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

Date: 2025-11-11

Duration: 3h 30m

Guests

Brian Atlas

AAndrew Wilson >

Identified Speakers

SPEAKER_01Brian Atlas(host)

SPEAKER_03Andrew Wilson(guest)

SPEAKER_04Naima(guest)

Key Moments

IntroBrian introduces debate: Andrew Wilson vs Naima Round 2

Key MomentAndrew reduces Naima's morality grounding to 'preference'

ControversyAndrew: under Naima's morality, slavery/genocide would be justified if preferred by majority

QuoteNaima on male benevolence: 'Kind of the bare minimum, no?'

Key MomentTwin-brother incest thought experiment tests bodily autonomy principle

QuoteAndrew closing: 'You just got absolutely decimated'

QuoteNaima closing: 'The few times you stated opinions, you justified slavery and genocide'

Topics Discussed

Rights/Morality Grounding

~90 min debate on whether rights can be grounded outside God. Andrew reduces Naima to preference-based anti-realism.

Feminism Lies About Male Benevolence

Andrew: men could rape/enslave but choose not to, therefore benevolent. Naima: that's the bare minimum.

Can Black People Be Racist?

Quick agreement on interpersonal racism; disagree on systemic.

Feminism Enslaved Women (Student Debt)

Andrew: feminist push for college created debt slavery. Naima: blame capitalism not feminism.

Force Doctrine Deep-Dive

Men have monopoly on force, women always appeal to men for rights.

Transcript

Page 1 of 4

Brian AtlasWelcome to a debate edition of the whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California. I'm your host and moderator Brian Atlas. Few quick announcements this podcast is viewer supported. Please consider

Brian Atlasdonating through Streamlabs at streamlabs.com/whatever. We're going to have Q&A questions or if you want to leave a statement for $200 and up 90 well $199 and up. There will

Brian Atlasbe no instant TTS so these are going to be at various breaks and they're going to be batched. You can see the description for all triggers and full details. Without further ado,

Brian AtlasI'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of the Crucible. He is a blood sports debater and a political commentator. Also joining us today is Naima. She's a

Brian Atlassenior at USC. She's a political social commentator and content creator. The topic today is feminism

Brian Atlasand we might hit some other topics, too. I want a good clean debate, no interrupting. I will issue a verbal warning followed by a yellow card

Brian Atlaswhich you cede conversational priority for 1 minute or until your opponent yields followed by a red card which results in ceding conversational

Brian Atlaspriority for 2 minutes or until the non-infringing infringing offending party uh yields their time. There will be no opening statements, straight into open

Naimaconvo. Let's get Let's get on. Yeah, I mean we were we were just discussing. I think it's funny me and Andrew were actually supposed to do a Jubilee surrounded debate um for our kind of part two of

Naimathis conversation. But what ends up happening? Now, I don't work for Jubilee. I'm not going to speak for their administration, but I think the general consensus Do you know what the like theme of the video

Naimawas supposed to be? Uh feminism. No, so well like the people who were surrounded It was supposed to be like Jubilee All-Stars. So it was like surrounded Jubilee All-Stars. And so of course we all know each other

Naimacuz like you know, it's all the people who've been in Jubilee videos before. And I think the general consensus was that we wanted to debate someone bigger, to be honest with you. So that's why

Naimathey brought in Charlie Kirk and he actually was assassinated like I want to say a week before we were supposed to do that debate. So I don't know. It yeah, it got completely canceled.

NaimaThey like rescheduled it and now we don't know who it's going to be. Damn. Yeah, I know. It was pretty intense. It was weird. The debate was actually scheduled for the day of his memorial. So you guys all said no to me?

Andrew WilsonI don't think it was no. Sounds like you were saying no. Yeah, I I mean it was kind of no. Yeah. Okay. I mean not a lot of people really know about the Crucible. I mean a lot more people

Andrew Wilson>> lot more people know Well yeah, actually tell me the names of the people and let's see if they do know about the Crucible. Who are the names of the Jubilee All-Stars? I mean I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone. >> I know, but what are the names of the Jubilee All-Stars who would have been

Naimathere? Um I mean lots of people. Parker, Dean Oh, so yeah Parker knows me well. Dean knows me well. Who else? Yeah, we're not talking about us. Of course we all know people in the >> Well, I thought you just said nobody thought you just said nobody knows the

NaimaCrucible. >> Andrew, I'm talking about the world, the audience. Everyone in a political sphere of course knows each other. We're all in an insular community, but outside of you know, this community Like do you think you're as big as Charlie

Andrew WilsonKirk? >> No, of course not, but who is? Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro >> I mean Candace Owens wasn't bigger. No, I don't think any of them are bigger than Charlie Kirk. Nick Crowder Nick Crowder? Well, I mean they're all bigger than you.

Naima>> is Nick Crowder? Isn't he that guy who does the podcast and he's all mean? I don't know. That's kind of all you guys, too. You mean Steven Crowder? Oh. Yeah, no Charlie Kirk is definitely bigger than all of them.

Andrew Wilson>> Sorry, I'm not a huge fan of Steven Crowder's content. Well, I mean were you a big fan of any of their content? No, but everyone knew about them. [laughter] Yeah, so I understand. No, I get it. Um I mean I know Andrew, it sucks to hear that you know

Andrew Wilson>> they but they had reached out to me, not me to them. So Yeah, but you know >> I guess I guess I don't know. Um You know, I've debated most of those people in the political circles on places like Piers Morgan. I've never

Naimaseen you there. Well, that was kind of part of it. Yeah, I actually got invited to Piers Morgan. I didn't do it cuz they asked me like 20 minutes ago. >> How come you How come Well, now we're speaking about this, how come you canceled on Tim Pool? Oh, I canceled on Tim Pool cuz I got a

Naimabrand deal that was paying me more and I didn't have to leave my house. Actually, I can talk about the Tim Pool thing >> Yeah, because I was kind of a little worried. >> you agreed you agreed to come on and then canceled. >> Okay, so it's very interesting that you

Naimasay that. When I met with Tim Pool's team, they were not willing to pay me to travel across the country to debate >> Well, they were going to take care of your flight and hotel. >> That's not paying me though. That's paying for my flight. They would have

Naimahad to do that for anyone. And they also were not they didn't know who I was supposed to debate yet. So I told them I will agree to do a debate so long as I know who I'm debating and I accept the terms of that debate.

Andrew Wilson>> Has Jubilee paid you? Yeah, of course they paid me. What do they What do they pay you? That's not your business. >> Well, they pay you $25 for gas, right? No, they pay me more than that. To show up for the surrounded? Of course. >> Well, that's interesting cuz they don't pay any of the conservatives who show up for the surrounded. Well, that's a

Andrew Wilsonshame. They should advocate for themselves. >> so you guys know now we know this that they pay the conservatives 25 bucks to show up, but they actually pay the progressives. I don't think they pay all the progressives. I don't I like I'm not

Andrew Wilsonevery single Yeah, I make them pretty good content. I mean You don't think it's fair for people to get paid for good work? I mean I guess. That's that's fine. I just think it's funny. It's interesting that the conservatives who are on the

Naimasurrounded >> When I first started doing the Jubilee videos, I didn't get paid and then the more and more successful I was on their platform, the more they offered me. That's generally how it works. It's almost like a promotion. >> I understand. That's how most jobs work. >> I get it. Okay, cool.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, so leftists refuse leftists like Parker and Dean and you guys refuse to debate with me. Cuz you're not big enough, Andrew. You don't have a fan base. You're bigger than I'm bigger than all of you. No, you're not. >> Way bigger than all of you. We can go follower for follower. How many

Andrew Wilsonfollowers do you have on Instagram right now? >> not a fight. You could take your top off and get 800,000 followers on Instagram. And so what? [laughter] That's nothing. >> And so what? That's nothing. How many do you have then?

