DEBATE: @DiddlyASMR Vs Andrew Wilson | Should Pourn Be Banned?
03:05:26 Share

Ready to shoot your shot? Log into BetMGM every day and play the new Fast Break basketball game for your chance to win prizes. All you need to do is log into BetMGM. Head to the promotions page and fire up Fast Break to find yourself on the b-ball court ready to make a play. Choose to pass the ball to the shooting guard or small forwards.

or take it to the rim yourself and go for a slam dunk. If you score a basket, you'll win a prize like a boost token, $50 bonus bet, or bonus spins. If you miss, just log in tomorrow and try again. Play fast break for your daily shot at boost tokens, bonus bets, or bonus spins. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms. 21+. This U.S. promo offer not available in D.C., Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER throughout U.S. 8778-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY467369 in New York. Call 1-800-NEXT-STEP in

Arizona, 1-800-327-5050. In Massachusetts, 1-800-BETS-OFF-IN-IOWA, 1-800-981-0023. In Puerto Rico, or visit 1-800-GAMBLER.NET in West Virginia. Subject to eligibility requirements. Rewards vary and expire in seven days. In partnership with Kansas Crossing Casino and Hotel. At Emory University, we believe in those with the ambition to achieve, the passion to learn, and the optimism to see the possibilities ahead.

Founded on a belief that the wise heart seeks knowledge. An Emory education combines experiential learning in Atlanta and beyond with unrivaled collaboration and discovery. All to prepare you for a world that needs your leadership. Learn more at emory.edu. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to Modern Day Debate. I'm your host, Ryan. Tonight, we're going to be talking about should adult education

explicit content be banned. So without further ado, we're going to let Andrew open this up. You got 10 minutes on the floor, Andrew, and it's all yours. Yeah, it's not going to take 10 minutes. Yes. It's a pretty simple argument for most of American history. Corn, we'll try to use a

TOS safe was banned. And the outcomes for people who are engaged in it generally are extremely bad. And the outcomes for society itself are not very good either. So I have a multitude of data points that we can go over during the debate. That depends on if my opponent wants to go through it logically or she doesn't. So let me just give you kind of a few of the counterpoints, which I assume my opponent will use.

The first one will be, yeah, but if porn is bad, what about alcohol, though, Andrew? Like, isn't alcohol bad? Isn't fatty food bad? Aren't all these things actually also bad? And the answer to this question is, well, yeah, sometimes they're bad. And they definitely can be bad for a person to engage too much in those things. But the argument and the point is, even if they were bad,

Right. Let's just assume for a second that they were that alcohol is bad. The debate's not actually on whether or not alcohol is bad or whether or not I'd want to ban alcohol. It doesn't really have anything to do with anything or ban smoking or anything like that. But whether or not I'd want to ban corn itself, even if I wasn't logically consistent about whether or not I would ban some things or not, it doesn't really matter because my opponent's a harm reductionist. That's what she is.

And so from her view, she had the mercy of the same argument, which is, well, if it is the case, even that I can just demonstrate that corn reduces harm, then she would actually have to bite the bullet because it produces harm that she wants it gone. And then she would have to bite the bullet. She'd want alcohol gone. She'd have to bite the bullet. She'd want cigarettes gone and fatty foods gone. Things like this from the harm principle. She actually had the mercy of,

of this argument. Now, it's a low tier one, but it's mostly what you'll find, you know, like OnlyFans prostitutes and shit like this we use because they don't know shit about nothing. But they're actually at the mercy of this argument themselves. So what she'll say is this. She'll say, well, I'm for expanded freedom.

I want more expansion, more expansion of freedoms for the most amount of people. I'll demonstrate very quickly that, nope, she actually doesn't want that. If we were to ask her about like the Second Amendment, for instance, or things like this, I'm sure that she'd want all sorts of regulations put on those things. She's she's not right. She she absolutely would be for the oppression of all sorts of freedoms. And then the last point is just this. It's all just preference anyway.

That if me as a Christian just prefer that corn is banned and alcohol is not, I don't even know what you would have to say about that anyway. Like, what would your argument even be against that? I just say, well, I prefer it. And you say, well, I prefer not it. And then we're talking about harm reduction, how we measure it.

These people never actually have a hedonic calculator for their hedonism. They never actually have a way in which to give you the value of utils. Right. They just go, well, it's just shit that they feel. You know what I mean? I just feel like there's more utility when it comes to not murdering than murdering. It's nice. But when you ask them to quantify that with a measurement of some kind, they actually can't because as Bentham tried to do,

one of the, you know, perhaps the father of hedonism. He had the hedonic calculator and it didn't work. It just simply didn't work because there's no actual good way

To measure hedonism, happiness is subjective metric. And so the harm principle around happiness also a subjective metric. Even if you pull people, even if you pull people with data and you get all of their little like, I'm happy with this, I'm happy with that. That's actually still not giving you a great result for these measurements. So almost any line you go down.

For this, from the Christian view, so alcohol is fine, shouldn't be a drunk, but drinking is okay. From the Christian view, though, corn is not okay. It's bad for the soul.

It has other properties about it that also aren't good. And we can get into each one of those properties. But ultimately, this is going to come down from her view to just simply harm reduction versus freedom. She's going to think that you have better freedoms and stuff if you fuck lots of dudes whenever you want to get paid for it. Or vice versa. Dudes, you know, getting in orgies and shit like this and getting paid for it. That's fine from her view because much freedom.

but she can't actually quantify that and they never can actually quantify that. And then if we look at even the data that she would probably use for the corn industry being safe,

I doubt she can account for things like human trafficking. I doubt that she can account for the drug use, the high STD rates. I doubt she can account for those things and tell us how that's actually beneficial to society. And then ultimately, from her view, from the prism of the harm reductionist, just try to remember this, that all I need is a single concession that alcohol bad is

And she should be wanting to ban alcohol then. But she's not going to. She's not going to want to. So I want to point this out before we get the debate started. And I'm happy to dive right into it.

All right, cool. All right. Hi, I'm Diddley. Oh, do you want me to go ahead? Well, actually, just as a quick little announcement, as you guys all know, Andrew's going to be coming out to Newark, New Jersey for our debate con in two days. And as you saw in the intro promo, we've actually got another debate that we recently just scheduled. So I'm just going to put that on the screen right now for you all to see.

it's this one right here so you should be super excited Christian nationalism on trial and yeah if you haven't hit the notification bell for that definitely go ahead that's a new one that's gonna be at the debate con it is gonna be the last day to purchase tickets after tomorrow and also contribute to our Indiegogo fund there which has blown out of the water so like big thanks to all y'all but yeah if you still have the means to help out we really appreciate it but

Without further ado, with the housekeeping out of the way, yeah, let's get to it. Ten minutes on the floor. Over to you, Diddley. All right. So first of all, I find it interesting that Andrew brought up that I'm going to have to be the one to bite the bullet that I should want to ban fatty foods and alcohol. I think it's the complete opposite. He's going to have to bite that bullet because if public health concern is of any concern to him, then he should be the one advocating to banning those things.

The ban on porn that Andrew is proposing sets a very dangerous precedent where the government has unnecessary control over what we, as consenting adults, do in the privacy of our own homes. These are the same ideas that have been echoed throughout history which led to the censorship or destruction of art, historical artefacts and book burnings, all based on a puritanical worldview that deemed these things too sexually explicit.

Today, some of the notable countries that have successfully banned pornography include North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. Now, I don't know about you, but those countries don't exactly scream freedom to me. In contrast, the United States is a country that values freedom more than anything. So much so that it's the very first amendment in their constitution.

There have since been many attempts to ban pornography in the US, all of which have obviously failed. Many people mistakenly think that this isn't a free speech issue. However, federal courts have ruled that anti-pornography laws do in fact violate the First Amendment.

Often when debating pornography, the main point of contention, as I mentioned earlier, is its impact on people's mental and physical well-being, which is, of course, an important conversation to be had, especially with how widely accessible pornography has become. However, we quickly start to run into issues when people start calling for bans based on some perceived level of harm, which evidently don't hold up when compared to other things that we allow in our countries.

There are, of course, demonstrably worse freedoms we have that are undeniably contributing to the decline in people's physical and mental health. Obviously, one of the most widespread examples being fast food. Yet, obviously, we don't have anyone calling for McDonald's to be banned, although I think maybe Andrew should if he wants to be consistent.

And let me be clear, I certainly don't want it to be banned either, because this is a situation where we've actually clearly outlined the level of harm that we as a society deem acceptable. And the science is clear on this. Obesity is one of the biggest health crises that we're dealing with today, if not the biggest. And yet still, we obviously afford people the freedom to eat a Big Mac as often as they want, and we afford those businesses the right to exist.

So if the 300,000 Americans who die every year attributable to obesity isn't enough of a cause for concern to outright ban all fast food, then I ask why should we ban porn when it doesn't even come close to the level of harm that fast food does? What then becomes abundantly clear here is that the issue the anti-porn crowd have is not one of public health concern.

It is actually an issue of morality, which in the case of conservatives and religious folk essentially boils down to we should ban this because I think it's icky or we should ban this because God thinks it's icky. Well, I like to operate in a world that places facts before feelings. So let's talk about the facts. Problematic porn use is something that is only reported by a small minority of people.

The research indicates around 4% of men and 1% of women report adverse effects. So the vast majority of people are able to engage in porn in a responsible and healthy manner. And porn is not something that negatively affects their mental health or other areas of their life, such as relationships or work life.

In fact, studies have shown that one of the biggest indicators of self-perceived problems around pornography use is actually moral incongruence. So, for example, if you're a very religious or conservative person and you hold the belief that porn is bad for you, it's sinful and you should stay away from it, but you watch it anyway...

That can be very mentally distressing. And let me be clear, it is not the porn itself that is causing this psychological distress. It's the moral incongruence. Meta-analyses have found religiosity to be an even stronger predictor of perceived pornography-related problems than the frequency of watching porn and even daily use of porn.

And this is especially interesting when we consider the statistics showing that the Bible Belt states in America watch a lot of porn. And on top of that, they're among the highest consumers of gay porn. So this really starts to paint a picture of how prevalent this moral incongruence phenomenon is in regards to perceived problematic porn use. For those who don't experience such moral incongruence, porn can often be seen as a rather positive thing in their lives or maybe even neutral.

providing them with a sexual outlet and stress relief, and even positive relationship and educative effects such as improved sexual communication with their partner and more attentive to their partner's sexual desires.

Overall, the literature and academic community are in consensus that pornography does not negatively affect the vast majority of people. I'm not going to deny that there isn't some level of harm being caused here, but obviously, as I mentioned earlier, we as a society have deemed an acceptable level of harm in the case of things like fast food, alcohol, the things that Andrew mentioned, and

Much of people's disdain for pornography is one of moral disagreement rather than of public health concern. So if you're someone who cares about freedom of speech and personal autonomy, we should instead advocate for better regulations around porn to ensure that it's being ethically produced and that workers are being treated fairly rather than state enforcement of what consenting adults should do in the privacy of their own homes.

All right. Let's get into it. Thank you to both of our speakers for their introductory statements. We are going to get into it. And I do see that James has been in our live chat and nipping some... Seems like there's a couple bitches, as he says in the chat, right? See, I'm trying not to get us in trouble. But you know what? Hang out, guys. Grab yourself a beer. It's going to be a long one. All right. You know. And if you're wondering what this is all about... That's right. I have a boot.

we are going to be debating whether adult explicit content, as I'm going to put it, should be banned. So I'm going to hand it over to Andrew to respond to some of what he just heard. But in the meantime, I'd ask you guys to smash the like button and prepare those super chats because we are going to ask them at the end of the open discussion. Over to you, Andrew.

Yeah. So, Dilly, I'm not a big fan of Gish Gallops during a debate. I like to go down one line at a time until we can get it figured out. If we have consistency issues, we don't have consistency issues. Are you willing to do that? Yeah. Could we start with defining pornography? Well, actually, I think we need to start by defining harm. What is that? Something that results in negative outcomes. And how do we measure what a negative outcome is?

We can do that multiple ways. We can look... Okay, go ahead. Sorry. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. We can look at happiness. We could look at how a society is functioning in terms of maybe economic success. Yeah. What way do you use? What way do I use? To determine harm. To determine harm. Yes. Yes.

You don't have to repeat the question. You just answer the question. What do you mean? What way do I use to determine harm? What metric would you use to determine harm? Well, I would use multiple metrics, not just one. Okay. So if somebody was really happy, for instance, about, I don't know, unaliving themselves, is that harm? Is it harm for someone to...

be happy about killing themselves. Yeah. Well, they would be causing harm to themselves by killing themselves, yes. Yeah, so we should not have that, right? Or we should? People probably shouldn't kill themselves, yeah. Okay, and that's because of this harm principle? Yeah. Okay. If you had two brothers who were twins, okay, and they wanted to have sex with each other, can you give me a single reason that would be harmful? Hmm.

There could be potentially some kind of power dynamics at play that could be harmful. They're twins. Twins? Maybe not then. So you wouldn't have any objection to incest, for instance, under this worldview? Well, I have an objection just on the level of like, yeah, I think it's icky. Well, but wait a second. They're really happy. And how does it affect you?

Oh, yeah, I honestly don't really care. Could we get back on? Yeah, we are. We are back to the topic. I'm trying to figure out what your harm principle is. I'm not going to let you evade. So while I'm doing is trying to. I just said I don't care. Yeah, I that's great. I don't care is not an argument and it's not a response to one. It's not like I don't I wouldn't say that is like a morally bad. I don't care about the debate. That was I don't care.

That was my answer. Okay, great. I don't care is not an answer. I'm asking you a question. Well, no, it is because you're asking me if I find it immoral. I'm saying I don't care. Yeah, so is that no? So I don't find it immoral. So then the answer would be no, right? Yes. Okay, great. So next time say no, and then I'll know that you actually mean no when you say that. Okay, so if somebody had a dead body in their backyard and they dug it up and had sex with it every day and nobody found out about it, would that be immoral? Yeah. Why? Why?

Because as a society we've decided that we have some level of respect for the dead and also it would probably harm the people who are related to the person who died. I'm super confused. What if you're the only person who knows the dead body's there? They have no family member. Well, like I said, we as a society have deemed that we have some level of respect for the dead. What if the person writes a note...

saying, I want to have my body had sex with after I'm dead by my son. Whenever he wants, he can dig me up and have sex with that dead body. Is that okay? Yeah, we could also have someone say, yeah, I consent to someone eating me alive. I still think that is a level of harm that is unacceptable.

Yeah, but you haven't really told me why. You just keep saying you keep on making these weird general allusions to we have society have determined. But the way we would use the metric under a harm principle for if society is doing the right thing or the wrong thing would be based on harm.

So if society is doing something which you stop, stop, let me finish. Yes, and I think for those particular things you've outlined, that is a level of harm that we deem unacceptable. Yeah, I don't know why you're interrupting me. So if society is doing something which is actually not harmful and they have decided that that's okay, right?

then I don't understand why you're not saying that society needs to let people dig up, you know, Aunt Fester in the backyard and have sex with her body unless you can demonstrate who that actually harms. Because society would just be wrong then, right? No, because as I've explained a few times now, we have a respect for the dead as a society. So that would be violating that kind of social contract, right?

I see. So society and society's moral intuitions become a social contract, which we should adhere to. Yeah. Okay. So as long as I change society's mind about porn being bad. Sure. So let's begin. Could you define pornography? Okay. Hang on. Hang on. Stop. Stop. Stop. I just want to make sure I got this correct.

Wouldn't it would it then not be the case that if society agreed that porn was bad, that would now be a new social contract based on their intuition and you based on your own harm principle would have to concede that you should not do then porn. Right.

Because the majority of people don't see porn as harmful or bad. That's not my question. I didn't ask what is. Are you saying hypothetically? Yeah, I'm asking about an ought claim. So this would kind of go back to what I said about fast food, which is something that is obviously objectively bad for us.

But we still allow people the freedom to eat it as much as they want, even though it obviously has devastating outcomes. Nobody's disputing that. So anyway, so my question is... So my answer would be the exact same for Paul. Yeah, if society...

That's not my question. My answer is my, my question is since you say these things as a society, we deem them to be bad and that's why they're bad. Not that they're bad because you think it violates a harm principle. Then ultimately the arbiter of what you think is moral is society, right? To an extent I like we have societal rules. Yes. So for example, if every single person who watched porn off themselves, yeah, we probably shouldn't have porn. Yeah.

Okay, I'm super confused. If we're going into hypotheticals. You have to help me out here. I'm trying to figure this out. Is society the rulemaker or is harm the rulemaker? Like which thing is the rulemaker here? These two things are kind of interchangeable. Yeah, so which thing do you consider moral? Can you repeat that? Is it what society rules as moral or is it what the harm principle rules as moral?

Well, society basically has like we're the ones that have created the harm principle. It's kind of interchangeable. Yeah, that doesn't answer my question. So you have a view of what's moral and immoral inside your brain, right? Mm hmm. OK, so is that based on harm or is it based on what society says? Harm.

It's based on harm. So if something is demonstrated to be harmful, it's immoral. And if something is... I'm sorry. It's not. No. So like I said from the very beginning. So from the very beginning, I've stated multiple times, there is a level of harm that our society deems acceptable. This is why...

I'm asking. Yeah, this is why suntanning is legal. You're switching the argument, though. It doesn't make any sense. I asked you, what do you I'm not debating. Am I debating with society or am I debating with you?

Wait, what part aren't you? Who am I debating with society or you? Can you answer my question? What part aren't you understanding? So I'm not understanding the part about who. Well, here's what I need to reiterate. So since I'm debating with you about whether or not a thing ought be done, I'm debating with you. Would you like me to describe like what my moral framework is? Did you just ask me to give you an answer and then cut me off while I was giving it to you?

