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 8 of 9

SPEAKER_02>> questions responded to with a question up until hour three. Kyla 34 total 13 clarifying Andrew 18 total five clarifying insults Andrew to Kyla 12

Andrew WilsonKyler to Andrew 8. >> That's not what we're trying to test here. We're trying to ask >> Kylie insulted me more than her or has insulted me more than I've insulted her and has answered questions including clarifying depends on what he's defining

NotSoErudite (Kyla)as >> asking he's been she yeah so she no he put the clarifying questions he said clarifying questions this >> I agree I agree the issue is that the the issue wasn't whether or not I asked clarifying questions or answered with questions it was whether or not 80% of

Andrew Wilsonmy responses to your question was questions >> bad faith >> it's not bad faith clarify and answer it is bad faith >> there's Nothing definitionally bad faith. >> What you just did when I asked you about reason versus logic when you made the claim and you're like, "What are we even doing right now?" Total bad faith. It's

Andrew Wilsonall bad faith. >> Bad faith >> because you won't respond to what I'm asking you. >> Not responding isn't bad faith. >> Oh, okay. Okay then. >> Mhm.

Brian Atlas>> Uh we have our He doesn't look Vietnamese though is the thing. But it >> maybe he's I don't know. Uh, if you are interested in good conversations, lady, why the hell are you not acknowledging

Brian AtlasAndrew's top tier game here? He was maybe 5% bad faith and yours was magnitudes higher. Watch the conversation again multiple times. Try to change your style. You do have the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)equipment, but it's corrupt. >> I think I've acknowledged multiple times that Andrew is talented. I think on my stream, I regularly get mad at my stream when they try to be like, "Andrew's just stupid and he's bad at debating." I'm like, "That's not true at all. Andrew's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)good at debating and he's not stupid. He's often bad faith which frustrates like Phil bro uh autist. But >> how are you good at debating if you're just bad faith? >> Uh because debating >> wouldn't that be the opposite of being a good debater? >> I mean I would argue on like debate

NotSoErudite (Kyla)purists but a lot of people get uh like sucked in like your audience based on like rhetoric and like um uh reframing of conversations and um >> I didn't reframe [ __ ] In fact multiple

Andrew Wilsontimes ask chat GPT the same question. How many times did Kylo reframe versus Andrew? >> What? >> That's what he's using, I think, is well, I don't think chat GPT, but he's

Andrew Wilson>> YouTube actually has a built-in AI that it's just you can like >> Yeah, just ask about reframing. It's like it's not even close. It's literally all projection. The idea is like Andrew's bad faith. How do you know

Andrew Wilsonthat? Cuz I was bad faith the entire time. [laughter] Like, okay. >> You know, I answer questions with questions. I reframe. I do all the [ __ ] but Andrew is the one. He's the bad guy. Andrew is bad. >> I didn't say you're a bad guy. I don't

Brian Atlasthink it's immoral to be bad faith. >> Uh, super chat here from Abe. Thank you, Abe. If every non-inferential commitment is dogma, then logic itself is dogma. But if logic is dogma, argument

NotSoErudite (Kyla)collapses. So either presuppositions are legitimate or skepticism selfdestructs. >> Uh, presuppositions, you can engage in dogmatism to build a foundational axiom system. This is what people do all the time. You can also engage in infinite

Andrew Wilsonregression to be like we we just do this all the time and that's okay. >> Look, you're never you're never going to convince her on this, dude. Ever. >> You're never going to engage with a gripper tram, are you? You're never going to solve it. >> This guy's engaging with you. You don't

Andrew Wilsoneven understand what he's saying. >> I do understand. He's trying to say that presuppositions basically are not. >> Nope. Back it up. Do you want me to actually explain what he's saying? Cuz I will. >> Sure.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. Back up the super chat real quick. Uh, I might have I unstarted so I don't know if I'm going to >> because what you focused on was presupposition. What he gave you was

Andrew Wilsonthis was actually an informal syllogism. He was trying to show you something important but if you back it up I'll show you. >> Give me a moment here. >> Will you solve for Gria's trilmia or are you going to continue? What is it?

Andrew Wilson>> Well, I said you this is like the one thing I'm going to keep asking you to do. You can ask me a million times. But if your worldview just allows for me to do what I want, then I'm just going to do that. >> But my worldview doesn't allow you. >> But it does. You just don't know it. >> Nope. >> Okay.

Andrew Wilson>> So, I'll have a grip of trma then. >> If if Grippa's trilmma is true, the moral facts are destroyed. >> Nope. >> Yep. [snorts] >> Nope. >> Yep. >> Nope.

Andrew Wilson>> Yep. [laughter] Yes, they are. >> Then sulfur grima. How do you need to moral facts are destroyed? How do you not engage in dogmatism as a as a presuppositionalist? >> Do how how would it ever in a million

Andrew Wilsonyears hurt my position to adopt that all moral facts are destroyed. Therefore, I can do what I want when we're arguing about Christian that you can do whatever you want. >> Yeah. What's the debate on a Griffith

Andrew Wilsontrilmma or Christian nationalism? Christian. And so if you adopt Griusma and it helps me with Christian nationalism, why would I ever engage in Griffith Trilmma? >> Okay.

Andrew WilsonWhy would you not engage with a hut? >> Every non-inferential commitment is dogma. Meaning every commitment you make that's not inferred then logic itself is

Andrew Wilsondogma. This this is the start for what is argument is. So is logic itself dogma? >> Um the the structure of logic is dogma. No, it's just

Andrew Wilson>> okay. So what is logic itself? If it's not a dogma, >> it's a system by which we uh try to analyze moral claims. >> And it and then he says, but if logic is dogma, the argument has to collapse

Andrew Wilsonbecause presuppositions are legitimate and you just presupposed that dogma that logic's not dogma. >> Uh logic like the system of logic isn't dogma, but presupposing is not is dogma.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Is is logic a social construction which can be changed? >> Uh no. I would say it objectively ex exists outside of us. Is that dogma? >> Uh to assume like a equals a ta logically is would be dogma. Yeah. >> Then you just he's right. You just

NotSoErudite (Kyla)refuted your own argument. >> I didn't refute my own argument. >> Okay. >> All all >> I don't know how you logic is dogma but not dogma. >> How how do you engage in how do you have a belief system that doesn't fail a grippers trillemma by either dogma infinite regression or circular

Andrew Wilsonreasoning? >> Yeah. But his his question is >> I'm going to ask you again when you're finished talking. >> His qu Okay, good. His question is referring to is logic dogma? Answer no. Then when asked about presupposition,

Andrew Wilsonanswer yes. It's P and not P. >> No. Is presuppositionalism logic? >> No. He's he's asking about you presupposing whether or not logic is dogma or not. You say logic is dogma. And then when asking

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I don't say logic is dogma. I say that logic is a system. I presuppose God. I assume God. >> So logic is is logic as a system dogmatic. >> Um >> so it's unchanging. It's unchatic means.

