 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not it's ethically permissible to smite an abuser or rapist and we are starting right now. With Steven's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us, Steven. The floor is all yours. Hey, I think that as long as you've got somebody on proper notice and somebody is going to either enact violence against you or invade or steal something that you belong or do some damage to your person or do some damage to a loved one, you ought to be able to defend yourself. The level of that defense is going to escalate all the way up to whatever is necessary. So for instance, if somebody tries to steal something of yours and you punch them and they punch back and then you kick them and then they pull out a knife, you can pull out a gun, et cetera, et cetera. So I think that it is within your right to defend your body, your person, things next to you with as much force as necessary and then depending on how the other person decides to respond, that can go up to you and including killing the person. You've got to thank you very much for that quick and pithy opening statement. We're going to kick it over to Rose, but want to say, folks, this is your first time here. Welcome to the Modern Day Debate. We're a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up. And with that, thanks, Rose. The floor is all yours as well for your opening. Thank you. So I would say that I feel like it's, I understandably, a lot of victims in these cases feel like they feel angry at what the person that did to them or the person they fear is going to do with them. And that's completely understandable. However, when it comes to murder, this is somebody's life that you're taking. And when it comes to that, you have to be very sure that you're acting in right case. But I feel like in terms of self-defense, this is something that I feel like in a lot of cases, people have been way too lenient about. I feel like a perfect example of this is talking about the cops in particular. The cops so often shoot innocent black people or people with mental disabilities because they think they're acting in self-defense. They're so convinced that they're in immediate danger and that this person is going to kill them when in reality, that is not the case. Now, obviously when it comes to a person being raped or about to be raped, that's not the same. It's not the same situation. However, I see posts from feminists online all the time posting their fantasies of how they really want to murder their rapist or sometimes people do it. I just think it's a really toxic environment. And I don't think we should be encouraging these behavior. And I think that if somebody kills another human being, unless your life is immediately in danger, I don't think you're justified in doing that. You've got to thanks very much. And we're going to jump into open discussion. If you have questions, folks, fire them into the old live chat at modern day debate. If you tag me with that modern day debate, I will get those questions and we'll read them during the Q&A following open discussion. Thanks very much, Stephen. And Rose, the floor is all yours for open dialogue. So, okay, so first we need to figure out what the actual moral principle is before we get into the logistics of deploying said moral principle. So for instance, it sounded like you were saying, killing somebody in self-defense may or may not be morally permissible, but that's not relevant because sometimes people will do it accidentally. Is that, do we want to talk about the principle or do we want to concede the principle and say, okay, it is principally okay to kill somebody if they're trying to rape you, but, and then go on to like the practicality of it? I would say, I don't even know if it is if someone's trying to rape you. I'm sympathetic to that, right? If somebody kills their rapist or someone like, you know, for a fact, there's no nuance whatsoever. This person's going to rape you. I'd say that person kills them. It's not the worst thing in the world, but I wouldn't say that that's necessarily okay, but it's like, I don't think that that's like terrible. But if you want, we could just like move on from that and be like, okay, fine. Well, that's, well, this is pretty important because it's technically the topic of the debate. So yeah, let's, let's phrase this. So I'm going to use, generally, I just want to stick to good or bad. So good is an action that we ought to do, or if we do it, it'd be considered a morally virtuous thing to do. Bad is going to be an action that we ought to avoid. And if we do it, you have some moral culpability of performing a bad action. So if somebody is, if somebody comes up to you and they, we'll just say somebody is trying to rape somebody. Unless the other person has no capacity to stop it without killing the person, would it be a good thing to kill the rapist? Can they kill the rapist or would that be a bad thing? I think maybe there's more justification to do so, but I wouldn't say that that's a good thing. I think the only like rational thing is to just be like, okay, this is a traumatic thing I just did. I feel guilty about this, you know. So spending the rest of your life thinking, you know, is there, could I have done something different? Cause I think that's a normal human response. I'm kind of empty for the person who just killed, right? Even if it is a hundred percent just, I would say that that's like the only, cause I see people who are like, yeah, I killed this person. And then people online be like, yeah, you're a hero. Who knows to you? And it's like, I don't think that that's really healthy. Right? So we're looking at like, we're taking more of a psychologically based analysis of this now. I don't care about the psychology, just looking at the ethics. Somebody comes up to you and they're trying to rape you. Do you have a right to defend yourself up to including lethal force? I would prefer non-lethal methods overall. I don't want to be the person. I mean, I guess I am kind of being the person right now. I don't want to be the person that says like, you have to sit down and take it because that sounds really shitty. And I feel like a person has a right to have that sort of audibly autonomy and not want that. Right? And I've had enough debates on this to realize that yeah, that this is probably not the hill I want to die on, right? I mean, it's a difficult moral question, but you're in the sketchy position. So of course you might have to own a sketchy or like a difficult bullet, but like the question is, is so somebody, so you have no other recourse, you can't call the cops, you don't have a non-lethal way of de-escalating. All you have on you is a gun. Person has made their intentions clear. I'm coming up to you to rape you. Do you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force? It will involve the killing of the other person to avoid you getting raped. When I say you, I don't mean you personally, I just mean you in the general sense. Does one have the right to employ lethal force for a rent one from being raped by another? I would say, if I were to say yes or no, I guess I'd say yes with an asterisk, being that like, you know, you're taking that person's life, you know? And this is a non-lethal action. Like rape has like what? It's like the death from rape is so low in the United States. I can't even find a statistic for it. I try to look for one. So it's like, it's a non-lethal force and you're punishing that person with a death penalty, which I wouldn't say is really just, but it's like at the same time, this is the only way to prevent that rape and I guess it can be ethical in that position. Okay. But then don't, so then don't we just agree? I don't think that we do. Have you seen the viral tweet that I made about like rapents? It was basically this rape device. So in South Africa, someone eventually- Oh, I'm aware of this trade. I did see it, yeah. Yeah, it was a whole thing. So basically the idea was that this defense, this device was gonna protect women from rape, right? And that the woman who put it on, it would prevent her from getting raped and that the man would have to go to the hospital to remove this thing. And the problem with that though, is I feel like that is cruel and unusual punishment. And I feel like this is like a torture device. Like this wouldn't even be an approved for like prisoners of war. And I feel like it's horrifying that people are like, you know, rooting for this thing. So again, differences here. We can talk about people's response to it and we can talk about like the practicality of it, but ethically, would it be okay to have a trap inside your body that if somebody were violating you, they would spring the trap? Do we, is it ethical? If you have a trap inside your body so that if somebody violates you, do you have a right to have that trap in your body? Like is that ethically, ethically? Do you think you should be able to? I think that that is like, I mean, the way that the trap is, it literally makes the person have to go to the hospital, they have to see a doctor. Now the goal with that obviously is like, oh, well they have to see a doctor, then we'll know that this person raped the person. Well, sure, we don't even need to worry about that part. Let's say the device comes off after an hour or that's not really relevant. Do you think that a woman has a right to implant a device like that in her body? I would say so if it wasn't, puts a lot of pain onto the other person and send them to the hospital. And also it's gonna make it like, the way the device is, it's going to put that woman in danger too because you don't want to feel a lot of pain. Yeah, these are questions of practicality, not ethical questions, right? So the ethical question is, somebody tries to rape one, does one have the right to protect themselves with unusual measures like an anti-rape condom? Should they have the right to do that? Is that an ethical action for them? If it doesn't send the person to the hospital, right? If it's a harmless device and it doesn't do any harm to the person and all it does is protect them, then yeah. Okay, so let's push one more. Let's say, why would it be morally wrong to send that person to the hospital? Because you're inflicting more harm into the world, right? I'm a pacifist, right? This rapist is putting harm onto the rapist or the rape victim. But when you have this device, you're putting unnecessary harm onto somebody else and this is the opposite of where we need to go. I mean, people say like, oh. Aren't you doing so in the hopes of avoiding taking harm onto yourself? Yes, but I feel like the means don't justify it. Don't they kind of though? Like, isn't there a difference between defensive harm versus like aggressive harm or are we really measuring all these things to be the exact same? I guess, but I mean, here's the thing I wanna mention, right? It's like when people talk about rape, I feel like they don't understand what rape is. Like someone's not gonna wear this device like all the time. Like I think- Yeah, sure, these are issues of practicality and not ethical questions, right? So we're just looking at the ethics of it. Like let's say that somebody is gonna come to you and they're gonna perform a level seven harm, but you could protect yourself from them but in protecting yourself, they're gonna inflict on them a level nine harm. Do we really just measure these as the exact same when you have an aggressor versus somebody acting defensively? Well, level nine is above level seven. So that would automatically like assume that that's an unjust response to it. Like this isn't even arm and a leg at this point. This is like an arm for like an arm and a leg. Well, yeah, but the idea is like sometimes people that are defending themselves don't have the ability to defend themselves employing the same level of harm. Usually if somebody's doing harm to another person, it's actually because they have a greater ability to inflict harm. So the other side has to respond with some escalatory measure, right? Like it's very rare that somebody is gonna go up and try to violently rape somebody that's stronger than them, right? It's generally the opposite way, right? I mean, men do become victims at times, but I do agree with you in the general aspect. Yeah, so in the case, and even when men do, it's often because there are like say substances involved that inhibit that person's ability to respond, right? Or there can be other games involved. But like I'm saying in a general sense, usually if you're defending yourself, if somebody's bringing a certain level of harm, you usually have to at least match it. And then oftentimes if you're trying to end the conflict instead of engage in like a fun fight, you probably have to go overboard, right? Like if somebody shows up outside your house and they're ready to throw punches, they're like, let's fight, I'm ready to fucking box, right? Well, you could go out and like, okay, fuck it, let's box, well, you could get a gun or a knife or whatever they're like, I need you to leave. Like you can't just come and attack me. I'm not gonna entertain your challenge for a fight. I mean like, I don't agree in the sense that like you have to, I wouldn't necessarily say you have to go like overboard in your defense measures, right? Like I feel like a lot of the measures that like are often used in like for instance, like using a gun is just like, it's just this huge thing. Like