ANDREW WILSON ANNIHILATES CLUELESS COMEDIAN

So tonight I'm discussing a few things with Andrew Wilson. While secularism and feminism are points upon which we disagree, and I look forward to the discussion that we'll have about those two topics.

The reason that we're here tonight is because I publicly called Andrew Wilson a grifter. Uh, and I stand by that statement. So I'm not here to argue whether or not Andrew is lying about his political ideologies. And I will not argue whether or not he's got Christ in his heart. When you go to receive your judgment, it's not me who's going to be standing in front of you.

However, to win a debate, traditionally, you make your arguments in front of a judge or panel, and then try to determine, or and they try to determine, whose arguments were more persuasive and well-supported through evidence. That judge or panel is meant to be neutral. Debates are traditionally meant to sway those who are on the fence or convert others to your side of thinking.

In informal debates, that is not the case. In formal debates, there are rules for speaking and decorum. Informal debates are not seeking to discover truth. They are simply just to be right. They are to own the other side. Andrew's own courses, Verbal Combat or Debate University, in name alone, give a false sense of prestige, credibility, and expert-level knowledge. Psychoanalyzing, sorry, psych, psych, psychologically Jesus. It, uh, deres trust and postures him as a leader or authority figure. This is not something that is unique to Andrew. It is a truth for virtually everyone in this new age debate bro era of informal debate and online discourse. And that applies to people on both sides of the aisle. Andrew is no different from Brian Atlas, Destiny, Myron Gaines, Dean Withers, Charlie Kirk, or Hassan [ __ ].

A grifter is defined as somebody who uses deception to deprive people of money or possessions. Now, I am not arguing that Andrew's grift is in his beliefs or his ideologies. I am arguing that the grift of Andrew is that he is benefiting from the sham that is modern informal debate. Andrew is monetized across all platforms. His YouTube happily accepts donations. And for the one-time price of just $249, you can become a, or you can purchase his Verbal Combat course and become extra insufferable at all family holidays.

The purpose of debate is traditionally to further, to further exchange ideas, sometimes conflicting ideas, and to work towards progress. Formally. Excuse me. Sorry. I may need my glasses at some point because I, uh, I am blind and I am reading my notes. Forgive me.

>> In the sport of these live social media debates, the objective is not progress. It is just to win. As I mentioned, by owning your opponent, it is to create drama for clicks and curate algorithmic gotchas. As per the recent studies published by the NIH Library of Medicine, consuming this type of content does more harm than good to the viewer. There has been a particular uptick in reported cases of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation on both sides of the aisle. Reported feelings of isolation and distrust are skyrocketing. You are writing, sorry, you are writing a prescription for a problem that you are manufacturing.

Now, obviously, I am sat here engaging in this very thing that I am disavowing. I am not a political commentator. I am not a Susan debater. I am a comedian. I am natural. I am, I am actually letting down my own audience tonight who wants nothing more than to see me call you a big gay dildo and then rub the olive jar moment in your face. But that is not my plan for this evening. I am not here as a comedian. I am not monetizing from this stream in any capacity. I am not making a move to be a figure in the debate space. My only objective tonight is to pull the curtain and show the audience what this really is, which is just a money grab. I have no intention to operate in this, in this space or be a political pundit moving forward.

The fact that Andrew is here and willing to debate me is evidence of this grift in and of itself. I have said things about Andrew Wilson before publicly on, whatever, on Twitter, on various forms of social media. I've said things about Andrew and he has never engaged back. It was not until one person with five followers tried to appeal to Andrew. And then I tried to very directly tell this person, he does not care about you. This is not some, he doesn't actually care about his audience. He's not your crusader. He's not trying to help you. It wasn't until I made that point and made that curtain pull that Andrew then decided to acknowledge one of my statements and challenge me to this debate. The fact that you would waste your time on an unseasoned, inexperienced debater, someone who is not in this space is evidence that you are just looking to own your opponent and to clip farm through this. So, that is my opening statement. I, uh, I'm excited to see what we're going to have in front of us tonight. I will yield the rest of my time.

>> Thank you, Josie and Andrew. To you, please.

>> That's it. Like that. Are you sure?

>> Yeah.

>> Got all that time. And that those were the points that you wanted to make.

>> There will be more points. We have a two-hour discussion ahead of us.

>> Yeah, I know. But I mean, it's only 30 minutes. Are you, I mean, you're sure you can bring up whatever you want. Like, whatever you want you can bring up in your opening. You still got plenty of time. You sure?

>> No, no, no, I'm sure. We can end that part there. I don't need to just ramble on and give you a speech. One discussion. Okay. So, uh, I guess we'll go through it one point at a time. She defines a grifter as somebody who deprives people of money through nefarious means. I don't see how me having a debate course people ask me to make for them does that. Sounds like somebody's asking me for a product. I created the product and then I sell the product. Now, if it were the case that I was selling a product and then wasn't delivering on the product, uh, that would be depriving people of their money through nefarious means. And I would say that, yeah, that would, that would probably entail grifting of some kind.

Um, she also makes some kind of, um, uh, ridiculous statement. She says a judge or a panel in a formal debate needs to rule who wins. It's not the case. Most of the time judges in formal debates are actually there in order to keep the debate on track, just like in informal debates where you have a moderator. She says an informal debate isn't there to discover truth, but that's exactly what it's there to do. Uh, the thing is is right now, the entire inquisition that she's giving me on being a grifter is for her to try to tell my audience what she believes is the truth. Right? So she negates, uh, her own opening statement immediately.

Uh, she says for $249 you can purchase Debate University. That's true, but I just want to let you know when I launched it was $500. We sold a lot of courses. I'd only recently lowered the price since Christmas because I'm a really nice guy.

She says the objective of debates isn't progress. It's designed to own the opposition. The truth is is that we live in a world in which people have very, very small attention spans because of this, in order to kind of grip them into the things that you're trying to relay to them. And by the way, comics do the same thing. They release bits of themselves, kind of highlight reels of the things that they do and the things that they actually said which were funny in order to, uh, put that out so that people can find them and watch more content from them. They are not. And I'm, I guarantee my opponent's done this. I'm sure if you go to her own channel, she'll probably have very short videos of her which are designed to put her in the best possible light so that people will come and check out her comedy and content. She's guilty of the exact same thing she's accusing me of.

Um, she also says that she has a study when, but I want, I want you to, uh, actually produce a study. And here's why. Something I'd like to point out is that most people who produce studies, especially in debates, haven't actually read them. I would like to actually ask my opponent directly, and I'll give her, uh, just a very quick amount of time here because it's still my opening statement, to just answer this truthfully, right? Did you actually read the study? Yes or no? Or did you just read a synopsis of the study?

>> The truth? I read the study.

>> Okay.

>> Both of the studies.

>> And how many pages is the study?

>> I read it through a web, through the web browser.

>> Yeah. How many pages was it?

>> Well, it was just I scrolled through the.

>> Yeah. How many pages was it though?

>> I wasn't looking.

>> Was it more than 50? Maybe more than 50. 100.

>> 200. Yeah. You didn't read the study. Okay. So, anyway, um, I just want to point out back to my opening statement here, right? That I guarantee you that she just told you first live the night.

Um, by the way, uh, she snuck in a personal attack right away, right? I just really want to call Andrew dildo. I really just want to call her a stupid fat [ __ ]. But, you know, the thing is is like, I guess we can reserve our opening statements. And we can do this one of two ways, right? It can either go off the rails and we can determine who's better at the insult flame war. Guarantee you all win that. Or you can stick to the content. It's totally and completely up to you, right? But considering the fact that it looks like you still are addicted to the fork, I would be very cautious about going down that road. By the way, uh, no evidence at all of any grifting whatsoever. She says he's trying to waste his time with an unseasoned debater. Actually, that would prove that I'm not a grifter. That I do think that the ideology can get out, including to whoever her audience is. The fact that I'm willing to engage with her and I engage with quote unquote nobodies all the time, including on Twitter. Um, I don't, I, I have no idea where she's, where, where she's even trying to go with that exactly. So, um, so far I haven't seen any evidence of grifting. All I've seen is, uh, a bit of personal incredulity. Andrew Wilson have course, sell course, therefore grift. Very strange. Uh, I don't see why it's a problem for me to, uh, create a course that highlights, uh, various debate skills that people seem to want and are willing to pay for. So with that, I'm willing to dive right into it. Just remember, it's up to you how the debate goes. It's up to you.

