Andrew Wilson vs. NotSoErudite HEATED MARATHON DEBATE | Whatever Debates 25

Date: 2026-02-21

Duration: 8h 47m

Guests

Brian Atlas

NNotSoErudite >

AAndrew Wilson >

Identified Speakers

SPEAKER_00NotSoErudite (Kyla)(guest)

SPEAKER_01Brian Atlas(host)

SPEAKER_03Andrew Wilson(guest)

Key Moments

IntroBrian introduces debate: Andrew Wilson vs NotSoErudite (Kyla). Four prompts on Christian nationalism.

QuoteAndrew: 'I do hate leftists... God will punish my soul for it'

Key MomentKyla introduces Agrippa's Trilemma - becomes central philosophical battleground

Key MomentKyla spills energy drink on stream equipment

Key MomentRobot claw beer pass disaster - major spillage incident

Key MomentKyla reveals Brian offered her Whatever host position before Andrew

ControversyAndrew tells Kyla her main problem is being 'supremely unlikable'

OtherDebate ends after ~8 hours. After-show segment.

Topics Discussed

Christian Nationalism and American Identity

Whether Christian nationalism is unAmerican. Founding fathers, 1st/10th/14th Amendments.

Agrippa's Trilemma

Central philosophical battleground: all belief systems are foundationally unjustifiable.

Jesus and Political Power

Kyla argues Jesus rejected political power citing John 18, Matthew 4, John 6.

Abortion Ethics

Kyla's pro-choice legal/pro-life personal stance. When ensoulment occurs.

Content Creator Likability

Andrew critiques Kyla's streaming career, argues unlikability is main barrier.

Transcript

Page 6 of 9

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Oh, okay. So you are okay. So you are doing the thing. Gotcha. See bad faith for it to take this long for him to just admit that. Crazy. Keep going.

SPEAKER_02A gripper the dick lema donated $200. Can you guys debate force doctrine real quick?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)He earned he fully utilized that $200. Oh yeah. Do you think that's the max characters he could submit? >> Probably. [laughter] No, probably. >> I think so. I think so. That was a lot. >> Uh, but his question was, can you guys

NotSoErudite (Kyla)debate force doctrine? This is the last micro debate because I'm getting over to In-N-Out. >> Sure. Well, what I was going to propose, >> I prefer not to unless this guy pays if this guy's pays another $200, then I'll do it. Well, I was gonna propose, but I

Brian Atlascame prep other things >> at the end here. We could I You guys probably both want a closing statement. I was gonna order pizza for us and we could let some roasts come in at the >> Okay. Well, so order pizza. >> We can bring the roast. All the roast

Andrew Wilsonare at >> Do you like pizza? Are you vegan or anything? >> Uh I'm not a vegan now. >> This is good. Okay. >> Pizza often just makes me sick. I have I have health issues. >> I was going to get some pizza. >> Okay. >> I'll stick around for pizza. >> Did you Okay. So, >> I'm getting in and out though, so don't order me any.

Brian Atlas>> What's that? >> I'm getting in and out tonight. Don't. >> Oh, yeah. Good move. >> Well, why don't we do In-N-Out? >> Oh, yeah. There's plenty of time. >> Uh, they don't deliver. I was going to bring it in here. So, >> yeah, they don't. The Uber won't go. >> Wait, really? >> Yeah. This is not important.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Um, so there I'll do these two chats. I'll read these two chats and then if you guys want to bite briefly on the force doctrine, five minutes >> if somebody donates another $200, but I didn't come to talk about force doctrine today and I think it's not going to be a micro debate. I think it's a long long

Brian Atlaslong game. >> Uh, so Abe, thank you for your soup chat. Agria assumes justify equals derive. Yet derivation requires hinge certainties plus norms. Those aren't conclusions. They're prerequisites. So

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the trillemma attacks a straw epistemology. >> So prerequisites or dogmatism. Prerequisites is just dogmatism. I I don't know why he thinks that this did [laughter] anything. >> Okay. >> Thank Thank you for your super chat,

Brian AtlasAbe. And then we have from Canada, your homeland. Uh JP Belly. Kyla, I rooted for you before you met Destiny. Please let some of your ego/utilitarianism down and listen to Andrew. I do no harm

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to nobody so I can do it. But what about the harm I do to society as a whole? >> So JP Belly, I am married. I appeal to my husband long before I'm going to appeal to Andrew. Uh this most of my

NotSoErudite (Kyla)theological stuff because I'm not a preacher. I don't think anyone should look to me as a spiritual leader. Most of the theology that I have is somewhat downstream of Nick and I honor my husband and we talk about this and listen to it. Unfortunately for you, I

Brian Atlasam married and I honor my husband. >> Okay. I don't think he was looking for a date. >> Sure. >> We have two more. >> Literally just he Okay, whatever. [laughter] >> We have uh two more chats here coming

SPEAKER_02in. We have >> Dr. Pierce >> dr_pierce donated $100. >> Appreciate that. Tyler has a Lincoln view of federal dominance over the

SPEAKER_02states where in their writings the founders were statesmen first, Virginia, etc. and then American. Kentucky resolutions 1878. Thomas Jeff.

Brian Atlas>> Thomas Jeff. >> I'm ordering pizza for everybody. Hold on. That's okay. Done. Uh Dr. Pierce, thank you very much for your TTS. I do

Brian Atlasappreciate it. And uh we have you can do X coming in here. He has two coming in actually. >> I'll do those back to back. >> You can do donated $100.

SPEAKER_02>> Great work, Brian. [laughter] >> I don't know either of these people debating, but the guy on the left is winning because he does not take one steps back. >> Sure. I'm sure you don't know either of us. Very believable.

Brian Atlas>> That was the joke. >> Change your name to uh not so aerodyite subscriber. So, >> please do, >> you know, just to to clarify that you're not a >> crucible crew

SPEAKER_02>> uh member. Thank you. There's you have another one coming in here right now. Thank you. >> Indox donated 100. >> Don't know either of these people debating, but the guy on the left is

Brian Atlaswinning because he does not take one steps back. Also, I don't like Canada. >> Cool. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, man. Appreciate it. Uh, so we're going to

Brian Atlashave a pizza party. I'll lower the TTS to 69 if they want to send in like a, you know, kind of a final cherry on top message. >> Send in $200. Can they watch you eat a piece of pizza slowly?

Brian Atlas>> Well, you guys can eat the pizza on stream. That's why I'm ordering the pizza. So, >> Oh, we're having the pizza party on the last debate. During debate, maybe even pizza party. >> I feel like Andrew and I should charge

Brian Atlasyou to give the fans that pizza eating ASMR. Only if we had pineapple on the pizza for Andrew. So, okay. Um, >> right. You're not having pizza. >> I don't know if you guys wanted to close

Brian Atlasany threads or if you want to give your >> closing statements or I'll leave it up to you guys. You want an energy drink, Andrew? I have applesauce. Do you want apple? I've got

Brian Atlasapplesauce. I have [laughter] more energy drinks. You can't spill it, though. Don't spill it. >> I Yeah, I want to sleep tonight, so no more energy drinks. Okay. >> All right. Closing statement from both of you. >> He go I think he goes first because I I started right.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. Go for it. >> So yeah, just incoherent nonsense. Kyla's position is that the feds if it was the case that they they wanted states to be able to implement religion would have come up with some kind of

Andrew Wilsonbizarre compromise where the entire pan Protestant [ __ ] uh who lived inside of the United States would have all agreed to adhere to. Uh it's bizarre. It makes no sense. It ignores the historic

Andrew Wilsoncontext of all forms of the compromise which happened due to the articles of confederation. She didn't know anything about the very amendments she was talking about. She doesn't understand the government structure whatsoever. Anytime we got into these various uh

Andrew Wilsondilemmas when it came to what is unamerican, what is not, she just appealed to vagaries when it came to the various ideas of what it was that we were even discussing when it came to oh this this whole thing is unamerican.

Andrew WilsonThis is what's American, this is what isn't. Um, the entire appeal, even for how it wasn't Christian, didn't actually make any sense. The idea was just you can't rule with Christian ethics because Mikail says that you can't because I

Andrew Wilsonexed it that way because of a Gria's trillemma. It's bizarre. Not only that, the Yeah, that's true. The entire thing you claimed was why are you going out of your way to interrupt my closing statement? I wouldn't do that to you.

