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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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,

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. 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. 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, 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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,

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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.". 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,

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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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.". 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, "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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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.

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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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? 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. 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? 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.

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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. $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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.". 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. 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, 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, 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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,

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.