiqued and I allowed you for over an hour at least my

33:14 position, my turn. So real quick, can you tell me why it is that when you get to the point where you cannot replace your own population and you say, “Well, we wouldn’t have a problem with that if we open it up to immigrants.” How is that not you advocating for replacement? I’m not advocating for complete replacement. I’m not saying people should just stop working and stop having children and it should be entirely up to

33:35 immigrants, but I mean if we did have more channels for immigrants to come into this country legally, you know, we might not replace the domestic population. What’s the problem with doing that though? Don’t all would it replace the domestic population? It wouldn’t completely replace it. Would it mostly replace it? It would add. Why is it replace? It’s adding because if the

33:56 people who are Okay, let me add ask you this. Is it a good thing that Native Americans don’t have a lot of kids? Why aren’t they having kids? Well, is it a good thing that they are or are not? Would you rather see Native Americans having more kids? I mean, I don’t like Why is it a bad thing that we came over here and took land from the Native Americans and replaced their population? Why is that bad? Well, because we killed millions of people and caused

34:22 significant amount. Actually, it was human suffering. Actually, actually, most hang on. Most of what killed is most of what killed Native Americans was not genocide. It was disease. The Trail of Tears killed millions of people. Okay. That actually, no. The Trail of Tears didn’t kill millions of people. Yes, it did. How many millions do you think died in the Trail of Tears? Let’s Google it. Google it. All right. How many millions died at the Trail of Tears? It says an estimated 4,000 out of 16,000 Cherokee people or wait forced to relocate. Let me see deaths. Uh how many millions? It says uh estimate estimate that 6,000 men, women, and children die on the 12,200 mile march called the Trail of

35:06 Tears, Cherokee. Okay. So, is 6,000 anywhere close to millions? Let’s just millions. How many Native American people were killed from colonization? Can you Google that one for me? Yeah, disease. How many were killed by disease? How many Native Americans killed by colonization? It’s a millions of people. No, disease killed them. Disease killed the overwhelming amount of Native Americans. We used chemical warfare or not. We Oh,

35:35 we did. Huh? So, we didn’t understand anything about how diseases worked, but we were able to use diseases for chemical warfare, huh? What do you mean we didn’t understand how disease? When do you think When do you think we understood the disease process? You know that smallox blankets, blankets that were infected with smallox given and gifted to not the [ __ ] it’s not. Okay, let me ask you a question. Is that a myth? You get sick and you don’t understand how the disease process works because science hasn’t discovered it yet. And then you hand a blanket that

36:04 sick people have used to another person not understanding. We back that one too, Brian. Did you check it? Yes. Which one? Smallox. First of all, how many millions were check the smallox that one first in the uh in the United States and North America or the entire Americas? Actually, if we didn’t, you’re just goalpost shifting. I mean, but that’s not true. I said that you said millions of people died during the Trail of

36:27 Tears. Okay, stop lying. All right, then let’s include all Holy [ __ ] Stop lying. And also check All you have to do is check the disease that Native Americans All you have to do is check the disease rates. It was 80 to 90% of all natives died from diseases. And by the way, the smallox blankets, the smallox blankets happened hundreds of years after colonization. Calm down. The question that you ask smallox blankets happened hundreds of years postc colonization. The question that you were asking, let’s

36:55 fact check that. But while you’re doing that, the question that you were asking is, was the colonization of the Americas bad? And I’m saying yes, it was because it resulted in the deaths of millions of people. Got it. So if the outcome and that would be a negative outcome, right? Yes. So if God why is my if Japan if Japan wants to keep itself Japanese is that negative for what purpose? Because they just want to be Japanese. How are they doing that? By not letting in any immigrants are immigrants coming into their country and are they detaining them in cages? Very very few are ever allowed to come in. Yes. Very few. I mean if they’re not physically hurting or endangering those people then I wouldn’t say that’s

37:39 necessarily a negative. But I think it depends on the outcome for the Japanese population. So if the Japanese um if let’s just say that they only wanted their domestic population to be Japanese. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Uh I don’t know. You don’t know? Can I answer the question? If there’s a net negative that happens when the Japanese population

38:02 selfisolates, then I do think that there’s something inherently wrong with that. But I think it’s hard to quantify how negative that is to that population. So like if the Japanese were isolating themselves and their birth rate was decreasing, you would consider that to be negative. Yes. If they were losing population, if they were losing a labor force because of selfisolation, if people were starving and people could not make enough money because of Well, they weren’t just star they’re not

38:25 starving, but they’re just not reproducing. If people aren’t reproducing and they’re incapable of reproduction or they’re capable of it, they’re just not. Yeah. I mean, if it is hurting that population, then I would say that’s a net negative. Okay. So then if white people aren’t reproducing, is that hurting their population? It depends. Do they want to reproduce? It seemingly seemingly the like primary

38:47 edict is reproduction, right? Okay. Sure. Okay. So then if white people are not reproducing, that’s harmful to white people’s population. Well, if the primary edict is reproduction, why aren’t they reproducing? Well, because they defer their what’s happened is there has been a massive campaign to defer all women’s childbearing years for college years. This is in every industrial country we look at. So what are you structurally asking? I’m asking you this question. I’m asking you is it inherently bad that white people aren’t reproducing?

39:17 No. If they So is it inherently bad like you just said that the Japanese people aren’t reproducing? I guess no. If they’re in their free will. But what the [ __ ] How is it bad if the Japanese don’t reproduce? But it’s it’s it it’s bad if they don’t, but it’s not bad if white people don’t. No, I’m not saying it’s bad if either group does. What I’m saying is it depends on the effects to that population and why they’re not reproducing. If they’re not reproducing as an exercise of free will and they are happier without reproducing, then why is that negative?

39:48 So, if we were to look at like the mental health outcomes of women who reproduce versus those who didn’t, which which group would you say would be be happier? Um, I’m not sure. Which group do you say would be happier? Well, statistically, which group is happier? what the group that’s statistically happier are women who reproduce and have children. Okay, but again that’s the whole causation correlation thing and it feels like the thing is is like everything you can say is a causation, right? We look for the primary causation for what is the correlation. We even do this with things

40:17 like drinking and driving, right? So I could always say no, it just correlates that drinking in your car leads to more accidents, right? But if it is the case that that’s the primary correlate then we tend to say it’s because drinking and driving these accidents increase. That’s how you would do it. Hang on. So if that’s the case, I’m just asking you again the question, right? When you say it’s just correlation causation, if the primary correlation is that they’re having children and that’s what makes them happier and that women who don’t have children are less happy, then wouldn’t you say that’s a negative outcome?

40:52 Yes, I would say that’s a negative. But I do just want to ask, so let’s say that that is a negative outcome. What is your solution? Do you think women should not be allowed to go to college? Do you think women should I would just advocate for a national campaign which asks women to keep the the traditional family intact because it’s going to lead to the most amount of children and to defer those college age years. Just like we did a national campaign to try to move women into college, I would do a national campaign to say defer those years for childbearing. And you can always go to college later after your kids are grown or you can do it from home. Well, that’s not fun. That’s not the point of college. Did you go to college? The point of college is to go [ __ ] No. What’s the point? The point of college is to learn while you are young

41:32 so that you can gain skills that help you in the workforce and develop a career over time. It takes time to develop a career. You can you can develop the first of all, most of the people are getting degrees by the way. They ain’t using those [ __ ] degrees in any of those fields, are they? What’s your degree gonna be in? What’s it gonna be in? [ __ ] your mom. No, I’m joking. Film production. And do you think that you’re going to end up a

41:52 film producer? Hopefully. That’s But I mean, do you think that the chances that most people have a degree in film production are producing film? I mean, I happen to go to the best film school in the country, but you know. Yeah. Just like I just had a woman I talked to yesterday who got a degree in comedy writing. Oh, well, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. or psychology or sociology. These degree these fields are completely oversaturated. These skills are still

42:17 useful and we also know but we also okay but we also know that people on average who get a college degree the median income for those people is higher. Yeah. But guess what? The negative effects mentally much higher than if they don’t have children. They’re college educated. So your plan is to usurp people’s free will. How are you usurping it by having a campaign just asking people to defer?