Andrew WilsonSo, anyway, yeah, the whole point here is like she did she said that she just exedated it to mean that Christians can't rule their ethics. She's literally said she could not point to anything in

Andrew Wilsonthe Bible except that even the passage she pointed out the [snorts] one she points out she concedes immediately. Yeah, you're right. That's because he's bowing to Satan. The next thing is she can't she couldn't point out the

Andrew Wilsoncontradiction of kings except to say, well, the entire reason for that is because God wasn't ready to seed that people didn't need a king yet. And the

Andrew Wilsonsecond we came up with the new idea of democracy in America uh or western nations or the nation state, now we're prepared to not have kings anymore and that's what God prefers. It's the most

Andrew Wilsonbizarre [ __ ] that I've ever heard. Not only that, the entire idea that we could have moral facts within the idea of a Grippa's trillemma is [ __ ] absurd. It literally is a reduction to that. Um, so

Andrew Wilsonlike the whole thing to me was incoherent. But I guess the most incoherent part was I still don't understand how it's unamerican for Christian nationalists to uh to take

Andrew Wilsonoffice using the confines of liberalism in order to impose laws that they want. That's literally what America is. It's designed for this. It's just a system at this point. And it's not even co it's

Andrew Wilsonnot even a coherent position because she concedes that all the states were able to make laws which regarded the ideas of the institutions of religion inside of the states. She even conceded that it

Andrew Wilsonwas mostly due to the 14th amendment. States did not give up this right rather the feds took it from them. She also continuously equivocate or not equivocates but in this in this case makes a conflation that federal power is

Andrew Wilsonsomehow less important than state powers or that was a bizarre part too which I still don't understand the entirety of the system even if I seated that the uh

Andrew Wilsonfounders didn't want to have a federal national religion which I did 80,000 times even though we kept going back to it uh they didn't want to impose one on a state specifically because the states didn't want that as part of the

Andrew Wilsoncompromise. wise. So, I don't understand why she thinks the system wouldn't drastically be something completely different if we didn't have the checks and balances between states and the feds. The rest of it was me just pulling out incoherent worldview after

Andrew Wilsonincoherent worldview, which was fun, I must admit. But ultimately, like the clips from this are possibly going to be the most amazing that Crucible has ever produced, I must admit. So, for that, I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)do thank you, Kyle. Yeah, [snorts] I guess to start this, it's unfortunate that we didn't have a pickle jar so we could see if you're still strong enough to insist on the force doctrine. >> Do you want to arm wrestle instead? [laughter] >> Do I want to arm wrestle? >> Yeah. Do you want to arm wrestle

Andrew Wilsoninstead? >> No, I didn't say that. You were >> Well, I just want to make I just think it's interesting. >> Hang on. I want to make sure. >> Are you interrupting my outro? >> You interrupted mine for $1,000,000. >> Did you want to arm wrestle, Kyla?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, I think that you'll probably although if I did, what was the point then? What was the point of that? The point is that it's the first force. >> I just wanted to take a shot at you. That was the [laughter] point. >> Do you want me to continue or do you want to keep interrupting my outro? >> Go ahead.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. So, I think one of the things that's really frustrating when talking to Andrew is that he's really, really smart and he's actually really capable of engaging in good debates. In fact, my favorite debate ever is when we both agreed to be in good faith. The issue is that Andrew knows that in the case of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)like philosophy, he can't win the argument uh by being good faith. So, he has to insist on straw mans of my position. he has to be bad faith by pretending that he's granting my worldview when he's obviously not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)granting it. Um, which is unfortunate. It's frustrating because when we have good conversations where we engage in with one another honestly, that's what like furthers truth and I think that that's something that honors God. I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)think it's something that's interesting. Um, andrew didn't want to do that today. I think one of the things that's really important to pull apart here is that insisting that the your partner is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)incoherent, that they're stupid or [ __ ] um doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're mean. It just means you're mean and nasty. And you can be mean and nasty. The issue is that your entire platform is built on this

NotSoErudite (Kyla)presumption that you're going around looking at non-Christians and calling them dirty, degenerate [ __ ] while a you barely tell most of Brian's Whatever fans that they're also degenerate [ __ ] as men. and B, you look around and you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)won't remove the plank from your own eye. You have gluttony going on, right? You're addicted to cigarettes. You drink all the time. You're overweight. I'm not interested in telling other people all of their sins because I'm mostly have the predilction of trying to figure out

NotSoErudite (Kyla)my own and trying to be honest before God. I think that, for example, it's bad for Christians to impose our worldview on others. I think Romans, for example, if you go to Romans, right, if a person believes an action is wrong, then

NotSoErudite (Kyla)performing that action is a sin for that person. This is something most priests believe. This is actually why, for example, priests won't tell people what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is. Because they believe that if they can't know what it is, then they can't do the sin.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Right? Knowledge of the sin is essential for doing the sin. Which is why when non-Christians who reject the idea of Christ in the first place can't know certain things. So we can't hold them to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)these standards. Right? In Romans 14:14, we have I know and I am persuaded in the Lord that Jesus is that in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in and of itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean. In Romans 14, Paul

NotSoErudite (Kyla)goes through this long litany of outlining things that might be sin for you but are not sins for others or vice versa. Right? This is well established. But Andrew wants to pretend like this is incoherent, that this isn't Christian

NotSoErudite (Kyla)because it makes him win, I guess. And that's fundamentally like what this discussion came down to is Andrew wanted to win, which is why he was being bad faith incessantly and didn't want to actually have a meaningful discussion

NotSoErudite (Kyla)about things that I think we both value. In fact, he went so far as to not just call me [ __ ] but to insist that I am not even saved, right? Which is, by the way, just a really just look up how

NotSoErudite (Kyla)God feels about people who uh engage who are Raqqa, right? Who calls me fool. You shouldn't do it. In fact, he says to the Pharisees that the blood of those who they who they insist are unsaved is on

NotSoErudite (Kyla)them. That their that their salvation is dismerged by them. And in fact, Jesus goes so far as to say, "You're a Pharisee and I would crush you under my foot like a snake." I think at the end of the day, there is a risk that my biblical interpretation is wrong. And

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that's okay, right? I'm open to that. I'm doing my best to seek truth. What Andrew is insisting on doing is using Russian Orthodoxy, maybe the most garbage religious system ever, that has been completely usurped by the KGB, by

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the way. He's not even honoring Eastern Orthodoxy. He's using it to justify his baby Christianity to in instantiate his bigotry. That's what he's doing with his faith. And I think it's >> Orthodox, by the way.

Andrew Wilson>> You What are you? >> Well, I'm not going to say, but I'm not Russian Orthodox. >> Which part of Orthodox are you a part of? >> I'm not going to say the reason I can't. If I if I dox that and people find church, they'll actually harass the church. >> Sure. Okay.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You don't you don't believe me? >> I believe you, but I don't think that saying which branch of Orthodoxy you're a part of um will lead to like all this thing. I imagine that there's more churches around you in this world. You're in Dallas, right? There's probably more. >> Why the [ __ ] would you say that? Like why?

Andrew Wilson>> Wait, >> why would you say that? >> Sorry. Was that not publicly known? >> Well, you didn't know if it was. Uh, I assume that it was decently popular. >> I've never said it. I've never specifically said that. No.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Gotcha. Okay. >> So, I just note to self, don't tell Kyla anything personal. Not a good idea. >> So, he's going to stand on this that I don't know if he even cares that much about to just like point to me and say, "See, bad, stupid woman. That's not good

Andrew Wilsonconversation." Um, if it is the case, >> that was an actual bad thing to do either. >> If it Well, I had no idea that that wasn't >> Well, you know, I'd like just never say anything about where you live, family

Andrew Wilsonmembers names. I don't talk about any of that stuff. It's because I have people who literally threaten to kill me every day. I've had an assassin come out to try to kill my wife and I just really prefer you not do that. >> That's fair. I apologize for releasing that information. Genuinely, is there a

Andrew Wilsonway that it can be struck from the final VOD? >> Well, it's done now. You just saw [ __ ] 12,000 people heard it. That's done. >> But from the final VOD at least, can it be removed? >> Why would it matter? >> Why would Why wouldn't that matter? >> 12,000 people just heard that [ __ ] That's That's done.