obviously it's awful. Well, let's like focus on the defensive thing right here, right? If you're defending against something, you always have to escalate. Otherwise you're just having a fun fight, right? Don't you always have that? Like let's say somebody shows up outside with a knife, okay, and somebody's like, oh shit, like somebody came with a knife, they're gonna invade our home. Like would the answer be like, okay, I'm gonna go grab my knife from downstairs and we're gonna knife fight. Well, no, you're always gonna escalate to the next level because they're aggressing on you. You wanna end the conflict, not entertain like a fun challenge, right? I guess, but I mean, the thing is obviously you try to flee the situation if you can, but I'm assuming we can't. I mean, you have to defend yourself in some way. If someone's putting a knife up to you and it's trying to harm you with it, then yeah, you can kill that person because that person's gonna do some serious harm to you. And you think there's no one you want. Yeah, but if there's a guy that's two X larger than you and he wants to inflict harm on you, you're probably also gonna grab a knife or a gun, right? Probably. It just depends on how you're like, harm is so vague though. Like harm can be like punching someone. We don't have to make it vague. We're having ethical debate, so we can be as crystal clear or as vague as we want because they're all hypotheticals, right? Somebody comes up with fists and they're gonna inflict the level five harm on somebody and that other person, the only way they can respond is with a gun or a knife, a level nine or a 10 harm, right? Doesn't that person have the right to respond and escalate if the other person's the one bringing the fight? Because the other person's already escalating, right? They're going from zero harm to bringing it up to a five. So don't you have a right to shut it down if you can't respond at the appropriate level? I mean, they have a right to in some extent, but I feel like they also have a moral justification to try non-lethal methods, to try expose all those other methods. And all of those- And we agree with that, right? That's why like if a nine-year-old comes up to me, we're not pulling out the AR-15 and like blowing the dude away onto the sidewalk, right? We can probably just push his head away. But like in the case of rape, we're typically talking about a power unbalanced situation where one side doesn't have the ability to non-violently subdue the other. So in that case, some level of violence is gonna be brought out and that is oftentimes gonna be lethal, right? We can say that like for purposes of our conversation, we can say that a woman might have the obligation to do bear makes or something first if she has that. That's fair, maybe. But like ultimately it push comes to shove is one person forced to bear the actions of an aggressor instead of like taking lethal actions against the aggressor. Like it seems like if there's only one or the other, why one or not the other? I mean, it's like, that's the thing though. It's like you don't, and this is kind of similar to how I feel about abortion. It's feel, it sucks to have to say to somebody, I don't, you know, because a lot of times people hear my position or hear my tweet and my commitment is more nuanced than that now. But like when they saw my tweet, they thought, oh, this person's pro-right. This person's saying that women should just sit there and take it. And it's like, no, I just don't think that like, it's the worst thing in the world compared to literally being murdered. I feel like if you're gonna kill somebody, like that person could become a good person later in life. You know, rapists like have a really high rate of life. They could, but are you expected to bear the crimes of that person while they're on their own personal journey of redemption? I mean like, I don't think it's moral to, but I, see, this is tricky for me. I mean, like, I guess you shouldn't have to, but I would probably be better if you could let the person live. I think that'd be the better thing to do, but I'm not. We're not just letting them live. We're talking about whether you have to bear the aggression that they're loving on you just because maybe they appreciate it. And that's the thing is like, I'm not gonna judge somebody if they decide that. Well, we're not talking about your personal judgments. We're just talking about the ethics of the situation, right? Yeah, I guess so. And that's what I said, it's like, I don't think it's good, but I think in some rare cases it might be justified because in the vast majority of rapes, these are like people you know, right? Sure, but when I'm talking about, we're only working on the ethics. We don't care about the vast majority of the statistics, the psychology, the outcome. We're just only looking at the ethics. Somebody knows that somebody is gonna rape them and they're in the process of getting raped and the only way they can respond is with legal force. Should that person have the right to kill the other person? Or do they have to just get raped because they're not allowed to? I mean, is this some, is this like hypothetically this person of strangers is someone that this person knows? Cause if it's someone they know, then that's gonna make like the question like a lot more like, oh my, you know. I don't think it's meaningful but you can explore the difference if you want. Let's say somebody you know. Yeah, well, if it's like a family member or like a close friend and you're killing them because of that, I mean, that's gonna have like a lot of impact. And I just, Now that we're getting into psychology, I don't care about anything. Okay, okay, fine, fine. Because getting raped can have a lot of impact as well, right? Yeah, I can. It can definitely just have negative psychological impacts. So shouldn't the agency be on the side of the defender here to decide how they wanna deal with the situation? Because you keep saying like it could have negative psychological implications. Well, the defender can choose not to do anything then if they want, I think just get raped and then see how it goes afterwards. But right now we're trying to figure out ethically, do they have an ethical right to defend themselves with lethal force? Technically, yes, I would say, but I would like heavily like hesitate that it's probably not the right thing to do. How can we say something is ethical but it's not the right thing to do? What do you mean by it's not right? What would right to expect? You could make a very strong stance to argue that this was justified to prevent the harm of the person that there was no other way to prevent that harm of that person. Therefore it is fine to do so in this case. I would just say though, that I just don't believe that it justifies murder doing so. Because there's a lot of times we're personally inconvenienced in our life, but I don't think the proper response of that is to shoot the other person to avoid any negative effects. So obviously this is an extreme case of that. Sure, let's say that you weigh, let's say that you're a 100 pound woman and you walk in and there's a 250 pound elite level bodybuilder about to rape your five year old child. Child will survive, no problem, but it'll be a little traumatized, a little worse for wear. Do you think in that case you have a right to murder the 250 pound bodybuilder or do you think that because murder is worse than surviving rape, do you think that would be unethical to intervene in that situation? This is really tricky because you're putting me in a tight, because this is probably the most justifiable case you can think of. What else is justifiable? The child's not gonna die and you're talking about killing somebody else for inconveniencing the child. Might be a pretty severe inconvenience, but it's an inconvenience nonetheless, right? I mean, there's studies that kids who get raped, they have that, it's psychological for the rest of their life and also just kind of a really sick person who do such a thing. I mean, most rapes are probably gonna be pretty psychological for the rest of your life, but... Yeah, I would hope that, I mean, in that case, it's probably pretty okay to murder the person. You're still doing more harm though than what they'd be doing by just raping. Yeah, and that's why I'm like hesitant, you know? It's like, I don't think killing is good, but if it prevents that, because it's like the person's not gonna die and that's good. Like the person has a chance, that's the thing, the person has a chance to, like the five-year-old could, after being raped, potentially living normal life, free of like psychological effects or well, maybe some. I just feel like the other person never really gets that chance though. And it's like... Well, they did get a chance, but arguably, keep in mind, the other person is not randomly being killed, right? Them getting killed is a consequence of them violating the agency of another person and assuming they understand what they're entering into, right? That should be factored into their choice, right? Unless the person is literally mind-controlled or is mentally ill or is a child themselves and doesn't understand, this is kind of like implicitly what they're understanding there. They have the agency to make a choice and they're doing an action, knowingly violating the agency of another person. So it's not like it's just random that like, oh my God, a boulder fell off a cliff and this person died, right? Yeah, I mean, obviously that person's doing something inherently despicable and obviously that person knows the dangers and what they're doing and the moral wrong of what they're doing. I'm just very pro-giving people chances. I'm pro-prisoner perform. I'm pro-all of this. So I hate to see it, but obviously we get a such extreme point. But prison reform and all that is different. That's when we're not avoiding harm at that point. Now we're just like meeting out consequences, right? Or punishment. That's a different type of thing, criminal justice system. We're not dealing with people that are actively charged and we're about to harm somebody. Yeah, I mean, I guess I'll say in this case, it's okay. Okay. I mean, you're giving me the most extreme case, obviously. Sure, that's okay. But now I'm gonna- I'm not gonna cry that this person's dying, you know? Sure. So let's blow this rule out then to all of society and let's look at two different principles that we could use to analyze the ethics of these interactions. In one society, a person that is raping somebody should never to be killed. That would actually be punishable because we don't wanna kill people just for doing something that's less than killing somebody, okay? And then in another society, people can be killed just for raping somebody. Which of these societies do we think overall would be like a morally better place to live? The society where people can rape with impunity or the society where rapists get killed with impunity? I would say the better society is the one where nobody gets killed. And the reason for this is because feminists have learned the definition of what rape is so much. That like people- Wait, hold on. We're not talking about feminist definitions or any of the weird. I'm talking about guy holds a girl down, forces his penis in a vagina or woman holds a guy down, forces a vagina and whatever. I'm talking about go to old fashioned rape, okay? Not the new stuff. Not the new stuff. No, no, no. Not the zoomer rape. No, no, no. We're still in an ethical world of hypothetical nuances for particular matters. So in one world, you're allowed to go to old fashioned, rape with impunity. And in the other world, you're allowed to go old fashioned, shoot in the head, people to try to rape. What world is like more moral? It's a better world morally. I'm gonna give a slight preference to the one where no one dies. I think they're both bad worlds. And I think that, you know, obviously this is why extremes are bad. In my personal opinion, I tend to believe the one where less people die in the general scene of things because I believe that a human life, I'm pro-life, I believe human life is more important than anything else. So if we have a light- Sure, but how do you- Okay. Well, so let's try to think of, so the world where more people are raped, but less people die is better than the world where more people die and less people are raped. Yeah, because I mean, these are people's lives that we're talking about here. Like if you have some people that are traumatized for life, that sucks, but they can survive it and they can make it through that, a person who gets killed has no chance of redemption, no chance of any of that. So as awful as it is, I tend to go with the one where people at least have that chance. Okay, do you think that all human life is morally equivalent? For the, yeah, I would say so. Okay, let's say we have two people in a room. Let's say that we have three people in a room. Okay, we've got person A, person B, and person Z. Okay, person Z is tied to a chair. Okay, then you've got person A and person B. A has a gun and this guy is about to kill person Z and B is just standing there. Do you think that there's a moral equivalence between killing A and B? Well, when, okay, I think the one exception to this is when someone is literally threatening the life of somebody else. Okay, sorry, let me back it off, do a different thing. Person Z is instead somebody tied to a bed. A