Andrew Wilson Gets Attacked By AI?

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:01]I don't know his name. Ian McDonald.

[00:00:03]We'll go with that. All right, let's see what's going on here. The founding fathers sat around and had this conversation and they're like, "Look, we know through all human history, rights were dictated by who had the guns, who had the strength. We have to change that because it constantly goblin king switches hands. The next strongest guy overthrows."

[00:00:23]>> Hey.

[00:00:24]>> Oh gosh, this guy.

[00:00:27]This guy. I I wish I could just review this guy. Forget the other guy. Forget Andrew and the chick.

[00:00:33]You guys catch that contradiction immediately.

[00:00:37]Guys, there's these people with guns and they're they're ruling the world and they're running the show and we got to stop them because there's all these people with like groups of men with guns who are making stuff happen and we got to stop that trend of gun men with guns dictating stuff. Okay. Already dumb. All right. This is already dumb, dude. It's already dumb. Oh, should have wanted to.

[00:01:06]Dude, I was Dude, I'd rather be at at rhythm church right now, obviously.

[00:01:13]>> Hey everyone, welcome back to the channel.

[00:01:15]>> Like, worse than I know. They're stepping on your toes, dude.

[00:01:19]It's like there's very few proper representations of of gingers. Jason, it must be horrible for you.

[00:01:29]genuinely >> honestly speaking I mean it's almost like ginger women are more like sort of brute and masculine and stronger than the ginger men generally.

[00:01:42]Generally >> glad you're here for this one because this might be one of the most thoughtprovoking conversations we have looked at in a while. So, what you are about to watch is a debate between Andrew, a Christian conservative, >> you see how a Christian conservative, >> and Kami, a self-described moral anti-realist, >> Connie or Kami? Did she call herself Kami?

[00:02:05]>> Going headto-head over one of the most fundamental questions in philosophy.

[00:02:10]>> Do rights actually exist? And if so, where do they come from? Andrew comes in swinging with a God-based framework.

[00:02:17]While Ce >> Where are my rights people? Ivon, where you at? Ivonne, you wake? You awake yet?

[00:02:21]Ivonne >> me challenges whether rights can even be called real in the first place. And trust me, it goes places you would not expect.

[00:02:30]>> Stick with this one all the way through because the moment that changes the entire direction of this debate comes much later than you think. And >> wow.

[00:02:38]>> If you leave early, you are going to miss the part where everything flips.

[00:02:42]>> Wow. Good hook, bro. Oh, hey guys. If you leave early from my live stream, you're going to miss the moment where everything flips.

[00:02:54]Monday. Mon. Also, I am genuinely curious where in the world you are watching this from right now. Drop your city or country in the comments. It always blows me away seeing how far this community reaches.

[00:03:06]>> Shut up, Neil.

[00:03:07]>> All right, let's get into it.

[00:03:09]>> There isn't rights at all. From your view, rights are a social construct, aren't they?

[00:03:14]Um I mean rights or whoever is able to enforce them.

[00:03:17]>> That's right.

[00:03:18]>> Mhm.

[00:03:19]>> Right. So it's a social construct. Do you believe in objective truth?

[00:03:22]>> Uh no.

[00:03:22]>> So I can't believe anything you say. No.

[00:03:24]>> No. I don't believe in objective truth.

[00:03:26]Okay.

[00:03:26]>> And you don't believe that there's any such thing as rights, but it's wrong for me to do something bad to you even though there's no moral facts.

[00:03:34]Ingenious.

[00:03:35]>> Is it still a hangup? I know. I know.

[00:03:37]It's it's uh it's the we blame the enlightenment. I call it the crop dust.

[00:03:41]the philosophical crop dust that has plagued America since its conception.

[00:03:47]This is your opposition, ladies and gentlemen. These are the communists who are taking over academia and teaching your kids. What's in dispute here is not whether or not you can craft societies in which men grant women rights because I would argue that obviously we can see societies right this second. We live in one where men grant women rights.

[00:04:05]>> God, I don't want to interrupt you, but God grants the rights in our Oh, >> shut up, Ian.

[00:04:13]Shut up, Ian.

[00:04:15]>> Society.

[00:04:16]>> Oh, yeah.

[00:04:17]>> Shut up, Ian. Nice flower cup, Ian.

[00:04:20]>> Does he?

[00:04:20]>> Well, that's what the Constitution says.

[00:04:27]Come on, Ian.

[00:04:29]>> Well, the the Constitution operates on an axiom.

[00:04:32]>> So, if it didn't say it, it wouldn't be true. I mean, so wait. So, wait. If it didn't say that, it wouldn't be true. What are we doing here? So it So if a piece of paper says it, then it's true. Okay, cool. The Bible's true. Bible's true because it's written down. That all men are created equ Rumble. Isn't this one of those Rumble events? I'm just guessing by the green there that this is one of those like Rumble exclusives but with Tim Pool people.

[00:05:02]>> Cool. Under God, right? This is axiomatic.

[00:05:07]I'm not saying I don't think it's grounded and I don't think it's well philosophically grounded. While I as a Christian would argue that there's some positive rights um or at least could argue that there's positive rights from her view there isn't rights at all. From your view rights are a social construct, aren't they?

[00:05:27]>> Um I mean rights are whoever is able to enforce them.

[00:05:30]>> That's right. So it's a social >> so like a really good test for this is that if you swap the term rights for hall pass for certain behaviors you have a hall pass for certain behaviors. The reason I say hall pass is even from the position of rights being some sort of privilege or permission. It's still it's not it's not uh unconditional.

[00:05:53]There's so many conditions around these things you call rights that you think are embedded in your very human being.

[00:05:59]As if when you are uh shot or you die, they float away like another part of your soul.

[00:06:06]You know, like your soul detaches from your body, but then there's like this like little notebook.

[00:06:13]They're your rights and you're like, you know, do you take them? Do you take them with you or something or >> what construct?

[00:06:22]>> But I I don't even really dis dispute with you about the the force thing like, you know, who determines a right? Is that by divine right, by God or whatever? But like as far as like the practical reality of like enforce their rights, that really comes down to >> I just want to make sure we get this clear.