>> Thank you so much, Andrew. And as a kind reminder to the audience, we're going to get through, uh, the Andrew is a grifter portion of the debate, then we will move into secularism and then feminism. Uh, of course, we will get through the debate, go into closing statements, and then read and respond to your kind super chats. Thank you so kindly. Uh, of course, as always, uh, tomato tradition, we will go into open panel afterwards, but I know we will be kind of on a time crunch as far as the, uh, debate is concerned. Uh, Josie and Andrew, I leave the floor open to you.

>> Yeah. So, how does me having a debate course give evidence of grifting? Exactly.

>> Okay. So why did you name your course Debate University?

>> Uh, well, because the idea there was to follow up, uh, with more courses for debate that I could sell for profit in the future.

>> So there was there was no intention behind naming it university to maybe foster a sense of trust or imply a level of expertise.

>> I think it rolls off the tongue well.

>> And the whole Verbal Combat. Why did you why did you choose to go with a theme of war or fighting?

>> Yeah. So, a lot of my debate style comes from, uh, old, there's a, a sequence of old books, especially written by, uh, prison guards who express and explain the ideas behind what is called verbal combat. What verbal combat is and combat no contact is that you're always when you're engaging with opposition and engaging with ideas, you're in a form of mental, mental combat. That's, uh, that's what's going on. And so the reason prison guards obviously do it is because they want to defuse situations that they don't, don't escalate. If those situations escalate, their very safety is at risk. I was always a big fan of that because I think ideologically that's also true between the left and the right, that these are very high stakes conversations, ultimately they do change minds and that they do have effects in society, and it is a war and it is combat with no contact.

>> You feel that this is combat, that this is a verbal war?

>> That the, the ideology between the left and the right. Yes, it is a, it is war. Yes. The, the discussion between you and me, you feel that this is combative.

>> The debate course, the debate course isn't called, you know, how to, uh, debate with unfunny comedians. The debate course is called Verbal Combat. The idea behind it is the left-right dialectic and how to engage with progressives and feminists and debate and beat them. And yes, I do think that that is an ideological war and it's been going on for a long time. And so are you, are who are your famous or political or, uh, who are your famous graduates? I'll frame it that way. We'll keep the university theme.

>> You don't get diplomas. It's not a diploma mill. You just buy, you can buy the course and watch it. There's no, there's no certificate. There's no graduates. And by the way, it was never framed as being that, ever. University.

>> You don't think that university implies that there's some sort of course completion or certification that comes with it?

>> There's nothing like that in the course. Never has.

>> Right. So, you think that univers, the word university in and of itself doesn't imply that? Do you, do you like, do you assume that people who are interested in, uh, debating with opposition using, uh, their verbal IQ are so [ __ ] stupid that they're going to be fooled by the word university, uh, inside of a slogan to get them to buy a debate course? You just think that they're really [ __ ] stupid and that you're really smart? Like you wouldn't be fooled. Of course, just them, the stupid plebs in my audience, they're just too dumb to understand that even though this was marketed as a way in which, uh, you could tangle with somebody ideologically and win, uh, that somehow they're going to be fooled into thinking they get a diploma in what, how to debate kind of better? Like, what do you think that they're being fooled by here?

>> I think they're being fooled into thinking that, okay, well, if I learn from Andrew Wilson, if I buy his course, I'm going to be an expert. I'm gonna know how to be an expert debater. That's what it's gonna be. So maybe not necessarily a physical diploma, but certainly.

>> Have you, have you watched the course?

>> I'm not giving you $249, Andrew.

>> Okay. So, so the answer, so the answer is no.

>> Yeah, of course it's not.

>> Okay. So then if you don't even, uh, know what the content is or what's expressed in the course or how things are described to the people in the course, this is not a classroom style where you have a chalkboard. This is me expressing the laws of logic. I brought in multiple, uh, logicians who were expert apologists to walk through the format of logical debate online. And thus far, I've gotten a, a very, very positive response from people who have viewed it.

>> I don't know what to tell you.

>> What have those people gone on to do? What have they?

>> Well, many of them, many of them debate pretty prominently online. Many of them right here on this very channel that you're on right now. There's been dozens and dozens of them, uh, who it seems to have helped them quite a bit. I get many, uh, emails from people who say it seemed to have helped them quite a bit in their personal lives when it came to dealing with their boss, co-workers, things like this. Um, I wasn't that I was surprised. I didn't even know that that would be a potential side outcome for the course, but apparently it was. This was really just focused on how to engage in ideological verbal combat pro across ideological lines and how to prepare people who have my ideology for that if they had interest in it. And it appears that it worked very well.

>> Can you name any of the, any of the seasoned debaters that you have educated?

>> You mean the ones that go on this program?

>> I've personally never seen this program. I wouldn't, I don't know their names. Well, then how would you know if I named them and I was lying or not? You should take my course and then you wouldn't fall into those traps.

>> I'm saying you can name if they're.

>> Oh, sure. John, Jill, Jack, Jim, Fred, Chuck, Terry. Go ahead and refute that I'm lying. Prove it. Prove that I'm lying. Prove it.

>> But no household names. No major names in the debate space. Nothing like that.

>> Well, what, what does it take? What's a major name in the debate space? What would you consider? And I would argue that your name would be a major name in the debate.

>> So people, so people have been at this for years and years and years. And do you think that this course was marketed as though if you took it, you were going to be launched into prominence on YouTube for your debate skills? Do you honestly, do you honestly think that?

>> I mean, again, the word university would imply that if you complete it, you would gain some sort of level of expertise.

>> No, it doesn't. It doesn't imply that. That is actually what the word university would imply. Yeah.

>> No, it literally doesn't imply that. All it, all that the university would imply is that there's some level here of learning that's going on. Not that there would be a level of expertise that goes on after you're done learning whatever the said thing is. For instance, you can have an introduction to debate, which I have for instance. Why would that entail that you would instantly have some sort of higher level of expertise? All it would mean is that you receive some form of education on something. That's it.

>> Well, then why not Debate Elementary School?

>> It's not as catchy.

>> It's not as catchy.

>> I would argue that it would be more appropriate.

>> Why? How would you know? You haven't watched the course. How the hell do you know your own?

>> Like, how do you know?

>> By your own admission.

>> Okay. Well, look, let me ask you if you, here. Let's, let's, let's, let's find out if this holds muster. If I ask you, what, what are the three laws of logic? Can you tell me?

>> No.

>> No. Can I, if I ask you, what are metaphysics? Can you tell me?

>> No.

>> Can I, can you tell me what epistemology is?

>> Uh, that is the knowing, like what the truth is and the difference between an belief, belief, and or an opinion.

>> No, but it, it's still, I mean, it was, it was still a good try. Okay, I'm not going to beat you up about it, but, um, you know, what about, what about ontology?

>> No.

>> No. Okay. So, the thing is is like, these are very basic, uh, forms of, of philosophy that most people kind of leave on the table. But if you had checked out the course, you would know that I brought in experts, uh, guys who do have PhDs, like David Patrick Harry and others who are famous Christian apologists. And they sit down and go over what all of those terms mean, why they mean those things, and how you can apply them, uh, to your knowledge base. And it helps to equip you, uh, in the future if you are having ideological combat with a leftist, especially from a Christian paradigm.

>> But without any kind of measure or metric of expertise at the end of it, without some sort of guaranteed level of, if you have completed this, this is the knowledge that you will have and this is the, the level at which you will be able to debate, without giving that level of accreditation to it. Accreditation from whom?

>> I mean, there are accredited, like the actual debate societies in America.