Brian Atlas>> That's done. >> Okay. Um, I would still prefer that it's removed. Genuinely offer my apology if that wasn't publicly out there. >> Look into I think there's editing tools. Yeah, >> cool. I really appreciate that. >> I always just said Texas. That's it.

Andrew Wilson>> I didn't know that. Genuinely, it seemed like you're decently open about it in the way that I'm open about being in Tampa and moving to Dallas. >> Mhm. You just always had should have a rule of thumb just to not say stuff like that when you're [laughter] ever on

NotSoErudite (Kyla)stream about it. Just never. >> Sure. And I apologize. Uh, none of this, however, takes away from the fact that you've engaged in bad faith, that you use uh other people's sin as attacks while you dismiss planks. Um, and now

NotSoErudite (Kyla)he's just walking away to pro clutch. So, it didn't matter that you were insulting Rachel Wilson, but apparently this is a big deal. Okay, >> I'm listening. >> No, you're not.

Brian Atlas>> Is is yay having a smoke >> that in the middle of my outro?

Brian AtlasThe guy The guy has a you know he smokes cigarettes jonesing. Yeah. Would you allow me to just walk out in the middle of somebody's outro? >> Well, I can't. What am I going to like physically force somebody? >> Well, you'd probably be like, "Hey,

Brian Atlasdon't do that." >> Uh, no. I mean, I we've had Andrew on for debates and women will have walked off. >> Is that of course you won't force me,

Brian Atlasbut you don't like that, right? >> Uh, yeah. I mean, of but I'd prefer Andrew to stay, but I also acknowledge that the the guy smoked cigarettes and he wanted to he wanted to have a smoke. So, uh, but yeah, we've there women will

Brian Atlaswalk off and, uh, in fact, when Andrew Wilson was debating, uh, Crash Out Kylie, as she's called, rage quit Kylie, crash out Kylie. She got up multiple times. And uh, of course, it's our

Brian Atlaspreference for her to stay there. But that's I'd be like, "Okay, you she she'd be a little frustrated or flustered and I'd be like, "Okay, you need a few minutes to cool off." >> So, yeah, I'm not going to lose my mind

NotSoErudite (Kyla)if a if a woman Hey, you're trying to make it like a sexist thing here. >> Like a sexist gendered favoritism. >> Did I say sexist? I >> You didn't say sex, but you >> I think Andrew is your friend and so you give him extra stretches cuz you understand that he's been good to you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)and you want to be loyal to him, but he wouldn't give to me. I agree. But you did allow him to walk out in the middle of my outro and interrupt my outro significantly more than I've interrupted his. >> Well, there's some interruptions both

Brian Atlasways, but also in terms of Look, >> Andrew Yeah. Okay. You're doing your closing, but Andrew is pointing out, hey, don't don't say that. >> That's super fair. And I'm genuinely we should not even draw more attention to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to that whole thing. I think we can >> Oh, it's done now. >> Yeah. Um >> there's like nothing you can do about it now. Did you have did you have more? >> I don't know. It seems like he doesn't want to engage with me. Has been bad.

Brian AtlasWell, you walked away in the middle of me talking, >> which is totally fine if you're upset. And like genuinely, >> he's not upset. >> Of course you are. You're upset. >> I'm listening to what you're saying. >> Cut the man some slack. He has an addiction. >> Oh, don't say that. That would be a sin. >> What?

Andrew Wilson>> An addiction. >> Look. Hey, you know, >> go ahead. Finish your finish your closing. Enough. >> The man needs his smokes. Okay. I get up and smoke every debate multiple times. That's totally fine. This is not new. Give him I didn't say that that's new. >> Cut him some slack.

Brian Atlas>> I've cut him slack the whole time. The issue is that he's called me [ __ ] right? He's called me multiple things. So, who want to have you call him a bit overweight and has >> at the end of solidarity out of solidarity as an overweight man, I took great offense.

Brian Atlas>> Sure. But it's not a sin to you cuz you're not a Christian. >> You body shamed Andrew Wilson. Noame I think you owe the man an apology to be honest. If he thinks that glutton is a sin, then he probably shouldn't do that

Andrew Wilsonthing. >> Look, don't Yeah, I got a few pounds, but I don't think I'm a [ __ ] glutton. >> I mean, >> there's a different like I've seen fat people and I'm not one of them. >> I mean, you're I think you're I think you're obese.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> He's got a dad bought. Okay, >> that's fine. What's the children? The man has multiple children. >> If he's going to obsess If he's going to obsess about other people's sins, he should probably take the planks out of his own eye first. But it's not sinning.

Brian AtlasMy understanding it's not sinning to smoke. It's not a sin to be addicted. >> Is it sinning to prove it? >> Not a sin to be addicted. >> Yeah. Addiction itself, is it a sin? >> Okay. Really? >> Is addiction itself a sin? >> Yeah, I would say so.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So, what if you're addicted to going to church? Is that sinful? >> How are you addicted to going to church? >> Because anything can be an addiction. Playing your guitar too much can be an addiction. Yes, it can. >> No. >> I'm sorry. If you if you go to church

NotSoErudite (Kyla)every single day and you're like, man, I just fi for it. I just want to go all Addiction is like a functional like uh disability that happens, right? Like doing something a lot isn't inherently an addiction. Addiction has like specific >> inherently. It didn't say I just said

Andrew Wilsoncould going to church be an addiction? >> Probably not. No. >> No. Okay. So, could playing the guitar become an addiction? >> Uh again, probably not. >> So, [clears throat] what things can't fit the category of what is an

NotSoErudite (Kyla)addiction? >> It needs it requires mood modification. It has to have withdrawal symptoms associated with it. it needs to cause like significant impairment or dysfunction within your life. Um those are why church fall under all those things. >> How does church causing impairment in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)your life? >> Because without it you've you experience withdrawals and that impairs the way that you >> withdrawals is not the impairment that we're talking about. We're meaning that like when you use heroin, you do drugs, you start you might do crimes or you might end up >> are you addicted to coffee?

Andrew Wilson>> I don't drink coffee. >> If you did, would that be a sin? >> Potentially. Yeah. >> Potentially or it is. >> Yeah, I would say it is because it's a substance. So drink. So people who drink coffee every single morning be and then they have caffeine withdrawals. >> Well, do they know that it's uh that

Andrew Wilsonthey are addicted and that it's wrong? >> They know that they're addicted to coffee. Yes. >> And do they think it's wrong? >> No. >> Oh, then no. It's fine. >> Oh, >> yeah. Welcome to Romans 14. >> Okay. So, Christians >> Yeah. Christians. Yeah. Romans 14. Yep. >> So, as long as Christians don't believe

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it's wrong, it's fine >> to some to some extent. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, then I don't think smoking's wrong, so it's fine. Or drinking or gluttony. None of it's wrong. So, it's fine. Well, that's not the same thing. Thinking that it's not wrong isn't the same thing as not knowing it's wrong.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)[snorts] >> Well, what if they just disagree with you? >> That that wouldn't matter as whether it's >> Okay. So, then I'm asking you, if a Christian is addicted to coffee >> Mhm. >> is that wrong? >> It depends on if they know that it's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)wrong to be addicted to coffee. >> Oh. And how would they know? Like if you told them now they know. >> I would think that they would engage in exoggetical isogesis and divine revelation to figure out like what their sins are. I think that like parishioners and whatnot. Yes. This is typically how we go about figuring out sin.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. >> Do you deny like prayer as a way of uh self uh selfcorrection of sin? >> Uh no. >> Oh, okay. Great. >> What What would that have to do with anything? >> Well, typically when you're trying to figure out whether or not your behavior is sin, specifically in sin, that's not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)clear. The caffeine didn't exist at the Bible days, right? So, I'm trying to figure out when you're doing sin, you usually have to do it prayerfully. This is why, for example, things that could be sin for me might not be sin for you. >> Okay. Okay. So, I just want to make sure

Andrew WilsonI got this right. It's not sinful for a person to be addicted to cigarettes. >> Um, if they do not know that it is sinful. >> Okay. Well, then I guess it's not sinful. >> Well, of course you do. You know that it's sinful.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Demonstrate that. >> I I would say all the evidence of like it seems like you're pretty theologically based. It seems like you have a pretty good understanding of the Bible and I think you went through the catechisms of your of your faith. >> And according to all of the I know priests who smoke.