[00:06:40]>> Is a right a social construction from your view? Um, >> we make it up >> and then we have guns and say do it or else or these people are allowed to do it or else.

[00:06:51]>> There's something about >> That's right. Get ready for Savage Carnage Unlimited Debates, you guys. The 30th.

[00:06:59]Right here. Right here. The 30th. 8:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. the first of a series of many savage unlimited savage carnage unlimited debates.

[00:07:13]I will be moderating. I will be joined by my co-host and creative partner in the world Tony. Hello listener.

[00:07:23]>> My answer intuitively that wants to say no. I don't believe it's just like a social thing or a social phenomenon or construct.

[00:07:30]>> Um I don't know. Not divine command theory though. So, I'm not sure.

[00:07:34]>> So, you can't ground it in anything, can you?

[00:07:36]>> Um, I guess not. No.

[00:07:37]>> Yeah, because >> you just make them the up, don't you?

[00:07:40]>> Yeah. This channel.

[00:07:41]>> What do you ground it in?

[00:07:42]>> Well, I ground it in God, but I have a different worldview than you. And when we're when we're debating this, we're debating it from the prism of our worldview. While I as the >> $5 from Patty Peterson debate, your point about optimization organs was brilliant. Thank you. Uh, our immune system is a great example of something optimi. Yeah, optimize.

[00:08:03]Uh, this is such a great attack because they deny teology, but then they affirm optimization, but it's accidental optimization. Is there any reason from a a normal thinking person? Do we know anything about the world that leads us to believe that any sense of the word optimization can be produced by random random functions?

[00:08:26]Is there any reason to believe that? No, there's not a reason to believe that.

[00:08:29]>> Christian might be able to grant that there are rights. Why should I ever grant them to you, Kamie? You don't believe in them at all. From your view, if I take away all of your rights, we just made >> Oh, yeah. I've debated rock. It's hilarious. them the up. Anyway, most of them agree with me, so I'm kind of bored with it because they don't really have good push back. I'm like, how did the snake evol get fangs from not fangs? And they're like, well, there was a thing before it that had fangs.

[00:08:57]I'm like, okay, I'll switch the question to that then. So, the thing before a snake, how did it get fangs? Well, that's interesting. There was a proto version before that. Um, I feel like it's a highly reductive way to to characterize my argument.

[00:09:12]>> I'm sorry you feel that way. But how is it not the case that from your view?

[00:09:16]>> We just made them the up. They're not grounded in >> Have I No, I don't want to listen and not so erodite ever again >> anything. And if I take them away, how's that even immoral?

[00:09:25]>> Um, you can see of these things and look at them through lenses that I just don't find useful or I have not thought to do so.

[00:09:33]>> They could be useful. Um, >> aren't the fangs horns?

[00:09:39]>> Cool it with the anti-semitic remarks.

[00:09:42]>> I'm starting to like you, atheist. I'm starting to like you.

[00:09:47]>> No, I'm saying from a Marxist material sense, yes. But like I mean, my general opinion on rights is that they're useless if you only have them dour, but you don't actually have a way to enforce them. Or similarly, it is I wouldn't say equally as feudal, but it's also a precarious position. Yeah, it's a the whole well the whole thing Chaw that's why it's nonsensical because the entire thing is one process just like the entire thing is one caid there's only one real clay they could possibly argue only one everything else is just this nominal you know flux temporary instance but the process itself there's no separation between these things either they're just this con it's just monism it's just like a biological monism it's a it's a weird position It's a philosophy. The whole thing is a philosophy. That's why they don't like to talk about that aspect. They want to get into the bones, right?

[00:10:38]>> Based on the bones by the >> We're not getting into the bones cuz that's more philosophy anyway. I demand the Vene gives commentary just for you and Tony to yell at. Maybe. Maybe. We got a lot going on. You guys are in for a real treat. It's a It's a real dynamic. I would call it a super dynamic debate evening. Super dynamic. Looks like Andrew debating a witch. Seriously.

[00:11:03]Seriously, people keep whining. Why does Andrew debate these like little girls? It's these people vote.

[00:11:14]They're and and it's not just vote.

[00:11:16]They're the most easily influenced. So for the for those of you constantly spuring about Andrew or whoever else who's constantly up in panels against this demographic, this demographic single-handedly, I would argue through the feminist uh progressive and the feminist uh routes completely undermine the structure of civilization. There, I said it.

[00:11:46]Looks like Andrew's debate. Oh, you already said that. Thanks >> to be in where you can enforce your rights, but you have not actually secured the legal protections and the dour actually gotten them inconstant writing in a constitution, etc. >> But how is it not the weakest sand on earth to say that we need to enforce these rights that I just made the >> Thank you so much, Josiah.

[00:12:07]>> Because they're not grounded in anything. I >> You're bored. That means you're boring.

[00:12:13]That's what I tell my kids. You got to generate yourself, atheist. You got to become, if you're bored, you have to generate not being boring. Okay? I'm treat you like an 8-year-old if I need to. You announcing you're bored.

[00:12:29]Maybe people get bored of you. What do you want? A 24-hour timeout. Is that what you need? All right. Give it to them. I don't Why am I asking? Where am I, Suzanne? 24-hour timeout for atheist.

[00:12:44]Goodbye.

[00:12:46]Go walk in the halls. I'm giving you a 24-hour hall pass. Get a sippy sip. Get a sippy cup.

[00:12:55]Play with your shoelaces.

[00:12:58]Josiah says, "God bless you for 20 big buckaroos. Thank you, my trad brother.

[00:13:03]Listen to you every day and now the orthosphere is bringing him and his wife to the church." Oh, your trad. That's beautiful, man. Awesome. Great to hear.

[00:13:13]I just made them up. I started thinking about this with all the drama that's constantly going on in the orthobro sphere. Listen, I'm an ortho thug.

[00:13:21]Probably an ortho bro to so many people.

[00:13:24]You know, I'm a sude. I'm a pho bro. I'm a philosophy chud.

[00:13:29]I'm a freeze frame fanatic.