Andrew WilsonIt's a fact. >> Dogmatic assumes. >> Okay, wait a second. Let's let's make sure we got this right. Logic itself, is it a social construction which can be changed?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh, is it a social construction that logic exists? Uh, no. And yes, >> what does that mean? >> I I don't really know what you're meaning here when you ask. Can I can you answer

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> the laws of logic? Um sometime like for example some things that we would argue logically are facious like uh through like inductive logic we like later go actually it's not facious. >> I'm not asking about fallacies I'm

NotSoErudite (Kyla)asking about the laws of logic. >> Fallacies are like evidences of like logic. >> I'm just asking about the laws of logic though. >> How are fallacies not relevant? >> Well let's start with this laws of logic. Do you and I agree on what those are? >> The like the three laws. >> Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. >> Okay. And so you agree with me? It's the law of identity, excluded middle, and then what's the last one? >> Uh, [ __ ] I would need to look it up. I don't have it on the top of my head. Do

Andrew Wilsonyou want me to look it up? >> Yeah. Well, it's it's non-contradiction. >> Yes. >> Law of non-contradiction. >> Yeah. >> Are those dogmatic or changeable? >> Um, law of identities.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I'm sorry. Are they are they social constructs or changeable? Uh well some people for like some people argue against law of non-contradiction right [clears throat] >> okay so >> that one might be changeable but I think

Andrew Wilsonlike total like a equals a law of identity I think that that one's like pretty irreducible right it's like a tautology >> is is the law of identity a thing which is a social construct or is it a thing

Andrew Wilsonwhich is is changeable >> that would be the same thing right >> no >> how is social construct >> because you can change all social constructs That's what I'm saying. >> Yeah. So, is the law of identity a social construction or not?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I think it exists exists objectively outside of us. >> Okay. So, it's not a social construction. >> Uh the law of identity. No, but like the way that we talk about and describe it might be a >> Okay. So, but the law itself is not a social construction.

Andrew Wilson>> No, I think >> Okay. You So, [snorts] when you say that, you agree that you're making a claim that this is now objective truth. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So you're not assuming that then?

Andrew Wilson>> Well, you are assuming a equals a [laughter] that's >> what do you think a tautology is? >> But now you've created a contradiction. >> How are you not assuming tautologies? >> Because because what he's saying to you

Andrew Wilsonis that if it's the case that you say this thing is true absent the mind. But then you say no it's assumed that requires a mind. That's P and not P. >> Well it's assumed for us because we have

Andrew Wilsonto. But like inside of us it can't we can't be both. That's a contradictions. P and not P. >> It's not a contradiction. >> It is. How can you say that a thing requires a mind but doesn't require a mind?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So the existence of the tutologies doesn't require a mind. They exist outside of us, right? Axioms can exist outside of us. >> Okay. So the law of identity exists outside of us. So it's not assumed. >> Well, of course it's assumed.

Andrew Wilson>> Then it's now in the category of requires. >> How is it not assumed? Be >> well. This is the whole problem that he's pointing out to you. If it's the case that you say it exists outside of a mind, you're not assuming it anymore. The second you say, "No, I am assuming

Andrew Wilsonit," that requires a mind. Otherwise, it can't be assumed. What can assume a thing that's not a mind? >> Uh, something can exist outside of us observing it, obviously. >> Yeah, sure. But what could assume a thing without a mind? >> Uh, nothing. But I don't know how you

Andrew Wilsonsaw a Grippa tri. >> So that again, this is the solution. >> How is this not dogmatism? How can you possibly claim that you're not now in contradiction when you say

Andrew Wilsonthis thing exists objectively outside of assumption but must be assumed that's P and not P. >> Oh, because I'm granting that essentially all things are unjustified at the fundamental level, >> right? So that's it's all subjective required mind metric.

Andrew Wilson>> It's not subjective. So how do you solve a group? >> If you if you're [clears throat] saying >> do you think a you asking me a question doesn't help you here? How is it the case? This guy is saying to you over and over again, even if I couldn't, that wouldn't make your position here

Andrew Wilsontenable. >> The idea here is just this. He's asking, "How can this thing exist absent a mind and with a mind?" And you're saying, "It does." >> But no, it doesn't. But it does, but it doesn't. But it does. >> Well, I'm assuming it exists outside of

Andrew Wilsonthe mind. >> You're And does that require a mind? >> Um, sort of. But it's This isn't like the a pertinent question. >> What do you mean sort of? How does something sort of require a mind? How how does that even work? Oh, it sort of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it sort of requires my mind. No, it requires a mind or it doesn't. >> Because I would say A equals A is true regardless of whether or not I assume it. But once I'm engaging in philosophy as the individual, I must assume it because I can't reduce A equals A any further. Right? How do you reduce?

Andrew Wilson>> Then you're now in contradiction again. >> How is that in contradiction? >> Because when you say that this thing exists outside of minds, you're making a claim, an objective claim. The second you say, but it must be assumed, you're making a subjective claim. So, how are you not engaging in dogmatism?

Andrew Wilson>> It has nothing to do with me. >> I'm asking >> has nothing to do with me. So, >> if I'm completely wrong in everything I'm about to say from here on out for

Andrew Wilsonthe rest of the night, how does that help this position of yours? How? How? >> By by outlining you're in the same position that I am. >> Who cares? Answer my question. >> I care. I care.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Can you just Can you just say finally, yes, this is a contradiction. >> No. >> Okay. >> Can you answer the question? on how you solve a Griffith dilemma. You must >> You brought it up. >> Yes, I brought it up for you to solve.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You want me to solve your argument? >> No, you are moral objectivist, correct? >> Uh, well, no. I'm an agria trilmist. >> No, you're not. >> Oh, yes, I am. >> You can't. That's not a thing. >> It is now. Are you assuming that?

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So, you're >> Is that objective? >> See how he won't answer this question? >> Don't need But you don't understand the position you're in. I'm a moral objectivist. The the position that you're in is that you destroyed all conformity to reality the second you

Andrew Wilsonallow the contradiction. Say the contradiction must ride. And then also further you you take it one step further and say this thing requires a mind but doesn't require a mind. You don't understand. You destroyed all moral facts. You destroyed all foundational

Andrew Wilsonarguments. I don't ever need to contend with anything. Couldn't even tell me why it was wrong to not do that. >> So again, how do you are you a moral objectivist? Yes or no? >> Who cares? >> Me. >> You know what? I would like to internally critique you now. >> Yes, >> you are.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yes. >> Okay. So, how is something objective? How do you know that A equals A? >> Uh, you mean transcendentals. >> Sure. >> Yeah. How do I know that there's transcendentals? Because they're unchanging. >> They're unchanging.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. They can't be changed by the mind. >> Okay. Sure. And so, how do you But you're using the mind, right, >> to interpret, not to change >> because they can't be changed. >> I agree. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. So, they're objective.

Andrew Wilson>> But the mind is But the mind to some degree is assumed here. No. So >> you're you're assuming that they're unchanging. There's not as >> No, they they they are unchanging by your own admission. >> Okay. >> So what what now? >> So now we're assuming them, right? >> No.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. >> How could they be assumed if we both agree that they're unchanging? >> Uh be because uh assuming infinity of something solves dogmatic. >> We're not assuming it. >> You're agreeing that it is in fact objectively true that these things are

NotSoErudite (Kyla)unchanging. There's no longer an assumption. >> You're assuming that they exist. No, there's no assumption. >> Yeah, you're assuming that we're not like a pot of of brain cells and let's

Andrew Wilsonask it. Okay, I'll show you again. >> This thing unchanging. Therefore, whether my mind exists or not, that still exists. >> Sure, I can guide you that. >> There's no assumption there. >> Well, you have to presuppose that.