Yes. Okay. So would you like me to give the answer or would you like to go on a diatribe? I would, I would like to know if you want me to give you the moral framework that I'm working from. Is that what you...

Okay, let's go with utilitarianism. Yeah, that's okay. So that would be a harm principle, right? Yes, and there are obviously harms that we accept within our society. Yeah, but when you say we, I'm not interested in what we accept. I'm interested in what the person... I am, because I'm interested in reality. That's great, but I'm interested in what you accept, because I'm debating with you. I'm not debating with a guy over there. I'm not debating with a moderator. I'm not debating with Stephen. I'm debating with Diddley. So Diddley...

I'm looking at your view for what is moral, what is immoral. From Diddley's view, is it immoral for two brothers to have sex with each other? Can we get back onto the topic of pornography? I've already answered this question. Did you not hear the first time? Did you not hear the first time? Did you not hear the first time? No, because the first time he said society has blah, blah, blah.

And then that was about digging up dead bodies and then that too that too is that immoral from your view if we need to reiterate I already stated it. Do you have a hearing issue? No, you said society says blah. I'm asking from Diddley's view is it immoral? Yes, and I agree. Why? That is my stance on it. Why would it be immoral from your view? I've already, wait, Ryan?

Brian, can you, I already explained this, did I not? - No, no, so listen. - Well, I was just saying if- - I'm gonna ask you again, if you just be quiet for a second, I'll reiterate the question. I just want to know the answer from your view without you shifting it to society. - That is my view. - Okay, well, I don't know 'cause I haven't asked the question. - I gave you my view. - Just hold on one second, I did leave, we'll let him ask the question. - So I'm gonna ask the question.

What I'm asking specifically is this from Didley's view, not society's view, not not Joe's view, not anybody else's view from the view of a utilitarian harm principle. Somebody had a contract from grandma saying he could hump her as much as he wanted after she was dead. OK, and there was no reason that that would lead to any type of contagion. Anybody else from your view, is that immoral? Yes. Why? Why?

As I stated earlier, it is violating the way that we respect the dead. No, no, no. That's, wait. That makes no sense. You're making now an appeal again to we. Okay, sorry. I respect the dead. Why? There's no harm. Well, no, I believe that there is. What's the harm? What is it? Is the harm being done? What is it? What's the specific harm? What is it?

The specific harm is that you are in complete violation of social contract. Wait a second. A social contract? So if it's a social contract, then again, now you're deferring once again.

away from your harm principle to some type of societal principle. That's really weird. Yes, so we have societal rules. The harm reductionist, you just told me that your moral prism revolves around utilitarianism and harm reduction. I asked you-

So that would fall under rule utilitarianism? I asked you what, you just read that from your own chat? You couldn't even tell me what rule utilitarianism is. I'll tell you what, tell me what rule utilitarianism is. Wait, what? Tell me what rule utilitarianism even is. Put your hands up before you Google it, though, because I know you're Googling. Now, tell me, what is rule utilitarianism?

So reducing harm is good. And reducing bad things is good. You don't know what rule utilitarianism is, do you?

No, I do. Okay, tell me what it is. What is it? So, act-utilitarianism would be like... There are certain situations where, for example... I'm asking about rule-utilitarianism. Yes, and I'm getting there. I don't care about act-utilitarianism. Wait, I'm getting... Can you let me answer the question? I'm glad we moved away from the necrophilia. So, act-utilitarianism is basically... Yeah. Certain situations might call for things that might be morally wrong, could potentially be good. So, for example...

Killing someone could be good if it turns out that that person grows up to be Hitler. A rule utilitarianism would not be in agreeance with this because killing someone is generally always immoral.

What? Is that satisfying? No, that would be the difference between deontology and utilitarianism. It has nothing to do with rule utilitarianism. You gave me a deontological ethic. What is rule utilitarianism? Can you describe it for me then? No, I need you to. You said you're a rule utilitarian. I just didn't. Okay, so to get this right, murder's always wrong? No. Okay, well then you're not... What are you talking about? Wait, what...

You're a rule utilitarianist. You said killing Hitler would always be wrong. Why would killing Hitler always be wrong for you, the rule utilitarianist? Well, because it would be from the perspective that murder is wrong. So why is murder wrong? Because it reduces harm.

because that's the social contract yet again what what are you talking about we actually start discussing this discussion right now we're just talking about basic ethical frameworks we can even get into the debate i want to ask so so just to get this right you said a rule utilitarian would say against an act utilitarian you can't go back in time and kill hitler because that's wrong why is that wrong

Because killing is bad. Why? Even if it reduces harm? Yeah. Why? Because you are violating someone's personal autonomy. Even if it reduces harm? And violating someone's personal autonomy is morally bad. Okay, why? If it reduces harm to violate autonomy, why would that be bad? Because violating someone's personal autonomy is detrimental to their well-being.

Wait a second. If you violated Hitler's personal autonomy, thus killing Hitler, you would save the lives of millions upon millions of people. How's that not the ultimate in harm reduction? You're saying that we shouldn't do that because you would violate his personal autonomy?

Sure. Okay, well then if that's the case, then I should never defend myself if I'm being attacked by somebody because that would violate their personal autonomy. That is not the same thing whatsoever. That would be self-defense. Wait, wait, wait. That would be an example of self-defense. But the reason self-defense is good is because it reduces harm to you, the non-aggressor, right? Same thing with killing Hitler. The reason killing Hitler would be good is because... Yeah, but someone is like...

trying to kill you versus someone merely existing in your presence. I'm going to ask politely. I'm going to ask Andrew if you can just to really hardcore tie this into the meat-beating topic that we should be talking about. She's asking to make moral prescriptions for things inside of society as to what is moral, what is immoral.

That's going to be determined. And she brought this up in her opening statement, said Christians, they have X value, Y value, whatever. Right. That's totally fine. It's completely fine for us to establish our foundation for ethics for when we're going to be making moral prescriptions to see if they even make any sense whatsoever. In this particular case, here's what I get from her.

She says, hey, I'm a utilitarian, a harm reductionist. I like to me heart reducing harm. OK, would you go back in time and kill Hitler, which would reduce? I mean, she agrees that that would reduce harm. Answer. No, because that would violate personal autonomy. That makes no sense. It's a conflict. That makes perfect sense.

Okay. Wait, what part of that doesn't make sense to you? Because then you have a conflicting value that's saying autonomy is actually the principle, which is moral, not harm. Well, yes, but autonomy is intrinsically linked to harm. Well, no. Yes, it is. Taking away people's autonomy and freedoms is harmful. You can definitely reduce people's freedom, and it could be not very harmful. Like, for instance, should I own a nuclear bomb?

No. Why not? What about my autonomy? Because that is a level of crime that's just unacceptable. Wait, wait, wait. Hang on, hang on. No, no, I can't let it go. Why is it me opening a nuclear bomb? It's a discussion about morality. Yeah, it's very important. I'm sorry. You want me to say that I'm going to ban porn based on moral grounds, and yet I can't understand my opponent's morality. Last question. I'll tie it in very quickly. Very quickly. Why can't I own a nuclear bomb?

Because it is a level of harm that we deem unacceptable. Okay, but you, we deem it unacceptable. Society does. Would you prefer if I just said I every time? Yeah, I'm not debating with we. I think you perfectly understand what I mean when I say that. I don't. This is just semantics. No, no. Well, first of all, semantics are super important to debate. I don't know if you know that or not, because it's clarifying what it is we're talking about. At this point, when we're talking about a nuclear bomb,

and I own it, you say autonomy is the highest value a person should have because to violate it is to do harm. But then when I say if I have a nuclear bomb, you say that's too much harm for society, so they deem it inappropriate. Yes, because your personal autonomies can't infringe on other people's autonomy. You can't just kill anyone you want. Got it. So our value for morality is actually autonomy then.

Yes, which is intrinsically linked to harm. No, it's not. Yes, it is. Explain how it isn't. Yeah, you can limit people's freedoms for their own good and it delivers less harm and more happiness to them. So it is linked to harm.

No, I'm saying it's when we're talking about harm in the sentence. Okay. Well, then everything's linked to everything. I'm linking it to your harm principle. So I'm, what I'm saying to you is, is that yes, of course you can make a reduction in harm or whatever with any metrics you want, but autonomy itself, right? You say, ah, it's linked to this harm thing. Okay, great. But I still don't, I haven't actually established what the moral parameters are. If it's,

If we harm thing and that, you know, autonomy or whatever, whatever, like your other access is, let's say more good happens than bad thing happens. That means I should I should do that thing. Right. You say no. And you repeat that. OK, so let's say I say I do an action. Right. And more good things happen for people than bad things. Should I do that action?

Well, wait, it's highly dependent on what the action is. Why? Yeah. But then that's not utilitarian. Unless, unless. No, it is because then again, like, because your autonomy cannot infringe on other people's autonomy. Why? That's why I like. Why can't it? Because personal autonomy is something that is intrinsically linked to people's well-being.

And I care about well-being. Yeah, but why do you care about well-being? Because otherwise it's harmful to not have well-being, right? We kind of have a biological imperative to care about well-being because that's kind of what aids our survival. Yeah, but how do you determine well-being except harm, this harmed idea? How do I determine well-being? Yeah. People's happiness. And that would be linked to harm? Or is it just what makes people happy? That's what I'm saying. If it makes everybody happy to molest children, should we do that?

No, again. Okay, well then it's not just about people's health. I don't have any idea what your actual worldview is. All right, you promised to try to do a hard tie-in here. All right, all right. I'll tie it off. So can we now hear what your worldview is? And then can we also circle back to you defining pornography? That's what we're going to do. Yeah, I think that all things which are harmful should be banned. That includes alcohol and fried food and cigarettes and everything. Wait, so you do bite the bullet then on banning fast food?

You think like Macca's, sorry, McDonald's. Yeah, what do I care? All those fast food places should be banned. What do I care if you got rid of McDonald's? I don't care. Get rid of it. Do you think people should, should it be illegal for people to go out in the sun since skin cancer is harmful? Oh, wait a second. Wait a second. Skin cancer harmful, but does the sun cause skin cancer? Does the sun cause skin cancer? Yes. Yes.

Okay. And are there other things which would cause skin cancer other than the sun? Like smoking? Sure. Yeah? Yeah. Okay. Wait, so you would ban people going outside? So I just want to make sure that I got this right.

Let's say I ban. Well, I'm just using the same metric you are. Let's say I ban McDonald's because society says so. Right. They don't like McDonald's anymore. And then I ban alcohol because society says so. They don't like alcohol anymore. And then we ban porn because society says so because they don't like porn anymore. Do you actually have any problem with any of this? I.

Well, it depends what you mean because they say so. No, it's just society and the social contract. They said no more McDonald's. Well, no, because like a society says that we love slavery. I don't think we should legalize slavery. Oh, well, then I'm really confused about what is the social contract. Wait, can you answer my question about should we ban people going outside in the sun? No. Why? Well, because there's no social contract.

You said we should ban things that are harmful. Yeah. Well, now there's no social contract. I mean, if we don't have a social contract, we can't ban it, right? So if people think it's bad, then that's it. You don't actually understand. I'm still doing an internal critique. But here's what I'll do.

Well, I have asked for your framework and you haven't given it to me yet. I've continually asked you to give me your moral framework. Here's my framework. I operate under the framework of Christian ethics. Christian ethics is going to be a biblically founded ethical system which comes from the church. It comes from the church and it comes from the Bible and it comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ, right?

That's my moral ethical system. And so it's within those parameters, the belief in Jesus Christ, that would be the way in which I would act in the thresholds with which I would act and why I would. I would value things like duty, though harm harm principles are included in Christian ethics. Yes, all of those things. When it comes to pornography, I think it's perfectly appropriate.

for us under Christian ethics to ban that. For other things, other considerations, like things like dignity, dignity to society, dignity to a person, things like this, in the moral consideration, if you were to get rid of pornography altogether, I'm not sure how society gets worse. So are you saying that basically things that you would deem bannable in society is just based on the Bible?

So we should ban any... It's not based on just the Bible. What were the metrics that I gave you? So the Bible and the church. And the teachings of Jesus Christ, right? So the Bible. Well, no, you have... Here's the thing. Jesus Christ said that all of my teachings would never fit in this book. So there's also things like divine revelation, revelation of our saints. There's many other factors that would go into the complex system, which is Christian ethics. But...

But what I have that you don't have is an unchanging standard from which to appeal. You don't even have any standard from which to appeal. You just say either society has a social contract that they don't like it or that's it. You have not actually demonstrated why anything would be immoral except just my preference. So have you read the Bible before? Uh-huh.

Is there anything in the Bible that you would deem morally reprehensible? What does that have to do with this debate?

But because it's your entire moral framework. Well, wait a second. I thought that when we were I was questioning your moral framework, that wasn't allowed. Now it's allowed. I never said it was allowed. OK, then why did I have to move off when I had pinned you down on your utilitarian ethical framework? And now you get to move into mine. Can the moderator explain that to me? You're arguing from the affirmative and I don't get to hear your moral framework.

I'm willing to give it to you. I just don't understand why it is that you do, but I don't. So can you answer the question? No, I don't find anything objectionable in Christian ethics. Okay. Would you mind if I read out some Bible quotes then? Sure. Go ahead. Go ahead. So are you for legalizing rape?

There's no such legalization in the Bible. Okay, so Deuteronomy 22 verse 28. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father 50 shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman for he's violated her. He can never divorce her for as long as he lives. Is this something that you would morally uphold? Do you know what the fallacy of presentism is? No. Yeah, well, I'm going to explain it to you.

The fallacy of presentism is you looking through a present view for things which are culturally considered to be bad or things like this without actually looking through the system of the time through the eyes of the people at the time. That's interesting because didn't you just say a moral system is unchanging? I'm not changing it.

I'm telling you. No, you said it's unchanging. So why does the time matter? You're using a fallacious argument. You're the one who is using a time argument in order to say that something is moral or immoral. Let me explain. Not at all. At the time, first of all, this is not rape. Okay. Here's what was actually happening.

If it was the case that a man were to assault a woman, there's very few people in this time period. If it is the case that a man were to assault a woman like this, okay, and do horrible things to her, he would be held to account under a patriarchal system, okay?

What do you do with these people? Well, often they put them to death. Okay. Well, in this case, he's forced to marry her and can never divorce her. In Deuteronomy, it also moves into death. It moves into death for rapists. Oh, no, but this specific verse that I'm talking about, he must marry her and never divorce her as long as he lives. The Bible's self-referencing, right? So Deuteronomy doesn't just have one passage in it, does it? Does it have other passages? Mm-hmm. Okay.

Oh, okay, great. I can read some more if you would like. Keep reading. Okay, so Deuteronomy 22, verse 20. But if the thing is true, the evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's home, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel. Would you condone this? Wait, read it one more time. I just want to make sure. By the way, which version are you reading out of?

This is the New King James Version, which I believe is the version that your Orthodox Church uses, right? No, but I mean, close enough. I mean, I can get a different one if you want. No, it's fine. Just read it again. So, but if the thing is true, the evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman. Give me the passage first. Sorry. Okay, I can get the context before that. No, no, I just want the passage.

Yeah, go ahead. So this is Deuteronomy 22 verse 20. But if the thing is true, the evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel. Hmm.

Is this something you condone? Yeah, so Deuteronomy is referencing the law which is given to the Jews. I follow Christian ethics. Do I follow Jewish ethics? Okay, well, we can talk instead about, let's see. Well, we can talk about Genesis. So that would be, okay, what about Genesis? So we can talk about the genocide that God committed against the entire world.

It's a lovely children's story. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's commonly known as Noah's Ark. When he killed evil people. So Genesis 6 verse 6, And the Lord was sorry that he made man on earth, and he was grieved in his heart. So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and the beast, creeping thing and bird of the air, for I'm sorry that I've made them. And I had just a little comment earlier. So wait, so you endorse this genocide?

uh if you killed every evil person on earth oh no it was everyone on planet earth except for the the few people who are on the ark that's because they're just wiping off we're cool with just wiping off the entire planet if they were all evil sorry evil meaning that they simply weren't obeying god

as in they were raping, murdering, thieving. No, no, no. This is just people who like God was mad at them. No, no, no. It definitely isn't. You need to go back and read Genesis because... All right, well, we can go instead to 1 Samuel 15. No, no, I think first we're going to respond. Thus says the Lord of hosts, I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel. Oh,

Before we do the completely separate from Noah's Ark, I do think it's fair just because you know somebody I am very interested in doing this type of unpack But I do think it is fair for Andrew to say that as the Bible I think does describe them as wicked people but go ahead there Andrew You know whether you think that's valid or not, you know, you can debate that

Sure, and God describes anyone who doesn't believe in him as wicked people. That's why they get condemned to hell for all eternity, right? Because what the reference there is, is a referencing that people who don't have some type of synergistic relationship with God are doing wicked things like raping, murdering, I don't know, prostitution, things like that. Wait, so do you agree that simply not believing in God means you're wicked? No, I think that not believing in God. So you have to understand that there's two different covens

which you're talking about. So I believe in the new coven of Christianity. When you're talking about what Jesus Christ came, right? He set down what Christian ethical law is. You continuously referent Jewish law, which has nothing to do with Christian ethics. I have no idea why you're doing that. What moral framework did I say I followed? You specifically said you follow the church, the Bible. Christian ethics. Yes. Yes. This is the Christian Bible. Yes.