might rape that person, B is never gonna rape them, they're just standing there, and A is going to rape Z. Do you think there's a moral equivalence between killing A and killing B? One is about to rape the other, one is about to rape person Z. So I think it would be worse to kill the person tied up than the person doing the rape. No, no, no, not the person tied up. We're talking about two people in a room. One of them wants to rape the tied up person, the other one is just standing there, he's not gonna rape anybody. Do you think there's a moral equivalence between killing these two people? I think that there is, it's more morally justified to kill the person raping. If doing so prevents the rape of the other person tied up. Okay, that's good, I agree with that. So backing up, you made a statement, you said human life is incredibly important. I would argue against that. I don't think human life is intrinsically or unequivocally incredibly important. I think that there are things that you can do to trade away kind of the importance of your life. One of those things would be aggressing on other people. The more extreme version of this would be incredible aggressions against other people. So for instance, when you're willing to murder somebody or less severely, when you're willing to rape somebody, it feels like the value of your life when held in comparison to other people's lives, especially your victim, is gonna be severely diminished. And I feel like this is a justification for things like punishment to crime, jail time, like the reason why we're willing to take away some level of freedom or violate the rights of other people, even through violence, through punishment is because they have kind of given away a bit of that value or a bit of that moral consideration for their life. Do you think or do you disagree with that? I would say like... And the reason why I'm gonna argue that you agree with that just before you say it, so it doesn't feel like I'm trying to like corner you, is because you told me that killing person A would be better than killing person B because A was about to rape somebody. So it seems like even in your mind intuitively, you feel like A's life is worth a little bit less than B's life. It feels like that is the case. The problem though is this leads a lot to dehumanization. We get to points where, oh, this person did this thing, this person is a blank, therefore we can dehumanize them, therefore their life is worth less, therefore if they get murdered. And I feel like that's a dangerous road to go down. I mean, this has nothing to do with like... All right, let's go outside for a bit. When people say on Twitter that they love to just kill pedophiles and rapists and they wish they would all just like die or they put these fantasies, right? This is like similar ideology to what was used against LGBT people in the past. Like think about the pink triumph. But let's go away from that. Yeah, let's get away from Twitter stuff. So let's ask, is dehumanization necessarily a bad thing? When we say dehumanization, what do we really mean here? Or I can give you a definition and you can tell me if I agree or disagree. So I'm gonna try to try. Sure, sure. Give me your definition. I think that when we talk about dehumanization in general, I think we're usually talking about treating somebody like they're not a human. I think that's kind of like the common way of looking at it. I would argue that for the purpose of an ethical conversation, when we talk about dehumanizing somebody, we're talking about stripping them of their moral consideration. So whether or not we ought to harm them or not, right? I would argue that in that sense, if you agree with that level of dehumanization, I would argue that in that sense, dehumanization isn't necessarily a bad thing because if somebody is about to go and kill two people or even about to go and kill one person, it seems like we value that person's life. We have less moral consideration for them than the person that they're going to kill. Maybe because you can argue that they're performing a form of dehumanization themselves. Yeah, but I would argue that it's wrong to dehumanize people. When you dehumanize these people who've done these awful things, you're distancing yourself from them. When it's like anyone has the ability to do these things. Sure, but so here's another question. Are we dehumanizing them or are they arguably dehumanizing themselves? And then we treat them appropriately. So for instance, if a dog were to come up and try to kill somebody, or let's say a dog was gonna run up to bite somebody, but it might be a really bad bite. Do we have the right to kick or kill that dog? Well, I don't value a dog's life as much as a human's life. So if the dog is like biting people and it's a danger to a human life, I think a human life is superior to a dog's life. Sure, if a human decides to walk up and attack somebody, I feel like part of the implicit buy-in that we have of being humans with each other is we kind of agree to respect each other's space, privacy, autonomy, their health. If somebody's willing to take a step and violate that agency, aren't they engaging in a form of like self-dehumanization a little bit? I wouldn't say that that makes them unhuman though. Like they're still, and that's the thing is like people treat them like they're not human, but they are still human. Human beings can do really bad things. Do you think that they're treating their victims as human or do you think they're dehumanizing their victims? They probably are dehumanizing to their next step. I think dehumanization is bad across the board, right? Just because somebody else is doing something bad doesn't mean we have to fall victim to the same behavior. Well, be careful though. We're not falling victim to the same behavior because a defensive action is not the same as an aggressive action. Let's say somebody walks up to me with a knife and they're about to stab me and then I pull out a gun and I shoot them. We wouldn't say, well, both of you engaged in the same behavior, you're gonna be violent. There's a difference because the behavior is different and aggressive behavior is probably different than a defensive behavior. Yeah, I mean, it's more morally justifiable obviously is an active self-defense. I mean, there comes a point sometimes where it's like, you know, it's hard to tell, like, you know, who, I mean, when a conflict is a conflict, you know, sometimes it's like, if you keep it going, keep it going, then it can be both sides or bad regardless if we start it, not what it comes to be. Yeah, it could be, but we're just in the very same way. Yeah, I got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, yeah. Okay. I guess to summarize my argument, like I feel like for several reasons it's okay to escalate and take violent action against somebody that is performing a violent action against you. If they're not willing to respect your autonomy, if they're dehumanizing you, I think it's okay to return that favor kind of protect yourself. I think that's acceptable. I also don't think it's fair to ask a victim to respect the autonomy of another person when their autonomy isn't being respected. And I don't think that an aggressive action is viewed the same morally as a defensive action. But if somebody's willing to aggress on one person and then like returning a defensive action, I don't think that's the same type of thing, even if it's literally the same action. If somebody pulls out a gun to shoot somebody and they pull out a gun and they shoot them before they can be shot, I don't think these are the same action. I think they're fundamentally different, right? Because one is done aggressively and one is done defensively. So I feel like there's so many differences in here that, yeah, just ultimately telling a victim that they need to bear the brunt of another person's aggression, just because we have to respect the other person's life. When that person isn't even respecting life, I don't buy that. I don't think that's a good justification for forcing victims to be raped, I guess. Yeah, someone can disrespect you, but that doesn't give you the right to disrespect their being a human being. I would argue it depends on the level of disrespect, right? I guess so, but I think in like 99% of cases. It could be 99% of cases, but it's still gonna be situational. If I walk up to you and I say I wanna cut off an arm and I've got a doctor right here and they're gonna patch you up afterwards, you're not gonna, there's a 0% chance of you dying, but I wanna cut your arm off. Do you have a right to defend against that violently or do you have to just bear that? Well, I feel like you do have a right to defend against that. Well, with lethal force, let's say the only way you can win is with a gun and by killing me and the doctor that are coming to take your arm. Unfortunately, yeah. Well, then why in this case? Why when it's about your arm, but not if it's about your vagina, not if it's about getting raped, not you in particular. Yeah, I've had this argument before. I would say like in arm, I mean, you're cutting. I mean, I have to really think about it. I guess I don't see rape in the same kind of arm as like cutting off somebody's like complete arm. I mean, you're literally like cutting off a useful body. Well, they're both just like big inconveniences, right? You can live without an arm like plenty of people do it. Yeah, but I mean, that's like, your body is permanently like altered because of that. It's like obviously gonna be mutilated, whereas like rape is more psychological than anything else. I mean, you could get an SCD, but like, you know, besides that. Okay, what is the mutilation start or stop? What if somebody comes up and they just wanna like leave a scar in your arm? They wanna cut your arm, but you'll be fine. A scar like cutting it off? No, no, no. Just like cutting it with a knife. They don't wanna scar your arm. That would be really painful. Sure, but they're not gonna kill you. Do you have a right to defend yourself or? Probably, I mean, maybe not murder in this case. The same murder is the only way you can defend yourself. They're coming at you with a knife and they say, I'm not gonna kill you but I'm gonna cut you up a little bit. Yeah, I mean, I guess so, I guess so. I just, I feel like it's nice. So if you can defend in all these other ways, is it just why? Okay, what if somebody's not, what if somebody's gonna come and punch you a ton? Gonna punch you in the stomach, punch you in the face, leave a lot of bruises but they'll heal. Do you have a right to bear that? Yeah, punching is probably okay. Actually, well, I actually, I have to think about it. I feel like you're trying to like draw a line here like exactly what I believe. Well, I'm just, because wherever your line is, I would say that punching or cutting somebody is probably not as bad as raping somebody but you seem to have a different experience. Hi, I guess I do. Maybe I'm weird in that aspect. I've gotten a lot of blowback for this. Yeah, I just, I mean, to me, I've never seen rape as extreme as these other things. I mean, maybe it's just- Most people probably view rape as being pretty extreme, right? Most people probably do, yes. I mean, that's just my experience. I just, I think it's like, you know- Well, but I would not argue of just, maybe you personally don't care, right? People can, for a variety of reasons not care but if we're talking about like moral principles for society, we'll probably have to keep in mind like what would an average person's expectation be, right? Yeah, I know, definitely. The average person views rape in a very, very negative light. Sure, and most people probably know that, including the rapist probably know that. Most people really don't want to be raped, right? Yeah, most people probably don't want to get raped. Sure. So somebody's walking up- Because you don't want to be raped. Sure, so somebody's walking up to perform a rape and you can, and most people consider this worse than like getting cut or getting beat up a lot. Like they probably should, it feels like they should be able to defend themselves, right? Even if that includes killing the other person. I guess so. I mean, I just, it's really tough for me though. I guess, like I said, I've had enough to base to be like, you know what? If it's like for sure this person's gonna get raped, it's like they probably have the right to defend themselves. They probably do. Okay. What else do we, what do we disagree on then? Or what else do we disagree on? So I just want to ask you this, I want to ask you, so if somebody comes to your house and they want to steal your TV, do you think it's like okay to kill that person? If they're just robbing your house, they want to take a few of their things, if they're invading your property, is it right to kill that person in self-defense when you're not actually in danger? I think if they're on notice, I think it's okay to do so. If somebody comes into your house and you say, hey, get away from that TV or I'm gonna kill you, because that's the only thing I can do. Any other person says, no, fuck you. I'm not gonna hurt you, but I'm gonna steal the TV. As long as they've got warning, they're on notice, they know the consequences, if they decide to steal it, then they're the ones that are earning themselves that they're getting killed. So yeah, I think it's okay in that sense. Well, that person made a declaration that the