Do you think men can give birth? I think that, uh, yes or no question. I think that a person who is assigned male at birth, I don't think they... Assigned male at birth. So people are not male at birth. I think that a person... See your evidence that college is a scam, my friend. So what do you say? In some cases, women without your... These are murderers. Of course not, they're not murderers. We... The difference between an IUD killing a conceived zygote and like a mother going to Planned Parenthood and killing the fetus in her room. That was actually the best point somebody made. It's not about the, the cells. It's not about... No, no, no. I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. Hello everyone. I am Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA. And, uh, I am surrounded by 20 woke college kids. My first prompt is: Abortion is murder and should be illegal.

[Music]

All right, can I maybe go? Okay. Hello, what's your name? Juliana. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Can we get our terms right first? Yeah. Okay. Abortion is the forcible ending of the viability of a being in utero, otherwise known as a fetus. Do we agree that's what abortion is? Okay. Yeah. Okay, great. And then murder is the intentional taking of life, different than killing or sudden death. So murder would be the intent, with intent, taking another life. Do we agree with that? Okay. Okay. And then we agree that murder in general in society should be illegal? Yeah. Okay, great. So, yeah, no, I do want to preface that I'm a Catholic. So I think one really important thing that the Bible says is to not judge. And just going back to the topic, um, I think there's a big difference, uh, between, you know, cells in utero than a living, breathing, existing being. And while, um, I do believe it's murder, and that's just my personal belief, right? I don't believe in telling people what to do with their bodies. That's not up to me. And it's not up to us as well as Christians to judge. Should we prevent murder in society? For sure. Yeah. It should be illegal. But I think that it's really different, right? Because, you know, these people aren't... Sorry. Nice to meet you. Okay. Nice to...

[Music]

Meet. Okay. What's your name? Naa. Nice to meet you. Okay. Can I just ask, um, at how many weeks do you think that a fetus is viable? Well, viability and moral worth are two different things. No, but I'm asking you, at how many weeks do you? 20 weeks. A baby can survive outside of utero. So it's actually 24 to 26 weeks. 20, the youngest ever in a NICU unit actually happened in San Diego, not far from here, and survived at 20 weeks. Okay. So under Roe v. Wade, 93% of abortions happened in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. That's 93% of the abortions happened well before a fetus is technically viable. As a form of... Let's go into viability. So what is it about, let's say, a six-week baby that has a heartbeat, its own DNA fingerprint, brain waves, that is less moral worth than an 88-year-old right now with dementia in a home down the street? That person requires assistance, requires help. What, why is it that the six-week baby is of less moral worth? Well, first of all, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. What does fetus mean? A fetus is in utero. What does fetus mean in Latin? What the... I'm sorry, is this a... It means little human being. His smile is very creepy. Okay. Um, smiling is creepy. No, your smile specifically. But let's go back to, we're losing track here. No, but, but is what species is the fetus? The fetus is not a species yet. It's technically classified as a parasite until it is viable. Now, I want to talk. I can't really get past that. Are you saying you're saying a baby is a disease or a tumor? A parasite is not a disease, and a tumor. Those are not the same thing. A parasite is defined as something that cannot survive outside its host. A baby, before it is viable, cannot survive outside of a woman's womb. Got it. So let's, let's extrapolate that. Is that not a living organism? Are, are old people with Alzheimer's and dementia that are being assisted every day, are they parasites? No, they're not parasites. They're human beings who are on the brink of death. Got it. So my going, my four-month-old that requires mom's breast milk and requires daily changes and feedings, cannot survive without its own. Is my four-month-old the parasite? Your baby can breathe on its own. Your baby can drink water from its mouth to its stomach. But, but it can't... Your baby can eat. Can it hunt? Can it gather? Can it reason? But that's not what qualifies something as being a living organism. Being a living organism simply means can you survive outside of a womb, outside of your host. Got it. So I just want to make sure I'm clear. Why does that then equate to moral viability? It equates to scientific viability. Why? Under what standard? Because it is not alive. And you are advocating for the rights of something that is not technically a life. Got it. So what is, is something while sacrificing the needs of the human woman who is alive? Got it. So, but a, a, a mom can survive, yes, without the baby in her. Uh-uh. Right. Yes. The baby cannot survive without the mom. Yes. But a mom cannot survive without her lungs. So it's not her body. It's in her body. It's not her DNA. So it's not her choice. So it is, it actually is directly her DNA. It's, it is 50% of her DNA. After DNA... He's going to win. I'm telling you this. This, this could take a while.

Okay, first of all, do we have our terms correct? We agree. Actually, no. So first of all, I'd like to refine our terms. I have two points to bring up after that, though. So you define murder as like intentionally, like killing a human being. I think that's a very poor way to define murder because if someone were to, like, break into my home and point a gun at the heads of me and everybody I love, and I intentionally kill them to prevent them from un, from killing my family, I don't think I murdered them, right? So I would define murder as the unjustified termination of a human life. You're making a good point. Let me further clarify, then. So self-defense is very warranted. Exactly, right. But I, I can see where you're going to go with how that has to go with abortion, but we can go down that journey in a second. Yeah. So, I mean, like, I, I kind of do want to give you my argument and so far as why I'm pro-choice, why I think it's justified. But first, I think that, you know, your position is quite absurd, right? Because you're saying that it is murder to kill a human being, right, at any point in development, especially when it's in the mother's womb. My question to you would be, well, does this make women with IUDs murderers? Because it is the case that in some scenarios, an IUD will allow for conception to occur, meaning there's a unique human life there, but it will prevent its implantation, intentionally killing it. Well, no, preventing implantation is not necessarily the same thing as terminating a fertilized egg. For example, if you take Plan B, for... Again, it's not, it's not the same thing. Preventing the production of progesterone is not the same thing as terminating a fully, a, a being that has been fertilized. You do not know for a fact that the egg has been fertilized. You do not know that when even IUD... Okay. Yeah. So preventing a fertilization or implantation to the uterine wall is killing a conceived zygote. So what happens? A sperm goes into the egg, right? The egg becomes fertilized. It's a conceived zygote. In some cases, it will prevent the implantation of the conceived zygote, killing the conceived zygote. In some cases, correct. So what do you say in some cases, women are murderers? Of course not. They're not murderers. We do not know for a case. That's that's like saying that every... So what's the difference between an IUD killing a conceived zygote, like a mother going to Planned Parenthood and killing the fetus in her room? Well, so you're asking, you're asking two separate things. If they, if they knew for certain, to be more clear, that I have a fertilized egg and I'm going to take a drug to prevent that fertilized egg from attaching to their uterine wall, then yes, that is an act of killing or murder. Of course. Okay. So do you think all murderers should go to jail? Do I think all murderers should go to jail? I mean, on the third, on third-degree murder, however, no. I don't think women that got abortions or had IUDs should go to jail because I think that they have been deceived by mass culture, mass propaganda. Secondly, the people who should go to jail are the abortionists, who are the ones that have been putting the abortion pill, the ones that have been doing procedures, the ones that have been going into the third trimester and breaking babies' backs and inserting them with syringes while the babies are crying and suffocating, being born alive and then being dead on the operating table. That is who should go to jail. Oh, that was actually the best point somebody made. We'll have to, we'll have to talk about...

[Music]

It. Okay. Whenever I'm talking about this discussion, um, I always go to the question of what about in the case of the mother when her life is in danger? Because I'm a big believer. I don't, I don't know. I'm still iffy on if I think it's a, or if it's murder or not. But even so, I mean, I don't want to say murder is justified, guys. Wait, let me just get this one point and then you can vote me out. Give me one second. Um, say the mother gets pregnant and she knows that if she gives birth, she's going to die. She has some kind of health complication. Then what do you do? In a C-section. I don't know what that means. To C-section, they an... Guys, wait, hold on. Give me one second. Go right. They go right below the belly button and they deliver the baby, and therefore she doesn't have to give birth. It's technically birth, but it's much safer. So that's, that's actually safer than an abortion procedure. Sorry. Sorry.

[Music]

Lily. Hello. How are you? Hi. What's your name? Deen. Nice to meet. Nice to meet you. Um, I would say with abortion, I think, uh, it's, it's very complicated. But I think the issue that I have primarily with your stance of being pro-life, that there's no nuance. Um, there's women who are being forced to travel hundreds of miles to access abortion care, even in cases of rape, in certain states. They're not giving any sort of, um, allowance for that. And I think, um, you know, a lot of people who are pro-life, they, they say that they're pro-life, but I feel like they're really pro-birth. Because in, you know, with firearms, the United States has some of the highest firearm deaths, um, out of OECD nations, right? And we can acknowledge that that's for children who are actually living. Um, so I feel like abortion, while, yeah, it is, I can, I can definitely see your point. I, I just think that it should be allowed in some circum... Yeah. Great. Um, I'm happy to get into the gun violence stuff later, but I want to really stay focused on abortion. Right. You can see, you can say you see my point. Can you see the world also where since we know it's a human life, that it should be illegal? Since we don't allow murder in our society? Well, that's, that's, that's where I have an issue because abortion is not being done willy-nilly. It's, it's like the life of the mother's always... How many abortions do you think we have every day in America? Guess. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Guess. I, I'm honestly not sure. Maybe, I don't know, a thousand? 4,000 a day. So it is kind of willy-nilly. We have 1.6...