Andrew Wilson>> On I have over 250k just on YouTube with an average live audience of of 7 to 9,000. What about you? >> badly you have to prove your worth right now? >> you go live >> Look at how fragile you are just because I told you nobody wanted to

Andrew Wilson>> When you go live, how many live viewers do you get? >> go live. You don't go live? No. What if you did go live, how many would you do you think you'd get? I don't know. I don't go live. >> Oh. Interesting. All right. Well, I do a lot better than

NaimaDean and Parker when I go live on YouTube than they do. So >> I think that's debatable. I'd say Dean and Parker have a significantly bigger following across platforms. Adam Waller, all of these people are bigger than you. I don't think so. >> Andrew, look at how badly you have to

Naimadefend yourself worth. This is so sad. >> You're the one who attacked it. I'm not attacking it. I'm telling you what happened. Nobody wanted to debate [clears throat] you because it was an All-Star Jubilee Because you guys are all cowards. I mean listen to this. You guys were just all cowards.

Andrew Wilson>> cowards. Andrew, if I was a >> Dean and Parker, tell me why Dean and Parker won't actually agree. I've I've said I'd give them $20,000 to show up and do a debate live so they can't get fed answers from their little

Naimateams. Andrew, if I was a coward, I wouldn't be debating you right now. >> point was it was an All-Stars debate and you are not an All-Star adversary. >> Got you. You're right. I mean I am. You didn't think but you're here.

Andrew WilsonYeah, of course I'm here. I'm ready. I'm ready when you are, All-Star. Okie dokie. So go ahead with your criticisms of my worldview. >> a Jubilee All-Star. Aren't we starting with democracy or no? Whatever you want to start with. Okay,

Brian AtlasAndrew. Let's uh why why don't we start with unless you want to get into the criticisms of his specific positions. >> I would rather go through all of the our positions and then do criticisms on them. >> And then Andrew, before we get into the

Brian Atlasprompts I as I understood it you wanted to respond to some of Naima's specific criticisms from that you saw online or you want to >> do that as we go through. Do it as we go through. Okay. Criticisms that I saw

Naimaonline? I didn't post anything about you online. Oh yeah, you did. I made a TikTok. >> I have clips. A singular TikTok. >> but you lied a lot in it. I lied in it? Andrew, it's all based on a debate we did together. >> I know, which is why I have all the counter

Naimaclips for it. >> Andrew, I literally posted a video of you not being able to open a pickle jar. What's your counter for that? >> open the pickle jar. You didn't open an olive jar. So not a pickle jar then? Did you open the olive jar? No. >> No. Then why did you say

Andrew Wilson>> was that you were supposed to be stronger than me. >> say that wasn't any point that was ever made? You lied. >> not the point of force option? No. And by the way um you said it was greasy. You said the jar

Naimawas greasy. Why didn't you tell people that? Yeah, you did. You said the jar was greasy. >> So did you. So did you. >> Do you want to pull up the video of him being incapable of opening the olive You want to pull up the video of you being incapable of opening it? Andrew, I never said I was going to be able to.

Andrew Wilson[laughter] So the point is though is like it's really funny to me. Well, opening the You want to pull up the Sorry. Yeah. >> pull up So the [clears throat] thing is the thing is it's funny is like you did though. You did say yeah, it's greasy. And then you just omitted all of that.

Andrew Wilson>> I said it's not greasy. >> Nope, you didn't. Promise. Will you just pull >> Hang on. Hang on. I got a thousand bucks in my backpack right now that I'll bet you that you said it was greasy when you were asked. I'll put it on the table right now. Put my money where my mouth is.

Naima>> I'm not really a betting woman. Yeah, so you're not really sure if you lied about it or not. Why would it be a lie? Well, because I think that there was intentionality behind it. See, you got drugged. >> you're trying to say is that you were incapable of opening that olive jar

Naimabecause it was greasy. Even though you dried it off with several paper towels, your t-shirt, and then your assistant was able to open it despite how greasy it was. But >> Andrew, you couldn't either. >> could Brian.

Naima>> But the point was it was an attempt to emasculate me and show how weak I am. And it turns out that you are just as weak. >> How would that demonstrate that I was weaker than you? Because neither of us

Andrew Wilsoncould open the olive jar. >> to arm wrestle? No, I don't want to touch you. >> ridiculous. It's the most ridiculous [ __ ] ever and it has nothing to do with force doctrine. >> pressed about it. You just couldn't open an olive jar, man. Get over it.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay, bro. I'm just telling you that you have gone out of your way to lie over and over about my positions. >> Gone out of your way to lie Dude, your name is not in my mouth. I don't give a [ __ ] about you. I have this thing. >> lie a lot about my positions. I played a

Andrew Wilsonclip of you. >> What? Okay, but I'm going to play clips that'll show the lies about my positions. I made one video about that specific a lot about my positions. You said things like

Andrew Wilsonthis man wants to get rid of women's rights and you said all sorts of things. >> You said that. >> No, I didn't. >> Yes, you did. >> No, I didn't. >> Andrew, I just watched your debate back. Yes, the [ __ ] you did. Okay, tell me my positions and what is force doctrine.

Andrew WilsonForce doctrine is that whole theory that might makes right. It actually is more Okay, then why don't you define your views? >> No, you have to tell Listen, first you can't criticize a position unless you can state stably tell me what you think the position means before you criticize it. So, what is it? What's force

Naimadoctrine? >> prescription your position is descriptive. So, do you want to define your terms before we argue on whether or not I want to know what you think force doctrine is because you're you're critical of it. How can you be critical of a position you can't define?

NaimaI mean, I think force doctrine is generally the belief that those who their rights. >> No. No? No. Okay, then explain it to me, Andrew.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, force doctrine is the critical belief that rights come to to women specifically from men. That women always have to appeal to men for the rights collectively. Okay, so do you believe

Naimathat anybody has like inherent rights? Are there any inherent human rights regardless of their race? >> Unless you can ground them in God, I don't believe that you can ground rights in anything. And if you can, go ahead and do so. >> Okay, so then based on your religion,

Andrew Wilsonwhat are the inherent rights that humans have? First, I I need you to understand what the criticism is. So, um when I say to you I don't believe that you can ground rights absent religion,

Andrew Wilsondo you agree that that's true or false? I believe that that's false. I believe that's false. >> can you ground rights for me absent religion? Do you not know what rights are? Can you ground them absent religion? Go

Naimaahead. Grounding rights absent of religion, I mean there's natural law, there's humanistic theories on law. Well, I don't I don't I don't know which one you're going to go with, but go with one of them. Okay, well let's see. Which

Naimaone would you prefer? We could do humanistic theory, we could do deontological ethics. >> don't give a [ __ ] I just want you to ground rights outside of uh outside of God.

NaimaNick, you got to send me Okay, continue, guys. Continue with the debate. >> I guess what do you mean ground rights? Do you mean justify human rights?

Andrew WilsonI mean this. When I say ground rights, um what are you appealing to? Let's just make it easy. What are you appealing to for rights? Morality. Okay.