other person's life is in danger and that person took the declaration and shot them anyway, which is an inherently despicable thing to do, in my opinion. Sure, but the person was put on notice that if they were gonna continue to violate the autonomy of that other person, they were gonna be shot. So I would argue they made the choice for it. I mean, I don't know if that's autonomy because the person is not engaged in any bodily harm. They're just stealing. No, but in liberal society, we generally have an understanding that we have property rights and there is property that we own. Taking somebody's property is a form of violating our autonomy. And if the other person is on notice that we live in a society and in the society, it is recognized that I own this property and if you're gonna steal it from me, I am going to shoot you and kill you. If the other person, assuming they're a sound mind, continues to make a choice to steal it, then they've made the choice to get shot. Yeah, but I don't think that that's warranted of death. I don't think that should be the crime of like going on a person's property. Like if somebody- If that's the case and you should just steal from people that are bigger than you, they could beat you up and then you won't get killed. I mean, what do you mean steal from somebody bigger than that? How does that have any relevance here? Well, because you could argue that if somebody goes to steal from you, but it's like a 12 year old, then you probably shouldn't shoot and kill them. You should probably just like smack them around a bit or like throw them to the side because you don't have to kill them to get them to stop stealing from you. But I don't think you should be forced to have to endure somebody else's violation of your autonomy. And if the only way you can stop them is up through lethal means, then I think lethal means are permissible. But that's the thing is like in this situation, I mean, you could like call the cops, you could like take a picture, you know, and then potentially get those things back. You take a picture? Well, so now we identify the person. We move from the ethical debate out of the practicality. We can move to some of the practicality we want, but we're moving off the ethical debate, just recognizing that. I still feel in the ethical debate of somebody's making the choice to steal something they can put on notice that they'll be killed if they do it and they continue to do it anyways. They've made the choice to get shot. That's a consequence that they've totally earned. But if you move to the practical side of things, taking a picture means you're never getting it back. You probably won't get it back. Calling the cops, maybe they could help, but if the cops show up, you're back at the same dilemma as you were before, right? But if the cops show up and then the person is stealing the thing and the cops are like, stop, we're gonna shoot you. Isn't it the same thing now? Now that you've called the cops, you've just, you've moved, you've externalized now the responsibility to them for lethal force. I would say that I understand what you're getting at. I would say that calling the cops, you're not actually, I feel like it's, what is this thing? Is it, it's like, I forget what I'm referring to, but it's something. It's like a moral dilemma I'm thinking of. You're not actually doing the action. You're making somebody else do the same action. And so like, because we're not the one doing it, we tend to think it's okay. My hope would be, the problem is that I don't trust the police's judgment to do the right thing. So I feel- Well, sure, but you're the one that just mentioned calling the police, no? Yeah, yeah, I did. If the police responded with violence and murder, that would be a wrong of the police, but I don't think that it would necessarily be super fair to blame that on the person calling the person. Is what I call the police- Yeah, but if you call the police, aren't they necessarily gonna respond in a violent manner? Like. I think maybe, but not necessarily like- Well, let's say that you say, I'm gonna kill you if you don't leave and the guy's like, fuck you, I'm still in this anyway. You're like, fuck. So then you call the cops, the cops show up. What are the cops gonna do? They're gonna pull their guns on them. They're gonna say, you need to drop it. What if the guy then says, no, I'm not going to drop it. I'm gonna keep stealing it. Well, the cops have to shoot the guy eventually. Unfortunately that in America, because we have to live in a golden culture and it's probably what would happen. But the hope would be that like, you would be able to get the person to stop by non-legal methods, put them in handcuffs. I know realistically, not super likely, but I would say like, it's probably more ethical. Like if someone's gonna steal my TV, steal a few possessions, I just like let them. It's like, it's not worth putting myself in danger. It's not worth putting this other person in danger. I just don't think it's a whole thing to do. Well, these are questions of practicality, not ethical questions, right? Assuming you could kill the person easily with a gun without putting yourself in danger. If you put yourself in danger, there are other ethical considerations to make, but that's a more complicated situation rather than just trying to figure out the moral principle for this one, right? Like, should you be forced to sit and watch somebody steal your property? There's nothing you can do about it. Yeah, I mean, I say it's like, it's fine. I mean, the only thing is like, obviously, if you don't take any action, there's argument to be made that like, oh, this could happen more in the future because people really can get away with it. So like, I can understand that argument. I just feel like there's a way to prevent crime without like stealing TVs. Let's pretend that we live in that ethical world, right? What if two dudes go to the gym, get shredded? These are big guys, okay? Nobody's ever beating these guys up. Nobody's ever taken them down. They get gas masks, and they start going to houses and stealing shit. Don't these guys basically get to steal things unlimitedly because now nobody can ever stop them because they're not allowed to kill them and they can't beat them up? I feel like if they didn't enough, people would be able to identify them and the police would have some method of capturing them. But let's say the police can't find them. These guys wear masks every time they wear gloves. I'm just talking about the ethical part. Like, aren't these guys basically given carte blanche to go into any house and steal whatever they want because nobody can kill them? But I don't know, more ethically allowed to? Let's say we live in a perfectly ethical society except for these two people, like. I guess so. But like, I feel like there's a way to deal with it that doesn't involve murder. And I feel like most people are more reasonable, but let's say that these guys aren't. Yeah, I mean, we can agree that if you can resolve it without killing them, that's probably preferential. But if that is the only way to do it, then. I mean, I don't want to say like, just like take the things. Like, I don't want people to like be forced to like take it, but it's like, I would much rather that somebody, you know, take a few of my things and I'm unharmed and that nobody wants to. I'm not asking what you would rather do. That's a question of personal preference for something ethical conversation. Like, can you kill the person? Or should you be forced to watch them violate your autonomy, even though you've given them a warning? And even though they continue to choose the action that you've told them will let them get killed, they keep doing it. Like, should you be forced to just sit there and watch it happen? I guess so, but my hope would be that the police would use something like a pepper spray, a mace, a taser, be stabilized the person, use the handcuffs, and that kind of thing could work out. And I feel like it would. Sure, but even on practicality, like police don't always get there in time, right? They might be in your house. Yeah, they don't. In five minutes. So should you be forced to watch it happen if you could stop it otherwise? I just, I don't believe that murder is justifiable here. Well, it's not murder, we're talking about killing, right? Yeah, yeah, I've had people say, like, well, actually murder or killing, like, you know, killing is the word you should be using. Okay, fine, kill it. Okay, I mean, I guess we were at bedrock. I think we just fundamentally disagree. What else is there? Pretty much. I have one that, in case you guys want to weigh in on this, I'm curious what both of you would say. And this might, this kind of brings in that time element of when is it okay? Because I'm sure that Stephen, for example, you would say, well, at some point, you know, a year later it's not okay. And so Cain Velazquez is on the thumbnail who is a UFC fighter that a lot of people have heard this story back in February. His, he had thought that his son was molested at a daycare by a daycare worker. And in fact, the daycare worker was charged with molesting children at this daycare. So it probably was the case that his son was molested. Cain Velazquez went after him and shot at him. And he's now being charged. He hit the, somebody else who was in the vehicle of the molester who was apparently unrelated to the crime as far as we know. So what I can't find is how long after it was. So in all the- Yeah, you would never, you should never do it after. It's only to prevent somebody from doing an immoral action. It's not to punish them. Punishment should be delegated to the state, right? Yeah, I 100% agree. This is, yeah, 100% of this person didn't even get to go to trial, like to be proven innocent or guilty. I mean, like, I don't think that people should just be raping people because they think they're rapist and pedophile who opens too many dangerous doors. I mean, I feel like my position on this isn't too surprising. Yeah, I don't think so. And by the way, I just wanna address something in the previous thing we were talking about. I think the solution is just building better security measures for homes. I think that'll help, but yeah. You got it. Anything else? Now it doesn't matter how, if it's a crime of passion, Steven, if it's virtually, I think you're holding the line. You're saying strictly speaking, if it's even a moment after, it's just a, it's conceptually different enough to where it's not preventing harm. Now if somebody is in bed, guy goes into their bed and rapes them and the guy is done and he gets up and he's getting dressed and he's about to leave. You can't attack the person at that point. You're no longer acting in self-defense. Now you're acting in revenge. Gotcha. I see your position clearly. We're gonna jump into the questions and I wanna say folks, our guests are linked in the description, so if you'd like to hear more from them, you certainly can. You can learn all about their views. We're gonna jump into it first. With this question from Kyle James. Okay, can I read that one later? That's weird. This is a plenty of states, it's about me. This is, they say you have the right to self-defense. And if someone is sexually assaulting you, of course you can hurt them. If someone is raping you, who knows if they want to kill you? Are you kidding me? Boring, that's a different question. That's a question of practicality, not an ethical question. Like, there's different practical considerations to be made for if somebody is raping you or they're also potentially going to murder you as well. That would change the nature of how we would answer those questions, but it wasn't part of what we were addressing. Gotcha, this one coming in from, appreciate your question. Samar, good to see you, who says for both of you, if you have a non-lethal solution to a violent circumstance, is it always better to take that solution no matter the context? Why or why not? I think arguably, you probably have some moral responsibility to escalate up to a level before death, whatever the minimum threshold is to like end the situation. So for instance, if somebody comes in and they are being violent, like being able to be violent back if you're larger than them, you probably have an obligation. The 100-pound person is attacking a 200-pound person. The 200-pound person probably doesn't have the right to pull out a gun and shoot them because they can probably resolve it through other matters. So yeah, you probably have some obligation to go through the steps to resolve things non-lethally before hitting lethal force. Yeah, I would say absolutely yes. If you have the option to use a non-lethal method and you don't, then I my opinion, that's warranted for a charge for murder. You should be criminally charged for that because it's like you could have non-lethally like ended the situation and you didn't. That's just murder in my eyes. You got it, Anne. Thank you very much for this question. Coming in from, do appreciate it. This one coming from, gotcha. This place gamer says, Rose agrees with him, but for the optics, they say Rose, they're coming out and they say Rose, what could Destiny show that would make you agree to move to his side of debate, of this debate? I mean, like I'm very strong in the position that murder is just this really awful thing that there's pretty much no real justification. I guess there's like a few things, right? I