[Music]

Sorry. Hello. Hi. Um, I just want to clarify. The thing that you're aiming for is less abortion, right? That would be, you would want, or at least eventually. It's also a protection of those that can't protect themselves. But yes. And that's why once we, after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, we saw abortions go down dramatically in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi. We saw thousands of babies that are now alive and well, that are able to have amazing lives, thanks to the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Uh, I don't think a lot of that is true. Um, it is, but it's not true because when you make abortion illegal, it doesn't actually decrease the amount of ab... A nice talking point. In Texas, the numbers show differently. Birth has gone up. Yeah. Legal goes down, but illegal abortions still happen. Abortions still happen outside of whatever data you're showing. That's not true. But let's just say, so 40%... So, well, if you, if you want to... Well, first of all, if you count the abortion pill, you're right. But that's a separate thing than a chemical abortion and surgical abortion. Different things. And I'm not debating. I'm not, I'm not debating you. I'm debating her. So if you want to do the flags and come back in, try and be faster next time. So let me ask you this. So the question is, we should try to limit unjust suffering of human beings, right? Sure. Okay. That's my position. Is that there's unjust suffering of anywhere between 1.4 to 1.6 million abortions a year of human beings that are being massacred in the womb. And so that's not a woman's rights issue. That's not a men's rights issue. That's just a human rights issue. Okay. The best way to decrease abortions happening is proper sex education. Limiting abortion and making abortion illegal does not actually decrease the amount of abortions that happen. So what is your evidence of that? What is my evidence of that? Because we have increased sex education. Last 30 years, we've had no... Our sex education is so bad in America. Well, by bad, what do you mean by that? We have, we have more access to birth control for young kids. We have more kids that are learning, you know, birth control at a younger age. We have more of that in our public school system, and we've seen all the trends actually go in a negative direction. So in fact, we see that the more sex education there is, the, the more disturbing those trends are. So you say that... Let me ask just one more thing. You say that if we make abortion illegal, people will still do it. Should we then just make gang violence legal? Because no, I'm saying if you actually wanted to decrease the amount of abortions that happen, you wouldn't be advocating for a, like, to make abortion illegal. You'd be advocating for... All that logic apply to stealing, looting, kidnapping, arson, and murder? Well, actually, it does because those are results of different societal issues that you should be educating yourself on rather than making it front. Can we, should we make kidnapping, arson, burglary, murder legal because they're symptoms of something else? We should be helping society heal from those things. Got... Answer the question. We want less of those things. So we just make them legal? We'll get less looting. You know, actually, I'm going to let someone else. Thank you very much.

[Music]

Hi Parker. Nice to meet you. Yes, nice to meet you. Charlie, big TikTok guy here. So like, uh, pedophiles, people who were married to children in the past and normalized in that society, should they go to prison? Should pedophiles, like, if you could go back in time, would you put those pedophiles in prison that was married those children because it was normalized? They were deceived into thinking it's okay. Would you put them in prison? You had to slow down. File should get the death penalty. No. So you'd go back in the past, you'd give them the death penalty, even though they were deceived into thinking it was okay? But you said people who get abortions, who are women, shouldn't go to pris... But it's not currently illegal. Okay. Regardless, at that time, at that time, it wasn't. No, I would not go back and retroactively enforce laws where things were currently not illegal. You wouldn't put pedophiles in prison in the past? Hold on a second. When was it ille, when was it legal in America? Well, child marriage was legal in America throughout the early 1900s, and especially throughout most of society for thousands of years, especially in the Old Testament and in the Bible. Hold... Well, hold on, hold on a second. So where, where, where is the Levitical law that allows you to marry a child? Oh, yeah. Can you name the verse? So, well, I can't name the verse, but the particular conditions that are enlisted in the Bible are that you have to be physically mature and emotionally mature, which is extremely vague. And throughout society has been seen. There is not a verse. But let's kind of go back. Under your view, let's go back to, well, generally agreed upon, it's 18 years old. But let me ask you, but you, because you, you don't go based on what's general, you go based on the b... I say 18 years old. But let me ask you a question. Where's, when, when does life begin? Conception. Like conception. Great. So, good. So should we protect our life at conception? I care about sentient life. Not, not... So when do brain waves start? You think brain dead people should be able to pull the plug on, like, family should be able to pull the plug on individual? Got to answer the question. When do brain waves, when do brain waves start? Uh, you can see brain waves around 6 to 8 weeks, which in brain dead individuals, there are brain waves as well. So the brain waves necessary to produce a subjective experience are met until around... Two. Can you see it from my perspective that at six to eight weeks, those brain waves will actually increase, not decrease, if allowed the process of development to continue? Did you know those same EEG scans exist in brain dead people that you don't think are... The difference with the brain dead people is that the likelihood of those brain waves actually increasing is very low. At six to eight weeks, when by 15 weeks, they can hear the... It's irreversible sensation. That's what brain death is. I know that. It's not coma. But you're, you're, you're doing a red herring. Go back to it's not... What's a red herring? Six... A red herring is where you, you avoid the topic and you say something that is, uh, adjacent or symmetrical to what I'm saying, but not actually. I'm saying me. That's not, that's not a red herring. A six to eight week baby, if they're allowed to continue to develop, what ends up happening? Uh, at a certain point, it will become a sentient being in the future. The same way if I keep engaging with my girlfriend, there'll be a baby in the future. Yet I don't care about... Unless you're infertile, which we don't know. But so let's, let's see, let's see the process of development, right? Why answer my question. Why do you have the ability or the right? Should those child P3 go to prison? The process of... Should the pedophiles go to prison from 1904? How many pedophiles are alive from 1904? They're not alive, right? I meant like, if you can go back in the past, hypothetically speaking, and you could put them in prison, would you put them in prison? I would have killed them myself if I was alive back. Okay. So then, so then you don't apply it based upon what people are deceived to believe. You apply based on what you consider think should... Why is CL constructive debate? If you keep on talking over me, I was finishing my statement. You were talking over me. Let me ask you a very simple question. Do you think it would be a good thing if we had less abortions in America? Um, it depends on the context. Like, are the abortions prior to sentience? Yes. All abortions? Yeah. No, it would not be necessarily better unless it is the case of the people didn't want the abortions and it would be negatively impactful to their health medically speaking. Less abortion, uh, after sentience, yes. Okay. So you, you believe in an eight-week abortion ban? Yeah. No, no, no. I don't. Sorry. I believe in an abortion ban after 18 through 26 weeks. Okay. That's, that's a more reasonable position. I have to give you credit for that. It's similar to Trump's 15 weeks. Yeah. So why, why do you think that most people don't share your view on that? Um, well, people just don't know really what sentience is. There's not a lot of conversation about abortion, and these conversations are very difficult. Like, they're conceptually hard to go through. And I understand why a lot of people don't understand their positions on it. I think people... Cutting off. I thought, thought we weren't... People. I was actually complimenting.

[Music]

I. How are you? Nice to see you. Um, so I just have one question. There's like, in any case, you don't think there's any case where abortion should be legal? There's a very, very rare couple cases. Okay. So you do think that a couple cases it is legal? If, if cesarean section is not going to save the mother's life and the mother's life is actually at risk, which is debated amongst growing numbers of OBGYNs. Okay. That is the only case where abortion should be, should be allowed. But people say it is a growing consensus in the pro-life world that abortion is never medically necessary. Okay. So if you had a daughter and she was 10 and she got raped and she was going to give birth and she... No, wait. Oh, and she was going to give birth and she was going to live, would you want her to go through that and carry that? That's, that's awfully graphic. Answer. It's no. But it's a real-life scenario that happens to many people. The answer is yes. The baby would be delivered. Okay. Great. So I... That's insane. Um, but let me tell you why. No, hold on. Let me ask you a question. There's two ultrasounds. I have one is a baby conceived in one is a baby conceived by a loving couple. Which one is which? Which, which person here? Which person here was conceived by... Tell me, which one was conceived by... You don't know exactly. Because it's all human rights and it's all human beings matter. It's, but it's about your daughter who's passed to give birth to it, and it's going to be tortured by that for the rest of her life. That's going to take away every freedom she's ever going to have. That's going to ruin her life. She's going to grow up and be a victim of crime. The, the point is, how you were conceived is irrelevant to what human rights you get. When, hold on one second. If a person conceived the walks down the side of the street, it's not like they don't get First Amendment rights or Second Amendment rights or the worst thing to do to that, do the daughter is to then say, hey, we're going to go murder the being inside of you. They wouldn't even know. Listen, they, they wouldn't know. Listen, listen, listen, listen. But wouldn't it, wouldn't a better story to say something evil happened and we do something good in the face of evil, instead of saying we're going to do evil and then murder the being because we're going to, we're going to, we're going to pander to the evil? No. What makes, what makes the West great is that we do good after evil, not evil after evil. It's not about the being and the, the cells. It's not about... No, no, no. I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. No, I'm speaking. Thank you. So it's not, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the person. No, I'm talking about the person who is dealing with the pregnancy. I am not talking about the cells. I don't, I don't care. Listen, the fetus, the whatever, I don't care about that right now. Until it is formed, there is... If there is a five-year-old child who is pregnant and the baby is two weeks in... Can't get pregnant actually. They have and they have given birth. Five-year-old have given pregnant? Correct. There is one recorded case of a five-year-old birth. Is that, is that, is that common? Yes. Not, it's common for five-year-olds to get sometimes and they get pregnant. I think they should be able to have medical access to something that could save not only just their life, but like their livelihood. How many, how many... I hope your daughter lives a very happy life and gets away from you. Okay. So that is really nasty. And so her, her belief system, just so we're clear, is that... The time's up. Yeah. No, I got it. It's fine. I mean, it's insanely nasty. And we'll talk again. My next claim is that college is a scam.

Hello, hello, hello. What's your name? Maddox. How are you doing? Good. So college is a scam? Well, let's define our terms. College being traditional four-year college, of course, university, not community college or technical college. Course. A scam if we can agree on a definition is where a majority of people who will go through the institution or business, uh, they're not getting their money's worth, their time's worth, um, and they're being deceived when they sign up. So do we agree on those terms? Yeah. Perfect. Okay. Well, what would further definitions? What do you think is the purpose of going to college? The purpose of college should be a traditional liberal arts education, the pursuit of what is good, true, and beautiful. Okay. That's not what it is. Uh, it should be the betterment of yourself and your soul, uh, nurturing your character, uh, and becoming a better citizen, understanding the deeper things in life. At the very least, though, it should be preparing one for the job market. Do you think college does those things? I think it does. Uh, but I would add on to your point that I think not only is it for the betterment of yourself, but it's for the betterment of society. We need historians. We need certain majors that may not make as much money. I think those are for the betterment of society. Would you agree that there's some majors that may not make money but are still essential to it? It depends. Do you think that getting a degree in gender studies is good for society? Uh, I would agree. Yeah. Why? Why would studying gender not be good for study? Well, learning that men can give birth is not exactly a good use of time, is it? Is that what they're teaching in college right now? Colleges? Yeah. According to the Center for Disease Control, they no longer say women can give birth. They say birthing person. Okay. Do you think men can give birth? Do I think men can give birth? I think that, uh, yes or no question. I think that a person who is assigned male at birth, I don't think they... Assigned male at birth. So people are not male at birth. I think that a person... See, you're evidence that college is a scam, my friend. College is a scam. You're not, you're lacking in a lot of here. We can continue right now. So gender studies, do you think that studying gender is, uh, uh, not essential? Should we not deepen our... First of all, I don't think gender. We're going to get there later. I don't think gender exists. I think that there are two sexes, infinite personalities and genders. However, let's get back to the core contention. Can I ask my question again real quick? Well, I want to get back to my core contention. A scam. So the majority of kids that go to college, if they end up getting a job at all, they end up getting a job that does not require a college degree. Do you think that certain jobs that may not associate with a direct major can incorporate skills that you learn from a major? I think I'm personally, I'm an econ major, and depending on what job I do in the future, I can still use the skills earned from... So tell me about Milton Friedman. Tell me about Milton Friedman. He is an economist from... How about Thomas Sowell? Thomas Sowell. Ludwig van... Ludwig. Well, I will say that first. How about... I'd love to see you answer the gender studies question. We will get there later. That's, that's what psychedelics are for. Uh, who's...