[00:13:34]Okay. I'm a debate bro.

[00:13:38]But I got to say, I think there's a new season for me at least. And I think this season is how do I bring people to orthodoxy through fun?

[00:13:53]You know what I mean? What if laughter sometimes depending on the season is the right move instead of blood, you know, and but and it's hard for me to weigh it out, you know?

[00:14:13]But I think I'm on to something.

[00:14:15]>> And you think that them being grounded in God makes it more?

[00:14:18]>> Well, I think that the only argument that you can give to men, the benevolency of the patriarchy is the entire appeal from people with your worldview is to appeal to us and our view who believe in rights because of God and say to us, don't we deserve them too? even though we don't actually even share the view. To which I tell Christians, no.

[00:14:42]Can we talk about Charlie yet?

[00:14:46]Charlie Charlie Kirk, give them nothing.

[00:14:50]>> This is where >> I want to know, can I bring back my Charlie Kirk weird mouth meme smile? Am I allowed to do that yet? you guys >> where the whole debate reveals itself immediately because Andrew walks in with this framing like he's already won before the conversation even starts. And what's fascinating is that Kami doesn't even fully push back at first. She's thinking through it in real time, genuinely wrestling with the question and Andrew takes that moment of intellectual honesty and uses it like a weapon.

[00:15:19]>> Yeah, because it's a debate and then Andrew is debating someone on this topic. uses what she said and uses it to his advantage in the debate. This just goes to show what kind of decrepit dark soul this Andrew Wilson has.

[00:15:40]Here's what people don't realize about this exchange. When Andrew says, "That's right." So, it's a social construct.

[00:15:46]He's not making a philosophical point.

[00:15:48]He's setting a trap. He >> uh No, he's doing both. What are you talking about? That's a philosophical point and it's a trap because there's an entailment of every philosophical stance. You dumb dumb. Oh, he's setting a trap. The big mean guy is setting a trap. You know those nasty little traps on the ground that squeeze little bear cub legs. He's doing that to this innocent young woman right now. This is what kind of man you're dealing with, you guys. This is the kind of men. He wants her to agree so he can spend the rest of the debate saying, "See, you admitted it means nothing." That that's the entire strategy here. And then, >> yeah, that is the strategy. And if if that's a strategy that showcases that if the opposition's stance is simply all of my preferences are based on nothing but my own opinions and my own and my own uh subjective feelings, then you got to say it's fair. If Christians take all their subjective, even if there were, you know, if you granted that, you were like, "Oh, it's all subjective."

[00:16:55]You couldn't you you'd have to say it's fair, dude. That's the whole point. Dum dum. And Andrew says, "We make it up."

[00:17:01]Just flat out. Like that's the devastating finish to an argument. But >> uh it is in this argument. It is devastating.

[00:17:10]It's completely devastating. It means that the majority rules. It means that there is no uh moral truth about the matter. It's just simply a bunch of people who go find other people who share their preferences, use the government, the threat of force, the legislative body, and a lot of money to deploy their ethical system. That's that's really what a law is.

[00:17:43]The a law is an actualizing of one's ethical stance coercively.

[00:17:50]A law is the coercive application actualization of someone's ethical position.

[00:17:58]You got a problem with it? Yeah, I got a problem with it. Okay. Should we outlaw that? Yeah, that's exactly my point.

[00:18:05]Wow. Blood sport debater treating women equally in a debate. I know, right? He's all he's all white knighting. It's it's unbelievable.

[00:18:12]They love to shift the frame between traps being unethical in debates when it suits them and then moving to claiming they caught you in a trap. I know. I know. It's It's insufferable. Another big 20 from Schwitz. Thank you so much.

[00:18:26]I think you are already doing that. You adding funny impressions and sound effects. Catchy burn music bits are hilarious. Thank you. All that tying uh in your worldview is actually why I've stayed and supported. Thank you. Well, I'm going to turn that on. I guess what I'm saying. I'm gonna turn that on.

[00:18:43]This guy talks like a rumble ad. I know.

[00:18:45]It's weird. I I caught that to a steelorn. I was like, is he imperson Are we now at the point where people are impersonating AI?

[00:18:52]>> Wait, think about what he's actually saying. He's saying that because rights aren't divinely sourced from his perspective they're worthless. But that logic only works if you already accept his starting point. You have to understand, he's not proving anything.

[00:19:06]He's just assuming his conclusion and dressing it up as a gotcha. Then comes the line that tells you everything about how Andrew actually thinks. He looks at Cammy and says, "Why should I ever grant them to you? Not argue, not debate, grant." Like rights are his personal gift to hand out based on whether he approves of your worldview. That word choice alone should stop every single person watching because that's not a philosophical position. That >> uh it is a philosophical position. In fact, this guy is so his brain is so muted what he just said.

[00:19:39]Did you guys catch all that?

[00:19:41]He said, "Oh, um, you know, why should I grant that?" Well, granting is a philosophical thing. Why should I grant this position? That's a philosophical angle. Grant you rights is another thing. This is like conflating the two.

[00:19:56]Granting a position versus granting you rights. Same word, slightly different use.

[00:20:03]But either way, whether you're talking about granting rights, that's what we already have. This is exactly what we have. He's like, as if rights are something that are granted by men like Andrew who have guns. Yeah, that's his point. They are. They are. It's a permission slip. Swap rights with permission slip and you'll see how real that is. And by the way, it is an ethical and philosophical stance to say we're going to use guns to make sure certain behaviors depend, regardless of your ethical view, there are certain behaviors we're not going to allow. When the cow takes a piss, you grab a cup. Punjabi proverb.

[00:20:43]>> Yeah, I know. Steelborn. He's a He's a Momo. He doesn't He's not He doesn't think properly.

[00:20:48]>> That's a power position. And here's the historical parallel that makes this so important to understand. This exact argument, the idea that rights only exist because a stronger group chooses to extend them is not new. This thinking existed long before any modern political debate. every >> we're not we're not talking you think Andrew's argument is this is a new argument therefore it's accurate that therefore it's true no in fact you're making his point for him silly silly pants you know how old it is as old as human beings with weapons it's not even an argument it's literally first starts with a description of reality which is how Andrew usually starts all of his debates in this topic Do we agree? Do we agree that the it's descriptively true that in an ordered society it requires force?