don't know if there's really anything that he could say. I'd have to really fundamentally change like my core values in this instance. Maybe like, I don't know, I have to think about it. I just feel so strongly about this. I don't think there's a lot you could say. For me on my side, just because I'll answer it, because I think it's fair, I shouldn't answer the same question. If you construct societies where everybody is following the same moral rules, I'm looking for the society that I think produces the most moral good or allows for the most moral actions versus the other one that allows for less moral good or less moral actions. So if I think of one society where any victim could kill a rapist and then I look at another society where any victim could never kill a rapist, I see one society where people are allowed to, if they pick the right targets, rape with impunity and more or less get away with it. And another society where the only people that are getting killed are the people that are choosing to rape and they're exercising their agency to do so. So if that is the consequence, at the very least they're earning that consequence. I don't think a rape victim is earning, getting raped ever. It's never their fault that somebody chose to rape them. But in the other society, I think it's okay if people are being killed because they've chosen an action where being killed is like part of your implicit buy-in to like, that's a chance of something that might happen if I try to do something. So if you could show me another world where the other world is better, I don't think a world where a bunch of people aren't getting killed but are allowed to rape with impunity is better than the world where rape potential rape victims could defend themselves and kill potential rapists. I think it's a better world. I would say the world where rapists get away without being killed is pretty much the world we live in with a few like accept cases. And I think it's a pretty fine world we live in now. So. You got it. This one coming in from Summer Strikes Again says, Rose self-defense slash bodily autonomy is a core tenant of liberalism. Do you favor a modern liberal democracy? If not, what is your alternative to it? So when people ask about their political views, I don't really know how to answer that. It's like, I have such extreme opinions that like me on one side or another, but it's like, I don't like when people try to pin me down on that. It's like, I don't know where I stand politically. You know, when I have like these big worldview questions, it's like, I just have positions that make sense to me and I get flack for that sometimes because people say that I have contradictory beliefs which I personally don't. I just feel like my worldview is different from what a lot of people have seen and like the beliefs that share. Is there like, is there something to the question I'm missing or? I think you've got it. The only reason I was, if I looked like I was making a face, it was only because this next one, Kyle James says, I don't know if they understood what you meant by humanization and I'm confused now too. They say, destiny, if humanization is the measure of moral permissibility, wouldn't James be able to do anything he wants because he's such a manly man? What did you, can you define humanization just? I just think when people talk about like humanizing or dehumanizing people in an ethical sense, what they're really talking about is removing the ethical considerations that humans get. That's really what we're talking about. And I think that there are actions that you can do that make that ethical consideration come into question because I think part of the ethical consideration you get is that at least at some point, you'll generally be some moral agent that could choose to do things otherwise or could choose to do things that are good or bad. And if you start making a bunch of choices that are like horrible and evil, time and time and time and time and time again, I think that will reflect on the humanization of you as a person. You're dehumanizing yourself in a way, kind of losing your right to have certain respects in society if you're not gonna respect other people in the same way. You got it. This one from DisplaysGamer says, Rose, in the world that allows rape, there would be more abortions. Is this not killing a person who was not part of the crime? Yeah, I do realize that there would be more abortions. I mean, here's the thing. I'm anti-abortion, right? But when it comes to like one of the reasons I'm pro-life and people don't understand this is like people say that's a big win for men if they win for rapists. I'll actually know. These are a bunch of men that have to pay for child support now. These are a bunch of men who have to like raise a kid they don't wanna raise. I mean, I'd say that it like, everybody should be held accountable for these actions. Not just the women, the men too. So there's gonna be, I guess there's gonna be more abortions. I guess there's gonna be, right? More people being born. I don't necessarily see that as a horrible thing. Gotcha. Kairi Irving says, Destiny, you say that you're a utilitarian. Wait, your mic is kinda cutting out. Your mic is totally far right now. Let me check this. Try again, hello? They say, Destiny, you- Wait, somehow your mic got seven million times louder. I don't know how. Let me double check this. You serious? Oh my gosh, you're right. Too sad. Let me see if I can- In sound settings and a recording, did like a microphone boost just get turned on? Not on the mic, but on like the in your recording tab on Windows. If you- I don't think so. It sometimes has a mind of its own, Stephen. But I probably, I think it's back to normal. This one, they say, Destiny, that you say that you are a utilitarian, but when Rose responds to your hypotheticals with psychological effects that may occur, you say they don't matter in ethics. Why? It's the next level of consideration we'd have to get to. But they're not, but for the level that we're arguing, they weren't relevant. So for instance, you might argue that like, jeez, you might argue that like, you have a right to kill people because if you try to rape somebody, then you have the right to kill that person because you're defending yourself from harm, right? And then it, so that's like the reason why. To defend yourself from harm, you kill somebody. But let's say when we go up to the next level of the psychological considerations, let's say that we find out that when you kill somebody, your mind gets wiped and you're actually like fucked for the rest of your life. Well, that would consider us to reevaluate it because now the moral principle is gone. You're not actually defending yourself. You're actually causing yourself more harm than you would by just stopping the person, or by then just letting the person rape you something, right? If that was the case. So there are some future psychological evaluations that we can make that would change the nature of the ethical question. For instance, like if you try to self-defend, you cause more harm to yourself than the other person in the end. It's not really self-defense at that point. So we can make those decisions later, but it wasn't relevant to the level of the conversation we were at. You got it. So there was biped and heat shield based for your based superstickers and Minecraft player. This is a chance, Steven, for you, because I'm curious. They say, it may be ethical to smite your rapist, but is it ethical to be into sonic inflation? What was sonic inflation again? You're gonna have to Google that one, James. Is this, can I do it on my work computer? I wouldn't do that, James. Steven, I already have. Oh my gosh, Steven. Oh. All right, this one going in front of fish deserved it, says, was John a wimp? And he says, did you Google it, do knows? They say, was John a wimp in the right for taking revenge against the people who killed his dogs? Ethically, how would your framework apply to John a wimp? Steven. No, you can't kill people for, you can't take revenge like that. Vengeance is never like a morally good thing. But I mean, like for movies, it makes for good movies, of course. Well, vengeance could theoretically be justified if for some reason the legal system wasn't spitting out like good justice. But that gets more complicated at that point. Gotcha. This one, bear with me on the mic, folks. I think it's, hopefully it's going back to normal. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Nuclear recreations says, Rose, you say you're willing to shoot the rapist if it's your only option and it would concern your own child. But in general, you say it's wrong. I still don't understand what's the meaningful difference for your differing in these two contexts. I guess my general, okay. So first of all, the hypothetical being brought up is that this is like a five year old or at the belief based on like this old man, right? This is the most extreme example I think a person can think of. Now, obviously I feel like if someone is going to rape a person, that's pretty bad. I don't think it's really justified ever, but I would like to see that it's probably okay. I have to think a lot about my positions here because I'm not like entirely sure. I don't know. I mean, I guess it's not very different. I just think that it's a much more extreme version which is why it's like, I feel like I were to say, no, it's actually not okay to prevent this kid from being raped. That sounds like a very icy thing. And I want to stand back from saying that because that just seems like a very bad thing for me to say. You got it. And this one coming in from, let me just reload and see if we've got any other ones. Want to say, I, Stephen, I just heard back from someone today. There's a special one, but I won't say the name. But I've got to tell you folks, we're working on setting up a debate. It would be ginormous. It would be tremendous. It would be epic. And Stephen, it's like, it's so close to being confirmed. Do you know what I'm talking about? I, we don't talk that much. So I have a good inkling of what you're talking about. You got it. All right. Well, it's, I'm really on the final confirmation within a week. They said they, they can tell me. Dr. Will Starr says, what is a woman for both of them? I don't know what it, the hashtag, I don't know what it is. I guess I'm a trans woman. So I'll start this. I think a woman is somebody who applies the aspects of traditional femininity and identifies and carries herself and lives full time as a woman. Basically, this is somebody who wants to be seen as a woman, the entire, like every aspect of your life. Right? I don't believe that someone wears a dress and automatically is a woman. Right? I don't believe that drag queens are women. And I just don't believe that being feminine on its own makes you a woman. I just believe you have to want to make an effort to, if you're a trans woman, obviously, but basically you apply the aspects of traditional femininity and you identify as a woman. That makes you a woman. Gotcha. Am I supposed to answer that? Steven, thoughts? Agreed. I mean, I would argue there's a gender-sex distinction from a sex point of view. Like a woman is an adult human female, or a female is somebody that has like the gamuts of a female. And then from like the gender perspective, whatever the cultural performance of the woman is at that time, we're probably gonna say a woman is in that sense. But if you don't believe in gender-sex distinction, then that's like a separate conversation. You got it. This one coming in from Summer, appreciate it. He says, I want to introduce a spicy, relevant topic. Rose and Destiny was Kyle Wittenhouse, justified in shooting the people who were attacking him. I mean, obviously my opinion is known on this, I would say yes. Okay, I actually wrote the whole thing down. So if you don't mind, I'm just gonna write this. This is a guy who showed up to a protest with an AR-15 line of view, vigilante. It's my opinion that if he didn't show up, these two people would still be alive today and that his presence caused a danger to everyone else there at the protest. I mean, they were literally protesting against someone who got shot against police and here he goes shooting more people. And I feel like the people were coming after him, trying to take his gun away because they thought that he was an accurate shooter in my opinion he was. And if people did this to a school shooter, they'd be seen as heroes. Yeah, that's what I had written down. You got it. This one coming in from G. Day says, can someone please explain to me why normal societal ethics and norms would apply when one party has flagrantly and maliciously disregarded those rules of said society? Is that for Rose? I think that it's, well, technically for both of you, maybe depending on when. I think norms only work by definition if everybody follows them. You can't have just one side following norms. So when one side casts off norms, I think the other side is forced to. Otherwise you end up in a shitty prisoner's dilemma where you're the loser, taking the cooperate option every time the other person's fucking you over. Yeah, and I just hate this idea that some people have that like conservatives are so much morally worse than like liberals. I just, I feel like it's a worrying thing people see where they try to dehumanize the other side. It's like, yeah, we could disagree on politicals, but I don't