Andrew Wilson>> We don't even We're not even presupposing. We just agreed. What's the presupposition? We literally just agreed to this >> that the law of identity even exists. That any of this exists? >> We don't need to even presuppose this. You already agreed that this is an unchanging fact

Andrew Wilson>> because it's objective. But that doesn't mean that you're not >> that's the end of that argument. >> That that's dogmatism. You're just pre presupposing that it is eternal. >> You keep on making the claim it's dogmatism. But how is it dogmatism if it's an unchanging thing which does not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)require >> changing it doesn't make an assumption. >> Is a rock dogmatism. [clears throat] >> What >> is a rock dogmatism? >> No. >> Why? >> What? >> I don't know. I literally don't even know what your question means here. My

Andrew Wilsonquestion just means this. A rock is material. It exists absent the mind. Therefore, requires no dogmatism. The laws of logic by your entire estimation require no mind. Therefore,

Andrew Wilsonthey require no dogmatism. Just like the rock. Do you understand that now? >> I do. But >> which part am I wrong about? >> You're assuming that the rock exists or that any of this world exists. >> I assume that the rock exists. >> Yeah. You're assuming that none of this is like a fabrication that we're not in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)like the >> Oh, so now we're in simulation theory. >> No, I'm assuming that we're assuming that we're not. Oh, we're >> taking for granted. [laughter] Well, we have to take it for grant. We have >> I just want to make sure I got this right. >> The rock exists whether you die

Andrew Wilsontomorrow, right? >> If all human life is expuned tomorrow, is the rock still there? >> Mhm. >> Oh, okay. Got it. >> Well, theoretically, I mean, it depends on what happens. >> I mean, it would be there, right? Wraps in all of our minds. >> Mhm. >> And would this law of logic change abs in all of our minds?

Andrew Wilson>> No. >> That's the end of that. >> That's the end of that. >> Nope. You're still you're still assuming that this logic is like uh eternal in any >> there's no assumption. We just agreed that it's an objective fact that regardless of our minds, this thing would not change. Where's the

Andrew Wilsonassumption? >> That its existence. >> If we were not assuming its ex existence, we already agreed that it's an unchanging fact. >> Well, theoretically, none of this could exist. We could all be like in a vat and have >> then you're not agreeing that that's an

NotSoErudite (Kyla)unchanging fact. >> I agree that I'm not I'm not saying that. >> Now you're not agreeing. You can't figure out your own position on this. that I am agreeing that it exists and it is objective. But you're still assuming it. >> Wait, you agree that it exists and it's objective. So it exists outside of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)minds. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Then there's no assumption. >> There is still an assumption >> where um the eternal existence of it. >> Why is that assumed? >> You have to. >> Did you just agree that it's true? >> Yeah. >> Then there's no assumption.

Andrew Wilson>> There is an assumption. >> What's the assumption? >> That that anything exists. >> Oh, so now we're back to anything exists. Okay. Okay. Do the laws of logic exist absent minds? >> Does God exist absent minds? >> I asked you a question. Does the laws of logic exist absent minds?

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. Does God exist? >> There's no there's no nothing else to argue about. >> Does God exist absent minds? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> But we assume that God exists. >> No, there's no assumption. We just agreed >> God just exists. >> Well, how did we assume? >> That's the dogmatism. >> How do we assume if you say >> God just exists?

Andrew Wilson>> There's >> that's the assumption. >> So, you're saying that God God perhaps may not exist. >> Uh I'm I'm saying I believe that he does. believe or he does. >> Well, I would say objectively he does,

Andrew Wilsonbut it is still fundamentally a fact. >> So, is God an unchanging fact? >> In Yeah, within my worldview. Yeah. >> So, then >> I'm engaging in dog. How's that dogmatism? >> Because I'm assuming his existence, >> but then that would be changeable.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, it wouldn't. >> How if you make an assumption, why couldn't you change the assumption? >> Well, you could, but that wouldn't like I could engage in a different assumption, but then I would have a different worldview. My my worldview makes this assumption. A different worldview might make a different

NotSoErudite (Kyla)assumption. >> If the loss of logic and your worldview are unchanging, then they're not assumed. >> I I don't know what to tell you. If you think that God exists outside of the mind, you are assuming God. >> Wait, I'm sorry. Does God exist absent the mind?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I believe that he >> What's the assumption? >> The assumption is that he does exist. >> Then that's that's changeable. >> Just because it's changeable doesn't mean that you're not assuming. >> Is the law of logic changeable? Uh, I don't think that it is. Okay. Somebody could assume.

Andrew Wilson>> Is it? >> I don't think it is. Because I'm >> Show me how it could be. >> No, because I'm not a I'm >> Yeah, because it can't be. So, you're just admitting that the laws of logic are unchangeable and not dogmatic and

Andrew Wilsonnot a tautology exist without the dogma. Assuming that it exists is the dogma. Assuming that God exists. >> Oh, I see. I see. Okay. So, I'm going to assume that the law of non-contradiction

Andrew Wilsondoesn't exist. How is it possible for like I don't know the planet Earth to be the planet Mars? >> I I don't know how to engage with you anymore if you don't want to like do this stuff.

Andrew Wilson>> I'm doing the stuff. >> I use So I >> I'm literally doing the stuff. >> So how do you solve a grip of >> I just solved it for you. I just >> you assume you're still assuming the infinity of it. >> I just showed you >> which is either infinite regression or dogmatism. >> There's no infinity here.

Andrew Wilson>> What's behind the logic? >> If it's the case >> what makes a equal A? going to tell you if it's the case that it's not a social construction that the laws of logic are changeable. Okay, they're changeable.

Andrew WilsonThey're not social constructs, then that's not assumed. That's stating that this thing exists absent minds objectively. So, >> so all you have to do is subject all you

Andrew Wilsonhave to do to defeat that position is show me a single law of logic which can be interpreted as subjective and therefore a social construct and changeable. >> I don't have to do that. I just have to say there is theoretically a world where

Andrew Wilsonwe exist in a vat of soup where none of this is real and it's all being created. >> That's not a contradiction. >> It it would be >> No, >> it wouldn't be. How how would us existing in a bowl of soup and able to breathe in the soup a contradiction? And that's not P and not P

Andrew Wilson>> because theoretically then something is just imposing and the A equals A that we're assuming isn't actually true. We just assume that it's true because it's be being manifest before. >> That's not a [ __ ] contradiction. It has to be P and not P. If we can all breathe in a bowl of soup in some other

Andrew Wilsonworld, some other place, where's the contradiction? You have to show me where the law of non-contradiction can be violated. Where Superman can be you. Where [ __ ] the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Earth can be Mars. Where things can be what they're not. Go ahead. in a vat of soup where we're all actually the same being projected into a million and infinite like in in a hypothetical world that can exist. So I have to assume a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)hypothetical world exist is true and real just like you have to assume. >> So you can give me a hypothetical world that has contradictions. >> I I can't right now but that's because >> because it can't be done, right? >> Of course you can. Theoretically be done. >> Do it. You can't.

Andrew Wilson>> I'm assuming. I don't. >> Yeah. The assumption. So are you? No, there's no assumption here. This is not even an assumption. Now we've gotten to the crux of it, right? I just told you that you cannot give me a world. You cannot give me a law. You cannot give me

Andrew Wilsonany logic which is unchangeable. The law of contra non-contradiction is unchangeable. You agree. You say it's an objective fact. Then you say we assume it. That's not an objective fact. You're in contradiction. I'm not.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So there actually is an entire school of philosophy that basically argues that the law of non-contradiction can be contradicted. That a >> then show me how. >> I'm not I don't know. >> Uh I don't know off the top.

