 happy to have two experienced debaters back on modern day debate with us friends of the channel you could say who have been on many times and so we want to say a couple of things up front first if it's your first time here consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up we are very excited about for example this Saturday morning veganism is going to be on trial you could say as cosmic skeptic will be defending whether or not veganism is a moral obligation against Sterling so that should be a lot of fun folks a very big important question of our day so with that though I do want to let you know as well today we're gonna have a fairly you could say half debate half discussion type of format it's going to be a 10 minute opening from each side followed by a five minute rebuttal from each side and then 10 minutes of cross-examination toward each other then Q&A so if you have a question feel free to fire that question into the old live chat if you tag me with an at modern day debate makes it a little bit easier for me to make sure I see it and then super chat is of course an option as well so if you do a super chat it allows you to make a comment during the question and answer as well to which the debaters would of course get a chance to respond to we would just ask that whether it be a question or a comment that you'd be your friendly usual selves and do also want to say that a super chat would also push your question or comment to the top of the list as we go through the Q&A so with that very exciting stuff folks this is going to be a lot of fun we have want to let you know put both links of the speakers down the description so if you're listening and you're like hmm I like that I want more well you can have more because I put those links down there for you and with that folks we are going to jump right into this S J is going to be taking the lead with her opening statement followed by Skyler with his and so I have the timer set for you S J and Skyler but first let me just say before we do start the timer thanks so much both of you for being here it's a pleasure to have you both here thank you you're amazing James every day that I get to come on here and look at those that beautiful face of yours it's another day worth living James thank you a great job James I mean you've gone from sort of like zero to what do you have now 13,000 followers that you've just done an amazing job and you're bringing so many great people on I mean I'm just a humbled person on here compared to some of the greats that you brought in as far as some of the other names you had Matt Dilla Hunty and David Wood recently and that was a great debate to watch and you've had obviously an inspiring philosophy is one of my favorites too and so you've just been doing a great job thank you for your encouraging words all credit to the speakers is there like people like you who make this fun and so the more the merrier reminder folks we're a nonpartisan channel so whether you be Christian or atheist or one of the many strange creatures between we do hope you feel welcome no matter who you are what walk of life you're from and so with that thanks both of you for being here thanks for your kind words and I have the timer set for you for 10 minutes okay let me just share my screen here whoops host disabled participant screen sharing it says oh yeah yeah let me uh that's no problemo what I'm going to do is we've had this strangely it keeps kicking back in but what I'm going to do is I'm going to make you host and then you will uh until I can fix it you'll be able to do that okay that's right all right awesome dog has decided to start parking that's not good okay okay so let me slide show current slide okay so the question is do we have objective moral values and duties or more simply do we have objective morality and so to answer that I'm going to point to just two pictures two pictures in two different slides but I have the quiz is the treatment of the babies of prisoners in camp 14 in North Korea morally and objectively wrong in case you're not aware of what happened in camp 14 is this ban escaped he escaped by climbing over barbed wire fence over the body of another person who was escaping who had died on the barbed wire the barbed wire was electrified and he died and what happens in these places is people are so desperate for food that they eat their own babies in some cases and they the kids who are born into these camps have obviously no guilt of their own entire families around it up and thrown into the camps regardless of whether or not all of them had committed a supposed crime against a state so it's pretty bad there and I would say that yes we can say as a collective this is objectively morally wrong it is not a subjective opinion it's something that is stance independent now the next one so do we have objective morality if we have stance independent moral values and duties then we have objective moral morality we do have stance independent which are axiomatic moral values and duties accordingly we have objective morality now let me explain what that means to be stance independent means they do not vary as a function of anyone's per any person culture or generations opinion they are axiomatic another way word for that is self-evident like for example we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness I'm sure you've heard that so some examples of objective values that we have our truth justice equity in other word for that is fairness love and equality of opportunity these are something that we discover and I'm gonna talk about that in just a moment objective duties include the golden rule done studies and I'm gonna get to that in a minute too we have discovered that we have a categorical imperative to do what's right and to maximize values this is not a hypothetical imperative that was one of the big distinctions in the Matt Dilla huntee David Wood debate they were talking a lot about hypotheticals versus categoricals hypothetical would be saying if I do this then I get that so Matt Dilla huntee was trying to make that distinction by saying if we all agree that we want to maximize well-being then we have a foundation for the maximization of well-being and that is hypothetical again it should be distinguished of yes we just have this foundation do atheists acknowledge global universals and are they subject to change well yes actually got an atheist right here called Jonathan height he's out of the New York Stern School of Business he surveyed evolutionary theories and human and primate sociality along with the list of virtues etc and he identified five what he calls foundations of morality now again this suggests we have objective morality these are care these of course have their counterparts but care fairness loyalty authority and purity and liberty okay so we've got these different values and we could probably even add more in fact I think he's missing truth truth is a value that clearly we hold and again truth is not subject to anyone's opinion it's either the truth there's an absolute truth out there absolute facts and that's my case so we also have another example in different studies we've got these other examples of global universals in temperance justice transcendence humanity wisdom we've got other examples honesty charity mutual age generosity the prohibition of theft and homicide we've got examples of fairness and trust so what I'm saying is we find these all over the world we can say that trust I'm sorry this idea of say truth does not vary as a function of anyone's opinion something's either the truth or it's not the truth it just certainly exists it's not whether or not someone recognizes the truth that would be an epistemological error all right so then we have this issue with another idea according to caneer we found these objective moral values and duties and some of the values and duties include things such as a commitment to something greater than oneself self-respect respect and caring for others which is a golden rule and then of course caring for other things and the environment so what I'm looking at today is the question of whether moral values and duties exist so this is an ontological question ontology is a branch of metaphysics it's saying do we have a standard of good and bad values or right and wrong duties so moral ontology is to be distinguished from moral epistemology moral epistemology refers to the knowledge of morality and how one comes to know one's morals and it's not to be conflated with whether or not the morals exist for example just because johnny does not like math or learned math in this or that school or considers math to be of no value does not mean that math does not exist and we can apply this to a lot of moral questions so conclusion is our science doesn't allow us to say what the Nazis did during World War two or what Kim Jung-un has done in Korea is our conscience doesn't allow us to say that is not objectively wrong okay so I'm gonna get to Skyler's position but I think I think that might be 10 minutes if I'm not do I have much more time I do okay so I guess I'll go to another little slide here so Skyler position is this view of moral relativism actually he said it's moral subjectivism so he rejects the view that I hold he does not believe in that view at all and this is the view that we have no absolute truth it's a matter of opinions there are no moral facts when in Rome do is the Romans bribery is acceptable in China therefore I can go ahead and bribe in China according to this view female genital mutilation is acceptable in Somalia therefore we can do female genital mutilation in Somalia there's other examples in the British Pitcairn Islands where people routinely break in their ten-year-olds by having sex with them because it is acceptable in the British Pitcairn Islands what that means is that we have no means by which to judge these other people across the world who are really doing egregious human things to one another okay so they this is the idea again looking at this whether or not we have these objective moral values and standards I'm not looking at how people have come to discover them in some societies people have discovered in a better way than others so far like I would say for example when we compare the United States and our views on female genital mutilation and having sex with ten-year-olds to break them in we would say that that is morally wrong and we would say that we're vowing to this moral standard of treating people right doing what's right in the eyes of the Lord essentially so in this let me go back to this so if I would say we can look around the world and we will be able to identify