42:38 Okay. And then if they choose not to do that, what happens? They can choose. But here’s the thing. It was extraordinarily fun. It was extraordinarily effective to have the propaganda which said that women should be going to college. If you look at the college rates pre the propaganda post it, right, you can see that it had a great effect. You could have the same type of effect which which asked women to defer that after childbearing years because they’re happier well more well adjusted. And guess what? You would be promoting then the the old school gender roles. Women fought an entire I mean not fought

43:11 physically but women had several many movements on the basis of demanding the right to choose whether or not they go to college and when. Why would we do that if we didn’t want Are you saying that the feminist revolution is a proper movement? When it came to college it was I mean there’s currently more women in college than it didn’t want to be here. So when it came to college there was very few there was these Ivy League colleges. There was very few colleges ever and most men never went to college either. That’s the truth. almost nobody ever went to college. It was about uh the best and the brightest. And what’s happened is we’ve lowered the deviated

43:42 standards so anybody can [ __ ] go to college. Now it’s become a requirement for an entry-level job to go to college, which is insane. But that’s an issue with capitalism. It’s not an issue with capitalism. It’s an issue with stupid feminist propaganda. Just a moment. Just a moment. Uh I need to uh do a quick sidebar with both of you really quick. So uh viewers, we’re going to take a 20 30 second intermission. Just stay tuned. Hold on for just a moment. What’ we do? Oh, no. You guys didn’t do anything. One moment, guys.

45:20 I’m going to let some I’m going to let some chats come through. Um, while we’re doing that, we’re just seeing if we’re going to be able to uh increase the length of the debate for just a bit here since we are closing in on the end here. We have Pasty George with message. Hey, Pasty. Thank you. Pasty George donated $200. Thank you. Ultimately, feminism had to rely on men physical force even to open. My argument is that men rely on

45:44 physical force of men too. So a man who’s stronger than you from removing your physical force. Why is he nothing? That’s what force doctrine is. Like you still don’t get it. Uh last call if you want to get the message in $200 TTS. Pull it up. Streamlabs. That doesn’t like why are the leaders not why are our leaders not the strongest people in the world? One more if you guys pay attention. George donated $200. Thank you, Pasty George. It’s estimated that approximately 90% of the indigenous population in the Americas or about 55 million people died during the colonization period. Cont. Continued. Continued. Yeah. Do we want to see the rest? How do we Yeah, it’s it’s going to come in just 10 seconds. Pasty George, thank you for the message. If you guys want to get your own message here as we uh are getting ready to wrap up the stream, streamllights.com/ whatever $200 TS, get them in. Pasty George donated $200. This drastic population decline is

46:40 attributed to a combination of factors including disease disment and violence. In Canada, a similar pattern of population decline occurred. So it is true that violence and forced displacement did kill a lot of Native Americans. I’m not disputing that. I’m what I am saying though is that disease killed the overwhelming amount of the native population. By the way, did we ever get the results on whether or not small pox the small pox blankets? I don’t if he’s not going to answer. We are going to drive up to Northern Cali,

47:13 so I probably can’t stay if I’m being honest. Well, just keep an eye on your phone and if he gives you an answer, he gives you an answer. We’ll do uh in in that case, here’s what we’re going to do. Oh, Mary, can I have you uh hold on, I’ll send you a private chat. Mary, give us a moment, guys, while we’re just figuring out a few things here. One sec. I need to bring it back to

47:36 intro. I don’t know. Okay. Keep us posted on that. Yeah, he’s on DND. I mean, what do you want to do if he doesn’t respond by 6:30? Uh why don’t we just do this? Uh why don’t you guys give your closing statements and time permitting will allow for like a little uh little

48:11 overtime. Okay, we’ll just do that. So uh Andrew, are you going or I get to go last. I open first. So you go you give your uh closing statement up to five minutes. Then Andrew will give his. Go ahead. Okay. Hold on. Wait. I put it back here. Take your time. Okay. So um there were a lot of statements made today. Some of them I do agree with, some of them I don’t. Um and I do think that there is a difference between what we can do in terms of the force doctrine and what we ought to do.

48:40 I think my goal society is to advance us towards a mutually beneficial society. And I think that a lot of the arguments made are not only negative towards men but women as well. So socially and I think that there are three differences, three negative impacts of kind of hating on the goal of equality and they’re

49:06 social, economic and political. So socially it’s fair to state that people are generally happier when they have free will and that it is although we cannot agree on a definition of free will. It is inherently better to have a society in which all of us have a basic capacity for will over their body and bodily autonomy. I think that a lot of the we didn’t really talk that much about feminism if I’m being honest. My closing statement is mostly about that.

49:36 But I guess what I’ll say is that everyone deserves a right to free will without judgment. And that goes for men as well as women. I think that a lot of the idea that men have to maintain force over others and that if they don’t do that, they are emasculating themselves is inherently stifling to young men. I think it’s negative to young men. I think it encourages aggression against each other and against women. And I would argue that the equal force doctrine is inherently immoral. It is

50:05 immoral to police and dictate society exclusively on the basis of force. If that was the case, then all of our presidents would be the president because they want to freaking arm wrestle. I think economically, women do make up 47% of the labor force. Like it or not, women add trillions of dollars to the GDP alongside men every year. If we were to have women just step away from working and exclusively run the household, we would be economically handicapping our

50:38 own society. And in terms of men, the wage stagnation for the middle class, which we didn’t even get into, um there’s been incredible amounts of wage stagnation for middle class and lower income workers. According to Pew Research, after adjusting for inflation, middle- class and lower income workers are making about the same now as they did in 1978. They have the same spending power. However, the cost of housing and living has gone up dramatically. From 1970, the median home price was $23,000, which accounting for inflation is about $180,000 to today. And in 2025, the median home price in quarter 1 of this year was

51:18 $416,000. So it’s almost three times as high as it was in 1978. So the a and the average cost of raising a child is around $21,000 a year in the US. Of course that depends on where you are, but that’s the national average. I think if it is entirely up to men to put the and it puts the burden entirely on men to financially compensate for their

51:42 household, you know, you’re kind of disenfranchising them on a level as well. I think the economic standard you’re trying to hold men to is impossible and unfair. And I don’t think that you’ve had to live it because you’re not the age of most men who are starting a family and who are starting work and who are starting to carry the financial burden of a society in which

52:02 they are the sole providers for their household. And then again, money is power. And if women don’t have the ability to make money, then they don’t have the power to dictate what they do with themselves. and they don’t have the power to get basic resources for their children like food and water and lights and housing. And then politically, I think this one got kind of messy because Andrew doesn’t seem to believe in basic representation for either men or women.

52:31 But I believe in a representative government. I think that it is fundamentally illogical and practically impossible to create a government that is not based on the representation of all people. I just think that’s immoral. And maybe I can’t answer why that is, but I think we a lot of people agree that they would like to the right to vote. And just because you are stupid does not deny you the right to vote.

52:55 But despite being slightly more than half of the US population, women have yet to make up 30% of the government. In history, the total number of female Supreme Court justices is six out of 116. That’s like 5%. And I just don’t think you can claim to have a representative democracy if it has never accurately represented the

53:17 population. But it doesn’t sound like Andrew wants a representative democracy anyway. So I guess that’s besides the point. But in closing, I think that it’s important to note that you literally cannot have a society of men or only women. We actively just have to work together. There’s nothing we can do to avoid having to live and work together. And I think that by hurting Thank you. Oh. Oh, you’re talking. You’re good.