Naima>> That can either be morality through religion or that can be morality through natural law, that can be morality through social contract. >> I'm not interested in all of >> be morality through creating an

Andrew Wilsonegalitarian society that's >> at all in possibilities. I'm interested in the one that you have. So, >> These aren't possible I mean, any and all of them. I just want to know what

Naimayou ground rights in. I ground rights in morality. Rights are moral. It is just and moral to give people basic rights. What do you

Naimaground morality in? Are you going to keep asking me or are you going to actually like make an opinion? This is what you do, Andrew. Yes, I am. That's great. That's great. That's great. That's great. That's great. That's great. That's great. That's great. That's great. That's great. That's great.

Naima>> Stop using descriptive arguments. Make an opinion. Do you believe that humans have inherent rights? >> morality in? We can't go you can tell me what you ground morals in.

NaimaSo, do you exclusively ground morals in your belief in God? I've already said five times yes. Now, I need to know what you ground But hold on, hold on. Listen to me. If God did not exist, I'm not interested until you tell me what

Andrew WilsonNot interested until you tell me what you ground morality in. Tell me what you ground morality in. I don't even understand why you're asking this question. Be Okay, so you you said I asked you, do you believe that rights

Andrew Wilsoncan be grounded outside of God? You said yes. So, I'm asking what they're grounded in outside of God. Social order. What does that mean? It means creating a society that functions. You If no humans

Andrew Wilsonhave rights, then you can't function as a society. Everyone would just be attacking each other all the time. Uh so, you would have a society that functioned? No, you would have an anarchic society. If there is no social order, >> What would make that unfunctional? You just They would be So, something that

Andrew Wilsonfunctioned in a society >> each other. Everyone would be constantly killing each other and maiming each other and raping each other. >> how you're just making an appeal that morality just is preference based, just fits your preference? It's not preference based, it's a necessity. It's

Naimaa human necessity. >> It's not necessary for you to have rights. >> for survival. Demonstrate life. The right to life? >> Yes, the right to life is necessary for survival. >> Do you think that there's a right to life? >> Yes, of course I believe there's a right

Naimato life. >> Okay, and what do you ground that in? I ground that in our ability to survive as a species. If nobody had a right to life, then what would stop Brian from

Naimajust shooting up everyone in this room? Force. Our society could not function based solely on force. >> Then how come societies >> all just be beating each other up all the time. >> right now do?

NaimaSocieties don't exist solely on force. We have tons of other forms of power that exist in society. >> Do you Do you agree with me that there are societies which function purely on force? Yeah, and they suck. Name a singular one that exists that is like fun to live in.

Andrew Wilson>> Do you see how now you're changing the goal post? So, I'm not changing the goal post. I'm trying to create a society that's functional. >> Can I at least make the point? >> me like five times since we started. Yeah, okay. Also, anyway, where you switched the goal post here

Andrew Wilsonwas you said that societies cannot exist, they can't exist absent rights. And my contention here is that they can. They can exist just via force. Eventually, they will not survive in a society.

Andrew Wilson>> Let me make the point. They can exist absent rights, and you say that rights are necessary for societies to exist. Clearly, that's not true. I can point to you right now societies where they don't have rights.

NaimaName a singular society where no human has any rights that exists. >> North Korea. All the Anything you have that's a right comes from the state. They still have a right to life. No, there's no right to life. They take you out and shoot you if you look at them cross-eyed. Then why don't you go live

Naimain North Korea? >> Is that an argument? >> Would you like to go live in North Korea, Andrew? Is that an argument? >> Are you arguing in favor of North Korea? You think the North Korean government structure is

Naimafun? A vibe? Like why would anyone want to go there? What does that have to do with anything I just said? Because it's not a sustainable society. Okay, but

Andrew Wilson>> society that perpetuates human suffering because no one has any free will. I know that Why don't you make an opinion? Why don't you give an opinion? >> As we're doing the obfuscation here, I just want to point this out. I asked you

Andrew Wilsonhow you ground rights. You said rights exist absent preference, and I said okay, if they exist absent preference, uh can't how come I can point it Well, you said you have to have rights for there to be even be a society. I can

Andrew Wilsonpoint to you society where humans have no rights, and clearly that's a society. So, I don't I don't understand how how it is that you think that you can't have societies which exist without rights, and you still haven't given me

Andrew Wilsonaccounting for where rights come from. And so, it's it's critical I gave you my opinion about force doctrine. I told you what I think about rights. So, do you think that >> And so, I told you what I think about rights. Right now, we're just clarifying

Andrew Wilsonthe language so you can't do the fallacy of equivocation. I don't want you to move between separate definitions of a word using vagueness, which is fallacious, so fallacious debate move. I want you instead to be very clear on

Andrew Wilsonwhat rights are, what you ground them in, where they come from, and that's what we're debating about if we're talking about rights. So, please do so. >> We're not debating about that. We're debating about force doctrine and the morality of force doctrine. Do you

Naimabelieve that force doctrine is moral? Do you believe that it is moral to take rights away from people on the basis of >> pure obfuscation. This is pure obfuscation. I do think it's fair for you to answer his

Naimaquestion. I think honestly, Andrew, my issue with where you're going in >> you're about to say. Just want to know where rights come from. >> If you don't care about anything that I'm about to say, then why should I >> humans have natural rights. I believe

Andrew Wilsonthat humans have natural Okay, natural rights. Okay, so natural right theory is what Nala believe I'm sorry, not Nala. What is it? Ni- Naima, sorry. Natural rights. Okay, and >> they have to be ordained by God. I

Naimabelieve that everyone has an inherent set of rights. They're inherent. >> Yes, natural, inherent, these are synonyms. So, where do they come from? They come from our existence. What do you mean? It's a right. It's not a physical thing.

NaimaLike you get that, right? >> No. No? Can you explain it for me? No. Well, the right to life life comes from being alive. So, what do you mean where does it come from? Where does life

Naimacome from? Well, life comes from when a man and a woman are in love and they hold hands for a very long time, they can make a baby. That's where life comes from. So, these natural rights that you

Naimaclaim that we have, which are inherent, if they're inherent, does that mean that um everybody has them? Yes, I believe everyone has them, but they can be infringed upon and that is immoral. I see. So, >> That is the definition, in my opinion,

Andrew Wilsonof morality is infringing on one's natural rights. >> So, you're born with rights? Yes. So, they're not social constructs that we make up. They exist outside of that. Well, I mean, it's not a physical thing.

Andrew WilsonOh, it's not. Well, I'm going to I'll tell you a couple of terms. Objective and then subjective. Objective means that it does not depend on a mind. An example is that tree out there would exist if there was no more

Andrew Wilson>> Andrew, I know what objective and subjective means. >> Then tell me what subjective means. Subjective is something that is malleable, it can change. It's not a fact. >> No. Subjective No, philosophical subjectivity just means uh depends on a mind. Okay, so that's exactly what I just said. >> No, it's not.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, it's not. >> So, anyway, back to this though, um I was trying to give you the example so I could clarify the position. I want to try to have a good-faith debate. I don't know why you refuse to clarify your positions for me. I just clarified my position. So, now clarify your position.

Andrew Wilson>> So, is it So, so are rights subjective? I believe rights are subjective across societies. >> Then how can they be inherent? I believe that certain rights are inherent and certain are subjective. >> Okay, so how So, so I mean, there's no limit on how many rights a human can have.