Andrew Wilson>> That doesn't make it not a sin. >> Yeah. They don't think it's sinful. The Orthodox Church does not think smoking is sinful. >> I didn't say smoking. I said addiction. >> Even addiction in and of itself may not be necessarily sinful. >> What are instances where addiction isn't

Andrew Wilsona sin? >> Because you can have things which you would consider fall under the category of addiction that may not be anything which is non-preferable. Like for instance, like I would say guitar. You

Andrew Wilsoncould become so infatuated or have an addiction to the guitar. Perhaps this is part of your profession or something like this. But you actually experience withdrawals if you're not playing or something like that. >> How is it causing dysfunction in your life? >> Because if you're not playing or you're

NotSoErudite (Kyla)not pursuing that, it causes you distress. It causes you distress. >> That's not the same thing as >> well then what dysfunction is usually within social uh economic or interpersonal. That's usually what we're looking for.

Andrew Wilson>> So what is the dysfunction from heroin? >> Uh it typically has massive impacts on your relationship, your job, and your uh health. So, if you were addicted to the guitar and it was having some kind of

Andrew Wilsonlike uh negative effect where your wife is like, "Hey, I really would prefer that you didn't play guitar so much." I would really prefer that. That's creating dysfunction now, right? >> Uh not uh it depends on if like you guys

NotSoErudite (Kyla)negotiate and talk about it and you're just absolutely unwilling. But you being absolutely unwilling to stop playing the guitar isn't evidence of addiction necessarily. Maybe evidence couldn't fit all these criteria. >> You haven't established that it does.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I'm asking you why it couldn't. >> You have to establish that it does. That's on you. >> I'm I'm asking you why couldn't >> because uh the dysfunction of causing interpersonal preference issues isn't the necessity of uh dysfunction. We're looking at like

Andrew Wilson>> So then you could like responsibly use heroin where it's not causing dysfunction in your life. >> No, not really. How would you do that? >> How? >> Well, I mean, if you just are living your life normally and then you also do heroin and then live it normally.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> How do you live it normally when you're doing heroin? Heroin will knock you out for like hours straight. Okay, let's say meth, but you just take like a little even more so >> you take like a little teeny tiny bit and that's it. >> Uh how how is that not related to dysfunction in your life?

Andrew Wilson>> What? Because it's not causing any sort of distress for the people around you at least under the criteria that you gave. >> Well, you typically going to it's cause sleep dysfunctions at minimum. >> Doesn't even cause that. >> Meth is active in your system for about 24 hours. >> A little teeny tiny amount.

Andrew Wilson>> No, the duration it's active is the same. It would just be the dosing. >> That doesn't mean it would affect your sleep. It would necessarily when you take a stimulant it does affect your sleep especially long long standing >> unless it's the case that you're taking the stimulant all the time and so your sleep is always on the same pattern.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh >> then it's not affecting your sleep at all. >> It typically is and you require the tolerance buildup specifically for >> Okay. So now you have the tolerance buildup. >> Tolerance buildup is often part of like specifically substance addictions. >> Okay. Yeah. So you have all of that. Where's [clears throat] the dysfunction

Andrew Wilsonthough? >> The withdrawals. >> You don't you're not having any withdrawals because you keep taking it. >> Well if you stop taking it you'd have withdrawals. And if you stop playing the guitar, you have withdrawals. Okay. So then when it comes to dysfunction, if the guitar stopping the guitar is affecting your sleep cuz you just want

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to play the guitar. >> Uh we would probably put that in the bracket of OCD before we would put in the bracket of dysfunction of addiction. >> Why? >> Because it's not using the same like neurocognitive like uh underpinnings. The neuro coralates are usually going to be different.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Are you saying you can't be addicted to uh behaviors? >> You can be addicted to behaviors but not behaviors. I I would need that. I don't think there's any evidence of guitar addiction. >> Really? >> I don't think so.

Andrew Wilson>> Pull it up. Can you become addicted to guitar?

Brian Atlas>> Is there guitar addiction? Yes, guitar addiction can absolutely be a real thing, though it's not a formal medical diagnosis like substance addiction. Uh what people usually mean by guitar

Brian Atlasaddiction as a behavioral addiction. similar in pattern though usually not severity to things like gaming or social media addiction. >> You can become addicted >> but not in any medical way that we mean. Gotcha. >> You didn't qualify that it needed to be

NotSoErudite (Kyla)a medical diagnosis. >> Wait, what are we talking about with addiction if we're not talking about some level of medical diagnosis? >> Why do you why does that need to be medically diagnosed? >> Well, when we say it okay

NotSoErudite (Kyla)diagnosis for addiction, >> not not >> I didn't say that it has to be medically diagnosed. The medical standards of diagnostics is what we're referring to when we're talking about functionality, withdrawal, tolerance. These are like medical diagnost.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So yes, >> sure, I would. >> Okay, thank you. >> But the issue is find me a single example of something actually addicted to the guitar. >> Pulling teeth to get the answers out of you. >> Well, what do you mean that's been your side as well? >> No, it's the opposite.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Really? So the Agria's trillemma thing wasn't pulling teeth. getting you to admit that you were being uh like judgmental about my lack of traditionalism. Wasn't pulling teeth. >> No, I don't think it was. >> You're just the perpetual victim. Only you are suffering. No one suffers like

Andrew WilsonAndrew suffers. >> That's true. At least not on this show. Nobody suffers like I do on this show. That's true. >> Well, you make a lot of money from it. So, it's pretty good for you. >> That Well, not on this show, >> but this show like dominantly led to a large portion of your success. So, sort

Andrew Wilsonof. >> I would have still had I think the same amount of success without the show, honestly. >> Without Brian. Yes. Crazy. >> You know who told me that? Brian. >> I'm sure he did cuz he's your friend. That's the nice thing to say.

Brian Atlas>> He did. >> Well, you know, [sighs] I'd like to think I, you know, had a bit of a guiding hand. >> I don't disagree. That was my position. >> You're extremely large.

Brian Atlas>> What I said, Andrew is you're so talented. The cream rises to the top. >> The cream rises to the top. Very talented guy, Andrew. And uh Yeah. And you gave him a platform for many months

NotSoErudite (Kyla)which helped grow his his platform. I'm not saying it's only Brian. >> I'm just kidding. >> I'm not saying it's only Brian. Of course you're talented, right? Of course. Of course he's important for your rise up. >> I thought so. >> Okay. And I don't know why you were

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fighting me >> because I told you what Brian said, >> which didn't seem to disagree with me. >> Andrew has the sauce. >> What he said to me. >> Andrew has the sauce. >> You think he would have made it completely without you? Had no

NotSoErudite (Kyla)contribution to his career. Well, you know, I like to think that I [sighs] I played a helping hand. Me, too. >> A helping hand. >> I agree. You got an opportunity through Brian and you're talented, so you maximized opportunity. That's great. >> Okay.

Brian Atlas>> I could just take maybe I should just take more more credit, you know? I don't know. >> I think you could >> more credit, you know. Who in the just curious like for the Crucible like did you you know some of you discover Andrew

Brian Atlasfrom whatever, you know? Anyways, uh we have some super chats. Why don't we read the super chats? a portion >> a good you know maybe a good amount good amount >> and uh you know but I do want to say

Brian Atlasthough you know look uh >> Andrew's trajectory has been stellar uh I agree he within two years of his essentially two years basically two

Brian Atlasyears of his first appearance on the whatever podcast the man >> was he was went on Joe Rogan he's been on a bunch of other Steven Crowder Patrick BD David uh he's got his own huge audience,

Brian Atlas>> of course. >> And uh the thing you don't know about Andrew is he he likes to do skits. >> His skits are very good. >> I actually So I actually do know this cuz I've known Andrew for three years. >> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. I knew him in the big papa fascist days.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Oh boy. >> So I remember the He wrote me a song. He wrote me a song. It was a really Actually, for those who don't know, Andrew is a good guitar player and a pretty decent singer. Did you know that >> he is? He sometimes after the shows he serenates me

Brian Atlas>> in a >> Is that when you Is that when you liberal him? >> Platonic kind [laughter] of way. >> He just Metallica is his What's your go-to when you >> do? I've been listening to oldies a lot now.