places where people are doing things wrong but that does not mean that we do not have objective moral standards by which we should live so this idea that I'm saying going back to my original slide right here oh here's another one so we're what the Nazis did morally and objectively wrong look at that little boy down the right pretty bad so going back to this idea that I just want to reiterate before I get to let Skyler go ahead and I'll give some of my time back I guess is we have these objective values truth justice equity love equality of opportunity etc the idea is we try to achieve these values we discovered them over time we can go back into history and look at the time when Jesus lived for example when people didn't necessarily value the individual individual females were routinely put out on the streets for exposure males were a lot of time elevated over females females were treated as second-class citizens Jesus came and basically said we're all equal in fact st. Paul said that as well he neither slave nor free people are equal in the eyes of the Lord and so that those values this idea of the individual and individualism over the collective has been something that succeeded over the past 2000 years and as that time has grown on we've grown to come to appreciate these values we're discovering them and so we're holding these values to be true and so one of the other great things that I want to mention is a book by Tom Holland called Dominion because Tom Holland recognized the value of Christianity and what that's done for society and how that's even brought us to this whole value of equality so despite the fact we have differences in say height weight beauty IQ all these different differences one of the great things about the west is we've really appreciated this idea of Christianity and taken on the idea that we should value we hold these truths to be self-evident equality everyone gets equal treatment despite unequal incomes and in inputs I should say so that is it I will conclude and so Skyler is up next all right thanks so much for that SJ the floor is in just a moment we will hand over the floor to Skyler and then SJ what I would just ask you to do is we've had this glitch for some reason just keep popping up is when you are looking at your zoom window SJ if you could do me a favor and click on Skyler's button on the top right of his screen that will have three white dots on it and yeah if you will click make host that will pass over the ability for Skyler to share his screen as well if I want to change yes okay just it awesome thanks so much and folks very excited thanks so much for your questions so far we are going to turn it over to Skyler right now thanks for being here Skyler the floor is all yours yeah let me see if uh let me make sure this works first tell me if you can see me and the am I arguing it up can you see both absolutely okay perfect okay let me start my time okay so uh a lot to say here couple things I want to say first of all appreciate James Hostess and SJ for having this debate I want to say that there's a couple things that SJ had mentioned that are really not relevant to the debate first anything about moral relativism my position is not relevant to a debate on actually proving and showing that objective morals and values and duties exist so I'm not going to talk about my position very much during this actual debate the second thing what I would tell you is is that I didn't actually hear any demonstration of anything I heard you appeal to people lighten uh are really feeling like their morals are real and that people have similar morals throughout the world but that doesn't actually tell you if morals are objective if they're actually real things not uh regardless of you know human emotion opinion things along that line um and the the last thing before I get into my argument that you can see up here on the screen is that I want to talk about that this particular argument is geared towards SJ and the Christian foundation of God there were other uh views on objective morality from secular standpoints non-religious uh positions that have different types of arguments for while morals are objective I am specifically attacking the Christian foundation of objective morality because if you attack the foundation and the foundation can't exist there can be no objective morality in the way that SJ is articulating so let's just jump into it let's see here and hopefully hopefully during the rebuttal period you would actually hear SJ actually try or attempt to uh at least show why these premises are faulty uh maybe we'll get to that later on premise one God's nature is the root and foundation of morality I don't think that she's going to disagree with that fact I think she kind of made that argument in the beginning I've seen watching her videos uh I've actually seen her make this argument Christians in general believe us now are you gonna find a Christian every once in a while that may have a different uh out of the normal position on what morality is rooted in sure but SJ's position is God's nature is the root and foundation of morality God premise two can do nothing that goes against his nature so let's talk about his nature here for just a moment his nature is his essence his being that's what that's what they say like when they say God is justice God is love God is morality he is the literal standard of it the reason why something like lying is immoral is because God is not a liar it would go against God's nature nature to lie that's why God can't sin it would be literally doing something that's not within his nature to give you an analogy would be like think about the nature of a tree right now a tree you can you can cut it down you can make it into firewood you can burn it you can make it into furniture you can do many things with a tree but only what's available through its nature you can't make a tree turn into plutonium right you can't make a tree grow wings out of its back and fly it's not within its nature or its capability to do so so when you think about God God's nature is moral perfect like the absence of that morality the the opposite of it is what sin is it's why it's you know it is not moral to lie because lying would go against God's nature so just to kind of really clear out premise two so God can do nothing that can go against his nature well yeah it's just like so you know God can do nothing logically impossible is another way to say this too if it's not in God's nature to be evil because evil is the opposite of God how could God do evil it's not possible premise three ordering people to do evil would go against God's nature because once again committing evil doing evil having people do an action that goes against his nature uh it would if he just can't do something that is a moral because he can't do what's in his he can't do what is against his very nature premise four executing babies is easy easy not easy it can be easy i guess to some of the israelites in the bible or god but premise three ordering uh sorry premise four executing babies is evil listen sjm that's what i was so happy sj started with this estuary literally told you guys in the beginning that when north korea executes babies the action of executing babies is a moral and she asked you guys she went and anybody out there think that executing babies is moral god does christians to follow their god uh and believe that god ordered human beings to execute babies they believe that god is moral for doing so um maybe they don't you know that's the thing we're gonna see so we're gonna premise four executing babies evil i don't think sj's gonna disagree with that maybe she will i mean if she doesn't disagree executing babies is evil you know there may not be a contradiction there but then we'd you'd have to be forced in the position that you know it's totally cool to execute babies not immoral uh premise five god has ordered humans to execute babies this is very clear i can give you multiple verses uh you know what i'm not going to switch screens but i can tell you first samuel i can go to deuteronomy where tells you to kill little boys uh after you invade a city there are numerous cases the many a knights i mean you got it i'm a gaelic aides k and knights all the aides god uh has them go wipe out complete civilizations and then of course as you guys are very familiar with some of my arguments about this uh first samuel is the most clear so i'm not going to go into those you can go look them up yourself if you need them he's going to uh he's going against his own nature this is a contradiction and thus this god you propose is not logically possible right you think about all the times like if you said you were to ask a christian would god ever order a human being to rape a child like they're gonna say of course their initial response by the christians going to be like absolutely not god cannot order people to do immoral actions but unless you're going to call it moral to execute children how could you make that argument course god you would have to at least admit god can order immoral actions stuff that is evil but then that's strange because then how could god you know if if ordering let's if it is immoral or evil to order or command someone to execute a baby how could god command somebody to execute a baby if it's evil unless you're going to argue that's not evil the ordering and commanding of that so let's see here we stop share because i want to go back to some of the notes i made when you were talking here one seconds uh yeah i would say that the main thing i had issue with is when you were kind of giving your opening is you didn't actually provide any evidence uh besides just saying people really feel like these morals are real and you point it to people having um similarities i mean if we want to play that game i could just point to a time in history where women were basically property owned and bought as your bible allows and god allows uh was it a no like i said is it is it morally okay to own women as property for them to have no rights why would god tell people they could do it uh okay oh with your study which would be really interesting reading the study actually you said that uh they were able to come up with five foundations isn't god the foundation what are their founders are they saying the actual morals of the foundation are they saying god where where are they saying these morals come from in that study i'd like to how i'd like to know how you actually could know that there are actual objective standards by doing a study besides just literally asking in people's opinions and and ideas uh are doing surveys um you said something