>> Do you think that I'm running some kind of, uh, actual polished, uh, college or something that that you have a four-year degree or an associate's degree at? Or did I market that I would build out a course that's roughly seven hours that would assist you with debating ideologies online? Because I'm pretty confident that that's what I marketed. Now, if you have evidence that I marketed something besides that, I would like to hear it and see it, but I'm 100% confident that that's exactly what I marketed and that that's exactly what people are buying.

>> I don't believe that you are dumb enough to think that your words don't hold meaning. And I am not, I don't believe that you.

>> Well, I don't think you're dumb enough to think, well, don't all words hold meaning?

>> Of course. But I'm saying I don't.

>> No, go ahead.

>> I'm saying that I don't think that you chose Verbal Combat and framed things as a war. I don't think that you chose university just willy-nilly because it, you know, rolled off.

>> I just, I just, but I just gave you an accounting, which is completely reasonable. I told you exactly where Verbal Combat came from. I told you exactly what the inspiration for that was. I did tell you that I believe that there's a grounded ideological war going on between the right and the left and between these ideological paradigms and that that course will assist you if you are engaging in those ideological paradigms, which more and more people are, uh, in. It'll assist you in crafting your arguments, uh, for those paradigms. That's the way it was marketed. That's the way it's always been marketed. If you can tell me what's actually wrong with that, I'd like to know.

>> Sure. It's that when you phrase things in terms of combat or in terms of war, you actually trigger the fight or flight response of your audience.

>> Good.

>> That's, I, you don't honestly believe that the right and the left are at a war outside of, outside of social media.

>> I just want to let you know, I don't know if you're aware of this or not, okay? But, um, the left has, from my view, murdered an entire generation of human beings. Murdered them and is currently right now fighting on the streets in order to get the right to murder more of them. Do I, I honestly believe that? Not a joke. Not kidding. From my paradigm, they literally kill babies by the million. By the millions. Do I think that that's a war, a spiritual war, and an ideological war? You bet your [ __ ] ass I do. Do I think that there's an ideological battle which is going on when the assessors of, uh, these paradigms try to describe for me that you, a female, are, uh, every bit as much only a woman as the male who puts on a wig and pretends that they're you? Do you think I don't think that these are ideological battlefields? You're out of your [ __ ] mind. Not only do I believe that 100%, but I can demonstrate it to you. I can demonstrate right now that we have been in a basically an ideological cold war for somewhere north of 60 [ __ ] years. Yes. Yes. 100% I believe it. Not only do I believe it, but I've wanted to equip people, uh, with some way to combat that. Some way to do that better because I happen to be very good at it. It's a skill I have.

>> Well, in fairness, I do think that you probably believe that abortion is murder. And I will agree that you, you believe that that part is actually violent and at the same level of a war. Fine. I won't try to say that you don't. If you are genuinely a Christian, you probably do believe that.

>> What is?

>> So then you just made a concession. So you just made a concession there that that I believe that we're in an ideological war.

>> On that one topic. Yes.

>> Yeah. So I think that leftists are doing everything in their power to destroy Christianity from the ground up. I think that that's their entire goal. I think that we can see it in the models of the NOS's that give millions and millions of dollars to leftist infiltration units whose entire job is to go in and give retraining to clergy. I've covered this many, many times on my stream and given the NOS's out and shown the evidence for this. Do I think that that's ideological in nature? Yes. Yes, I do. Do I think that this is a battle? I do think it's a battle. Do I think that because we're not using guns and ammo and bombs and tanks, it's any less of a war? I do not.

>> I think that you're lying through your teeth.

>> Prove it.

>> Well, I mean, you have a tell of raising your eyebrows a specific way when you seem to get.

>> You're going to use psychology. When I use, when I raise my, when I raise my eyebrow, it's a tell of a lie. Okay. Well, here. Hang on. Hang on. Let's, let's see. You're a beautiful woman. That's not the way you were raising your eyebrows. Sorry.

>> That's not the way you were raising your eyebrows to be the tell. But all I'm saying is that it's, as the average human, I can see through a croc of [ __ ] when I hear it. That's very.

>> This is, this is what's called an argument from incredulity. It's perfectly acceptable for me to believe that you believe that I'm full of [ __ ]. But your job right now is not to tell me what you believe. If your job right now is to demonstrate that that is the case. Now, I'm willing 100% to engage with whatever it is you bring to the table, uh, to actually demonstrate that you think that I'm lying, but this has been consistent with my online presence since I was, [ __ ], I don't know, in my, in my late 20s.

>> So, then why do you not get involved in actual politics, actual like on the ground politics? Why do you not run for anything?

>> Uh, well, first of all, I'm going to, I'll tell you a couple things that I've experienced here. Um, learning from different creators, especially one, it does not transfer over well. Uh, being very popular online doesn't necessarily transfer over very well to popularity in the mainstream. If you're a big movie star, perhaps like Arnold Schwarzenegger, uh, or Jesse Ventura, people like this, that can transfer over fairly well. You're a household name. Uh, when it comes to online popularity, however, that does not transfer over well for grassroots. And, uh, there's many content creators who have gone that route like Sargon of AOD for instance went that route. Destiny went that route when he tried to do canvassing campaigns and many others did and it was an abysmal failure even though they're very popular online. It's very possible. I know you've probably never thought about this, but the translation of the skill set that I have may not translate well to IRL politics, but may translate well to informing IRL politics.

>> So, you put in absolutely no work outside of just these online debates and streams for your, for your ideology. That's your form of engage.

>> I didn't say that at all. I engage with politicians all over the place. Assist them with arguments. I've assisted with grassroots campaigns, um, which have been spearheaded largely by a guy who works for me named Rob, who interacts with the RNC on a regular basis, and we've helped to change a lot of the conversation when it comes to this. But that and me being a, a skillful IRL politician are two very different things. Do you realize that politicians, for instance, have political strategists? They have speech writers. They have rhetorical trainers. They have people who assist them in all aspects of political strategy. It's not just a, "Oh, Andrew is really good and informed on politics and so therefore he'll be a good politician." It doesn't always transfer over that way. And by the way, nobody's better at knowing my skill set than me. Certainly not you.

>> I mean, I've seen, I've seen your display of skills online. So.

>> Have you?

>> I, I've seen more than I'd like. But why not? Why not hire those people? If you want to enact change.

>> I did hire them.

>> No, I'm saying.

>> Anything else. I did hire them. What do you mean?

>> Why not hire a political strategist? Why not hire?

>> I did hire one. What do you mean?

>> Oh, so then why not, why not make your foray into, uh, into politics?

>> Because people go, people go where they're effective. And you wouldn't be an effective leader. You wouldn't be effective.

>> Well, now you're conflating things. You think that leadership can only be confined to the political. Uh, but it's not. And the thing is, it's that's funny here, that's interesting, especially is that why do I need to confine myself to the ideas of what you have for politics when clearly you don't know much about politics? I just walked you through. There's a multitude of skill sets that people have that would be applicable to the worldview. Some people are very good at being in front of cameras IRL and, um, you know, kind of delivering the rhetoric that way. They're very likable. Perhaps they have all sorts of various skill sets which would gravitate people towards them. But they also need people to craft arguments to, uh, be supportive in influencers, etc., etc. So just because I'm on one front of the ideological battle and not directly on the political front doesn't mean I'm not engaged on the political front. That's just absurd.

Would you argue that there are some people in this world that set a goal for themselves that they can never achieve?

>> Would you say that that's happens pretty often? They set a goal for themselves that they can never achieve?

>> And that they know that they can never achieve, but they sort of make that their long-term end goal.

>> I don't know if I believe that or not.

>> Okay. I would argue that it's true. There's a lot of people that.

>> Can he demonstrate it through something other than an assertion?

>> Sure. There's one of the talking points of the whole anti-feminist movement. There are women who say that feminism is cancer and they want to end the vote of the women in the West. That's never going to happen.

>> Why not? Why won't it ever happen?

>> Because of what we have in place just within our democracy. That's not something.

>> You realize that suffrage, a universal suffrage is a new idea.

>> Yeah, I do.

>> Why? So, it's, it's very convenient for status quo individuals to say that such things like this will never be repealed or contracted. When we look at Roe v. Wade, which was also part of the status quo and was it was overturned. Political ideologies change cross-generationally and we're moving into a, a new series of generations as the Boomers die off. I don't think you should feel as secure in the idea of suffrage as you seem to think you should. That's not what the political current is, at least that I see.