[Music]

Next. Um, well, I think it's difficult to think about just one major, thinking about just gender studies. Like, sure, like not everyone should be a gender studies major. We need doctors, we need lawyers, we need everything. However, why does it matter if 10 people want to be a gender studies major and it matters to them? Like, not everyone can be a lawyer, not everyone can be a doctor. There needs to be some people. And, you know what? Yeah, it sucks that some people do go to college and get a degree and then they end up not in a workforce for that. But I don't think that has to do with like college was a scam. It's more like maybe that just wasn't the path for them or that life choice was just too hard to get for them. But some people are able to go to college and get a degree and use it, and that is super important because imagine if no doctors went to college. They just like, I think I can do it. Well, of course, doctors and lawyers need credentialing, right? But... Well, less than 5% of all people that go to college end up studying medicine or in legal. The vast majority go into soft social sciences, communications, with the humanities. So you're in college or have been, is that correct? Yeah. Are you forced to take classes that you think are a waste of time? Yeah, I'm for... You know what? On... So they're taking your money and they're forcing you that they're a waste of time. That's kind of scammy, right? Oh, I think that some classes, oh, some... So you have to probably go into debt, right? Depends. Okay. Are you going? Are you going into debt? No. Okay. Well, that's good. I picked a school that actually offered me a scholarship. Someone else is paying for your college. Oh, I, I don't know. Depends on me. I mean, that school that wanted to give me an opportunity. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the scam element, right? So you said that there are some classes that if students had to go into debt or had to pay for, would not be a good use of their time. So it's not representing students well. Well, do you think like high school is a scam then? Because I had to pay for high school, but I didn't. I'm not going to use AP US History in my psychology degree ever. Well, I think AP US History is actually a really good use of time, knowing about your country and your history. Well, but I'm not going to use that in my career. That's what we're talking about in the career path for college. Let's go back to what I said, right? We said traditional college, right? Four-year college. And what a scam is, we're a majority, a majority of the people that will go through the enterprise, the business, or the institution are not getting their time worth or their money worth. So therefore, I go back to my core contention, which is a majority of kids that exit college will not use their degree at all when they go to find a job. But if you ask them, do you think college was a scam? I don't think majority of them are going to say yes. Some of them will. Some of them are going to... Well, not everyone who's being scammed actively knows they're being scammed. People still buy erectile dysfunction drugs off the internet, and they get scammed. That's their own personal choice. Of course, people have choices to be scammed. I'm not saying they don't have a choice. I'm making an observation, analysis of the institution. For example, flying Spirit Airlines, kind of a scam. Should be shut down. There is some... Yeah. Agree. There are some things in life we have to take a step back and like, oh, the consumer is not being well served. You want to shut down a bunch of majors in colleges that you think are scams? No, I never said that. So what would your proposal be to fix the scam of college? There is no proposal. I'm simply, the contention is college is a scam. So then what's the point of that statement? To get you to agree. But like, what would that do? Like, what do you want to fix in college that's going to help and not be a scam? Let's, we can get to step interval two as long as you can agree that college is a scam. No, because not for everyone. For me, I'm using a degree that's going to help me help people make better. What are you studying? Psychology and criminal justice. Okay. So, and it's being paid for by somebody else, which is, which is fine. That's good. So psychology and criminal justice, um, do you, do you absolutely need to get a degree to be able to get... You do. Yeah, I really, I mean, like, I could, I guess study it all on my own, but it's just like, makes more sense to go and have all these experiences. I'm getting like wonderful experiences, internships, all through my college that's helping. No, it's just that this is a pathway that's really helping me. So you know, there's 11 million jobs open in the country right now that don't require a college degree. Then the people who want those jobs can go get those jobs. I'm not one of those. Push too many kids into college. No. Okay. So the national graduation rate is 59%. If I asked the room, everyone would agree that they know some people that went to college that did not graduate. Yeah, right? So we're probably sending too many kids into this institution. But if they might have been able to do it, then like, why is it not worth it to try and to push yourself to get a better education and go further? That's a bad thing, right? But some people are able to work through that, and it's like an opportunity thing. When an institution is multi-trillion dollars in scale, involves 23 million of our citizens every four years, and is not actually bettering the country. For example, if college was so great, we would see incomes going up for Gen Z and Millennials. We'd see more people able to own homes. Kids wouldn't... I'm telling you, this is so ableist. What you're doing, by the way. I'm telling you this.

Hello. What's your name? Al. Nice to meet you. Okay, so let me start by saying, well, first of all, you said we're sending too many kids to college. Who's sending them? Who's forcing them? Guidance counselors, parents, community. Are they forcing them? Are they signing them up themselves? Forcing? I never said forcing, but you can have nudging and forcing are two different things. We also subsidize college through the federal government. So you guys get subsidized interest rates, scholarships, and loans. So the taxpayer is nudging students and gently, and sometimes forcefully, pushing them into college. And you would agree it is an expectation if you grow up in an upper middle class home to go to college. You would agree with that? So there's a societal cultural push. I didn't grow up in an upper middle class. So, okay. Well, but do you, would you see it from their, would you see how that's that argument is correct? I guess there might be a pressure, but no one's sending them. You're sending yourself. Well, of course. Well, we're all over the age of 18 right when you're in college, so you're sending yourself. But that's besides... Let's be honest. I mean, for that's a silly argument. Yes, they're technically sending themselves. I was just at Arizona State University, moving everyone had their parents there. They were co-signing on loans. They were there helping pay for stuff. Parents, the ones that are still checking in, they're the ones that largely subsidize their lifestyle. Hey Mom, can you Venmo me, Venmo me $3,000 so that I can go out an extra night? Yes, of course. When you're 18 years old, you're the one signing on the dotted line, but there's enormous pressure and nudging and cultural expectation that students go to college, right? Okay. I think the problem here is that it's, it's up to the person. You're, you're not, you can't just go to college and expect to come out with a degree. You have to put the work in. You have to put the work in. You have to make connections. And some people might think college is just four years of partying and drinking and making friends, whatever. But you have to actually put the work in. And if you put the work in, you make connections, then you can find a job right outside of college. Well, no, not, not doubting that you can't find a job. It's just that 52% of them get a job that doesn't require them to get the degree. But most jobs offer intent to pay if you have a degree. And 86%, 86% of people with a degree get paid more than people with just a high school diploma. That's only if you count the ones at the top 10% of income earners. So not if you count humanities, not if you count, um, people that study in the, uh, social sciences. If you count medicine or you count law, that's absolutely correct. However, the vast majority of kids that go to college are not studying medicine, law, engineering, business, finance. They're studying communications, social sciences, or humanities, which are on the lower income ladder. So as I mentioned, we have 11 million job openings in this country right now that do not require a college degree. I'm guessing in this room, that within four to five years, you guys would kill to be able to earn $80,000, $80 to $100,000 a year. Yes. Do you know that in states across the country and in cities, they're offering apprenticeships to become plumbers and welders, electricians? That doesn't require a four-year college degree. Entrance salary $80,000 a year. But again, 86% of people with a bachelor's degree earn more than people with a high school diplo... No, 86% of all people with a bachelor's degree, if you take out the top 10%, it's actually lower than those that don't go to college. So the reason that number, that average goes up is because the, the doctors and the engineers and the lawyers are the ones that bring that average so significantly up. But let me ask you a question. That, do you think that there's any waste at all in the current college model? Do I think there's any waste? I don't think we need all of it. Okay. Good. What part? Um, well, you have to start with your core classes, and it's like high school, you're taking the same classes in... Do you think, like, for example, um, do you think that it's okay?

Nice to meet you. Wow. I'm Emily. Nice to meet you, Emily. Thank you. Um, earlier you said that about 5% of college students are going into fields of like medicine, law, and engineering. Was it... Let me clarify. Yes, as far as they're going to be able to get postgraduate degrees. So they will go all the way up and get their jurist master, or they will end up passing the bar or becoming a doctor. Right. So it's easy to say doctors, lawyers, but healthcare professionals, if you count nurses or people that work in healthcare, that number is closer to 20, 25%. Okay. So 5%. Um, who has a doctor? Can you, like, raise your hand if you have a doctor? Like a medical doctor? A doctor? Yeah, like a medical doctor. Yeah. You do. Okay. Um, 5% is still a lot of people, right? Of course. But that means 95% might not need to exist at the institution. I don't think that's the takeaway. Just because 5% which is still millions of Americans all across board. But if you were to say, hey, we only have medical schools, only have legal, we can get rid of gender studies, get rid of... So what's, what's the contention? Well, gender studies is actually, if you look on like the pre-law track, gender studies is a pre-law track. If you're going to be a lawyer, you have to study gender studies and other social cult... Point that college is a scam. Why would, why would a lawyer need to study gender studies? Should a lawyer know the law? It's a social science. The law, you think the law isn't inadvertently affected by social, cultural, and gender norms? Of course it is. But shouldn't they first know the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers? We learned that in high school. Okay. So what is Marbury v. Madison? I haven't been in high school for a really long time. I'm not trying to be a lawyer. Lear... Yeah. So I mean, high schools are brown. What was Brown v. Board of Education? That's for desegregating schools. Okay. Good. Yeah. Which Project 2025 wants to like defund the Department of Education. Who wrote the Constitution? Founding Fathers. 1778. I don't know. It wasn't 1778. I don't know. Yeah, you don't know. No. Okay. Well, this is the point is that you don't learn it in high school. You don't even learn it in undergraduate, and our, our law school is not learning it. So maybe... Well, I'm not in law school. No, the point is that you were saying they already learned it, and they don't. I don't want this to be a pop quiz or trivia. I didn't go to college, and I'm asking you very basic civic questions, and you're paying to go to college and you can't answer them. That's so fair. But I think... Thank you.