about i don't you said something about absolute truth i don't know what truth and morality they're not exactly the same thing i believe in truth you through the word absolute truth in front of it i don't know what that means in comparison to truth something's true it's true you get knowing the word absolutely in front of it doesn't do anything doesn't make a statement less true by saying it's absolutely true or whatever uh so i don't know i do believe in truth i just don't believe there are moral facts uh when we get in close to out of time here i'll just say that i would just really hope that there is some type of uh something more than just claims about whether more you know these moral values exist when i get into my cross examination i'll show you even further how when you root these morals in god uh it really falls apart even further but i'll give up the rest of my time and uh thank you we will now switch it over into the five minute rebuttal portion so thanks so much folks for all of your questions so far i'm keeping an eye on the live chat and sj i've got the timer set for your five minute rebuttal floor is all yours excellent can you pass me as host again i'm sorry if oh that's uh skylar if you're uh i had reset it in the settings on zoom but now it just keeps resetting itself so um skylar okay on the top right you'll see an option yeah thanks for your ability you got it no worries yeah you're all good all right thank you sorry for that okay well here's the quandary that skylar is in uh to win this debate which is focusing on whether we have objective morality skylar cannot reject his own position to appeal to objective morality if he does so he's exposed the inherent flaws in his position so the debate question was not about god and the foundation of morality the big question spoke to moral ontology whether or not the question is do objective moral values exist this is an ontological question and so to to debate this i prepared by actually looking at the position skylar has i have a moral realist position within this ontological framework and skylar has a moral subjectivist or relativist position so what a relativist does is a relativist says that everything's relative and you can't judge another culture however skylar has basically rejected his own moral subjectivist position to grab on to my position and say that what god did back in the old testament was objectively wrong essentially he's rejected his position and smuggled in my position to say it's objectively wrong what anything happened in the old testament he is not allowed to do that under his own framework so skylar essentially has already lost the debate and so let me go on to some more points again two types of moral ontology moral realism and moral relativism so realists believe one truth exists and truth is unchanging and discoverable feel objective measurements this is a deductive approach which suggests one can start from a generalization to make specific hypotheses about reality moral relativists believe that truth does not exist without meaning truth is dependent upon the meaning you attach to it reality is created and evolves and changes depending on one context and situation this is an inductive approach and so if whether morality exists is a medical question of moral ontology using epistemological evidence of how we developed it is not going to be or was going to be a problem it's a category error whether we have universal and objective moral values as is is a descriptive question if we have duties this is a prescriptive question so if someone tries to say that you can use biology evolutionary biology to try to explain whether we have moral duties they are making a category error because biology and evolution can only explain descriptions not prescriptions universals have been identified supporting the axiomatic truths of life liberty equity equality justice and truth without such universal and objective moral values and duties we cannot condemn the most egregious practices in societies which is why our discovered moral facts have been codified by governing entities so of course Skyler is going to go into some of the issues that were in the Old Testament but again what he's doing is he's rejecting his own position of moral subjectivism taking my position of moral objectivism unless Skyler is willing to do that and reject his moral relativism or subjectivism and say that he will endorse the moral objective values and duties that we have I've essentially won the debate but I will entertain for the purpose of Skyler's presentation more time on discussing what he wants to discuss because of course yes morally is grounded in God they have no other explanation that would explain what grounds morality if it transcends cultures peoples and generations the grounding must also transcend cultures peoples and generations so it logically follows that our morality is grounded in a transcendent being or mind and that would be God and so I just gave Skyler a little bit of a bone because that's going way past what our debate was supposed to cover so I will turn it over to Skyler now thanks so much and same deal if you're willing to make uh well I should say unless Skyler doesn't need slides anymore if you're willing to just unshare we will switch back into the dialogue box no problem yes thank you yeah I do need it you're all making I'm making a lot of me there's a great host very excited folks if you haven't heard Wotan the Flat Earther will be back this Friday he is it's a short retirement I don't know if you heard last Friday we had heard that Wotan he told me that he was pretty much done uh during the pandemic but he is now back and so he is uh excited to take on planter walk that should be a lot of fun so I uh got the timer all set for you Skyler and the floor is all yours whenever you're ready yeah I uh let's see here I am so confused right now because first of all when setting up this debate we've talked over and over again we were going to talk about the foundation of objective morals being God that's what we've been discussing for months and somehow you're you're pretending like that isn't your foundation all of a sudden now we're going to turn to General Theos okay oh I'm sorry this is my time you can't really interrupt me all right I'm going to start my time again here uh so the thing is is that we've been talking forever about setting this debate up and the foundation would be that you're God right so that is what this is about now uh the hilarity is you're talking about my my moral system what does my moral system have to do with anything that I made an argument for I didn't make moral judgments I did an internal critique using your values those premises if you want to disagree with one of my premises you are more than happy to do so but I don't think there's anything you disagree with here well maybe besides the God being evil but God's nature is rooted in the foundation of morality obviously I don't believe in God so this isn't I'm doing an internal critique here so the dishonesty by saying that as if this has no relevance on your position uh in the fact you do five minutes not to even bother to go after the argument I took the time to make an argument you didn't even take any of that five minutes to actually address it right instead what you did was you read your pre written response to something you anticipated that I was going to argue I didn't even have that formula yet when you wrote that so why instead of taking that five minutes and just going back to your script that you wrote that is not even based on what I actually argue why would you do that doesn't make any sense it would have been much more productive to actually deal with my argument let's keep going though God can do nothing that goes against his nature I'm pretty sure that christian would agree with that you can feel free to do that premise three ordering people to do evil would go against God's nature do you disagree with that premise four executing babies is evil you put a thumb nail up I'm using what you said to show you that God commits evil actions and commands evil actions I'm using your worldview my moral subjectivism has nothing to do with this debate and conversation right we don't have to like if we were arguing whether a flat earth right say we're arguing a flat earth debate and we're using science to debate each other whether the earth was flat around would we bring my moral positions into it would my moral positions be relevant to the data and proving what you're actually arguing no they wouldn't so this is a giant straw man because this is what I think you probably maybe wanted the debate to be more about but anyways so uh you're going to have to argue whoops actually hold on a second let's unshare this I'm gonna go to my notes that I have up here he's still got the three minutes left he won't laugh uh let's just read let's just read what God does uh let's do the women and children one where is it come on now damn okay I mean all right you know you're not going to do that uh I mean you would have to argue if you know if a man sells his daughter as a servant she is not to go free as a male for as a servants do and she does not please the master who's selected for himself he must let let her be redeemed he is the right to sell her to foreigners you'd have to uh he has no right to sell to foreigners you're gonna have to basically argue that it's moral to uh for men to sell their daughters into slavery uh to get out of debt there's so many things are going to be forced to argue here anyways I'm really interested in actually hearing you address my argument uh I'm doing an internal critique once again I'm not using my own moral system it's irrelevant your its onus is on you to show that moral facts exist simply pointing to people saying they exist are feeling like they exist uh or even say my moral position is wrong hey maybe my moral position is wrong it doesn't make yours right it doesn't mean that the moral foundations are in god uh and this is why I said all this in the beginning but anyways I'll give the rest of my minute up we can go to the next section we will go into the cross examination now so thanks so much folks we are going to set the timer for 10 minutes where SJ will be going first this is you can say pretty flexible for cross exams the speakers if they want can use it to just ask questions in a strict sense or to have it be like half questions half dialogue or full dialogue so with that SJ the floor is all yours okay thank you and so I wanted to just so the audience knows exactly what the conversation was that led to this debate topic it says right here in my direct message that you