Andrew Wilson>> inherent rights are objective? Which inherent rights are objective? I think that the right to life is objective. >> Okay, so then if it if it's objective and it does not depend on human minds, where can we find it? We can find it in being alive. What the

Andrew Wilson[ __ ] are you talking about? Where can you find the right to life absent the grounding in in meaning all minds are gone? Remember I told you, objective means

Andrew Wilsonyou don't need any human minds. I tried to explain this to you a second ago. Now you just walked into a horrible trap. Uh objective means does not depend on a mind. What you said just got done telling me is that you

Andrew Wilsonhave an inherent right to life and it's objective. That would mean that that right does not does not require human minds. So, you should be able to point to where it is. Where is it? Andrew, rights are not physical though. Not

Andrew Wilsoneverything that is objective is physical. Okay, then what is everything that's objective if it's not physical? Well, you just defined it. What? You just defined [laughter] what

Andrew Wilsonis objective. >> Objec- objec- An objective objective means it requires or does not require human minds. >> this is getting annoying. Philosophical [clears throat]

Brian Atlasobjectivity requires minds. Put that in. No, don't put requires minds. Just put definition. >> do it for both of you. >> Thank you. So, objectivity, the quality of being Okay, the quality of being

Andrew Wilsonobjective. Yeah, let's do it. >> You have to put philosophical philosophical objectivity requires minds. >> Okay, well, let's just do a basic definition of objectivity and work off

Brian Atlasof So, objective, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Thank you. Yeah, but fact would have to be

Naimamaterial. Not all facts are material, Andrew. >> Which ones? I mean, air air exists and currently >> Actually, yeah, [laughter] air is a material. Okay, yeah, air is a material. I'll give you that one.

Andrew WilsonThere we go. Okay, so we have inherent rights that aren't material, but they're objective. >> Andrew, there are immaterial facts. Do you genuinely not believe that? >> What? I mean, thoughts. Like humans have

Naimathoughts. Thoughts are not material. >> Where do Where do do thoughts come from something material? But a thought is not material. Do you believe that a thought is material? >> you know? When you have thoughts, does steam rise out of your [ __ ] head? Do you know? >> How do you know a thought's not

Andrew Wilsonmaterial? How do you know thoughts are? Well, the thing is it's like >> that you've had is material? >> ground a thought in a brain, right? Yeah, but a brain and a thought are two different things. >> you would agree with me that if there

Naimawas no more brains, there would be no more thoughts. Well, your brain creates thoughts. So, without >> thought is your is your material >> Are you really trying to argue that there is a material thought? No. I'm

Andrew WilsonWhat I'm telling you >> What the [ __ ] are you talking about? >> I'm going to tell you so that you understand. Do you agree with me that if we have no more brains, we have no more thoughts? Sure. >> Okay, great. Then what that means is that you're appealing to something

Andrew Wilsonmaterial for for thought, okay? But a thought is still immaterial. It doesn't negate >> hang on. Hang on. The the trick here is to understand that

Andrew Wilsonwhen I say objective, right? It means it doesn't depend on a mind. When I say subjective, it mean it means it does depend Hang on. I want to be very clear. Sure. It means

Andrew Wilsonthat it does. So, when I say where do rights come from, you say rights are objective, that means they exist somewhere outside of minds. So, can you tell me where?

NaimaNo, I'm not saying that objectivity needs to exist physically. I think that things can be objective without existing physically. But why don't you give an opinion on your actual belief?

Andrew Wilson>> Because right now, I'm just trying to figure out what the terms are for rights themselves so we don't equivocate. >> not know what rights are? >> know what you think they are. What are they? I just told you what rights are. >> me that they're objective, but then you

Naimadon't give me any groundings for them. >> Certain rights are objective. >> where did Then >> They are objective and grounded in human morality, which can be based on a god as you do

Naimaor which can be based on our conception of natural law. Is it he Does human morality require a mind? Sure, Andrew. >> it can't be objective. >> Yes, it can because objective things can

Naimabe immaterial. You don't know what objective means. You're using one definition you found Can you repeat the definition that you >> There There is an a sub definition to not dependent on the mind for existence.

Brian AtlasActual I'll repeat I'll repeat hers though. >> Will you stop >> Of of a person >> deep-throating the mic? Andrew, stop doing this to your phone. I I got you. You're coping so bad. You're so dumb. Oh,

Brian AtlasI can't believe you did this so bad. Uh go ahead. Of a person or their judgment not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing

Brian Atlasfacts. Also, Andrew, did you want me to look up something or I just want to know if if rights are objective and they don't depend on minds, can you please tell me where I could find them?

Andrew WilsonAndrew, how could you physi- There are things that exist that are not physical. >> talking about Whatever you think exists that's not physical, I just want to know >> number of rights. >> right now, just rights. >> Do you understand that it's a concept?

NaimaDo you know what a concept is? >> Do concepts require minds? Sure, Andrew. >> then Then where is Then where is it Then where is it So, then they're not objective. But something can exist in your mind and still be objective. >> Are we talking about something or are we talking about rights?

Naima>> So, do you not think that people have an objective right to life? >> Like what are you arguing here? >> I'm just trying to get to one at a time, please. Go ahead. You're arguing on a

Andrew Wilsondefinition because you don't want to actually have to defend your opinion. Why would I ever in a million years be required to defend rights if you can't

Andrew Wilsoneven [ __ ] tell me what they are? >> I just did, Andrew. >> you're But I just pointed out all the incoherency with what you just said. It's totally incoherent. It's completely incoherent.

Naima>> Rights are the immaterial concept that humans deserve certain I wouldn't say benefits, but I guess like Actually, what is a good word for that?

NaimaNot benefits. Entitlements? Yes, I'll take entitlements. I like that one. >> Got it. And they're so So, they're subjective. They're They're not objective. >> So, do you not believe that anyone has any rights? >> I'm asking you to please define

Andrew Wilson>> a belief. Make a statement. >> That's great. Right now, we're just trying to figure out what rights are. Are they subjective or not? I think that certain rights are not subjective.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay, can you demonstrate the rights that are not subjective? >> can be infringed upon, but I think that that's immoral. >> subjective? I think that the right to life is not

Andrew Wilsonsubjective. Okay, so it's >> I've just said it like eight times. >> So, the right this right, which exists for life, that doesn't require human minds? Well, everything requires human minds.

Naima>> Then it can't be objective. >> Then everything is subjective. Wait a second. You're so right. So, from your view, everything that's a right

Naimawould be subjective? I think that everything that exists would be subjective at that point. >> Okay. Anything that comes from our minds and doesn't exist in the natural world would be subjective. Okay, so then

Andrew Wilsonrights are subjective, meaning they're it's just concepts that we make up. I don't think that rights are concepts that we make up. I'm sorry. I just don't. I mean, maybe

Andrew Wilsonyou don't believe humans have rights, but I do. Okay, then we'll flush it out again. >> So, do you think that humans have rights? >> that rights Oh god, Andrew. Do you think >> Well, this is in Listen, do you understand that this what you're saying

Andrew Wilsonhere is so [ __ ] incoherent. It's so incoherent, I can't even have the conversation. >> Andrew, do you have your own definition of rights? Why don't you give a definition Well, first first, you can't say to me I'm giving you some incoherent

Andrew Wilsongobbledygook. >> It's not incoherent gobbledygook. to show >> I'm going to demonstrate how it is. >> Oh my god. So we start with this. Objective versus subjective. You agree with me that objective right means does not require my Hang on.

Andrew WilsonDoes not require minds. Subjective means does require minds. You continue and then you got done telling me, "Hey man, everything is subjective and these concepts are subjective by that metric." Okay, great.