Andrew Wilson>> What are you doing? Show me the law of non-contradiction being contradicting. >> I don't know it off the top of my head. >> Okay. So, >> that doesn't mean that you're not assuming you have no argument. >> You're still assuming logic. >> So, no argument. >> How is there an assumption of logic if

Andrew Wilsonwe agree that it's objective without >> because you're assuming that tautology is true. >> That's not an assumption. >> It is. >> How could Okay, you're assuming an assumption on a thing that you say is objectively true. >> I'm not saying it's subjectively true. I'm saying it's

Andrew Wilson>> You're saying objectively true. >> It's unchanging. >> Uh it exists outside of our mind. rock and assumption. >> No, >> that's the end of that. [laughter] >> No, it's not.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes, it is. If the rock is the existent, objective reality would exist even without your minds. And so there's the law of logic. It's objective reality. It would exist without the mind. >> Yeah. The assumption would be >> refuted your own argument badly. The second you said the rock exists, what

Andrew Wilsonyou should have said is >> no, absent the mind, the rock doesn't exist. That would have at least made you consistent. What you said instead is that thing objectively exists even if I'm not here. That's not an assumption anymore. Nor dogma. Same thing with the law of logic.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Dogma. It's assuming that it exists even if I'm not here as the dogma. Yeah. >> Oh, that's [clears throat] dogma. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, that's changeable. >> That dogma doesn't mean unchangeable. Dogma means assuming. >> Can you change dogma?

Andrew Wilson>> Uh, like I I don't know what that means. >> Can I change dogma from one dogma to another? But can I change a rock to not a rock? >> I don't I literally don't understand what this is asking. >> I'm asking you [clears throat] this. If

Andrew WilsonI came up with dogma right now, like, oh, it's the case that me drinking this cup of water means I'm going to hell. >> How is that dogma? >> Is that is that how would that not be dogma? >> How is that dogma? >> Because it's making a religious

Andrew Wilsoninference about a thing. >> That doesn't mean it's dogma. >> Okay. Well, what is dogma? >> Dogma is just when you presuppose something. Okay, so you just assume. >> So, I'm presupposing that I'm going to go to hell if I drink this.

Andrew Wilson>> Uh, potentially you might be. If I say I'm going to go to hell if I drink this, >> is that now dogma? >> Sure. >> Then I was right. Okay. So anyway, so back to this. Now that I'm right, you've

Andrew Wilsonconceded I'm right again for the 18th time. It can I then say, "Oh, wait. You know, I changed my mind. >> Yes, you can change the fundamental axioms." >> Got you. Can I do that with the law of logic?

Andrew Wilson>> Uh, >> can I be like, "Oh, the law of non-contradiction doesn't exist." Oh, wait, no, it does exist. Or is it the case that's going to be a constant regardless of how I view it? >> Yeah, that's why I would for example go to a subjectivist and say if this is if

NotSoErudite (Kyla)this is constant object >> that's not subjective. It's objective like the rock. >> I know which. Which is why I said if I went and debated a subjectivist and they insisted that objectivity doesn't exist. I would say well the law of uh you know the law of identity is a good example of

NotSoErudite (Kyla)objectivity. >> It's not dogma. >> It is dogma because I'm still assuming the existence of a >> no assumption now. There is an assumption that objective circular reasoning. It's not objective. >> Is it circular reasoning? >> It's worse than if circular reasoning.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Now we're in contradiction. >> Taies are worse than circular reasoning. >> Yeah, contradictions are the worst. Yes. >> This isn't a contradiction to say a >> It is a contradiction. How is because you're saying it's objectively subjective.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I'm not. So I'm not No, you're not tracking. No, you're not talking about the law of identity. And I said, >> can you change it? >> What do you mean? I'm an objectivist. Is

Andrew Wilsonthe law of identity going to beat the law of identity even if not so airight and all other minds die? >> I'm an objectivist. >> Go great. So an objectivist. >> Yeah. >> Or do you mean you believe in objective like objective morality or objective

Andrew Wilsontruth or something like that? >> Objectivity. Yeah. >> Yeah. Objectivism is its own branch philosophy. You know that. >> Sure. You're right. I I should have been really really specific. >> When we're talking about objective >> objectivity, sure. >> Yeah. We're talking about objective. But you could just grab

Andrew Wilson>> subjective you agree is something which does not require a mind. >> Yep. >> Okay. Subjective is the thing which does require a mind. >> Y >> the rock then by this logic it requires no minds. If all minds are gone, the

Andrew Wilsonrock is still there. Is the law of logic still there? >> Uh I would say yes. >> Well, no. Why would you say yes with the rock? >> Because I I'm I believe in objectivity. >> So things do you believe it or it is in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fact the case that the rock would be there? Well, I would say that it is in fact the case, but fundamentally I'm still assuming that existence is >> You're assuming existence? >> Yeah, sort of. >> The thing you live in. >> Well, I'm assuming God. And you're assuming God. >> Oh, you're assuming God. >> Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> Do you think that a subjectivist would say that the rock would still be there? >> Uh >> that that's that it would be objectively true. >> Uh they >> without minds the rock materially would

NotSoErudite (Kyla)still be there. >> Uh I think some would I don't know. I'm not I'm not a subjective. I don't need to answer this for them. >> Oh, you don't need to answer. >> Not for them. No, that's not my belief system. >> Gotcha. So, P and not P. P and not P. P and not P.

Andrew Wilson>> Why would I have to answer for >> You don't have to. Look, you don't have to answer any more questions. I'm just showing you. I demonstrated to you a hundred times now that you're pointing to a thing which you claim is objectively true and then at the same time saying that you're assuming it,

Andrew Wilsonwhich means it can't be objectively true because it's changeable. >> Yes, you assume tautologies. >> Okay. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying >> law of identity is a tutology. assume tautologies. >> How's the law of identity a tautology?

Andrew Wilson>> A equals A is a tautology. >> Uh I'm I'm sorry. How does how is A equals A the law of identity? >> Law of identity is a thing is identical with itself. A equals A. >> That's not what [laughter]

Andrew WilsonSo wait a second. I just want to make sure I got this right. When you say the law of identity, um and the law of identity is just saying that a thing must be itself. How is that tautological?

Andrew Wilson>> Cuz it's saying A must equal A. No, it No, no, no, no. What does it say? This is >> a tautology would be to be saying the same thing over and over again, right? You agree with that?

Andrew Wilson>> X equ= X= X= X. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, if you say that um X is X, is that a tautology? >> Uh, I think so. I need to think about it. >> No.

Andrew Wilson>> Why not? Because because if you're saying that X is X because X, that's a tautology. If you say X is X, all you're doing is stating that X is the thing it is.

Andrew Wilson>> X. Oh, yeah, it would be. >> That is not tautological. >> Yes, it is. X equals X. >> Ryan, pull up a tautology. She doesn't know what it is. Here, I'll just pull it up. This is the most [ __ ] crazy [ __ ]

Andrew WilsonOh, I love that we save this engagement for the for the end. It just puts the icing on the cake. So, uh, you don't know what a tautology is, but I'm going to help you out here. Tautology is a statement that is true in

Andrew Wilsonevery possible interpretation. Essentially, a representation, a logical necessity, unavoidable truth. In logic, it is a formula that always yields true. While in rhetoric, it is redundant, repetitive phrase. So,

Andrew Wilson>> x= x. >> Help me out here. The thing is the thing, right? >> X equals X. >> Okay. So all you're saying is that it's tautologically true. The law of identity X is always itself. >> I didn't say it's talogically true. I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)said the law of identity is a tautology. >> Okay. A. >> So what makes that true? >> Uh in my worldview I think that tautologies are good examples of objective things. >> What?