53:41 You’re good. Sorry. How much time do I have left? Uh, well, uh, Andrew will give his closing statement, so you can sure take your time though to finish up. Yeah. But anyway, I think that enforcing stringent gender norms and I think that enforcing strict gender roles and I think that encouraging people to fall into those roles if that’s not how they would like to exercise their free will is inherently immoral. I do. It fundamentally is. To force people to do things that they do not want to do is an immoral act and it hurts both men and women because we fundamentally cannot exist without each other. We are the

54:13 same species and I don’t know, we just got to make it work. All good. Yep. Okay. I know. Did you hear? You want to just check your phone? See if you heard from him. All right. Andrew, would you like to give your closing statement? Yeah. So, my opponent um this debate was particularly annoying because she just literally has no idea what she’s talking about. She contradicted herself multiple times. She conceded the force doctrine. She said that there was millions of people died on the trail of tears, just to name a few crazy ass things that she said. when I she uh did a question begging fallacy which then moved on into another contradiction when we went into what

54:52 actually even makes a thing bad. She couldn’t decide on what even her ethical purview was in which she was holding feminism to the standard of an ethical purview. We couldn’t even get past a lot of that. So then we move into feminism itself. She ends up conceding to most of my points there as well that she says that if the Japanese if their birth rate went down that would be bad by her standard. White people wouldn’t be bad.

55:13 But then she contradicted that as well. It was just one contradiction after another. In fact, I would say out of all the opponents I’ve ever had, this particular one contradicted herself more than maybe any other I’ve ever dealt with. When I go back through it and we clip it up, I got a feeling that it’s just going to be like 800 contradictions. Um, she the other thing to focus on too is that she conceded altogether force doctrine. She ended up uh at the very end uh explaining that she not only agreed that it’s

55:45 descriptively true, but that men have no obligation whatsoever to utilize force on behalf of women. There’s no moral ought for them to do that, which is exactly what force doctrine dictates. So, she she made a complete concession on that as well. Um she says that hating on equality is stupid, but we started to kind of dive into this. we weren’t able to get to it. But uh bit bit on college when she conceded to the point that the standards have been lowered to the point

56:11 where now a degree is necessary to get a job. You can see this with DEI across the board. It’s it’s not an empowerment of anybody. It’s a lowering of standards which hurts everybody. And that’s actually what’s been going on in society for a long time is the lowering of standards. That includes with college, right? She concedes that most of the population is stupid. That was what she said. She said, “You’re right. Most most people are stupid. Yet she she I don’t think she would say most women who go to college are stupid. Which is interesting, isn’t it? Right. Most population stupid. Most women who go to

56:43 college are not. But if you agree that most population is stupid, then mo you would probably have to concede that most of the population goes to college is also stupid, which means the standards have been lowered there so that they can pass college, right? Uh she says 47% of the labor force are women. And then she acts like that’s a choice, right? She’s like, “No, women are empowered because they they have the choice to do that.”

57:05 It’s like, “No, they don’t actually have the choice to be stay-at-home moms in two income economy anymore.” And that is taking choice away from women. That’s not empowering anybody. And if you look at the mental health crisis of women, it’s almost always related to their obligations at work and family where if they could just focus on one or the other, those mental health issues tend

57:28 to deteriorate. on basically every single point my opponent lost. It was wild to see, but she mostly lost because I was willing to stand up to the internal critique of my view of force doctrine and still got the concession out of her on what force doctrine was and the application of it. Um, and then on top of that, every subsequent point,

57:51 uh, I basically got a concession out of. So, I don’t really know how much more I could have won this particular debate, but I do appreciate having it. You want to keep going? Uh, did you hear back from No, I didn’t. But let’s just do it. How long? Yeah, I’ll do the 30. Okay. Uh, here. So, let’s do this. We’ll do overtime, but first we have a quick moment. Well, then why did we just do closings? Well, we were That’s why I said we’ll do closing and then there’s here. Pickle jars,

58:20 please. All right, guys. So, uh, we have pickle jars for each of you. Why doesn’t someone have to pay an additional thousand dollar for me to open it? How do you know they didn’t? Well, cuz it said it on it says that doesn’t mean he shows every single All right, just go ahead and, uh, give it and we’ve given you, uh, if you need to wipe it down or whatever. I can’t do this with my nails on, but okay. All right. I didn’t get it. Give it another Come on. No. Got to tap it. You got to tap it. All right. Let’s see. Do it on the table if you can. Oh. Oh [ __ ] Wait. Put it on the table. Put it on the table. Ripping the [ __ ] Uhoh. Oh, I got myself. Oh no. There we go.

59:03 Okay. Just got to be on the [ __ ] thing. You uh you undersold yourself a little bit. You undersold yourself. That wasn’t that hard. All right. Take them off the table, please. Uh well done. I got myself really messy. Well done to both of you. Um I do just want to go back to some of the claims you made in your closing. Um, I’m not really interested in debating my closing. No, I’m not debating your closing. Let’s

59:24 focus on feminism, though. So, bring it to feminism. I mean, it’s all all of this is feminism, though. I think that part of the issue is that you seem to have this inherent need to Why do you say inherent so much? Doesn’t make you sound smarter. Are you going to let me finish? I Well, I just I’m really actually wondering why do you say inherent so much? Because you’ve argued this point on several many claims. You seem to have an inherent need to limit the free will of others. You say you don’t want more people to vote. You say you don’t want women to go to college. You say you don’t want women to be in the workforce. Everything is about limiting the free will of both men and women on a certain point. When it comes to um the concessions, I agree that I did

00:07 concede on a few points, but I think that that’s healthy to admit when you know your opponent makes a valid argument. However, I will say in terms of your argument, out of both your desire for less people to vote, out of your belief that stupid people should be somehow prevented from voting, and out of your beliefs on feminism, you don’t actually promote a practical application of those beliefs. What does that mean? What’s impractical about any of the applications of my beliefs? It’s impractical to create an IQ test for people to be then paid to do unpaid

00:39 labor that’s volunteer-based, but you’re paying for their housing in order to allow Do you agree that you can have like 50 different options for how you can uh limit the idea that uninformed voters can go after informed voters? Who’s creating those options? Are you creating Can I Can I finish the answer? No. Just let me know. No, you can do it.

00:59 I’m joking. Yeah. Yeah. So, if you can see that you can have like 50 different ways in which you can skin the cat, right? Some of those ideas, you may bring up valid points against them and say, “Okay, well, perhaps that’s not practical, but like here’s a practical application. If you limited voting to the age of 35, what’s impractical about it?” It’s impractical because half of all of the population that’s under 35 would be subject to laws that they have

01:23 no say. So, what? See, so that’s what I’m saying. All that doesn’t tell me how it’s impractical. What’s impractical about it? Not necess It’s impractical because millions of people would not be able What are you doing? I’m trying to figure out where we get to the impractical part. What’s impractical? You’re just giving me more descriptors. Millions of people won’t be able to do

01:44 something. Yes. Millions of people right now can’t kill people. Is that’s impractical. It’s like what makes it impractical? Because throughout human history, people have fought for the right of self-determination. It is clearly a right that here we not all throughout human history. What are you talking about? That’s one example. We fought a war about it. The British fought a war about it. The Haitians have fought a war about it. Lord, so you’re talking about fought. That’s not all throughout history. It is entirely. That’s one block of history. Modern history. Hol. What does that have to do with anything? What are you talking about? World War II was founded on a belief that people should not be killed. That was a fight in terms of free will. That was a fight for the free will. War II was founded on the belief that people should not be killed. Nazi the Nazi party and Hitler was trying to limit the free will of others. Yes or no? No. They weren’t. No. At the beginning of the war. You don’t think that taking over other people’s countries and territories is limiting their free will as a country? No. You’re talking about practical applications. When you’re talking about like the beginning of the war, you’re talking about the Treaty of Versailles. the tree of Versailles to led to western and eastern Germany being divided by the war powers. The war powers when they

02:59 divided them it created all sorts of conflict in Germany. Hitler began off of a a campaign for unification of eastern and western Germany. Okay. And then he actually you would make be making the point that because there was conflict in the first world war which led to the treaty of Versailles that Germany got [ __ ] That’s what you would be arguing. But then he went on to invade several many countries which he went on to invade. Yeah. Yeah. He went on to invade Poland about hatred. And we went on to invade Germany. Like what’s your