[00:21:43]Okay. Do we agree that that force is predominantly universally the case? A group of men and not a group of women.

[00:21:53]Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We get it. It's old. Force is old. Congratulations.

[00:21:59]You're one step closer to reality, Charles Kent. It's old though. You don't understand.

[00:22:07]Yeah, I know.

[00:22:11]It's as old as humanity.

[00:22:13]Anyone who uses an AI voice, I don't think it's AI over the commentary video needs to just in instantly have their YouTube. I don't know. I don't think it is actually. I think he's doing like a voice that he thinks legitimizes himself. It's almost like you get a little bit of uh Professor Daven there.

[00:22:34]>> Every time in history that one group held power over another, this was the justification, not logic, not evidence.

[00:22:41]>> It's totally logical, dude. The logic and the evidence point to if you have primary superior force, you can do stuff. That is logic. If this then that.

[00:22:54]If force my way.

[00:22:57]If X then Y X force Y my preferences >> just the assumption that strength equals legitimacy. Cammy is actually doing something incredibly difficult.

[00:23:11]>> The whole entire Oh, she's doing something so difficult. This guy is such a simp.

[00:23:19]Hey Charles Kent, the argument is who cares about arguments if you have force.

[00:23:24]That's the argument.

[00:23:26]>> B here. She's trying to engage honestly with a framework that was specifically designed to make her look weak for engaging honestly with it. And Andrew knows it >> because they're appealing to your benevolence and they should beg >> for you to be as benevolent as you are because from their worldview they have nothing to ground it in. Like you said, you have nothing to ground it in. You just made them up. Why should I believe them? Why should I believe that you have right to do anything? You don't even believe you have a right to do anything.

[00:23:54]Why should I believe in like divine command theory and that because God says it is then it is?

[00:23:58]>> That's the beautiful part of the argument. You don't >> because if we're operating off of your view, I'm just going to >> How is this uh the basic force doctrine difficult? Because they can't believe it. Because you know what it is, this is what I think. I'm going to do a little uh mental speculation here. I think people perceive it as we'll see with this guy who's doing the commentary. I think that will people perceive it as if you're saying we ought to just use force for no good reason.

[00:24:26]I think they perceive it like you're making the might is quote right. Andrew never makes the the might is right argument.

[00:24:34]He makes the might is argument. And if that's the case, you have to then debate the ethical views. Why you're why you have gun and not me.

[00:24:47]I think that's what it is. I think they they they can they conflate that it's an ought versus it's just a descriptive thing. That's it's just a descriptive truth about reality. That force dominates.

[00:25:03]How could we not agree on that? How how do we not agree that force does the dominating?

[00:25:10]Just not going to let you hit it, bro.

[00:25:13]>> I'm just going to grant that it's false.

[00:25:15]Who cares if it if we're both building it off of a house of sand and I just made up divine command theory and you just made which by the way I don't believe in divine command theory but if I did >> I'm sorry.

[00:25:24]>> Okay. If I did >> he is making an argument enslaved by truth. I know you don't like it either.

[00:25:30]Right. I know you don't like it either but he is he's making an argu an argument.

[00:25:36]Okay. The argument is for an ordered society you need force and the threat of force. Do you agree?

[00:25:43]Premise one.

[00:25:47]Do you even agree with premise one? For an ordered society with law that are based on some ethics, regardless of what they are, you need to apply force and the threat of force. Do we agree? That's premise one. Now, if you can't agree with premise one, you're not going to ever understand that it is an actual argument.

[00:26:08]I don't know why, you know, why you're so womanly about this, EBT. Just because you don't like Andrew and his success or whatever you got going on with Andrew, right? You got to at least go, okay, yeah. Yeah, that part's accurate, though.

[00:26:22]You know, force exist. Who has the most? That's the only question. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:26:31]The uh that conflation is intentional.

[00:26:34]Well, it's not possible that they don't know it isn't an ought. I dude the spirit like cha I wish from a purely intellectual position. I would say you were right. But but um I think I think the spiritual element of this the deception a lot of people maybe don't they don't even see it.

[00:26:54]If it was intellectual, yeah, I' I'd agree with you 100% of the time.

[00:26:59]>> If I just grant that I made it up, it doesn't help your position a bit. What is divine command theory?

[00:27:03]>> It only helps It only helps my position.

[00:27:05]Hang on a second here.

[00:27:07]>> Uh, no. Orthodox doesn't really hold that in Slave by Truth. Are you saying he's said it before? Yeah, maybe he said it before, but he probably got corrected by um by someone who he uh refineses his theology with. But no, we it's like an orthodox position. Like to use similar terms, it it wouldn't be the command. It would be the nature. It would be more like divine nature theory from an orthodox view.

[00:27:38]So yeah. No, that Yeah, if you caught him saying that in the past, he's simply stating a correction.

[00:27:44]>> One second. It only helps my position.

[00:27:47]Sure, I made the whole thing up. How's that helpful to you?

[00:27:51]>> Well, I'm asking how do you intend to spread this to people that >> Yeah, but enslaved by Truth, you're still on answering the basic question.

[00:27:59]You keep shifting. It's like we asked you premise one for an ordered society with law. Do you agree it requires force and the threat of force? Yes or no?

[00:28:07]>> But don't believe in your worldview >> with this.

[00:28:09]>> He has said it. I know. I just told you, man. I look I already skipped. I already got to your conclusion faster than you typed it. Okay. You got to start trusting me >> argument >> because you're going to have to persuasion.

[00:28:22]>> You're going to have to appeal to my to my worldview whether it's true or not because it's the only one, right? Which I'm going to postulate. I'm going to ground rights in. You just got done saying rights are not grounded in anything. So if that's the case, fine. I lied and made the whole thing up. But rights aren't grounded in anything anyway. So it doesn't help you a bit. If I take them away, >> but you think they're grounded in the divinity. So I'm saying that a lot of people >> Yes. So I'm appealing to your to your to your view. And in a world that's increasingly secular, how do you intend to persuade people? Do you think that Christians ought to be using >> Thank you.