Andrew WilsonBut you still believe that there's rights which are objective like the right to life, but then can't tell me how it's subjective. >> I believe that the right to life >> on. Which means that we're now in either A a performative contradiction or you're

Naimajust giving me incoherent babble. All right, Andrew. I believe that the right to life is objectively moral. How about that? Does that make more sense to you? And since you want me to define rights so bad, let me just take the Merriam-Webster definition so we can

Naimamove on and actually have a conversation about opinions. Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom and entitlement. >> Okay, and now Will you take that? >> Are those subjective or objective though? The definition of rights is our

Naimaagreed-upon definition. >> What's in the definition of rights? Is that objective or subjective? >> Well, they come from the mind. So based on your description, I would say subjective. >> Okay, so Now, do you No, no, no, no. I'm

Naimanot done speaking, Andrew. You've had a long turn to speak and I would like to ask you a question. >> whatever. Do you believe that there are any inherent legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom of

Naimaof freedom or entitlement that all humans deserve? >> Not objectively. Now, do You don't think that there's anything that all humans deserve on a moral basis? Do you think it would be immoral >> Not objectively. >> So you think it's completely moral

Naimato infringe on anyone's rights? >> No, I'm just saying that that objectively >> I'm not asking about whether or not it's objective or subjective. I'm asking about your opinion. >> don't understand that you are

Naima>> that there are any rights that everyone has that are morally unacceptable to infringe upon? >> Not objectively. I don't care about objectivity. I care about your [ __ ] opinion. Give me an opinion. We're in

Naimathe subjective. Do you have a single opinion? Give me an opinion. Come up with an opinion. Okay. So I just want to make sure that we can You're dancing around it. You're obfuscating. Yes, you are because you don't want to have to give an opinion

Andrew Wilsonthat I can argue >> me to define rights, I did. I accepted that it's subjective. Now, what is your opinion? >> Hang on. Hang on. I I just want to clarify to make sure that we get this

Andrew Wilsonright. So you don't believe that there are any objective rights, right? I believe that the right to life is an objective right, but we can disagree on it if you want to. >> to incoherent world again.

Andrew Wilson>> Andrew. You just don't Andrew, will you answer the question? I've answered a lot >> cuz I don't even know what you mean by rights. Andrew, I just defined rights. >> No, listen. Are you not listening to me? >> You can't give me >> to me. Did you not understand what I

Naimasaid? Do you want me to repeat it? >> it. Okay. So rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement. Do you understand what that means? And are those subjective? Oh my god. What is up with you and

Andrew Wilsonsubjectivity? >> The reason I'm just trying to get a coherent definition. >> say that they are subjective for the sake of moving this conversation along. All rights are subjective. What right >> the right to life subjective? I'm not asking whether or not it's subjective.

Naima>> I'm asking so I can get a [ __ ] coherent answer to the right. >> whether or not it's subjective. I'm asking whether or not you think humans deserve and have it. >> Right now Calm down. All we're doing right now is

Andrew WilsonI'm just trying to make sure that you and I have a definition of rights. Just for what just >> you like an hour to understand this definition. Can we move on? Yeah, because you don't understand how bad You don't understand how bad this is. It's so You're so afraid to make an opinion.

Andrew WilsonWhat's wrong with you, man? Just say something. You do this all day. >> Yeah, I'm going to do it until we get to some kind of coherent some kind of coherent non-contradictory definition of rights. Yes. >> to just give an opinion on what rights you believe in.

Andrew Wilson>> I'm not going to grant fallacious arguments. I'm not going to grant fallacious definitions. I'm not going to do it. >> you that rights are subjective. Now >> Okay, so then So then the right to life is subjective. >> Do you believe we deserve Just answer the Is the right to life subjective?

NaimaSure. Do you believe we deserve it? >> god, thank god. So all rights are subjective. Got it. >> Okay, so now that we've agreed that all rights are subjective, do you believe that there are any rights that all humans inherently deserve?

Naima>> Not objectively. But morality, based on your personal morality. I'm not asking you about objectivity or subjectivity. I'm asking you about your personal morality. Do you think that there are any rights that all

Naimahumans deserve? >> No, they're all subjective. But just because something is subjective doesn't mean that's not a like a moral opinion. I'm asking for your opinion. >> No, I'm asking for your opinion based on

Andrew Wilsonyour ethical and moral framework. >> So for me, I would say that you have God-given rights. Sure. Right? But I think you can't ground rights, so I don't know how you get to have a conversation with me about rights when you just think rights are opinions.

Andrew Wilson>> grounding rights exclusively in the authority of God and not >> think they can be grounded outside of that because they're just You You're saying that they're just a sequence of preferences. >> can't talk to God. You're just saying they're a series of preferences.

NaimaThat's all a right is. >> No. Do you want me to define it a fourth time, Andrew? >> subjective, what could it be other than a preference? >> social, or ethical principle of freedom or entitlement. Do you think that

Naimasubjectively and morally there is anything that humans are entitled to? >> Subjectively, no. Okay, morally. Do you think that there is any right What do you Okay, now we're

Andrew Wilsongetting somewhere. Morally, what do you believe are the rights that humans are entitled to? >> I think that we Well, if you're going to ground rights and ground them in God, then I would say that like the Ten Commandments would give us some certain

Naimarights that would be necessary like a necessary entailment. Okay. So that I would I would ground those. >> are all of Can you actually pull up the Ten Commandments for me? Mhm. Um so the

Andrew WilsonTen Commandments are all of the essentially all the human rights that we >> No, I'm just saying that those are an example of what we can ground in God. There's other ones, too. There's additional >> are inherent human rights? I just gave you a list. You haven't given me any. That's it? Just the Ten Commandments?

Andrew Wilson>> Well, I would say that those can be grounded as an example of what can be grounded as a moral objective right. >> is subjective. So why are you grounding it in the subjective again? >> Is If God is subjective

Andrew Wilson>> God is subjective. then all rights are subjective, then how would I be on a lesser playing field than you even if those rights were subjective if I believed in them and you believed in subjective rights also?

Naima>> So what you're saying is you need to ground your rights in something objective and the objective thing that you chose to ground them in is God which isn't objective. >> Wait, wait. I'm sorry. That's I'm very confused here. Help me out.

Andrew WilsonIf If my preferences align with God's preferences, okay? If I'm like let's just say that I'm a subjective anti-realist or a Christian anti-realist. So I believe that there are rights, right? They align with God's

Andrew Wilsonpreferences and my preferences align with God's preferences. >> Sure, great. Okay, great. Um how would that give you any higher standing considering that all rights are grounded subjectively from your perspective which would mean they're all

Naimajust preferences? But God is also subjective, Andrew. >> Why would that matter? Because you're saying that every all of my rights are only grounded in subjectivity and but here my rights are also only grounded in subjectivity.

Andrew Wilson>> Exactly. Actually, that's my point. Okay. So if that's the case, then we have established that you have no moral high ground for making any prescription on rights because you're just saying they're preferences. >> We do have a moral high ground though.

NaimaRights are not preferences. We've >> [laughter] >> How are they not preferences then? >> Rights are not preferences. Okay, then what are they? You think the right to life is like the preference to be alive? >> it be if it's subjective? What do you mean what else could it be if it's subjective?

Andrew Wilson>> requires a mind, then what else could a right be other than your preference for a thing? What else could it be? It's a principle, no? And it's your preference to follow that principle? Well, it's guided by our human morality. >> And that's your preference to follow

Naimathose morals? Sure. >> And so then it's all just guided by preference. >> Okay, but how do you define whether something's morally moral or immoral? We just use preferences. That doesn't work. But what if every That's the only way you're doing it right now.

Naima>> but what [laughter] if everyone on Earth decided we prefer if we have one group of people that we enslave? Would you then say that slavery is moral? >> Exactly. So you believe that slavery is moral. >> wouldn't be a belief if slavery being moral. >> slavery.