03:25 point? So did the Russians. Exactly. All of these fights are about sovereignty and free will and self-determination. All of them. No. Not all these fights are about free will and sovereignty and self-determination. Some of them are about exploitation. Some of them are about wanting land. Some of them are about money. Some of them are about expansionary considerations. It is the denial of someone’s free will. That is what that is. No, they’re not. All these fights are not about free will. You’d have to demonstrate that. How is every fight about free will? Not every single fight. Well, then what the he What are you talking about? Thousands of fights throughout human history. People have fought throughout human history for their free will. Most people never fought in human history for the purposes of freedom or free will or anything else. Yes, they have. I’ll tell you what, give me the examples. Before the 20th century, in fact, let’s start. Let’s do it easy. Before the year 1700, name a single place on earth that was fighting for free will. Um, the feudal system. We can talk about the invasion of France. The feudal system was fighting for free will. No, I’m saying those who fought against the monarchies

04:27 and the overthrow of so many queens and kings. The people fighting against monarchies were people who wanted to be the monarch. Not entirely. If you were fighting against a monarchy that is usurping Waiting for an example. Give me an example. I’m waiting. If you are fighting against a monarchy that is usurping your free will, you are fighting against free will. But what I’m saying is consistently throughout this debate, you have advocated against the

04:49 free will and the sovereignty of other people. And I think that that is inherently divisive. It’s inherently wrong. Why are you doing that? Yeah. So this would be the same exact answer for why it is that tribalism I would want to divide tribalism because I don’t like tribalism. So I would want actually want it divided into larger blocks that tribalism went down. Bigger tribalism. I don’t know. Well, you would actually at

05:10 least um have some sort of sort of voting block that made sense that wasn’t completely decadent on social programs where all of us had to tribalize together to build these blocks, try to fight against everybody else. A terrible idea, always has been. You conceded that it is. You keep on saying I’m fighting against free will, but I don’t think that a representative. You keep on saying that I keep fighting against free

05:32 will. That sounds like a two party. You haven’t actually demonstrated for me. We don’t listen. You’re talking about a national system is too party. Localized systems are not that way. Andrew, you literally said that free will is a privilege that people do not deserve. You literally said that. When when did I say that people didn’t deserve free will? When we were talking about the equal force auction, you don’t even understand what I’m saying to you. So, we’ll try this again. Understand what you’re saying. What you’re saying to me

05:55 is immoral and wrong. Let me show you. If it’s immoral and wrong, tell me what makes limiting free will immoral. You are hurting other people. You are causing them pain. and you were inflicting a net benefit, net negative on society. So what makes what makes that bad though? It makes it bad because you are causing someone pain. How do you

06:16 not agree with me that causing someone pain is bad? Like how are you not understanding that causing causing people pain is bad? Why? Because causing them pain is bad. Yeah, but why is that? Increasing human suffering. You are increasing human suffering. Yeah, but you haven’t you haven’t told me why that’s a problem. So you think that increasing human suffering is moral? Do you understand that if I ask you a question, you haven’t told me why Butterfingers taste good and you’re

06:36 like, “So, you’re saying Butterfingers taste bad? Makes no [ __ ] sense.” You think that increasing human suffering is moral? No, I don’t. But I have I have epistemic justification for that. Why do you think it’s bad? Why? Because you’re increasing human suffering. That doesn’t tell me why it’s bad. You’re fracturing society to like you’re talking about you don’t like tribalism, but yet people need to usurp their right to exist based on force. That’s as tribalistic as it gets. Their right to exist based on force.

07:07 So then force doctrine is true, right? By your definition force. So I just want to make sure I got this right. I’m just agreeing with your definition. So when we start with what it is, if this thing is bad because it’s bad because it’s bad. Then let me try this. Limiting democracy is good because it’s good because it’s good. Ask me why it’s good. Why do you think limiting democracy is

07:31 good? because it’s good. But that’s not what I said. I gave you multiple reasons as to why. Oh, I think it’s good because it reduces tribalism. I think it’s good because it reduces tribalism and it actually voters then would have some sort of responsibility and we we I think there’s all sorts of perks which I’ve named for systems of limited even monarchies I think would be better than unfettered democracy. You’re advocating for a monarchy. I think it would be better than a democracy. Are you joking? Oh no, not at all. Are you crazy? No.

07:56 What? I’m sorry. So you are trying to limit people’s free will under a monarchy. You systematically have less free will. Says who? You are not being represented by your government. Why is that bad? Because they’re not acting in your interest and in the interest of the general. I don’t think Oh, so my government’s acting in my interest. Go ahead and tell me. Lie to me. My government’s acting in my interest. Well, we’ve talked about NGOs. Is my government acting in my interest? We would hope that it would. That’s the point. Representative, is it is my government acting in my interest? I agree that this democracy is Can you answer my question? Is my government

08:28 acting in my interest? Sometimes when when it’s not being a corrupt piece of [ __ ] Yeah. When what is it doing that’s acting in my interest? I mean by establishing laws that maintain So force doctrine. It acts in my interest by using force doctrine. That’s not force doctrine. Establishing law. A monarchy also can provide security of law using force doctrine. What are you talking a representative democracy? You haven’t demonstrated why a representative democracy is the ultimate good. Because why should you yield to a law that you have literally 0% say in who makes the law and what the law is?

09:02 Again, right now there’s all kinds of people who make laws that I must obey that I had no participation in whatsoever. True or false? What laws? So, you don’t vote? No. Even if I voted, that’s the participation. So, if I go to [ __ ] Indiana, am I subject to Indiana law? Yes. Did I vote in any of them? No. then that made then your whole entire argument just fell apart. If it is the case that people can make law, which I am subject to, all over the world, which they do, including my own nation, which they do, even in a local municipality right next door to mine, which they do, and I have to adhere to them and can’t vote in it, you have to say that that’s

09:40 immoral. But if you become a legal citizen of Indiana, then yes, you can. If you become a permanent resident of Indiana, yes, you can. Okay, great. If you become part of the aris aris aris ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar aristocratic like uh [ __ ] hierarchy, you can. But why should you get to go on vacation and then vote in that place and then leave? That’s the point. If you are a permanent resident, if you’re saying if you go to Indiana you’ll be dictated to those laws. Yes, but you’re not a permanent resident. That’s why you participate. Yeah. You’re just giving me descriptor. problem with you is like you keep saying a representative democracy where everybody has this an equal say in law is the best system because otherwise you’re limiting their cognitive ability

10:16 to have free will and it’s like okay but most laws you have no participation in which you follow almost all of them in fact you’re following laws right now that were made before you were even [ __ ] born most of them in fact you’re following that which were made before you were even born you had to zero participation I don’t think that which is why people fought for the right to vote. I don’t think if one man has uh the right to make laws that he has less responsibility to his kingdom than you,

10:46 the voter did. Because some laws were made before I was born. Almost all of them. Not almost all. Almost all laws which you follow were made before you were born. New laws are made every year. What’s my claim though? My claim isn’t whether or not new laws are made every year, but whether or not most of the laws which you follow on this planet were made before you were even born. How do you justify a monarchy, though? That doesn’t make any sense. So because I follow laws that people listen to, you have not even justified yet why a democracy is good. It all you say is because we have more participation rights in law and and that and by not

11:19 doing that we we’re limited somehow. But it’s like most of the laws you follow you never participated in. It is limiting to not be able to actively participate in laws that you consistently you don’t even have political power right now. You have to bank on tribalism for political power because you have zero. So then why would removing millions of voters give me and

11:42 others sorry because you have the ability to hold those voters accountable like you would a monarch. That’s why. But I can currently hold my Congress people accountable through my vote. No, you can’t. How do you hold a monarch accountable, Andrew? When you hold a monarch account, if you think accountability is they can do whatever the [ __ ] they want, leave multi-millionaires and you just voted them out of office, great. I don’t consider that accountability. How are you holding a monarch accountable? Well, a monarch would be overthrown for having

12:11 unjust laws. So then why would you system in which the only way to overthrow the powers that be is through violence? If a monarch gets overthrown, they get killed. It sounds like you’re moving us backwards. Why are you advocating for more violence? Aren’t you How is that an advocation of more violence? You said you want a monarchy. You said that the way in which to control a monarch is democracy.