>> Roe v. Wade was not inscribed in the Constitution. Women's suffrage is. It's much harder to overturn an actual amendment.

>> So was slavery.

>> Yes. And then it was.

>> And then it was a. Exactly. And so was prohibition. The, the ban on alcohol was also inscribed in the Constitution. Women got that pushed through long before they ever had the right to vote. They were able to, uh, make because they were set in a moral high ground. They weren't just political cogs. They were able to actually get an amendment passed long before they could ever vote. Isn't that interesting? So, the thing is, it's really funny about this is like, you can point to constitutional amendments and say it's inscribed in the constitution, but remember, it's not really. It's an amendment to the constitution. Constitution's been amended many times and it'll be amended many more.

>> This, if we start to branch this way, then we're going to move into secularism in a way.

>> Well, I, I would like to finish the discussion before we get to.

>> I would agree with that. Before we get to the your lack of understanding of the source material of feminism, I would like for you to just go ahead and demonstrate in very simple words why it is that you think I'm a grifter? Cuz is is your only evidence, your only compelling evidence that you think that I used university in Debate University and that the people who buy the course are so [ __ ] stupid that they think that they're going to get some kind of actual accredited degree because of that and that therefore they're being fleeced and that it was marketed this way, or are you saying something besides that?

>> I am saying something besides that.

>> Okay. What are you saying then? Make it clear for me.

>> Okay, I am saying that this framing that these online informal debates creates is that we are at this war, the left and the right. Everybody's at each other's throats and we're incredibly polarized. And I have had the privilege of traveling the country and also the world for my job. And that is by and large not the case. That is not what is happening on the streets and in day-to-day. Certainly is what's happening online in these spaces because they are very satisfying to the algorithm.

>> Yeah, I actually agree with that with that point that in your day-to-day interactions, uh, things will seem like they're completely normal. They also did in war-torn France during World War II and in Nazi Germany. The entire nation's at war. And the ideologies are so incredibly over the top, uh, that you have rise of brand new ones like fascism and others. But in the day-to-day lives of the people inside of the state, not much changed until it does. Until until it does.

>> I'm saying that the ideologies of the people are not at this high stakes level of war and it's not these intensely polarizing communities. Well, forgive me if I don't believe that you're having intense ideological discussions with your friends and people, randoms that you meet on the street. I don't believe that that's the case because I don't even think it's possible. I don't think you're meeting random people on the street who are going about their day shopping and doing the various activities people do in their daily life and stopping them and saying, "Hey, by the way, do you think that ideologically leftists have killed millions of people through abortion?" I don't believe that you're asking them that. And I think you would be shocked to hear the answers because pollsters do ask them that. And so the thing is is like while it's true that there's something called the normality bias, right? And you saw this during COVID-19. The normality bias, people will try to interact as they've always interacted even as the world around them is falling apart.

>> So you're incorrect in that assumption. That is exactly what I do. That is what I do for my.

>> Show me where I can see that. Show me some evidence of that.

>> Due to my NDA, I cannot reveal the shows.

>> Well, that's awful convenient, isn't it?

>> That's that's just the reality. I'm not willing to risk my job for this.

>> Yeah. Well, that's awful convenient that you say I do do thing, but could never demonstrate to you that I do.

>> Once I'm, I mean, once I move on from this particular show, I am happy to come back and let you know what the show was, but while I work on it, I'm not allowed to say what it.

>> Well, whatever the show is, um, where people are going out and asking about ideologies, if it is the case that you think that ideologies are not polarized right now in 2025, then you're just simply not telling the truth.

>> No, I am telling the truth, but that's what I'm saying.

>> Well, then how come every single pollster and every single political commentator seems to disagree with you based on the current data of the people that they poll and what it is that they believe? Why is it that it's so ideologically brutal right now that we're waiting for constitutional crisis? Why is Trump sending the military into various states? It doesn't appear that things are nearly so ideologically stable as you seem to be pretending.

>> For the average person, it is. At the average person, all wants the same things at the end of the day. We all basically want the same things. We all have the same things that we're striving for. We're not actually that divided. That's my whole point is that these online informal debates are fostering that divide. It's just pushing it forward. It's making you think this person is, you know, this side, this ideology is out to get you. And I am the only one. I, Andrew Wilson, can sell you a course so that you're equipped with, you know, mental and verbal armor. I'll give you the verbal grenades to go ahead and launch at your opponents. When in reality, it's not that. It's not. Nobody is actually benefiting from your ideological armor. That's just not happening. Andrew, let's be real with each other.

>> Can you demonstrate it?

>> I can demonstrate that what you are arguing just doesn't happen in the real world. It only happens here on.

>> Then demonstrate it.

>> How would you like me to demonstrate it?

>> However you can demonstrate it. I'm willing to listen. I'm telling you that through my own experience of being out there in the world and not just anecdotally, not just from what I have experienced, but just out in the world.

>> I'm telling you from my own experience, but not telling you from my own experience. Is that, is that right?

>> I am speaking partly from my own experience.

>> And what, what are you speaking, what is the other part that you're speaking from besides your own experience? If you ask people what their values are, what their core values are, they all pretty much line up and that is true in the polls. People want their families protected, people want to feel safe, people want their lives protected. Now, the finer details, sure, if we want to get pedantic about it, we can, and that's where things differ. But a lot of these ideological wars are problems that are made up, and we think that they're bigger issues than they are.

>> Was, uh, was January 6th made up? No.

>> No.

>> Okay.

>> What does January 6th have to do?

>> Well, I'm just saying I think it's really interesting that as we see unrest in the street, as we literally see what just happened in the California riots due to illegal immigrants, we see people say that they want less illegal immigration inside of their nation. They want less diversity. They want less of these things overwhelmingly and then overwhelmingly vote for a president who says that they're going to deliver on those things. It sure seems like an ideological divide to me on Main Street, not just from some elitist online or some rhetoric somewhere. It certainly seems to me like these are things that people take seriously and that they're having struggles with. Now, when you say, uh, this sort of nonsense like this, you say, "Hey, Andrew, look, we all have some shared needs." That's true. We all want to see our families protected. We all want food to eat. We all want safety. All of those things are true, but you realize the distinction between ideologies is how we get there. That's how we get to those things. The various ideas of safety. Let's take the trans movement for instance, right? The entirety right now of the political polarization behind transgenderism is that women don't feel safe in their own sports, do they? They're tired of getting their [ __ ] their [ __ ] pushed in. They're tired of getting their faces bashed in. They're tired of getting humiliated by men in wigs. They don't feel very [ __ ] safe, do they? And so it becomes very ideological. It's funny. They want the same things you want. They want safety and this and that, but they seem to think that they're not very safe right now when it comes to this particular issue. And so other people though, they do. And that's how you end up with ideological divides, right?

>> Are you framing that there's like a mass movement of trans women in women's sports right now? I can only think of a couple instances.

>> No, I'm pointing out to you something which is objectively true, which is the feeling of safety. When you say that there's shared values that people have across the board, I'm willing to concede that that's true because it's obvious. It's, it doesn't even need empirical evidence nor I think even a logical, uh, syllogism is necessary for this. It's observable by almost everybody on planet Earth. People have shared needs. Safety, one of the things that you cited is one of those needs. But safety also comes at the expense of a feeling, doesn't it? I feel safe. It's not objective all the time, is it? You can be unsafe, for instance, and feel safe, but this is all, uh, branched around the feeling of safety, and women right now don't feel safe in sports, even if they're not dealing with any transgenders, and that creates ideological divides.

>> What can you point to that shows that women by and large don't feel safe in sports? Though this is not, I'm not even here to debate the merits of trans athletes, but I think that that's a bit of a claim to say that women in college sport or any sports are fearful of that actively.

>> Do you agree with me that there's tens of thousands of anti-trans activists in the United States?

>> I don't know. I've never looked at those figures.