Andrew Wilson>> If a equals A, I think that A equals A regardless of whether I'm observing it. >> Wait, hang on. Hang on. I just want to make sure I got this right. So it is when you're talking about a tautology

Andrew Wilsonhere, the thing that makes it true is that it's true. >> Well, it's assumed. You have to assume it. >> You have to assume it. So is there there's no So there's no way for you to assume that the law of identity is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)untrue. >> Uh there uh in based on what in my worldview >> period, is there any way to assume that

Andrew Wilsonits autology is untrue? Um, I would argue no. This is why it's objective. >> So then you don't need to assume anything with a tautology. >> Well, you're assuming existence. You're assuming >> Well, you're assuming something that I

Andrew Wilsonasked you about a tautology, not existence. Do you have to assume existence? >> Do you have to assume a tautology? >> Yes, >> you have to. Okay. >> You just assume that it is true that a equals a. >> So, how do we assume a tautology is not

NotSoErudite (Kyla)talogical? >> We we don't we just assume Yeah. We say a equals a. >> We just grant that. >> Wait, we can't. And that's not an assumption. >> We just grant that A equals A. >> We just grant.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. >> Okay. Is it now an assumption? The >> these are the same thing when you say we just grant that A= A. I see. We grant X. Yes. >> Is it object? Is it objectively true? >> I would argue it is. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. But it's not objectively true that a tautology X is X is true. >> Uh, no. I think X equ= X is true. Can I assume it's not a tautology? >> Uh, you could, but I think it would be

NotSoErudite (Kyla)very hard for you to do so. I think that logic and reason >> why why can't I just assume it? >> I'm explaining if you pause because if you assume that tautologies are not true, it's going to be really hard for you to build with reason and logic any

Andrew Wilsonsort of like um philosophical system. >> Are you assuming that? >> Which are you assuming that I just can't assume things? Is that an assumption? >> No, I said you can't assume things.

Andrew Wilson>> So, help me. I'm I'm super confused here. I know. [snorts] >> Yeah, I really am. Yeah. And you I I really just need an answer to one question. >> Yeah. >> The laws of logic, are they changeable?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I don't believe they are. No, I think they're >> Can you give me an example of where they're changeable? >> No, because I think they're objective. >> Do you think or they are? >> Well, I'm assuming. Yeah, >> you're just assuming that.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, I am. >> You should be able to if it's a social construction assumption change. >> I didn't say it's a social construction. And I said a equals A and I'm assuming that that is true. >> If you assume it, if you're assuming that this thing is true, can you make an

NotSoErudite (Kyla)assumption that it is not true? >> Uh, theoretically, yeah. I'm not doing that though. >> So, how can I assume that the law of non-contradiction is not true? >> Uh, it would be some like weird anti-realist moral nihilist person who

NotSoErudite (Kyla)thinks like nothing is true anyway. >> Then do it. I >> I don't believe in >> moral and anti-realist believe in the law of non-contradiction. >> Sure. But >> they agree it's objectively true. Even >> I see and this is why I go to moral anti-realist and be like come on you're

Andrew Wilsonan objectivist too. You have to be because you position though. >> It doesn't hurt my position. >> It does because now we're outside of the assump the second you say a thing is objectively true. This objectively is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)real. Period. >> We grant that it is true. Yeah. >> No, you're not granting it. You're saying it is. >> That's the same thing. >> No. No. It's not the same thing. >> Yeah. I am I'm engaging in dogmatism to say A equals A. it. Okay.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> A will equal A no matter what. Okay. Because I believe in >> absent does does dogmatism require a mind? >> Uh like does no I guess like fallacies could exist. >> Does the law of logic require a mind?

Andrew Wilson>> Uh no. >> No. But so dogmatism requires mind. The law of logic >> I said I guess technically no. >> So the law of logic does not require a mind. Dogmatism does require mind. >> That's another contradiction. >> That's not a contradiction.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Does dogmatism require a mind? >> No. I think like dogmatism like the actual existence of dogmatism the fallacy that is the logical fallacy that is dogmatism would exist whether or not we observe it >> is dogmatism in and of itself a fallacy >> yes

Andrew Wilson>> okay can you show me the fallacy of dogmatism >> because you have to assume things >> can you show me the fallacy of dogmatism >> that's the fallacy is that you are >> yes show me the formal fallacy of dogmatism >> that would be like circular reasoning usually >> well that's not the same word as dogmatism

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> you're right dogmatism would assume a dogmatism require does dogmatism require a mind or Not. >> No, >> it doesn't. >> I would say the the like actual concept of of dogmatism exists outside of us.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> The the concept. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Concepts exist without minds. >> Yes. I like the problem is that you're trying to make me >> concepts exist without minds. >> Yeah. In the same way that like the law of identity exists outside of minds.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That's a concept >> sort of. Yeah. What >> is it objectively true or is it a concept? >> Bo both. >> Both. >> Yeah. Like it's a when I'm saying a concept, I just mean like an idea, right? And I just want to make sure I got this.

Andrew Wilson>> The idea is true and objective. >> I want to make sure I got this right. >> Okay, >> this is a concept. Concepts don't require minds. It's a dogma. Dogmas don't require minds. >> Well, some concepts it depends like

NotSoErudite (Kyla)again it depends on what we're meaning here. Like the law of identity is something we would call a concept. Does >> dogma exist absent a mind? Can you show it to me? >> As an objective form of fallacy.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. Where where where's that? >> In the ether. >> It exists in the ether. >> Where is law of identity? >> Great question. Now we're getting into transcendentals. So, but the thing is

Andrew Wilsoninteresting here is like >> before we can even move into that, we have to start with with foundationalism. So, the idea here for foundationalism >> is we assume something.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Dogma requires no minds. >> Sure. >> Can you show me how? Because I would say that like uh the three laws of logic exist outside of minds and dogmatism is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)like to some way connected to the three laws of it's a it's a fallacy that's been pointed out using logic and reason. >> So if the three laws get this right exist outside of the mind then yes

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> fallacies also exist outside the mind. Yeah, I think something would be facious like circular reasoning is circular reasoning whether or not we've titled it that, labeled it that or observed it. >> Is dogma always a fallacy? >> Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. >> Yeah. Cuz you're assuming. >> Can you pull out your phone right now and ask, I don't care where, whatever philosophical source, if dogma itself is a fallacy. >> True.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)It's slow. >> I'll wait. Yes. >> Yes. Dogmatism is considered a logical fallacy. >> Dogmatism is considered a logical fallacy.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Let me see. >> When it presents personal opinions or rigid, unproven beliefs as undeniable facts. >> Oops. >> Refusing to consider evidence or counter arguments. That's why you didn't hand me the phone. Read it again. >> Dogmatism is considered a logical

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fallacy when it presents personal opinions or rigid or rigid unproven beliefs as undeniable facts. How do you prove A= A? >> Oh boy. So, >> how do you prove A equals A? >> Now, we'll try it the right way.

Andrew WilsonIs dogmatism in and of itself, which is what I asked you, is dogmatism, >> okay, >> in and of itself a fallacy?

Andrew Wilsonuh dogmatism in and of itself is not facious. So here's the question that I have for you. Why would it be the case? >> Do you want to keep reading or >> Oh, sure. Sure. We can keep you we can

Andrew Wilsonkeep reading. It is only considered a form if a priority thinking where one starts with a preset conclusion and forces the evidence to fit it. That's it. >> Okay. >> So it's not always a fallacy, is it?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So assuming a equals a >> hang on. Is it always a fallacy? Uh, I could be wrong about that. >> Is it always a fallacy or not? >> I don't know. I could be wrong. I need to look into it. I'm not trusting your word because you're

Andrew Wilson>> then look ask if it's always a f is dogma itself always fellacious dogma. >> It's considered a logical fallacy. >> Is dog [laughter] in of itself without any qualifiers.

Andrew Wilson>> Uh may maybe it's not but it it dogmatism is certainly assuming. >> Okay. There are assumptions >> which means it's failing which means it's unjust. I'm just saying that those those assumptions can be changed, right?