12:31 Democracy has not prevented social violence at all. In fact, it has increased it. Are you trying to tell me that in the last decade, democracy has saved us from political violence? Are you [ __ ] serious? No, of course not. The monarchy is not going to save us from political violence. Oh, hey, people are really mad about the right that they don’t have free choice. Let’s give them less. What? I’m not I’m not even advocating for a monarchy only telling you that you have not justified why a monarch would be worse than unfettered democracy and you haven’t justified that I have with limited democracy I’ve shown you all the benefits for reducing tribalism the NOS’s all the things that you hate under your current current in a limited democracy under your current because you can hold the voters who are in the limited democracy responsible you publicize their names and their votes you want to dox voters [ __ ] yeah What the [ __ ] is wrong with

13:24 you? I’m sorry. You don’t want to know who votes in your interest? But you’re like encouraging violence against those people. They’re going to be harassed. I guess they better [ __ ] vote, right? I literally just signed a document saying I couldn’t dox the studio. Why can’t I dox the studio? You’re entering a private contract. Is Brian representing you in government? No. Would you would you ever Hang on. Would you ever elect a

13:45 politician who was anonymous? But that’s how we know who the legislators are, not the voters themselves. Again, I want to hold both of them accountable. both that sounds like you’re increasing the amount of violence against those people. How is that increasing violence? Because if someone votes in a way that I do not disagree with and I’m a crazy [ __ ] I can go and shoot them. It’s opening so many people up to vulnerability. You can do it right

14:08 now. If they’re like, this is real quick. Just real quick. So, real quick. Right now, aren’t there millions of people who publicize who they voted for? Yeah. How come they’re not getting shot? because it’s their choice and they would still be their choice. We all have the right to vote though, Lord. Why would that make a difference? The right to vote, then we can’t get mad at people. Actually, if it is the case that you thought that political violence would increase based on how many more people have the right to vote or less people have the right to vote. If more people came out saying they voted for the political candidate you don’t like, you should see an increase in political violence. And you

14:42 don’t. But if only a few people have the right to vote and if our politicians, okay, but they’re elected again, they’re still elected officials. If we’re talking about the right to vote, not the right to be a politician. If only a few people have the right to vote and the rest of us are all disenfranchised and we see that that person votes against our interest and we have absolutely no other way to control them. What do you think is going to happen to those people? The same thing that would happen

15:08 right now. What would be the distinction if you came out and said, “I voted for Kla Harris and you’re not getting shot now.” Why would you be shot later? Because now millions of people don’t have the right to make that choice. They’re going to be mad about it. Millions of people don’t make the choice now. You don’t think millions of people millions of people don’t make the choice now. And not only that, what here’s what happens. Here’s your great benefit. Millions of people do. I’m going to explain the great benefit that you have. If you have it set that way for voters,

15:31 right, where you have a voting class which is at least somewhat elite based on the idea that they were infranchised the proper way, even if it’s just at 35, what you do is you reduce the fact that the NGO and the lobbyists can bribe that electorate group, especially if it’s public. If they be they can’t approach voters, they can’t do things like that, you eliminate that problem. But those

15:52 things are public for legislators now and we still haven’t. No, they’re not because what happens is they bribe the electorate. They bribed the electorate through uh drafting NGO legislation for the voters. Trump just took a million and upon million. He took a $400 million bribe from the Saudis. No, he didn’t. Yes, he did. No, he didn’t. The plane. What plane? He just got a private jet donated to him. I got to let the chat come in. I got to let this chat come in from Glockavius. Avatar Glavius donated $200 for you. Nima, what would you say are your top three takes that would

16:26 trigger Andrew? Oh, also, can women be sexist towards men? Can black people be racist towards white people? Let’s do this. Answer the two questions at the end, then come back to the the Okay. Um, I think that there are different types of sexism and different types of racism. So, in terms of I actually have the

16:46 definitions of some of the types of sexism here, I’ll pull them up. Um, no, I got you. I got you very quickly. While you’re looking at that, I’m going to let this pasty. George donated $200. Thank you, PY. Appreciate it. Disease was a significant contributing factor in the decline of the indigenous people’s population. It was the primary cause. The infected blankets were minor in correct. Thank

17:09 you, Pasty. Um, okay. So, can women go back to the question? Can women be sexist towards men? Can black people be racist towards white people? Okay. Yeah. So, there’s actually multiple types of sexism and racism. There’s hostile sexism, benevolent, systemic, interpersonal, internalized, and ambivalent. Now, I think that women can be all of those except for systemic and institutional. Institutionally, if you don’t have power, as in you are not the vast majority in a government and you

17:37 are not actually trying to remove others from institutional power, then you can’t do that. Especially if you don’t have the power to. But isn’t wait let’s let’s just get through the whole thing. Okay. But I think that you can be hostile towards men on the basis that they are men and that would be hostile racism. And I think that you could be interpersonally sexist towards men on the basis that they are men. And I also think you can have internalized sexist beliefs about men. And then what about can black people be racist towards white

18:04 people? Would it be the same? Basically the same. And then uh it seemed like Andrew wanted to bite on that really quick, but for the top three takes that would trigger Andrew Wilson, what would they be? Um, top three takes that would trigger Andrew Wilson. I don’t know. Humans deserve free will, I guess. I didn’t even think that was a triggering. I thought that was a universally two others if you have any. Um, honestly, I kind of like trolling Andrew and like trying to piss him off because I think he tries to do that to a lot of his guests and I’m sure that that is

18:36 annoying, but you know, it is what it is. Well, let me know when you succeed at it. I don’t know, man. You did kind of rage quit there for a minute, but You mean I went and had a cigarette and then you went and had a cigarette? You were very upset and then you left. That to me is a rage quit, but okay. You mean you conceded the debate and I said, “Okay, I’m going to go have a cigarette.” No, you got very very upset. Oh, okay. That sounds like coke from a person who lost

18:58 the debate, but Okay. Sounds like you’re kind of lying to yourself because you don’t want to feel emasculated, but Okay. So, if I’m a person who every single debate that I do on this uh podcast at about an hour to an hour and a half mark, I stop the and get up and go have a cigarette. Do you think that I’m going to like change that behavior because you’re here? No. Okay. So, then it would follow that I just got up and went and had a cigarette cuz the specific timing of when you did that was a bit specific. Anyway, Andrew, you wanted to you wanted to respond to her

19:27 position on like I it sounded like the systemic she would have to the problem with this is like when you’re talking about systemic is she very she’s very conveniently only points to hierarchal government right at the top and says well uh because that’s male right at the top then uh then it can be systemic but it can’t be systemic unless there’s no at the top echelons of government. It’s

19:47 like okay but what about like schools which are completely inundated with women most of the teachers are women most of the institutions are women most of the people participating are women like overwhelmingly that’s a female institution it’s like so can’t teachers at the very least show sexism towards men systemically if an entire school decided we are not going to hire male teachers yeah I’d say that no how about like just systemically most of the teachers decide that they’re going to institute standards which benefit little girls over little is do they do that currently? Yeah. What standards would you say? Just even things like hold still for long periods of time, be very quiet in class, fold your hand, clasp your hands. When we look at studies for how boys learn versus how girls learn, boys rambunctious, they need breaks for much longer periods of time. Rough and tumble play needs to be encouraged,

20:36 things like that. So, schools definitely favor young girls over boys. Well, I would say part of the reason why you have to sit still and be quiet in classes to maintain class order so that you can learn. And I would also say as a young girl who’s very rambunctious that that does negatively benefit some female students as well. Though that’s really silly then because the negative outcome would be on co-ed schools which is what feminists push for. Whereas we used to have sex segregated schools where you

21:01 could teach boys, you know, based on how boys uh benefit from being taught and girls. Now it’s all I’m saying that if I’m a girl who benefits from how boys are being taught, then why would separating me to a school that is exclusively No, we would se you would get separated to a class with other girls who are like you. But if the entire group So you’re a segregationist if the entire What do you mean that? How is that is saying that co co-ed schools have worse outcomes than girls or boys