[00:28:58]>> force or persuasion?

[00:28:59]>> What do you What do you mean? I'm sorry.

[00:29:01]Me, >> why do I need to do anything when the view of my opposition is that they have no rights? Can't ground them.

[00:29:08]>> I'm not saying that you need to do it.

[00:29:09]I'm asking you how you intend to do.

[00:29:11]>> This is how I intend to do it by pointing out that you live in a your whole house is built on sand.

[00:29:16]>> Persuasion >> and you have to literally appeal to me.

[00:29:20]>> Both persuasion and force. Well, even if I used force, you have no appeal against that. Nothing's grounded in anything.

[00:29:25]Just all made the up.

[00:29:28]>> Um, sure. Yeah. Like you say, >> I'm sorry, lady. When uh when you walk in and uh uh you know, a modernday Jeffrey Dmer is eating brain custard with a side of mango sticky rice.

[00:29:42]Do we use persuasion lady? Now, this is why how effeminite the West has become.

[00:29:49]They really think I blame the enlightenment. I blame the the leaning toward uh using the intellect and the rationalism arm of of uh being human where you actually start to believe especially in your idealist phase, you know, the 18 to 25, you know, you really think in your head that the world operates purely on a set of persuasive elements. And it doesn't. It doesn't.

[00:30:18]I'm not saying it's not there. Of course, it's there. It's a very useful tool, but it's not. You could you can't run a society on persuasion.

[00:30:28]You can't even Yeah. Even the chocolate persuasion, you cannot run a society on persuasion. But a woman would think that.

[00:30:36]They would think that. Oh, you know, why can't you be softer? It's It's actually not an insult either to a woman. It's actually showcases the woman's um nature, what they're geared toward, their duties, right? What is it to be a uh uh a powerful woman actually?

[00:30:59]You know, feminists have hijacked the term powerful woman. Powerful women can exist in a Christian paradigm. It's just not a feminist view. And it's misplaced. So they're like, "Oh, be soft and and you know, talk to people and negotiate and uh you know, conflict conflict resolution and fairness." It's like mothering, right? But the problem is when it's misplaced, you know, and you think that you could utilize that primarily as the uh mechanism for an ordered society, you're taking your mothering outside of the realm of where it should be between uh Z uh when you're born and five, six years old before kids start leaning toward their father for guidance.

[00:31:47]and you're placing it onto grown-ups and you're turning society into a daycare center. And that's what the female vote did. The female vote turned society into a daycare center.

[00:32:00]>> I sleep fine at night knowing this or whatever. I guess I would consider I'm like a moral anti-realist. I don't believe in these sorts of like >> and that's why you have to and you guys always have to appeal you moral anti-realist moral realist who believe in moral facts because that's what prevents us from all of you.

[00:32:15]But to answer your question, >> but hang on, hang on. That's Isn't that true? That what prevents us from all of you is you're appealing to our benevolence as moral realists.

[00:32:24]>> You mean Christians? What prevents Christians from everybody else?

[00:32:27]>> Yeah.

[00:32:28]>> Um I don't believe so. But >> yeah, they're not appealing to their Christianity and Christian ethics to just not go ahead and insult all women.

[00:32:37]>> No, I don't think so. No.

[00:32:38]>> Why not?

[00:32:38]>> I don't think that that has necessarily been the basis for people arguing for equality or whatever. I don't think that you're presupposing that it's always been >> even that statement. Think about this.

[00:32:52]Arguing for equality.

[00:32:56]Did you know there's never been a time in history where the argument itself produces what you call equality? Ever.

[00:33:09]Even if you had some conception of equality, which is non-existent, right?

[00:33:12]The only equality that exists is has to be from a Christian lens and it's a metaphysical position on the status of human beings being made in God's image.

[00:33:23]That's the great equalizer. But doesn't equalize everything else. Doesn't equalize capabilities, gifts, duties, place in the world, hierarchy, where you are in the church. None of this equalizes everything else. There's never an argument for equality that the argument itself, whether it's one or not, produces the outcome. The irony is that it's not an argument that produces the outcome. It's a gun. Never seen >> not by virtue of like appealing to the to Christian benevolence, ethics, etc. >> Never seen any any appeal that was not dogmatic and religious for why women have rights ever in all of human history. They always appeal to a god.

[00:34:03]They always appeal to a higher power.

[00:34:04]They always appeal to something external to them. You just got done saying it's not grounded in anything. You made it the up. If it's not, if it's completely made up, it's not grounded in nothing.

[00:34:12]Then you're appealing to Christians and Christian benevolence and their view.

[00:34:15]Even if it's not true, you're appealing to their view that they believe it's true to not just stuff you in a cage.

[00:34:21]And if they you said that's wrong and they asked you, "Why is it wrong?" You'd have to say, "I don't know. It's not grounded in anything. I just made it up."

[00:34:30]>> And that's the most persuasive argument on planet Earth from in my opinion.

[00:34:34]>> Pretty pleased. This part is where Andrew's argument starts showing its cracks. And I need you to pay close attention because >> Oh, we're paying close attention, guy. I can't wait >> cuz it happens gradually and most people miss it. When Tommy asks and you think that them being grounded in God makes it more, she's not being sarcastic. She's asking a genuinely important question.

[00:34:55]Because if we're being intellectually honest, grounding rights in God only works as an argument for people who already believe in that specific God.

[00:35:04]That's not a universal foundation.

[00:35:06]That's a tribal one. And Andrew's response is fascinating because he basically admits it. He says, "You have to appeal to my worldview, not to logic, not to shared human experience, to him specifically, his belief system, his framework. You have to come to Andrew and can you tell me one thing I said that was wrong?

[00:35:31]Look, I've been corrected before. Notice how you can't correct me on anything.

[00:35:35]Tell me what I said that was wrong. You won't >> ask nicely. This is the part that if persuasion were as powerful as women believe it is and it's preferred over guns. Couldn't you persuade a excuse my language rapist to not rape them? If so, why do rapes still happen? You know what does stop one? Force.