[Music]

Sorry, I have a question. Is church a scam? No, because church is honoring the divine and the internal and the good and the true and the beautiful. Is college? But it, but it deceives people because you, you give a promise of everlasting life, which you don't actually get, because Christianity is contradictory, logically speaking. Do you want to get into a theological debate or are we going to talk about college? Because I completely disagree. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and we will have eternal life. Okay. So how, if there is a perfect being that created the world, how could we exist in an imperfect world? I'm happy to have this discussion. Can we go back to college, though? Because do you think, because that's a little bit of a red herring and a little bit of a rabbit hole. Tell me what that has to do with college being a scam. Well, I do think college can be a scam for certain people. I don't think it's a scam for everyone. For people like me, college was very beneficial for me, for sure. I'm asking you based upon your definition of a scam, do you consider the Christian Church a scam? Of course not. It's giving people life and teaches them goodness. Christianity is false, then that's a deception. Okay, but you think it's false. I don't. We can agree to disagree. Also, I'm not agreeing to disagree on that, but we're not talking about, we're not talking about the church, we're talking about college, right? So again, also, people are not paying to go to church, are they? But it's a reductio ad absurdum. You know that. Is that... Ask the question. What's a reductio ad absurdum? Uh, that's a Latin term that means reducing down to the lowest common belief. Correct. Yeah. So I'm taking, am I right? I didn't go to college. I knew that. I'm taking your particular position. Let me ask you a question. Do you pay to go to church? Uh, no, I don't. Some people are forced to pay based upon their particular denomination. In today... Do you pay to go to church? Depending on the church. No, no, you don't. Do you have to go into debt to go to church? Uh, in some circumstances, people do, because they have to give up 10% of their income to be able to do that, which people can't. Circumstance... Well, they're LDS. You understand that a lot of LDS churches specifically require 10%. They don't require it. And you're talk... Do in plenty of places. Well, you're asking mainline Christian. Isn't there stigmatization if you don't do that? Okay, you're good at interrupting. Not good at answering. Well, you haven't answered any of my questions yet. I did say no, church is not a scam. Church is the bride of Christ. College is a scam. And college is, people are going into debt, they're paying a lot of money. But I want to ask you a question. You said it's a scam for some people. Who is it a scam for? Yeah, for people who specifically aren't ever going to use it, never use any of the knowledge that they from it. Well, you say 52%. I don't think you can qualify 52% of people don't do that. For example, for example, my job that's not going to be recommended like as...

Like an economics degree, and most economics majors are going to go into TikTok debating online. But I use the information that I learned in college, like, on in my job on a daily basis. So I still qualities that are then used in my job later on.

What percentage of kids that go to college are being scammed? Can you—I don't think I don't think anyone knows that. It's dependent upon an individual. I have no clue.

Shouldn't we try to find out? Well, if you'd like to find some empirics on that, I'd love to see it. I—I just did. So 41. 41. Well, well, the Department of Education is a source. No, the Department of Education doesn't say 41% of people it was a scam for, or that they didn't use any of the information they learned in college. You are—you are using. So are you saying none of them use any of the information? Can I say three words without you interrupting me? Do any of them use the information?

L on. Can I say five words? That interrupts. You've interrupted me multiple time, multiple times. So since you say college is a scam for some people, it's a ballpark for the kids that do not graduate. 41% that ended up going and not graduating, were they scammed? Uh, no. Just because you go and pay for a particular thing, but then you don't follow through with it, doesn't mean you were scammed. Maybe they were. You decided to pay for it.

Oh, you could say some people are misled. Some people are singing to these things. Some people are met in, are misled in the church. And you never answered my question on that. Because you're trying to—I did take that time down. So you don't have to answer the question about Christianity. Because you know your world if you looks terrible.

Well, what about Christianity? You want me to answer? We're talking. I think it's false because I was saying is, is church a scam? If church is a scam, that'd be predicated off of the idea that you're deceived into believing that there's everlasting life, specifically from Christianity. Again, so Christianity has to be true. So can you grant that? What's the argument? Christianity is true. Did the resur—what the argument? You're going to let me finish three words in a row? Appreciate it. Okay. Did the resurrection happen?

Uh, I don't think the resurrection occurred. Okay. I disagree. Okay. So let me ask you a question. A perfect Creator, is it possible for them to not desire something imperfect? A perfect is a perfect Creator. I'm sorry, what? There's a perfect Creator that desires everything that's just perfect. How can they desire something imperfect? Flawed?

Well, because maybe they want to get to know themselves. Maybe they want to see their own creation. Maybe they love. Want to get to know them. Can I, can I finish? Can I finish talking here? Okay. Maybe because God loved the world so much that his creation, which rebelled against him, given agency and free will, rebelled against them, then got eternal life, what we actually deserve, and then sent his son on a rescue mission to save us from that. The church is the bride of Christ. Will save us from damnation that we deserve. College is far from the bride of America. It's currently scamming the youth of this country and sending them into oblivion.

Didn't answer the question. I, I did. No, you didn't. Say how they could desire something imperfect. How, how? Well, God can. Anything that later. God can do anything. So even something logically contradictory. It's not logically contradictory. So desire something imp. An un—can an unstoppable. Can an unstoppable object hit a—

Hey, before we go any further, we want to take a moment to say thanks so much to Straight Arrow News for powering the fact checks in this video. Straight Arrow News is an app and website that is on a mission to raise the bar on journalism in a time of media bias and mistrust. Their team of journalists believe that unbiased news should be the standard and not just the exception. So they report down the middle with facts, delivering news without bias, filter, or spin. Plus, their media miss tool allows you to discover news that's being underreported or not even reported at all by different sides of mainstream media. That's why we're so happy to be partnering with Straight Arrow News. The work they're doing gives us a complete picture of the news straight from our phones and tablets with their app. Go to san.com/ss or click the link in the description to check it out. By clicking that link, you're not just supporting this channel, you're also supporting a group of journalists that are raising the bar on news and focusing on serving you unbiased, straight facts. Thanks again to Straight Arrow News for partnering with us on this episode. Now let's get into it.

Yeah, my next claim is that trans women are not [Music] women.

Okay, what's your name? Sam. Nice to meet you. Uh, let's define our term. Uh, a woman is an adult female of XX chromosomes. You tell me, what is a woman? I think a woman is somebody who identifies as a woman. Got it. So that's not a definition. That's like saying a table is something that identifies as a table. Give me an objective definition of— No, it's not. A table is an object. Well, tell—a table can't identify as anything. It doesn't have— You have to give me an objective definition of what a woman is. If I decided right now that I wanted to identify as a woman, I would be a woman. Okay, but that's not—that doesn't answer the question. I know, but right now I'm a man. Right? So if that happened, right now, woman, once once a person makes the decision to identify as a woman, woman, that's a separate issue. What is a woman? That's the definition. No, I know, but you have to tell me what a person who identifies themself as a woman. But you have ident—how do you know that they are that thing? How do I—I don't need to know. What they—I can ask them if I want to know. But there needs to be—you need to tell me what that thing is though. Somebody who—we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any—it's important because it's like saying a giraffe is a thing that looks like a giraffe, or a coyote thing that looks like a coyote. It's called circular reasoning. You have to give me an actual definition. I don't have to. I—I did give you a definition. No, you said that a woman is something that thinks they're a woman. That doesn't give me a definition. That simply—what would you consider a definition then? An adult female with XX. No, no, I mean like, what, what makes that a definition?

Hello. Hi, Juliana. Jul—um, I don't necessarily think that you can define a woman just by her chromosomes. Women are so much more than that. They come in a variety of shapes, sizes, colors. And I don't necessarily think that you can count out somebody who's trans just because they don't have a certain set of chromosomes. There are also people who are born—I'm trying to—I'm drawing a blank—intersex. So XXY or YYX or just, yeah, or like X0, nothing. So, so natural mutations upon the binary, essentially? Yes. So, but, but they don't have both sex organs that both that both operate? Right. Yeah, but that also, I don't think necessarily works, right? Because if it's X, there's a—so you're either more male or more female, right? So you might have both a penis and vagina, but there's never been a case of someone who can impregnate themselves. Okay. I also don't necessarily think that, uh, works for this situation. But, um, I also want to say that one of my best friends is trans, and I would say that she's more of a woman than I am. I think that women define themselves by multiple things, not just their sex organs. If somebody asked me who I was as a woman, I would not say I have a vagina.

Totally fair. No, I think you said something smart. So you said that person is more of a woman than you are. Therefore, you're granting off a definition of something accomplishes Womanhood. What is that? I think it's—well, that's the thing too, and I, I do think that gets a little complicated, right? Because there are social norms for a gender. But I do think we try to break that, right? For sure. But you said that specific friend is more of a woman than you are. Why? I think she's a better person than me. I think she liv—women are better people. She's a better woman than I am. I'm not saying women are better people. No, but what, what makes a woman a woman? Because you said she's more of a woman than you are. So I want to know what that definition is. Right. Okay, I'm going to let somebody else go. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Parker, what is a woman? A woman is an adult human person that has a desire to be in accordance with a particular set of social and cultural norms that are typically associated with a female sex. Define a man. Associate. You're looking at one. XY chromosomes. And okay. Do, does God the Father have XY chromosomes? Incarnation, we literally have a religious, a father, and he's he him, but he's not a man. We have a religious. So a man is someone with XY chromosomes, but he doesn't have XY chromosomes. He's still a man. He still use prefer. Actually, very interesting. In the original Hebrew, Adonai, do you know what Adon is? It's the Hebrew word for God. It's actually genderless. But in this, in actually in the scriptures, they use he, right? And they use the masculine. Jesus Christ came to Earth as a man, not as a woman, not as gender queer. But let's go back to. But God the Father is a man, right? All fathers are men. Well, first of all, there's a Trinity. So God the Father is neither man nor woman. He is omniscient, omnipotent. He is all being. On top of. So why do you use he? Well, I did not. The scriptures do. You could use woman, you could say her, you could use him. But the way that the language is structured, again, it is. So the God the Father is so above gender. It is so above any of our understanding with glory and understanding. Again, because you have to make a choice. Either he or him, him or her. In the original scriptures. Let's go back to. I'm happy. Father are. So I'm, I'm. So some fathers are not men. And boys. Not men or boys. I'm sorry. Some fathers are not male. No, of course they are. I'm not. Wait. So God the Father is a male? Hold on. God the Father. So where, where do we get God the Father from? What, what Greek word from your scripture? Well, from ABA, right? Which is a very close, personal term. You're not answering my questions. And you bring up random language that doesn't matter. Well, it actually does. No, it doesn't. But let me, let me get down to the root of it. Because I, cuz he's not a man. You know, he's not a man under your worldview. Yet you still use his preferred pronoun. You still call him a man. You don't do that with trans people because you're transphobic. That's why. Okay, got it. But Christ is a man. I'm happy to get into the sexuality and—

Okay. Before Incarnation, there's no penis. There's no XY chromosomes. There's no. Second, let's think about it. If that's correct, how is it then Jacob saw the face of God? Okay, so if there was not before the Incarnation, how did Jacob see the face of God? How did Jacob wrestle with God? Characters can have faces without biology. How did Jacob wrestle with God? So, so, do you think that he has a body? Well, or was that a figurative notion of of wrestle? That's that's a mystery of the scriptures. I'm not here. Well, it is. I'm not here to debate theology. Can we go back to? We're talking about. He does he actual biology? You keep trying to pivot because you know this debunks you. What, what biology does your God have? What, what? Well, the one of Christ, our Lord. I meant before Incarnation. Well, I, I, to be honest, I don't quite know. And I don't think the scriptures. You don't know what a man is. Well, you can't define what a man is. It's a little opaque. Again, you're looking at a man. But your, your video, the largest video on TikTok is "What is a Woman?" 20 million views. But you don't know what a man is on your own worldview. I said, you're looking at a man, right? Wait, but God the Father doesn't meet that criteria. Am I looking at a man? Okay, good. Just make a man that's debating you. That's fine.