21:28 only school a segregationist? So what like hang on answer my question first. You plan on segregating boys and girls and separating them so they’re not in the same schools. Yeah. And you want that universally everywhere. Yeah. But what do parents want their kids to be in classrooms? Why would they want that? So that they can learn how to socialize with the opposite sex. Maybe they can learn how to socialize with the opposite sex. Like after school events, uh various things like if you got sisters, you would go to them the same way that we always did. Before we had co-ed schools learn the same way and not all

21:57 girls learn the same way. But inside of those schools, it would be up to those schools to segregate those students who learned in different ways to put them in special education classes. Why not just do that in co-ed classrooms in which you have students who all learn the same regardless of gender because of universal because of universalization of the rules favoring one sex over the other, which they do. Okay? But if you had a co-ed classroom in which all students who learned a specific way regardless of their gender were in that room, why not separate them on the basis of learning style instead of just the

22:26 basis of sex? Yeah. So if you’re asking me like why wouldn’t we take x amount of these kids and separate them over here and separate them over there? It’ be just a resource issue. So we’re already looking at 5% GDP. If you were to have uh all all girls schools and all boy schools, right? And you separated them on the basis of all girl all boy. You would be able to limit resources and allocate them much better to those

22:49 genders. Okay. But in public schools, that’s public schools. I understand that. So in public schools, there’s a certain amount of schools per district. If you were going to separate all of those schools, then there would be either double the schools for you could use the same amount. You could use the same amount of resources to double the school. So if it’s the case that right now you had a school which was co-ed, right? You could split that school in half and still make one side boys only, one side girls only if necessary. That happened many, many, many times. Why not just do it based on learning style? Because because again you have x amount

23:23 of resources which are allocated to a group. If you begin to try to relocate every individualistic student into whatever core group you think they might learn best with ultimately rather than gender segregate you know that the core at least most of them share and then pick those the you know like the problematic kids out of that pool. You’re going to save a shitload of

23:45 resources. We tried that with black people and it did not go well. We’re not talking about segregating based on race, but I mean, if you’re segregating based on sex, what if one group is then funded less? And I want you to think about So what if let’s say what if we did do that and then there was a case in which teachers who were majority female were systemically discriminating against young boys. Yeah. Then you should get rid of those teachers and they defunded the schools that were boy. How would they defund them? Or they choose not to teach those classes or they choose to teach those classes in a way that is not

24:14 actually helpful to young boys. Yeah. You could get teachers in that would do all male definitely do all male classrooms. They have them right now. And not only that, we always had this by the way. See, this is I think the hang on hang on. Let’s get into it. Like so for instance, let me give you another few core ideas here. Uh if it is the case that you had sex segregated schools, do you think sex and sexual intercourse and teenage pregnancy and STDs in schools would go up or down? It depends on how we’re teaching sex education in this. No. Just like trivially. If there’s no women around, they’re not going to get pregnant,

24:46 right? I don’t know. If people want to have sex, I can find the ability to sex. You know what this is giving? It’s giving like the number one birth control advice. So, let me So, let me just make sure I got that. I got this right. If girls and boys go to different schools, you don’t actually think that they would be having underage sex more or less. Do I have that right? I don’t think that we can necessarily say if it would be more

25:07 or less. So, I mean, are they less horny? Like no, they’re just as horny, but they just don’t have access. They don’t have access. Why don’t they have access? Because they’re in different schools. But do they not have a phone? How How is they even if you have a phone? How do you have the same access you do if Susie is sitting three [ __ ] desks down? That’s insane. This is like a very This is giving Boomer a Are you ever going to respond respond to the argument? You

25:33 still have access to them through social media. Oh my god. Hey, you want to meet up? And is it as easy to meet up with them if you’re not in the same school? No. I thought you just wanted to split schools in half. Some you could do it for some, but for the other many open campus schools, especially, right, especially high schools are so large, you could split them in half and it would be like how a lot of high schools are now where you have one here and one

25:55 just down the road, okay? And then they’d walk just down the road and oh my god, look, there’s you still don’t have you still don’t have the access for talking to them, for arranging it. It’s not to say that that wouldn’t still happen, but it would necessarily reduce that, wouldn’t it? Just necessarily. It would be trivially true that if they did not have as much access to each other, the chances that they’re getting that they’re having sex is triv at least trivially going to go down. Right. Sure.

26:17 But why not just increase the level of sex education in this because we’ve done nothing but promote sex education in school and it has not done anything to reduce the idea of STDs in kids at all. I think that very much depends on the state and the district. I think that’s very much we do not have a universal sex education. Let me just ask you like this is that this is such a thing that’s common sense and it drives me crazy with

26:40 the left cuz they’re so disingenuous about this. Do you really think as you tell me kids are smart and they have smartphones and they’re going to [ __ ] if they want to [ __ ] but they’re so [ __ ] stupid they don’t understand what sex is. What are kids so [ __ ] smart that they’re going to intelligently bypass your sexually segregated schools in order to find each other to have sex,

27:03 but they’re so [ __ ] stupid they don’t know what sex is? No one is claiming kids don’t know what se sex is. We’re claiming that they don’t know how to have sex safely. Oh, you’re So they’re so smart they can do that, but they can’t figure out how to put a [ __ ] condom on. Apparently. Apparently. I mean, we see it all over the country. Children who do not have access to sex education have a 10. These little [ __ ] MacGyvers are going to figure out how to grab their smartphones and MacGyver out how to [ __ ] navigate to

27:25 find each other to [ __ ] but they’re not going to be able to figure out how to slap a condom on. You’ve never been a child with a phone. I have. And I can tell you it’s not that hard to find if you really want. Is it really hard to Google how to put a condom on? Yes, but a lot of kids just genuinely do not know or do not latex or it hurts. They’re so [ __ ] smart. And and by the way, the idea too that religious parents don’t instruct their children on what safe sex is insane. I never said that. And by the way, the other problem that you have

27:52 here is again you’re attributing that these people that these kids have maggyver like stealth [ __ ] you know, prowess where they can meet up with each other, plan all this, coordinate it when they’re in sex segregated schools, but can’t figure out how to put on condoms or take birth control. That’s [ __ ] insane. They should, but it’s not even about putting them on. It’s about having access. I didn’t know how to have access. They would still have they still have the same access. They’re just in

28:13 sex segregated schools, but they just don’t know. But that’s what I’m saying. You don’t have to do all that. If the goal is to eliminate unprotected increasing sexual education in schools is not preventing these issues at all. Yes. Especially not when it comes to learning and how the rules favor little girls over little boys. It’s not helping with any of that. How is sex ed helping with that?

28:35 Sex ed so that kids know where to go. Like I learned what planned parenthood. How is that helping with the bias towards little girls over little boys in school? How? Well, not sex education. Are you talking about safe sex or the bias? Yeah. What I’m telling you is that you have additional benefits with sex segregated schools on top of the primary benefit of not having favoritism over

28:55 one sex over the other. Okay. But there are a lot of ways I feel like one thing that I’m really not loving about your argument is how different you claim girls and boys and men and women are. They are very different. They’re not that different. We are 99.9% similar. And how similar are you to a chimpanzeee? The same. So, are you very different from a chimpanzeee? Yeah, but we have

29:16 multiple chromosomes different than chimpanzees. Wait, wait, wait. I’m sorry. You just said we’re 98 I’m sorry. How much? 98%. No. 99.9% similar. 99.9% similar. How genetically similar are we to chimpanzees? Yeah. Pull it up. Now, I kind of want to know how genetically similar are human beings to chimpanzees. Are we the same species? Yes or no? The same species. Men and women. Yes. Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8% of their less. 98.8% and we’re very [ __ ] different, aren’t we? 99.9% is the difference