>> Okay. Well, there are tens of thousands of anti-trans activists. I can point you to J.K. Rowling for instance, who's a very prominent online figure and her media has been seen by, I don't know, how many millions of people and made into movies and everything else, and she's a prominent what is called, and I'll tell you what they're called, they're called trans exclusionary radical feminists.

>> And fantastic. Yeah. And, yeah, real quick. So.

>> J.K. Rowling.

>> Feels unsafe in women's sports.

>> She feels that women's sports are unsafe and many, many of the advocates who are trying to push people out. Yes.

>> But she's not a participant in women's sports.

>> Do you need to be a participant in women's sports in order to point out that, uh, women's sports is not safe for women? Uh, yeah, I would argue that if you are, if all of the female athletes in female sports or the majority even came out and said, "I do not feel safe within female sports right now," then I would say, "Okay, absolutely. That's a problem that we need to look at."

>> I guess that's why so many universities recently changed their policies so that trans athletes can't compete anymore against women if they're males. I guess they must have gotten some feedback from their faculty, which they did, and from their students, which they did, that they no longer wanted to have them participate. And you know what the number one reason that they cited was? They didn't feel safe.

>> So it's, so it's not even happening anymore. There's been laws passed.

>> It's still happening. Yes, of course it's happening. Oh, you just said that colleges have outlawed.

>> I said many colleges have. Yeah, many colleges have reversed policies that they had on this specifically because of the feelings of safety from the athletes who are involved in these various programs.

>> Okay. So now their athletes are no longer feeling unsafe.

>> And they're not feeling unsafe because ideology was able to reverse policy. Yeah. Oh, I'm, I'm going back to what you were saying where you're saying the number one thing in transgender issues with transgender issues in the US.

>> Now, don't straw man my position. I didn't say it's the number one issue with transgenders in the US. What I told you, I was, I was speaking to ideological distinctions and how the feeling of safety, uh, is paramount when it comes to the idea of trans sports. Not that that's the number one issue with transgender anything, only that I can easily use that as an example.

For how ideology transfers over to the mainstream and affects policy.

I have no background or information on transgender people participating in sports. I and I don't play sports. I don't think you have a lot of background information on anything, honestly, because you think that you think that people don't have ideological divides on Main Street because you see them buying their [ __ ] salads and their chicken sandwiches and not talking about how they hate the trans out in public, right? But it's but the thing is so funny about it is like, you think I'm a food reviewer.

No, no, no. Um, the point that I'm making to you is that whatever whatever your ane, whatever your anecdotal evidences are of people who are out in the mainstream due to the normaly bias acting as though everything is perfectly acceptable is the same thing that you would find in war-torn France, war-torn Germany, war-torn Russia. People are always moving towards the idea of normaly, even if there are major ideological divides. And by the way, you still haven't demonstrated in any way, shape, or form how I'm an actual grifter, other than, uh, you put university in the name of a course that you sold and marketed it as a way to up your debate skills, and you haven't watched it, so you can't even criticize it, nor do you know what the guest list was that came on, uh, who are PhDs, by the way. PhDs, uh, one a PhD in, um, uh, religions, and the whole point was to, uh, show you how it is that you can make ideological arguments from a religious, ious worldview and not look like a [ __ ] stupid fool. And guess what? I had experts come in who did exactly that. Many prominent experts, in fact, and many more to come. So, I'm not really sure how it is that I'm grifting.

Again, on that note, I did want to interrupt and just let you know you are at about the half-hour mark for that. So, it's up to you if you want to continue there or if you wanted to start moving into your other points. It's up to the two of you.

I'm fine either way. Do you want to wrap? Do you feel like you successfully demonstrated that I was a grifter, or did you have anything more you wanted to say on that point?

I've, as I'm trying to say to you, Andrew, is that I believe that you are a grifter because you are pushing forth this narrative that is simply untrue. And while you say that, oh, I'm talking to people about chicken sandwiches or whatever the [ __ ]. That's not what I'm talking about to them, to the people on the street. I am talking to them about their ideologies, about these specific difficult issues. And by and large, most people are actually pretty in line with one another. It's very, very fractional margins about these like niche issues like trans people in sports, which at the end of the day does not overwhelmingly affect the population. Sure, there's disagreements about that, but it's also not war. It's not a battle. Nobody's nobody's losing their life over it. Nobody's actively in danger in these tr, whether it's trans sports or gay marriage or whatever the [ __ ]. Nobody's actually in danger from any of that. So that's it's crazy to frame it as combat and as battle that is intentionally trying to trigger the fight or flight response in your audience.

Well, I'm not, I'm not intentionally trying to trigger a fight or flight response. I am intentionally explain explaining exactly what I think, which is that it is an ideological battle that millions of people have lost their lives in the womb, smited by their own mothers, due to the propaganda of the state and feminism, and that that is something which has happened, and from my view, is mass murder. I have pointed out multiple times that there's a massive illegal immigration crisis which is going on, which has cost thousands upon thousands of people their lives in crime, even more in fentanyl and overdosing, even more in the drug trade which is going on there, which is going on due to the illegal immigration which is happening in the nation. I can go on and on and on and on and on. But when you make these crazy ass claims, nobody's losing their lives, you're quite wrong. They are losing their lives. They get killed often. Hang on. They get killed often enough that Chicago is a battleground, a literal war zone going on in Chicago. More people were losing their lives there a day than were losing their lives in Afghanistan during the war. Were you aware of that? Yes. Not kidding. So, look up the stats yourself. Look it up yourself. It is the case that there are literal [ __ ] war zones and battlegrounds right now in the United States. You just don't know anything about it because you've never looked into it. But some of us have. And the thing is, is that it's nice that you go into these hunky-dory neighborhoods and ask people who are out doing their daily stuff, maybe what their ideology is. But remember, there's also something called phrasing. And the idea is here, you can actually phrase questions in a way which affirms bias. I, I don't like you're so ignorant on these issues. It's difficult for me to even trust what you're saying to me right now. It's actually difficult for me to, how, why would you raise a skeptical eyebrow when I mention Chicago? Why? You don't know how bad things are there? What about Detroit? Do you know how bad things are there? It's [ __ ] bad. I don't know what to tell you. It's real bad. It's not good.

Well, I will say this, as somebody who has been to literal active war zones and somebody who has been to Chicago and to Detroit.

What active war zones have you been in?

I've been to Syria and I've been to Yemen.

What active war zones were you in?

Syria, which is...

No, no, no. That's a country.

I'm asking about an active war zone. Not if there's a war going on in the country, but and that you were happen to be in the country when there was a war. What war zone were you in? Did you see the battle of the with your own eyes because you were there and you were watching people blow each other to bits, or did you happen to go to the country while a war was going on and you were in the safety zones? Which one's actually true?

I have seen a bomb go off and I have seen people die in front of me.

Where, where did that happen?

In Syria. In Yemen I...

So in Syria, you were a war correspondent and you watched people get blown up?

I wasn't a war correspondent, but I have been in dangerous places. So, I've again, I've been to Syria. I've been to Yemen. I have been to Israel as well.

So, I have, I've, I've seen the front lines of what war is, and it is horrific, and that is dangerous. And it, I mean, it's, I don't...

That's really funny that you went to Israel and you don't realize that that entire war that's going on there is ideological.

Very little of it is actually physical. It's almost all ideological.

Are, are you arguing that? Okay. One, I was not talking about politically outside of the US. When I talk about the grifting that you're doing,

I am assuming that that is going to US consumers or maybe people in Canada. But English speaking,

I think people worldwide have bought the cores.

Okay. You know what? Then if...

It's global grifting, baby. Global grifting. We, that, that university in the name is just making people lap it up. They're so [ __ ] stupid. They don't realize it. Even though all the marketing that I did was that, hey, this will probably assist you with your debate skills. And, um, it seems to have actually done just that. Actually, these people are so stupid. They thought that they were going to get like a [ __ ], I don't know, a diploma inside of the Cracker Jack's box. I, I don't, I don't know what it is that you actually think here, but, um,

I still, if you're saying that your, if your course is helping the folks in the Congo and in Palestine and in Yemen, then more power to you.