Yeah, but do you recognize that in the Christian Bible, there's people groups who have specific laws which are given to them, which is made for Jews only for specific reasons, that there's a new covenant under Jesus Christ, and it's the new covenant under Jesus Christ with his two additional commandments, the Ten Commandments, things like this, and Christian ethics under the guidance of Jesus Christ that we follow? Do you get that? So you're saying you don't condone these acts? No.

Is that what you're getting at? I'm saying I follow Christian ethics and you don't understand what you're reading. So do you or do you not condone the genocide in the Bible? They're not genocides. Why is it not genocide? I think if you kill a lot of people. Wait, can you define genocide? Yeah, so can you just stop talking? So anyway. I did. I'm allowing you to answer. Great. Okay, so I think if you kill lots and lots and lots of bad people, that's fine. If you call that a genocide, I don't care.

Wait, so can you define genocide? However you define it's fine. If you think it's a if you think it's a genocide, how do you not agree that that's genocide? Oh, if you're defining that as a genocide, fine, I'll concede if you kill all the bad people and that's genocide. I don't care. Okay, well, you just said it wasn't a genocide. So that's nice. Um,

So, okay. So now we've established my moral foundation of Christian ethics. I like that you both had an, I don't care moment. Yeah. So, so, well, why do I, why do I care about whatever the, um, the idea of whatever she considers genocide to be? Yeah. So that's kind of exactly my point is that your moral framework does not care whatsoever about people's wellbeing. You care only. Oh, really? It's my moral. Okay. I see. So let's just make sure I got this right.

I'm willing to say that it's acceptable for evil people to get killed. You would save Hitler, right? Okay, so evil people would include anyone who doesn't believe in God. So you're saying you condone the genocide. I know, that's a straw man. Did I say that's what makes a person evil? You said that.

So you don't agree? No, of course not. And would you like for me to give you reference in the Christian Bible? So then why people who don't believe in God, why are they sent to hell to suffer for all eternity if they're not evil? The Orthodox don't believe in hell in that way. I don't know if you knew that or not. But also, just so you understand, if you're talking about Paul and you're talking about the apostles, the apostles...

would often talk about how there's good written on people's hearts that comes from God, right? And that we are not to take wrathful judgment against people, kill them, things like this. That's against the bones of Christian ethics. Now, if it is the case that evil people are trying to dominate or do bad things and God smites them for doing that, well, I mean, what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it? Maybe...

Could we see what constitutes as an evil person for you? Do adulterers count as evil? I think that that's a sinful act, but it wouldn't necessarily facilitate. So I'll explain how the Orthodox view sin. So what we would say is that's sinful. But think about this beer. So every sin you do,

If you have small sins, it fills up the beer bottle a little bit. If you have large sins, it fills up the beer bottle a lot more. Right. All sin is corrupting and all sin is bad. Right. And the more sin you have in you, the more corrupted you are. But that doesn't mean that you're not redeemable and it doesn't even necessarily mean that you're evil. There could be sins of omission, for instance, that you have. I'm going to have to sin, Andrew. Yeah, we would consider that to be evil.

Right. But all sin is born to God. Right. It's just that there's metrics for which they poison you, the person. What you're doing is you're trying to argue with a Protestant, of which I'm not. And I don't know why you're trying to do that. It's very silly. Well, I'm arguing. This aside, I have I have an unchanging standard. You have a changing standard. So when we're talking about porn and banning porn.

What I'm trying to do is get consistency from you. If porn, now I've just answered your questions, please answer mine. Society itself, is society itself, from your view, the arbiter of what is moral or isn't it? Is society the arbiter of what's moral? Yes. No. So then you're the arbiter of what's moral.

Me personally? Yes. I mean, I don't think so. Well, then who the fuck is the arbiter of what's moral? Well, I would say I have a pretty good moral framework which aims to increase people's well-being. So then you're the arbiter of what's moral? Not necessarily, no. Well, then who is? I think it's better when people come together and agree on things that...

Would benefit society based on empiricism. How many people then would be the arbiter of what is moral? How many people does it take before we have an arbiter of what is moral? Well, that's like why we have things like democracy, isn't it? No, that's not why we have things like democracy, unless you're saying kings can't decide what are moral. But that aside, a king can't decide what's moral? Well, they behave in like a way that is like beneficial to them, not for the benefit of people. You behave in ways that are beneficial to you.

I'm not a king or a queen. Why would that matter? Why couldn't a king make moral decisions for their people? I don't get that. I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying they have their interests. So then the arbiter of morality is who? Is it you or is it someone who's not you?

Who ultimately is the determiner of what is moral for you? I don't believe in objective morality. That's not what I'm asking you. So if it's objective morality, then you definitely are the arbiter of what is moral, right? In my own personal worldview, yes. Okay. So there is no such thing as objective morality. It's all subjective? Yeah. Unless, of course, you can prove that God exists right now. So then it just comes down to preferences? Yes, and as to yours. Oh, okay. Well, then it's my preference. Porn is banned.

Anything else? Yeah. So I wanted to ask, so obviously you get all your, would you say you're an advocate for divine command theory? I just told you, it's my preference that porn is banned. What's the problem?

So is that based on am I doing something? Wait, am I doing something? Is that the way that the Bible talks? Am I doing something moral or immoral or bad or awful or in any way against your worldview? If my preference is that porn is banned and so therefore it's banned. Well, no, it is. OK, well, then if it's not a moral, I don't care. I'm the status quo, not you. Oh, OK. So it's only your preferences which are moral and not mine.

Well, I mean, in my world view, yes, I'm obviously more moral than you are. In my world view, it's the same way. Yes, I agree. My preferences are more moral than your preferences. Yes, that's what you believe, obviously. So if your preferences are the, and you're the orchestrator and arbiter of all that is moral, and I also, from my view, am the orchestrator and arbiter of all that is moral, how could a third person determine which one of us is right?

Which one of us is actually the most? That's a really great question, actually, because if you're advocating for divine command theory, how would you argue against a Muslim who says... What does that have to do with my question? I didn't ask you to ask me a question. I asked you to answer a question. Can you answer my question? What is it?

My question is this, is that if it's the case that my preferences are the ultimate arbiter of what is morality, just like you claim yours is. This is based on your own worldview. It's not based on reality. My worldview. Your moral worldview is not based on reality whatsoever. Listen, listen. What do you mean? Preference? Porn is not banned. That's reality. Listen, it's my preference to follow Christian ethics. It's my preference to follow the preferences of God. It's my preference to do all these things. Is any of that immoral?

Like, is it a moral that you have those preferences? Yeah, even if they're wrong, like let's grant Christianity was not true. Let's just grant it for the sake of arguments. Totally untruths, totally fakes, totally false. It never occurred. I just believe it because it's my preference. Is that in any way wrong?

to hold those standards now? I believe in freedom of expression, freedom of speech. Unlike you. If that's the case. Is that right? Then all that matters is that it's my preference. Christianity is true. It's my preference that porn be banned. And I'm at no more of an immoral position than you are. So you can't even say that me wanting to ban porn based specifically on just my own preference is in any way even bad. I don't think I'm not a thought police. I'm not Christian.

You're the ones that do thought policing. But if I try to enact my thoughts onto you because it's my preference, why is that bad? Wait, that's completely different. Are you talking about state enforcing violations of my human rights? Yeah, if I walk over to you. Well, that's different than just holding an opinion. Why? That's really weird. It's my preference, though. No, there's a difference between preferences and state enforcement, right? That's all preferences.

It's based on preference. No, it's all preference. A king prefers that you be fucking oppressed. Why is he wrong? He just wants your same standard. What you consider morally good, is that based on God's preferences? It's based on my preferences for God's preferences. Oh, so something is morally good just because God commands it? No, it's good because it's my preference that it's good. Wait, so then God has nothing to do with it? No, it's my preference that God's preferences be enforced.

So then I'm correct that something is morally good simply because God commands it? No, it's morally good because it's my preference that everything God morally commands be enforced. Okay, that's what I just said. And that means it's completely arbitrary and based on your own personal preference. So is yours.

I agree. I'm the only one that will admit that, though. Then if that's the case, then if that's the case... I'm the only one who's going to admit that. Hey, I'll just bite it. That's the case. And we're just doing arbitrary shit. And we're just basing it on our own personal preferences. Then if I get a whole army with machine guns to come in and say, no more fucking porn, you can't actually say there's anything wrong with that, right? No, I can, because now we're talking about...

State enforcement of violating people's rights, which is completely different than just holding a thought in your mind. But it's my preference, and I'm the ultimate arbiter of what is moral, just like you. What part are you not understanding between thought policing and state enforcement? Well, here's what I don't understand. If I want to use force, and I say that it's moral because it's my preference, can you demonstrate how that's immoral?

If, like, if you're actually actively using force, if you're just thinking about it. If I kick in your fucking door right now, right? Then yes. Tell me how it's immoral. How? Because you are violating my personal autonomy. So what? That's all your preference. Yes. Yeah, so what part are you not getting? What about my preference? I'm...

My moral framework is I'm concerned with people's well-being and yours isn't. Yours is based on simply what God tells you to, even if that results in mass human suffering. Why is that even bad? Why is mass human suffering bad? Sure. Why is genocide bad? Yeah.

Do you think those are good things? That's not what I asked you. Did I ask you to ask me or did I ask you? No, I was asking you first. Yeah, well, no, I asked you first. I said, why is it? I've already answered this multiple times. You are violating people's personal autonomy, which is morally wrong. Why is that? Can you answer? Is it bad to create mass human suffering? Yeah, well, it's bad. Well, no, no, no. Wait, wait, wait. When you say mass human suffering, I'm not sure that we have a standard for bad. What do you mean by bad? What does bad mean?

Can you even define what pornography is for me? What does that have to do with anything? Why do you keep switching the goalposts? It's the entire debate. It's the first thing I asked you. Stop moving the fucking goalposts and answer my question. What is bad? And then I can answer your question. Bad is something that results in human suffering. Why is that bad? Because it is a complete violation of our intrinsic need to...

have personal autonomy? Well, then no. I would say that human suffering is not bad as people go to the gym and they suffer and that's not bad. Okay. Just because I am interested too and you said... Just because you did say you would define it. Yeah, if you can give us a definition there, maybe we can get back into some of the subjects. So, Andrew, how would you define the terms of our debate tonight? Anything against my preferences is bad. So... And you defined pornography. Yeah.

Anything that I deem to be pornographic.

Which is what? Whatever's my preference to be pornographic. Which is what? Whatever it is. Can you be good faith for like a second? This is the most good faith. I'm trying to explain to you how stupid you are. So anything within my preference is whatever I think pornography is because it's my preference and that's the, I'm the highest. I am the highest. I am the highest or arbiter. Okay. I'm just going to have to ask you a bunch of questions to find the real answer now. So a feet pics pornography. Um, sure.

Okay, is literature pornography? Like Fifty Shades of Grey? Yeah, it can be. It can be. I'll know it when I see it. Hold on. So if somebody is going off to this video right now, are we doing something wrong? I have to ask. If somebody is just going to town on themselves right now watching this debate, if you want to give us an answer there, Andrew, what are we doing? Just to be clear, so you want to start...

essentially book burning so 50 shades of gray would be in there what are you talking about that's not that's not uh in my preference well we're talking about banning pornography yeah i know i only want to ban things though that i deem to be pornography within my preference can you tell me why you just said that literature including 50 shades of gray would be no i didn't say that i didn't say 50 shades of gray pornography no i didn't you just made it up so anyway so back to this anything that i look at you know what else is so bad faith hang on you know what else is pornography garfield

Garfield's getting fucking banned because that's in my preference. That's pornography too. So do you want to seriously engage now? I am seriously engaging. I'm explaining to you that if your reference is preference, any preference I have has to be moral. So there's no way for you to make a determination that me wanting to ban pornography based on completely arbitrary reasons is totally fine. Unless you can explain to me why it isn't.

Uh, sorry, again, you're arguing from the affirmative and you've completely failed to explain what those parameters even are. Okay, here, I'll give you the parameters from the affirmative. Porn should be banned because it's my preference. Okay, so what is porn? Anything that I deemed in my preference to be pornography is pornography. Okay, and you just said before, so feet pics, we can't post feet pics online anymore? Maybe some. It depends on what I see and then I'll know because it'll be in my preference.

Okay, so should we ban even like writings in books about giving oral sex? Some of them, for sure. I'm just not sure which ones you have to go case by case. Like, tell me a specific one. So like the Bible? Like Song of Songs when it talks about oral sex? No, of course not. That wouldn't be in my preference. Oh, okay. So we're accepting like some forms of literature erotica, but not others? Anything that's in my preference is what porn is. Do you understand that?

You tell me why I'm honest. Can you tell me why I'm wrong? You're being so intellectually dishonest. Why? My whole position. You ready? I'm looking for an argument, though. Not another question. Give me a fucking argument. Actual argument. I want porn ban because it's against my preference. Can you give me a single fucking argument for why that should not be the case? Because it violates people's personal autonomy. And is that a preference?

Of mine? Of my moral framework? Yes. What's wrong with that? I have a preference against yours. Wait, why is that a bad thing? Because my preference is the ultimate arbiter of all preferences. Okay, based on a God that you can't prove exists. No, just based on me. So can you be honest and answer that? And who cares if I can't? Even if I can't prove God and my whole preference is wrong, I'm still the ultimate arbiter of all things which are preferential. So why is it? Can you answer the question? I just answered it. No, you didn't. Okay, what's the question?

What constitutes as pornography? Whatever I say pornography is. I want actual descriptions of what you think pornography is. I just gave you an actual description. Why can you not define it? Why is this such a hard question for you? How does the Supreme Court define it? Didn't a Supreme Court judge say, I know it when I see it?

Based on like the are you talking about the Miller test in terms of determining? I'll know it when I see it and just like he said it's my preference same thing I'll know it when I see it and if it violates my preference, it's fucking immoral. Can you tell me why it is? What things would violate your personal preference? Oh, yeah, sure all sorts of things like you being a prostitute violates my personal preference that should stop it's immoral. I

Okay, but you did say like some feet pics are okay, right? So I should be fine. I don't do community, right? No, yeah, feet pics from my wife to me are fine. Oh, okay. So we can send like personal pornography and that's fine? To your husband? Sure, that's in my preference. But you're for banning pornography? Yeah.

Yeah, pornography would be bad. So if the state finds out you're getting sent nudes from your wife, should you punish them? If only your wife sees your nudes. Should you be punished by the law for privately sending nudes? To your husband? Yes, if pornography is banned. No, not to your husband.

So what policy exactly are you enacting which would ban pornography but not privately sent pornography? Oh, I'm glad that you asked. So what I would do is I would make sure that all pornography which exists on any website which is accessible between strangers would be outlawed immediately and that all OnlyFans would be shut down immediately, that all public displays of nudity would be shut down immediately. Okay.

So are you saying to put pressure on these websites to take down porn or are you banning all the websites from U.S. consumers? No, I'm saying that I will just use the government to walk in with machine guns and say porn is now banned. All right. And what's the problem? So you're a fascist. Do you have a single argument? Why is fascism bad? Do you have a single argument for that? Because it violates people's personal autonomy. And why is that bad? Because we have a biological...

need for our well-being so an appeal to nature fallacy because because you think that we have a biological need for something for X that means it's moral to do X for instance a person may have biological need to have sex can they just take sex

No. No, they can't, can they? So the thing is, it's really interesting to me then. I don't actually understand your position at all. I don't know what bad means. I think you do. I think you're just being incredibly bad-faithed. I want to know what bad means from your view because I don't even understand what you're asking me when you say bad. What is bad? Why would you decide to take the affirmative on this and then refuse to answer any of my questions in good faith? I literally gave you my position. Yes.

No, you didn't. You haven't even defined pornography. Everything within my preference is what is moral. I'm going to ban pornography, which is anything I think is pornography. Okay, and what do you think is pornography? That's the question I'm asking. What do you think is pornography? Here, we'll just make it super easy. Anything that shows any nudity publicly is pornography, including breastfeeding, all of it. It's all pornography. So you would outlaw public breastfeeding as well? Sure, sure.

Okay, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with it? You tell me why you're eating on people's personal autonomy. Yeah, why is that bad? Why is that bad? Is that an actual opinion that you hold? Yes, yes, yes. Why do you want to ban public breastfeeding? Can you tell me why it's fucking bad, please? I just did. Why? Do you have hearing difficulties? Yeah, I do. When you say it's bad because it's bad because it's bad. When you say, when I say why is that bad? I said it's bad because it violates people's personal autonomy. Yeah, but why is that bad?

Again, because that is like a violation of people's well-being. Yeah, but why would it be bad to violate people's well-being? Because it results in suffering. Okay, and why is suffering bad? Because we don't want to suffer. Oh, is it bad because it's bad? Suffering is intrinsically bad, yes. It's bad because it's bad.

Yeah, suffering is intrinsically bad. So it's bad because it's bad. And pleasure is intrinsically good. Okay, well, I say banning porn is intrinsically good. It's good because it's good. Okay, and you still can't even define what pornography is. Don't need to. It's good because it's good. Well, I think you do because you're the one supposing that we ban pornography. Yeah, I already told you. All public displays of nudity, regardless of circumstance, I'm calling porn. So what do you mean by public?

Anytime, anytime. Is Pornhub public? Out in front of strangers. Is Pornhub public? Yeah, I consider that public. Okay. Yeah, so Pornhub goes. So you understand that this means that the porn industry would just go completely underground into a black market where people are passing around hard drives? They can't when I send soldiers in there with machine guns, can they? No, wait, but in your worldview, you said it's public displays of pornography that are not allowed. So privately...

trading USBs would be fine in your worldview. No, no. If you're privately doing it, then that's up to the public, right?