29:50 between one chromosome. Yeah, but do you understand chromosome that if you’re 98 or like almost, by the way, that’s almost 99% similar to like one of your ancestral cousins and you have that much of a stark difference that a 0.1 percentile can mean a huge difference. And it does. And here’s the things that it means a difference in. One sex can reproduce, the other sex cannot. One has physical characteristics that the other one does not. One has uh strength advantages, the other one does not. One has emotional problems due to uh hormone regulation built into the body for reproduction that the other does not. The list goes on and on and on of the distinct differences between males and

30:29 females, and they’re huge. I actually wrote down all of the distinct differences between men and women. Um so in terms of the physiological, yes, men have denser and stronger bones. are 34% denser. The difference in average oh we have difference in skull shapes and jaw shapes. Men have higher muscle mass percentage than women which attributes to the strength. Women have higher body fat percentage. Men on average are 7% taller. And then mentally it’s mostly

30:54 hormonal differences as we also you missed reproduction. Oh sure. Yes. Yeah. Women that’s the big one, right? Women have reproductive capacities, including a uterus, and they have trouble with hormone regulation due to the fact that they engage in reproduction. Right. It’s so funny that you say women have trouble with hormone regulation, and all the time I hear how hard it is for men who have testosterone and how hard testosterone No, you don’t. You don’t hear that. It’s the fountain of youth for men, keeps men young, and it helps with their mood. What you’ll usually hear about for testo for testosterone in men is that if they have lower testosterone, they have trouble

31:25 with mood regulation. Okay. Yeah. So, if you’re talking about women though, they have trouble once per month with hormone regulation due to their reproduction cycle. Sure, but that’s not a ridiculously huge difference. It’s a massive difference that 12 times a [ __ ] year, you have significant hormonal issues. And by the way, other significant hormone issues come up with the use of birth control, the use and the use of things like this, which are again tailored to one sex, the sex that

31:52 um is capable of reproduction. So when you’re talking about the distinctions between these sexes, they’re way wider than you are pretending they are. Why do you keep trying to separate us? Because we’re not the same. We’re not the same people. We’re not survive without each other and we are the same species and these differences are necessarily negative. Can you tell me again how it is that we’re not night and day difference when you have one sex who’s extremely who’s much stronger than the other much. It’s it’s significant. I

32:18 don’t know. We both were not able to open that olive can. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, um, one sex is significantly stronger than the other sex. One sex does not have the same trouble with hormone regulation, does not have a uterus, doesn’t even have the same internal organs. Their plumbing doesn’t even work the same way. The way they urinate or the way they urinate other than a uterus. No, no, no. The way they urinate doesn’t doesn’t work the same way. The the entire sexual plumbing doesn’t work the same way. The

32:45 physiological differences are actually quite wide. All you’ve mentioned is reproductive organs. Yes, we all know we have different reproductive not just reproductive or o or organs. We have different ways in which we engage with the world due to the different types of hormones we have and how they’re regulated in our bodies. We even have different brain patterns of how we think. Yes, that’s true. But that’s not such an horrifically and exclusive and large difference. We should treat each other differently. In many cases, no.

33:08 And in many cases, yes. In so what cases would you I already told you like in cases where you have a predominant occupation of one sex over the other where they have power over young people, right? and they’re in the dominant position. They can only look at it from the preference of that sex. If that’s the case, then if you had sex segregation in schools, you would end up having more tailored education to that

33:30 particular sex. So, can I say just my issue with all of the things that you’re talking about is practical application. It comes down to that is practical. It’s not impractical. But wouldn’t it be slightly more practical if we um encouraged men to be teachers instead of having to separate both the sexes just increasing the amount of males so that both men and women This is a great point. Can you can you explain a phenomenon which happens called male flight? Yeah. Male flight is when a career or profession becomes increasingly female dominated and then men tend to leave that profession and the pay rates go down. Yeah. Why do they say that they’re leaving that profession? I think there’s a few

34:11 reasons. What’s the primary reason? I’m not sure actually. Will you give it to me? Give it hazard a guess. What do you think it is? Cuz women are mean. Be Well, just hazard a guess. What do you actually think it is? Um, in all honesty, it might just be that they don’t want to be they don’t want to [ __ ] deal with women. They don’t want to deal with the the overage of women and the problems which are unique to them that women don’t understand. and vice versa expect to have a wife or a family or female children. Well, it’s really interesting, right? Don’t want to deal with women. Yeah. The difference is is that having women have authority over you in a dominated female field is like hell on

34:54 earth for men inside of your personal home where men are generally considered the head of the household. That problem doesn’t exist. So men are incapable of working with women if women hold. I didn’t say incapable, did I? You said it was hell. I asked you about the Is it really hard to have a female boss, Andrew? Not female boss. It’s when you have a saturated When you have a saturated female demographic in a job, you have male flight. You said we have male flight and you hazarded. Your only guess was cuz they don’t like women

35:22 basically. Can you actually look up the reasons for male flight? Yeah, look it up. I mean, that just sounds like [ __ ] to me. It’s like, oh, I can’t have a job because women are here. I mean, that’s crazy. because they cause unique problems, right, from the perspective of the men who they’re in charge of. And you don’t think men cause unique problems to women? Perhaps, but here’s the thing. Women don’t fly away from male-dominated professions. It’s only men who fly away from female dominated male dominated professions tend to make more money. I mean, that might be part of No, that’s not always the case, especially not with education. I mean, when we’re talking about male flight, the phenomenon like nurse, let’s take like nursing for instance. Nursing

35:58 is a very highly paid profession, but one of the reasons that they can’t get male nurses in is because they don’t want to [ __ ] deal with women. You say that nursing is a very highly paid profession. But compared to doctors, which are much more male-dominated, they make significantly more than nurses despite both having to get Are you saying that women have the same access to become doctors as men? In fact, through your ideas of DEI, not go to college. You can still go to college.

36:26 Well, not if we wait until Okay, actually, let’s go back to your whole let’s wait until after you have kids to go to college. If a woman really wanted to become a doctor, that’s four years of college and six years of medical school and then a residency and then a residency. So, that’s But they’re doing the residency as a doctor basically. Yeah. So, that’s like But it’s about like it’s around like I want to say 10 years. Yeah. So, okay. So, if you start Mhm. going to college at 40 after your kids Well, would you say you start at like 32 33 probably and you’d be done about 41 42? involved in a residency while you’re raising children for that particular occupation. Yeah. As well as school. Why is that any different than just having a job while you’re raising kids? What do you mean? Well, the whole premise is that women would wait after they’ve had children to go to school.

37:11 But you also said that women in the workforce, it doesn’t split, it doesn’t split the attention from the children and the attention on the job. Like for instance, would you say, especially this example, you picked the worst one. attention in Would you say that if a woman wanted to become a doctor and have children that that would that would be considerable in the way of time that she would have to spend working on being a doctor? Like a considerable amount of

37:39 time, especially at a residency. But I’m not against women spending time on their careers while children. Yeah. Yeah. But but don’t you think that that’s going to defer attention in a major way? Well, if you’re taking care of their children as well, they’re working. But if both partners are working and if both partners are taking care of their kids and their kids are getting equal, what’s happening is you’re just outsourcing care. You’re just going to outsource the care from the mother. You don’t have to do that. You do have to do that. How do

38:03 both parents work, but you don’t outsource any care? My parents did it. How? My dad had a more flexible schedule. When my mom was there, she took care of me. When my dad was there, he took care of when nobody was there. Who took care of you? I mean, I think they were almost always there. Okay. So, unless they went on like a date night. So, then they both weren’t working full-time then. They were both working full-time. Okay. So, you happen to be in the one unique

38:27 position where so flexible one parent could always be home with you. Yes. I went to school. That is not the case for the vast majority of your children go to school. They’re outsourcing. So, you’re outsourcing your care to school. Mhm. So if a person starts So if these people start their workday I thought you were talking about a nanny consider school to be outsourcing child care. Yes, of

38:47 course. Okay, but it’s also like like it’s illegal to not provide an education. Yeah, but does school need to be 8 n hours a day? I mean it’s like 8 to if we are producing some of the least educated children on planet earth in any western nation. Is the 8 hour school day really something that’s beneficial? The reason it’s 8 n hours is exactly for that to try to accommodate a two parent income and be a babysitting apparatus by the