have as well and James and Schuyler uh James said I could do 1 pm EDT this Wednesday but have to be done for sure by 3 45 sound good and what title do you want Schuyler writes I know we were debating existence of objective moral values is there a specific wording you prefer I'm good for time and date so Schuyler actually said that's what we're debating I'll also he writes I believe SJ wants a format I'm good with whatever as long as there is a cross examination portion and so I came up with the question do objective moral values in duties exist James says sure that works and then we were off and Schuyler wrote perfect okay so that is a quote so yes the title and the topic had already been predetermined by us in our conversation and so I realized that Schuyler prepared to talk about God and he wants to talk about the Old Testament which is why I prepared in advance because I've listened to multiple uh conversations with Schuyler and other people where Schuyler has basically condemned what God does in the Old Testament which is a very contradictory position for a moral subjectivist in the first place so Kyler Schuyler essentially has to reject his own uh theological not theological yet reject his own position in moral ontology of moral subjectivism to pick up my position of moral realism to make a claim that something that occurred in the past is morally wrong and so Schuyler is essentially doing that and so do I get to restart my question this well no no this isn't this is a conversation between us this is the time where you ask questions this isn't just your opening speech Scott Schuyler I I get to have my 10 minutes I haven't asked you a question yet we have a oh no this oh you oh you just want to monologue for your 10 minutes okay go ahead no no James said that we could each do what we wanted to do yeah go ahead do what you want go ahead keep going keep going okay so I want to ask you as a moral subjectivist how can you condemn any culture in the past how does a moral subjectivist do that I I don't know what do you mean by condemn how do I condemn them I don't typically go and condemn cultures from the past generally you're like I would say that they I would say that they did things against my moral system okay so why is it wrong wrong wrong in what sense why is it wrong what people did in the ancient past no but I mean what sense are you using the word wrong under my moral system why is it wrong under my moral system but how would you be able to like if you're saying it's wrong and actually well that's just Schuyler's opinion how are you going to convince anybody that your opinion is correct when everyone's opinion holds equal value according to your moral framework well that's I don't believe everybody's opinion it holds equal value to me I think people's opinions have different values to me so that's straw man on my position so why is your opinion that something happened that was wrong in the ancient times why should that matter it doesn't have to matter to you so why did you share it I don't I point out contradictions usually when I'm talking about the past it's within about biblical contradictions and what I'm doing is an internal critique you don't see me necessarily raging about like genghis kong on my channel and what he's done in the past I just I talk about biblical contradictions and the uh how god isn't coherent that's what I'm talking about and this is what I said before I this is what I'm confused you keep saying that I'm using my own judgment moral system but I'm doing an internal critique I'm using your god's own moral system that's why I put that argument up that you still have not addressed yet so what you're doing is you're basically taking and I'll let you use your time to ask me those kind of questions but what you're doing under your system as I understand it you can correct me if I'm wrong is you say number one you're a moral subjectivist number two something that occurred in the ancient past is morally wrong no don't say that no I didn't say that okay so it's not morally wrong what happened in the ancient world morally wrong under what my own standard yes are you asking me okay so basically what you're saying is Skyler do you have opinions about what people have done in the past and I would say yes okay so but it's not objectively morally wrong of course of course of course this is what our whole debates on SJ is are things objectively morally wrong once again my moral relativism doesn't demonstrate that moral objection or moral facts exist this is a waste of time you're literally asking me questions about positions that aren't relevant to you demonstrating what the debate is about okay we already decided what the debate was about in our direct message do objective morals exist and this has nothing to do with objective morals existing of course it does because now I want to get to did what the moral relativism has to do with moral objective sorry my moral relativism could be wrong I'm answering your question if moral relativism could be wrong it doesn't mean your position is correct okay so did what the Nazis did in Germany was that morally wrong under my moral standard yeah okay so it's I mean you're asking questions you know the answer to already like this is weird like what do you what don't you understand like what are you trying to what's your argument maybe that might help or what are you trying to get at like you're basically you're like are you a moral subjectivist yes is this wrong a subjectivist cannot make I mean subjectivist opinions don't hold any water they don't you don't have to they don't have to hold water world if the whole world engaged in moral subjectivism which is what your position is if the whole world engaged in moral subjectivism no one's opinion is any more value than other people's opinion no that's not true yes in an objective way in an objective but guess what that's why you think it why well the problem is okay go ahead finish your statement no what I'm I wasn't able to get my statement I got my 10 you can have as much time as you want your 10 minutes well I thought I thought this was you asking me if you just if you just wanted a monologue you could just take the 10 minutes about this is where usually when you ask questions and try to make an argument but go ahead I'm I'm trying to make an argument but you're not letting me get my point out okay so what I want to say is that if we can look back if everyone in the world is a moral subjectivist and and everyone basically says some people say we want to maximize well-being some people say we want to maximize human flourishing other people basically say we don't we don't care about people we don't want to maximize well-being there are people like not just out there nazis right so nazis decided what they did within their culture from a cultural relativism perspective the nazis were only following orders remember the numerals well and following their morals and following their morals so they were following orders they were going and their morals and their morals don't forget that part so no they were searing their consciences to be able to get away with this what that's a nice claim it's a nice claim but you're not going to be able to demonstrate that what they did was they they basically would dehumanize people they would treat the jewish people as if they were rats they actually ran a bunch of propaganda claiming that jewish people were rats in order to get people to be able to justify something that was in their conscience that they knew was incorrect because we all have a conscience thank god for roman's 215 that told us that but we all have a conscience and the idea of the reason why we have these objective moral duties we have a world that basically said we have self-evident axiomatic truths of life liberty the pursuit of justice freedom those were all what the nazis violated so the nazis objectively violated certain values that we all had self-evident so my position which is the debate topic of does objective morality exist yes objective morality exists because we have self-evident truths that transcend generations and time and people so i'll go to you now okay was there a question somewhere built into it or was it just like a bunch of empty claims you want to throw out because i didn't actually hear you you just saying that basically that these things the nazis had a conscience and this was against their conscience and these things are really wrong like i'm just telling you this doesn't isn't an argument sj like this is just basically regurgitating your claim you if you're gonna argue you're literally argue i'm sorry god does a lot of the same things that adolf hitler did okay so i'm gonna ask you your last do you want me to ask a last question or do you want me to turn it over and you can whatever you want to do you can ask the next question okay so my last question i'll give you my last question is did you agree to the debate title in the direct message i did after lots of back talk between us privately through many conversations and you saying that we were going to root it in god's nature i mean it does work with the debate it's not like the debate topics off right like your point is to say objective moral facts exist right your foundation is god and i'm showing you how the way you put them in a foundation makes it so it can exist the way that you're arguing so i'm on topic i don't know why you think that by attacking the christian god i can't stay on topic that's the position you hold i'm attacking your position i'm showing why it's contradictory that's why i agreed to the debate so there you go i suppose now would be the time where we there's about 30 seconds left sj if you want to switch over to the cross examination 10 minute section from skylar we can do that otherwise you have that last 30 seconds if you want to use it please oh i'm good i'm good you got it so we will switch over setting the timer for 10 seconds or 10 minutes for skylar and then he'll be doing his cross examination of sj right now skylar the floor is all yours give me one second i'm sorry okay um all right i'm gonna do what you did in your video where i ask you questions and you can just tell me if something's moral or not you asked all these questions about nazis and things so just tell me is it objectively morally good to sell your daughter in a marriage to get out of debt no no so deuteronomy god tells people they can do that uh number two is the act of circumcision an objectively morally good thing yes yes so medulating men's penises or it is a morally good thing to harm a baby makes them less like a disease later so it's actually something that's actually not