[00:36:01]>> Specifically, the force of a pew pew will always stop one.

[00:36:06]>> Gioani.

[00:36:07]>> That's right. Blows my mind because Andrew frames this like it's Cam's weakness that she has to appeal to moral realists. But think about what he's actually describing. He's describing a world where the only thing protecting anyone is the personal goodwill of whoever holds the most power.

[00:36:25]>> That's true. And he thinks that's a stronger foundation than a socially constructed legal framework.

[00:36:32]>> What's a legal framework, dum dum? This is they always they always do this. They they they go, "Listen to what he just said. I hope this guy sees this. This is so it's such a blatant contradiction.

[00:36:47]They don't think about what they're saying when they talk. They think they speak emotionally and they're not thinking when they talk." And he thinks that's a >> listen to what he just said. Andrew just laid out literally the definition of an ordered society with law.

[00:37:02]>> Protecting anyone is the personal goodwill of whoever holds the most power. And he thinks that's a stronger foundation than a socially constructed legal framework backed by institutions, laws, and enforcement systems built over centuries.

[00:37:19]>> That's the same thing, dude.

[00:37:21]The legal system that's built over centuries is backed by people with guns that you rely on the benevolence of.

[00:37:30]Hence, when they they're corrupt, we get mad.

[00:37:34]Then Cammy drops what I think is the sharpest question in this entire debate.

[00:37:39]She asks, "In a world that's increasingly secular, how do you intend to persuade people?" And Andrew has no real answer to that. His >> his argument is that if persuasion doesn't work, you can use force. Can you tell me why it's wrong? That's the question.

[00:37:54]>> Response is essentially, I don't need to persuade anyone because your position is weak. That's not persuasion. That's just restating dominance. And then, hey, dummy, dum dum, silly pants, fish food.

[00:38:12]Andrew is asking a question. None of you can answer it.

[00:38:18]Why should I persuade anybody?

[00:38:22]If I got a pew pew, and I do have a lot, why should I why why should I persuade anyone? Really? Why? Why? Andrew says, "Your whole house is built on sand." But here's the analogy that actually fits this situ.

[00:38:37]>> I'm starting to think it's AI. Before I was like, this sounds like someone impersonating someone >> better. Imagine two people arguing about which bridge is safer to cross. One bridge was built by engineers using tested materials and documented methods.

[00:38:52]The other bridge was built because someone said, "God told me it would hold." Nope. That's a category error.

[00:38:58]We're not talking about engineering for the function of getting across the river. That's a pragmatic argument.

[00:39:04]We're talking about why why in in an ordered society, we're talking about behaviors. Let's say it was illegal to build a bridge. That's more like it. Let's say someone made it illegal to build a bridge. Even though you were like, "This is so useful and pragmatic. Why would you make it illegal to build a bridge?" And they don't even give you a reason. They say, "Because we have a stronger force and we have our reasons and uh it's none of your business."

[00:39:33]Yeah, but the bridge guys, bridges are built.

[00:39:38]Andrew is pointing at the first bridge saying yours has no guarantees while standing on the second one telling you to trust him. The secular world Kami is describing isn't a house of sand. It's a system that has been argued, revised, challenged, and rebuilt across generations precisely because it doesn't rely on one person's belief to function.

[00:39:59]>> I think that the founding fathers sat around and had this conversation and they were like, "Look, we know through all human history rights were dictated by who had the guns, who had the strength. We have to change that because >> how do you change that?

[00:40:13]This is like anarch. He's like type of anarchist anyway. This guy Ian like real fried brain stuff, right?

[00:40:21]Fried green tomato brain. We got to change that. How do you change that?

[00:40:26]What are you going to use to change that, Ian? The thing that you're arguing against guns force constantly goblin kings switches hands. The next strongest guy overthrows. Oh, so they're like, "Let's say it's from God." Or they really believed it. I know they were like Christian dudes. Not all of them were like Catholic or anything. I mean, they were all their own. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible. What's that?

[00:40:49]>> I said very few were Catholic.

[00:40:50]>> Yeah. So, so they said, "Let's just appeal it to God." Whether or not it's true, I don't know. I don't know what God is.

[00:40:56]>> But they knew they knew that the >> Yeah. It's silly. This is silly. This is silly pants. Um, it's a silly pants argument. Who is this lady? That >> that the moral order depended on a Christian worldview. The more you the more you go into like arbitrary kind of reason for rights, even if they weren't Christian. I think >> it's not about the rights.

[00:41:24]It's like >> all the rights over here come from the most polluted holy river. Jim Bob, become curry pill and you'll see the true ways. You guys, I went to the gym again. They're taking over my town, you guys. I'm horrified.

[00:41:39]I actually had like a bit of a a me a meltdown last night internally cuz I went to the I went to the gym at night and it was like it was half. It was pretty much half.

[00:41:54]And they weren't even working out.

[00:41:55]They're just sitting around. They don't even work hard. They're just sitting on all the equipment.

[00:42:02]I'm horrified.

[00:42:08]40 minutes behind. Intro is sick. Thank you. Yeah, it is a good intro. I animated it and the music is by Hello Listener. Let's just start calling Ian here Adam Orange because it's Ginger Adam Green. It's so low tier. He's not developing. It's crazy. Imagine sitting in on Tim Pool for what 10 years.

[00:42:28]Ian, you have no Is that his name? Ian.

[00:42:30]You have no excuse. You've been sitting in for 10 years. I think you're not learning anything, dude.

[00:42:39]>> Was it John Adams that said uh a democratic republic is only fit for a moral and Christian society?

[00:42:45]>> There's actually there's actually several foundational um contributors who talked about how a morality there has to be a shared sense of morality inside of a public in order for there to be a republic.

[00:42:57]>> Mhm. I want to go further on this because people think just the rights part is what sort of you know grounds it all as long as you just assume rights.

[00:43:07]It's not though. It's not the right. So like for instance if I asked a question what's more important arguing for the inherent value and status of a human being or the right that the human being has? Which one takes priority? And someone might try to say they're one and the same, but they're not.