Naima>> No, no, no. See, the opposite. >> is moral. Do you think that repeating the question as though that's going to help you with this? >> Well, you just did that. >> No, I'm I'm expressing to you >> what you said back to you to make sure

Andrew Wilsonyou realize how ridiculous I'm going to show you how it's not. You ready? Tell me how slavery is immoral except uh or absent preference. It's causing human suffering. >> And it's your preference that we don't

Andrew Wilsoncause that? So you don't think it's immoral to cause >> Is it your preference we don't cause human suffering? I asked you >> preference. So I'm asking you how do we ground a right that humans shouldn't be

Naimaslaves absent collective human preference including yours? How? Well, I think it's inherent. I think that there are certain rights [laughter] that are Andrew, it's inherent. Yes, I believe that there are inherent

Andrew Wilsonhuman [laughter] rights that violate the basic principles of morality. Andrew, please stop laughing. >> [laughter] >> OH MY GOD, this is so funny. You can cringe all you want. You're the cringiest part. I can't believe you just said that. You just said all rights are

Naimasubjective, right? They're only grounded in preference, but they're also inherent. >> No, I believe that there are inherent human rights. I believe our society would not function if we didn't have inherent human rights. Okay, what is inherent? We literally would not Like if if it was immoral not to kill each

Naimaother, what if we all decided to just maim each other? How would we survive as a species? >> So it's our preference that It's for the proliferation of our species. There is a direct benefit. That would all be preference. So you want us to go extinct? What the [ __ ] are you talking about? You prefer that the human species goes

Andrew Wilsonextinct? >> I'm telling you that you that all everything that you're talking about right now is just a set of human preferences. Okay. So if that's the case, can you

Andrew Wilsonground why it would be that slavery would be immoral outside of human preference. Well, you're causing suffering. Yes, but it that's just a preference again. It's just a preference not to cause suffering.

Naima>> you believe that there's any definition of morality? Like can we Can you Do you want to just look at the definition of morality? Since we can't agree on a single definition. I mean, Andrew, what are you Are you defending slavery? What the [ __ ] are you talking about right now, dude?

NaimaIt sounds like you're defending slavery. For what purpose? I really don't understand. I know you don't understand. Yeah, cuz why on earth would anyone defend slavery? >> Nobody did. You did, just now.

Naima>> Never happened. Why are you acting like we weren't just in the middle of a conversation in which you were defending slavery? That never happened. You just made it up. Are you trying to gaslight me because it sounds >> Not only not trying to gaslight you, but

Naimathe opposite is happening. I'm defending slavery. >> tell me how I defended slavery? You just said that if everyone wanted So, like rights are based on subjective human preferences. So, if everyone preferred slavery, it would be moral.

Andrew WilsonYeah. >> You just said morality is justified by human preference. >> And if you can ground how morality is not grounded by anything other than preference, I can't wait to hear it.

Andrew WilsonTo end the proliferation of human suffering and progress as a society. >> preference. Those are preferences. >> a [ __ ] preference, dude. >> So, if it's just preference, right? You're just saying that collectively

Andrew Wilsonpeople have put preference to not make other people slaves, and that's what morality is is it's a shared set of preferences, then if I say slavement is just a shared set of preferences, how can you claim that's immoral? >> So, you don't believe that there's

Naimaanything that's morally good or morally bad inherently. No matter what If everyone wanted to do it, it's still morally bad. Like if every single person wanted to just like kill the [ __ ] out of a baby. I'm demonstrating to you that that's an

Naimaentailment of what you >> There is an inherent definition of morality. What is >> Why is your sense of morality preference-based?

Andrew WilsonBecause if you don't ground your your preferences or something like this in something which is an unchanging standard for morality. In other words, it's changing just based on preference,

Andrew Wilsonright? You would need to give me some way to ground this where it's unchanging that would demonstrate for me that slavery is only is is inherently immoral

Naimain some facet other than collective preference. But even when we were existed in a society that collectively endorsed slavery, it was still immoral. Do you not believe that? Like do you not believe >> What made it justify

Naima>> I'm asking you what made it immoral. The concepts of good and bad. Do you not believe that there is any inherent definition of good and bad? Is it just based on personal preference? >> that from your view it would be yes. No. I think that from your view it would

Naimabe >> Then ground it outside of preference. Go ahead. Fine. Will you pull up the definition of freaking morality? Since we're only going to argue on descriptors today because Andrew's afraid to give an opinion. We can't get past the descriptors because you won't give me

Naimaanything coherent. >> Andrew, why don't you like agree that there is a very basic Like there is an inherent goodness and badness. Do you not believe that on a base level? There are some things that

Naima>> justify that from your view. And if you can't justify it from your view, I don't need to accept the definition of good or bad. So, justify it first. >> I believe that if something is good when it perpetuates uh Wait, no, sorry. I believe something is bad when it perpetuates and proliferates human

Andrew Wilsonsuffering. >> That's a preference. So, Andrew, do you just not believe in the concept of morality? Don't you understand when when you're having a debate when

Andrew Wilsonyou're actually having a debate and you're asking a person to give a definition of the thing, the actual thing in question here. And I ask you, what is morality if we're having a moral-based argument? In this

Andrew Wilsoncase we are because we're talking about rights. And I say, "Okay, tell me what rights are." And you incoherently babble about how they're both objective and subjective. They're They're inherent and they're not inherent. They're social

Naimaconstructs and they're not social constructs. I don't even know what the [ __ ] you're talking about. It's just babble. Andrew, I literally define it every time here. I'll define it one more time. Rights are a legal, social, or ethical principle of freedom or entitlement.

Naima>> And are those preferences? A principle? Following a principle. It could be someone's preference. It could not be. Well, yeah, right. Being but that's >> if it's a preference Why are you stuck

Andrew Wilsonon the concept >> Because if it's the case because I'm looking for the case of equivalency. If it's the case that you think that you have a morals which are better than mine or gooder than mine or >> they're better than yours because you

Andrew Wilsonhaven't shared yours. or gooder than mine or great or whatever or gooder than anybody's or gooder than anything or gooder or the goodiest of all things, uh then you would need to demonstrate

Andrew Wilsonfor me that rights are more than simply preferences of people to invent social constructs that they think might be beneficial to themselves.

Andrew WilsonIf that is the case, then if I have preferences against that and they're shared collectively with other people, you would have to demonstrate why those preferences are inferior to your own cuz

Naimathey're both preferences. So, Andrew, how do you define morality? Like how do you define morality? If you don't want to keep dealing with my stupid opinions on the basic definitions of words that you know we both understand, how do you define

Naima>> both understand them. >> Okay, then give me your definition. How do you define >> my definition help your definition? Because you do refuse to agree to my definition. >> going to until you give me a coherent one. >> want to give an opinion. You are so afraid of sharing your opinion.

Naima>> with something that's coherent. >> morality? >> matter. You have to give me a coherent definition of rights. >> rights. >> go anywhere with rights unless you tell me what they are. >> you a definition of rights. [laughter] It's an incoherent definition. Andrew,

Naimait's the definition that is generally agreed upon by Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionary. That is the definition of rights. It is literally the definition of rights. >> And are they preferences? Who gives a

Naima[ __ ] I give a [ __ ] What is morality? Preferences. You think that morality is solely based on personal preference? >> Yes. So, something is morally good if you want to do it. >> Yes. That's what you believe.