What do you mean? Yeah. So like if if you and I, what do you think a public exchange is? If I go over to a merchant who's in a building and nobody can see, we make a transaction. You're saying that's not a public transaction. Can you answer my question? I just did. That would be a public transaction. Exchanges between people, even if they're done behind closed doors, still public transactions. But sending a nude to your wife isn't public. Oh, that's private. Yeah.

Okay, so what if you do it in a public space? How you just describe the store? If you and your wife send each other nudes, that would be private. Okay, but privately sending a USB isn't.

Privately sending a USB to who? Okay, well, let's ignore the USB. Privately sending it online on a black market. Let's do it that way. To who? To anyone. It's private. That would be porn unless it's to your husband. Wait, what? I don't think I understand what I'm saying. If you send makey pictures to strangers for fucking money, it's porn. Okay, so the issue is not whether it's public or private. It's if...

You're married to them or not? Oh, that would be if you're doing something which is against the law in this case, exchanging pornography with strangers, still publicly trading something. It's just that you're trying to hide it, but you're still open for business is against the law and you're going to fucking jail.

So if I privately share a nude to a stranger, is that fine? If you want a better definition, right? South Korea. Right. I would love. OK, sure. South Korea has banned pornography. Right. So pull up whatever the South Korean definition of porn is. And I'm going to ban whatever that is. OK, now, can you answer my question? I just did. No, you didn't. So if I privately send a nude to a stranger, is that going to jail? Why? Because I banned porn.

So you think anyone who takes nude photos should be going to jail? And sends them to strangers? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so that's literally insane. And I hope everyone in the audience hearing this knows how fucking insane that is. Can you tell me why it's bad now, please? Should I tell you why it's bad for people taking nude photos of themselves to go to jail? Because it is a complete violation of my personal autonomy. Oh, great. Okay, and that's just intrinsically bad, right?

Yes. Oh, okay, because you said so? Well, yeah, in my moral worldview. Great, in my moral worldview, it's not intrinsically bad. Can you tell me why I'm wrong? Well, yeah. Well, because in your worldview, you don't care for mass human suffering. That's why. Yeah, can you tell me why it's wrong? Again, because it impedes on Purple's personal autonomy. Yeah, if I was inconsistent even, in fact, if I did any fucking thing that I wanted to do at your expense...

Right. Why would that be wrong? Except that you just keep on saying it's intrinsically wrong, which doesn't mean anything. Do you understand that if I say like, what does anything mean? Are we really going to go down this? Well, this no, no, no. We're just doing basic semantics. If you say I speak into this mic, you agree with me. You're speaking into a mic. I say that's intrinsically bad. Why would it be? Why would it be wrong for me to say it's intrinsically bad for you to speak into that mic? Because it violates my personal autonomy.

Oh, okay. And that's bad because you say it's intrinsically bad, right? So I'm appealing to the same thing you're appealing to. Yes, suffering is bad. Because it's bad. I'm appealing to the same thing you are. You speaking into that mic is intrinsically bad. Well, no, you're not because you don't care for suffering at all. Speaking into the mic is intrinsically bad because speaking into the mic is intrinsically bad. Don't you get it? We are off on a totally different side tangent. So maybe we could talk about the result of

Maybe couples that are together who don't consent to their partners, you know, looking at certain adult content. The effects that that might have is sometimes forefront in these conversations. But if we can try to circle around and talk less about... Ready to shoot your shot? Log into BetMGM every day and play the new Fast Break basketball game for your chance to win prizes. All you need to do is log into BetMGM.

This U.S. promo offer not available in D.C., Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or

At Emory University.

We believe in those with the ambition to achieve, the passion to learn, and the optimism to see the possibilities ahead. Founded on a belief that the wise heart seeks knowledge, an Emory education combines experiential learning in Atlanta and beyond with unrivaled collaboration and discovery, all to prepare you for a world that needs your leadership. Learn more at emory.edu.

Ahoy there! I'm stuck in this cravat! Well, I'm here to save you! Thank you! Up to 89% on the cost of your shipping with PirateShip.com! Come again? Should I take this package? Where are you going? To save you up to 89%! PirateShip.com will save you money on shipping.

Savings vary depending on weight, dimension, season, and destination of the package. Like, what's moral or immoral, but... I mean, I guess that's important too, but... You know, but let's also talk about the result of why people are seeking this out in the first place. You know, the arousal and the...

whatever it is that it might be. So I'll hand you over the floor, Andrew, and you can explain your thoughts about, I don't know, can we get away with, I looked up on the rules of YouTube, I think we can say meat-beaten. So go ahead there, Andrew. Just real quick, can you summarize what you're asking me? Yeah, so the reason that people are seeking out this in the first place and what type of impact that could have on their relationships.

whether, you know, they are, you know, just looking at it casually or if they're actually engaging physically with themselves. The reasons people are looking towards porn, uh, corn? Sure. Yeah. Let's do that. Because they want to watch it.

okay that's why that's what i mean that's why they're looking for it's because they want to watch it i don't i guess i'm confused in what you're asking okay uh well i guess uh you know just talking about like the moral yeah like getting back into that moral argument of uh like i say people usually i'm trying to be you know within tos here but uh basically you know people are looking for this to masturbate obviously so you know your your

Your thoughts on people, I guess, that are seeking that out specifically and thoughts around what that might have impacting on their relationships. We are at 45 minutes as well, so if you guys want to take a break, use the washroom, take out your catheter, whatever you got. You can do that too. I'm fine to keep going. Yeah, okay. If you want to get into that, that might be useful. Yeah, so I mean I think masturbation is bad and that people shouldn't do it and that they would do it less.

if they weren't watching porn. And I think porn's bad because it's intrinsically bad. So based on your worldview, should people be imprisoned for masturbating? No, that's not intrinsically bad. But porn is. Yeah, porn is intrinsically bad. So why is masturbation not based on your worldview? Because of my preference, duh. Can you answer the question honestly? I did answer the question honestly. That's the same exact reasoning that you would have. Because of my preference, that's what makes it bad.

Should people be imprisoned for adultery based on the Bible? Yeah, that's bad. Intrinsically. So you would support Donald Trump going to jail? No, no, no. Because that's against my preference. Okay. So you're just being bad faith again? Why do you keep saying it's bad faith? Can you tell me what's bad faith about what I'm doing right now? Well, because I just like call you in a contradiction. What was the contradiction?

So I got you to admit that people who commit adultery should go to jail. So I said, so should Donald Trump go to jail? And you said no, because that's my preference. Yeah, but what's the ultimate arbiter of what is intrinsically bad other than my preference?

Well, your preference is that adultery is evil, right? Based on the Bible. Unless my preference changes, right? Well, no, because you've already stated that your preferences are unchanging multiple times throughout this debate because it completely hinges on God's moral system. Well, I'll just go ahead and grant it just for the fun of it. So you think Donald Trump should go to jail? If you have committed adultery in the past, you get a clemency. But if you commit adultery in the future, straight to fucking jail.

That makes no sense. Why? Because at any point, those events would be in the past. Yeah, but I mean, I'm talking about giving everybody a pardon and giving them a clean slate. And then anytime they commit adultery in the future, they get a right to jail. Is that just to get around Donald Trump going to jail? No, that's my view. It's intrinsically bad. Okay. Mm-hmm.

All right, if we've hit a wall there, we can get into the Q&A there, guys. That's no problem at all. So if you guys... I don't want to get in the Q&A. I want to actually know why any of the shit that I believe, other than from her subjective worldview of my preferences, is actually bad or in any way objectionable. I'll check it in 15. Because I think it is bad to violate people's personal autonomy. Because it's intrinsically bad, right?

Mm hmm. So then anything I say is intrinsically bad has to be bad, right? No. What? Now that's a contradiction. So then you have to be based on your moral world. Everything, everything which exists in all of reality.

You are the ultimate arbiter of what morality is. Okay, obviously I think I have a better moral system compared to you. That's why I believe it. You obviously think you have a better moral system than I do. That's why you believe it. What do you mean? I'm using your same moral system. No, you aren't. Yes, I am. Same moral system. It's bad because it's bad. Okay, well, can we use your moral framework? Can we be good faith? It's bad because it's bad, yes.

Anything against my preferences. So adultery is bad and you think adulterers should go to jail. So you are in support of Donald Trump going to jail, right? Unless, like I said, I would give clemency to everybody and start the slate clean. Yes, because you have no real fucking morals and you don't actually believe in anything you're saying. What do you mean? Do you think that because I think abortion is bad intrinsically. It's completely contradictory to your entire moral framework. What's the contradiction?

The contradiction is that you said adultery is sinful. Therefore, people who commit adultery should go to jail. I asked you, should Donald Trump go to jail? You said no. That is a contradiction. No, I gave you a qualifier. The qualifier was because in my system, anybody who's ever committed adultery gets a clean slate. Yes, but we've already established that your moral framework is divine command theory, which means that anything that is commanded by God to be immoral...

Why is that changing? Why is that bad? Can you answer the question? Yeah, sure. You know what? I'll just bite that bullet to everything. God. So you agree that is bad. Hang on. If God says rape, I'm sorry. Rape is good. And he says that everything you think is bad is good. Right. We should fucking do it. Tell me why that's wrong.

Because that would be in violation of people's personal which is it? I'm glad you bite the bullet that when God condones genocide, slavery, murder, that's all cool to you just because God commands it. Can you change, real quick, Diddley, can you change what you think is intrinsically bad? Can you change that? Can I change based on empirical evidence? Sure. Yeah. So it would be logically possible then that you could change

that things which were intrinsically bad now lined up with everything I thought was bad, right? Logically, that's possible. Wait, what do you mean? So everything, whatever it is you think that I want that's bad, it could be logically possible that if data appeared to you in a magic sheet that showed you that everything I wanted actually changed your mind to say, oh, wait, actually, that's

Everything he has preference against is intrinsically bad. Wouldn't you do it? Sure, in a magical hypothetical world that doesn't exist. But again, I like to live in reality. Oh, you like to live in reality? Yeah. Where bad is bad because you say it's fucking bad. That's reality. Do you disagree that suffering is intrinsically bad? Yeah. Why? Because people go to the gym and suffer. I would disagree that that's called suffering. Oh, you don't think that being in pain is suffering?

Well, the people I know who go to gyms say it's a great pain and it feels awesome. Yeah, except for the people that it's not great for. And they still do it for their health, so they're definitely suffering to improve their health. There are people who get really harsh massages that hurt. This isn't the kind of suffering I'm referring to. Oh, well, what kind of suffering are you referring to? Um...

I'm referring to a violation of someone's personal autonomy so long as it doesn't infringe on other people's personal autonomy. Yeah, but that's not suffering. Like, if that's the case... Well, no, it is. Here, I'll explain. If that's the case, if you say that it's just a violation of personal autonomy, meaning that the person... Are you just saying the person gets, like, a yucky feeling? Is that what suffering is? Do you agree that violating people's agency is literally a detriment to their health? No, it can't. It's not always a detriment to their health.

You don't think violating people's agency is a detriment to the health? Fuck no. If you were about to kill yourself, I would definitely kick the gun out of your hand and knock you unconscious. What did I do wrong? Okay. Sorry. I've discussed this earlier. Now, answer my fucking question for once. Holy shit. If you were about to kill yourself. I was about to. Would you like me to answer? And I kicked the gun out of your hand and knock you unconscious. Didn't I violate your autonomy? Would you like me to answer? Didn't I violate your autonomy? All right.

Didn't I violate your autonomy? So there are certain harms that we deem acceptable and some that are unacceptable. Nope. You said it's intrinsically bad. Killing yourself is obviously... Let's let her answer. Killing yourself is obviously a harm that we wouldn't want, even if someone is...

They feel like it would make them happy if they killed themselves. Like, obviously, they're mentally ill. Well, then autonomy isn't... We should try and help that person. Then you just got caught in an actual contradiction, which is this. No, I haven't, because I've been very consistent from the very beginning. If you violate somebody's autonomy... I've been very consistent from the very beginning. Stop, stop, my turn, my turn. You said if you violate somebody's autonomy, that's intrinsically bad.

If that's the case, my turn. If it's the case that it's intrinsically bad and then you would still violate it for some other reason, then it can't be fucking intrinsically bad, can it? Okay, so that's not what I said. I said suffering is intrinsically bad. And also I've mentioned like from the beginning. Not autonomy.

Huh? Yeah, even though you said autonomy four times? No, I've said from the beginning that obviously there are some points where we violate someone's personal autonomy for the greater good or because they are infringing on other people's autonomy. I'll snag. I've been very consistent from the very beginning. The Crucible will send me the clip right now. Send me the clip real quick of her saying it's intrinsically bad.

to violate somebody's personal autonomy. Go ahead and send me the clip. I've said from the very beginning. I'm going to play the clip for you. And then when I do, will you concede? That we do violate people's personal autonomies in the case where they are infringing on someone else's autonomy. And it can't be intrinsically bad. That's why I said suffering is intrinsically bad. No, no. So if I show you a clip of you saying autonomy is intrinsically bad, did you just misspeak? Yeah, if that clip exists. Oh, okay. Yeah.

So suffering is intrinsically bad then? Yes. Okay, and what is suffering? Because you said it's violating personal autonomy. I just want to let you know. But anyway, go ahead. What is suffering? Suffering is like any negative outcome based on someone's well-being. What? That's completely... It's any negative outcome based on someone's well-being. Is that actually what you think suffering is? Um...

You might want to revise that. Just think about it for two seconds here. You really think suffering is a negative outcome based on somebody's well-being? Well, suffering is like multifaceted. Like there's lots of ways we can go about this. Then just tell me what it is from your view. What is suffering? Basically a detriment to someone's well-being.

Okay, so if that's the case, a detriment to somebody's well-being, the person themselves is going to be the one who chooses that, right? What is detrimental to their well-being? Not necessarily, again, because if someone wants to off themselves or they want to harm themselves in some way, and that's... Then it can't be just something that's detrimental to somebody's well-being. Sure, like I said, they're like...

There are other things. Well, okay, then what is it? And it is like highly subjective from person to person as well. So then what is it? For example, like...

um it would be really bad if pornography got banned as someone who watches and enjoys it myself um which would lead to suffering but for you that wouldn't lead to suffering so it's not like a one size fits all kind of thing so then suffering so then so then if it is the case then that suffering actually is not intrinsically bad right

What do you mean? Well, it's a subjective variable. So, I mean, you don't think it's intrinsically bad. Well, the things that cause suffering are subjectives. You being a prostitute causes me suffering. Is that bad? Intrinsically? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying suffering is intrinsically bad. Yeah. You being a prostitute caused me to suffer. Is that bad?

Um, the feeling of suffering is bad. Yes. It's bad that you're suffering. Then shouldn't you stop being a prostitute? So I stopped suffering. No, that's another contradiction. Wait, no, it isn't. So, so then I thought you said it's intrinsically bad. Suffering's intrinsically bad. Yes. As in like the, the feeling of suffering in itself is intrinsically bad. That's what I mean by intrinsically.

Oh, okay. So just the feeling of suffering is bad. Okay. So anything which causes me to have a bad feeling that I'm suffering is bad.

No. Suffering in itself is a bad feeling. Who determines what is suffering other than the person? That's not the question. That's not what I'm trying to say. It has to be. If I'm the person who determines what is suffering. Do you agree pleasure is good and suffering is bad? No. I haven't even determined what that is. Pleasure doesn't feel good?

Pleasure doesn't feel good. You're making a category error here. When you say good here, when you say, does this taste good? It makes us feel good. When you say, does this taste good, right, for this case, you're asking a different question than is this morally good, which is what I'm asking. I'm not asking if something tastes good. I'm asking if it is morally good. So what I'm asking you is, what is good?

Like when I ask you what is bad, you keep on deviating. First, it was what is bad is intrinsically, it's violating personal autonomy. I think we just had like a misunderstanding because you thought I was saying it's bad morally when I was just saying it's bad, obviously. That's what intrinsic means. Wait, it's not immoral? What do you think intrinsic means? It means as part of the thing itself. The thing itself is...

And as a baseline in the thing itself, it is X. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So that's not making a moral statement. Oh, it's not. So then when I'm okay. So then I just want to know this. What is morally bad in my worldview? Violating people's personal autonomy. So long as I thought you said you didn't say on other people's what?

Well, you just said earlier that you never said that violating people's personal autonomy is bad. Did you not hear the last part? No, I guess I didn't. What? So if you are infringing on someone else's personal autonomy and you violated the social contract, we can take away some of your personal freedoms, for example, incarceration, for the greater good of society. And what's the social contract? Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a social contract?

Well, it's the one that we're working under, yeah, in reality. Okay, so the social contract is utilitarianism, utilitarianism being to limit harm. Maximizing, yeah, well-being, limiting harm. Okay, so just to back up, just to make sure I get this right, anything which does not maximize well-being and limit harm would be immoral. Anything that doesn't maximize well-being. Yeah. Okay.

Well, this would circle back to like if you're infringing on someone else's personal autonomy. So then in that case is anything you can limit your personal freedoms. So then is anything which violates personal autonomy is that bad? Like just anything in general, not necessarily. I mean, I still haven't figured out what bad is here.

So I've mentioned this multiple times. I don't know how many more times I can say. I'll explain it so that you understand. If you say violation of personal autonomy is bad, unless X, right, then I'm still not sure what

what bad is and what a violation of personal autonomy would be that is bad. And then if you switch and say, it's, if you violate it within the realm of like suffering and that's bad, then I need to know what suffering is so that I can determine. I, I'm just trying to consistently check on to what bad is. You just keep saying, you just keep shifting it from suffering to, you know, some type of like, uh, self self-governance authority. Like I'm still not actually sure.