[00:43:31]And when you look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the thing that's undergirling it all isn't the sense of rights that human humans have. It's the sense of what a human is and what makes them peculiar in the world in contrast to all other animals.

[00:43:50]What is that? What is that thing? Well, the Christian view is the imagebearer status. The orthodox view is the only defense of the that first status.

[00:44:01]Only after that status do you argue, oh, they have rights. Well, no. You're you're it's it's uh you're adding something that's unnecessary.

[00:44:09]Humans from a Christian view have value and dignity because they're made in God's image, not because they have rights. If you take away the right, they still are made in God's image. You can take someone's right away and they're still have dignity. That's the misconception here.

[00:44:28]Oh, you're going to take rights, that means you're violating dignity. No, it's not. No, it's not.

[00:44:35]That's the fundamental argument that people have. And people on the right who appeal to rights, who they think that's the end- all beall. They think that that's what makes America so good, so great, you know, and that's what Christians want. It's based in rights.

[00:44:48]It's not it's not it's not based in rights. It's based in the the underlying metaphysic of orthodoxy. Even if the founding fathers don't don't know it, didn't know it.

[00:45:03]They had no access really. You know who were who were orthodox at the time, by the way? A bunch of Native Americans.

[00:45:09]Apparently, they didn't send the smoke signals to the founding fathers.

[00:45:13]I wish they had because this country would have unfolded a little bit differently if they didn't take the enlightenment fart approach.

[00:45:23]>> So that's I think that that's true of any society. I think there has to be some shared glue. Right here we used to have like patriotism. We used to have all sorts of things that were a shared glue. That's all gone. Right now I have to share my country with communists.

[00:45:35]Right?

[00:45:36]>> Not just communists but even uh even uh capitalistic people from India. Andrew and it used to be that we persecuted communists. Yeah, that that was so base.

[00:45:47]We get back to that. We get back to can we get back to persecuting the communist? But the point is is like that this type of poison in my opinion is so invasive to the fabric of the United States that people who literally tell me they can't ground anything in nothing >> know that they can't ground anything in nothing. That there's no such thing as moral facts then tell me it's wrong if I stuff them in a >> and it's like what are you talking about?

[00:46:14]>> Yeah. Why?

[00:46:14]>> That's the stupidest that I've ever heard in my life.

[00:46:17]>> It is.

[00:46:18]>> But that's my opposition.

[00:46:19]>> It is >> unfortunately. And so they appeal to the benevolent.

[00:46:22]>> Yeah, you're running out of opposition.

[00:46:23]Andrew needs better opposition. But what could it be? I mean, what could you possibly in this particular thing? What?

[00:46:30]Like, what could possibly be a counter to any of this? Nothing. It's just another I Well, I like this menu of things and you like that menu. Okay, cool. I don't really need to justify what my menu says. That's the point.

[00:46:45]People get upset with Andrew for not getting into the theology. It doesn't matter because the argument is isn't whether or not the theology is true or whether the the thoughts and beliefs and the practices are justified or logical.

[00:47:00]It doesn't matter. If the system is I have a b a set of broken beliefs but I have the opportunity to vote them into a gun into the form of a gun, then I can do that, right?

[00:47:13]The answer is yes.

[00:47:15]Okay. So, what are we waiting for as Christians, guys?

[00:47:19]If that's what we got, what are we waiting for?

[00:47:24]I just ask anyone who isn't Christian why slavery is bad. If they can't give an accounting for humanity, for dignity, what's actually wrong with it? Well, Steelbornne, there's a way to navigate what you call slavery from a Christian perspective where in certain circumstances it might be the most moral thing to do from a Christian from a Christian view.

[00:47:44]>> Of those like me in order to prevent us from >> Jim Bob's demonic mods tying me out for telling the truth. What' you say? Tell tell me one true thing, Gabe.

[00:47:55]Tell me one true statement. You can hear it. Look, I'll blast it right now. Say the truth. I'll put it right on my screen. Look, I'll keep it up if you can say the truth. It's a say the truth challenge from doing the thing that they don't want that they don't even believe we shouldn't do because there are no moral facts. That's the state of the world that we're in.

[00:48:17]>> And Andrew is very magnanimous for not stuffing lowly communists like me and goologs and whatnot.

[00:48:22]>> Did you were you always from your view?

[00:48:25]How is that anything but benevolent? Why shouldn't I as a moral anti-realist? Why shouldn't I do that? What would make that immoral? Tell me what would make it immoral as a moral anti-realist for me to stuff your a goolog. What?

[00:48:39]>> It's a It's a more consequentialist outlook.

[00:48:41]>> No, that doesn't tell me why it's immoral.

[00:48:43]>> But I think that based off the outcome.

[00:48:45]>> Wait, there's no moral facts, right?

[00:48:47]>> Yeah.

[00:48:47]>> No, they're not real facts. No, >> there's not real facts.

[00:48:52]>> There's not real facts. By the way, moral anti-realists, they don't realize that they think they're only talking about morality, but they're the way in which they come to moral anti-real realism would apply to facts and truth itself. That's why morality and truth can't be separated.

[00:49:09]>> So then there's nothing I'm really doing that's immoral, is there?

[00:49:13]>> Uh, no. No. Highly. No, no, no, no, no, no. I disagree with the goolog. Is that immoral? No, >> it's it's No, no, no. It's it's immoral, but not under the same framework. I'm like, >> it's immoral, but it's not immoral.

[00:49:24]>> Using the same like the moral realist framework to say that it's wrong. It's wrong for other reasons.

[00:49:28]>> It's wrong for other reasons. So, it's wrong, but it's not actually wrong. But the other reasons that it's wrong is still under the umbrella of nothing's wrong.

[00:49:36]>> These people vote. They vote. They vote.

[00:49:39]They vote for to make it legal to eliminate babies in the womb.

[00:49:45]They vote. They're out there voting.

[00:49:49]>> They're voting. They're they're they're they're at rhythm church.

[00:49:55]>> Yeah. Do you believe in objective truth?

[00:49:57]>> Uh no. What the No. No. Okay.

[00:50:06]>> No. Is that true?