39:13 state. So what would you advocate as the amount? Yeah, I would say two hours of school a day is perfectly acceptable. Two hours of school? Get the [ __ ] out. Well, I don’t know how many hours of school a day that you do. What do you What is it like 10 minutes for social studies? Half an hour? No, no, no. You don’t do you don’t do subjects like that. People don’t learn like that. So what do we do? We do farming. Oh, you would do you would do months on just math or months on just reading, writing, and arithmetic. You don’t have to split the studies. Two hours a day, a month of each subject. Sure. Why? Because people’s minds, especially young minds, are tailored much better when you’re trying to learn detailed things like

39:49 this with having um you know, an hour or two and then a lot of play time and a lot of unlearning and a lot of things like that. Kids actually do a lot better. Yeah. They unlearn things. You’re learning things for two hours and then you just spend the rest of the day unlearning what you just learned. No, not unlearning what you just learned. You would be unlearning other things like what? Like bad habits that you’d have like you can’t take the cookie out of the cookie jar because you get your hand smacked. By the way, it’s 7:16 and

40:12 he’s calling me now. Hey, bun. You want to come up? Do you mind grabbing my boyfriend for me? Yeah. We’re gonna close out now. Okay. All right. See you in a sec. Love you. Bye. But just real quick, I got this last question. Sure. How is it that you you went to school and had hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of

40:35 learning, right? Yes. Okay, great. How did you think that millions of people died on the Trail of Tears? Then they were forcibly removed from their You thought millions of people died on the trail of tears. I guess all those hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of history really didn’t sink into well. Well, I mean, learning complex thought and reading comprehension doesn’t just mean like most kids can read. You got a number wrong like Andrew. And and here’s the thing, right? Is like if you’re especially when you’re talking about reading and literacy, home homeschool kids outperform public school kids. Oh, it’s not even in the same universe. And usually most of those curriculums hour or two a day. What is

41:11 your source on that one? Oh, I can pull up a ton. Homeschooling has become one of the biggest alternative and most studied alternatives since co 19 because of the lockdowns. I have a pretty cool documentary about homeschooling. I guess do you guys want to do a mini close? You each get like a final one or two minutes. Well, I’ll just make it super easy. So, or well, should we’ll let her go first, then you. So, go ahead. If you want to do a one to two minute close,

41:34 then you then we’re out. Okay. I mean, I just think a lot of what we just talked about is objectively a little bit ridiculous. I don’t understand why you would segregate children and massively increase or decrease the hours that kids are in schools and now women don’t work and now all of these things. It sounds like you want to turn society upside down, which you know, good for you. But I would advocate that it’s better to It’s not completely

42:02 broken, but it’s not like if you understand like the system we live in is not completely broken to the point where you have to completely and radically destroy it and create an an alternative that has no practical application at all. Like we’ve never done that. We’ve never done segregated schools for two hours a day. Really? When did we nationally have public schools that were 2 hours a day separated by gender? It’s your clothes.

42:34 Okay. Yeah. I mean, to me, this just seems unrealistic. It seems unnecessary and it doesn’t seem like it’s really benefiting other one anyone but you, I guess. And I don’t understand why you would advocate for such impossibly impractical things other than to sell your debate course.

42:58 You should have taken it. So the what’s interesting is like uh your entire closing statement just a giant fallacy. It was just an appeal to incredility. It’s just like I just think it’s like really like impractical and like it doesn’t make sense. It is impractical. Did I interrupt your clothes once? No. No. you just I just like think like it’s impractical and stuff. It’s like well that’s not an argument for anything and you can see it on all the descriptive points that I give for these problems. You say I just don’t like the prescriptions. That’s fair. You can

43:26 criticize the prescriptions but when I ask what the criticism of the prescription is. It’s just like uh well like I just like think maybe it won’t like work or or or whatnot or you know what we’ve never done this before. We have we never had sex segregated schools. We did. They only they never only lasted a couple hours a day. They most certainly did. Like if we go back through history and you look at what local schools used to be, yeah, they they didn’t take very long. There was one single school master. These were in much smaller towns. The tailoring, by the way, if you look at what an eighth grade education was like a 100 years ago, it’s the equivalent of a college education today. And the literacy rate

44:01 was through the roof in comparison to what it is now. It’s not even the same universe. If you go back even to the uh 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, it’s not even in the same universe. when you’re talking about uh co-ed schools, um there’s all sorts of dis disadvantages which include sex, which include uh STD rates, which include now revenge corn, which include

44:23 all sorts of things which now technology has enabled. And it’s like you can deal with a lot of those problems, especially with how kids are related to by female teachers when they’re young men by segregating out the sexes in school. It’s a great idea. Most everybody does it at least if they have a brain and it works great. You keep separating us and sending us back. The closings are done. You don’t want you want to argue after the close.

44:48 Weird man. I’m sorry that I have prescriptions and I have arguments other than weird. I mean if you guys want to continue the conversation but it you know it’s like weird man. Like everyone should just get together like and sing kumbaya man. No, we shouldn’t just get together and sing Kumbaya, but we should try and advance the society instead of trying to do things that we already did thousands of years ago. The literacy rate’s doing real well. Good job

45:13 advancing society. The literacy rate is not doing bad because of feminism. Andrew, get over yourself. Like, this is what is it doing bad? Because why? How can you attribute it to feminism? I asked you a question. Why is it doing bad? The literacy rate in this country is largely failing because the public education system which is full of women teaching is incredibly underfunded and inherent 5% of our GDP more than any other nation. It’s underfunded. It is underfunded and we continue to

45:41 overfunding but that’s by it’s the most it’s the most overfunded underfunded thing in the planet. It’s by district. It’s not funded by the federal government. And they get the same amount per district. Public schools are Yes. No, they don’t. Yes, they do. No the [ __ ] they don’t know [ __ ] Public schools are funded by property taxes. Depends on the district. You get paid by the head for federal funding. Federal

46:05 funding. Yes. But public schools do not receive the primarity of their funding or the majority of their funding through federal funding. Yes, they do. Yes, they do. No, they don’t. All right. Here’s what we can do. If you guys are both open to it, we’ll do a round two uh at some future date. Would you be interested in doing a secondary a second conversation? Hit me up. It depends. We’ll talk when I’m coming back. Sure. Sure. Sure. We’ll we can always discuss it. Uh I want to thank both of you very much for participating in this discussion, in this debate.

46:41 Thank you guys so much. GG. Well played to the uh to the viewers, to the debaters. Last call. Please hit the like button on your way out. Thank you for tuning in tonight. You could have been anywhere in the world, but you are here with us. I appreciate that. Thank you to everyone who super chats, donates, and supports the show. Uh our next dating talk uh podcast will be live again. We’ll be live Sunday 5:00 p.m. Pacific. I want to see 07s in the chat. 07s in the chat. Let me just double check make sure we’re not screwing over like any last minute chatters that came through. Unfortunately, guys, we do got

47:15 to wrap. I saw I see some super chats, but we got to uh wrap it up here. I’ll let Z come in and then we’re we’re wrapped. Zed donated $200. Thank you, Z. Andrew is correct. I was also homeschooled myself. Homeschooled kids graduate college more compared to co-ed schools, 67% to 53%. They also are

47:35 socially and emotionally better since they aren’t bullied. Correct. And they don’t have to worry about revenge corn. They don’t have to worry about the negative aspects of socialization. Absent adult supervision for hours and hours at a time. They also don’t have to worry about the positive aspects of socialization either. No, they they still get the positive aspects of socialization. You know, you can go to most after school programs if you’re homeschooled, even if you don’t go to that school. All right. 07’s in the chat, guys. Not everyone has the financial ability to homeschool their kids. Literally have to go. Thanks to feminism. 07’s in the capitalism. Thanks to feminism. Stay tuned for round two. Stay tuned for round two. 07’s in the chat. Good night, guys. We’ll see you next time. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson vs. Naima (Feminist, Leftist, Anti-Trump) | Whatever Debates #20 - YouTube