I'm still not actually sure what bad means here. So can you violate people's autonomy? Is that just sometimes? You think sometimes you can? Yes, we can. And can you limit people's access to hedonic activity? And is that always bad? Is that always bad? No. You just ask two questions. So all those things are not bad. So I'm asking what is bad.

So there is a certain level of harm that is acceptable in society. Well, that's like the gray line, isn't it? Obviously, as I mentioned, fast food is something that kills 300, well, obesity, more specifically, kills 300,000 people a year in America alone. But we don't stand out. So society is making the determination actually of what is bad then in your worldview.

Oh, well, we're making like the legal decisions because of democracy. That doesn't help me understand what bad is here. Like that doesn't that literally doesn't help me understand what bad is when you say, well, we actually understand why you want to ban pornography in the first place. You keep pivoting away from that. No, I'll tell you again, because it's against my preference.

Every time it comes back to like the original question and do you defending your affirmative position? You don't want to engage. I literally am defending my affirmative position. Are you ready? Here's my argument. I'm gonna give you my argument against pornography Everything that's against my preference is fucking bad. I want a bad pornography. And your preference is solely based on like what God tells you to do? Sure.

If God told you to rape someone, would you? Let's just bite all the bullets. I'll do whatever God says because it's within my preference. Now, why is that bad? If God tells you to commit genocide, you'll do it. You'll murder everyone. You'll rape everyone. And you'll fuck everyone. You'll get blowjobs. You'll get fucked up the ass. And that's all fine because of some limited praxis of

It's bad because I say it's bad. So you're trying to get people to think that you are like the arbiter of a good moral system? Yes, of course. Just like you. Okay. But you would rape someone if God told you to. And I'm sorry, wouldn't you rape somebody if it would save someone's life? No. Why not? Why is that bad? Because I'm violating someone's personal autonomy. But your personal autonomy you said could be violated based on a social contract.

Okay. Well, I just answered your question. Well, here, let's reduce it this way. Maybe we can try it this way, right? There's a little tiny island off the coast of, well, it doesn't matter, but it's called Papua New Guinea. Inside of Papua New Guinea, you can look this up right now. Go ahead, Google it if you don't believe me.

There exists a tribe called the Come Warriors of Papua New Guinea. And here's what they do. They just, like, come? Yeah, come. Every single morning, they go over to little tiny boys, and they mouth hump them and load them up.

Load them up every day, which is right in their mouth. Right. And the kids actually demand it because it's a warrior rite of passage inside of that society. They do it. They do it. The kids demand it. It's part of their social contract. Not kidding. Look it up. If you don't believe me, you can look it up right now. No, I believe you. I've heard this. What are they doing that's wrong?

So in my moral framework, I think pedophilia is wrong. In your moral framework, if God told you to suck off a little boy's dick, you would do it. Yeah, why? Why is it wrong in your framework to have pedophilia if it's part of the social contract? Can you agree that you would suck a little boy's dick if God told you to? Would you agree that you already suck a boy's dicks? No, of course not. No, I wouldn't. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So you wouldn't?

No, no, that would be outside my preference. Okay, so you're just completely full of shit and don't believe in anything you're actually saying. What do you mean? I believe in everything that's my preference. Do you actually believe in anything? Are you even actually religious? Yeah, I believe in everything that's... Are you actually religious? That's within my preference. Do you have any actual morals? Yes, of course. Wait, actual morals?

I just got done telling you that every fucking thing I prefer is moral, and you haven't been able to give me a single demonstratable argument for why it isn't. Not once. I just got you to admit that if God told you to, if he commanded you to, you would suck a little boy's dick. No, that literally never happened. I think we're good to go to the Q&A. No, I think we're not, because, by the way, that never even happened.

happened. And on top of that, sorry, sorry, sorry. You would write, you would write that including little boys. Can you go back to the Papa, can you go back to the Papa New Guinea argument? Can you tell me why that's wrong for that culture to do that? Before we do that, Andrew, I just want to go over our poll. So I'm going to, I'm going to make a new poll for our live chat. We've had over a 1500 votes, 1700 votes actually in our poll right now. So a big,

appreciation to our live chat for your participation. If you have a moment, if you have thumbs that can hit the like button, do so no matter where you're seeing this on the interwebs. We appreciate it. It boosts the algorithm up. Let's beat that algorithm. I got a question. Aren't you a top earner on OnlyFans?

uh top earner yeah like you're you're yeah yeah so you sidestepped me before i could hang on so you have a little bit no no wait what wasn't ryan speaking hold on hold on i just want to go over the point it's okay i know something popped in andrew's head and he he wanted to get it hammered home and it's okay uh we appreciate that it's a lot of fun but uh the polls if the poll is that should explicit adult entertainment be banned uh 60 percent say yes

30% now you're interrupting see how I run to get me. Who's better than who now? How can how could you? All right, so should explicit adult entertainment be banned 60% said yes 30% said no and then 10% said be right back. Just need five minutes Okay. Well, hopefully you guys came back after your five minutes of fun I'm gonna close out the poll and we're gonna ask a similar question just to see where you guys are at and

after this conversation, but Andrew, you wanted to take us back into some unanswered. Yeah. So I assume you make a good living doing what you're doing, right? Yeah. Would you like to make a $5,000 bet live right on air that you never got me to admit what you said you got me to admit, which is that I would do, I would suck a little boys, whatever, when you ask. Oh yeah, no, sorry. That was my mistake. You would rape people and murder people. Sorry. My bad. My bad. Yeah. Yeah. So including children probably. So wait, so you lied.

Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. So then you wouldn't do something. So you lied. No, no, no. You're lying about your moral framework. You believe in divine command theory, right? So anything God says is moral is moral? Why did I say I do? Why did I say I do? Because it's within. Because you believe in divine command theory. Because it's within what?

Your moral framework? Your preferences? My preferences. Yes, which is divine command theory. But my preferences can change anytime, right? No, you already said that your preferences are unchanging because you subscribe to divine command theory. Would you like to make a $5,000 bet? That never happened. Is that what never happened? That I never said. My moral preferences can never change because of divine command theory. You just lied again. You said that you're unchanging. Yeah, you did.

I said, no, I said my preferences are unchanging, right? Everything I think is moral is unchanging as long as it's part of my preferences, which is fine. I can change my preferences. It's still that unchanging standard is my preferences. Do you understand that? So your moral framework is unchanging? No, my preferences can change.

Right. But what is unchanging is everything within my preferences is what's moral. So if it is the case, because it's what God commands, correct? As long as that's with anything, anything he commands is as long as it's within my preferences. So you would go against God's commands if it wasn't in my preferences? Of course.

So then the entire moral framework you're working off where something is moral. What moral framework? What's my moral framework? What is it? I'm literally...

In the middle of saying it. Something is morally good. Wait, are you going to let me finish? So something is morally good because God commands it. No, something is morally good if it's in my preference. Can you repeat this for me? Andrew's moral... No, that's not what you said in the beginning. Yes, it did. That's not what you said earlier. I said I have an unchanging standard. Yes, you said that things are morally good because God commands them. As long as it's within my preferences. That was not what you said earlier. That is what I said. Would you like to bet?

So you would go against God's commands? As long as it's within my preferences. Exactly. So then you're conceding that something is morally good simply because God commands it. No, it'd be morally good if it's within my preferences like yours. Okay. Can you be intellectually honest? That's being intellectually honest. No, it isn't. If it's within my moral preferences, it's good.

Why are you denying your own beliefs? Denying what? What did I tell you? Everything within my preferences is what's moral, right? You advocate for divine command theory, correct? Sure, that's within my preference. So then anything that God commands is morally good. Unless it's not what? So then that's not divine command theory. What is divine command theory?

So that's what I just said. What is it? Something is morally good because God commands it. Yeah, but what I'm saying is that something is morally good if God commands it, if it's within my preferences. Okay, well, you've changed your answer then from when we first talked about that. I haven't changed anything. Everything, all I want to know is this. Oh, wait, so then why earlier did you say that? I've already answered, hang on, I just answered five of your questions, now answer one of mine. Why, other than your preferences...

Would any of that even be fucking bad? Why? Why would your preferences be bad? Yeah. To me? Other than your preferences. Because your preferences lead to mass human suffering. And that's just a preference you have, that human beings don't massively suffer, right? Yes. Okay, so then... Just like yours is based on a preference. So what makes your preferences better than my preferences?

Because I think we should not let human beings suffer. Oh, I think we should. What makes yours better than that? Yeah, I know you should. What makes yours better than that? Let the people decide for themselves. Let the people decide. That's what makes it better. So why earlier did you concede that if God commanded you to rape people, you would? No, I said I would bite the bullet. I literally said I would bite the bullet for the sake of the argument is what I said.

So you disagree with that now? No, I just want, I bit the bullet to ask you, why would that even be bad? And you said, just because it'd be against my preferences. Okay. So can you answer the question? I already did. Anything which is against my preferences, I'm against. Just like you. You don't, you don't actually care what God commands? Well, wait, of course I do. You don't actually have any real beliefs? Yeah, of course I do. It's within my preference.

You don't actually have any real beliefs. You can just, you're just making assertions. You don't actually have a brain in your head. You don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. You're a fucking, like we could go on and on and on, but can you demonstrate, can you demonstrate why any of my preferences are actually fucking bad other than that you don't prefer them? I mean, yeah, we can just look at countries that have adopted fascism and see how that turned out. Okay, let's talk about Germany. Sure, let's talk about Spain. It adopted fascism. How'd that work out?

I'm not familiar. Oh, I'm sure you're not. But I thought you just said that countries that adopted fascism worked out well for them. Okay, yeah, but I specifically mentioned Nazi Germany. What about it? That it was not a good thing. Do you agree that Soviet Russia was not a good thing? Yeah. Okay, great. Do you agree that capitalists all over the world commit horrific genocides all the time?

Um, sure. Okay. So then it sounds like all you're talking about is whatever political system, political theory you're talking about, it comes down to people doing whatever you think good thing is, right? Whatever that is. Sure. Like, like you could have a communist country that I don't, I don't know, like adhere to whatever your principle of not violating whatever the harm principle is, that would be good that they were communist then if that led to that, right?

Like, as long as we're not violating people's personal autonomy. Then it's fine, right? It's highly dependent on the situation. Yeah, so let me just finish real quick with this, okay? When the Spaniards got here, those evil Christians, they saw people getting sacrificed on top of a temple, and they killed all of them, right? They killed all of these Indian-sacrificing lunatics. Can you tell me why that was bad?

Because killing is bad. Oh. We should avoid that. Got it. Can you tell me why genocide is bad? Because genocide is bad, so we should avoid it. Why have you not answered a single question I've asked? I just gave you the same answer you gave me. No, because I'm saying that... Yarr, I did. Yarr.

Okay, you have not answered a single question this entire debate. No, I in fact, I have answered your questions I give the I give you the same answer You couldn't even answer the simple question of what constitutes is pornography You just said I did I gave you an entire standard said whatever whatever South Korea considers pornography is whatever I could was what I consider pornography. I

That's not an actual answer. Why? Okay. Do you want to go through it step by step with whatever South Korean laws are? That's what I've been saying multiple times. Okay. Let's go through South Korean laws for what is pornography. But I just want to point out to you that what you just said earlier was, yeah, it's bad because they killed people and that's bad. And then you said, why is genocide bad? And I said, genocide is bad because it's bad. And you took issue with that. Can you explain why? Suffering is intrinsically bad. Says who? Says just the human experience itself.

says the human experience where can I find this where can I find this as a species we have like a biological imperative to continue our species um and can sometimes continuing as a species encompass a genocide we don't want to die and sometimes can not dying encompass doing a genocide uh

And this has what to do with the adult. Probably not. Explicit. Probably not? Yeah, no. Really? So you can't decimate one entire segment of a population in order to protect yours? Like, for instance, let's say a country attacked yours, and then you went and bombed the shit out of their civilian population who was making weapons for you, right? Yeah. Right down to the last man.

Because they were making weapons for the end for you to attack these other people wouldn't that then be human beings? Actually protecting them moving on under personal autonomy. Yeah, I'm not really someone who's gonna advocate for nuclear war But I'm didn't say anything about nuclear war You probably are right literally didn't say in terms of like I say the word nuclear once well you I assumed you meant that because I say the bombing an entire clear once

No, no. I'm against bombing. My bad. So all bombing. Well, I'm against the war in general, obviously. Obviously, they're not. Well, no, of course not. So then if in self-defense your country's attack, you attack another civilian population in order to get them to stop attacking you because they're making the weapons for the army. That could lead potentially to that G word. Right. You would actually have to say that that's OK. Right.

Well, they would be violating someone's personal autonomy. Sure. So then I guess that the G word can indeed be conducive to human beings continuing to exist, can't it? There is an acceptable level of harm. Self-defense? Yes, self-defense is an acceptable level of harm. So then the G word under self-defense would actually be part of the human experience, wouldn't it?

Uh, in self-defense, yes. But, um, you seem to think that it's fine just in general, right? Because God commands it. No, I think everything that is right is in my preferences. Yes, based on what God commands. Based on what I say. You can't be honest about what you actually believe. Based on what I say. What is, I don't even understand. Even if I wasn't honest about what I said, why would that be bad?

Because we're here to have an honest debate, aren't we? Yeah, but why should we? Or at least I am. Why do you even want to have an honest debate? Why? Is it bad not to?

Well, I think if you're going to come on here with someone else who's being honest and good faith, then yeah. You're not being honest and good faith. You violated your principle in the very beginning. You refused to engage with me at all on what harm reduction actually was or meant and said that in some way I was violating the terms of the debate by trying to get some kind of foundational ethical system out of you before we moved on to the prescriptive phase.

And so because you disallowed. I never said that. Yeah, you did. And because this was. Yeah. You said, can we get back to the debate? That's part of the debate is the. So that's me claiming that you've violated the debate.

Yeah, you did. You said, let's get back to the debate. That means I'm not debating the top, but we are. Well, I said, let's get back to you defining pornography, which you have still failed to do. Where's the list? Why is that bad? Where's the list? Why is that bad? Where's the list? Of what? The Korean? You were pulling it up. What happened to that? Oh, well, we got on a side tangent where I was continuing to destroy your stupid ass worldview, which is based on preference. You're continuing to pivot away from all the questions I'm asking. Yeah. Okay. So what, what question would you like me to answer? Well,

What's the list? The South Korean list for what is pornography? Okay. Yes. I'll pull it up. Got my cell phone handy here.

All right. Well, we have another poll in the live chat there. We are going to get to the Q&A probably. It's a refers to a form of visual or written material depicting explicit sexual acts, which is largely illegal under the law, meaning that almost all types of pornography, including videos, images, blah, blah, blah. I guess I would have to get a little bit more granular. And we can wait. So that's that would then mean if you're sending nudes to your wife, you should be imprisoned, right?

No, actually it doesn't have a prohibition. It's actually referencing public.

It's referencing the public. So depicting explicit sexual acts, which is largely illegal under the law, meaning that almost all types of pornography, including videos, images, and written consent are considered prohibited and subject to censorship by the government distribution of such materials. It can result in fines and imprisonment. I actually don't see anything here saying that if it was like to your wife, that would be problematic at all. If you could show me where... So are you changing your stance on imprisonment now? What do you mean?

Well, before you were saying that people who produce and watch pornography should go to jail. Now you're saying that isn't the case? And that's what the law says here, too. Oh, okay. So even watching porn, you think people should be imprisoned? Sure. Let's send them to jail. Like 80% of men on planet Earth should be in jail? Sure. Send them to fucking jail. So just everyone. Do you think that if I said I was going to send you to jail if you watched porn, that it would still be 80% of men who watch porn?

Oh, there would still be a lot. Yeah. Do you think it would be 80%? Do you think that banning porn is going to stop people from watching porn? Can you answer my question? Do you think it would be 80%? 80% of men regularly watch porn, yeah. Yeah, do you think that if I made it fucking illegal, it would still be 80%? It would still be very high, yes. Would it still be 80%?

uh it would probably be a little bit lower okay how much lower i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure if we could determine that but i do want to jump in what kind of question is that guys i'm just looking at the time here so i just put both of you on mute sorry um

Yeah, I'm not sure that can be determined, just I'm not sure how we could actually get that data. But I do want to go over the poll, and I do want to remind you that we do have a lot of questions for the Q&A. So, you know, if you want to put a few bows on some of the discussions and talking points that you've been getting into, certainly to our live audience, if you have questions, keep them coming in. No problem with that. Smash the like button if you haven't already.

You know, Lordy knows it's looking at you. It's saying, do it. All right, so should pooling... I came up with an anagram because I'm clever like that. So instead of saying the P word, I said, should pooling our rods nightly be banned? 60% said yes and 40% said no. Yeah, it's a nasty one, I know. So let's see if we can put a few bows on...

the subjects that we are saying here. Gift wrap it there, fellas. And then we will get into that Q&A. Hopefully, I got seven minutes on the timer, so I'm going to jump in in seven minutes. So let's see how you guys do. Whenever you're ready.

Are we doing closing statements? What are we doing? No, it's just a matter of like if you have anything, like I said, that you want to, you don't feel like you've managed to get all of the topics on the table, we can try to get through it in the next. I feel like we got through. We haven't talked at all about like what kind of policies he would propose in order to ban pornography. I mean, we have multiple times. Like what? Like you go to jail. That would be a policy. Is that not a policy?