Andrew Wilson>> What does this mean? >> That you can change assumptions, but you can't change things which you agree exist in objective reality. >> Sure. Yes. >> Okay. So then you agree that the laws of logic exist objectively outside of assumption. >> You have never denied that they exist

NotSoErudite (Kyla)objectively. I agree. >> Outside of assumption? >> No. The A equals A is the assumption. >> That's what dogmatism is. Dilemma. >> You just said assumptions can be changed, right? >> Sure. But I'm not going to change it because I believe that because you can't change it. >> No, I believe that this tutology is a

Andrew Wilsongood tautology. >> Can you change Can you change it or not? >> Theoretically, yes. >> Can you change any assumption? >> Yes. You can assume different things. >> Then can you change a law of logic? >> Um I don't think so. I think that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)they're objective. >> Show me. Show me how whether >> I don't need to. I'm granting you that they're objective. I'm just saying that you're assuming it. A equals A is an assumption. >> Okay. >> This is an axiom that you just grant. >> So we'll just uh we'll just make sure we got this right. It's objective and subjective.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, I've never said that. That's how you're trying to frame it. >> Okay. Is is the triillemma subjective? >> Um, no. >> It's objective. >> Uh, yeah. In the way that like logic is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)objective, >> the trilmma exists absent minds. >> Uh, theoretically, yeah. >> Show me how. >> Uh, that the laws of logic exist outside of minds and agria's trilmma utilizes

NotSoErudite (Kyla)laws of logic to come up with the uh, dilemma itself. Who cares if it utilizes it? >> If it's built on the back of the objective observable things and logic and reason itself is observable and a Gria's trilmma utilizes logic and reason

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to say all all axioms, all beliefs fundamentally fail a grippus trillemma in one of three ways. >> Yeah. >> Then yeah, it's objective. >> So it's not an assumption. >> You have to assume something at some

Andrew Wilsonpoint. >> Why are you assuming it? You just said >> you don't have to. >> Absent all minds, agria's trilmma exists. Right. >> Mhm.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Where's the assumption >> in the case that that uh tautologies are true would be the dogmatism or you could just do infinite regression. >> But you just said those require minds.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. >> This does not require a mind. >> True. >> So this exists a grippa trillemma exist absent minds. >> Does circular reasoning exist absent minds? >> Yeah. But my question >> wait I've already granted that I think

Andrew Wilsonthat a grippa trillemma is objective. Yeah, I think that logic keep harping on this. Logic reductionism will become circular. Circularity itself is not a problem. >> It fails a grippers trailem. >> Well, but circularity itself isn't

Andrew Wilsonproblematic. What becomes problematic >> justified? >> No, you can make justifications even if it's circular. In fact, you want the circle to point back to the justification. >> Well, the point of circularity is saying

Andrew Wilsonthat A= A= A= A. It's circular, right? >> Yeah. But you can have a circularity which has an infinite presupposition. that presupposition will move back to a source. >> So the source in this case that you're

Andrew Wilsonclaiming would be the dogmatism circling circularity through logical circularity itself is not what the problem is. The problem here comes in a problem for a grippers. >> The problem here comes in when you say >> it's unjustified

Andrew Wilson>> but it is justified. It is >> how is circularity justified? >> Because it exists according to you absent minds. >> That doesn't mean that it's not. >> It means it's always true. If it's always true, then it has to be a

Andrew Wilsonjustified true belief. >> So you think circular reasoning is >> No, I think that if you say Grippa's trilmma exists absent all minds, then you're saying that that's a justified

Andrew Wilsontrue belief. It cannot be a justified true belief. If it exists even absent your mind. >> So grab again says any justification of knowledge must fail as all arguments

NotSoErudite (Kyla)lead to three equally unsatisfying answers. M so if you don't assume dogmatism you can engage in circular reasoning and if you don't want to do circular reason you can engage in infinite regression >> all human beings are dead is grippa's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)trilmma still true >> I would say yes >> is that an assumption >> uh I'm assuming it but I've already embraced that I'm doing dogmatism which is fine

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> you're assuming it >> but it is in fact also objectively true >> well that I Dogmatism leads to uh objectivity the best which is why I engage in dogmatism.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So it's objectively true and not true. >> But somebody else for example the subjecting agria the way that the subroinger's agria >> trilma >> the way that the subjectivist would try

Andrew Wilsonto get around assumptions is engage in infinite regression which still fails a grippa trlemma. >> But they wouldn't say it's objectively true outside of minds. >> Correct. They wouldn't they would engage in infinite regression. The second you say it's true outside of minds, you're making the statement that it's a

Andrew Wilsonjustified >> I'm doing dogmatism. >> Is it a justified true belief that a grippa's trilmma exists whether all human beings are dead or not? >> Is it a Jesus Christ?

Andrew WilsonDon't hit me with [ __ ] a bunch of nonsense. Pratt answering you with nonsense. >> Question question is, is it a justified true belief that a grippus trillemma exists if all human beings are dead? >> Uh, yeah. Because the laws of logic are

NotSoErudite (Kyla)objective. >> Okay. So then what I'm engaging in what you're creating, I'm assuming that they're objective. You >> just refuted your own point. >> I didn't refute my point. I said that they're objective, which is an assumption. What somebody could do if they didn't want to assume anything is engage in infinite regression.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. >> So you're engaging in dogmatism. >> You just refuted your point. Worst way possible, by the way. >> No, I don't. >> Yeah. >> I did not. He's saying that I'm an objectivist has been Sorry.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You're not an objectivist. >> Objective. That's a libertarian philosophy. >> You're right, Andrew. Relax. >> That's a libertarian philosophy. It's called objectivism. >> That I was meaning objectivity and that it's just been 8 hours and I'm tired. Or do you think that I was >> I've been here for the same [ __ ] eight hours.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Cool. That's fine. >> So anyway, the point is is like, yes, you did. You're not trying to trip you up on like which specific word cuz I'm granting you what I think is reasonable that you're trying to mean. Right. When I say objectivist, you're right. I should be more precise with my language

Andrew Wilsonso you don't do your silly little gotchas go. Obviously, I mean, >> I'm the one with silly gotchas. Yes. >> You demanded the entire night that I engage with this even though I didn't need to. I still did. The spirit of

Andrew Wilsoncharitability still blew you out on it. >> And then you still destroyed you on it. >> You didn't. You just said, "Yeah, I'm doing dogmatism." And I said, "Cool." >> No, I'm showing you that if we have an objective standard. We say that this is an objective standard that this is true

Andrew Wilsonabsent minds and you say Griffith's trilmma exists absent minds. Then you're refuting Grippa's trilmma. There's no more assumption. There's no more assumption is that it's objective. >> Then it's not then it's subjective. No, that's this is dogmatism. >> It's that's subjective, too.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, it's not. Infinite regression is more subjective. >> All right, fine. I don't know what else to say about it. >> Okay. >> Like arguing with I don't I don't even know. >> Yeah, it's like arguing with a bully. [snorts]

SPEAKER_02>> Okay. All right. Well, we got some chats, you know, got some chats came in. >> Jordan's donated $69. We want you to eat the pizza. So you are tequila >> Andrew or I'm going to have a smoke and

Brian Atlasone more shot. >> All right, but then we're going to wrap it up in 8 hours. >> Hey, look. I've been trying to wrap it this whole time. You guys just keep Brian, keep it going. I've been trying to wrap. I don't know what you uh Thank

SPEAKER_02thank you Jordan though for for the TTS. We have Selena Gornz coming in here with the >> Selena Gornz donated $6967.

SPEAKER_02Kyla still has a lot of potential but is preaching to the wrong choir. She's smart, but also biased and doesn't know it or understand how she is. Call to action, Kyla. Join the right in good

Brian Atlasfaith. >> You know, behind the scenes, Kyla's actually very based and redpilled. She She told me she vote for Trump.