think like conservatives are necessarily evil and to act like they're acting so unethically and immorally, I feel like you're giving them the worst fate possible and that's not really gonna change anything. Like you wanna build bridges for these people. You got it. And that's, let's see, GDA said a follow-up. They said the rapist home invader is not playing the game. Namely, I think they're saying like they're not following along with society. What moral principle compels you to play the game then? They say. That must be to Rose, right? Cause I would say you don't have to of course, right? What game are they talking about? I think they mean like playing by society's rules still even though the other person clearly completely flouted. Touted, what's the, they're saying, despite the person completely neglecting to follow those rules. Yeah, so I understand like, you know, just because somebody is acting out of line and you know, that doesn't really automatically just regard what makes our society work for what it is. You know, to say that like, oh, this one person acted out of line. So everybody it's okay to act as a moral as possible. I feel like that leads like a really bad row. Like, you know, you can see somebody's like, oh, well this person did this awful thing. So I could do that thing too. It's like, I feel like we gotta break the cycle something. You know, cause if we just keep making justifications for that, I don't think that's good. I would make an appeal, a complicated appeal to evolutionary biology here, I guess. Every throughout all of society, there are a whole bunch of games being played. You could kind of boil us down to a game called tit for tat, where if there is some creature that hits you and doesn't get hit back, then they'll destroy whatever it is they're engaging with. They'll hit, tit, tit, tit, tit, and if there's no tat to come back, then they'll continue to engage in said thing. If there is all across the animal kingdom, and I think even like the fungi and insect kingdom, there are very complicated games of tit for tat or tit for tat, tat or tit for tat for tit with these back and forths where there need to be proper punishments in place. Otherwise you get kind of these bad actors in the animal kingdom that can just override and destroy any other system as like a form of parasitic leech. So I would argue that morally, to some extent in society, we probably need some kind of tit for tat. Otherwise, if you're never willing to tat, you're gonna get somebody that will infinitely tit in your society and things get really fucked basically. Well, I would say that we're in the most peaceful time in human history and we didn't get there by being super aggressive and tough on criminals and stuff. We got there by being more lenient, by being more forgiving, by being more humane. And I feel like those things have led us to a point where most people are much more peaceful than we are. Maybe, but I don't know. That's relevant to the ethical question at all. Do. You might actually, actually there might be an argument. I don't have the history to argue those. There might be an argument that our increase in tit for tat has actually led to one of the more peaceful areas in human history. So for instance, one form of tit for tat might be the criminal justice system. And I think criminal justice in the way that we practice it in the West is a relatively new thing throughout all of human history that somebody is brought to stand trial, they're punished for an action, et cetera, et cetera, that like when you go past like before 2000 years ago or whatever, you'll have whole roving bands of people that'll just rape and murder people. You had pirates in the oceans that would just steal shit. You had societies that if you got caught doing anything bad, they just kill you because they have to send a message to thieves because it was so hard to find and punish people. I think that the existence of criminal justice system as a form of like a socially enforced tit for tat has probably kept us more moral than in the past where you just put kind of like in the Wild West literally and figuratively sometimes. Yeah, I would just say though that like innocent people pleading guilty all the time. I mean, these systems are very flawed and have lots of problems. And I just think the way the prison system is currently set up, I mean, the people get raped all the time in prison. People get like, they don't have problems, but like it's better than not having one. I would say I think we just need a complete redesigning of the prison system. That is my personal opinion, because I just think the way it is, it's not ethically moral to really send people there because of all the issues it has. I think that prison is a good idea and concept. I just don't agree with it in practice currently. I wish it would still better than not having prison, right? We can improve it, but. Well, I don't think that we should like mass murderers like roam the streets. So I guess so. Mm-hmm. You got it. Well, like, sure. No. This is Kyle James. I'll read all of the other super chats later. Thank you for displaced gamers. Says, Destiny, if you knew for a fact that the rapist was not going to kill you, would you still feel it okay that it's okay to kill the rapist? If that's the only way to stop them, yeah. Gotcha. This one coming in, four rows in particular. Gina from Cologne says, you, Rose, you said you didn't think rape was that bad. So in your opinion, what is worse, getting raped or misgendering someone? Yeah, so as a transgender woman, I think misgendering can be really psychologically disarmful and cause a lot of harm. Obviously, I think probably raping someone is going to be a worse thing. I don't like comparing the two because they're so different in the ways in like misgendering is really only going to hurt. Like if you misgender as this person, I don't think that cisgender person is really going to care that much. I've had a lot of Turks like me on Twitter, it's like they don't care where they get misgender because it's like their gender is so obvious to them. And when we have a trans person, we're just fighting for our existence to just be seen as who we are. So it's going to sing a lot harder. That being said, I do think the psychological impacts of being rape and not being to trust anybody the way you do sex, it's probably a lot more harmful than misgendering somebody. You got it. And I think that was it for the last of the questions. So I want to say our guest or link to the description folks, that includes if you're listening via the podcast, all of our debates end up on the modern day debate podcast available at fine podcast apps everywhere where you can hear these debates and where we link our guests there as well. So if you're listening there right now, you can click on the description box below for Destiny's or Rose's links and you can learn more about their views. So I want to say huge thank you. It has been a fun time. Stephen and Rose, we really appreciate you guys being here. Yeah, thanks a lot, it's been fun. Amazing. Yeah, thanks, sir. Absolutely, we'll be right back in just a moment folks. So stick around as I will say, I'll let you know about upcoming debates that we're excited about. So stick around and I'll be back in just a moment. Welcome to the show, it's Friday. Amazing, let me fix this up. My dear friends, we are thrilled to have you here. I'm in a jolly mood, I've got to tell you. I am pumped to have you here. Fun summer nights. I enjoy these debates more than you know. Let me tell you about some amazing epic stuff coming up. My dear friends in particular, check this out. One is if you did not know, tomorrow we are excited. We can't get enough of these, we're sick. We just like them and we love science debates. I know that you love science debates. Odds are pretty good. You'll like this one. Tomorrow, Atheists versus Christians. In particular, T-Jump and PhD Tony take on Sal Cordova, a newcomer, Christopher along with him, on whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old. We're gonna have more political debates coming up as well, working on that. I've been working on, I told you guys about this amazing new stuff in particular. We were working on our in-person panels. They're gonna be epic. We did the first filming for our first panel, which is a lot like the middle ground series from Jubilee, the YouTube channel. These are going to be epic. We're excited about those and they also give, oh gosh, Samar says I have a blown out mic. You serious? I can't tell on OBS, it looks like it's just normal. Like it doesn't show me that the mic is acting funky. Are you sure about this? Cause I'm telling you, it does not show. Is it going too loud or is it going too quiet? Let me know, I'm looking in the chat right now. I'm reading your feedback. Thanks for being a based and red-pilled channel member. Displaced gamer, thanks for renewing your extra juicy membership. Seven month milestone, thanks for being with us for seven months as a supporter of the channel. Thank you very much, we really do appreciate that. And here are ways that you can help support the channel because if you guys are maybe like, hey, I enjoy that this channel does some controversial topics. I enjoy everybody saying it's clipping and that the gain is through the roof. Let me, oh you're right, the gain was really high. Maybe this will at least help. So thank you very much for letting me know about that. I hadn't realized the gain was like cranked but hopefully this fixed it. You never know, I'm telling you, it has a mind of its own, I'm not making that up. It's like there's a demon inside of this thing but I've got to tell you, my dear friends, let me tell you, if you are a person who enjoys this channel, I've got to tell you, here's a way, because you're like, hey, James, yeah, I do enjoy that you guys are willing to host topics like is it ethically permissible to smite an abuser or rapist because this is for sure not going to be monetized like YouTube will slam it with the demonetization, I know that. But it's an interesting and important topic and especially, so for example, like you know about the Cain Velasquez story, I've got to tell you, it's a pertinent question and it's controversial though. If you like this channel, I would highly encourage you to hit that share button for real. If you have a group that you are, let's say, let's say on Twitter, you're in a DM thread, like I am, I'm in a DM thread and I joke around with those guys all the time. Or maybe it's on Discord or maybe it's on Facebook, maybe whatever group it is, or maybe it's just a friend, like as an example, my buddy Andy, I send him weird memes and stuff throughout the day or Logan, I send him weird stuff too. And if I find a channel I really like, I'll send it to Andy or Logan or whoever it might be and I'll say, hey, check this out. I would highly encourage you, if you want to help modern day debate, that really would help us a ton, is share the channel and say, hey, so and so, whatever your name is, your best friend's name is Gomez or whoever it is, it's Gomez. I love this channel, Modern Day Debate is willing to host controversial people and controversial topics. We had, is there a war on men? That was about, maybe a week or two ago, I think it was about two weeks ago now. That had Nick Fuentes, Hake of the Hake Report as well as many others. And that's something that for us, like, hey, we're gonna host controversial topics, we're gonna host controversial people and there are not a lot of YouTube channels that are willing to do that anymore because a lot of them, they know that they get in trouble, they get demonetized, whatever it is, but that for us is something that we really want to do because we think it's important. And we also, as you know, are passionate about our vision that we want to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field. That's important to us as we get people discussing the big questions of life, no matter what walk of life they're coming from. Amazing. Let me tell you about some of the other ones. In terms of upcoming debates, I mentioned during on air that there may be a debate with Steven that is, Steven, you could tell, you knew what I was talking about and it's a juicy one, I'm telling you guys, this one would be a gigantic, monstrous, and crazy debate. Like seriously, it would shake the foundations of the online debate world because it would be such a fun one. I can tell you, I'll only tell you this and I'll let you guess who the possible opponent is. And this is, I've been hearing, I've been hearing back from this organization or person and namely the contact on behalf of this debater and I've been saying, hey, yeah, we're trying to set so-and-so up with destiny to debate in particular. The topic is, is there a satanic elite? That's all I'll say. I'm curious if you guys might know who it might be, but based on that, we are trying to set this debate up and believe me, you might be thinking, that's a weird topic. I don't know if I'd like that debate, believe me. The person who would be in it, you'll enjoy it. It will be an entertaining debate. It will be pure infotainment. Believe me, it will be informative. It will be entertaining. It will satisfy you in the most real way. This place gamer says, what is the status of future debate cons? This would be in person, by the way. So I've got to tell you that it would be in person and it would also be, it would also