Brian Atlas>> Yeah. Anyways, um I don't know. >> Guys, get us to 7,000 likes. Like the video. We have some super chats we're going to let through. I uh >> Hold on one second. >> As an obese man, >> uh the pizza is >> which is fine. Uh, I just, you know,

Brian Atlas>> pizza's almost here, by the way. Okay, we have >> JP Belly, thank you for the Canadian 100. How much is that? What's the conversion? >> I think it's like two bucks. I'm so >> $2. This guy is scamming.

Brian Atlas>> He is. He's getting >> JP JP, you got to step it up. Uh, to Andrew, give this to her. Utilitarianism is if I do no harm, I can do it. But

Brian Atlaswhat if is what if is Wow, the Canadian education system is uh what if is hurting society as a whole. utilitarianism fails. Thank you for the super chat. Appreciate it, brother. >> She was just gonna say she's not a

Brian Atlasutilitarian. >> Uh, thank you for that, Mr. Canada. Abe, not dogma, preconditions, even skepticism presupposes logic, language, and meaning. Without those, you couldn't

NotSoErudite (Kyla)argue skepticism at all. >> You can argue all sorts of things and recognize that axioms at a foundational level are often unjustifiable. are unjustifiable. >> Always unjustifiable

Andrew Wilson>> unless you can solve a Grippa's dilemma. >> Oh, from our view. >> Being bad faith again. >> How's that bad faith? >> Cuz you don't believe that. >> I just corrected it the guy. I was like, it's always unjustified. >> I'm not I'm not doing the song and

Brian Atlasdance, by the way, anymore. >> Okay. Okay. Uh, by the way, we're 200 likes away from 6,000. If you guys can help us break the threshold. Okay. We have a bunch of chats coming in here.

Brian AtlasUh, one moment here while I get these pulled up. if it will finally load. We have King Ryan with a message. Thank you, King.

SPEAKER_02>> King Ryan donated $69. We do what works until a Christian majority does what they think works. Then suddenly the method is bad. >> Basically, >> works isn't moral, right? Works is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)pragmatic. And if you'll notice, almost all Christian almost all theocracies got crushed under western liberal democracies because they're better systems. They work better. Deocracies lasted longer than any western democracy. >> Doesn't matter. They're still fallen,

Andrew Wilsonhaven't they? >> Then all all you're saying that's that's the most facious argument you've made. >> No, it's not. >> Yes. The idea that because this thing failed after being existing for a thousand years and thing hasn't failed,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)which has existed for a couple hundred years. Thing which has existed for a couple hundred years is better than thing which existed for thousand years. >> It's better in a lot of ways. It's better in for example life expectancy. Um, I believe under most theocracies the average age was, I think, like 35,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)whereas now we've jumped all the way up to like 85 to 90 >> because it was [ __ ] 900 years ago. >> You're right. Technology changes which make certain systems obsolete and better systems that work alongside that technology come around. And in fact, I'm

Andrew Wilsonsure you would agree with me, our society now is [snorts] flourishing, not necessarily morally, but is flourishing more than any theocracy that exists now or in the past. Right. Because I think that if the United States were a was a

Andrew Wilsontheocracy, it would flourish just as much. >> The idea the Yeah, the absolutely. We would still have be be locked away from any of the enemies that could ever possibly harm us. We'd have an ocean between us and them like we do right

Andrew Wilsonthis second. >> An ocean which like ICBMs can you know planes >> we have we have the largest most resourcerich [ __ ] area on planet Earth. Yes. Are you >> and how do we utilize? Well, I don't

Andrew Wilsonknow if I think Russia has a larger >> We utilize it for oil. We utilize it for all sorts of resourcerich. >> Uh well, I think it's larger by land mass, but that's because you add Siberia to it. >> Sure. But isn't it more resource rich as well?

Andrew Wilson>> No, >> I don't think it's more resource rich. No. Okay. >> Than than the United States. The United States was completely untapped of resources in fact. >> So the what the American project is, it's not flourishing and successful and amazing because of Western liberal

Andrew Wilsondemocracy. It's just like an inevitability of the resources available. >> It was flourishing under the 13 colonies in a monarchy too. >> Actually, it wasn't flourishing in the way. Well, >> when did it become based on the technower?

Andrew Wilson>> Based on the technology that was available at the time, the 13 colonies as especially as an emergent young only just Yeah, they [ __ ] were flourishing. Hell [ __ ] yes, they were. Yes, they were flourishing.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. Are we flourishing now >> under a monarchy? And by the way, England was the most powerful military of the time and it was under a monarch and it was flourishing and it yes, it still has a monarch and it's still flourishing. >> I mean, nobody would look at England and

Andrew Wilsonactually say that it's a monarchy. It's obviously not a monarchy anymore. It's obviously a democracy. >> No, in England the monarchs actually lease the land to the state. >> That's true, but that doesn't make it a monarchy. >> They actually do have more authority. They're not just figureheads.

Andrew Wilson>> Does democracy [clears throat] exist in the UK? Of course, that was part of the but that was part of the way that that they did the land structure. But the point is is that for the time the technology of the time the monarchies

Andrew Wilsonwere the most powerful technologically and monarchy did not in any way, shape or form sty technology. In fact, it assisted with it due to all the mass warfare which was going on between nations. >> Sure. And then western liberal nations

NotSoErudite (Kyla)and democracies came along within America and it was even better at innovation and science at technology because it just allowed it. >> It's not any better at innovation. >> You don't think that America is leading in science

Andrew Wilson>> right right the second yes but it's the hegeimon it's the hegeimon of planet earth and when England was the hegeimon of planet earth >> when England was the hegeimon of planet

NotSoErudite (Kyla)earth that was still the hegeimon also thanks to science and it was a [ __ ] monarchy. Uh, sure. But do you think that the monarchy supported science more or less than the uh, founding fathers? >> They loved it. It was critical to

Andrew Wilsonmilitary technology. >> Yeah. And that America still somehow did it better. >> Did what? Better? >> American technology. >> Yeah. I mean, when we got to mass industrialization and we have a massive

Andrew Wilsonland mass of untapped resources. >> But if it America was a monarchy, I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be every bit as successful as it is right now. So then why aren't all of these uh successful theocracies and monarchies

Andrew Wilsonout there just dominating compared to the western western liberal democracy? >> Well, it depends. Some of them are doing quite well. >> For instance, the United Arab Emirates is doing quite well. >> They're they're on par in any way with America or any of

Andrew Wilson>> course, but they're different nations. You're talking about different nations. What I'm asking what I'm asking you specifically here isn't whether or not we transitioned to western democracies inside of the west because due to

Andrew Wilsonphilosophy and what was going on at the time we did. >> That does not answer the question as to whether or not we if we had remained monarchies if we would be as successful or not as successful. >> Yeah. So find me a monarchy that's just so successful

Andrew Wilson>> that would not have any bearing on that argument. Whether or not a monarchy exists right this second that's more successful than the United States or a western nation would have no bearing at all on whether or not if western nations remain monarchies they would be just as successful. It does not answer that

Andrew Wilsonquestion. >> It does because most of the western liberal democracies >> I don't want any pizza for you. >> I'm getting in and out. I told you >> get both. Why not both? >> Because I'm because I'm obese and I'm trying to lose some weight. >> You're very trim. You're very fit. Don't

Andrew Wilsonlet her get >> I'm getting in and out. Brian, >> you put to both. >> Yeah. Anyway, >> that that would that doesn't answer that does not answer the question. That's a liberal red herring. It doesn't actually answer the question as to whether or not

Andrew Wilsonmonarchies would be just as successful as western democracies. >> Question. What evidence could we >> What we would want to do is we'd want to make comparisons as to scientific and technological advancements based on the technology of the time. Mhm.