[00:50:10]>> There. This is just It's just amazing.

[00:50:13]>> Okay. So, you believe in it. You don't believe in objective truth.

[00:50:16]>> Are you like a math realist?

[00:50:18]>> Are you like a math realist? I cuz I've been hanging out in Destiny's Discord and I heard all these philosophical terms. Are you like a this or a that?

[00:50:25]These people have like trading cards.

[00:50:27]They have philosophical trading. I mean, I might need to just take the piss out of them in some sort of cartoon. Are you a uh are you a moral anti-realist phenomenal conservative? Are you a Oh, you're a non-dualist idealist.

[00:50:44]Are you a Are you a It's like the It's like trans philosophy. It's like the gender except it's it's philosophy. Oh, are you No, I was last year, but I changed it up a little bit, you know. Well, I'm doing this new app where you take on a philosophy every week. So, this week is um moral anti-realism phenomenological conservatism, you know. So, I pretty much going to switch it up every week.

[00:51:14]are you a are you a >> ask you if that's true and you say no that's >> are you anti- realist >> it's not true either so I can't >> no he can't be any of those things according to you how could he be anything what if just said the most dorkiest category of philosophy ever and he was like I'm a I'm a canian non uh suffragette independence Uh categorical imperative slop uh floss. Slop floss.

[00:51:53]Can't believe anything you say and you don't believe that there's any such thing as rights. But it's wrong for me to do something bad to you. Even though >> I'm going to move on. It's almost done because I'm really not critiquing her.

[00:52:05]I'm critiquing the guy critiquing Andrew. That's that's what I'm actually doing.

[00:52:08]>> There's no moral facts. Ingenious. This is your opposition, ladies and gentlemen. These are the communists who are taking over academia and teaching your kids.

[00:52:17]>> That's right.

[00:52:18]>> This moment right here >> because Andrew is so focused on winning the argument that he walks directly into destroying his own foundation. And >> really >> doesn't even realize it.

[00:52:28]>> Oh, I can't wait >> till it's already done. He's talking about the founding fathers and he says, "Let's just appeal it to God." Whether or not it's true, I don't know. I don't know what God is. Read that back slowly.

[00:52:40]The man who spent this entire debate telling Kami that her rights mean nothing because they aren't grounded in God just admitted he doesn't know if God is even real. He admit >> No, dude. He's saying it doesn't matter if he was you. You're you're a dope.

[00:52:57]Have you not watched Andrew enough to know that what he's doing is reducing his own view equal to the opposite view as a tactic to showcase there's no fundamental difference between the two from their view. It's an internal critique.

[00:53:12]>> Admitted the founders may have used it as a [ __ ] >> strategic tool not divine truth >> to stabilize society.

[00:53:20]>> It wouldn't matter if they thought it was true or not. That's the point doofus.

[00:53:23]>> And you know what? That's actually a historically documented conversation.

[00:53:27]There were founders who were deists, not Christians in any traditional sense.

[00:53:33]Who believed in a higher power as a social organizer rather than a personal God. Thomas Jefferson literally rewrote the Bible, removing the miracles. These are documented facts. So Andrew's entire argument that rights only have weight because God declares them collapses the moment he admits the people who built that framework may have invented it for political stability.

[00:53:54]>> No, that doesn't that's a nonsequittor anyway. That's actually not even true from from just a just formally that's not that's a nonsequator.

[00:54:04]But then then >> it could be both true that rights could be argued grounded in God in some some theological stance, right, where you make it work. That could be true and it's true that the founding fathers, their conception of it wasn't matched.

[00:54:20]It's not even it's not even a follow, dude.

[00:54:22]>> Andrew says it used to be that we persecuted communists. Can we get back to that? And Kami responds with the most composed, perfectly delivered line of the whole debate. She says, "Andrew is very magnanimous for not stuffing lowly communists like me into goologs. That calm sarcasm is doing something powerful."

[00:54:40]>> No, it's not. It's not doing anything powerful. What are you talking about, S?

[00:54:44]>> Because she's not panicking. She's not >> Maybe it's not AI. I don't know, man.

[00:54:48]>> Arguing back frantically. She's basically holding up a mirror and saying, "Look at what you just revealed about yourself."

[00:54:55]>> What did he reveal?

[00:54:55]>> You moved from philosophy to openly expressing that people who disagree with you should be persecuted. No, he didn't say they should be persecuted. He said could they be.

[00:55:07]He didn't say I should or we should. He said could they be. It's an internal critique. Doofus.

[00:55:13]Charles Kent.

[00:55:18]I swear these people will do anything to try to disprove Christians except admit when the Christian is doing an internal critique. Yeah. They don't. Apparently they don't.

[00:55:29]They think they're philosophers, right?

[00:55:30]They think they're doing a thing and they all of them for some reason all of them they can't grasp that you're internal to the their system, not his.

[00:55:40]>> That's not a debate position. That's an authoritarian impulse dressed up in intellectual language. And that is the real conclusion of this debate.

[00:55:48]>> Let's say you're right. What? The same question is posed to you, silly pants.

[00:55:52]Why would that be wrong anyway? Let's say you just said, you know what? I'm not going to do philosophy. I don't care. I don't care what the founding fathers said. I don't care what Christianity says. I am the God king.

[00:56:03]Andrew Wilson, I'm the God king. I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to take all my followers. I'm going to I'm going to get them all suited up, you know. I'm going to get them all all rigged up and I'm going to start my own powerhouse top down authoritarian. Can I Is there anything Is there anything actually wrong with that? Is there anything actually wrong with that? You can't say no.

[00:56:30]You can't say that. Yes. I mean, you can't say yes. There's something wrong with that.

[00:56:33]>> Not who won on technicalities, but what each person's worldview actually leads to in practice. One person is wrestling honestly with hard philosophical questions. The other ended the conversation.

[00:56:44]>> Oh. A Oh, someone's wrestling with hard philosophical questions while holding that there's no truth. Oh, yeah. They're wrestling. So, what are they wrestling about then?

[00:56:54]She literally said, "Objective truth doesn't exist." How could she be wrestling with anything, you dope?