So let me ask you a question, though. So do you think that anybody can become a woman? Um, I think that anyone who meets my criteria is a woman. What's your criteria again? Adult human person that has a desire to be in accordance with a particular set of social and cultural norms that are typically associated with the female sex. Can society ever be wrong? Sure. But like, it's, it's, it's a, it's a desire to be in accordance with a set of social and cultural norms. Can I become—if I blackface? No, because it's not a desire that you have to be in accordance with particular. Because race is defined phenotypically based upon the expression to other people. But you're by some standard, you're judging that. Do you think there's a phenotypical expression of someone who's white and someone who's black? Like, I see you're white because you're phenotypical expression, right? So, but do you think, but Rachel Dolezal, that said she is black and culturally black, is she black? Does she, does she have phenotypical characteristics we would associate? Phenotypical? I'm not sure what that word means. Phenotypical. It's going to be the, like, the expression. Yes. Okay. So she, she, she could pass as a black person. Wait, so she doesn't have the melanin content? She's borderline. No. Okay. So then she's not black. Okay. So you're able to say who is black and not black. That's how we define it in society. No. Okay, got it. So, but is there an objective definition of who is black? Wait, language is all subjective. Linguistics professionals indicate it's subjective. Language is all subjective. Yes, absolutely. Every word you just used was created by other human beings that are engaging in conversation. You might think it's created by God, but even then, it's still subjective. Now, we— God, subjective. Now we're getting similar. Is the word and the value behind murder objective or subjective? Well, I think morality is subjective. But you think it's subjective too? Because it comes from God. That's interesting. Wait, does it come from God or independent of God? Well, no, it's, of course, it comes from God. It's transcendent being. That's subjective. Yes, it is. If it comes from God, it's, it's specifically subjective. It comes independent of God, then it's objective. What you just told me is is also comp—moral antirealism. So let's go back to the Ten Commandments. You don't understand metaethics. Well, I, I, hold on a second. What does subjective morality mean? What does subjective morality mean? That it, it comes in everybody's own opinion, their own form, not dependent on a stance. God is a stance, and that's the truth of morality. So if, let's, let's, let's believe. Do you believe in the, if everybody believed in the concept of God, the transcendent God, that there was a Ten Commandments and we should live by them? Right. Is that objective morality? No. Just because people agree, does that make it objective? Again, independent of stance. Agree is what is objective morality. That's sorry. Thanks. We'll be back at it next time.

Mason, get—are you—nice to meet you. Okay, so I think it's a little scummy that you're plagiarizing the whole Matt Walsh thing. Like, your thing is the worship of Israel. Like, that I pay him royalties. Okay, for sure. Well, do you want to talk about sex first, or do you want to talk about gender? I don't think gender exists. I think it's a, it's a, it's a term that John Money and Judith Butler created over the last 40 years that basically is a filler for personalities.

Okay, well, if we're talking about sex, which it seems like you're saying is the exact same thing, um, would you say sex is binary by definition? For sure. Yes, absolutely. Okay, so you're already incorrect. Like, sex is not binary, it's bimodal. So if you look at a distribution graph, we're going to see people in two camps majority of the time, but there are going to be externalities on both ends of the spectrum and in the middle. We talk about inter—however, with intersex, though, they are mutations of a binary. Correct? No, we're, we're talking about on, but which we're talking about an entire spectrum, which, which by definition, defeating your expression of what a binary is by saying that there are externalities. But, but let me ask you a question, that like XXY, you're trying to create this own box and then use any examples that are outside of that box. You brought up—justify that box again. You brought up intersex. We're talking about reality. You brought up intersex. What sex organs? Which one is more dominant? What do you mean in an XXY situation? Can you explain your point of view? Obviously, you have more female characteristics than male characteristics in an XXY, or it might be YX, one of the one of the two. The point is that you, you do not have both. We could see people with female reproductive organs that have XY, and we can see the vice versa, people with male reproductive organs that have XX sex. So I think you said something about gender, though. I think that's more inter—to get into. Do you understand how the convers—we're moving off of sex because you're seeing that argument? No, I'm not seeing it. You want to keep going into it? We can, if you'd like.

Okay, so, so besides male and female, what categories exist? We, we have people that are intersex. We have people that are on the other ends of the bimodal distribution graph. Are you, are you aware what bimodal means versus binary? Um, somewhat of an understanding. Okay, well, you can be presented with a graph after this by the people that you brought with you. But it's, it's actually bimodal distribution. Just like constantly going to condescending type talk is not going to be fruit. I'm just trying to match your energy with the people that you treated that were trying to have a—

Trans women are not women. Do you agree with that? I would say that trans women are women because people that exist under the category of women, people that exist under the category of men, are still humans. So that category, how, how is that defined? Well, I wouldn't limit it to things like genitals or things like chromosomes, which seems like you want to do. What type of genitals would you say I have? Since there are—obvious genitals. I'm not obsessed with genitals, but I could do a blood sampling right now and I could see exactly what you are because every single one of your trillions of cells are either coded with XX or XY. No, no. How much surgery or whatever. I think that you are a man. But you could fool me. You could take hormones. You could play camouflage. Like I could fool you to be Hispanic if I had the right Hollywood makeup director. That doesn't mean that you are the thing though.

But, but you're going from an objective biological perspective, which we've already talked about with sex. I'm talking about a social construct or a social utility. So like, if we were at a restaurant, right? I'm sitting down and I'm sitting down at the table, and you're telling the waiter, "Hey, I want to go sit with blank." What would you use with you? He doesn't know my name. Yeah, I'm sitting over there. That guy. Yeah, yes, correct. Guy. You're going to typically use he or him, or you're going to say, "That guy." Like you just said. Correct. Because you're ascribing the male gender to me based on my—I say I could be an error. Maybe you are a biological woman, and then you'd correct yourself, right? That take. May, maybe not. So that's what we, that is exactly what we're trying to say. We're, so the question is, do you think that Womanhood can then be assumed just through costume design? It's not costume design. What is it then? It's performative social characteristics. So you could act. That's what gender is. Great. So you could, it's like a theater troop. It's not a theater troop. These are social. These are social. Can be appropriated. No, they're cat—they're categories. That's what it is. So, so there's nothing inherent about the chromosomes. There's nothing that—correct. Wow. We disagree. So there's nothing inherent about having a period or being able to give birth or the specific hormonal makeup. In different cultures, we've ascribed that to Womanhood. If you go back to other cultures, spending thousands of years, you'll see a difference. When it, like, for example, the Mayans had plenty of people that were schizophrenic, right? So that means nothing to me, right? Okay. We have people that say they're hearing things from God. Would you say that schizophrenic? Well, not necessarily. It built Western civilization and common law and due process and individual rights, defense of the unborn, and the greatest civilization ever. You know, that voice from God happened to build the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world. That's fine. Okay. I think the Mayans would say the same thing. That's the problem with presuppositional arguments. Is that you could say, "Man, God's telling me right now." Do you think that's real? Can we go visit the Mayan Nation? They didn't last that long, did they? Yeah, overkilling and violence. And you can justify that if you like. You mean all the child sacrifice? This is the kind of—that's why I'm trying to match it. Is because you mean all the child sacrifice, the Mayans, and incin—dead on the top of temples. Great civilization. You want to go back in the Old Testament? Let's bring Parker up in here. Talk about all the, the child, child marriage. We can talk about the justification of—