Andrew Wilson>> And it's the case that in the time of monarchs, there was massive advancements in technology due to the fact that there was lots and lots of warfare. In fact, I would argue that most of the United

Andrew WilsonStates technologies were not pre- 20th century. These happened post 20th century. Most of these technologies and that was due to mass warfare. This includes nuclear energy, nuclear bombs,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)things like this. Those were all things which were products of war. >> Thank you. >> All of them were products of war. products of war, products of science and technology. What's sufficient evidence? So, is there

NotSoErudite (Kyla)any evidence that could be supplied that make you go actually maybe western liberal democracies are more effective with science and utilize them better, which is why they're the preferred form of governance now? >> That's not why they have a performance. >> I didn't say that's why I said is there any evidence that I could supply that

Andrew Wilsonwould convince you? >> Yes, you could look at uh scientific advancement under warfare conditions of countries that and based on their technology of the time in comparison to other nations. So do you think America

NotSoErudite (Kyla)jumped forward in uh military innovations during World War I or two more or less than the innovations in for say example the hundred years war that Britain and >> I think that the Germans who were under a [ __ ] fascistic leader and it wasn't

NotSoErudite (Kyla)a democracy at all had way more technological innovations via warfare than we did >> really >> really >> okay that's crazy but sure >> why why is that crazy >> we solved we solved Manhattan Proctor and we solved nukes uh and nuclear

Andrew Wilsonatomic bomb yeah they were working on heavy watering the P-51 Mustang fighter jet, right? Like almost all of our techn44, the Tiger tank. I could my the list of engineering [ __ ] marvels from

Andrew Wilsonfrom Germany was endless. Why do you think we got their scientists? Why do you think we brought all their scientists here? Cuz they were [ __ ] better than our scientists, especially at rocket. >> Why did they come here? Did they come here? Because maybe western liberal

Andrew Wilsondemocracies give more capacity. >> They came here because we told them if they don't, we would kill them. And we called it operation paperclipip. >> Nope. A lot of them left long before that. Uh, the ones who came here on Operation Paperclip, it was that or you faced the wall like all the Germans did

Andrew Wilsonafter the war. If you were part of the German hierarchy, what the [ __ ] happened to you in the Nermberg trials? What happened? >> Uh, a lot of them were tried to get [ __ ] hung. You got hung by the way. >> Yeah. And what do you think would have happened? What do you think would have

NotSoErudite (Kyla)happened to the people who were making the [ __ ] weapons? They would have [ __ ] Same [ __ ] would have happened to them. Do you think most of the wait so you think that we that most of the German scientists came over here after

NotSoErudite (Kyla)uh after World War II was ended but also that the American engineering was exploding in World War II because we took all of their scientists? >> I didn't say during World No, the opposite.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, World War II major advancements Germans during World War II, the only thing you could give to the United States, which wasn't even just the United States. It was a co-opt including with German scientists for the Manhattan

Andrew Wilsonproject. That's one. And two, >> yeah, they came here. Yes. The [ __ ] >> western liberal democracy are a little bit better >> because they don't want to die. The Germans >> Einstein came here because tons of innovations. Yes. Especially Einstein

Andrew Wilsonprobably. But the thing is is like yes, the Germans had >> regimes are really bad for science development because they wanted >> How was it bad for what what about Nazi Germany was bad for scientific development? chasing away every one of their Jewish scientists was pretty bad

Andrew Wilsonfor their scientific >> having massive amount like they they developed interstate highway systems they were the very first they developed the very first automobile which was available to the common man like these people

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> wait no the Mercedes Ben was developed in like no the first vehicle that existed was the Mercedes-Benz >> say the first vehicle >> you said the first automobile >> the first inexpensive automobile which was available to the common man was the Volkswagen yes

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> that's what it was made for in I believe Henry Ford is the one that revolutionized automobiles to be affordable. >> They weren't very not in comparison to the Volkswagen. And the Volkswagen was designed specifically for this. >> Wait, do you think the assembly line was more contributatory to the automobile

NotSoErudite (Kyla)being cheaper or Volkswagen? >> What do you mean? >> I don't even know what you think Volkswagen did uniquely that reduced the cost. Henry Ford is the one that proliferated vehicles because he developed the assembly line. >> Well, what happened with Volkswagen? >> Mercedes-Benz were developed in Germany.

Andrew WilsonBut wait a second. The Volkswagen The Volkswagen itself, first of all, Germans had autoengineering before World War II. >> I didn't say that they didn't. Granted, that Mercedes-Benz was they also had innovations on assembly lines that the

Andrew WilsonUnited States didn't have. And the thing is interesting about about Germans, right, is again their technology, especially in the battlefield, was leaps ahead of ours. Leaps ahead with rocketry. It was leaps ahead even

Andrew Wilsonincluding with their fighter aircraft, with their tanks, with everything. It was only near the end of the war that we ended up with any jet plane at all. But the Germans were kicking the [ __ ] [ __ ] The only reason we had such a hard

Andrew Wilsontime with them is because they were fighting with the [ __ ] all of Europe. Otherwise, we would have been dealing with three and a half million of them and it would have been a [ __ ] nightmare. >> Would have been a nightmare. >> Germany is just better at science and innovation. It's not really a uniquely American thing. You think that liberal

NotSoErudite (Kyla)democracy >> don't think it's unique to liberal democracy? No. No [ __ ] chance. >> I didn't I said western liberal democracies are the best at it. No, they're not. They weren't the best at it then. >> That it seems it seems like we developed the atomic uh you know the Manhattan

NotSoErudite (Kyla)project new >> help of German scientists. >> Well, Jewish German scientists. >> Yeah, German scientists. >> Well, did Germany and the lack of western liberal democracy maybe facilitate why those scientists were here?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah, nobody's disputing that. >> Okay, thanks. That has no bearing on whether or not >> how does that not have any bearing? Germany, Germany under under their fascist rule, >> how does the fascistic rule that was aiming to kill Jews not significantly

NotSoErudite (Kyla)contribute to the scientific de development in which Jews had to flee Germany for fear of genocide? How is that how is the state craft which made the genocide happen not contributing to

Andrew Wilsonthe scientific? You're saying that under fascism that even though uh one group of people who had scientists in it had to flee >> not under fascism Germany Germany was

Andrew Wilsonstill doing so well that they had more technologically technological innovations than the United States during the war. >> I don't believe that they had more >> they definitely did. I >> I just don't think that that's true. I think that the United States developed

Andrew Wilsonthe Sherman. Right. Part of why the >> the Sherman was nothing. The Tiger destroyed it like it was nothing. They had to do they in fact they had to produce them five to one. That was what our literal war model was. We cannot beat this thing unless it's five to one.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay, >> here pull up. How did a Sherman match up against a Tiger? >> True. >> It's not even in the same [ __ ] The only reason, in fact, it was only because they could not massroduce them. >> That was it.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You're right. And what system did we utilize to figure out a cheaper, more cost-effective way to make tanks? >> No, that had nothing to do with anything. >> That is a large part of it. One of the So, German engineering is like state-ofthe-art. There's almost nothing. There is nothing that competes with

NotSoErudite (Kyla)German engineering. One of the problems with German engineering, Are you going to let me speak? One of the problems with German engineering is that it's so complicated that typically the training required to fix the tigers. Are you going to let me talk? >> Yeah, but even the non-tigers were

NotSoErudite (Kyla)better. Stop interrupting me. >> God, it's so bad. The dancers were better. All of them were better. >> Sure. But the issue was that they were harder to build. They were harder to maintain and they required a higher level of expertise. Which is why despite

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the fact that maybe only it was one to five, we could build five and they could only build one with the time and expertise. That was that's actually part of science is making things more and easier to do like Henry Ford did. That's part of

Andrew Wilson>> the resource of not having our nation being [ __ ] attacked. >> True. That's is part of it. So you don't think America ingenuity at all had anything to do with it? >> Well, no. Of course that had something to do with uh the innovations that we

NotSoErudite (Kyla)had. Of course. Warfare. >> I don't understand why you dislike America. so much. >> Oh, okay. I dislike America because I'm not a revisionist about history. >> I'm I'm not revising history at all. Right. The re So, was it the case that the tiger was like the one of the most

NotSoErudite (Kyla)effective tanks for an individual >> and the panzer? >> Sure. Yes. Because German engineering study the art. The issue is that part of engineering and part of science isn't just making things at the state of the art. It's also making them cost

NotSoErudite (Kyla)effective and easy to utilize. Right. So, if you can have one five tanks that you can build more quickly, you can man more quickly because less expertise is required. So you can use those five tanks to take out the one. The five tanks is better in this situation.