So you're fine with like, you know, the increased taxes that will incur for the billions of dollars that it will cost to regulate pornography consumption? Yeah, sure. Okay. Is that bad? Is what bad? Is it bad that I would raise taxes? Advocating for raised taxes, no. Yeah. Oh, okay. All right. I think that's a good place to close off there because we do have so many questions. So a big round of virtual applause to Diddley and Andrew for coming out and having the discussion there tonight.

Yeah, we have a lot of questions from you guys the live chat. Keep your votes coming in Should pulling our rods might really be banned 61% are saying yes, it should be banned now. So it's gonna hurt 1% since then see I'm coming up with clever ways to make anagrams, you know, pat myself on the back in the morning and

Let's see here. We're going to ask some of those questions and thank you so much everybody for your participation. A lot of really great engagement in the live chat. Like I said before, if you haven't hit the like button, do so now. It really helps boost us up in the algorithm, especially where we're about to take our audience questions. We're a little later phasing the debate and

Also, more importantly, Andrew is going to be hanging out in two days in Newark, New Jersey. It's going to be great. It's for our DebateCon 5. There are lots of debates that are going to be there, not just Andrew's. But, you know, certainly at this point, I'd say you're kind of a featured guest. Is that fair to say, Andrew? Yeah, I probably have a larger audience than anybody else there, I would say. There you go. You have more than 600,000 subscribers. How many do you get live viewing you?

On YouTube? Yeah. Or Twitch? Like all together, maybe 2,000, 3,000? Oh, yeah, much smaller. Well, we just booked you up with that surprise. Yeah, I got 7,000 right this second.

It's just going out. Oh, there you go. You're cleaning house. Looks to go. All right. Well, let's ask those super chats and we'll get through them. Dylan Deschener says, why can't Canadians pronounce sorry or Newark properly? JK, love you, Ryan. Well, love you too, random citizen. That's my make of mine quotes go.

But, you know, we pronounce a few things weird up here in the north. You know, like I said earlier, what's this all about? We're debating whether this, you know, explicit adult content should be banned. So, yeah, if you're wondering, that's what we're on about. Evenlord says, why does Prawn Hub want minors to watch Prawn? So, I think Evenlord is saying that there's not enough, you know, safety gates available

to prevent minors from getting access to these things. But I don't know if there's an agenda there to actually get that to happen, but maybe there's not enough safeguards. But let's let our panel discuss it. Go ahead there, Diddley. Yeah, there's lots of safeguards that are built into computers and stuff that parents can use to ensure that their children aren't viewing pornography, things that just completely block all pornography or sites.

I think Pornhub within the last few years, I think it was about four years ago, was it? They came out with a really cool verification system that completely wiped out any videos on the website that weren't from verified users, which I think was a really good move. And I also think OnlyFans does an even better job at safeguarding children from viewing the content by hiding it, obviously, behind a paywall. So,

Instantly makes it a lot harder for children to access. But yeah, I think we should definitely educate parents more on how to safeguard their children To not be viewing this kind of content online. I have on the other hand a 100% safeguard We shut it down and we put them all in fucking prison and I will have zero objections to

from my debate opponent who will never be able to tell any of you why that's even fucking bad or wrong. I did multiple times. Except she just doesn't fucking prefer it. I don't think we should be violating people's personal autonomy like that. Because you prefer we don't? Yes. And you prefer that we do. Yeah, exactly. So here's the thing. So listen to this rationally to you, ladies and gentlemen. Didn't understand what I was doing the entire night by pointing out how stupid this is. Here's what's going on.

Everything this woman is telling you, she's literally saying to you, because I just really fucking think so. Right? I just really think so. I just really think we should because I just really think we should.

everything which is bad she's the ultimate arbiter of right i you could say well andrew you evil fast this and i would just go shut it down i'd send in men with guns they'd kick the fucking doors in they throw your ass on your face you'd get arrested they would burn the fucking building down on their way out after they made sure it was cleared of all civilians right she can't even tell you why that's bad she'd only tell you that she just doesn't prefer that you do that that's it

The adherence to this stupid-ass principle makes zero sense. It makes zero sense. There's no good reason why it is that... Yeah, so I can admit that it's based on personal preference, but you can't because you think it's based on objective morality, right? How many times do I have to say personal preference? How many times do I have to say it's my personal preference? Yeah, but that's a lie. That's a lie. All right, let's ask the next question. Wait, wait, wait. Is that bad? Is it bad to lie? Based on the Bible, it is. It's a sin, actually. You should be praying tonight.

For forgiveness. Do you think it's bad? Last back and forth. No, I just think it's really bad. You don't think it's bad to lie. So who cares? Dylan Deschner says Andrew went to debate. I don't think it's sinful. One second. You don't think it's bad. Hold on one second there. We're going to ask the next question. Dylan Deschner says Andrew went to debate university. The weird female went to debate community college with financial aid. This is evident. Well, thank you, Dylan Deschner. I don't know if we can really unpack too much from that.

Yeah, but you've you had your your three seconds of fame. I gotcha Will games says Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior All right. Well once again another declaration, but we got you will games Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior I'll say it twice not to be extra nice. All right, this is the Canadian way Dean Withers says did Lee is going to destroy Andrew

How'd that work out, Dean? Well, I got you to admit that you would rape people so long as God commanded it. Sure he did. Next one, guys. Stupid but funny. And would that be bad? Yeah, it would be. And everyone else here agrees that it's bad. It's bad because it is bad, right? We already unpacked all of that stuff, so let's carry on. Stupid but funny says, Hey...

I can't. Hey, Dong Diddler, do lions in Australia pronounce the letter R correctly or do they do it like you? Oh, stupid but funny. I don't know. Lots of people talk differently on this show, so we're just going to let that one go. This is just a standard Aussie accent.

Yeah, I mean, you know, some people find that I talk a little funny. Some people think Andrew talks a little funny. Depends where you are in the world. Nobody thinks I talk funny. I mean, Brits might, you know. That's the thing is that, gee, you got me all tongue-tied, I swear. But, yeah, no, depending on where you are in the world, I mean, everybody talks kind of funny to you. All right, so let's just carry on. Evelyn Lord says, Judge, my client pleads who cares.

Judge my client, pleads who cares. Okay, I'm not sure if we can unpack from there too. Do you guys have anything to say to even Lord? Judge my client, plead who cares.

No, not feeling that one. Sorry, Evenlord. You didn't give us enough context. Sunflower says, moral incongruence is the issue. It's not the moron's fault. Does that apply elsewhere? Sociopaths have no moral incongruence with manipulating others. So I guess manipulation is inherently wrong. See how I threw that zero in there. So that's for you, Diddley.

So I'm making a comment on the level of harm that's being perceived as a result of pornography. And the fact is that moral incongruence is one of the biggest factors that, well, one of the biggest predictors, I should say, that lead to psychological distress or perceived problems with pornography use. So I think that's something that often gets overlooked.

is that people hear about people who are addicted and have all these adverse mental health effects, when a really big factor at play is that often these people are religious or conservative, and they're obviously being told that pornography is bad, we should stay away. So obviously, if they're watching it, yeah, that's going to be really psychologically distressing, having that kind of incongruence. Any thoughts over there, Andrew? Do you want to carry on?

Well, when she talks about psychological incongruence, for instance, I just want to know. Moral incongruence. Oh, moral incongruence. Even better. Moral incongruence. If you have moral incongruence, is that bad? It's not necessarily. Like the feeling of like the suffering that ensues from it obviously is intrinsically bad. But yeah, it depends what it is.

All right. Suffering is intrinsically bad again. Yes. So as I discussed earlier, the feeling of suffering is bad. That's what I mean when I say it's intrinsically bad. That's what intrinsically means. It's not making a moral argument. If you had a family member that died, right? Would you rather, would you rather feel that? Would you rather feel bad about that or feel nothing? I think sadness is a part of the human experience. So I'd probably rather feel bad. Doesn't it make you suffer?

Yes. And that's bad. Well, then I guess I can't. Oh, wait. You still aren't understanding when I say, can you define intrinsic? Can you define intrinsic? If that's bad intrinsically to suffer, then can you define intrinsically? Yeah. As part of the thing. So if it is the case, right, that it is intrinsically. So I'm not making a moral argument. Yeah. If it is the case, you just did. You said if it is intrinsically bad to suffer.

to suffer, then your answer would be that you would not want to suffer when the family member dies. And yet your intuition was actually you would prefer to suffer, which means it's not actually... I've stated this multiple times. It's not actually intrinsically bad. I'm not sure if you have hearing difficulties. When I say suffering is intrinsically bad, it means that it feels bad to suffer. I'm not making a moral argument. Oh, okay. So is... Okay. Okay.

I still don't understand what bad is then. I'm asking morally, is it bad to suffer? Not necessarily. As I've stated multiple times throughout this debate. Well, then I don't know what fucking bad even means still. Yeah, I know. Because you would rape someone if God told you to. Is that bad? Well, well, well. Is that bad? Why? Why is it bad? Because you're violating someone's personal autonomy. And that's bad because...

Because we as human beings don't want to suffer. All right, guys. Let's ask the next question. This beer is warm. I'm going to grab another beer because this one's just not doing it for me. It is literally detrimental to our health to experience suffering. Is that bad? Is what? If something's detrimental to your health? Yes, that is bad. You don't eat cheeseburgers and that's immoral?

Wait, that's a completely different question. Wasn't it bad? Yes, it is bad to eat cheeseburgers. That doesn't mean it's morally bad. That's a completely different question. I literally brought that up in my opening statement. I still don't know what morally bad means then. I know, because you would rape someone if God told you to. Yeah, but I don't know why that would be bad though. That's the problem. That is a problem. I agree. Why would that be bad? We have so many questions, guys.

guys. I'm trying to be polite, you know, but yeah, eventually I can all...

I'm just kidding Justin Henley says watching a corn is simping ban it and fire MX XD worst mod ever Hey Justin, if you want to participate with Jim Bob and debate against MX XD You're welcome to it. But MX XD is also hanging out at his own channel called matters now you can hang out over there They usually do after shows after we're done debating so if you want to go and you know, have a piss and moan at them

Yeah, feel free. But, you know, I appreciate all the mods that come out to help. You know, I don't maybe agree with every decision and every chat that gets banned. But all right. So Mario pissed off says corn is a huge method to determine a strong nation for control and fall away from Christianity. I'm sure what you you understand what I mean. But what is it? What?

They're saying corn is a, and I'm using a code word, hue-ish method. Oh, they're Nazi. To diminish a strong nation for control and fall away from Christianity. How's that being a Nazi? Wait, do you disagree? Yeah. How's that Nazism? Why? They're doing the whole hue-ish question, aren't they? No, they said that. It's literally Nazi dog listening. What Jewish question did they ask?

what do you think that question was? What was it? Reread the question. Let me make sure I got it right. I don't think that it had anything to do with Jews. Go ahead. Is that not what you were censoring? That, that was what I was censoring just because I think it's a little, okay. Well, it was censored. That's why I didn't hear the word putting everything together. I think it could get us in a little bit of trouble. So I'm just saying, uh,

The way they put it, they censored the first word, but just everything. Is that from your audience, Andrew? No, this is from yours. This is from MDD. No, definitely not, actually. Definitely it was. Okay, Mario Pissed Off might be. No, definitely not. Okay, so if Mario Pissed Off, maybe you are a fan of Andrew's, but that's okay. I mean, they literally, can you reread the question without the Nazi dog whistling? It was in defense of Andrew's argument, was it not?

So what they said is and I said hue-ish Try to not like I say make a stream. Yeah. Yeah, that's why I didn't catch it. But anyway, what what did you say? They said corn? Mm-hmm adult entertainment is a hue-ish method to diminish a strong nation for control all away from Christianity. Yeah, we just said Andrew Andrew. Do you think that that's my view? Probably

Okay, the cope is immense. What's the cope? It's obviously your it's obviously why is it obviously my viewer? They're in defense of your argument. They're a Christian. I never gave a single argument like that. How is it in defense of my fucking argument? Okay, cope. Can you tell me when I gave that argument?

Cope. Can you tell me when I gave that argument? What argument? The one that he just gave? That you said it's in defense of? Well, that's a straw man. So you don't have to specifically... You said that it's in defense of my argument. You don't have to... He's in defense of your entire argument, which is obviously banning porn. What is it?

Wait, wait, wait. Okay, so anybody who says anything who also says, and I want to bad porn is in defense of my fucking argument? Okay, you are immensely coping. Anyone with more than a double digit IQ can tell that that is your audience member.

There is nothing to be debated about that. I don't know. I think that Nazis like to watch porn. I think Nazis like to watch porn. There's nothing to be... Well, that guy didn't. He was against it. Well, I don't know. I mean, maybe there's one who wasn't, but, you know, maybe they like to watch porn, maybe. All right. I said a little bit about staying within terms of service, but boys, aren't we just outside? You know, I try to maintain myself just because if I don't, I'll just let it go for every other stream and we'll get in trouble every time, but

But I will be honest, we're probably way over on our allowable YouTube limit here. Okay. I'll try to keep it within the confines. No, no. I'm saying like, fuck it. Forget about it. Like, I'm not going to censor anymore because I think we're already well outside it. I don't even know why I'm bothering, honestly. So let's just keep on going without censoring. So let me just go up here, guys. We got a lot of super chats.

Um, Kengo44, actually before we get to that one, oh yeah, it does go up for a while. Alright, I gotta, I gotta use that, uh, fantastic finger of mine. MarioPissedOff was the last one, there we go. Alright, we, WillGames says, the real thing guys is that he made graduation, he made grad-uation. I don't know. Funnier reference. Oh, okay. Thanks.

I'm an old school rock and roll fan, so that's out my wheelhouse. So wrongful rage says not one step. Not one. All right. There you go. You got your huzzah there. Cinematic Jurassic says those who have suffered from corn addiction are some of the strongest advocates for banning it because they know the harm and toil it can take on their well-being.

So do you guys think this is true that the people that are trying to ban it are and the people that are the loudest voices against it are you know large consumers of the product?

Well, I'm already critical of the way that they describe themselves as addicted because, I mean, I engage with these communities a lot online and often people will call themselves addicted, these really outspoken people, and then you ask them how often they watch porn and it turns out they watch it once a week or once a month. So it's kind of like this self-perceived level of addiction which I don't think would ever actually match up to any kind of clinical definition of addiction. But, um...

Those probably they probably do tend to be the loudest voices in the community. But I know there's also a lot of women who staunchly against porn and stuff. So those people would be included even though they don't watch porn. And you follow up there, Andrew. Yeah, I'm sure that that some are.

Alright, fair enough. Let's carry on. So, thank you so much for your super chat there, Cinematic Jurassic, Wrongful Rage, Will Games, Mario Pissed Off. We're going to carry on. You too, Justin Henley, Sunflower, Even Lord, Stupid But Funny. But yeah, we're going to carry on into some of the new super chats. Thank you, everybody. Dylan Dishner says, when Andrew asked her to define rule utilitarianism,

Utilitarianism. Sorry, G, I can't talk. Diddly's diddler voice started shaking hard. Yeah, she never did. I have a bit of a cold, so that's why I've been muting. No, you just didn't know what real utilitarianism is. If you do, I'm actually willing to stop right now and listen again to you tell us what real utilitarianism is.

I already did earlier, so I'm not going to do it again. Yeah, because you can't because you don't know. I already did it earlier. I gave you two examples. Earlier, you did not give us rule utilitarianism. You gave us a deontological system. What is rule utilitarianism? So there's like a set rule of morality and like.

operating under the utilitarianism framework is basically essentially about maximizing well-being and reducing harm. But then there's also like these set rules, like I mentioned. So we probably shouldn't shoot baby Hitler because that would be in violation of a rule. What the fuck are you talking? All right. All right. Would you like to define it?

I'll let you define it. I just did. Would you like to define it instead if you think I'm wrong? No, no, no. You're totally right. No, like I would like you to define it. I'm asking you to. Well, that's nice. Okay. Well, that's nice. So you aren't going to? No. Okay. No, I'll just let it stand. Are you looking it up? Is that why? No. You want me to share my screen? I could see your eyes moving to the other monitor, so I was curious. That's where my chat is.

So I'm running OBS on this screen is OBS and my chat and all my toggles and shit. Why do you have a problem with defining it? And this screen, which I'm capturing. You're saying I'm wrong, but you won't define it? Why do I need to define it for you? Well, because you're claiming that I'm wrong. What's wrong with you? All right, we have other questions there, guys. You're claiming that I'm wrong, so can you define it? You don't want to correct me? No. Why? Because I just want to let it stand.

All right. We are going to ask the next question. I just wanted to pick on Andrew a little bit and say, you only have two monitors? That's basic. What's going on over there? I was going to say, you have to have three monitors and a projector hooked up to your computer. That's when you're boss level. No, I'm just trying to make myself feel better. Maybe I'm just insecure.

My computer runs hot all the time. Will Games says, Diddly, what are you doing? You're choking. Lock in. So they think that you were... I think Diddly is probably used to that.

God damn. I was kind of like, I've obviously been told that Andrew is like one of the most bad faith debaters of all time, but I was kind of hoping for like a topic like this, which I find interesting that I don't know, maybe he would be like the slightest bit good faith, but yeah, it turns out. I'm every bit as good faith as my opponent. No, you're not. Yeah, I am. It's just that you don't even understand in the earlier part of the debate,

Right. When you start saying stupid shit like this is just semantics and blah, blah, blah. Like semantics are super important to a debate so that we can define our terms. We can outline it, which you failed to do several times. Yeah. Then we can move over from semantics because I'm going to start always with what is it you believe? Why do you believe it? And here's exactly what my framework is. When I realize you don't have a framework, I lose interest. You don't have one.