Do you think that people? Yeah. Do you think that people who are in different nations may have different priorities for the things that they value? Perhaps people in the Congo value monkey brains more than they do debate. But perhaps people who live in the middle of the UK who are in an ideological battle from tons and tons of Muslims being imported into their country may need to have an edge in political debate because that's the problem they're dealing with. Do you think that maybe problems are diverse around the world and that the debate course wasn't designed to solve AIDS in Africa? Andrew, my whole point just now was that I imagine that your courses and your content is being pushed to the US and to Canada and to English-speaking nations that are more in line with what we're dealing with here in the US and not actually what's going on in war-torn places. But we're getting off.

So what's the grift?

Again, my gri, or my argument for your grift is that things here in the US, it's not a war zone. Ideologically, it's not a war. Online, it may seem like that because the algorithm is pushing to people that it is because people tend to engage with the content that they hate more than the content that they love. If you trigger somebody's fight or flight, and if you, if you trigger that level of cortisol rise in them, they are going to stick around and they're going to consume that content. It's not healthy for them. It results in increased levels of anxiety, in isolation, in depression, in suicidal ideation. It's not good.

Link, uh, link the study.

That's NIH Library of Medicine. I can, I don't have...

NIH Library of Medicine. What's it called?

It's if you look up the consequences of hate watching, I think is what I ended up looking up to.

The consequences of hate watching.

That's been a study that they've done to see what the effects on these hateful content watching is doing. See,

Uh, let's just make sure that we got this right. I just want to make sure that we, uh, we get it correct because I don't want to cite the wrong study. National Library of Medicine, perhaps?

National Library of Medicine through sponsored by the NIH. Yes.

Okay. Uh, so are you talking about this one that, um, let's just make sure I got this right here. That way says exposure to behavior.

So this is researchers from NLM and the National Cancer Institute have developed artificial intelligence algorithm to speed up the process of matching. That doesn't sound right.

No, that's not...

You were saying, uh, with the hate in online and traditional media. Correct.

That may have been it. It would behoove me to have a laptop in front of me.

I'm going to, I'm going to drop it. Uh oh. I guess you can't see it. But I thought, I thought that's what you were stating to, is the, the social platforms and the online hate stuff.

There may very well be the study, but again, I...

Okay.

Well, let's, uh, let's find out. Hang on.

I'm dropping that back. You want that one?

Hang on. Let's, uh, let's pull it up and we'll take a peek here. Let's, uh, let's make sure that we got this right. Um, exposed to hate in online traditional media. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities. Does that sound like the study?

It could be. Again, I don't, I'm not sure if that's...

Does it start with the problem? People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information to express their opinions and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the positive of divisive, harmful, and hateful messaging targeting groups and individuals based on their religion, gender, sexual orientation, political views.

I have read that, but I don't believe that that's what I'm citing.

You don't believe that that's what you're citing? No, I think that that one was based more upon, uh, receiving hate, like hate comments and such.

So you came, you so you came to the debate and you're going to source the evidence and the evidence that you're sourcing is, I don't know. I can't source the evidence. You don't even remember what the study name is. We have to Google it instead and hope that we hit the right, we hit the right study. Is that what we're supposed to do? We're supposed to should how many of these studies should we read so that we can tell if you're telling the truth about this or not. By the way, I just, I just took a look at that particular study. It was 230 pages. How long did it take you to read this study? Just out of curiosity.

I, I wasn't clocking it. I don't know. I don't have a rough timer on when I read things. I don't know. It could have taken me days. It could have taken me a few hours. I don't know.

Can you cite for me the, the, or at least tell me just off the top of your head, since you read the entire study, what the methodology was for it, and was there a meta-analysis associated with it?

No, I can't.

You can't tell me. So you don't know if there was a meta-analysis and you don't know what the methodology of the study that you read was.

Not with, I didn't memorize the study.

I'm not asking if you memorized it, but you should, off the cuff, there's an, there's a whole big portion, the methodology for how studies are conducted is extremely important, especially when you're talking about something which you're talking about here, which is, uh, sociology. So sociology, yeah, that suffers from the...

I'm not going to retain all of that.

I'm not, I'm asking you to retain any of it. Can you tell me anything about the methodology? Literally anything? Can you give me any, anything about the method? One thing about the methodology.

It's outed in front of me. No, I don't have a phone.

So, you don't remember a single, a single thing about the methodology? You can't? Was it men and women? Do you even remember that?

Yes, it was men and women.

Okay. And then what were the ages?

I don't remember.

You don't know. Okay. What were, and were they post-menopausal? Was that cited? Post-menopausal women?

It very well could have been that, but you don't remember.

A photographic memory?

That's not a photographic memory. If you're coming to a debate, if you're coming to a debate and the crux of your argument is to cite for evidence a study which you supposedly read to prove that guys like me have a negative impact on society based on something other than your personal incredulity, you better damn well at least understand the basic methodology of sociological studies and what the damn thing said. Of course, if I were a professional debater, that's probably what I would come equipped with. But my point to you is that I am not...

Maybe you should take my course.

If you took my course, you would have come with that information to make sure that you didn't look as bad as you do right this second.

I would argue that if I took your course, I would be no better off than I am right now.

Based on what? Based, I mean, I think you would, but okay. Look, I'm happy, I'm happy to move on to whatever the next topic is. I'm happy to do it.

No, I'm happy to continue trying to answer your question for you. Go ahead. My point. My whole thing is that again, this is unhealthy for our society and it's not actually a major issue outside of the online world, but you're posturing it that it is. You are sort of, you're, you're fostering this sort of tribe or community where you feel like, or where your audience, I'll say, feels a sort of parasocial relationship with you, and that if you attack and own your opposer, that they've somehow won something. But in reality, it doesn't. They're not any happier. You're not any happier. Nobody's any better off for arguing their ideology in YouTube comments or with their family at Thanksgiving. It's a, it's not a real issue. Again, you're giving a prescription for a problem that you're helping further and cause. It's, it's like this self-sustaining ecosystem. It's you, but it's also people on the other side. It's Destiny and it's [ __ ] Dean Withers and it's Hassan [ __ ] and it's Charlie Kirk and it's any of them. That's, it's all just money. I've sat in on the Whatever podcast, for example, and I watched them in real time collect over $16,000 from people who just wanted to see these, you know, OnlyFans women that were there get owned. And none of that money is put to any better use. None of the money went into production value. None of the money is used to further whatever ideological cause he had. And I'm sure the same is true for your course or any donations. I'm seeing super chats come in and they're not going anywhere that's anything of value. There's no cost here. You're in your home. I'm in a studio in New York. There's nothing's going back into production. It's all just a money grab. You know that it works algorithmically and it's lining your pockets. If the world changed tomorrow, if we woke up and suddenly we were in Andrew Wilson's perfect world, what the [ __ ] would you do? What would you do to make money, Andrew? How would you, your grift would be done? Because we'd achieved your goal. But you know that we're never actually going to achieve your goal in our lifetime and in this world. You've set such an impossible standard that you can never actively get there. But you can stoke your followers into thinking that you're, you're so close and we're on the battlefield. We're on the front lines. Just give me a little bit more money. Let me monetize a little bit more, and we'll be able to get there. But you never actually will get there. You'll never cross that finish line. So you'll just collect and collect and collect from these poor people who have bought into your [ __ ] like they're part of a super church. It's sad. It is genuinely sad. The reason that I responded to that guy on Twitter was because I actually felt bad for him because he was appealing to you and trying to get you to interact with me and to tear me down a notch. At the end of the day, you don't give a [ __ ] about that guy. You don't, you don't give a [ __ ] about any of your audience outside of them giving you money. And if it's a threat to your grift and to your money, then you'll engage with me and you'll attack me or whoever it is. You'll challenge that because this is challenging your livelihood. But it's not, it's not like a real battle.

To make sure I got this right,

If I hadn't engaged in this debate with you, that would have been a challenge to my livelihood?