Andrew Wilson>> The problem you have with this logic is that if Germany was only going head-to-head with the United States, that would not have been an issue. >> Uh I I'm not sure if that's true. I mean, I not only can you not say that that's true, there's no way that we can

Andrew Wilsonprove that. >> Actually, we can we can do a military matchup between what would happen if every single panzer tiger was only fighting with the crosscontinental United States only. No Britain, no

Andrew WilsonRussian front, none of that. And we can match it up. And yes, the [ __ ] German tanks would have blown our [ __ ] out of the [ __ ] water. >> But the issue is that we could build five times more. >> So could they if they weren't fighting the whole world.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, the the reason why they can't build five times more is because part of science is making things more efficient and easier to utilize, right? One of the like most important things that >> in that case, that wasn't the problem, though. The problem was they were getting [ __ ] destroyed because they were fighting the world.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That's a really big part of it, right? Part of science and engineering, part of the importance of science and engineering is making things more easily accept acceptable. Right? So in the case of internet, it used to be the case that we needed huge buildings to house everything. And now we have it in our

NotSoErudite (Kyla)phones. That's science and technology. Science and technology doesn't just mean big and strong and fast. It means efficient. It means all of these things. And while German engineering was state-of-the-art, the the machines themselves operated fantastically, there was a high level of expertise required

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to operate them. And it was significantly more complicated to build. Whereas most American tanks are easier to build. This is why the Abrams is now the dominant tank that people use because it's both fantastic at basically

Andrew Wilson[ __ ] everything. But on top of that, >> because of a Rolls-Royce contract, that's why. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, the thing is smart of Americans to make that. >> This doesn't do this doesn't do anything for your position. >> Of course it does. Is it not the

Andrew WilsonAmericans? The position is whether or not I can name a nation that wasn't a western democracy, Germany, World War II, that had as many technological innovations as the United States. The answer is definitely yes.

Andrew Wilson>> I would say that you have not proven. >> Definitely yes. And by the way, saying their tank was better is not the same thing as saying that they had more advancements. >> It's my turn. I just let you proud forever. So here's the thing that's funny is like you can't actually

Andrew Wilsonequalize for these things. If we took the entire Soviet front out, we took the entire European front out from the Germans and we were able to just match up tank for tank, man. Yes, they were much more technologically advanced army

NotSoErudite (Kyla)and that would have been a much more likely unwinable war at that point. >> It would have been very difficult, right? By no means am I interested in dismissing Germany. But what I am saying is that it seems to be the case that under

Andrew Wilson>> seems to be the case that western democracy under under democracy does not just make the most innovative [ __ ] fascist. >> So I just let you proud on for a while. It's my turn to talk now. Okay. Right.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)So in this case you're saying well one for one their tanks were better. Sure. The issue is that that's not necessarily innovation and engineering. Part of engineering and science and technology is making things more efficient. >> Oh, I see. >> Do you France a western democracy? >> Uh, yes.

Andrew Wilson>> Now, why the [ __ ] did the Germans just roll over them like they were [ __ ] >> A whole bunch of things. A >> No, no, no. The part of science, Kyla, is making sure that your army is super sophisticated and that you can make

Andrew Wilsonassembly line products so that you can attack these people and that's what we can do. Why were the Germans able to literally walk in and make France surrender two weeks? >> I believe that there was a significant amount of surprise. They did. They invented a new technology called Blitzkrieg. >> Oh

Andrew Wilson>> yeah. >> How could they be surpassing these Western democracies? >> Uh multiple ways. >> I I thought you couldn't surpass a western democracy in science and technology.

Andrew Wilson>> Why did I say that >> you you said Western democracies are by far the best at science and innovation and this and that. How come all these western democracies were getting blown to bits by the fascists? >> Because there are going to be western

NotSoErudite (Kyla)democracies that are worse than fascism. That doesn't wait that doesn't change. No, wait. This doesn't change what I'm saying, which is that broadly western democracies are better at allowing for uh uh like science and technology to

Andrew Wilsonflourish because France should have done that better. I guess France and England should have done that better. >> I I'm not sure how to engage if you're only going to stum me. >> That's not That's my argument. That's my

Andrew Wilsonargument to you is it makes no it can't straw man you with my argument. >> He goes it's incoherent. >> I didn't say incoherent. I said I'm I'm making an argument. Why would I What are you even talking about? My argument is simple. If you have a western democracy,

Andrew Wilsonyou're saying western democracies are the only ones that can make the ones that make the most innovative. They make the most innovative technology. That's based on the fact that they have various assembly lines. When you have those assembly lines, part of science is making sure that you can assemble these

Andrew Wilsonthings as quickly as possible. Grod it. The Nazis were fascist and they took these Western democracies and took a giant [ __ ] on them and they didn't give a [ __ ] about them. They made them surrender in carriages within two

Andrew Wilson[ __ ] weeks. They occupied their entire nation. >> No, Western democracies do not because they're western democracies inherently have better scientific methodology than other forms of government. >> No, it allows for more scientific

Andrew Wilsoninnovation and development because it doesn't do things like genocide a large [clears throat] portion of the population and chase them out because of their authoritarian process. >> Yeah. Some of the things that it does is like it brings in a huge amount of people who are lowkilled often times

Andrew Wilsonpricing people out who may have been able to go to like these higherend colleges not based on DEI things like this. >> Yeah. Western democracy also western democracy can also provide barriers in

Andrew Wilsonwhich people don't have the access to the scientific pursuits because they're not going to them based on merit. They're going to them based on skin color. So that's a big problem one. And the second problem that you have with

Andrew Wilsonthis is western democracy itself because you're democracy does not mean that you in in some way are more innovative have better technology that you're going to make better logically does. I see it seems to emerge consistently over time.

Andrew WilsonThat's not what you said. You said name what I said name any nation that's not a western democracy doing that was doing better than western democ well Germany under fascist did a lot better and they had way better technology than most of

Andrew Wilsonthese western democracies. America >> no even America they did. I don't think >> the difference is is that they were they were fighting in a European theater. We could endlessly send troops because our our shores couldn't get attacked. They were bogged down with other people.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So >> that was not the case and it was a headto-head with German. >> America would have been dumpstered. >> I'm not sure that. No, they wouldn't have been invaded. >> Say they could evade them. >> I think that Germany may have been able to hold out. I'm not sure. That's a hard one to call.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. >> That it is. It's a hard one to call. The problem is that we have such vast manpower here. So I >> that has nothing to do with being a western democracy. That has to do with land mass >> of well in this specific military

NotSoErudite (Kyla)tactic. Yes. The issue is that it's tough. You don't want to actually engage in my arguing. You're not you're stronging my argument and then attacking it and being like see this is an example France got beaten. Therefore erodite

NotSoErudite (Kyla)dumb actually and western liberal democracies don't create the position. It was whether you believe it or not. It's that uh the uh western liberal democracies seem to have over time created the conditions in which science does the best. Right? This is why in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)western liberal democracies >> except in places that they didn't except in places where other things that were not western democracies did better >> until they didn't right until they got crushed. For example, one of the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)benefits of western liberal democracies is allyship. It's a lot easier to be allies with people that recognize each other's sovereignty and they can do >> being a western democracy didn't stop France from getting crushed. That does that's not how why do you >> like it doesn't stop these nations getting crushed.