You literally just don't have one. Let's ask the next question. Let's see. Evenlord says, Ryan, you're a great mod. You're fair and unbiased. I like to think so. I like to think that I give everybody fair time on the panel. Feel free to contest on the panel. But no, I tried to do my best to be fair. But we're not going to focus on that, Evenlord. I appreciate you.

You know, and I welcome criticism, you know. And, Brian, I do have to actually go in this debate a little bit early because I have to get on a plane to fly out to see you guys tomorrow. So... All right, well...

Yeah. Yeah.

I just want to call him a nasty fella. All right. Andrew Starr says, I thought the mod moved it on to talk about Korn.

I did a few times, but I do want to let the speakers get out their thoughts too and there's certain things that people might find important that maybe I don't and that's okay. You know, I don't want to try to speed things along just because I have my own idea about what might be relevant to the topic. It's not a matter of bias. It's just a matter of trying to keep things moving, but I want to let our speakers naturally engage. So once again, Andrew,

I'm just going to move on from that. Jordan Lofgren says, Diddley, do you realize you have no standard to judge anything in the Bible as bad? You have no objective standard for morality. You're beyond help. Right. We'll just... Preview God exists and then I'll accept that you have an objective standard of morality. Well, if we don't, then who cares?

exactly exactly exactly all right next one coming in andrew star says mod is clearly simping beyond belief i don't know where this mod is but you can you can let me know who they are and who they're simping for uh because i i truly don't know andrew star says she has no moral framework nothing literally nothing what do you mean nothing

Well, you're just an airhead. You don't even know what you're talking about. You don't even know what kind of utilitarian you are. It's just so funny. You haven't even defined it. I don't need to. You can go ahead and define it for me right now. I never need to define a thing to know whether or not you're telling me what the thing is or isn't and if it is or isn't that thing. Like pornography? Like how you didn't define it? What you want me to do is give you your answers for you because you don't have any.

Well, is that wrong if I'm asking you to correct me? Is that bad? Did I say it was bad? Well, you're acting as if it is. No, I'm just pointing out that you don't have any standard. So nothing's bad. Last thought for you, Diddly. We're moving on and we'll ask the next question. Nothing's bad, Diddly. Nothing. Did you have any thoughts there, Diddly? Or do you want to just carry to the next question? Yeah, next. All right. Kango44 says fake Christians like Andrew should be banned, not corn out.

Andrew, should you be banned? Go ahead. Like, I mean, I'm sure many of you would like to. Rex, I mean, you stupid fucking leftist because you're so retarded. But the thing is, is like, ultimately, here's how it works. I'm highly charismatic. I'm super fun to watch. And I have a great show. So the thing is, is like, you're not going to stop me. Instead, what's going to happen, even if you were to, let's say, relegate me to another show,

place you're like oh you know we mass bear mass report if you if you strike me down i would become more powerful than you could possibly imagine why did you read that like you were the emperor that was an obi-wan quote that's fitting because because it just sounded good you know just sounded good he's literally the sith something something dark side something yeah everybody's watched mine mine's mine's way better mine's way better yeah you want to bet all right

But, yeah, I don't want to ban free speech. I value free speech, unlike Andrew. No, you don't. You don't value free speech. I do. You do? So you think that there should be all sorts of Nazi posting over on X? Well, I don't think they should be imprisoned or punished for it, no. Oh, but do you think it should be there?

Do I think it should be there is different to like, do I think the state should intervene? Yeah. Like if Elon Musk. Which is what free speech is about, right? Okay. Got it. So then. So I don't think people should be Nazis, but like I still respect people's right to have a say. And if a corporation becomes a public square, do you think that they should allow all different kinds of speech in there? If a corporation? Yeah. Yeah.

So, like, can you give me an example? Like Twitter. Twitter is a corporation, but it has become a new public square for speaking. I support people's right to free speech on Twitter. I don't care. Including them posting that they want to, like, G, J. Well, no, that's not protected by freedom of speech. It's not? Well, that's a threat to people's safety, which is not protected by freedom of speech. They just endorse it. They're not saying they're going to do it.

All right. Last one does need to come to fruition there, guys. Kango44 was asking, fake Christians like Andrew should be banned, not cornered. So let's try to get back into it. Austin Graham. Yeah, well, I was just saying I saw some people saying about the way we were talking there, Andrew.

We'll do an impression off here in a second. I swear. Austin Graham says, Diddley, what should we do when a society neighboring ours is genociding and digging up bodies? And you know, see, I'll say it. Wait, what do you mean digging up? What? They're digging up bodies. And so what they're doing is they're killing off big portions of another population and then digging up the bodies and banging them. Should we intervene?

I already said I'm like, I fully support self-defense. Yeah, they're not attacking you. They're just doing it somewhere else. No, the question framed it like they are attacking you.

They're not attacking you. They're attacking other people. Oh, well, in that case, like, I mean, based on like how world allies work, right? We have like treaties and things. So, for example, if you guys go to war, we're going to war with you. And that would fall under self-defense. I just have to take a deep breath there, guys. My God. The questions that get asked here, I swear. Oh, boy. Gee. All right. Emperor Fatass Dogs says...

I'm not banning the P word, but diddly, don't you think it gives younger people the wrong idea when it comes to relationships? It can. And this is actually why I'm a huge proponent of comprehensive sex education in schools, because this can help like foster more healthy attitudes towards sex and masturbation. And these are all things Andrew are against and he doesn't care about that. So. Yeah. But you don't even think that that's bad. So who cares?

I don't think what's bad? You don't think anything that, well, I mean, you can't really. You don't really have a worldview. Like, I don't even know what metric you would even use to determine anything that I think is bad. Because you just move it every five seconds from one thing to the next. All right. Let's ask the next one. And I'm going to give it my best RFK and see if Andrew can give his best Alex Jones. They're very similar. What would Andrew abort Hitler?

That was terrible, RFK. Sorry. Come on. What he bought Hitler. You have to get that tone up a little bit, right? You have to be like... You have to get the shake going. I can't do it, but you gotta get the shake going. I'll work on it. Do you have an Alex Jones? Can you get mad about the...

I probably could have done Alex Jones before he sounded like he smoked more cigarettes than me. Oh, gee, Alex Jones smoked more cigarettes than Andrew. I don't think that's possible. All right. So without doing impressions, it's totally fine. Would Andrew abort Hitler? Abort him? No. Straight from the womb. No, no, no. I wouldn't abort. Unless if God commanded you to. No, unless it aligned with my preferences. So like you would rape him?

Only if it aligned with preferences. You already hit the bullet on that earlier. It's fine. No, I granted a certain segment for the sake of argument to demonstrate you have a worldview. Okay, so then what's your worldview?

Everything that's within the preferences that I have is moral and everything that isn't, isn't. You already agreed that you advocate for divine command theory. Because as long as it's within my preference. We know for a fact that you would have bought Hitler if you were commanded to. If it was within what? Your preferences, yes, which is divine command theory. No, divine command theory would be within my preferences.

All right, let's give Diddly the last word on this one and we'll carry on. Just because you are taking the last word on a lot of these and that's totally fine. But they are questions for Diddly mostly. So any last thoughts on this one, Diddly, before we carry on? On like that same comment? Yeah, just to close it out. No, it's fine. We can move on. All right. I was going to say, I mean, that one was technical.

I'm not too concerned, honestly. It's just trying to be fair. Tentos Hemerson says, Now, just to give context, Tentos,

Andrew was on the affirmative tonight and part of his affirmative stance was the biblical framework that he was presenting So I don't think it was unfair to go into that No, nope, it's totally fair But but before you ever call someone bad faith always remember that just because you're so dumb You don't know how debate works and that you're supposed to outline terms and semantics that we can get to the heart of what's going on that if somebody else's matches your energy and

Right. And won't let you get away with your bullshit by just holding a simple mirror up so that people can see how dumb you are. That's on you, not on me. So when are you actually going to make an argument for why we should ban pornography? Is that going to happen even once in this? OK, you ready? I'll give you an argument right now. Here we go. Pornography is against Andrew Wilson's preferences, so therefore should be banned. OK, so just no, no answer, no actual argument.

Again, you're arguing the affirmative and you've completely failed to make a single argument this entire debate. All right, let's ask the next question, guys. We do have lots of interactions and I think you guys will be able to unpack some more. So

Dylan Dishner says, So, thanks Dylan Dishner. And, yeah.

I mean, there was a point in the debate where both of you had said, like, I don't care. Like, you know, you simply both step back and said, like, that's not a concern of mine. I think the difference is that I'm fine with admitting that my moral framework is obviously based on personal preference, whereas he isn't okay with admitting that because that would just go against his objective morality. How many more fucking times do I have to say it? What do you want me to say?

Yeah, but you're just trying to do that for the sake of the argument. How many more times do I have to say my preferences for you to understand? Also, it's within my preferences to lie. Yeah. All right. So why do you debate? Why? What do you mean? It's within my preference to debate. All right. Let's answer that question. Okay. So Andrew says it's within his preference. We're going to ask him that question. It's within Andrew's preference to debate. Okay.

And we like that because Andrew's going to be live at DebateCon 5 and he's going to be doing, yeah, he's going to be doing a ton of debates. Check out our Modern Day Debate upcoming live streams and hit the notification bell. But before I get back into too much of that, we're going to ask the next question. Andrew Starr says her chat is clearly feeding her answers. Do you have a live chat right now there, Diddly? I'm not streaming on anywhere.

I didn't think so. I'm sorry. I'm actually really flattered that you think they're feeding me answers because I've been looking here at the, what is this, Zoom call pretty much the whole time. I've got like my little notes on the side that I've already written up. It was Andrew. I don't have any chats open. In our chat. But thank you. I honestly appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Made by Jim Bob says, Diddly, are you okay with...

How do I say this underage sex dolls given they don't cause harm? Um No Like we we don't know if that doesn't cause harm as well like this isn't something we've done studies on or whatever like No, I shouldn't you demonstrate something causes harm before you outlaw it. Hmm. Well, I don't is it outlawed? I don't know. Yes. It's outlawed. Yes, I

Okay. Well, then I'm sure there's data that suggests that that is like a really bad thing and it actually doesn't lead to harm reduction or anything. Well, that's just an assumption, right? But that's not what you said. You just said there hasn't been enough data on it or something to this effect. It's like, but the question still stands. Before you ban the thing, shouldn't you have the data by your view? Yeah.

Uh, not necessarily. Like, if there's something... Like, because, I mean, the data is always changing. Oh. So why should we ban anything if the data can change? Well, because it just depends on, like, the...

The way we do the scientific method, we're always learning new things and adding new information that adds to how we make decisions. I'll tell you what. I'm just going to ask you one last question. If you can't answer it, I'll answer it. I promise if you ask it back. Can you just tell me real quick, what is the scientific method?

Let's try to make it quick. Real quick. So we do like empirical testing. There's like peer review and we make sure that

We've discussed implications and things in our studies. And there's also like in terms of constructing theories. So these are things that are like tested over and over again. And yeah, peer reviewed by people within the academic community. Okay. All right.

Let's move on to the next question there, fellas. Thanks so much. Alchemist says, did Andrew... Oh, Andrew's stepping out, so maybe I'll find one for you, Diddley. WrongfulRage says, Diddley, go back to your rubber stamp collections. This was a massive loss. I don't know if you know WrongfulRage, but they had that to say.

There'll be a couple that aren't really worth engaging. The actual loss is that 80% of the people in the chat right now are going to be locked up and imprisoned under Andrew's worldview.

So Alan Hatt says, yeah, Andrew, stay on topic. Which fast food is bad? Andrew Starr says, Andrew is really reflecting her worldview. Will Games for $2 says, what's going on?

And then Will Games says, but God is real, right? All right, I'm going to scroll back up. We'll try to get Andrew back in here. We just went through a few Super Chats just to bang him out. Just read them. So you've had your moment of fame. It's happened, okay? And now I'm just going to do this because, you know, we appreciate the money, money, money, money. I'm just...

You guys supporting the channel, you guys are big stuff. Honestly, we appreciate it. Alkama says, did Andrew become Protestant? I heard a lot of scripture interpretation earlier, but I didn't hear him call his father first to approve. Does this mean that scripture doesn't need an intermediary? The question's incoherent to me. Why? They'd ask if, yeah, what would it mean if, did Andrew become a Protestant? What would that even mean?

Yeah, I don't know. They're saying that, I guess, because you didn't call your father first to approve, that means you're not orthodox. I'm not sure. Maybe that's what they mean? I don't know. This was from Alchemist, so you just keep an eye out for them. They're coming at you. Dylan Deschner says, Andrew won the poll in the chat because the Diddler fans are on her OnlyFans instead of being here.

You got to rally the troops, Diddley. All right? There you go. You got to put up a post or something. Anyway.

Let's see. Wi-Fi Gospel says, Deuteronomy 22:25, the rapist is put to death. The Hebrew word for rape in V25 is shazak, with a Q. In V28, the word changes to taphas. Same author, different words. Why? So that's actually incorrect.

The one they're referencing where the man is put to death is in the case where a woman is not a virgin. And in that case, they're actually both put to death. So to be clear, the woman who was raped by the man is also stoned. The...

Scripture that I quoted is in the case where she's a virgin, in which case he must then pay her father 50 shekels and he must divorce her. And sorry, he has to marry her and is never allowed to divorce her. So she is now his basically sex captive from the man who raped her.

Alright, let's see what else we got here. I know Andrew's got to get ready for heading on out, so let's keep moving on through. Andrew, yeah, we read that one, Andrew Starr. Let's see. Even Lorde says, why is book burning bad? Why is censorship bad?

I mean, we censored tonight. I mean, I tried to for a while, and then eventually I just get to that fucking point, and I'm like, well, whatever. Let's just go. But why is book burning bad, and why is censorship bad? Well, because I value freedom of speech and personal autonomy, and so violating that would be bad. Yeah, I don't think either thing is bad. Mm-hmm. We know. Yeah. There's all kinds of horrible books. Do you think we should just get rid of the Constitution? Yeah.

Like, because you're against the First Amendment? Oh, wait. The First Amendment is interpreted, right? That wasn't what I asked. Yeah, I know, but I'm just getting clarification. The First Amendment is interpreted. Can we agree that that's true? Interpreted? So people in black robes interpret what it means, and then they deviate case law based on what they're interpreting? I think there's like a consensus on the interpretation. I don't think it's up for debate. It's not up for debate?

Not really, no. So you don't think that if the Supreme Court, for instance, I don't know, said abortion wasn't a right, that they had a bad interpretation? Wait, that...

In terms of the First Amendment? If the Supreme Court said abortion, not good. And you answer my question. I'm answering it. No, you're not. You haven't answered a single question this whole debate. You said it's inarguable because it's not up for interpretation. Are you against the First Amendment? No, I'm not against the First Amendment.

Okay, that was what you just said before. No, I didn't. I just said that it's subject to interpretation. You then said, no, it's not. There's a consensus, Andrew. And so it's not really up to interpretation. I see. So you think that the interpretation then was correct when they overturned Roe v. Wade, right? I'm not super well-versed on that issue. I'm not American. They said abortion's not a right. Who?

the supreme can we just like move on because i'm not super familiar with this the supreme court said abortion is not right were they wrong um well i personally think that abortion is right yeah okay gotcha so there's some kind of interpretation going on here but anyway thank you all right we do have a lot of questions i'm gonna set a 30 minute timer we'll try to bang some of these out right quick and then maybe when we get a really good one we'll uh we'll get lodged in okay uh

So I'm gonna set a 30 second timer which is like I say just try to knock him out of the park Even Lorde says if fascism is voted in is it still bad? Why? Yes, because I think it violates people's personal autonomy. What if the fascist regime seconds, right what they did was they literally used oppression in order to elevate autonomy and

Can you give me an example? Yeah, sure. So they took all of the corporations and made them the body of the state so that all the trade wars inside of the nation stopped immediately. So they would be oppressing all of those corporations, incorporating them into the state, right? But as a result of that, personal autonomy elevated.

all right i'm not really sure what you're trying to get at i already answered fascism because it violates people's personal autonomy well last question that's my final answer okay guys last question then can i just get one more real quick last question for you can you just define for me what is fascism what is it um so it is obedience to authority um whilst infringing on other people's freedoms that's what we got do you disagree yeah

You want me to give you the definition? Sure. I think that was a disagreement. All right.

you can find all of this data basically anywhere in fascist theory and usually there's a return to traditional aspect to it in order to get a sense of national pride so that they can adopt the body of the state being that's what the fasci is it's showing a relationship between the state and the corporate entities that's why the symbols the fasci do you understand i no i no you're right i was totally wrong i accidentally gave you the definition for authoritarian

So I just had in my mind that you're an authoritarian, so that's why I got confused. Oh, yeah. I mean, as these things happen. All right. Next one coming in. Andrew Starr says Sims actually thinks she's smart, but this is her worldview. When you have no arbiter of morals, judgment, everything is a preference. Go ahead there, Diddley. Wait, can you repeat the last bit? Sorry. Okay.

When you have no arbiter of moral judgment, everything is preference. I did read it wrong. Sorry. Yes. No, I agree. That's why I think like unless Andrew can prove that God exists right now, then we're on the same play field. Of course he exists. It's within my preference.

We're going to ask the next one. Kengo44 says, "Morality can't be seen as evolutionary advantage for groups. Well-being for groups and leaders leads to better outcomes. Societies don't need religions for their morals. Religious morality doctrines are control devices and nothing to do with well-being." So 30 seconds, Andrew, if you want to respond to Kengo. Well, I think that having unchanging standards is probably pretty good people's well-being. Be honest.