be big. I just, you guys, I've got to tell you, it would be so cool. I really do hope that we could set it up. I could tell you that it would be, some of you might be guessing right. I don't know, I got to tell you, it would be huge. It would be gigantic. I am pumped though. So you guys, if it happens, it's not confirmed, but we're on the verge of confirming this. It would be on September 3rd. It would be honestly so huge. I am pumped and it would be good ol' infotainment. It would be beyond interesting. I got to tell you, it's going to be gigantic. Mind your friends. Hopefully it turns out. But remember, I did not say that it's happening because don't say, please don't say anybody that it's actually going, that it's happening because I found out it's just professionally speaking. You can't, you cannot, you can't, so sorry. I'm laughing, you can't help it. You can't say that a debate is booked before it's booked because sometimes people wouldn't like that. So I won't say that it's for sure, but I imagine, believe me that I'm pumped that it's seriously going to be so fun. So I hope you guys do subscribe. It's a reason to subscribe, you guys. I always tell you, we have future debates coming out. You know that for sure, because I'm telling you right now, and it's a live stream, or maybe you're watching this and it's a day or two later, but I got to tell you, we are excited. Numb is right, don't overhype, it's true. I've just pumped, and Ara Ejmekijian says, is he reading YouTube chat? I am reading YouTube chat, which reminds me, I forgot to read Twitch chat, sorry about that. As we are on Twitch as well, if you like Twitch, it's a lot more quiet over there, a lot more calm and peaceful. We average about three viewers per show on Twitch as we always stream their live as well. Yeah, we've got three in there right now. So if you're watching via Twitch, thanks for watching, we do appreciate it. And I've got to tell you guys, we appreciate it. Right now, Amaranth is streaming, but you're watching Modern Day Debate. You should feel good about that, I hope you feel special. You could also be watching David Pakman, he's on right now, but you're watching us. And Sansal, you're watching us instead, we appreciate that. Now, those last two I follow, but Amaranth is recommended to me. Does Twitter, or does Twitch think I'm a pervert? No offense, if you watch Amaranth, I'm not saying you're a pervert, but Gilgamesh says, destiny is banned, you can't stream him. Oh, really? Oh, wow. We just did it again. You know what? I forgot, that's true. We're not supposed to stream him on Twitch, but nonetheless, don't worry, we'll just delete the VOD, the VOD as the young people say. But I want to say, I want to say hello to you in chat. Kyle James says, James, did you forget about me, LOL? No, don't worry, I will read your gay super chats right now. Thank you for your, they're not really gay, they're just highly complimentary. So let me read these, we appreciate that. But here, let me get these two seconds. But yeah, we do, we gotta tell you, my dear friends, we always want you to be able to say what you want in the live chat, including your super chats that come on to me, as well as sometimes people debate in the old live chat, and sometimes they say, oh, James is a soy boy, and we want people to be able to say whatever they want. We don't want them feel like they're walking on eggshells, we want them to have that freedom. And let me get this, two seconds. Here's, I skipped the first one, because it was, Kyle James says, James, question to you, if you were in a situation where you had to defend yourself, or you think it's morally defensible to use those enormously muscular hammer arms you have to protect yourself. That's funny, it's a filter. I found out on OBS how to apply this filter, and it makes me look like I have hammer arms in your words. Kyle James also said, should we consider, do I have to read these, Kyle? Said, should we consider that when those that exist can skew the spectrum of what it means to be man or woman, what do we do when James has at least 10 standard deviations more manly than the next manly man? I appreciate that, thank you. Means a lot. Is that, I do love to work out. I encourage people to work out. It's great for you, for real. It is good for you, you'll enjoy it. And, you'd have a cue. Thanks, good to see you there in the old live chat. Says, James looks, hi. Let me find a good soundboard quote for that. But, this is, let's see. Ara, we're glad to have you here, as well as Kello V. Quayo and Num, as well as, Num says, if it's Shapiro, I'd legit come. Like, come to the show, I hope you mean, all right. Oh yeah, says Hunter Avalon versus Red Eagle. That would be cool. I'm gonna write that down, no joke, I am. Let me write that down right now. Thank you for that idea. I will reach out to them about that. Displaced Gamer says, James, who would you want to debate personally, and what would the topic be? That's a good question. You know what, I'd love to debate. I don't have anybody in particular big who takes like a stance that I know I'd for sure disagree on, and I also, I want them to be like, really big, shoot for the stars. But, I would love, I'd be open to debating, and I'd be kind of excited to debate, and it's a debate that I'd actually prep for, in the immediate future would be, so for example, I like debating, does God exist? I think that's a fun, classic, it's a fun debate topic. I've always thought that was fun. That's how I got started in debates, is philosophy of religion, and atheism, so that type of, you know, those, but I don't really feel compelled to do those topics now, it just doesn't do it for me as much, at least enough to where I would like take the time to prep for it right now, because while I'm getting my doctorate, it's so, I'm exhausted most of the time. One that I would prep though, I would prep for, and do it now, even before I graduate, would be, whether or not, the de-platforming debate, I think is fun, and it's something I'm personally vested in, because, you know, we've hosted controversial people in topics that some people are like, oh, what's the word I'm looking for? Gaffah, you know, they, like, they have this, they get on the moral high horse and say, oh, look at James, like, ha, ha, like, this is disgraceful, and I'm on the moral high horse, because, you know, and so I would want to, like I said, I wanted to be somebody big, so I don't want to debate like, I don't know, someone with influence, that's where I'd be like, all right, cool, let's do this, and so the reason is that it's something very relevant to modern day debate, because modern day debate, we host controversial people sometimes, or topics. Minecraft players says, I'm sorry if you looked that thing up, it's all right, it's funny, this is Hassan Ahmed, good to see you, and to have you in the live chat. Gina from Cologne, good to have you as well as Shetty Bear, thanks for coming by, says you can get hyped yourself, but not worth to talk about it yet, that's true, and so, shameless crowd, we're good to see you, Titan Uranus, thank you for coming by, says Shapiro would never do that, are you kidding me? Kyle James says James, did you forget about me, and then let's see, Gilgamesh says Destiny's Ben, you can't stream him, Kyle James, let's see, says I'm looking into your eyes, let's see, Hugh DeFecue says David Pakman is streaming Trump Rantz, not interested, and then let's see here, Boneclinks might be on two best live streamer, I've never seen, I've got a, thanks for letting me know that. Will Maher says Twitch is beta, this could be true, a lot of people are leaving Twitch, who wants to deal with Twitch? No offense, because I do appreciate that Brooke does a fantastic job as the head mod, and now we've got five Twitch viewers, so I do appreciate that Brooke does a fantastic job over there, and we like it as an option for people if they don't like the YouTube live chat, because it gets rowdy sometimes in the YouTube live chat, but I've got to tell you, in terms of Twitch, I'm not a huge fan, the reason is, it's like, jeez, everybody gets banned from Twitch, what was it, the streamer, Cuffles just got banned on Twitch or something, is that every, it was because Cuffles allegedly put on these words that were used, that saying like, I was called these words, and then despite that, so like Cuffles wasn't even calling somebody that, got in trouble, and so it's like, jeez, like even if, so for example, like if I said, now I know better than to say YouTube, I know there's certain words I can't say, even though like, so I personally, I got to be honest, I don't think it's immoral, like, so here's the thing, I obviously, I think it's immoral to say that, I don't know, what's a derogatory, I'll just use one for Christians, what's a derogatory word for Christians, I don't know, like maybe they call Christians like, I don't know, let me think, let me look this up, or, let's see, what is it? Derogatory, derogatory word for Christians, I don't, I'm trying to think of, there's got to be some, list of religious slurs, here we go, Bible beater or Bible basher, Bible thumper, let's see, fundies, like fun, I guess that means like fundamentalists, holy roller, you know, all those words, is that, I don't think it's wrong to say those words if you're saying like, yeah, I'm just like listing the words, I'm not calling some of that, like I'm not calling destiny a Bible thumper or something, like that would be where it's like, oh, you're using it as a term to attack somebody, so I'd see why you'd get in trouble for it, but that's just how Twitch is, like even if you're just saying, you know, like, if you were on Twitch and you were listing these words, so like what's a derogatory, instead of religious slurs, what's like a list of trans slurs, I know I can't read these out loud, but let's see, that just wouldn't fly, but well, I mean, I think on YouTube, I could probably like, I think that if they knew the context, like if I said like, if someone like this is a term like, apparently this is one, I'm just learning this, if you called someone a butch queen, that means a masculine looking drag queen, so which it doesn't even mean, but if you're a drag queen, that doesn't mean you're trans, those aren't the same, are they? I don't know, but the point is, if I say that, like I'm not gonna get nuked off of YouTube, because I'm not calling someone that, I didn't call like Destiny a butch queen, right? So, I mean, I thought about it, but the idea is, Twitch will ban you just, oh, you said the word, and like stuff like that, where it's just like, geez, a lot of influencers are leaving Twitch, because of that, because it's like, there's no context, although maybe people like mass flagged cuffles or whatever it is, I don't know, I don't know what's going on out there, I can't keep up with the news, you guys, in terms of the streamer sphere, the streamerverse, but let's see, go away says, I thought this was a neutral platform, how can you take a position? That's BS, that's true, I do take the position that like we, we're all about neutral, you know, like we think it's good to be neutral, and we also think it's, like I would be, I'd be willing to make the case, even on modern day debate, that platforming controversial, I mean, it's pretty obvious since we do it, like it's pretty obvious, everybody knows our position on it, but let's see, Hassan Ahmed says, someone like Alex Jones, Iron Horse says, I'm not even high, this one coming in from Bitter Truth says, hi, hi, Bitter Truth, good to see you, rigged election 2020 says, just let the topic pass, you don't want your peeps under the scope, you to have heck you, go, let's see, diesel or unleaded says, Sideshow Nav laughing, that's right, diesel or unleaded, we had to like, oh man, let's see. Kit, glad to have you here in the old live chat, EK, glad to have you in the live chat, good to see you there, I see you, and let's see here, oh yeah, this is Matt Walsh versus Vosh, and what is a woman round three? Did they already talk? I didn't know that they did, I tried to set that up, no joke, because did that actually happen? Cause I emailed Matt Walsh, and I'm like 99% sure, and I said like, hey, would you want to debate Vosh? Cause we'd love to host it. So, did they actually was Vosh in his like documentary or something? Oh, are they like responding to each other? Not like a, not, it's not like an in the moment debate, it's just like a video responses type of debate, if you want to call that, I get that, okay. This one, this one looks as if they're talking, oh no, now it's paused. So, but yeah, I tried to set that one up, but yeah, you know, some of these guys, I'm going to give you a, here's a base take, I'll come back to that. Nightmare on Woke Street says, James, when will you be hosting a presidential debate? That would be amazing, I completely agree, and let's see here, Peorium X says, damn, I missed the stream, hopefully I'll be here for the next one. Well, we're glad you're here better late than ever. Better Truth, Bitter Truth says, I'm an atheist, why? Because religions are representing the God who made a lot of mistakes in holy books. That's more of a super chat for tomorrow's debate topic, but let's see here, this one coming in for, I wonder if we talk about atheists, but nonetheless, let's see, limit break, but we're glad you're here, as an atheist, Bitter Truth, we are happy to have you, whether you be atheist, Christian, Muslim, you