Naima>> Yes. What else could it be? So, if you wanted to punch Brian in the face, you really really wanted to just punch Brian in the face. Sorry to use you in this But if you really wanted to, >> Uh-huh. you believe that that would be a morally justified act. >> For me, yes. Okay. So, if someone really

Naimawanted to >> Cuz he has a different set of preferences, you see. Okay. >> Uh-huh. So, you define moral So, then what happens in that? How do we decide if it's moral or immoral? Through collectivization. So, every Like So,

Naimayour definition of morality is based solely on the collective will. That's it. >> Well, not solely based on the collective will. >> then what else is it based on? Collective preferences. Collective preferences. So, if collectively we all decided Uh-huh. that we wanted to commit

Naimaa genocide against I don't know. Let's say Germany. Uh-huh. The entire country of Germany. Kill all the millions of people that were there. Every single person in America agreed to do that. You believe that that would be morally justified? >> Well, if it was the >> say there were more people in America than there are in Germany. So, their

Naimapreference is to not get genocided. But there's less of them, right? And our preference is to genocide Germany, and there's more of us. So, collectively that preference is larger. You would morally justify that action. >> I think that if it was preference-based morality, it would be justified, right?

NaimaSo, you believe in preference-based morality. So, you're going to justify slavery, genocide, all of those things. So, you just morally justified all of these horrific actions I'm going to tell you the greatest I'm going to tell you the greatest thing in the world,

Andrew Wilsonand you just completely defeated your own argument. That is what your morality is. No, that's what your morality is. We're basing it off of your definition. >> it on anything other than preference if you disagree with me. I don't believe in moral I think that there are like I

Naimathink morality is about what is good and bad, and I think that there are >> good and bad other than preferences?

Andrew WilsonI'd say good and bad I mean, why? Dude, you literally just justified slavery. What is good What is good or bad other than preferences? I would say something is

Andrew Wilsongood if it is beneficial Uh-huh. to >> Uh-huh. the world. So, preferences again. No. Then it When you say something's beneficial to the

Naimaworld, Usually beneficial >> isn't that just things which align with people's preferences? Yes, they happen to, but it's not based on the preference. >> is it based on? >> The preference is based on it. Well, no.

Naima>> prefer things that are good to the world. >> Uh-huh. But things that are good to the world are not good to the world just because we prefer them. >> Okay, then what makes them good to the world? What makes them good to the world is if it like disincentivizes harm and

Naimahuman suffering or animal suffering. >> very preference-based again to me. >> It's not preference-based. >> So, then tell me how these how bad >> have a preference that they want the world to suffer and cause harm, but it doesn't mean that actions that

Andrew Wilsondisincentivize suffering are somehow now immoral. >> to help me out here then. Uh so, >> of morality is too fluid, man. So, how inherently can an action be good or bad

Naimaoutside of a human mind and preference? Well, cuz we can see the physical consequences of the >> Not outside of a human mind. >> Yes, the [ __ ] we can. If you punch Brian in the face, we could all see that. That

Naimawould exist outside of the human mind. >> minds would see that? No [ __ ] I didn't know. >> Okay, but it still exists objectively in space and time. >> because it would require a mind, an observer. What the What What kind of if a tree falls ass argument is this? It's

Naimanot an if a tree falls ass argument. >> Brian in the face, it's objective. You objectively just did that. Like what are you talking about, man? What makes it immoral other than your preference, your subjective preference? >> No, it makes it immoral that you

Andrew Wilsonperpetuated human suffering. Yeah, but human suffering requires minds. Do you see what I'm saying? So, like what I'm asking you is this. Sure. If an action is truly good or truly bad, how does

Andrew Wilsonthat work that an action is good or bad on its own absent a human's preference? It's consequence. An action can be good or I mean there's multiple definitions, but an action can

Andrew Wilsonbe good or bad based on intent and consequence. Okay, the I'm going to I'll try to I'll try this again. If thing good, how thing good outside preference? Consequence. The consequence of the action.

Naima>> And people have a preference for consequences. They don't want they don't want consequences. >> using the preference as what is prescribing the morality. It is what's prescribing the morality. >> morality is inherently based on human preference.

Naima>> Then what's it based on? I think morality is based on whether or not it peripheral proliferates human suffering. That's that's just grounded again in preference. You >> No, it's grounded in consequences. >> And you prefer not to have those consequences?

NaimaThe consequence of human suffering, yeah. >> Then that would be preference-based morality. >> preference-based morality because my preference doesn't influence its morality. >> It's the only thing If I had the preference >> Okay, then then what other than what

Andrew Wilsonother than human preference would influence morality? Consequence and intent. I just said it. >> all you saying preference. No, but the preference is based on the consequence. Oh, yeah. Okay, so wait, let me get this

Naimaright. >> on but the morality of an action is not based on my preference towards the consequence. >> Okay, so imagine >> of an action is based on the objective consequence. So imagine you have 20 people and they all like I don't know,

Andrew Wilsonthey beat a kid to death, right? >> Sure. And there's just you. Mhm. There's just you who sees this and you're the 21st person, right? It's only 21 of you on planet Earth. You see these 20 kids and they beat a kid to death. Yes.

Naima>> Okay? Did all of them do something wrong? Okay, if you didn't exist, what would make that action wrong? It would make that action wrong because it proliferated human suffering. The consequence was the death of a child which I believe is inherently morally wrong. You have denied that child the

Andrew Wilsonright to life. You have infringed upon its rights. So when I ask you >> whether or not they agree with that. So if you're not there, what makes it morally wrong? You said because I think it's morally wrong, but you're not there.

Naima>> I said You're not there. >> to life. That's what made it morally wrong, Andrew. >> I see and you have a preference against that, right? I happen to. Okay, >> But that's beside the point.

Andrew Wilson>> you ground how that's bad absent your preference? They denied a child their right to life. >> Yeah, and you prefer that they didn't. That's not the point. >> It is the very point. >> No, it's not.

Naima>> Then tell me Even if I didn't exist and didn't have a preference, that would still be immoral. Causing human suffering and denying a child the right to life is immoral. >> Then what that would mean >> you advocating in favor of

Andrew Wilson>> What that would mean is that that morality that is objectively true even absent minds observing it, right? Okay, got it. So it's objectively true that

Andrew Wilsoneven without minds if somebody got beaten to death uh that would be immoral. Yes. Okay, can you tell me then how you ground that

Andrew Wilsonit's immoral other than restating the thing itself as being immoral? I just told you. It's immoral because you denied a child the right to life. >> Yeah, but that's just you repeating the claim. Do you understand? Like if I say

Andrew Wilsonmurdering that guy's wrong and I and you say why is it wrong and I say cuz murdering people is wrong. That's not giving a justification. >> human suffering. That's why it's wrong. >> Yeah, but why is causing human suffering immoral? So you don't think causing

Andrew Wilson>> I'm asking you a question. Why is causing human suffering immoral absent preference? Why? Because it's Wait, causing human suffering is immoral. Because >> Because you are denying them their inherent rights given by God or by

Naimanature. >> believe in God. How do you know that? >> You said so. >> No, I didn't. When did I say that? So you do believe in God? So rights come from God? >> and I don't believe that all of our inherent rights come from God, but I do believe >> Well, then what Okay, so all these the

Andrew Wilsonrights that don't come from God >> is not based on my belief in God is what I'm saying. Okay, got it. So then what would make the the action immoral? You say because the action's immoral. No. Okay, well then what makes it immoral? >> Perpetuating human suffering. And what makes that immoral other

Naima>> of the action. >> makes that immoral other than your preference? What? What makes it immoral is that you're killing the species. I mean would >> Yeah, that's just restating it again. >> It's the consequence. The consequence of the action makes it wrong. >> it what what keeps happening. I say why