Yeah, because maybe that guy was, maybe maybe that guy donates money to you. Interesting. Because before that, you said you tried to get my attention multiple times and I didn't see it or, uh, or didn't engage with you, which is, uh, which is really interesting because, uh, it seems like by me not engaging with you, that's no threat to my livelihood at all, and yet somehow you think that you have enough influence to engage with me or not, by not engaging with me or me not engaging with you, that's somehow going to threaten my livelihood. I think that that's an interesting. Well, I'm not misunderstanding and I just let you go on your whole [ __ ] speech, so now it's my turn. The truth is is that people, people like you, people like you are just jealous as [ __ ]. What's happened is you've had a stream of failed career opportunities. You're not a funny comedian. Comedians themselves and satire is the front line of ideological battles. It always has been. Satire, for instance, in Russia was exactly how in the Soviet Union people were able to fight back against the government. That they use satire. Comedians were on the front line of that. Had a long conversation with Dave Smith about this one day and, uh, clarified this perspective for him as well, and I put out many tweets about it. Satire itself is a way in which comedians utilize humor in order to attack ideological systems that they don't like. That's what they do. Dave Chappelle does this. Louis CK does this. Uh, Dave Smith did this. Steven Crowder does this. The list goes on and on and on and on and on. And many of those guys I know and have had many conversations with you. On the other hand, you want us to believe in this rose-colored view. The rose-colored view being, Andrew, you're trying to set impossible standards. What impossible standards am I trying to set that you think are unachievable in this lifetime? There's many standards which I attack which I think we can go after immediately and try to. Also, on top of that, inside of this like rose-colored view that you have, you seem to think that I'm trying to grasp some sort of parasocial relationship between myself and my audience. However, the very industry that you're in, which is a, an industry of comics, how are they any different? Aren't you accusing me of the very same thing that you guys do? The entire, I, the entire idea of why people show up to see Louis CK live when they could just watch him on their TV is because they want to meet him. They want to shake his hand. They want to talk to him. Is that parasocial by nature? I don't think so. I think parasocial has a specific meaning and so does fostering a parasocial relationship. And I think ultimately you've never proved ever how I'm a grifter. And all you've done so far is use arguments from incredulity and also use blanket assertions with zero evidence. Andrew, what you believe is this. Okay. Where's the demonstration that that's what I believe? Well, I just think it is. Well, Andrew, this isn't really what's going on. Okay. Where's the evidence that this isn't where what's going on? Well, I don't have any. Andrew, I have a study here that shows Smoky Man bad, and so are all the other people who are talking heads and influencers such as yourself who are on ideological front lines. Uh, they're all bad, too. And I have a study that shows it. Yeah. Did you read the study? Well, yeah. Okay. Can you tell me anything that's in it? Well, no. And it's like, well, so what am I supposed to believe here? And by the way, it's really funny to me that you, in the most uncharitable way, attack me for talking to you when you're the one who came and attacked me, right? And so I'm willing to air your grievances out in front of, I don't know how many thousands upon thousands of people are watching right now, right this second. But there's thousands and thousands of them watching right this second. And I'm willing to air your grievances out. I'm willing to to let you challenge whatever my worldview is so that we can engage in what that is, because I think that I can maybe change your mind on some things, because I, that's what I do, and I'm real [ __ ] good at it. But somehow that's still a grift through your rose-colored gra, uh, glasses and your, this idea that everybody's singing [ __ ] kumbaya lady. They're not. That's one. And two, I would like a demonstration of these things past assertion and how you feel. I'd like some actual evidence for any of the, these claims. I'd actually like to see that. Can you give me that?

Okay. So, we'll start from the beginning then. I guess I'll clarify what you misunderstood about the whole Twitter engagement. I wasn't saying that I have so many followers and my, I have such a heavy influence that what I say about you is going to somehow change by the mass. If I put out a tweet about Andrew Wilson, that's not going to change the masses. But me talking to that individual who does watch you, who does engage with you, who may very well donate through super chats, or who may very well purchase your course, by me telling him and sort of pulling the curtain that you don't actually genuinely give a [ __ ] about him or whatever he's going through, that's challenging your audience. Do you realize like I've been attacked by names that are [ __ ] huge, huge in this industry? Hang on. And I'm attacked and I'm attacked by them often.

I, pardon me for being very...

Um, incredulous in this case about you and your perceived influence of a guy tagged me in a post. You were talking [ __ ] and I said, "If you want to debate, let's debate."

But anyway, go ahead. Again, I'm not saying that my particular influence is going to somehow damage your. Again, me saying anything about you isn't going to just have an outright downfall for you because my audience already doesn't like you. We have different audiences, Andrew. So, me saying to people who already don't like you,

I know I have one, you don't. That's...

I have one, you don't. We do have different audiences. It's true.

Okay. And again, that then leads into the whole failure thing. You can try and attack me and insult my career, which is not a failure, which has improved every single year. You can attack the fact that I don't have an audience, but across all my platforms, I do have about...

Why shouldn't I assume that you're only attacking me because you want to try to pull members of my audience towards you?

Doesn't that seem like that's a really good motivation for somebody who has such a small audience to want to engage with me specifically and call me all of these names and a grifter and everything else? Make that the entire centerpiece of what it is you want to debate with me about. Isn't that really just you trying to pull people away? You think you're peel people off?

Audience size. I don't think we have that big of a difference in audience size.

Oh, I think we do.

How many followers do you have across all platforms?

Followers don't matter. It's live engagement that matters.

That's, I don't live stream. So, in live engagement, uh, sure, you win. I'm not a streamer.

It's always been live engagement and who can fill the seats. Never about who can buy followers on their [ __ ] Instagram account or who can have a clip go viral

and 80,000 people sub up and then watch nothing else that they do. What matters is who can fill the arenas, who can fill the seats, and who can get the viewers on them when they're when they're live. Is that you? Are you filling arenas?

I am certainly filling filling comedy clubs and, yeah, that's just...

Are you filling clubs or are headliners, uh, filling comedy clubs and you just happen to go there and do your comedy?

Both. Yeah.

Both. I have. Well, that's, I mean, you're asking me, but yeah, that's both. And being only three years into comedy, that's quite a feat. So,

Okay.

I mean, you're saying like you're trying to insult my career and fair enough. I expected you to try and engage in personal attacks and...

I started the personal attacks then. That was me. That was me. Or did you open in your statement trying to say something about a gay dildo because that was, but you didn't really want to say it. You just said it anyway as part of a passive-aggressive attack, right? Even though I gave you the floor and was like, "You can actually say what you want to say to me. I have a really thick skin. Way better people than you have called me every name in the sun. Way, way more influential and way more rhetorically effective people than you have insulted me." So, it's like,

I don't feel the need to insult you, Andrew. It's not, I don't, I think that you're a grifter. I hate what you're doing.

Well, I think that you're grifting. I think that by your standard, if we're going to hold to your standard, then you're doing the exact same thing. Right now, the case is that you're saying that there's a distinction between our ideologies. You're saying that your ideology says there's no problem. The status quo is great. Most people are in agreement. You have a differentiation from my ideology, which says that that's not the case. We have an ideological distinction. You're here to correct my ideological distinction, just like I'm here to correct, just like I'm here to correct yours. You say that I'm a grifter because I sell a course. Okay, then you're a grifter because you fill up a comedy club. You utilize satire in the same way that I use, um, uh, political commentary in order to change people's minds and in order to get people to engage with you directly. You're literally doing the exact same thing you accuse me of, but yet somehow you're not the grifter, but I am the grifter.

Correct.

How, what's the distinction between what you do and what I do?

Well, a comedian brings joy to people. It relieves stress. It brings laughter. It's, it's not a political...

I bet you more people have laughed at my streams than have ever laughed at you in a comedy club.

I can definitely disagree with that.

Yeah. Well, I mean, you should come watch a TikTok invasion then. It's people laughing for about four hours straight. It's the funniest [ __ ] you've ever seen. But the thing is, is like I think that I bring tons of that and I, I'm, by the way, I'm a political satirist as well as being a political commentator. I don't really see you doing anything that I'm not doing except you just decided that you're not grifting and I am. The difference is, is I wouldn't call you a grifter. I would just say that...

I am not monetizing off of what is inherently bad for people. I am not monetizing off of giving people...