Brian Atlas>> I can't vote. I know. [laughter] I know. I'm just messing around. Uh if if uh Trump, would you be in favor of annexation of Canada? >> Uh no, not under Trump. Definitely not.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> But think about it. It would kind of ease the immigration process for you if we were like >> it would be personally beneficial, but I don't think Canadians >> annex Canada. And >> I think you get rid of our universal healthcare, which I'm super not for. >> It could happen, but

SPEAKER_02>> yeah, I like universal healthcare. >> Yeah. Well, you know, uh think about it. All right. We have XJ Law here. ExJail Lord donated $69.

SPEAKER_02Her ability to weasel and evade to avoid being revealed as an incompetent clout demon is honestly impressive. Must be exhausting though. The patience required

Brian Atlasfor Andrew to engage with this dril. >> No one suffers like Andrew suffers. >> Except maybe you. I feel like you've suffered the most.

Brian Atlas>> I I had a front row seat. [laughter] I had a front row seat. So true. We have Intel Wild here. Thank you. Thank you, L. >> Intel Wild donated $69.

Brian AtlasNot so bright is a soulless degenerate demon vampire. >> Is that like his most common only fan searches or I wonder >> Intel Wild? >> Yeah, he probably loves degenerate demon vampire.

Brian Atlas>> Is that a woman thing? The the women like the sort of >> men do too. There's like a whole thing >> sort of uh the werewolves and the What was that book? You're friends with Shoe on Head, right? Didn't she do a video on

Brian Atlasthis a couple months ago? Yeah. Where all the women were what? The milking. The the >> the milk mate. Yeah. Yeah. The minur milk. I don't know, y'all. >> True, but men are into some weird [ __ ] too. >> It goes both ways. It goes.

SPEAKER_02>> It really does. >> Uh, we got Bronco here. Thank you, man. >> Bronox donated $69. I will give Toronto no more if she takes

Brian Atlasa bite of her pizza. I hate wasted food. Uh, she did say 200. If you do 300, she will uh I'm actually

Brian Atlasthinking about student starting a food channel. She will actually speed eat uh you know those those uh speed eaters. She'll speed eat the entire pizza. Uh if you do 300. >> Are you paying me for it though? >> I'll I'll give you a cut.

SPEAKER_02>> Okay, >> we'll talk after. I'll give you a cut. I'll give you a cut. [laughter] We got King Ryan here. King Ryan donated $69. In the first 3 hours, when Andrew pressed her on her question, Kyle didn't

SPEAKER_02give a direct answer nine times while Andrew only did it twice. >> Numbers can shift by parameters. Doing my best. >> Can you can [clears throat] you pour a shot? >> This is an 8 hour conversation.

Brian Atlas>> Uh, one more shot for Andrew there. Did you No, you didn't want one. That's right. Uh, I'm curious. Has anybody been keeping track of how many times Agria's dilemma has been >> I owe you big

Brian Atlas>> me and Andrew on the drive over I bet him he didn't take the bet but I said Andrew 20 bucks if she brings up a grippa's trillemma >> I didn't bet >> I wish he took the I

Andrew Wilson>> but why didn't I take the bet >> because you said >> I said that she would bring up a self-refuting axiom which then I would pinser her in to watch her refute herself 80,000 times. How did I bring up a self-refuting axiom?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Well, is there any point to debate? >> Yeah. How is that self-refuting? No, >> that's fine. I agree. There's no point. >> Wait, no point? I said there is a point to debate. >> Oh, what is it? >> Uh to test logic and reason ideally in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)good debate >> to test assumptions. >> Uh not usually, sometimes. >> But all logic and reason is built on assumption. >> Uh not all. Some of it's built on an infinite regression >> and but none of it's built on an

Andrew Wilsonobjective truth. >> I didn't say that either. I believe in an objective truth. >> Any assume? >> Well, I'm not asking about your assumption. Is there objective truth absent assumption? >> Uh, sure. Yeah, I would say so.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Are you assuming that? >> Well, yes, to some degree. >> Okay. [laughter] >> That's that's not self-defeating. This is just dogmatism. I don't know. >> It's literally you saying that it's subjective and objective at the same time over and over and [snorts] over. >> It's not me saying that. It's just not

SPEAKER_02me saying that. >> Just is you saying that? >> How is this not circular? >> $69. A gripper shows justification must terminate. The issue is circularity, but

SPEAKER_02whether your stopping point can non arbitrarily ground rational normativity. What does yours terminate in? >> Good question. >> A grippers trilemma includes circular reasoning. Circularity is a part of it. >> Yeah, but he's saying circularity is not

Andrew Wilsonthe issue. >> It could be all he's got. He's got a he's got a he's got an army of cups. >> I need him for this debate. >> It's actually creating a protective >> fortifies

Andrew Wilsonlike Andrew suffers. >> This is my fortification. >> Create like a a triangle, you know, just to >> Well, I can just do this a bunch. That's like >> Yeah. circular reasoning triangle.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Destiny triangle. >> Circular reasoning is also uh un uh any justification always fails because it's unsatisfying. Circular reasoning unsatisfying. It doesn't satisfy. >> What does what does that mean? >> It means that it it it is unsatisfying.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)That it is irreducible. Um and >> it doesn't mean irreducible. It just means unsatisfying, right? >> Unsatisfying and irreducible. Yeah. >> What does unsatisfying mean though? >> Uh that it's like not uh it doesn't like

NotSoErudite (Kyla)solve perfectly logical coherence in such a way that like it's built always on something. >> So you have to assume something or you have to do circular reasoning or beliefs are built on anything. >> I think that they are. But you're assuming

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> but my axioms are are fundamentally dogmatism just like yours are >> assumed. >> Well, that's what dogmatism is. >> So there's no nothing that exists objectively absent minds. >> No, that's again dogmatism doesn't mean anything about subjectivity.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, I just want to make sure. >> I know I keep insisting this. >> Well, [laughter] I I insist. >> I know you like it, but it's not. >> That's true. I'm just I'm just trying to figure out what would the circularity be if a thing did exist absent a mind like

NotSoErudite (Kyla)a rock. Where where's the circularity? That's not circular. >> Okay. >> I've never claimed that it was circular. I said all justifications of knowledge must fail as all arguments lead to three equally

Andrew Wilson>> unswers that your knowledge of the rock fails. >> What do you mean fails? >> You just said all claims of knowledge fail, right? >> Must fail. Yeah. >> Okay. But why do you keep claiming that

Andrew Wilsonrocks exist in objective moral or objectively absent minds? >> Cuz I assume objectivity. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> well, I said God and I think that God >> and that actually fails, right? >> Yeah. In the same way that all all

Andrew Wilson>> So, a rock doesn't actually exist absent the mind. >> Nope, it does. >> But you just said that's a knowledge claim. He just said all of them fail. >> Yep. >> Okay.

Brian Atlas>> Okay. >> Okay. We have super chat here from Downrift. Not a fan on his channel, but he says it's night out and he she says not in Aussie. Using big words, talking fast makes her think she is smart, but

Brian Atlasshe's an idiot. Over complicating everything for no reason will make you right. Does the world see math true? Does 2 + 2 equal 4? >> Yeah, that's a tautology. These are the things that we assume in math that 2

NotSoErudite (Kyla)plus 2 equals 4. Why? Why does 2 plus 2 equal 4? We we assume it. It seems I would argue because it's objectively true. We're just assuming this. We're assuming that 2 plus 2 equals 4 because we must. >> Rocks exist without minds. That's true.