Andrew Wilsonis killing that person wrong and you say it's wrong because he's killing that person and I say what outside of that I say what outside of your preference makes that wrong? You say cuz he's killing Okay, we'll try it again. What makes it wrong

Andrew Wilsonto perpetuate human suffering absent your preference? The consequence of human suffering. >> And what makes that consequence wrong absent your preference? Absent of my preference, it's the perpetuation of

Naimahuman suffering. >> You're See how it's circular? I yeah, I know. Do you understand now? It's totally circular. >> done with my sentence, Andrew. If you're going to interrupt me in the middle of my sentence Okay, ah you're right. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay, wait, where was I? Go back to your question. Yeah,

Naimaso the question is what makes an action immoral absent your preference? I think an action is immoral if it infringes on the natural rights of an individual and

Andrew Wilsonperpetuates human suffering. >> I understand that you believe that and that's your preference. What makes it wrong absent your preference? Well, then we're not God. What makes it wrong but I believe that there like do you not

Naimabelieve >> That's your preference. That's your preference. >> Sure, it's my preference. >> So what makes it wrong? You keep saying it's immoral. >> truth are like just because my preference happens to agree with that >> Okay, so then tell me why it's wrong absent your preference. Because I

Andrew Wilsonbelieve there's a like objective definition of right and wrong. >> That's your preference again. Okay, Andrew, then why do you believe it's wrong? >> Why does it have What does it have to do with the What what does me believing that that [ __ ] TV right there is off

Andrew Wilsonwhen it's on have to do with your definition of this? >> wait, that's a red herring. Hold on for my bingo. >> Oh my God, that's not a red herring. I'm literally trying to stay on topic. Wait, here. Hold on. Where's red herring?

Andrew Wilson>> morality outside of your preference or not? Um >> Can you ground morality outside of your preference or not? You keep on saying it's wrong cuz it's wrong cuz it's wrong cuz it's wrong. >> morality in natural rights. I've already done that. Now what are natural rights other than your preference? What are

Naimanatural rights other than my preference? Well, my preferences happen to align with our definition of natural rights. >> So your natural rights are just your preference? >> No. >> Then what are they? Natural rights are the right to life, the right to liberty, and honestly the pursuit of happiness.

Naima>> And what gives you those rights other than people's preferences? It's not people's preferences it well, it's not people's preferences that give you those rights. It's just that we are all naturally deserve them. The right like just being alive is what

Naimagives you those rights. I believe that all humans who are birthed into this this world have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >> That's a preference. >> founders would agree with me. >> Do you realize that's a preference? >> Sure, but what the [ __ ] does that

Andrew Wilsonmatter? >> It matters because if you're you keep on claiming over and over again rights aren't preferences and everything you give me is just a preference for a right. Anytime I ask you what's if if

Andrew Wilsonyou have good, whatever you think good is, what is it outside of what you prefer? >> Andrew, all you want to do is have a descriptive argument. I want to actually hear your >> Listen, the semantics are important to the debate.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes, dude. >> time is it? Uh 4:30. >> I'll sit here all day and do this. I'm telling you right now we're not moving past this until you can give me the grounded claim. It's pointless. >> It's No, it's the most pointed.

Andrew WilsonYou want to do this all day because you are afraid of voices your own opinion. >> is tell me how you ground rights outside of your preferences cuz you keep saying they're not your preferences. >> You were the one who grounded rights in preferences and that was your justification for [ __ ] slavery. >> You disagreed though.

Naima>> Yes. >> So tell me how you ground them outside of preference. >> It's natural law. And then what is natural law other than a set of preferences? Natural law, I mean it's a concept that

Naimathere are inherent rights that every human deserves based on the fact that they're alive. Okay, and >> Which is objective. We are alive objectively unless the whole thing is a simulation. Okay, so you're alive. Sure.

NaimaYou believe people have a right to be alive. Yes. That's a preference, right? It happens to be my preference, yes. There are people who disagree with me. Okay, and and is that because of their preference? Yes.

NaimaSo then what are rights other than >> wait wait wait hold on. So question, are they morally justified to kill others if their preference is to kill others? >> worldview, yes. Because rights are just preferences. >> in a preferential worldview, Andrew. So

Naimayou No. I believe in it there is an inherent definition of right and wrong, good and bad. >> Okay, then give it to me. What makes a thing good other than a set of preferences? I believe that something is

Naimagood. I've already said this, Andrew. >> No, actually no. Don't [ __ ] tell me what to do, man. >> Shall we change the prompt? >> Shall we do this I think not. I think Listen, I'm going to tell you this is >> No, because all you want to do is have a

Andrew Wilsondescriptive debate because you are afraid of voicing your opinion and your Let me make the case. Yeah, let me make the case. So the case is this. Okay. >> She wants to have a debate and she claims it's good faith on forced

Andrew Wilsondoctrine which is a a descriptor about rights. Mhm. When I ask her if rights are preferences, give her her own worldview back to her, right? When I say what she says, so all of these genocides and everything else are completely

Andrew Wilsonjustified because of preferences. I literally gave you your worldview back to you and said yes, they have to be Hang on. Let me finish. Am I allowed to finish what I'm saying?

Andrew WilsonLet him finish. Go ahead, Andrew. So anyway, the thing is is like if that's the I gave you your whole worldview back and showed you based on your worldview all of those things actually would be justified, yes,

Andrew Wilsonbecause I don't believe that you can ground this concept of good or evil outside of preference and you haven't and you want me to just move on Hang on. And you want me to just move on from

Andrew Wilsonthat and I'm not going to until you either A concede that your morality is is all preferences or B justify how it's not. I don't believe that morality is based on preference. >> that's a preference. >> I believe that morality is based on inherent natural law and we've already

Andrew Wilsontalked about that. But inherent would would say that it's well, here's the thing inherent would say that that's objective and you don't believe in objectivity, you believe only in subjective rights. >> No, that's not true. We're talking about morality, not rights. You don't believe that there is an inherent

Andrew Wilson>> [sighs] >> basis of morality. >> view there's not. >> I'm not asking you about my view, Andrew. I'm asking you about your view. >> It wouldn't matter what my view was. >> No, it does. I'm really genuinely curious. That's nice, but I want to

Andrew Wilsonknow. Look, we're not going I'm not moving past it until we get to good and bad. We're not doing it. >> that there is any inherent It wouldn't

Naimamatter. Yes, it does. It doesn't. It does matter. It doesn't matter. You have to actually like give an opinion. You can't just sit here and like ask me If I you don't understand you I don't know why don't you understand? >> definitions and ask for the definitions

Andrew Wilsonof things over and over and over and over and over again. >> the ability for morality itself. You've destroyed the ability for morality itself, so it wouldn't matter what I claim What do you mean destroyed the ability for morality?

Andrew Wilson>> Because I've given you all this evidence. Because what you're claiming is an anti-realist position. It's a moral anti-realist position. You're saying there's no true moral facts. Everything is just morality based on preferences.

Naima>> That's the opposite of what I just said. >> Then ground it. I just said that Then ground it. >> There is inherent morality based on natural law. I just said that. Ground it. So now what is your definition of morality?

Naima>> it. Do you believe there's inherent morality? Answer a question and >> why would it matter? Answer it cuz I want to know. >> Yeah, sure. We're in the middle of the debate. Why am I think they're all preferences. I think

NaimaYes. The prescriptive morality is not my opinion, it's yours. >> It's yours too. No, it's not. Then get ground it. I just did. No, you didn't. I've done it over and over again. >> You haven't. You are afraid I literally