Where was child sacrifice ever in the Bible? Um, when Isaac or Isaac was almost sacrificed by his dad, he wasn't though. Because at the beginning of Genesis, so God just said, like, "No, just kidding, dog. Don't actually." Why? Because at the beginning of Genesis 16, it said, "I'm going to test to prove obedience." Yeah, that's right. So now you know it. So actually, no, there was no child sacrifice in the Bible. It was a prohibition on child sacrifice. The, but anyway, that's a little bit of a rabbit hole. Do you understand at least? Can you sympathize with our perspective? Okay, that, that, I'll calm it down a little bit. I apologize for the con—I mean, you're doing it. It's fine. But you see where this could get wildly out of control? At least on the—I don't see how it gets out of control. Because even in sports, for example, you think that there's no—there's, so this is this is something that we might be able to agree upon, right? Sports were not archaeologically dug up, right? The rules of sports, they are things that we've created as a society. We have decided as a society, the most fair categorization is male sports and female sports. Now, as we've been able to understand, or at least bring into the forefront, people who don't identify with the bind, we still have to allow all people that are women in the women's category and all men that are men in the women's category. That includes cis and trans. If you'd like to change that category because you think it's unfair, we can do that. That's what's awesome about arbitrary rules is we can decide. Hormones. I might not know this, but like, when the Greeks started the Olympics 2,000 years ago, did they have like a bunch of dudes wrestling with women? I don't even think they allowed women to compete. Well, I might be wrong on that, but that kind of proves the point though, that there was a, what did we do to allow women? We changed the rules, right? No, but that by definition, therefore, there is something from body composition, bone mass, long density, testosterone and estrogen rates. So endocrinology is different. If you, if you'd say the majority of males in the bimodal distribution graph, we're going back to that. You can say, "Hey, we, we want this level of hormones in this particular category," and we can separate it by hormones. I agree with you that a majority of men are majority of—sity. You got to be like 99.9%. I don't know. Ronda Rousey could kick my ass. I will say that. No, for sure. But I mean, but could she kick Conor McGregor's ass? Well, now we're talking about the peaks, right? She said the—no, because you're talking about the peaks of two different categories in the same sort of. Right, because, because why? She's a cis woman. Well, she's a cis woman and a cis man. But yes, and he could kick her tail, right? Yes, I would agree. Okay, for sure. Right, because cis men and cis women have different hormone levels. If you want to change the hormones, we can change the categorization. You're saying that you want men and women, bar none, and you say that's the most like, fair category. Then we have to all men. But again, there, those things don't. So I just want to be clear. So because I think I'm tracking your argument, is that in the University of Pennsylvania swim team, when Thomas swam against biological women, that was, you're perfectly fine with that? I think as long as we have the categories that way. Thanks. Good to meet you. Yeah. You want to get him in? This isn't debated yet. No, no, no. You're fine. You're fine. You're fine. What's your name? Hi, my name is Pry. Nice to meet you. P-R-I-Y. Nice to meet you. Go ahead, Pry. Pry. T-R-Y. You're totally. Yeah. Um, okay, so I kind of want to go back to a little earlier. You said that a Parker has lower T than you. So would you say—a joke. Yeah, no, no, I'm, I'm fully, I'm fully aware of a joke. But I guess like on that, on that point, do you think that like T has to do or testosterone has to do with your manhood? Like, well, yes and no. I mean, for, if you are looking at typical testosterone, estrogen rates of women, they are far different than those of men. But for example, like your testosterone rate goes down when you have children, for example, when you're a man. That doesn't make you less of a man. They go, they go down by, by 400 points. Okay, but like when we were talking earlier about like sports, right? And you were saying that the reason why it's unfair for like, like for example, a trans woman who used to be a man to be like competing in women's sports, you said you cited that they have higher testosterone levels. One of about 50 characteristics also lung density. The men's hearts are bigger. We have greater bone, bone density, muscle mass. Be faster, T to be stronger. I, I understand. But like, those factors all come from the hormones during the development process. Say, correct? No, not necessarily. No, I mean, most of them do. Well, not all of them. So for example, you could try to pump a young girl's body with testosterone at eight years old, and you can get them stronger. You cannot necessarily get them on par with a biological male at puberty. You cannot. You could try. Okay, but like, because there's something in the coding of our genetics, the coding of our genetics, which is often like controlled by like different, like, I guess parts of our DNA, and also the hormones that are produced that affect the, the effective coding. Endocrinology is a big part. Because for example, if you just give a kid testosterone, that doesn't even get them close to becoming a male or estrogen, giving them a female, they might get characteristics that are close to that, right? Okay, but it does for, but I mean, like, there's no perfect image of like, this is what a female looks like, this is what a male looks like. Like, we all get our periods at different ages. Some of us, like, like, and also, for example, like there are many circumstances where Womanhood is just not one thing. It's a multitude of experiences. Every single person. Can you define what Womanhood is? That's an interesting question for you. Well, no, I can't define what Womanhood is. And the reason why is because it's something that's an individual experience for every single person. Right? Like my experiences, what I have experienced throughout my life, is not going to be the same as another woman who may have like grown up in a different environment. Disagreement, but not clarity. I say that being a woman or Womanhood is an objective thing. Right. But objective outside of one's own opinions or experiences. So, but are we at the point where we're discussing where this is like, not something based on your chromosomes, but something maybe based on a construct? Well, no, it also can be objectively witnessed in empirical ways, in biological ways, in scientific ways. Okay, so to clarify, we're still discussing whether Womanhood is on chromosomes or not. If, if you'd like to discuss that, it's deeper than just chromosomes, right? Right. I'm just trying to, for ex, for example, if we look at spec scans or brain scans of men and women, 98% of the time, artificial intelligence can tell you which one is the men and which one is the male, female. Okay, so our different parts of our brains fire. So for, for men, for example, our amygdalas are not as high-working as women. You know what amygdala is? The threat assessment part of your. So obviously, like your birth. So there's a difference between the concept or what sex is, which is a biological aspect, and what gender is, which is a social construct. I reject gender completely as a different word. It's really personal. That's where the debate is. It's the existence of gender. Gender, gender means personality. Okay. I don't doubt that biological men might have. How would you define race on that point? How would I define? How you define race? Well, race is a very difficult topic. Okay, because I think that it's a really important thing to discuss when it comes. If I draw, if I draw blood, is it ethnic lines? Is it, if you have a blood sample of a black individual and a white individual, I can't tell you which one is which. If I have a blood sample of a man and a woman, I can tell you which one is which just by running very simple, elementary blood tests. So for example, if there was a Hispanic or a white, there is no difference in the genetic coding. There just isn't. Why is it important that someone's—Oh, okay.

My next claim is that Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate.

A lot of competition. Mason. Yeah, exactly. Good to see you. Good to see you again. Um, can I define what a DEI candidate is? I, I think that you're going to say because she's black and she's a woman, she's appointed because Joe Biden promised that. And it's not a testament to her. Not only that, but also in the, her getting the nomination of the Democrat Party, they said repeatedly, "We do not want to pass over a black female." Okay, so just those two things. But the first one is stronger. You're right. Joe Biden said, "I'm going to put on my vice presidency a black female." Right, right. So his criteria. Yeah. And that was like Karen Bass and Kamala Harris. So she was not chosen because of her intellect or her accomplishments or because of any of that. It was because she happened to fit a couple boxes. In fact, Amy Klobuchar, the vetting at the time was that Amy Klobuchar would have been a better VP, and Kamala ended up getting it. So it's just a statement of fact that she is there not because of her brilliance or accomplishments, but because of her ethnicity. So Kamala Harris, first and foremost, there are a lot of criticism that you can give to her on why she wouldn't be an effective president. It shouldn't be because she's a woman or because she's black. And it seems to be that you're—I'm just, I just want people to understand and agree. She didn't earn it. She, she absolutely did. She has, she has a career where she's been not only a—

DEI stands for diversity, equity, inclusion. I like the meme, though. I know what it is. But do you at least admit and acknowledge that when Joe Biden was searching for a VP, he cared more about skin color and a female than the smartest, best person? So the whole conversation with this affirmative action with DEI, the whole reason why people bring it in is to make this imaginary scenario that there's a super qualified white man who was overpassed by this unqualified, stupid idiot person of color, which is such a terrible analogy because it's not true. Absolutely not true. That's not what it is. Joe Biden did not say, "I'm going to choose an unqualified person." Just his own team. He's saying that I'm going to have two qualified people. If one comes from a different experience, it might be better to have a diversity and have a better perception. Informs of—he said at the South Carolina debate, "We'll pick a black woman as my vice president." Secondly, Amy Klobuchar came out. Is this a random black woman that he plucked off the street? Or is this a qualified DA, general attorney who's had a decorated career, leading government positions? You can, but you keep rambling about things that just aren't relevant to what we're talking about. It is relevant. Amy Klobuchar, in vetting, came across as the more qualified candidate. Why? Because they said Kamala Harris wasn't very smart, wasn't very bright. That's their own vetting documents from the, from who? Joe Biden's own vetting documents show. Why would he go against that? Because the base of the Democrat Party demands tribal politics and DEI politics over competency. That's completely—he stated to Jim Clyburn, said, "I will only endorse you in the South Carolina primary if you say that you're going to put a black person, preferably a black female, on your ticket with you." Therefore, you winnow the entire universe down and say, "I'm only going to choose from this criteria." And let's just think more broadly. If you're about to have heart surgery, would you rather have a heart surgeon that's good and excellent, knows what he's doing, or someone that is a black female? So, and being president is more important than being a heart surgeon. Aren't you on record saying that you'd be terrified if there was a black pilot that was flying? I did say that. But what, why? What was the full quote? I, I personally, I don't know if you want to expand on. Yeah, so this, this ties into this. United Airlines said that half of all their new hires are going to be black or women, and that standards and pursuit of excellence is not going to be taken as, um, seriously as diversity. When I'm flying a plane, I want to know my pilot is there because they're a good pilot, not because they fit some DEI box. Damn it. I wish we could have a better conversation. I'm sorry, man.

Fast man. Okay, so let's say that Kamala Harris was the DEI hire as vice president. Do you think she's also a DEI as the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party? Potentially. Yeah, I mean, they decided to go to her almost immediately because she is the VP, but also because she fits some criteria boxes. But let me ask you, you, you don't think it's because Joe Biden nominated or no? For sure, that's part of it. Of course, it is. But let me ask you, what's her greatest achievement accomplishment? Her greatest achievement accomplishment? I'd say her greatest achievement or accomplishment is completely destroying the Republican Party within like two weeks of being nominated, like in the polls. She's just absolutely—huh? Sorry.