Andrew WilsonOkay. >> But I also assumed it and all knowledge claims fail. >> Yeah. All all justifications of knowledge. >> No. All knowledge claims fail.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No. All justifications of claims. Uh just uh any justification of a knowledge of knowledge must fail as all arguments lead to three equally unsatisfying answers. >> So then you're So then you saying that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)the rock exists objectively >> is unjustified and fails >> in the way that all arguments fail. So then it >> well not in the same way mine would be dogmatism.

Andrew Wilson>> So then is it true absent your personal belief? >> Yes. >> That the rock exists if you die. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Objectivity still exists. >> Okay. >> Yeah.

Brian Atlas>> We have warm storm thing for the Canadian 100. Merge physics with philosophy. Nothing exists as we know it without a conscious observer. Therefore, nothing is truly objective. You're both

Brian Atlaspotentially right and wrong at the same time. How long is a piece of string the answer is an infin is as infinite as the two of you arguing will infinite regression here.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, I would be willing to grant that except that you said something there which was very important. You said that uh this thing you said uh the the answer is infinite like let's

Andrew Wilsonsay we took an arrow you fired the arrow you did the old Greek philosophy thing right it's always potentially in flight due to the fact that you can reduce time by an infinite amount but the second you

Andrew Wilsonsay that that claim is objectively true you have now destroyed the idea that there's that you you have to make the claim that this thing is unjustified you can't say it's unjustified and objectively true or you end up with P

Andrew Wilsonand not P. >> No, that's not true. >> Okay. Is truth can you justify truth? >> Uh you can attempt to but all justifications will fail.

Andrew Wilson>> Do you do you believe that you can justify truth? >> Uh sort of but I'll fail eventually. >> Okay. >> Because of that true

Andrew Wilson>> is what true >> is it true that you can't justify truth? Uh, it seems to be >> okay. >> But maybe not. Maybe the infinite regression is confusing.

SPEAKER_02>> So, it's true that you can't justify truth. Got it. >> Okay. >> Got it. I understand now. >> Okay. We have >> I was confused before, but now it's clarified.

SPEAKER_02>> Astro 89 donated $69. Ka bear bad faith. You are more interested in winning or performing for an audience than in seeking truth, finding common ground, or being open to

NotSoErudite (Kyla)changing their mind. >> I feel like I've changed my mind and granted you multiple things, but okay. [snorts] >> Ashes Rose, thank you for TTS. We have

SPEAKER_02Kyla. >> Kyla Bunny Hugs donated $69. Imagine her husband is married to her and it's objective on both parties that

SPEAKER_02her husband hasn't cheated on her because he's been home all day. Kyla still will assume he still cheated. We still love you. >> Well, look, it's not Listen, to be fair,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it wouldn't she can say that. >> Please, I'm sorry. Respectfully, please don't engage with people like making claims about me or my husband cheating on each other. >> Well, I'm just I'm just arguing the philosophy. It would be the case that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that is not objective postulating whether or not me and my husband have cheated on each other in the same way that I'm not engaged in some sort of philosophy about like Rachel Wilson like having multiple baby daddies and blah blah blah all that [ __ ] I'm not interested in engaging in that sort of

Andrew Wilsonthing. It's not interesting. >> Yeah. I I I really wasn't going to engage with whether or not there's any truth to this. I don't believe for a second that there's any truth that Nick has ever cheated on Kylo or vice versa.

Andrew WilsonI have no idea. I'm just saying that >> there's no way for her to justify the belief that he hasn't. That's all. That's all. Right. >> No.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No, you can't justify that. >> I I'm so over engaging with you on this. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right, guys. Uh well, >> even though it's your argument. [laughter]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> If look, you're Stry Man and I'm willing to engage with me saying if you're assuming totally willing to subjective. No, assuming means taking for granted.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Does assumption require a mind? >> In this case, no, not technically. >> Okay, then how how is something assumed absent a mind? >> Uh because uh a equals a must be like uh just assumed to be infinite and true forever.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> How who's assuming it? >> Um nothing. >> I I just want to I just I just want to make sure that you understand what you just said about the word assume. So what you're >> I just want I just want you to understand what you just I just want you

Andrew Wilsonto understand that's occurring within a mind. >> By the way, clip that. I just want to I just want you to understand what you just said. I just said isn't does assumption require a mind? You said no.

Andrew WilsonAnd I said well then who assumes who assumes the thing? And you said nothing. [laughter]

Andrew WilsonAll right. I'm good. >> Okay. >> All right.

Brian AtlasDo you guys Do you guys need to do another closing? >> No, I'm good. >> No. >> Okay. Um, so the debate's done. There's no further closing. I was going to continue the stream just on my own for a little bit.

Brian Atlas>> What? >> Just I wanted to talk to the audience. >> Okay, cool. >> Um, I was going to lower the threshold a little bit, >> but I know You have another hour and a half, by the way, to get in and out.

Brian Atlas>> I'll hang out with you for a little bit. >> Okay. Will you stay for a little bit? Maybe we could just have a little pleasant convo for a little bit towards the end end of the stream. Only if you want to, though, cuz >> I'll give you 30 minutes

Brian Atlas>> and then I'm going to [ __ ] in. >> Oh, that's perfect. That's That's all I need, >> you [ __ ] But I'm going to have a smoke real quick. >> You're a [ __ ] legend, Andrew. Guys, W's in the chat for Andrew Wilson. W's in the chat for Kylo. You guys were

Brian Atlasfantastic. It was a fantastic debate. We'll do a uh an after after what would be the after hours >> the afterare

Brian Atlas>> after not exactly but uh we'll do uh >> it assumes >> what's the >> without a >> you know like the after show the late night show the after show after show uh so guys if you want to stick around a

Brian Atlaslittle bit I'm going to lower the TTS threshold if you want to get uh little message in here at the end we'll do $49 TTS Yes. Uh if any of you guys want to ask a question. Uh and uh yeah, we'll do

Brian Atlasthat. We'll do that. You're welcome to. Uh oh, really quick, um debate university, guys. Guys, debateuniversity.com. If you want to learn how to become a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)master debater like Andrew, uh you can assume things without a mind. You've just abandoned philosophy at this point [laughter] and are just doing

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you're unironically just doing word play now which is fine. You can do that. But >> unironically not >> we just we decided that what is subjective is

Andrew Wilsonuh requires mind. What is objective does not require a mind. When I ask you how you make an assumption absent a mind you said you said yes that is objective. And

Andrew Wilsonthen I said, "How can that be processed absent a mind?" And and he said, "Well, what process is it absent a mind?" He said, "Nothing." It can be processed absent a mind. What process is it?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah, but it exists outside of the mind, right? So even though the mind isn't processing it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist outside. >> Does a mind process it? >> Uh it it could, but I would say it's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)subjective. It exists outside of us. >> That would be objective. >> Yeah, that's what I just said. >> You said subjective. I said objective. >> You said subjective. >> I definitely said objective. And if I didn't say objective, then I absolutely meant

Andrew Wilson>> objective. So objectively, it exists outside of the mind. >> How how how can you assume? H how does something get assumed absent a mind?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh it it's like taken for granted >> by who? By what mind? >> Uh by by no one. But a mind engaging in a group of >> There's no mind. You just said does not require mind.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. I think the laws of logic exist outside of my mind. >> Yeah, I know. But >> but then when we're getting to like a I'm here and you're here. >> Yeah. But what can make an assumption absent a mind?

Andrew Wilson>> Uh nothing. >> Oh, >> but this doesn't mean that objectivity doesn't exist. >> So, but how can >> can a mind >> you said that you can make assumptions absent a mind? Do you think that the

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next