it's actually not really less likely just if you if you actually clean your thing you actually clean your skin there you actually have no issue what about as far as i go so so uh well people who don't let their own fault they're dirty uh so clean your junk folks don't be dirty uh so basically it's moral it's not against god's moral nature to have people take a baby cut the skin of the penis off of its forehead and cause it pain and suffering i have no problem with circumcision i actually think it's a good practice for your health good you you agree with me laying babies penises uh number three is it morally good action that god uh oh here is is it a morally good action for god to make his own creation commit acts of cannibalism on their own children no god didn't actually he doesn't want his he doesn't want anybody killing their own child sacrificing them and actually you've asked me i'll cut you off there yeah that's actually incorrect i'm gonna keep going my questions that's actually i can give you Jeremiah actually he says that uh he's gonna do that i'll give you the if you want the quote for it real quick it's Jeremiah nine uh where he tells you that he will make parents eat their their baby unfortunately let me just do that real quick if you want it would you like the actual scripture for it or well the context that you have to go with the whole context scholar that's one of the problems here it is all robert no it's okay no i got i got SJSGL i'll do mine and i will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters and they shall eat everyone the flesh of his friend and the siege and the straightness we're in their enemies and then they seek their life shall straighten Jeremiah nine nine okay next question uh is it more than good to take women and children as plunder during more time let me go back to all of your questions have let me just answer it just in general because your questions are all going to be like a gish gallop essentially of asking me that's not what a gish gallop is now i'm just asking you a question i just i just no no no no no this is my time hold on my time answer it i just like no no no sj sj i would just like sj sj here i'm you know i'm gonna give you but i'd like here so i would like you to answer i would like you yes sir oh sj sj scholar you didn't need any moderation here a second if he's officially doesn't stop talking sj here's how i'd like you to answer if you're able to but the yes is i mean if there is a question if you if you want to say it's rhetorical that's fine but like otherwise no no no but i'm explaining how i here's how i want i want a yes or no and then you can explain your answer is that fair i have to be able to first explain the answer before i say yes or no no you need to say yes or no no you can say yes or no and then you can explain your answer i'm just not gonna do that all right that's fine then i'll just keep asking questions i can't explain my answers i don't see a reason to answer is it morally good to execute a baby let me explain what skyler's doing here so what we have no no no no no no i'm sorry no no no this isn't your time this is your time to answer questions sj it's not your time to tell you what you think i'm doing please help james this isn't this isn't a moderation sj this is a this isn't a moderation issue you follow the rules i'm asking you questions this is your time to answer the questions and please do it it's a it's a little bit difficult that i mean like if sja like asked a question and the other person answered it in such a way that it wasn't in yes no like i normally would kind of be like like people are going to answer the way they want like i um wouldn't i can't like i don't want to like force that we've never like forced anybody's hand no that's fine this she doesn't want to answer that's fine don't answer no i do want to answer but i want to know my answer yeah i'm going to let you explain but you need to tell me whether it's moral or not then you can explain why it's more or not moral it's very simple i have to first be able to explain the context of the so you know no you can't i'm sorry was it moral to excuse babies or not oh here let's do this forget hold on let's just go over my okay where are we at time wise because we waste a lot of time with sj not answered because i'd like to actually go to my argument got about five and let's do my argument all right let's do that then let's go to my actually okay let's go to my premises of my argument and see tell me which premise you don't agree with is it god's nature is the root and foundation of morality is that true that's true premise to can god god can do nothing that goes against his nature god is the standard of moral being true true number three premise three ordering people to do evil would go against god's nature that goes to what kleitarko said so kleitarko stated that as the flame burning the child surrounded the body the limbs would shrivel up and the mouth would appear to grin as if laughing until it was shrunk enough to slip into the cauldron this was referring to the practice that cananites and other ancient peoples had of sacrificing their own children in the arms of ball and it was a terrible practice so early first century and second century people actually gave us evidence in archaeology they gave us evidence and writings sj answer the question that's one of the reasons why god decided to terminate all of these people including babies in this case was because he realized what they were capable of doing and god and his omniscience sj sj sj please pause please you're you're overrunning your time i want to know do you accept the premise or not i don't have what's the premise or ordering people to do evil would go against god's nature do you accept that premise god doesn't order people to do evil now okay fine but it would be but if he did it would go against his nature he just doesn't do it he doesn't order correct that's fine but i yes so premise three you accept you're saying that god so ordering people to do evil would go against the god's nature you're not accepting no i'm saying i hear that you're saying that he doesn't do that he doesn't but you're not okay yes that's fine we're not saying that he does it at this point i'm just getting human knowledge that if he did do that that would go against his own nature and that's why he won't do that he hasn't done it he actually it was it sj sj yes yes yes yes i'm do you accept the premise yet you're really difficult to debate with no the problem is sj you know is the problem is you're dodging what i'm asking you do you accept the premise or not told you you accept the premise or not i've already said i i've already said three times i rejected the premise skyline so you reject a price so god can do things that are against his own nature no i reject the premise that god has done that that's not that's not the premise we're at sj that's premise four or five we're still a premise three i believe okay well i don't have your premises right i know listen listen ordering people to do evil would go against god's nature it's not saying he did it it just says if he was to do it it would be going against his nature that's logical all right i'll move on to the next one i know shit sj he didn't do it but that's not what i'm asking you p premise four executing babies is immoral or is evil circumstantial it depends on the situation if it's evil to kill babies that what you just said it depends on the situation okay so sometimes it's okay to kill babies it's more sometimes within a culture such as the canaanites yes well you believe morals are absolute doesn't matter if it's just the culture no i believe i'm sorry i'm sorry so that value is relative to the culture wait i know who the people are i believe that god realized that babies in those cultures were going to be suffering if they became adults so he merely changed the location from earth to heaven no he well when you say he didn't just take them up to heaven he told people to go in with swords and slice them open so let's be a little real he didn't just like change your location would be such a change your location no yeah bye okay this is sj hey i'm just gonna change my son's location by chopping off his head and throwing him in a dumpster just changing this you don't believe in heaven but i do and i believe that those babies i know yeah i got you i know but you know after they were executed okay uh so it's i guess well good if you if you think babies can be executed sometimes it's morally correct that's on you man then i'll just stop with the argument because the argument doesn't work because you think that killing babies isn't necessarily evil it's not a moral it's not an objective moral fact that it's evil to kill babies it was god's tremendous mercy that he had on these people that he realized that he didn't want him to live in such a horrible culture where things like rape and bestiality and all kinds of other horrible horrific i hate to tell you this sj but he didn't have to violently kill kids to achieve his goal he could have took all the souls out of the babies no but what he does is then and then the opposite the other part of this sj is what he makes soldiers do he makes imagine our government made us soldiers go into cities across in different countries and execute children and babies like ordered them to do it think about the mental anguish and the awfulness what a evil act that is would you call it evil excuse would it be evil for a general to command a soldier to go kill baby no you don't kill women and children that's always been the rule so that would be evil so it's always evil when you kill women and children see the the uniqueness about it oh no you just said yes is it always evil to kill women and children no it's not always evil it's it's okay sometimes well it depends on if the person who's the general so it's relative then it's not absolutely sorry you're you're so bad with your foundation doesn't change sorry you're okay if you're saying it's okay in some situations it's okay in others it's not okay in others your foundation changes you don't have a foundation what you do is you have moral relativism masking it like moral uh objectivism okay thank you james i appreciate you really i mean it's awful we're now going to get terrible let's say sorry buddy so thanks so much everybody for your questions i'm going to be reading through as many as we possibly can with the time that we have so it's been about an hour of debate and we usually do about 25 30 minutes of Q&A so thanks so much for all of your questions do want to mention i am so sorry i was like distracted at the start of the debate