Yeah. But what makes it inherently bad? A study that you can't cite, quote, and never read.

I did read it.

Yeah, but you don't remember anything about it.

I'm sorry that I didn't come with it printed out and I don't know the exact science.

You didn't come to a debate. You didn't come to a debate with the thing that was supposed to make your point in the debate.

Yeah. I'm not a [ __ ] debater, Andrew. That was the whole point.

Don't you think that's common sense, though? Isn't it common sense? Do you need to be a debater to bring the thing that's the crux of your argument, to bring that to a debate? You think that you need to be a skilled debater in order to figure that out?

That, I, I know. I don't think that the, the responsibilities of a debate are common sense. The resp, the responsibility of what? Who would you ever confront with evidence of their nefarious wrongdoing without the evidence? Who would you ever do that with? Somehow in a debate that goes away for what reason? What? Like what?

Again, I am citing a study. I'm sorry that I don't have the study with me. Sure, that's unprepared on my part.

You know what? If you didn't have the study with you, I'm a very charitable person. I was happy to go through and look it up, but you can't remember the name. I was happy to ask you basic questions about the methodology, the key part of the study. You didn't remember any of it. You didn't remember any of the words in the study. You didn't remember how many pages the study was. Everything that I ask you, you roll your eyes, but if you were in my shoes, the very first thing that you would say is, "See, that person there is saying a bunch of [ __ ] that they don't even know is true." Sounds an awful lot like rhetorical grifting to me.

If I were in your shoes, no, I would not be asking. All right. What's the page count on this thing? I would not, I wouldn't ask.

How would you ascertain if somebody actually read the very piece of evidence that they're claiming goes against the other person's worldview you're arguing with, except to ask them questions about it?

If I am sharing a discussion and a debate space with somebody like we are right now, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're being honest with me unless...

They're a grifting liar. So, so they're a grifting liar because you didn't bring the key piece of evidence that proved that they're a grifting liar. This is, you're a brilliant rhetoric. I wish one day that I had your skills of the doubt. I'm saying that I am trusting what you're, if you're citing something, I'm going to trust it because I don't have a method to look it up right now. I don't, I, all I have is your word. So, I have to trust, if I'm engaging in this conversation with you, then I have to trust that you're being honest with me. I have to trust that you're being honest in what that you're saying.

Why, why do you need to trust that? Why is it, why is it necessary, especially in a debate, to trust your opposition, that they're going to be honest with you? That's more of those rose-colored glasses that you seem to be wearing in life. No, I don't instantly think that ideological leftist scumbags are going to be perfectly honest with me. In fact, I think that they have a lot of motivation to lie to me and lie to me often, especially when their attacks seem to be centered around, um, their personal view of me. And their personal view being that you're a grifter because you set some sort of unrealistic expectation for an audience that's too stupid to know that they're not going to get a diploma from a, a thing called Debate University, regardless of how it was marketed. So, you're a genius and they're all stupid. You're so smart and they're so [ __ ] stupid, which is so funny because I think all of them would have at least brought the very [ __ ] crux of the study to the debate, which was supposed to be the centerpiece of the thing that proved me wrong. Just saying. Again, I'm not claiming to be a genius, Andrew. I'm not. And I'm not saying that the grift is just in the name of the course. I'm saying that the grift is that you are making an issue that is not really an issue. You are, you are framing it that it is this plague in society.

Well, let's move to that then. Let's start with which issue do you think that I'm making an issue out of that isn't actually an issue. Let's start with that.

I think that just the, the whole idea of being in an ideological war is not actually real. I don't think that that's a real thing that people are dealing with in day-to-day go.

Then why do we have Republicans and Democrats?

Because we have difference in opinion of how we should be governed.

Difference in ideologies.

It's not a war. That's not a battleground.

It's not a war. It's not a battleground.

As somebody who has seen war, Andrew, I don't take the word war lightly.

So when I say ideological war,

Um, this, this, this is an entailment that there's physical contact and people are murdering each other in the streets.

No, I'm saying that using the term war because that is what war is. War is...

No. Well, well, well, war has multiple aspects. Have you ever heard of a, the Cold War? What was the Cold War? Was there people murdering each other with gunsies on the battlefield? Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. What was it? What was the Cold War? Was it a bunch of people with Uzi 9 millimeters and hand grenades just [ __ ] blowing each other to pieces? Or was it something else? Tell us what the Cold War was.

What I'm saying,

Tell us what the Cold War was.

I'm not doing this thing where then you're trying to derail me and get me to define other things.

No, I'm not even trying to get you to define. I'm just trying to say if every war is hot, what was the Cold War? What I am saying to you, Andrew, is that by you using these terms like war and battle, you are evoking an emotional response out of people. You are leveling up their cortisol. You are triggering an anxiety response. Should I lie to them instead?

Should I lie to them instead so that they feel nice and happy so, so that they can be stupid and happy as they become enslaved to leftist ideology which poisons their children, uh, poisons them to the point where they murder their own [ __ ] children to the point where we have one of the lowest birth rates in the, the world in, in a developed nation. Should I, should I just pretend?

Hang on. Hang on. Should I just pretend that none of that's going on so that people can feel better? What? Like what, what do you want me to do here?

I, Andrew, we're not in danger right now by the things that I get. I'll give you your. You believe that abortion is murder.

Fine. You're allowed to believe that.

Not in danger. Huh? We're not in danger, Andrew.

I see.

We're not in danger in the way that you're saying that we are. And...

What way am I saying we are?

By somebody being able to argue in YouTube comments or with their family at Thanksgiving does not save them from this imaginary danger. It just makes them feel right. It just strokes their ego. Can you tell me what it is though that I'm saying that I'm incorrect about or that I'm lying about or that I'm being untruthful about or things in which I am producing, uh, as content for people or things in which I am saying to people which is factually untrue? Because if you can't, then what you're actually asking me to do is lie.

No, Andrew. What I am saying is that all of your content is farmed and framed in a way that's just meant to stoke the divide.

Okay. Can you give me an example of this? Can you give me an example of that content?

Any debate that you've ever been on or any of your appearance on the Whatever podcast?

Well, a debate is by definition people with opposing viewpoints who are arguing for what the truth is. Right. This idea that I'm not supposed to do that. I don't know where that's coming from or why I shouldn't engage in that, especially when I believe that there's an ideological divide. But what you're not demonstrating for me is that there isn't one. Everything you say seems to affirm that there is one. And then you just give me this more of this incredulity. What? The reason I bring up, hang on. The reason I bring up the Cold War.

Cold War.

Would you agree that the Cold War was an ideologically distinct battle between the United States and the Soviet Union based around the ideals of communism, capitalism, Americanism, and Sovietism? Do you agree that this was what that war was about? And it was a war. Yeah, but we're not in the Cold War right now.

Now, did anybody? Now, can you tell me what the casualty rate of that war was?

No, I can't.

Well, there wasn't, there was basically none except maybe perhaps in small numbers by proxy. So, what you've just admitted is that there can be ideological wars, and that ideological war, hang on. And the ideological wars go on all the time. And I just gave you an example of a really elongated ideological war which ended in victory due to the talking heads and the rhetoric and the subterfuge and etc., etc. So, the Cold War, you're leaving out the, uh, the very big looming threat of nuclear destruction. We don't have that because you and I disagree on different topics or because you don't agree with the left. You, we're not at risk for nuclear war right now. That's why the Cold War was so horrifying. Wait a second. Uh, just, just so that I get this clear. The ideal here being this, that nuclear bomb blows people up, they die, right?

Yes.

Oh, got it. So woman go aboard child, child child die. Right.

Again, I'm not...

Can you answer my question first and then give me whatever your qualifier is? Woman kill child die. Right.

Woman killed child die. But I don't believe that abortion is murder.

Because we have a distinction in ideology. So from my view, you're, you are advocating for the murder of millions and mass genocide from my ideological perspective. But as long as, that's okay because as long as you say it's not, though, then I should just shut up so that you can go around and, uh, have your rose-colored glasses and pretend all is dandy because otherwise I'll be increasing the cortisol too much in... Beautiful.