How are you? Nice to see you. What's your name? Amanda. Amanda. So you believe because Kamala is black and a woman, she was chosen for belief? Her own team. Joe Biden said that. He said, "I said that." Yeah, he said, "I'm first." Because beforehand, he said, "I'm going to choose a black female for vice president." He didn't say, "I'm going to choose the most gifted or the most talented or the most accomplished." He said, "So he said, I'm going to choose a black female." And so by definition, that is DEI. That is not the definition of DEI. By him saying that, he was going to choose a black female, that could insinuate that he already had Kamala in mind for the role. No way does that insinuate that she's DEI. What is DEI then? DEI would be choosing somebody based on their race. No, it's giving people of color the opportunity to be welcomed into spaces in which they typically aren't able to get. There's never been a female black vice president. And why do you think that is? Well, not why you just said that's DEI. So by definition, she's DEI. Okay, so she represents diversity within the government. No, I'm saying she got elevated because she was a black female. Because if that were the case, I'd be the president right now. Do, do you, do you think, do you think Kamala Harris was chosen because of her intelligence, her qualifications, and her intelligence? Really? Wow. If you compare what's greatest accom—what's her greatest accomplishment? Prosecutor within the Northern California area. You mean letting out violent criminals and turning San Francisco into one of the most murderous, dangerous, arson-filled, homeless-filled slums in the country? That's her greatest accomplishment. See, I actually went to UC Berkeley, so I lived there. I don't know if you did. I went around. Berkeley is a slum. Berkeley is a slum. Have you stepped into Berkeley? Yes, I have. You think Oakland and Berkeley? Have you lived in Berkeley? I've lived in Oakland as well. Your basing your, you think the Bay Area is like a good area in this country? I'm from Vegas, so I'm not from the Bay. Born and raised in Vegas and went to UC Berkeley, CH, graduated this year. What you're saying literally in no way, shape, or form. So you think her overseeing San Francisco becoming the laughing stock of the country is—is not the laughing stock of the country. If anything, that's Florida. No offense. But hold on. If that's the case, why are millions of people moving to Florida and millions of people leaving California? Because there are cheaper rates there. People are moving to Las Vegas. Las Vegas. It's cheaper because it's a better-run state. And we don't give money to—is Northern California not the entirety of California? There's Southern California. Cali—why is it that so many businesses are leaving San Francisco? If she did such a great job lowering crime? Do you know businesses go where things are cheapest to operate? Why are they cheaper? Because they're better-run states. Do you realize that California is one of the most populated states within the US? So obviously costs are going to be high. Not only that, but land within this state is also very, very, very minimal. So hold on. You have, you have tons of land. You're one of the biggest states in the country. Yes, it is one of the biggest lands. But do you also take into account the population that's here? Yes. Florida and Texas have a greater combined population than California. And Cal—California has more population and more, more land mass than Florida. Why is it that San Francisco has a declining population and Miami, Tampa, Orlando have an increasing population? What does this have to do with DEI? Because she ran San Francisco poorly, and she was chosen as a VP because she was a black woman. San Francisco, she was the DA of San Francisco. She's prosecuting. And then she became the AG of California, where crime went up, homelessness went up, arson went up, kidnapping went up. Is it not the job of the police to get the criminal? The attorney, the attorney general of the state is the top cop of the state. Yes. And what did she do to lower crime in California? She convicted those who were guilty. Why did crime go up? Because as the population increases and this econ—economy gets worse, no worse, people are becoming more and more desperate, which leads to crime. Thank you.

Mine will be quick. Mine will be really quick. Go ahead. Okay, so real quick. You're saying that the only reason she was elected was is because she's black. So that trumps her being a district attorney and all the—this is not my words. I'm just going on Joe Biden's own words. Joe Biden said, "I'm going to preset criteria based based on black women." And therefore, she met that met that criteria, and that's why she was selected. No, why I think he was, what he was trying to say is, "Oh, I'm, she's just black." She was just calling her black. She's not saying I'm doing. He's not saying. He's not saying I'm doing this because she's black. That's not what she said. He made a public promise before the selection even began, the process began. "I will put a black woman on the ticket." So you're saying her being district attorney doesn't matter? That's not why. But an awful being a failed businessman and making all the comments, weird comments he's made. Well, hold on a second. That doesn't have, like, what I'm getting at, though, is that if she was not a black woman, she never would have been chosen as vice president. Her record was abysmal. She was a terrible attorney general of California. She had poorly—I'm so sorry, I'll be quick. I'll be quick. I'm so sorry. She, she gets the next one. Yeah. All right. Sorry. Yeah. I just have to know. Do you think Tim Walz is a DEI candidate?

Okay, I just wanted to see consistency. DEI does not mean black. Tim Walz was only chosen because the Democrat Party is doing so poorly with white men that they tried to find a white man that they could put on the ticket. But then also, true. Tim Walz is the first white DEI candidate in history. Okay. In the Democratic primaries, Kamala Harris was performing incredibly well. And she wasn't performing well in the primaries just because she was black. She was performing well in the primaries because during her time as a senator, she spoke incredibly eloquently. I used to watch. Hold on a second. How did she do in the Democrat primaries? She did like much better than Amy Klobuchar. She didn't even make it to Iowa. She dropped out months ahead of the first primary. She was super unpopular, not well-liked. Her campaign fizzled out. So she was, she was popular initially. Initially, yes. And then the more people learned about her, the more realized she was awful. Well, it was mostly because like progressives are really upset about her being a DA, which like can be like, that's a completely different. Why aren't progressives upset about that now? I mean, they are. But oh, they are. That's new to me. Everyone's talking about how great prosecutor she is. Progressives are definitely upset about the like how, um, like the Biden administration has handled like the atrocities and gods and how like they, they are definitely things that Democrats are upset about. However, that's not the point of this conversation. I, that's correct. That is not the point. That's not the point. What the point is, is that a lot of a. Thanks, guys. Okay. Hi. How are you doing? Right. So, um, you keep saying that Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate. And I feel my main fallacy with this argument is that competency can't be objectively determined because we all have subjective definitions of what a competent politician is. But my question for you is, if Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate, why is she beating Trump in the polls right now? We'll see what happens in November. Okay. But she's currently beating Trump in the polls. So either if the polls are right, I grant you that she's incompetent, or or maybe she's a new candidate with a big surge. I, I would caution you being a little like, this point in the election, getting too cocky because we remember what happened with. I'm not getting cocky. I'm asking you to answer a question. If she is incompetent, how could she beat the president who you said is an—as of the timing of this filming. Can you name to me how many times she sat down for an interview? What? No, she refuses to talk to the press, refuses to take questions. She's not one sit-down interview in nearly 25 days at the filming of this interview, mind you. Which I don't know, a very weird point to make. Why would I count how many times Kamala Harris has interviewed? Because she refuses to take questions from the press and media. Like, shouldn't you do that if you're the city vice president? She's, uh, he actually did three last Sunday. And