name it. Gilgamesh says, cozy Twitch chat, Jonathan Terrell says, those who Twitch get a snitch. Gina Cologne says, sorry, of course I meant second best after you, I appreciate that, appreciate your kind words, thank you. And limit break says, like that constant, uh, I mean, I don't understand, but Sheamus Crawford says, YouTube has more diverse view based on Twitch, everyone is a beta, that might be, and let's see, Gina from Cologne says, Twitch is super strict though, they ban people for everything, they do, yeah. So, Summer says, Bible beater, that is true, that is. Let's see, Gina from Cologne says, Kaphir, is that a Muslim word? Displaced Gamer says, I don't think you should ever be banned off, be banned for off platform stuff. Yeah, yeah, I can see what you mean, like, I do all sorts of like, sick and weird stuff in my off time, and I don't think YouTube or Twitch should be able to ban me for that. Manuel says, such nonsense, the YouTube chat is perfectly calm, reasonable, and with perfect agreement on every topic. Couldn't agree more. Hannah Anderson says, it was a beef between Keffels and Destiny. Oh, is that how Keffels has just got, what is it, nuked off of Twitch? I didn't know that. Oyas3 says, no did not happen, it was a pipe dream of mine. Oyas, what didn't happen? Oh, the red eagle politics versus Hunter Avalon. I could ask, that'd be fun. Oliver Katwell in the live chat says, hi, Saizonath, second daughter, just born yesterday, she's doing well. Congrats, Oliver, we are pumped for you, my dear friend. That's great. Exciting. So congrats on your second daughter, seriously, we hope you're doing well, we hope that your wife is doing well, we hope that your whole family is doing well. We're excited. So yeah, we are pumped, you guys. And let's be pumped for Oliver Katwell, who's been a good friend and a supporter of Modern Day Debate for a long time. And thanks Saizonath as well, huge supporter of Modern Day Debate, as well as Larry, I mean, Bruce. And also Let's Farm. And we have just so many supporters, I gotta say. And yeah, that's one way, we mentioned earlier, if you didn't hear it already, one way that you can support Modern Day Debate, if you're like, hey, I'd love to support it, but hey, there are very practical, real ways without spending a buck that you can support the channel that I wanna ask you to do for real, is if you share Modern Day Debate, and share this video in fact, I mean, the share button is right below the live video feed that you're watching right now if you've got your eyes on the screen, you can click on that share button, and then it's so convenient, I love this, I gotta be honest, to not be like this, but then YouTube made it way better, is it'll give you the link option, you can just copy the link, and then as an example, like right now I just did, I can go on to Twitter, I'm gonna do this right now, and I'm gonna actually model this for you, I'm gonna show you exactly what I mean, I go on Twitter, and now I just go on to this little group chat, and I'm sharing this link into this little Twitch group chat right now, what's the word I'm looking for? Cablamo, bingo, is that just like that, you can help us, because seriously, that classic word of mouth really does go a long way, it seriously does help a ton, so let's see, we appreciate your support as you guys do that, and yeah, I'm telling you, for real, you could share it with a friend, like maybe you've got a best friend, like I can send this right now to, let's look at my text messages, let's see who I've got here, like I can say, here's my friend, Sommar, I can like, I can pull up this, he's already in the live chat, so it doesn't make sense for me to send this to him, but let's see, Sommar's a nice, Sommar, you're a nice young man, I consider you a friend already, you're cool, honest guy, I appreciate that, I really do, and so I'm looking at the stream right now, and I click share, can you see it? Copy link, and then voila, I open my text messages, so if you right now have a friend, you're like, yeah, actually I do, if you're thinking, yeah, I do have a friend that would enjoy this, like they enjoy debates, and also, especially if you've got a friend who's like, yeah, you know that friend that you tell jokes to that are kind of inappropriate, and you know, but you know it's okay, you trust them, and you can say it to them, am I the only one that has that? You know like, it's like, you know, you can do like, it's not like terrible things that you say to that friend, but you know, maybe you make a joke, and you know that they like a channel like this, that's a little bit edgy, that's a great way of helping the channel, so we appreciate that for real. Paradise Shift, plant-based vegan Jedi, good to see you there in the old live chat, oxygen destroys chemical evolution, happy to have you here, my dear friend, as well as, I'm gonna go in a minute, it's getting kind of late. Let's Farm says, thanks James, always here for you when possible. Thank you very much, Let's Farm, seriously, that means a lot, I do appreciate that. Cruise Vandewark says, I'm a patron, it is my form of tithing. Appreciate your support as a patron, it really does mean a lot, and Kyle James says, apart from troll super chats, you are one of the best mods or hosts I've seen on most platforms. I appreciate that, that really does mean a lot, seriously, and we're working on that. We do, I try to get the troll super chats, I try to read that, I try to read them at the end now. So whenever, like I said, all the gay super chats that are like, James, you're hot, we read those at the end because I don't wanna subject the guests to that. So, but by the way, we've talked about this before, it's always men that will say that I'm hot in a live chat. You know, it wouldn't bother me if it was a woman for one stuff. The idea here is, it's just gotta be that men are just way more straightforward, and I've learned that myself. I've had experiences in real life where I've had one or two, I don't know, maybe, okay. You know, I've had a small handful of times women flagrantly hit on me in real life, but I've had equally as many men. And that might mean that I'm just insatiably irresistible for gay men. Or, I mean, it's like, well, what are the odds of that though? And it's probably that it's like, nah, not really. It's just that you get as much attention from gay men because men are just more likely to be more overt. It's, females speak, they generally on average are more covert in their communication, you know, more subtle. But men are much more likely to cat call, for example. And so, let's see here. Let's Farms, as I share every stream with over 1,800 people, James, just asked now. Thank you for that. Seriously, that does mean a lot. We appreciate that. And yes, man, it says James, do you plan on making any merch that we can buy to support modern day debate? We already have some merch. If you look below, you can see it there. And let's see. Oliver Katwell says, the really weird thing is that the OB was late. And so I ended up delivering her myself. That's a chance I never thought I'd have. Wow, I can't believe it, are you serious? That's crazy, brother, we gotta talk. Like, wow, that is cool. I can't believe it, I think that's crazy. That's exciting. Holy smokes. And Brian, have you delivered babies before? Cause it's convenient, you're a doctor. I mean, am I allowed to say that? You've got an MD next to your name in live chat, so people will know. But just kidding, that stands for modern day debate. But thanks for being a channel member, by the way. But yeah, that's amazing, though, seriously. And then Nicky says, wow, think how you'll embarrass her with her fiance someday with that story, that's funny. G-Day says, isn't the topic of tonight's debate significantly more philosophically nuanced and tricky than either debate or was implying? I agree with Destiny overall, but Rose was much better at thinking creatively on this topic. Well, I thought that they both, like, engage with it philosophically, like, I don't know. I actually thought it was a good, you know, like, I enjoyed it. But Da Whistler says, sup, good to see you. Happy to have you with us. John Taylor, good to see you in the early live chat. Glad to have you with us. And let's see, Kyle James says, I wanted the subject, the guest to the questions, though. That's funny, you're a nasty guy. And then, Seamus says, I like the Troll Super Jets, they improve this show, that's funny. Let's see here. Thank you, Gina from Cologne says, you are sexy, James. I'm pretty sure, are you a man? But appreciate it, thank you. And then John Taylor says, smite? That's right, we use smite because we thought YouTube might, like, it might not trigger as many. Since we already had the words abuser and rapist in the title, we thought we'd like try to soften it a little bit by putting smite instead of murder. And keeping ourselves under the YouTube radar, so to speak. Character 5.7 says, tell your wife to hit on you. I appreciate that. No wife, although, no, I won't, let's see. Someday, I will only say that. But let's see. Oh yeah, there's threes, as Trump is about to do a rally in Arizona. Is that so? Are you serious? Well, that's pretty interesting. But let's see here. Wanna say, Gina from Cologne says, no. Oh good, you're not a guy, thank you. I appreciate that. Let's see. Let's see. Kyle James says, have you tried getting Trump on for a debate? Not yet. Oliver Katwell, I am pumped for you. Character 5.7, good to see you. And then, let's see here. I gotta get going. It's getting late. Let's see. 1973 Deluxe, thanks for coming by. I see you there in the old live chat. We hope you're doing well. And Somers says, Smite is a good move since it's a semi-popular video game. Might get some MOBA fans. I don't know what MOBA means, but that's amazingly good news. Tranquilo says, this was Destiny's, let's see. My dear friends. Wanna say thank you guys for your support. It's been a fun time. I appreciate it. You guys, this is always fun. Amy will be moderating tomorrow's science debate. That'll be tomorrow at 9 p.m. You don't wanna miss it. It's gonna be amazing. And then, Raiden, the consultant. I see your Mortal Kombat avatar. I like that. You're speaking my language there, my friend, is I am pumped though. We are also gonna have, we're setting up a debate that is going to be, it's being arranged, but we have gotten in touch with Lauren Southern for a panel discussion on whether or not there's a war on women. And Lauren Southern and Alex Stein have already expressed interest in the topic. So I'm working on setting that up. I'm excited for that. We're probably gonna at least invite Nick back, Nick Fuentes, I don't know if he'll come. And then we've gotta find, in terms of those who would take the yes position, I'm finding out who that would be. Might be Merrick DeVille. I've already asked Stardust. Might invite Duby back. Maybe Hunter Avalon. Who's the list that I've got here? I would love to get Vosh, but I don't think Vosh is gonna wanna share a panel with Nick Fuentes. I don't think that that's gonna happen. And so that is something though we are working on setting up. So it is cool. We're excited about that. You will not wanna miss it. So thanks for your guys' support. Seriously, we love you guys. Thanks for everything. I am excited about the future, guys. Thanks for all of your support as we're working on some big projects. Keeping things fresh here at Moderate Debate. Changing things up, as we said. We are excited that probably within a week or two we're gonna release this in-person panel which is like our version of middle ground. And there are things that can be improved on this true. We're upgrading our cameras, for example, because there are a couple cameras we're using where it's like, yep, we are just not gonna use those anymore, there's not good enough. So I am actually upgrading, which is awesome. And then we are going to have those be a lot better as time goes by, because we're definitely gonna do more than one. We're excited about that. And then we're working on setting up a three-debate day, kind of like DebateCon. It's, we're hoping to do DebateCon maybe, I don't know. It's, we can't do it in person or I should say we can't have in-person guests for this one, but it's gonna be, probably you could call it just a Texas tour again. We've done that in the past. We are working on a Texas tour of debates where we would host these debates and we would basically be, believe me, it's gonna be epic when we do that. We're working on doing that in early September where there would be three big debates in one day. So I wanna say, thanks for all your support. Rose, Millette, good to see you. Am I saying it right? Millette, let me know, Rose. I see you there in the old live chat. But I wanna say thank you guys for all of your guys' support. And we love you, we hope you're doing well. Oliver Katwell said, it'd be cool to have Amy as a trans woman's view on a view on women. That would be a good idea. So I appreciate you saying that all over Katwell. And I wanna say thanks guys for your support. We love you, we hope you're doing well. We hope you have a great rest of your Friday. You guys, it's a special one. I always love getting to say this on a Friday. Welcome to the show, it's Friday. Thanks guys, appreciate you. It's always fun. And we look forward to seeing you at the next one. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable and take care.