so it was only now or i should say well not now but like 20 minutes ago that i got the speaker's links in the description so do encourage you check those out we have got i think even more people now here so if you have enjoyed what you've heard and you're like who's this i've never heard before well now is your chance you can hear more from them as i put both of their links in the description just for you so thanks so much starting with a super chat from none other than our good friend steven steen nasty guy says who there's just no way for skylark to refute this you never know if he's serious he's a troll thanks for that stupid whore i mean if you want to respond you can skylark but i think you know steven my daughter just give me your gift i'm on a debate i'm debating people on the internet folks anyway sorry no no no you know what steven listen the truth is steven has a secret love for me and i didn't want to make this public but i think you'll i think it's good for him to get it out there you know get those feelings out the table all right james we can go on thank you for that and stupid whore energy thanks for your super chat she says objective means mind independent not stance independent sj if you want to respond to that i think that's toward you yeah i would the academic literature on objective morality quite clearly calls it stance independent something that i get out of the journal of business ethics if you'd like a reference next up thanks for your super chat from brian stevens who says super chatting to bump my question i hope gotcha thanks for that darn it all i have to find your question now so sorry about that shoot your question to me i must have missed it because i don't have it here in the list i've got nathans but uh brian so sorry about that uh michael the canadian atheist thanks for your super chat who said sj the golden rule breaks down hitchhens laid this out what do we do when we're faced with charles manson we want him treated differently than we'd want to be treated ourselves or do you disagree uh we i what would i would want with the golden rule basically says we want to ensure that we treat others as we treat ourselves and it's this idea of mercy and justice and so with charles manson i would be want to ensure that yes we have some mercy and in some some sense but of course we want him to have a just serving of his sense so we want to make sure that he gets justice regardless of whether or not uh we feel if we were in his position if i were charles manson and i did what i would do i would expect that people would want to hold me accountable and that i would have to face justice of long-term imprisonment or death gotcha thanks very much appreciate that and divine disbelief thanks for your super chat as well they asked sj if we in america have better values why are we defending separating families seeking asylum and keeping children in camps or japanese americans i've never supported that so i know we have a democrat political republican divide in that idea i actually am in favor of immigration and relaxing the restrictions on the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are in this country i think that's a great move i think we need to move towards that and i first sure support the idea of allowing their children to remain in this country and go to our schools under dakka gotcha thanks so much for your super chat joziah bradbury appreciate it they asked sj doesn't the fact that morals differ mean that it isn't objective you say that we all can see it's wrong but obviously not everyone does okay that's the question of this epistemology versus ontology so the question is do morale morals exist and so the comparison i can give to explain this point is the math comparison just because i don't appreciate math or i don't like math or i don't understand math or i haven't come to discover math doesn't mean that math doesn't exist same thing with a lot of different things so just because i don't appreciate a globe or i don't believe in the globe i mean this could be a flat earthers argument and it's just the idea is the globe exists to say it's a fundamental truth gotcha can i can i just say too with this question that part of the problem which i was going to do a two kind of part of my my uh my arguments but is that like there's this just hidden morality from all of us and we have to discover it right it's weird that morality was hidden for like thousands of years where women were literally treated like human property and were rape brutally owned bought sold slavery all these things all some somehow like what good is having a moral system god wants us to follow if it's going to take thousands of years for us to discover it right it seems like it would be a much more functional tool if we all had it to begin with so there are some serious issues with this idea of like moral progression and this true you know there's these other morals but there's these really real morals that are up there in the sky that we just have to get access to and then we'll be able to be moral beings that was the beauty of of jesus christ just appearing because jesus actually gave us the example by which we now live and so we've noticed morality improved over the last 2000 years thanks to jesus and his example of humility and selfless love well there's no improvement on morality there's that was the uh the super chat was originally for sj so i'm gonna give her the last word on that yeah brian steven sticks your question who asks question could god have commanded the israelites to raise the babies instead would this have been more moral yes or no so two questions in there could god have done it would it have been more moral one of the issues that happens in the past and why that what this wasn't the case and why this didn't happen is something that people called retribution and so the babies if they were raised they would do retribution because that was something that was uh their cultures would have taught them and they would have discovered at some point they would come back and kill the israelites who had raised them that's so ridiculous like think about i'll let you think about if you took a nazi baby let's say a baby of a nazi soldier right you took it home to america before uh it ever grew up in nazi germany say you never talked about nazi germany or anything like that do you think that somehow that baby's gonna have knowledge that would make it want to seek revenge one day on this other nation like and then if you taught the kid also about how awful the parents were like hey just let you know you know your parents were cannibals they were raping children like you're growing up in our culture where you're you're going to assimilate into our cultural norms which would you prefer would you rather stayed somewhere where you you were going to be eaten and raped or taken with us would you still want to seek revenge give me a break well we don't have you know it's because it was a question directed to me is we don't have the same sort of codes of retribution that they had in the ancient times so we can't really exactly compare a nazi baby in modern times to what happened in ancient times it wouldn't know sj if you took a baby to america and it never knew anything about that culture how would it know about retribution we're going to give sj the last word on it wouldn't and i've got to get back into the questions just because i don't want it to be kind of like a team up where we got two people getting to kind of jump on sj each time so sj go ahead and then we'll go back to the next one go ahead sj i'm just going to say that ancient near east was a really rough place and people in a lot of these cultures were doing horrible things and so they were they were doing things like they were worshiping gods and having sex in temples to try to appease the gods they were worshiping they were they were sacrificing their children to ball in his arms burning him because they thought they'd get better crops because they valued crops better than people back in those times individuals were given no value so thankfully jesus when he appeared completely changed the game and now we have a beautiful you know much better richer west that's also influenced the rest of the world in very positive ways with given women rights and and babies rights and hospitals and facilities for education and universities and everyone's equally entitled to get these sort of uh these you know we're all entitled to certain laws we're all equally treated under the law goes totally against the digital code of Hammurabi for example but anyway i just want to say that that trying to compare our culture today to the past uh is flawed in a couple of ways especially if you're a moral subjectivist next up let's see apollo jedi thanks for your super chat said skyler missed the topic and thus already lost no i think the topics was do objective morals exist and uh i took what sj's argument was and how she views is the foundation of her god and the foundation of these morals and showed you how they were incoherent uh so i don't know how i really missed the topic i think missing the topics when you bring up moral relativism when you're trying to demonstrate that moral facts exist there are different many many different type of moral theories those aren't the only two next up divine disbelief thanks for your super chat they said skyler won because he didn't kill me with the powerpoint thanks for that you can respond to you why i i almost had one i almost had one but i was like you know let's not do that my head sorry michael dresden uh let's see says skyler lost already because he's totally off the topic it's a different one from the last one i don't i don't know i mean all i did was talk about morality and the foundation of god and where her objective morals come from right like think about it like this right imagine um imagine like someone robbed a bank and you know they ran really fast right and the detectives get to a suspect's house they're like hey we think this is the person's house we're gonna come we're gonna figure this out and they go in and the person has no legs well it's not possible this person with no legs committed this crime that happened recently if they were running on two legs and going fast so i'm just destroying the foundation so there's no i knew she wouldn't be able to demonstrate objective facts exist but at least we can get into the foundation and show why it's so flawed anyways next up let's see we have one from anamorphic mine thanks for your super chat they said whoa 30 minutes in and skyler already won how does he do it you've got a fan out there skyler let's see it's the