All right. Dylan Deschner says, Madam Diddy, uh, she's, Madam Didley, define bad faith, please. I see what you did there. Well, he's not honestly engaging in debate. He is not answering questions. Um, I think he came in here just trying to like,

get gotchas instead of actually engaging in an honest conversation. He doesn't really have interest in this conversation. Anytime porn was even brought up, he instantly wanted to pivot. He hasn't made a single argument for why we should ban pornography. I'm still waiting on one, but I don't think we'll ever get one. So I think for all those reasons, he's incredibly bad faith. This next one is coming in for you, Andrew. Alan Conklin says, Andrew, bro, you are terrible and irritating.

Your ideas are fascist and explains how Hitler was able to do what he did. They're coming in strong. So you have anything to say to Alan? No, I don't give a shit what Alan says. Now, tell me why it would be bad, even if that was the case. This is so funny. He's like when she says bad faith, she says, I haven't given her arguments. I gave her tons of arguments. She says she says on top of that, you don't even know what an argument is. She says on top of that.

She goes, wait a second. Right. He's he he's not he's not engaging the talk. Definitely engaging in the topic. She says, oh, don't answer questions. I've literally answered all of her questions. In fact, is her want to answer my question? The thing is, is like this is how you match opponents energy. For those of you who are wondering when people do this kind of shit like she does, let's match their energy. Show them exactly. Just hold the mirror up and show them exactly who they are.

All right, next one coming in. It's the LD says, this lady doesn't even understand her own system of beliefs are being used against her and thinks this Andrew guy is insane. Ridiculous stupidity. All right, anything to say to LD, even though they've just made a declaration there diddly?

Well, I think most people outside of this sphere would think he's insane as well. He's advocating for imprisoning 80% of men and what, 30% of women I think it is who watch porn. Never happened. Okay, well you did. No, I didn't. So I asked you earlier. Never happened. I asked you earlier if we should imprison people who watch pornography. You agreed. Yeah, but that wouldn't entail 80% of people.

Oh, I can get some stats up if you want that show how many people watch porn. No, because the second I cross-examined this, I asked a simple question. If I outlawed it was imprisoning people, would the number go down? You said, yar. So therefore, it wouldn't be 80%. You're wrong. Okay, so let's say for argument's sake, then 50% of people, 50% of all men are going to prison. But I didn't concede that it would be 50% of people. You would have to demonstrate that.

Well, we can't demonstrate that based on a hypothetical situation. Then why are you making the accusation that I said I wanted to imprison 80% of people to get demonstrated? Because the issue is that you're for imprisoning anyone who watches pornography. That's an issue. Even if it's just one person, that's a problem. Yeah, but you said I was for 80%. You lied again. You just keep lying. Just stop lying. Why don't you just stop lying?

around oh sorry 80 of men right now watch porn on like a weekly to monthly basis so it again even if it's just one person you're sending to prison because they're watching pornography

I think that's moral. That's great. And I think it's insane. You actually, what you did say was... If it's 20%, if it's 10%, if it's 1%. What you actually said was that Andrew's for 80% of men going to prison and lied through your teeth. And then I pointed it out. And you had to retract it very quickly by your own admission. Even if it's 1% of men? How many is that in the U.S.? Well, actually, you're pivoting. How many is 1% of men in the U.S.? Out of 300 million? Yeah. Acceptable. So you're fine with...

Millions of people going to jail for watching porn. You mean 3 million people? Do you think that 3 million people? You think that if you made it a law, you think if you made it a law that 1% of the population would keep doing it so you'd have to lock up 3 million people? Is that what you think? If you're imprisoning people...

Who are watching porn. Yeah. You think that we would end up having to lock up 3 million people because that's how many would just demand that they had to. How come that didn't happen in South Korea then?

how come they didn't walk up they're still watching korean no it's illegal in south korea wait do you think making something illegal makes them stop doing it i well what's going on with the drugs in your country if it's illegal and therefore you go to prison right which is what you say andrew gonna lock all these people up because he wants to make it illegal and put him in prison then i can point to a place where it's already illegal and one percent of the population isn't in prison for it so that makes no sense does it

Well, I'm talking about how you earlier were advocating for imprisonment for people who watch porn. I still am advocating for imprisonment, but I'm pointing to a country where it's already an imprisonable offense and they don't fucking do it. Okay, but you're advocating for a world where they should do it. That's the issue. No, no, no. The law there...

If you're caught, that's crime. There's penalty. You understand? 1% of the population is not in jail for watching porn in South Korea. Therefore... I'm aware. Okay. And the issue is that you think they should be in prison. If they're watching it...

exactly that's what i'm saying what is so hard to grasp here yeah because one percent wouldn't be watching it if it was if it was uh crime they wouldn't be watching it there still are people watching it wait do you think that prohibition stops people from doing the thing that is banned yeah so there are no people doing drugs in america didn't say every person

Okay, so there are people who would be in prison for watching porn in your worldview. Never disputed that. I disputed that it would be 80% of men or even 1% of the population, doofus. Okay, and I said even if it was one person, that would be bad.

Oh, great. Well, I'm glad you say that. Wait, I said that five minutes ago. I'm glad you say if one person did it, it'd be bad, but that doesn't mean anything to me. That doesn't mean shit. You're not listening. I'm glad you think that. I'm glad you think if even one person goes to prison for porn, that's bad. I don't care. Like, that's an emotional thing. I know. You don't care. Yeah. I'm aware you don't care about people suffering whatsoever.

I think you're the one who doesn't care about people suffering. Honestly, you can't even tell me why it's bad that they suffer. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I'd like to imagine that you guys are both, you know, arguing with goodwill and intention that you both want the best for people. Well, one of us is. I'm sure that you both want the best for people. Let's not do that. No, I disagree with that completely, Ryan.

Whether you agree with somebody or not. I don't think he wants the best for people whatsoever. And I think he would even agree with that. He does not want the best for people. What do you mean? Why would I agree with that? Do you agree? Yeah, I think it's best for people. Because you want what God wants. You want what God wants. Even if it isn't necessarily what people want. Well, no. I want things that aren't necessarily what people want. But I still think it would be better for people if they did everything I said.

Yeah, even if it results in suffering. Yeah, but you just... Yeah, exactly. So that just... You've already said suffering is fine and not always bad. What do you mean? I'm asking you for your moral framework and you're being bad faith. No, no, I told you. Everything within my preference is my moral framework.

All right, let's ask the next question. But yeah, no, like I said, whether I'm right or wrong doesn't matter. Like, you know, maybe I am wrong. I don't understand if it's your preference. Maybe everybody here is just being awful. But I'd like to believe that everybody is, you know, doing what they can to try to make things better for everyone. So, you know, whether they're right or wrong is separate. Also, it's in my preference that she's bad faith, not me. Okay. Well, either way, intention matters, guys. So let's just carry on.

Thank you so much for the lively back and forth there, but there are so many questions, so let's carry on. Let's see, Kango44, yeah, we didn't read this one yet. Andrew is desperately trying to tie this back to some Christian idea of morals. So I'll give you 30 seconds on the floor. Over to you, Andrew. Did you want to respond to Kango? He says that you are desperately trying to tie this back to Christian morality and

I think, I guess the underlying tone is that they don't think that the Christian morality is relevant. Do desperate men drink beer in their basement? I think not. I think they don't. I don't know. I don't know if that's the route we want to go. Oh, man.

I'm just joking. Let's see. An honest doubter says, same old ortho bro. I think they mean orthodox bro. Is that a term? I don't know what that means, to be an ortho bro. But attempt to monopolize morals as only via their adulterous man-made scriptures. This is all they do in any debate on any topic. Who tried to do that? I don't know.

She tried to do that, not me. I will be fair. I've hosted Andrew a lot of times and very seldom does he bring up his religious beliefs. No, I usually just match the energy of the person I'm debating. There you go. Let's carry on. But yeah, not to pick sides, but I'm just making an observation there. Dr. Tetanus says the internal critiques will continue until her preferences improve.

That's okay. That's really funny. Do you want to get let us in on the joke here? Maybe I'm just, maybe it's just over rise head here, but what's, what's going on? He was just saying that because all of morality is from diddly's perspective comes from her brain and from her, that a philosophical internal critique will continue to show how stupid that is until morale improves. That's, that's what he's saying. That's the joke.

Literally, that's a joke. There you go. See, yeah, I was going to say, I'm one of those linear logical thinkers. Like, sometimes jokes just go over my head because I'm like, what is this? Like, if they're like slight of handy, like, goodbye. ADHD brain does not pick up. It's just too like, oh, that's obvious. It must be something deeper. All right. Kango44, Andrew. Oh, yeah, we read that one. Sorry. Okay.

Dylan Dishner says, "Diddler, uh, Diddly, stop, stop making me say this. My goodness, I just, I just read it. Diddly, if hearing your voice harms me, is that intrinsically bad? It causes me suffering." Suffering is intrinsically bad, yes, so it would, it would feel bad for you, yes. Again, like, just misinterpreting what I was saying.

Yeah, it's okay. I mean, you know, the commentary on people's names, like, whether it's Andrew or Dibley, like, come on. Try to remain adults about this, guys. You know, I know that it's an adult topic and, you know, we've got to just, like, hold you by the hand and walk you through because maybe you're not mature enough to handle it.

But I assure you, we are. So just hold your loads, okay? 30 seconds. What do you want to say to Zaxx?

Um, so when I am saying suffering is bad, Andrew misinterpreted that as me making a moral argument. Uh, that wasn't what I was doing whatsoever. Um, I was stating that suffering as like a feeling is something that feels bad to us and that's why we want to avoid suffering because it feels bad to suffer.

Will Games says my preference is that I want old Kanye alright well you know I don't know I don't know what's going on with Kanye but I haven't heard a lot of great music lately so Andrew might be liking his new stuff though Kanye I don't know I don't think you'll think that after you see my Pierce Morgan but I mean I don't think so

Okay. Yeah, but, you know, here's the thing. I guess for some reason you really...

Not really. I think you just really want me to be a Nazi in the worst way. It's like the only defense you have, even though you don't even know what fascism is, I think it's comical that you just kind of call everybody you disagree with a Nazi. I just think it's funny. Well, I don't know what fascism is. I got it mixed up with authoritarianism. No, I did. Even if you look up the definition of authoritarianism, you could see that that is instead what I was trying to define.

And I will preemptively apologize to the crowd for my Canadian ways. People that get like super famous, that's just what we see in Canada. We're like, oh, those Hollywood people. So like what you mentioned, like ultranationalism, that kind of stuff. Basically, like we can look towards Hitler when we talk about fascism. I would dispute that he was really definitionally a fascist. I think Mussolini would fit the bill better. Why does Hitler not fit the definition of a fascist?

Because he didn't corporatize the state, and Mussolini did, and Hitler had a different dream. And when you look at it from the dream of Mussolini, Mussolini wanted to bring back what was called classical Romanism. This was very key to his strategy. You know, all those guys, they had cuts all over their face. It's because they're all in fraternities, and they cut themselves up with swords.

And so he wanted to bring back this idea. The dualist, the dualist scar. Yeah. Of classic of classic Romanism. And that was one of the pillars for the fascist ideology, which came literally came from communist ideology initially. And they were trying to stop large trade syndicates from swallowing small trade syndicates. But I mean, you know, you already knew that. Right.

So you are happy to put on paper that you believe Hitler is not a fascist? Yeah, I wouldn't consider him a fascist. He more worked as a, I would say, socialist for sure. And I would say that there was national socialism involved. Absolutely. But before I ask the next question... Yeah, I wouldn't say fascism. I don't think he fits that definition well.

You've got to admit, though, Andrew, it's pretty little D energy to put a scar on your face to make it look like you've been in battle. Yeah, it's like their version of Skull and Bones, right?

I was going to say, they should be singing some Panic at the Disco song or some emo crap. Yeah, no, I think it's weird. They're cutting their face? What's going on? I think it's weird as shit, but it's like the rights of initiation for all sorts of elitists have all sorts of weird rights for initiation. Skull and Bones does. The Masons do. All sorts of different organizations do. But no, I don't think that Germany...

Hitler wasn't in power for that.

I don't want to cut you off, but I do because the question... No, no, it's no problem. Slow John Doe asks, Andrew, present to us your most sophisticated definition for bad. So since we're talking about things that are stereotypically associated with bad, I'll just let you keep riffing. Okay. Anything against my preferences. Just no actual engagement. What?

What's wrong with my answer? Let's carry on. I think we have gathered that one. We did unpack earlier. Sean Brewer says, Diddley, what's your thought process in bringing up morality in your opening statement if you don't know where you draw yours from?

Well, I do know where I draw mine from, but the point of bringing it up was to prove that, like, obviously he doesn't care at all about people's well-being. Like, we can discuss the negative effects of pornography, but it actually doesn't matter to him. If I could prove with a study that pornography actually is helpful for everyone...

and it has positive effects, obviously those studies don't exist, it's just a hypothetical, even if I could show him the studies that it is positive, it changes people's lives, it makes them happier, he would still be against it because he advocates for divine command theory, which means his entire moral system is based around what God commands and not what he actually believes to be morally good things.

All right, that's time. Let's carry on. Sincere hypocrite says, if you believe in subjective morals, then why is hypocrisy and double standard bad? Why can't hypocrisy be good under my subjective moral system? It can be. Why wouldn't it be? In fact, it is now my preference that if people are hypocrites, that's mostly okay. Mostly okay. Okay. All right, great. Wrongful. Mostly.

Except for in specific situations. We will determine that later everybody wrongful rage says diddly doing a Diddly dong lost her own worldview. Oh my they're coming right at you now She knows how insufferable she is now. Oh, that's an insufferable sentence I have to admit that was really hard to read bad is bad is so dumb. Oh

Circular logic dictates. Andrew gets the W. Diddley gets the crystal. I appreciate the support, but yeah, no, if you're going to do a diss, like, try to make sure you write it out, you know, in a slappy way. That was hard for me. Go ahead there, Diddley.

Yeah, so Andrew decided to take the affirmative argument on this position, which is that we should ban pornography. And yet throughout this entire debate, he has failed to provide a single argument as to why we should ban it. He struggled to even define pornography, and I think he tried to avoid it altogether because that's a really slippery slope that would lead to banning all forms of media such as video games, literature, music.

Movies and I think he wanted to avoid going down that route Because it doesn't look good for him when we start getting into that kind of stuff Because not only did I give her a position but she just refused to critique it because it was her fucking position so the same reason that she wants to keep porn legal the same exact reason I said that I wanted to be illegal and

And the reason she had no argument against that is because there's no fucking argument to be had against that. And so I'm sorry. And you should be sorry about how sorry I am about you being sorry. Now, just calm down until I'm done speaking. Diddler. What I'm saying is very specifically that.

Right? The same position for banning is the same exact position that she gave for keeping. So the thing is, is like, I don't even know what she's arguing about. Right? It's the same exact thing. She never gave me a single bit of pushback for my actual arguments for why I would ban it. Not a single one. She didn't fucking understand them. Oh,

No, I did. I questioned your moral framework of divine command theory by pulling up contradictions that you obviously don't condone in the Bible. On the topic of rape, you denied that they were even being raped in the first place, which is completely ludicrous. It's very obvious.

Okay, well, you said they aren't being raped. They're being abused in some way. You did say that? No, never happened. On the topic of genocide, you condoned that by saying that it's justified against evil people. Slavery is not one that I got to bring up. What do you think about the Bible's condoning of slavery? Yeah, you believe in slavery in the same exact way. You want me to demonstrate it real quick? Yeah, here, I'll just explain it very quickly with a single question.

Okay? Let's say you're in a war with a neighboring nation. When you're at war with this neighboring nation, okay, who is the aggressor, they attack you first. You have to attack the civilian population of that nation in order to get them to stop manufacturing weapons so that that nation can stop attacking you. So what you do is you invade, right? You take over that civilian population. But you don't have enough manpower to guard them. So you can either A, shoot them all, B, let them go, but then they'll go back to the enemy,

Or C, you can capture them and have them work on your behalf against their will in order to assist you with their feeding and all their different needs. Which option would you take?

So I don't think we should legalize or perform slavery because I think it is a violation of people's personal autonomy. So can you answer my question? No, I literally said I would demonstrate this with a single question, which you refuse to answer. Which option would you take? So why is it that when I ask you a question, it's no, I need to answer it first? You've failed to answer my questions.

Literally answer it. I would like you to answer if you could do it. I want your word that the second I answer your question you will promise me that you'll answer mine So you have a problem with doing that now Which option would you take out of the three?

If you were engaging in good faith, I'd be happy to go down this road, but you haven't been answering any of my questions. Okay, well, I was the asker. I could hear that, I swear. No, I asked you a question and you answered it. What was the question you asked me before I asked you the question? Can you tell me? So it was on the topic of slavery in the Bible and whether you condone it because...

the Bible condones slavery. No, no, no. What happened was I said, you believe in slavery. You said, no, I don't. I said, I can demonstrate it to you very quickly with a single question. You said, okay. Then I asked you the question and you won't fucking answer it. Well, maybe you should answer some line.

I did answer yours. You just can't answer mine. No, you haven't answered a single question the entire day. I have, and I've been answering them consistently. Ready to shoot your shot? Log into BetMGM every day and play the new Fast Break basketball game for your chance to win prizes. All you need to do is log into BetMGM

This U.S. promo offer not available in D.C., Mississippi, New York, Nevada, Ontario, or

At Emory University.

We believe in those with the ambition to achieve, the passion to learn, and the optimism to see the possibilities ahead. Founded on a belief that the wise heart seeks knowledge, an Emory education combines experiential learning in Atlanta and beyond with unrivaled collaboration and discovery, all to prepare you for a world that needs your leadership. Learn more at emory.edu.