One today with Meet the Press. So the quality, the qualification of a good president is to take an interview. If you can't take a single question, but let me ask you this because it's on you can. What's her greatest accomplishment as vice president? As vice president, being the first female, all black president, we've never had. No, no, like I got that, but like, what, what's her accomplishment that made people's lives better? I don't know, vice presidents don't really do much, to be honest. Can you name one thing she's done that's good? No. Probably not. Thank you. The Inflation Reduction Act really did that, lower inflation? What's your name? Brad. Brad Brady. Nice to meet you. Uh, I like the idea, 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off. I think the best thing I could say about this is, you have your opinion and I can have mine. You believe that Donald Trump was a good president. I maybe don't believe that. You believe that Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate for the position of President. I don't believe that. What I'm getting to is, what do you gain from this? If I concede and say that Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate, what do you gain? Because I know what it is, you're baiting us into rage so that you can make money on your TikTok account. You're baiting college students all over the world into arguing with you over these fallacies. You throw a red herring out there and you're making money from this account. Well, we're sitting here and looking stupid. First of all, I don't control this account. I'm a guest here. This is Jubilee Media, and they're going to edit it how they see fit. Okay, number one. Number two, it needs to be acknowledged that she didn't earn it. She didn't win a Democrat primary. She dropped out in the Democrat primary in 2020. She's never been likable. She's got there simply because of race, not because of competency, not because she's good at her job, and I think that's wrong and it needs to be called out. You're bringing up qualitative examples. These are all subjective qualitative examples. Her race, her competency, her dropping out of the election. These, that's not what you said earlier. This is, I'm talking about the points you've just brought up. Multiple qualitative points, and these points can be believed by you and not by me, as you believe in a God and I don't. These are qualitative arguments that you're making against me for this, and I can believe differently than you, and I think we can agree to disagree on this one. Okay, fine. Perfect. Okay, I think this is going to take the entire time. You're welcome. 30 on, 30 off. How do you feel about the Senate? Uh, far as her, her tie-breaking vote of the Senate? No, no, no. I'm just saying like, Senate, like, like the Senate is technically DEI in a certain sense for like, small states. Like Wyoming gets people, Wyoming gets a greater vote than in California. Like Rhode Island and Hawaii. I'm giving you an example. California, I get less of a vote than someone who exists in Wyoming. So we're giving people in Wyoming more say than they necessarily should, given that they're one individual. So why do you believe in DEI as it relates to how our government is set up? We don't believe in DEI in terms of allowing for people who are black or who are women to be in positions of power that they have not been allowed in historically speaking. So, um, is the Electoral College and the Senate based on race? It's, it's predicated off of diversity, equity, and inclusion, right? Like inclusion of, of country areas, inclusion of rural areas, inclusion of white men like you. Okay, so you mean like Hawaii? I'm referencing, I'm referencing, you could say smaller states or places that have less people in it, obviously, would be able to have more of a say per individual. So your argument is that the US Senate is a DEI? I, I can be honest, I've never heard that argument, but I think it's a little silly. But how is it silly? Argue against it instead of just saying it's silly. Well, right, so it's silly on its face because first of all, we have on the House of Representatives is proportional to population, but the Senate isn't. So it's, de, it's not DEI. Yes, it is. What, why would you say it's diversity, equity, inclusion? Because Wyoming gets two senators. They're their own sovereign state, aren't they? For country areas, for rural areas, equity for rural areas, for smaller states. So let's go back to the Federal Papers and the founding fathers. Why was the Senate composed? Tell me why it's not DEI, like under your definition. Why not based on race? And by the way, it does have to be based, it's not based on equity, and it's not based on inclusion. Can you have based upon different character other than race, whether or not you're a woman, whether or not, let me finish. Why? Because we are a collection of states. We are not a federal project. So states' rights usurp federal. Do you know what the 17th Amendment is? Do you know, do you know why the Articles of Confederation failed? Yes, but what is the 10th Amendment? Because had to, right, had too much power. That's why we specifically added the. Let me, let me make one point, okay, which is how did we use to elect senators? It'd be population. No, we used to elect senators based on state legislatures. So the Senate is an extension of the state legislative bodies. That's not DEI. That's federalism. That's the way that our system is set up, which is a bottom-up, citizen-led government to allow the states, which are first and foremost sovereign. So it goes in this ladder in this country. That's still DEI for those states, for those country areas? No, because it's blind. It's not that, oh, it's not only based on race. Hold on a second. Diversity for, for country, diversity for rural, equity for rural, and inclusion of that. That's an inter point. It's only because associate with Harris. Let me ask you a question. Is there a single instance in corporate America or DEI is implemented where diversity means anything other than skin color diversity? So diversity, view, women, women, what? Fine. How about chromosome or diversity or skin color? So, so, so skin color, there's gender. You had to, you have to move the goalpost a little bit because you got destroyed there. All right, but there's also, no, I'm just asking a very simple question. The answer is no, because our system of, do you mean that's not DEI? Your Senate is DEI. What was your definition though? What, what is, what was your definition? Diversity, equity, inclusion. Diversity doesn't only apply to race. You're just saying other people define diversity, equity, inclusion to be based on race. You didn't though. Let me finish because you're saying it didn't earn it. You know who did earn it? South Dakota and North Dakota when they charted themselves into states. Wyoming didn't earn it because they have less into a state. Hold on. All right, who really wants to go? I, I don't want to pick on, I don't want to pick on somebody who doesn't want to get picked on. Okay. Um, you want to debate? What? What is the top? Whatever you want. So you're, you're the affirmative, I'm the negative. Yeah, let's do it. You're good with 10 minutes? I don't want to put you in a spot you don't want to be in. No, no, no. Let's do it. Let's have fun. You sure? [Applause] Okay, okay. I guess the claim I'm making is that affirmative action is constitutional. Tell me about your plan. I wanted to talk about affirmative action because we haven't really gotten to it, and it's recently been revoked based on the new Supreme Court ruling. Um, and I firmly believe that affirmative action is constitutional and is a right that certain American citizens deserve. And I just wanted your thoughts on that. Um, well, the 14th Amendment allows for equal protection regardless of race, and it's a colorblind amendment. And the whole idea of affirmative action is to try to give people extra, um, boost based on their skin color or their racial background, which by definition cuts underneath the idea of equal protection. Okay. Um, so do you know why the 14th Amendment was founded and the Equal Protection and Equal Rights Act? Yeah, the 14th Amendment was a post-Civil War amendment, 1865, 1867. We all during Reconstruction. So what was it in response to? Slavery. Oh, and who were slaves? Well, that's, that's an important point. So the, do you think affirmative action will help heal the multigenerational problems of slavery? I do. I really do. Because, um, so let's just talk about the history for a second. Slavery begins in the early 1800s. Earlier? No, slavery, 1816 is the beginning of slavery. 1619. Oh, yeah, I guess it would be. Okay, first slaves come in 1619. Doesn't end until the 1800s, 1880s. Then we go into Jim Crow laws starting in 1877, and black people are not given equal rights until officially 1965. Would you agree with that? That's generally the, the correct telling. Yeah. So, you know, 1960s, 1970s. Just so we're clear, that black Americans were able to serve in office in the early 1900s. They were able to vote throughout the 1900s. But yes, there were poll taxes, there was Jim Crow laws, there was segregation, of course, there was. And we have to be, yeah, deluded not to acknowledge those things. Okay, so we can acknowledge all of those things. Can we also acknowledge due to the laws under Jim Crow that black people were significantly hindered from economic advancement? This is a really important question. The data shows not really. It was evil. It was terrible. But black Americans are poorer today in 2024 than they were in the 1950s? Yes. Why do you think that is? Good question. So we have the Civil Rights Act, we have more benefits, more government programs. Something changed between the 1950s and 2024. So there's two answers to this question. Either America got more racist since the 1950s, 2024, so like that 70-year period, because blacks, America, black Americans are worse off today per capita. You agree with that? Okay, good. Yeah. Than in the 1950s? Or there's another explanation. And I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, which is, I think you would acknowledge that the disappearance of the black father has been the number one driver of black poverty in this country. Now, there are reasons for that. Yeah. What do you think the reasons for that are? Well, culture is one. Would you agree? So actually, let's go back to the foundation. Prison pipeline, all that stuff. But do, at least, can we at least agree that black dads not being around is a bad thing? Anyone's father not being around is a bad thing. Of course. But 75% of black youth are not raised with a father in the home. It's the highest of any group in the country. It used to be 25% in the 1950s. So it's gone up dramatically in 70 years. Okay, so you are blaming the fact that black people have not been able to achieve economic equality and advancement in this country, specifically and solely because of the absence? Not solely. It is the most primary ingredient reason. Most. So you think it's the absence of black fathers? Correct. And you think what else? Public sector teacher unions that have kept these schools crummy and kids aren't reading and teachers keep getting paid. We don't fire bad teachers. That's a big thing. Okay. War on police in our inner cities and not having enough police and not actually putting up criminals. Let me hear me out. For example, in Chicago, do you know that only half of all murders go, go solved in the city of Chicago? That doesn't surprise me at all. That's a problem, right? That is a problem. Yeah. So we need more police, more detectives to solve those murders. But I, I want to hear your points too. I'm talking too much. So let's go back a little bit to what you said in the issue of policing. Now, starting in the 1980s and continuing onward, there's been a War on Drugs. Is this correct? I like, I like the War on Drugs. You like the War on Drugs? So during the War on Drugs, it created an epidemic of mass incarceration, specifically if you're using drugs. No, or pedaling drugs. If you don't use drugs, then you don't go to jail, right? So you believe that the criminal justice system is flawless? No, I've never said flawless. There's a lot of people in jail that shouldn't be in jail. There's a lot of problems in any system. Okay, so wait, let's clarify on that. So you believe that a lot of people who have gone to jail shouldn't be in jail? A small percent. What percent would you say? 5%. You would say only 5%? Correct. When you have a system of justice, you're going to have scummy prosecutors, you're going to have bad defense attorneys. I have a question. Can I get a Google? What percentage of people currently incarcerated are black? It's way larger than. Well, it's, hold on. It's way larger than. No, I know, but the fact, the fact I'm saying, the fact I'm saying 5%. So that's the point that I'm trying to make. Exactly. Who am I debating here? Am I, if your own government is pumping drugs? Yeah. So wait, okay, so I want to make a quick. You're right, black Americans are in prison far greater than the percentage of the population. So black Americans are about 13 to 14% of the population. About half of prisoners are black. So blacks commit more crimes than whites? Do they commit more murders? They commit more arson? They commit more kidnappings? For example, blacks are 13% of the population and they commit 58% of all the murders. That's not a War on Drugs. That's a culture problem. Okay, so let's talk about that culture. Black people have been legislatively subjugated up until 1965. I'll give it, I mean, honestly, it's later. But let's just say 1965. You do not think that that 10 generations of legislative subjugation and slavery during that time, 4,000 black men, women, and children are lynched as the result of race riots in this country. You do not think that these things have a lasting effect? We have had 10 generations of subjugation and four of legislative. Of course, they have an impact. But it's more on you to explain why things got worse since the Civil Rights Act. More violent, less fathers around, poorer. Why is that? Because of mass incarceration and the unfair criminalization of black men. But let's just take murders for example. Why are, why are blacks 13% of the population and commit 58% of the murders? Why is that? Because people in affluent and whiter neighborhoods are not being policed at the same. Are more? I'm talking about dead bodies. There's no, like, we're not talking about police. We're talking about murders. Why are so many blacks committing murders outside of their population? Okay, let's take it back to some history. I'm curious for an answer to that question. Going to give you one. So let's go to redlining. Okay. Redlining. Redlining. Yes. Is why so many blacks are killing each other? No, let me finish my claim and then you can respond. Is that okay? Okay. So redlining, federally mandated or sustained by the FHA, right? Separating black Americans to specifically impoverished and relegated areas of the country. We are incapable of buying homes and putting equity into neighborhoods with lower crime rates and better educational systems. We do not have access to things that would uplift and help our community. When you are put in an environment that promotes and reinforces social and economic inequality, you become desperate and are forced to do things that maybe don't align with your values. What you're making, you're making an excuse for a lot of murder. When you have, steal a high concentration of a subjugated people in one area, if you were right, when blacks in America did not have the same rights they had today, there were less, they were less murderous. There was less break-ins. Why is that? So I'm sorry, are you trying to say that blacks thrive under subjugation? No, I'm not. I'm saying they, I'm asking you the question. The data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad. It was evil. But what happened? Something changed. They committed less crimes. Maybe they're afraid. I mean, 4,000 black men, women, and children were killed in violent lynchings. Mark that. That's your explanation. But I, racial terror permeated American culture for hundreds of years. Black America is worse than it has been years. The generational psych of an entire group of people. I'm sure it did. I'm not discounting that. I'm just trying to understand why is it the more social welfare we've done? So we've spent $20 trillion on uplifting black communities. $20 trillion, and black Americans are poorer. We've done everything that's been asked. You haven't done everything that's been asked though. Subsidized housing, Medicaid, public schooling, going to subsidized college. We're talking about $2 trillion have been spent on the Great Society, and yet black America is poorer, more murderous, more dangerous. So there's an explanation. I'm asking you. We are not asking for handouts. We are asking for equity. And part of equity, equity means you mean taking from other people? Excuse me. It means sharing, which is something that you guys seem to have a very hard time doing. Sharing. So somebody has to explain why black America, and you haven't, is 13% of the population and commits 58% of the murders. Black people have built and founded this society. Thank you. I was very smart group, very opinionated. There were a couple of other people. I kind of felt bad for them. They had a lot of strong opinions, but they just weren't ready for prime time. Overall, very good group, very impressive. Republicans tend to just focus on like preventing you from arguing your point, not actually countering the points that you come up with. He often will switch the topic, do a lot of Gish galloping and like kind of filibustering to get people to not be able to make the points that they want to make. And I definitely feel like he did that to me. Look, Charlie's a talented guy. There's a reason why he spoke at the RNC. He's media trained. He's had conversations like this before, and he's built a career on dunking on college students. But for a bunch of liberal students who don't have that same type of media training and who aren't as prepared to be in confrontational formats like this, I thought they did a really good job of articulating their views. Yeah, Mason was the smartest kid for sure. Uh, Parker needs to calm down. Very smart, but kept on changing the topic. But he's got talent. Very annoying though. Smart but annoying. Parker definitely gave Charlie a run for his money. Yeah, Parker ate. Parker ate that down. One girl was very nasty. She was a very nasty person. She overly personalized it. I honestly don't regret any of the things I said. The only thing I would have taken back is I said at the end, as I walked away, I said, "I hope your daughter can get away from you." That one was a dig, and that was my bad. But honestly, in the case of her being a 10-year-old pregnant and he won't let her get medical help, that's just wild to me. I can't believe that. I think the group did very great. It's a very hard environment for people to learn in these types of areas, but I think it's best that people get involved in debate and entertainment as it helps people grow and critically think in our society. I thought it was very valuable. I hope people learned something. Um, I think the students were able to refine their arguments and hopefully this gets seen by millions of people where they're able to see what side they land on. Uh, but yeah, it's not easy just to stand there, be 20 on one, but only at Jubilee Media.

Get Our Mobile App

1 Conservative vs 25 Liberal College Students (Feat. Charlie Kirk) | Surrounded

Transcription