hat joceya bradbury thanks for your super chat they said sj you claim that morality transcends cultures etc but the fact that cultures have differences with morality doesn't that mean it does not transcend people no just because people have differences of opinion or differences in their views of math for example doesn't mean math doesn't exist again this is an ontological question not an epistemological question so there's there's a distinction that needs to be made how you come to know something is not the same as whether something exists and the question of the debate was does morality exist appreciate your question from subtracted who asks sj what model does god base his own morality on god doesn't base his morality on a on a model god actually is the model god's the standard against which all practices are judged gotcha divine disbelief thanks for your super chat who said sj read the constitution as it was signed where is the word freedom the words liberty gotcha joceya bradbury thanks for your super chat who says sj the fact that you have to explain context doesn't that mean that morality is not objective no the fact that we have axiomatic truths that we know that even our founding fathers in the united states adhered to demonstrates the fact that we have moral facts moral objective facts it's just not one to kill a baby so that's the key it's like some of them are to her but killing a baby not a moral fact transcended from god because that has a context to it apollo jedi thanks for your super chat says give me one second i just had like a lip in my connection apollo jedi says skyler loss is desperate to change the debate topic you've got a critic out there oh oh those critics i always i always invite people come over to my channel scalyfictionshow at gmail.com scalyfictionshow on youtube come over have a debate with me conversation i'd love it let's talk to james anytime james comes to me with something i say yes most of the time gets me in the trouble sometimes james anyways vekal thanks for your super chat uh they said skyler i'm your huckleberry very sweet it's fucking funny divine just believe thanks for your super chat who said sj abortion is god's mercy prove me wrong abortion is killing children god made it clear that before he knew us before we were in the womb he knew us and so this idea of you know because a baby's an inconvenience inside your body you can go ahead and kill it uh is objectively morally wrong it didn't apply to pregnant women in those civilizations like the amalekites canites though those pregnant women the context it was okay to kill them genius tracks thanks for your super chat they said sj you lost by your own words you said it quote depends on the situation um that's the definition of relativism take that l yeah let me answer that i when i say we have objective morality i don't say that there is no moral relativism moral relativism exists i'm saying it doesn't exist as a standalone we need both objective and relative morals in fact you can go to different cultures and find that we have different values around the world uh authors such as gert hoffstead or france france tamponars sorry trumpinars uh robert house a number of people have done cross cultural studies to identify differences in cultures but then other people like shalom schwarz have actually found cultural universals that all cultures share and so we have both gotcha thanks so much next up appreciate your super chat from stupid whore energy strikes again she says skyler you're my new favorite debater oh thank you very sweet i appreciate it sentinel apologetics another old friend of your skyler he comes oh rob roman i've been trying to talk to him for forever james maybe you could make that happen on the show a rob ro skyler fiction debate it's sorry go ahead james don't throw it out i'm just you know what you never know skyler he says cannibalism curses appear in treaties between the assyrians and its vassals the verses you cite are classic in the ancient near east gods not to blame listen uh if you don't take listen i appreciate the fact you don't take a literal uh view on the bible then and you don't necessarily take a view that it means exactly how it reads i actually appreciate that position because i think this is how fundamentalists get themselves in trouble uh if you don't uh if you when it says something like god will do this like make the parents eat their children through cannibalism and you say that part of the bible uh is not really god speaking or not inspired by god this is just what man wrote i applaud you i think that's a good position to take i'm glad you take it gotcha can i can i add something to that if you'd like there's a lot of last word but yeah no problem no no please i i did it a lot to her so she should there's a lot of verses in the bible where a lot of times there are creeds that were memorized in the in the past like first Corinthians 15 for example has been known as a a pre-memorized creed that paul brought and so this idea of some of the things that are in the in the bible like mark 14 you're gonna notice that the the greek that's in mark 14 changes a little bit in the quality uh depending on whether or not he's he's quoting something from the past a memorized speech or and he's trying to translate it because it was in a different language or whether he's putting it out there himself as a greek speaking person and so that same kind of thing is how you can look into some of the passages in the old testament and find if you've got evidence that somehow the quality of somebody's writing declines is usually because they've taken some sort of passage from the past and quoted it gotcha if you want you can respond together otherwise we'll go to the next one no i'm i'm good next up thanks jessiah snake was right and also jesse jesse i think it's jesse camping for your super chats we'll be getting to those appreciate that and merlin 72001 had asked earlier do apologists notice how dis dishonest it looks when instead of answering the question asked they scramble to invent a context to explain it away are you like them apples sj scramble to invent a context um yeah i don't i i think that the reason the you know scholarly literature basically doesn't scramble to invent a context what scholarly literature does is it looks into the past and it puts together all the information that we have coming from places like archaeology and history and the bible and outside the bible and they put together their best knowledge they don't scramble to create a context we that would be totally irresponsible of any scholar gotcha thanks so much next up james hopefully i pronounced this right correct me if i'm wrong peganini let me know coming at you skyler there's someone they're throwing some flair at you they said skyler do you not see abortion as the slaughter of innocent children i'm pro life gotcha i'm not pro abortion thanks for your super chat brian stevens who says in your opening you stated that objective moral duties are independent of culture sj thus we should follow the moral duties the ancient near east followed yes or no no that's not what i said no i i said that we have objective moral duties and they're all across cultures and they transcend generations and times and people and so we have them today in our culture we have them in other cultures and they're going to have them a thousand years from now in another culture if we're still around gotcha next up snake was right who by the way helps us he actually designed a thumbnail for this debate we appreciate that taylor you guys he's he's been helping a lot with the graphics he says sj would you debate an atheist who believes objective morality aka me and when i say me i mean him i'd love to yeah i've debated a few i've debated adam friend did i've debated um who else richard carrier i i i've debated other people who've taken on the view in fact skyler actually is the first atheist i've ever debated who's a subjectivist so i was really looking forward to this debate gotcha uh let's see next up sj would you uh joseph bradbury thanks for your super chat they said sj you claim moral axioms are evidence for objective morals and yet have dodged my question three times by saying that other moral axioms are irrelevant can yeah that's unfortunate because i'm wondering what moral axioms he's talking about i didn't rule out i don't think i've ruled ruled out moral axioms i just the idea of is doing what's good and doing what's right as far as the moral implications gotcha thanks for that let's see jesse camping thanks for your super chat who said violations are objective the retribution is subjective your opinions i think they're saying that those claims are opinions yeah we all have opinions it's it's when you find that these opinions tend to transcend societies that they become something that's axiomatic and so we see that uh with what i mentioned before with life liberty and justice we all have a value to life now it's something we've discovered and it's a good thing because the ancient cultures were pretty rotten gotcha and brian stevens has a quick follow-up and he says do we have the same objective moral duties as the ancient near east yes it's just that they hadn't discovered them quite as well as we have next up digital hammer robbie good to see you they say i love that it is the quote digital code of hammer robbie thank you he spotted i knew he i was in the audience i knew he'd catch me on that that was a slip sorry digital yes i had you in mind when i made that statement that's funny subtracted thanks for your super chat who said god being good by his own standards is circular the idea of god is is the being versus doing distinction here and so god is being and so as a being he's something that it's hard for us to understand that but his actions aren't something that that speaks to his being he's just his core nature is something that needs to be distinguished gotcha did you say his actions don't speak to his being his actions are an outpouring of his being but but he's his his core nature is basically a standard against which we judge our morality next yes so but all right next up i like this one dr gart dr seigart says is uh dr gart says off topic but important conspiracy theories are dangerous and deadly in these times please cancel all conspiracist platforming including the flat earth debate for the sake of public health thanks i will take that seriously think deeply about it i totally understand like the risk of platforming dangerous views and and i would concede that like some conspiracy theory ideas are like sick or even dangerous in a practical like real life sense i the the counter