Andrew Wilson>> How do you think that that's a counter to anything I just said? >> Because you just got done saying well until they got crushed as though getting crushed means somehow they were not innovative technologically. >> Yeah. I would say that like the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)innovations of uh respecting sovereignship of of the nuclear uh bomb, right? Of the P-51 Mustang that had massive air superiority, right? of having efficient, easy to make tanks

Andrew Wilsonthat are still high quality and good like the um like the Sherwin and then later the the Sherman and then later >> saying that the United States didn't make some good equipment. They did and that they didn't have innovations during World War II. They definitely did >> innovations that they could do was because it was safe for people to move

Andrew Wilsonthere, safe for people to develop and that development wasn't just limited to what the like government was organizing. >> And what Germany had was mass national patriotism and people moving in in lock step towards the war effort. They had

Andrew Wilsonmassive technological gains. Fascism great military rushed tons of western democracies under their boot. If the United States hadn't gotten involved, uh England would have fallen. In fact, they

Andrew Wilsoncould have defeated England in a single battle of at and Hitler let him go. So, it's like look, unfortunately for you, history does not show that western democracies are the most cutting edge and most innovative. That is not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)actually the case that they create the conditions in which like science can flourish the most. Which is why, for example, while you're right, a fascist government that's oriented, let me talk, towards war is going to have lots of military advancements, but things that they

NotSoErudite (Kyla)didn't have during that time would be advancements in other areas other than the eugenics and like crazy [ __ ] that they did on like hypothermia. Whereas in the cases of America, not only were they innovating in military, they were still innovating in other areas. >> Don't you think science progresses

Andrew Wilsonbetter when you eliminate ethics? >> Uh, sure, but I don't think that we should do that. >> But they did. And so, how could you say that like that was somehow curtailing science? They literally eliminated

Andrew Wilsonethics in science. So like how could how did that not assist them with scientific pursuits as one of your [ __ ] like key barriers here? >> Uh because a lot so one of the things that they happened is that like because of the reduction of ethics there was

NotSoErudite (Kyla)constant confounding factors of like torture and stuff like that that created like issues like a lot of the like there's a lot of human >> not average German in fact the average German support >> not for the average German. >> Yeah. The average German actually supported, for instance, when Hitler

Andrew Wilsonwent in and he literally did this. The most monstrous thing ever, but he killed basically everybody's mentally handicapped in the nation. He actually did that >> and they did do all sorts. If you're in

Andrew Wilsona nation like this, you eliminate scientific ethics, that's going to lead to more advanced scientific methodologies. It's going to because ethics are gone. >> Oh, okay. >> One of that's one of the big confounding confines, right? Is is scientific ethics. So you're just saying like

Andrew Wilsonwestern democracy lead to the best conditions for science. It's like no I would say that actually the best conditions for science would be if you eliminate the one of the issues with authoritarian states consistently over time is that they also impose arbitrary

NotSoErudite (Kyla)often rules on things like science because authoritarian regimes aren't for free speech. So they're always necessarily going to oppose >> impose arbitrary [ __ ] all the time especially on >> not on things like free speech and open science. >> Free speech itself is arbitrary.

Andrew Wilson>> What does that even mean? It means that there's no particular system that we're appealing to for free speech. >> Okay. >> That's what arbitrary is without system. >> No, arbitrary means like meaningless and random. Usually >> pull up the meaning of arbitrary. The

Brian Atlasdefinition please. >> Sure. [snorts] >> The definition of arbitrary based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system. >> Wait, [laughter]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you're like the end of it is mine. Wait, but the beginning of that was to my point. It wasn't. It was my point. >> Arbitrary and random. >> Well, arbitrary doesn't mean random. >> True. >> Yeah. So, no. >> Arbitrary.

Andrew Wilson>> Arbitrary. Arbitrary is literally pointing to a lack of a system >> because it's random. >> No, it doesn't have to be random to have a lack of system. In fact, you can have randomness >> and you can even implement a system for

NotSoErudite (Kyla)randomness, I think. So here's one of the things. When we read this definition, the beginning half supports my definition and the second and the second half supports yours. >> Which part does yours? >> Read it again.

Brian Atlas>> Read it again. >> Arbitrary based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason. That was nothing you said. >> Yep. I said random. >> No, it's not it's not about random though.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Random choice. >> It's about a lack of system. That's what arbitrary especially when you're talking about morality. >> So if this was good faith and to be fair, I should grant you this. What we could go is, oh, actually, when we synthesize our ideas together, that makes for the best definition of

Brian Atlas>> arbitrary at this point. >> Okay, then you can stop talking. >> Do you want a slice of pizza, Andrew? >> Nope. >> Okay. Uh, well, shall we let some chats come through? We've got quite a few chats. >> I'm going to go have a smoke real quick.

Brian Atlas>> Of course. Of course. Go for it. Uh, do you want to enjoy your pizza there while uh we let some chats come through? >> How much are you going to pay me to eat this pizza on camera? >> I have to buy a TTS for them. >> I have to pay you.

Brian Atlas>> They should at least pay you, right? They should pay me. Are Are you saying it's like a weird like a fetish kind of thing? Like are is that weird? >> Why do you want me to eat on stream? >> What's You don't have to I'm trying to feed you. I f [laughter]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. >> Squirrel's like making me out to be a monster. I'm trying I don't think you're a monster. >> I'm trying to feed >> I think you understand. You're a businessman. You're an excellent businessman. >> You You think I'm Oh my. It's pizza. >> That's what I'm saying. Make it Make it

Brian Atlasworth some money. Be like, "Hey, you have to pay 70 bucks." You don't want to do that. I I think you're overthinking it. You human need food. Food in front. Eat food.

Brian Atlas>> Gotcha. I don't usually eat on on on like Yeah. >> All right. Well, I mean, okay, let me let some chat. >> That's why I said you should make people pay for a pizza party. >> I know. Um Okay, guys. If you're

Brian Atlasenjoying the stream, like the video. Get us to 7,000 likes. I think we're sitting at like about 6,200. There's still 10,000 people watching. Andrew's having a quick smoke. He's going to be right

Brian Atlasback. Get us to 7,000 likes. We're at 6,200. If you're enjoying the stream, like the video. Like the video if you want to see more debates, guys. If you're enjoying the debate kind of content, uh it seems like you guys really are enjoying it. So, we'll we'll

Brian Atlasdo some more debates. So, like the video so we know to do more. $69 TTS. I know there's a backlog. I'm sure you guys are those of you who've sent one in. >> Yeah, if you've sent one in, we're going to get to them. Let me just read these

Brian Atlassuper chats here first. El Guapo, thank for the $100 super chat. The woman is dishonoring her husband by dressing like a bath house worker from Kingdom Come:

Brian AtlasDeliverance, by the way. >> Let alone heresies where she's inverting scripture. Quick response. >> Uh, my husband bought me this dress and he uh told me that I should >> Hey, could you grab waters for me? One water. Actually, >> I guess you'll have to take it up with

Brian Atlasmy husband. >> Never mind, Nathan. I I'm good. Never mind. Uh, okay. Thank you, Elapo. I like your avatar there. That looks cool. Uh, Abe Biscotti, thank you for your super chat. If unjustifiable means cannot be

Brian Atlasderived, sure, but that is the point. Derivation presupposes hinge norms. Calling hinges unjustified is a category error. They are conditions for

NotSoErudite (Kyla)justification, not items awaiting it. >> This is just like philosophy psycho babble, basically. um he can try to attempt to tell me how um presupposition doesn't uh fail at dogmatism. How it's

Brian Atlasnot dogmatism. >> Presupposing is assuming which is dogmatism. >> Abe, thank you very much for your super chat. There we have Anixian X. Anixian that's like World of Warcraft player.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)USA has 45 trillion in natural resources. Russia has 75 trillion. >> So I was right on that one. He said that America has more resources and I said probably Russia has like more like total

Brian Atlasresources. [snorts] >> It was about natural resources or >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Uh thank you Nixxian Elapo again with a very cool avatar there. It was a quote

Brian Atlasfrom Raml I believe a German Tiger tank was as good as four Sherman tanks but they always had five. >> True. Because they were easier to build and man >> a member.

Brian Atlas>> There it is. >> Good job. Uh, guys, I'm gonna get into the TTS's now. $69 TTS. That's streamlabs.com whatever. Reminder, guys, like the video really quick. Nathan, can you pull up Twitch? Let me do a quick Twitch announcement. >> When he gets back, can I go? Do you want

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next