argument that i have in my own kind of internal uh conversation about this is that the challenge is that a lot of these people and so i mean i'll i'm not trying to say that this is the reputation for the super chat but i'm trying to say that my guess is most people know what the response to this is where i'm kind of stuck between the two and it's a hard spot for me because some would say well if you don't have these people come on and go against skyler whoever it is actually you know they will be on their own channels spreading this and it will be unrefuted there won't be another you know beware the hand of of uh beware the sound of one hand clapping there'll only be one case being made and so it's they would say maybe it's better if we have people exposed to this i don't know um i don't you know it's an empirical question frankly like that is something you could empirically test whether or not it would be better for people to be exposed to one or the other i mean and uh at the same time you might say i mean i will take it seriously i mean i was going to say that there's a rebuttal in response to that which i just said that dr gart or others in that camp might give and i take that seriously i mean it's a really tough spot so you know i i do take it seriously though we there are topics we have not done yet because flat earth i um i could say maybe you could say it's a gateway conspiracy that maybe it leads to other dangerous conspiracies because it itself isn't perhaps dangerous depending on your opinion um but there are some that i have not hosted because i am like yeah i just i'm caught in that debate so uh we'll take it seriously thanks for that dr gart and dean meadows thanks for your super chat who said skyler if objective moral values don't exist why does it matter if the people of israel arbitrarily kill people for their own flourishing oh sorry uh so it's not that time of day okay so here's the deal why does it matter okay well let me tell you why it matters to me i have this thing called empathy in me and for some reason i love people i love and care about other individuals out there uh and i'm typically not down with like killing people uh so when you ask me like why does it matter to me why when another group of people kills another group people why does that bother me it's because i have i'm i'm not a fucking sociopath i'm a human being that has emotions opinions empathy uh and an intellect uh so that's why uh it matters to me gotcha thanks for that appreciate it and thanks for the i think final super chat which is from the oh wait i think let's see no joseph bradbury thanks for yours as well they said sj your claim of objectivity is just a claim i think they're maybe saying they want more of the like substance of the argument maybe they if you want to recite it if you or if you uh whatever it is that you want to say yeah so i was just looking at i look at something like a skylar i look at the the basic argument is that if we have these objective moral values and duties to do what's right then we have objective morality and and i mean then i mean if we if we can evidence that we have these moral values and duties and they transcend generations and eras and times then we have evidence of object morality because they're stance independent they don't matter by this culture's opinion of her that culture's opinion of it for example if the nazis won the war and they took over the entire world and they basically decided that they were going to kill everybody except the area in race that would be objectively wrong because it's a violation of life which is one of the objective moral standards that we all value and so they're taking people's lives so they're going against the morality so even if the whole world was left of nazis doing these egregious activities then they were doing the wrong thing so it stands independent it doesn't matter what the nazis think it just saying there's these values of life liberty justice pursuit of happiness in the american institution and i'm sorry declaration just notice the empty assertion where it's like that we all know is wrong and it would still be wrong that's not easy it just saying like going to something that you can appeal to a lot of people there's a lot of people have empathy it's saying well this wouldn't be like in something even emotional connection to it it's weird because you're arguing objective more morals by trying to like connect emotion in there in a sense uh and you're by just saying that you're not actually making an argument you're just saying hey all these people seem to think this is wrong it feels wrong to me therefore objective morals that's not it's just an assertion the very end no no what i was saying was i was saying even if the nazis had decided that what they're doing by killing everybody is right it's still objectively wrong because it's a violation of life liberty and free i mean well that's the assertion but you haven't demonstrated that exist all you're saying is that we human beings have some of these attributes and that they use them but you haven't demonstrated that these things are from god are objective i the debate wasn't about whether these things are from god the debate is basically looking at do these exist they exist besides the united states declaration of independence where they hold these two to be self-evident i could also all written by people but please stop interrupting i mean you're just going to things that people have written it was i think the if i remember the super chat was maybe for us too so i do want to give her a chance to respond to it and then we should have did an open discussion debate but this actually wouldn't we could add a much better conversation well the united nations declaration of human rights also evidences these these axiomatic truths of life and the value of human life and so since we have that and that transcends time generation of people it's evidence of objective morality you're just saying people believe something that's all you said and then you say it transcends without any evidence you just say it transcends it and then certain people these organizations this person they all believe it so that makes the objective that's your argument go ahead just ridiculous that is what you that's literally what you were saying you're pointing to people you are literally pointing to people i'm so sorry who say that this is objective and then saying look it's objective the outsider humanist thanks for your super chat appreciate your kind words they said host appreciation james is neat i appreciate that that means a lot um you make me blush and uh Nate Brody thanks for your super chat they said ashay can you please name one objective moral fact yeah the value of life gotcha next up appreciate it we do have uh maybe one or two questions standard questions we can get to as uh nathan ormond has definitely been wanting his question to be read this came in early nathan asked if i say quote square triangles exist and you say quote square triangles are an incoherent concept does that mean that you accept square triangles exist no gotcha thanks so much and with that we i think i had gotten brian brian steve is let me know if i missed yours i meant to get yours for sure and i think i did so want to say thanks so much guys we i have to get ready for class and then i think uh i know that uh ashay had mentioned something too and skylar i'm sure has plenty on his plate too i mean yeah it's uh for those of you who are parents oh man i've as a single guy i've got it easy i'm impressed and give you admiration and respect to be both you know just juggling all the different things you're doing and also kind of doing the homeschool thing so uh whoever you know both sj and skylar as well as everybody out there want to say congrats to you you are you are heroes in a sense uh that's a it's not an easy task so thanks so so much so skylar and sj i have put both of their links in the description folks please feel free if you're like i want more well you can have more at those links in the description box below but ashay and skylar thanks so much for being with us today it's been a pleasure thank you absolutely so folks thanks so much it's always fun tomorrow will be bernie or biden so we are going to have two uh rare guests we don't get to have them on very much but they will be debating whether or not bernie or biden are best to go with for the democratic primaries and also uh divine disbelief asks in their super jet who has the corgi i heard at bark oh i i have a i don't know she's a schnauzer mix or what she is or an irish terrier but i have a terrier type of dog gotcha let's see oh hold on one sec i i'm so sorry i did miss okay i did brian stevens i did miss you he said thanks for letting me know that brian he said if objective moral values transcend time why did the ancient near east not have them they had them they hadn't discovered them gotcha thanks so much and thanks folks for being here with us a lot going on in the live chat it's always fun you guys make it fun the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel we can't thank them enough and also though you in the chat just make it a blast with your questions and just kind of being here and debating with one another we do want to encourage you we want to give you praise and thanks for those of you out there who have been kind to each other we appreciate you doing that in the live chat we're it's uh it's true once in a while it gets a little bit rowdy in there it's a little bit sassy you know but we do want to uh you know i think that's a small percentage it's just most noticeable you know but uh i do want to give like a huge notice and attention to those people who are positive who are kind we really appreciate you especially just for for being that but you know just thanks for hanging out with us and we will be back like i said tomorrow with burning your biden then friday oh gosh i'm trying to remember here i think we have maybe two on friday so this weekend though is going to be hopping you've seen we have that vegan uh veganism debate this saturday so that will be a lot of fun but anyway take care keep sifting out reasonable yep james can i just mention i um in a half hour i'm going to be on my channel with ester o'reilly she's really awesome i just want to quick put that out there you betcha so yes folks we if you have an after show on any channel and in this case even if it be an interview with someone else we are happy to you know kind of spread the word so i hope you have a great rest of your day folks and thanks for being with us keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable