I have a suggestion for you. You should create a debate pervetry bingo card. So people could play along with you reviewing the debates. I will accept money transfer as payment for this idea. 😏
Destiny if you want to have some good arguments about arriving at moral truth, Sam Harris book the Moral Landscape is actually a great read about deriving moral principles through harm minimization
How many people would really do better though, this type of convo takes a specific skillset that probably isnt actually worth getting because its meaningless to almost all people
@@DCzero50 its only meaningless because they dont want to get into the unexistence foundations of their beliefs : if u dont know why X thing is bad then why should i engage with you on other stuff ?
@@DCzero50i agree most people wouldn’t do much better, but I feel like this conversation is a perfect example of why you should have fundamental underpinnings to your morals, especially if you are a public debater. Because Dave doesn’t have any moral foundations, by the middle of this video he has completely conceded everything to Andrew and people who see this may potentially be swayed toward divine control as a concept, if they too have no moral foundations
Dave isn't a libertarian, he's a paleo (socially conservative) which is why he has to accept almost everything Andrew is saying lol. No idea why he agreed to that debate.
@@ayoubmarah4063secular morality allows for intuition to tell us that something is bad we don’t need a direct reason why something like incest is bad beyond the general icky feeling diving into that deeper is weird
Here take my like and by the way it's the 69th like under your comment, do I have ownership over that like? Or do you gain it by me offering it? Or is it all just a social construct? Or social media construct? Whatever it is and whoever it owns, it indeed exists, the 69th like under your comment.
I agree. I'm glad he got that ADHD medication. There were some real "empty chair" tier videos being put out before where he just played a game with some long video in the background and maybe chimed in two times per hour with "TRUE hahaha based" or some other vapid shit.
Andrew 100% realizes how far behind Dave is. Dave I bet honestly thinks that Andrew is a total idiot and is asking stupid questions and making nonsensical arguments. Dave is literally too clueless to understand he's getting demolished here.
@@Name-zd2nb I say all that despite finding Andrew a complete idiot with an insane worldview. I wonder if Dave knows what a Libertarian is... does he just think Libertarianism is when you disagree with the Government and you don't want to pay taxes?
I disagree with Andrew, but he has clearly thought about his ideas at the fundamental level, not just adopted an aesthetic like Dave has. But what’s worse for Dave is, even when it’s being explained he doesn’t get it. He literally had to be told why Andrew was removing the chance of a child from a sibling relationship. He’s so clueless, but also a dumbass as he couldn’t catch up at all with what was happening.
@@monkeybudge Yup! In this conversation Dave looked like someone talking to a Mathematician and laughing at them and thinking they're an idiot because they're doing Math without any numbers, just symbols and letters. He is so naive about the topic that he can't see that he's completely clueless.
Imagine trying to have a conversation about physics, but the person you are discussing with doesn’t know what simple algebra is. And then he gets mad and wonders why you are bringing up algebra when “we are having a discussion/argument on physics”
@@off6848 It really doesn't satisfy the comparison I was making. I'm not sure if you understand that or if you're just hung up on this surface level coincidence.
Wow, Andrew was more willing to concede that the Christian God might not be the source of Divine Command than Dave was willing to agree on a definition of the NAP! AMAZING!
Andrew conceded just for the sake of argument. He wouldn’t do so if the debate prompt was whether or not God exists. He even briefly mentioned his justification for beliefs through the transcendental argumentation but knew Dave was so far behind he couldn’t keep up so he kept it surface level.
@@brendanmassie9586no, you clearly don’t understand religion or religious people, most of them do struggle with that question and have questioned their beliefs many times in there lives.
@@fernandocalles1726 ah yes I clearly don’t understand Christianity. Tell me, could you please summarize the transcendental argument that Andrew is referring to? Let’s see who doesn’t know religion.
That's why Andrew focused on that question, it showed that Dave had no foundation for his beliefs. Dave just gave up the NAP as soon as it resulted in something he just didn't personally like.
Didn’t Rothbard or one of the other libertarians already make a stance something like you own your self if you have more than 80% control of your self That way a doctor probing your brain to make you twitch wouldn’t technically have half ownership of yourself I know one of them definitely tried to grapple with it but most lolberts just take most stuff for granted with no thought
As soon as you try to argue that you’re a libertarian but certain things that don’t violate the NAP should be disallowed by the government because God says they’re wrong and you say they’re icky, you’re completely lost at sea. That argument is unrecoverable.
It’s kind of the same with free speech. There is no person on earth who is a true free speech absolutist. Everybody is fine with free speech until they hear something. They don’t like then they’re perfectly OK with banning it. Talk to conservatives in Florida and Idaho and you’ll quickly find out that they don’t want that gay shit being talked about which is why they’re basically getting rid of books from school libraries.
@@jordanwhite8718I mean you can make the libertarian case that they just don't want the government using school to push a certain type of speech, but these people would also happily see drag shows in private business locations banned.
@@jordanwhite8718but difference between the two things you’re talking about bud. Nobody cares if you’re gay in 2024, including “the far right conservatives in Florida who don’t like that gay shit” and forcing a sexualized agenda on kids in schools via the school library, is disgusting and isn’t the same type of thing as not liking the gays. I’ve never met a conservative in real life that “hate that gay shit” openly. Just face it, gays aren’t interesting or under any form of oppression. That’s why we’re forced to celebrate them for a month and 2 kids are facing 10 years for driving over a pride pained road on a scooter in an “aggressive” way
I feel like you liberals can't deal with any moral quandary without resorting to circular logic, "oh he got no idea what libertarianism is" because libertarians don't make sense, but see the main argument that you can't have objectivity or authority in a libertarian society is just as stupid and unrealistic as the liberal assertions that anything is fine as long as its not hurting anyone.
I think he's at the nadir of the Dunning Kruger curve and he fully believes he cleaned up here and that Andrew was just wasting time with silly arguments
@@krombopulos_michael No, he admitted he did poorly in this. Once they got past the NAP section Dave basically took over scoring the points but he definitely didn't do himself any favors in the first part.
This is exactly why bubbles exist.JRogan depends on Smith as his go-to Guy, and here we see exactly why he shouldn’t be anyone’s, Especially when he’s one of the better ones for Joe
@@ronniekregar3482it's not an endorsement of Andrew Wilson's general world view, just that he was able to clearly expose Dave Smith as a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. Even if Dave Smith is absolutely right, he has no idea why he's right. He doesn't have the intellectual curiousity to think out his positions beyond the most surface arguments.
@@krombopulos_michael I agree, but I don't like Destiny busting out the bucket of popcorn and start rooting for Andrew Wilson of all people, just because Dave Smith is ducking him lol.
Andrew didn't even go full force on him. Those are softball questions, Dave should have encountered at some point of his life ?! I never imagined he's this shallow.
@@Cameron72737the part where he has to explain basic NAP to him A SELF PROCLAIMED LIBERTARIAN. How can you call yourself libertarian and not know the first thing about it? Does he thinks being a libertarian just means you hate taxes and government bad? And all the moral foundation under doesn’t exist?
What I hate about Dave is that he is completely abandoning basic libertarian values and all he is left with is “govment bad!”. Libertarians at least have core principles but these anti establishment bottom feeders are too one dimensional for even that. This is the “America bad” of the right wing.
He's a paleoconservative populist. It's been clear for years. That's why he flounders anytime he gets pushback, he has no critically thought out principles.
1:11:45 Andrew would actually agree with you here Destiny. He uses the exact same argument himself against Christians who believe in Sola Scriptura. He is Orthodox, Sola Scriptura isn't part of his worldview.
Would be interesting to see destiny engage with the Ortho bros. I think he would struggle to justify his epistemology. Destiny seems to be aware of that tho and even mentioned that Andrew knows more philosophy. After all if you study philosophy you’ll probably become either a nihilist or religious.
The only reason I even know who Dave Smith is is because of Joe Rogan. Which leads me to ask this question. Is Joe Rogan the male version of Oprah Winfrey? I feel like both of them have introduced us to people who were actively terrible people.
I don't think I've never seen a worse performance in a debate. I hope for Dave Smith's sake, his brain correctly identified the total mind and body violation happening, and decided to put him in PTSD auto-pilot mode so he can quickly quarantine, then forget such a violation ever took place. This debate literally gave me 2nd hand embarrassment. Holy Shit.
Dave Smith is a comedian and typically, comedians are intelligent and insightful. What happened is Dave Smith was basically right about the COVID issues and JRogan platformed him and people mistakenly thought he would be intelligent and well read about a host of other issues. The problem is, Dave Smith is also arrogant af. So he accepted a debate that had the title of his supposed worldview in it and thought he could bullshit his way through the debate. The problem is Andrew literally describes his method of debate as gladiator debating or whatever. Basically he believes in taking your soul in a debate. That’s what he did. As for Destiny saying Andrew should have sucked Dave off for his career, the guy needed an ego check. If Dave can’t respect the skill and intellect and is going to be a dick because he didn’t get the softball treatment remember what he did to Cuomo. Did he grant him any grace or did he obliterate him and say it over and over? Don’t bring surface level views to a meta fight.
How does he perscribe to libertarianism, and hold the belief that two consenting adults (when related) should be forced by the state not to engage sexual action and that people should be forced by the state (or anyone in his case) to not cause harm to oneself. As someone who finds interest in liberatarian views and hold views that often align, it would seem to me that a liberatarian would argue (or should argue) that a person should be allowed to do either of these things. Otherwise I must have completely misunderstood the basics of libertarianism.
Exactly. That's why Andrew focused on the question, because it showed that Dave had no foundation for his beliefs. He just gave up the NAP as soon as it resulted in something he just didn't like.
Yeah but he asked the stupidest question that destiny has been on record about multiple times, when he asked why wouldn't you eat a cat? Destiny would eat a cat and has said so, because he doesn't recognize the moral difference between a cat and a pig.
Anyone who’s an old school Destiny fan probably remembers the incest debates. Good times and a genuine introduction for having to lay out your thought process and morals without just arguing things are “icky”.
@@Fabric_Hater no, I got that from Dave Smith saying he's cool with the state barging into private homes to arrest people for having sex with another consenting adult.
I'm not even mad about the dictionary. I've definitely been in debates where people have made up definitions to a word to suit a bias, even when it has nothing to do with the word . Like he's a Nazi or fascist, when people using it as a term for a person they dont agree with.
Well, Nazism and Fascism are very specific ideologies. Something like "ownership of yourself" can be taken in many ways. Owning myself in the eyes of God? Yes. Christians will say they have free will. However, they also belong to God. Do I have ownership of my brain? Yes. Well, what about the limbic system? What controls the brain? Neurons? Do you have control of your neurons? I agree that definitions matter, but when you get into the nitty gritty of, especially philosophically, ideas and concepts, the Webster dictionary doesn't really suffice.
Dave Smith is NOT grifting about the god stuff. If he was, I’d kind of respect him more. He alluded to it, but he literally just had a kid and changed his mind. Before that, he was a pretty firm atheist. It’s really indicative of his thought processes that his most firm beliefs are really based on not much more than a feeling.
also having a child will make you question everything you value. Logically if you don’t you are prob a incapable robot. Many people would actually find your opinion meaningless as you’ve never had a child, so you can’t possibly fully understand the world. I agree
@@dieselbaby no, they’re not at all unless you’re using a super pedantic meaning of feeling. You can come to conclusions in a logical way, even if feelings influence your conclusion.
@@ThinWhiteLuke because then at least he knows his argument is dumb but argues it anyway cause money. Like Peterson defending Christianity. It’s like playing devils advocate but for money.
@@Emmanuel_EEE 1) Wilson isn't a normal Christian, he's a subset of Christians, not all Christians are gross, but some definitely can be (because of their beliefs not as an ancillary thing). 2) Wilson doesn't love his enemies, nor does he advocate for it. He's not the lovely dovey hippy Christian. Let's not pretend Wilson is something he isn't. You could actually make an argument that wouldn't be flatly dishonest about Wilson, which could go something lole" is it gross now to be against degeneracy?" As an example, where I would have to contend with his actual position, but you can't even be bothered to do that, and are just crying about some strawman critism about the whole of Christianity.
@@thomaswalmsley8959 1. What the hell is a "normal" Christian? Christianity has different denominations, they generally all have the same foundation beliefs. Love thy neighbor as yourself, the Trinity, and some sacraments. 2. Can you give me an example where Andrew didn't love his enemies? He may be aggressive when debating, but I haven't heard him tell people to off themselves because of what they believe. 3. Degeneracy is bad for society because it mess with the order and designed of humans. Humans have a higher moral standing then animals do. So to engage with degeneracy is to be just like animals. 4. No one's crying, you made a claim that Andrew's moral system is gross which directly means that Christianity is gross.
Honestly, this is the type of Destiny content that I enjoy; I feel like he really hasn't done this in a long time. His foreign policy debates are not nearly as interesting since they largely come down to the question of which source to believe.
Destiny, you fundamentally misunderstood how this Dave is interpreting libertarianism. He's not using it as a moral philosophy. He's using it as a instrument for government management. It's equal to your opinion on is capitalism good. You don't have any moral connection to capitalism. You just think it's the best way to organize society.
But I think there is an important difference. You can be pretty flexible with practicing capitalism in different flavors and still call yourself a capitalist, but whereas if you a abandon the NAP whenever you take personal issue with something, like the incest example, you shouldn't call yourself a libertarian any longer. And that's what these guys do all the time. "oh well Yea that just gross so we would make that illegal." well OK then why the f are going out of your way to profess libertarianism?
@@shafferfs but I believe incest is something Dave would consider "Malum in se"(The legal term) so obviously immoral that there's going to be nearly universal agreement. I understand that's not justified but in all likelihood he thinks it is and most people agree. A similar thing is probably with suicide. However, it's pretty clear that he's not actually interested in the state doing that. He makes it clear in the conversation that while he would want someone to step in if they could, he doesn't actually want to make that the responsibility of the state. This is what he meant by saying there can be a moral and legal divide, he believes that you should probably morally intervene, but it's not worth the state intervening. Now destiny didn't fully watch the video but I did, I don't know why destiny suddenly gives presuppositionalism the past like it's a legitimate form of argumentation when it's circular logic at its bedrock. We've literally watched destiny tear people apart for the same type of argumentation that Andrew's using, but with this guy he seems to let it pass and treats it as legitimate because of its historical legacy. Also for these niche moral issues for someone like Dave are self-evidently immortal, He's willing to just accept them and move past it so he can talk about the bulk of the issue with structuring the government which is where Dave wanted to have the conversation. It wasn't debate purgatory, He just didn't think it had any bearing on how you should evaluate libertarianism.
@@shafferfs The NAP shouldn't be seen as an absolute right. David Friedman has an excellent talk on this. ill take me for example. I think Capitalism is the best system we have id like to have free markets and take society further towards it etc. the problem with people like Murray Rothbard is that they assume that the academics and philosophers will figure out the ethics and morals and build a libertarian society like that. David Friedman argues that Laws created on the free market might not be necessarily libertarian if a large group of people feel strongly against drugs or incest they would be willing to pay a higher price to make sure those things are made illegal.
Andrew and Dave were just talking past each other for three hours. Dave's is very clearly using Chrisitianity (or a generic Divine Command, since he didn't want to put a name to the religious sect he follows) to determine what is moral, whilst also using libertarian philosophy to justify the role of the State in our lives. There were two avenues of morality, yet Andrew kept trying to get him to admit one doesn't work. Sure, they need to work together.
Game Theory strategy backs up why non-aggression plus cooperative behavior is better for everyone when everyone behaves that way. But that's why building a culture of treating others how you want to be treated is so successful. The problem is that it's harder to convince people because short term, treating others can be to your advantage if you have a power imbalance that's to your advantage.
Most philosopher’s agree you can’t have objective morality without a religious belief. Alex O’Connor does a good job discussing all the reasons for this.
@@joge2468 u mean like what kant tried to do but failed? And kant actually believed in God, he was just trying to make a system that could pin point morality with just logics and he failed, his categorical imperative just devolves into circularity.
@@pamelapamper Don’t go bashing Kant now. Yes, he believed in G-d. It doesn’t follow that the categorical imperative fails. Like Rawls’s fairness principle, it’s a perfectly legitimate form of morality to arise from humans using reason to derive a system upon which they could all agree. It’s amazing what a state of blindness can do.
Dave Smith is just the typical garden variety libertarian where his core beliefs are rooted in bumper sticker statements. He will answer the question and then proceed to dismiss the question at the same time. The power of the dismissive.
A lot of people think that ad absurdum is a logical fallacy but it’s actually a valid logical argumentation to test the cut off point or extent of a logical claim
the problem with the government isn't that they make professional licenses, it's the coercion. Anarchist society would have an equivalent if every important government institution, but you get to opt out.
dave has been around louis so long he's convinced he's super smart rather than louis is super dumb, big jay is a more successful comedian, louis owns it all and dave is the smart political guy, please dont take that away from him
Im just saying its crazy how destiny classifies simply two people in agreement on a topic or area of concern is somehow one person is winning and one person is losing its so detrimental to where we should want to be headed towards a place of mutual respect and recognition of peoples personal experience which has lead them to their current opinions and views. If everything has to have a winner and a loser then that only further hardens peoples refusal to alter or adjust their positions for fear of being the loser
A few things to clarify. The word clan means family, tribe often means an extended family, the word singular doesn’t mean single it means unusual or distinct. it’s still understood when people use it incorrectly but it’s a useful word to when used as it’s meant to be used. It think Steven is right on this analysis, Dave seems to be completely panicking, would love to see more deliberative analysis from Steven on how best to get out of these mismatched arguments.
1:38:10 no, destiny. You are wrong. Tribes aren't the foundation of community or civilization. Within a "tribe" are core families and maybe some stragglers or Individuals. A band of independent and single individuals does not make a tribe, maybe there's exceptions but not the majority or standard of what a "tribe" is.
This is the first time I heard of Dave Smith. I didn't even know there were libertarians that advocated for banning things! I had to stop watching Destiny's video because I wanted to actually hear the discussion and it did not disappoint. My favorite part was at around 20 minutes in where Dave was flustered because he thought his questions weren't being answered. It's even more funny to me that people in his audience will side with him or think that he won somehow. What a way to start my day.
Tribes _are_ families, that's kinda the point. Everyone is tied to and related with everyone else. That's why, in the bible, there are tribes called "Judah" and "Levi." They are all descendants of the patriarchs of those tribes. Or in Romeo and Juliet the Montagues and Capulets are two large clans of inter-related people. In other cutlers there are still strong ideas of larger interrelated, tight-knit lineages. This has in most societies been the foundational structure historically. What Destiny is thinking of is the Nuclear Family, the 1950's idea of 1 Mom, 1 Dad, 2.5 kids and one dog. One couple and the dependents of that couple which, yes, is a pretty historical formulation. In America clan ties aren't as strong as other places in part due to being a young nation of immigrants, highly individualistic concepts of self, being extremely large and spread out. The Downside is that it's "dog eat dog" and the upside is that we tend to avoid blood feuds, fighting more over ideologies.
You do own yourself regardless of slavery you can choose to be subjugated or rebel. If you rebel you would probably been killed or you could have escaped. Ultimately the decision is up to you.
This is the argument I think I would go down. If your choices and decisions come down to you, then you must own yourself. Nobody else can make you do anything. They can apply pressure and you can give up and allow it but there is always the option of disobeying and allowing death. But then you get into torture and methods of psychologically breaking someone and manipulation. It’s a hard one.
100% and I don't understand why Dave didn't take that route. But what makes it even dumber is that Andrew believes in free will which is essentially the same concept. They were just too debate brained and talking past each other in this segment for the more interesting discussion about the differences between those two concepts to take place... also probably need someone more philosophically based than Dave Smith who is more a 'how it should work' than a 'why it should work this way' type of debater.
Dave avoided this because it undoes libertarianism. If self-ownership is not a social construct and you really do own yourself, then he cannot answer any interventionist question (eg. the brother/sister section) without violating the non-aggression principle. I mean, he still didn't answer that without reverting to god, but I'm sure he'll have a good think about it.
1:59:01 Debate Pervertry: The Phantom Library/ Standing on the libraries of giants: When an individual gestures to written work in order to come across as more understanding of a topic, while having not read a single word of it.
@@justwannabehappy6735 but the question is to gauge Dave's fundamental beliefs. I didn't necessarily think Andrew is looking for a concrete answer, but rather, Dave's thought process to the question. Which he didn't have any.
I guess being a debate perv is okay because asking "how do you know you own yourself" is a valid question if dave doesn't believe that which was demonstrated during the incest part.
I fucking hate Andrew but this was actually a super satisfying performance from him. He had me questioning atheism there for a minute and ready to come over to Christian dominionism
Singular: 1. of or relating to a separate person or thing : INDIVIDUAL of, relating to, or being a word form denoting one person, thing, or instance a singular noun of or relating to a single instance or to something considered by itself 2. distinguished by superiority : EXCEPTIONAL an artist of singular attainments 3. being out of the ordinary : UNUSUAL on the way home we had a singular adventure 4. departing from general usage or expectation : PECULIAR, ODD the air had a singular chill 5. of a matrix : having a determinant equal to zero 6. of a linear transformation : having the property that the matrix of coefficients of the new variables has a determinant equal to zero - Merriam/Webster.
I believe in Jesus, I loathe how people are using Christ's name in this current age, American conservatives like Candace, acting like she's so pious. Firstly, Christ is King of Kings, and secondly, he said 'You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.' So enough obsessing over trans and onlyfans girls to try and make you appear better, Jesus died for your sins too Candace...
Observing Destiny in this mode makes me believe we have a chance at being friends. Because our views and opinions are so different, sometimes when he is debating I find him abhorrent. I appreciate this very logical yet down to earth dialogue. This makes me feel like if i was in the same room we wouldnt need to resort to shouting if we were discussing differences of opinion. I appreciate you Destiny. I hope one day you will believe that Jesus really did die on the cross to pay for your sins. I promise i say that out of love not hate.
Andrew is a very very good debater in his fields of knowlege. He is very polite but wipes the floor with him. I dont remember who he dabated, but he was making the claim that women are beeing given their rights by men. And he had a counter argument for every opposition. very impressive
I'm sorry if this is addressed, but is the crucial word not "You" in "Can you own yourself", as in, even if I were a slave I could decide not to do something anymore, even if tortured to do it. So yes I own myself. Since for in the situation I am in, I am free to do with myself within these bounds.
That's where philosophy comes in. You could indeed argue what you did but then you can't argue that ownership is a social construct since the social construct of slavery would mean that you do in fact not own yourself even if you resist torture or have your own thoughts since ownership is decided by the social contract (society agreeing that OWNING other humans is ok). The frame of reference here is the libertarian philosophy in competition with a Christian fundamentalist philosophy. That is why Dave is so embarrassing here since he navigated himself into a corner from which he can only argue that ownership is not a social construct which in turn devalues and dismantles his self described "libertarian" philosophy as that is one of the most fundamental parts of it: "Ownership as a social construct". So on short, yes you could bring the argument you yourself brought but that wouldn't be a libertarian argument which makes it pointless to Daves or Andrews stance in this specific debate.
So if it is about control, like I can control my body so therefore I own it, does that mean that if I take something from you, that I now rightfully own it? If I take your car, you don’t control it anymore, you can’t decide what to do with it anymore. So how could you then claim you still own that car after I take it from you?
@@PuddingXXL Soo... that means that because there are some situations one can not own oneself under the terms of "Ownership as a social construct." Therefore stating that ownership is a social construct is false. Is that correct? If that is how philosophy works, I guess so. But can concepts not be multiple things? As in X consist of part Y and part Z? Where Y applies Z does not, and vice versa. Or am I missing something?
"does that mean that if I take something from you, that I now rightfully own it?" I mean, you own it. But not rightfully (depending on the rights of course). A more interesting thing would be to argue that ownership as stated as "the ability to do with it as you wish" constitutes ownership over everything one is able to destroy. Which is kind of silly end point for ownership. But I believe multiple things can be true at once. So yes I (rightfully) own the car and yes you (physically) own the car.
In this convo, is the best response to Andrew's explanation of divine morals (Our morals are based upon fundamental Christian beliefs, etc.): "So if all your morals are taken from biblical scripture, which is where Christians get their fundamental beliefs, what if the writer of the bible was incorrectly believing he was hearing the words of god or hallucinating it as Andrew put it." Not trying to debate the validity of Christianity, just curious about the rhetorical arguments.
Then it would make it as valid as the beliefs of people that just create the morality themselfs from their own thoughts,since we are not able to assure someones rationality only the posibility of rationality(true rationality doesn't exists).
Dave Smith just feels he's intelligent because he hangs out with people that are either dumber than him or that agree with him. This was the funniest piece of comedy Dave Smith has ever done
It’s a bad clip of Dave but this whole video is a super cringe clip of destiny as well. He’s clearly pretty worked up about the Wikipedia comment from Dave 🙈
Andrew Wilson's question about owning oneself demonstrates a rather childish understanding of ownership. The way we can objectively state that one owns oneself is that ownership is a negative right, not affirmative. One does not actively acquire or gain the right to be; the mere act of existing denies all other beings the ability to exist in your existence.
The act of being or existing is not defining ownership though. Yes you're existence can't be affirmed or negated by negative or positive rights but that was not the question.
@@PuddingXXL You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not speaking about affirming or negating someone's existence, all people and beings are presumed to exist. I'm saying that the fundamental concept of ownership isn't a societal construct because the core experience a being has is uniquely experienced by them by virtue of them existing as the being they are. Even in the times of slavery, a slave still owned his/herself because the slave was experiencing the labors and life of being enslaved.
That whole section of the debate seemed pointless to me. Essentially, they were trying to argue the practical difference between the concepts of self ownership (Dave) and free will (Andrew) which could be an interesting discussion but these two just talked past each other during that section.
@@mariomario1462 Of course the slaves owned themselves, proving that is easy. Did the slave do the work, or did the master? Did the slave get beat, or did the master? Did the slave eat? What about sleep? Everything that slave experienced, the slave experienced for themselves and they didn't experience it on someone else's behalf. Whether the slave had freedom to choose for themselves isn't relevant, because ownership isn't about freedom. It's about the ability to be a being that no other being can be. If that makes sense. You know that you own your house because no one else has the ability to live in YOUR house.
1:15:58 Destiny is I think using his terminology wrong... I learned about this from a political science class I took in uni... A negative right (or negative liberty/freedom) is a right that protects you from something... This is contrasted with a positive right (or positive liberty/freedom) to be able to do something... So for example, a negative right might be: Protection from slavery (aka the right to not be enslaved), protection from trespassing, protection from hate speech, protection from protests, protection from media coverage... Examples of positive rights might be as you'd expect the inverse: Freedom to own slaves, freedom to trespass, freedom to speak hatefully, freedom to protest, freedom to perform media coverage... You also may note that 'negative freedoms' are not necessarily a bad thing, just like 'positive freedoms' are not necessarily a good thing... The freedom to kill people is IMO a bad positive freedom while the freedom to be gay is IMO a good positive freedom... The freedom from gay people is IMO a bad positive freedom while the freedom to have cosmetic surgery is a good positive freedom IMO... So yeah, negative = freedom from/freedom to not have something happen... Positive = freedom to/freedom to have something happen... EDIT: I will say though, its possible I might be confused as well because I think the examples he went with are just not very clear examples... I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could all be interpreted to mean different things...
"I only own this Guitar because we both agree I do." But I do not. That is my guitar. And you say it's not. Neither of us concede the other owns it. So fuck your philosophy, because there is ALWAYS some one who can decide to not play the game and simply disagree. Now, if you don't mind, I'm coming over to get MY guitar.
There are a lot of fake “God believers” but also I think a lot of people are actually going to God cause they’re waking up to how degenerate and evil our world has become.
I feel like this debate could’ve been summarized as Dave’s belief system regarding libertarianism being founded in practicality over some sense of meta-ethical foundations. And since that support of ideology is based on practicality, it allows room for amendments to a “pure” libertarian framework/perspective. I think exceptions and amendments are healthy and a human reality for most, which a majority of people use to combine belief systems into something more unified. That said, Dave is massively out of his depth here XD.
I used tp call myself a libertarian. Then i got into philosophy and ethicsand other disciplines. Now its just very obvious that most libertarians have just not thought out their positions in any way. Other than malice, but hes an anarchist.
Stop looking at these conversations as so winner and loser binary this is exactly what people are critical of you for seeing everything with a winner and a loser its so cringe and doesn't help anyone better understand or empathize other peoples point of view
Confronting PhD Leftist For Spreading Insane Lie In Impromptu Debate | AE #10
►ruclips.net/video/eo_NGCzPpOI/видео.html
Destiny, it is "master debater" rofl 🤣
I have a suggestion for you. You should create a debate pervetry bingo card. So people could play along with you reviewing the debates.
I will accept money transfer as payment for this idea. 😏
Thumbs up. As a Theravada Buddhist from Thailand, this might be one of the most exciting and interesting episodes.
Destiny if you want to have some good arguments about arriving at moral truth, Sam Harris book the Moral Landscape is actually a great read about deriving moral principles through harm minimization
1:46:35 DAVID GOLDSMITH HAS DEEP UNDERGROUND CONNECTIONS
Dave Smith has clearly demonstrated how he owns himself throughout the debate.
damn
Indeed, he owns himself every time he opens his mouth.
Buncha jelly in here!
Gottem
@@Nubenhoofer
🧢
As a libertarian, Dave sure knows a lot about being owned.
Daaamn!
POV: Average destiny viewer posts a less funny version of the joke they just read in another comment three times before.
@@droptableaccount1820 That's every RUclips video ever.
@droptableaccount1820 and I'll do it again, and again.. you know I'll do it again.
@@droptableaccount1820lol
Andrew talked Dave into not realizing he's not a Libertarian. What a dumpster fire.
How many people would really do better though, this type of convo takes a specific skillset that probably isnt actually worth getting because its meaningless to almost all people
@@DCzero50 its only meaningless because they dont want to get into the unexistence foundations of their beliefs : if u dont know why X thing is bad then why should i engage with you on other stuff ?
@@DCzero50i agree most people wouldn’t do much better, but I feel like this conversation is a perfect example of why you should have fundamental underpinnings to your morals, especially if you are a public debater. Because Dave doesn’t have any moral foundations, by the middle of this video he has completely conceded everything to Andrew and people who see this may potentially be swayed toward divine control as a concept, if they too have no moral foundations
Dave isn't a libertarian, he's a paleo (socially conservative) which is why he has to accept almost everything Andrew is saying lol. No idea why he agreed to that debate.
@@ayoubmarah4063secular morality allows for intuition to tell us that something is bad we don’t need a direct reason why something like incest is bad beyond the general icky feeling diving into that deeper is weird
Well actually Andrew, that isn’t “to own,” if you just go south of the border, there it is “avere”
W call back
What's to own water then?
Father we have suffered in your absence
oh god
On some warhammer 40k shit 😂😂
Here take my like and by the way it's the 69th like under your comment, do I have ownership over that like? Or do you gain it by me offering it? Or is it all just a social construct? Or social media construct? Whatever it is and whoever it owns, it indeed exists, the 69th like under your comment.
hahahahaha
@@viderevero1338The Heretics can not know of our existence, the Inquisition demands your censure!
It's so much better watching Destiny when he is engaged with what he is listening to rather than playing a game in the background
Vyvanse baaaby
FALSE, I hope he goes back to the rift!!
That's his true destiny.
Or having him be forced through hosting a podcast with someone he definitely doesn't hate and is definitely not completely uninterested in talking to
I agree. I'm glad he got that ADHD medication. There were some real "empty chair" tier videos being put out before where he just played a game with some long video in the background and maybe chimed in two times per hour with "TRUE hahaha based" or some other vapid shit.
Andrew 100% realizes how far behind Dave is. Dave I bet honestly thinks that Andrew is a total idiot and is asking stupid questions and making nonsensical arguments. Dave is literally too clueless to understand he's getting demolished here.
On his next podcast he WILL claim he won an straight up lie to Robbie's blank faced stare as he vapes heavily.
@@Name-zd2nb I say all that despite finding Andrew a complete idiot with an insane worldview. I wonder if Dave knows what a Libertarian is... does he just think Libertarianism is when you disagree with the Government and you don't want to pay taxes?
Yeah, when he asks "how would you show that", (that being the argument he just ade) he disqualifies himself.. s
I disagree with Andrew, but he has clearly thought about his ideas at the fundamental level, not just adopted an aesthetic like Dave has. But what’s worse for Dave is, even when it’s being explained he doesn’t get it. He literally had to be told why Andrew was removing the chance of a child from a sibling relationship. He’s so clueless, but also a dumbass as he couldn’t catch up at all with what was happening.
@@monkeybudge Yup! In this conversation Dave looked like someone talking to a Mathematician and laughing at them and thinking they're an idiot because they're doing Math without any numbers, just symbols and letters. He is so naive about the topic that he can't see that he's completely clueless.
Imagine trying to have a conversation about physics, but the person you are discussing with doesn’t know what simple algebra is. And then he gets mad and wonders why you are bringing up algebra when “we are having a discussion/argument on physics”
Nice, I've kept comparing Dave as being akin to a Christian 'debating' with an Atheist but agreeing that Jesus never existed and that God isn't real.
@@JRuni0rSo Dawkins
@@off6848 That makes no sense considering what I wrote.
@@JRuni0r Dawkins has recently come out as a cultural Christian but does not believe in Jesus as God
@@off6848 It really doesn't satisfy the comparison I was making. I'm not sure if you understand that or if you're just hung up on this surface level coincidence.
Wow, Andrew was more willing to concede that the Christian God might not be the source of Divine Command than Dave was willing to agree on a definition of the NAP! AMAZING!
Andrew conceded just for the sake of argument. He wouldn’t do so if the debate prompt was whether or not God exists. He even briefly mentioned his justification for beliefs through the transcendental argumentation but knew Dave was so far behind he couldn’t keep up so he kept it surface level.
@@brendanmassie9586no, you clearly don’t understand religion or religious people, most of them do struggle with that question and have questioned their beliefs many times in there lives.
@@fernandocalles1726 ah yes I clearly don’t understand Christianity. Tell me, could you please summarize the transcendental argument that Andrew is referring to? Let’s see who doesn’t know religion.
“Families cannot survive in the wild on their own“…… someones never seen the fast and furious
FAMILY
That's why Andrew focused on that question, it showed that Dave had no foundation for his beliefs.
Dave just gave up the NAP as soon as it resulted in something he just didn't personally like.
Didn’t Rothbard or one of the other libertarians already make a stance something like you own your self if you have more than 80% control of your self
That way a doctor probing your brain to make you twitch wouldn’t technically have half ownership of yourself
I know one of them definitely tried to grapple with it but most lolberts just take most stuff for granted with no thought
This debate is Smiths best comedic outing in decades
Outside of politics and stuff, I love legion of skanks and Dave is painfully unfunny. Like it’s cringeworthy a lot of times
The only reason he has any standing in comedy is that he’s Rogans news source
Dave is the reason the dunning kruger effect exists
😂
Dave is a comedian after all :D
@@brucehoffman2811yeah ok! You must like big jay type humor “I love black penis” “tits and boobs man” 😂
damn it seems Andrew wasn't joking when he said he usually spend the day reading books
I think he proved pretty resoundingly that he knows how to own himself
Touché
Great comment, highly underrated by our degenerate society
You're just repeating what Destiny says. Come up with your own opinions.
@@AmyZonkerslet the statists cope. This was an insanely bad faith debate, which is why destiny covered it.
@@Fabric_Haterbad faith how please explain.
As soon as you try to argue that you’re a libertarian but certain things that don’t violate the NAP should be disallowed by the government because God says they’re wrong and you say they’re icky, you’re completely lost at sea. That argument is unrecoverable.
It’s kind of the same with free speech. There is no person on earth who is a true free speech absolutist. Everybody is fine with free speech until they hear something. They don’t like then they’re perfectly OK with banning it. Talk to conservatives in Florida and Idaho and you’ll quickly find out that they don’t want that gay shit being talked about which is why they’re basically getting rid of books from school libraries.
@@jordanwhite8718I mean you can make the libertarian case that they just don't want the government using school to push a certain type of speech, but these people would also happily see drag shows in private business locations banned.
@@jordanwhite8718but difference between the two things you’re talking about bud. Nobody cares if you’re gay in 2024, including “the far right conservatives in Florida who don’t like that gay shit” and forcing a sexualized agenda on kids in schools via the school library, is disgusting and isn’t the same type of thing as not liking the gays. I’ve never met a conservative in real life that “hate that gay shit” openly. Just face it, gays aren’t interesting or under any form of oppression. That’s why we’re forced to celebrate them for a month and 2 kids are facing 10 years for driving over a pride pained road on a scooter in an “aggressive” way
Dave was more lost at sea than the Spanish at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba.
I feel like you liberals can't deal with any moral quandary without resorting to circular logic, "oh he got no idea what libertarianism is" because libertarians don't make sense, but see the main argument that you can't have objectivity or authority in a libertarian society is just as stupid and unrealistic as the liberal assertions that anything is fine as long as its not hurting anyone.
I can't tell if Dave realizes that he got bodied or if he thinks he did well
I think he's at the nadir of the Dunning Kruger curve and he fully believes he cleaned up here and that Andrew was just wasting time with silly arguments
@@krombopulos_michael No, he admitted he did poorly in this. Once they got past the NAP section Dave basically took over scoring the points but he definitely didn't do himself any favors in the first part.
W Dave
You know, I've only ever seen morons online bring up the "dunning kruger" effect, I'm starting to think maybe there is some introspection to be had...
It was just bad faith and dave wasnt realizing people could be that bd faith.
We need a debate pervertry term for when someone complains about being interrupted while interrupting their opponent just as much or more.
This is exactly why bubbles exist.JRogan depends on Smith as his go-to Guy, and here we see exactly why he shouldn’t be anyone’s, Especially when he’s one of the better ones for Joe
Andrew Wilson shouldn't be anyones go to either lol
@@ronniekregar3482 yeah, when Destiny knocked philosophy in the beginning, just going into the weeds gives me a headache
Neither should Andrew lol
@@ronniekregar3482it's not an endorsement of Andrew Wilson's general world view, just that he was able to clearly expose Dave Smith as a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. Even if Dave Smith is absolutely right, he has no idea why he's right. He doesn't have the intellectual curiousity to think out his positions beyond the most surface arguments.
@@krombopulos_michael I agree, but I don't like Destiny busting out the bucket of popcorn and start rooting for Andrew Wilson of all people, just because Dave Smith is ducking him lol.
The void called to me "it's so over", and I into that bottomless pit and whispered in reply "we're so back"
"this is semantics" would fall under the "lazy gardener" AKA "let's not get into the weeds"
When it is just cope for "I cant follow at all and dotn even understand the words your using"
Andrew didn't even go full force on him. Those are softball questions, Dave should have encountered at some point of his life ?! I never imagined he's this shallow.
I don’t get why semantics are considered a debate faux pas by some.
I’m no fan of Andrew but GODDAYUMM he absolutely wrecked Dave Smith in this lmao
Which part?
@@Cameron72737the entire thing 😂
@@Cameron72737the part where he has to explain basic NAP to him A SELF PROCLAIMED LIBERTARIAN. How can you call yourself libertarian and not know the first thing about it? Does he thinks being a libertarian just means you hate taxes and government bad? And all the moral foundation under doesn’t exist?
@@datvo3076 he's only stated about a thousand times it's based on property rights and the non aggression principle
@@datvo3076 circling everything back to God is not the NAP little buddy
What I hate about Dave is that he is completely abandoning basic libertarian values and all he is left with is “govment bad!”. Libertarians at least have core principles but these anti establishment bottom feeders are too one dimensional for even that. This is the “America bad” of the right wing.
I mean right, the establishment hacks are totally where it's at!!! I mean amiright, amiright!?!?!?!
@@Cameron72737ah yes saying he’s an anti establishment shill means you gotta shill for establishment. No wonder you guys are lost.
He's a paleoconservative populist. It's been clear for years. That's why he flounders anytime he gets pushback, he has no critically thought out principles.
Oh god, seriously - the America Bad-right wingers along with woke Christians are THE fucking worst.
@@Cameron72737 me when i false dichotomy:
1:11:45
Andrew would actually agree with you here Destiny. He uses the exact same argument himself against Christians who believe in Sola Scriptura.
He is Orthodox, Sola Scriptura isn't part of his worldview.
Would be interesting to see destiny engage with the Ortho bros. I think he would struggle to justify his epistemology. Destiny seems to be aware of that tho and even mentioned that Andrew knows more philosophy. After all if you study philosophy you’ll probably become either a nihilist or religious.
"Can you justify that?"
"Yes. I don't like it."
While the other side says: "I think my god doesnt like it"
Dave Smith: not funny enough to be a good comedian, not smart enough to be a smart pundit, so he decided to be mediocre at both.
You got that from a bad faith debate?
Show me on the doll where the opinion you don’t like touched you.
@@droptableaccount1820I agree with the original comment….however that was hilarious. You should be Dave’s writer!
Seems like a nice guy to me.
The only reason I even know who Dave Smith is is because of Joe Rogan. Which leads me to ask this question. Is Joe Rogan the male version of Oprah Winfrey? I feel like both of them have introduced us to people who were actively terrible people.
Daves not funny or smart but that doesn’t mean he’s a terrible person
Oh Rogan is very much the male/comedian version of Oprah. That’s a good analogy
Dave smith is a terrible person but destiny is a beacon of moral superiority?
@@IbnRushd-mv3fpno one has ever claimed that about Destiny including himself. Good comment😂
Joe Rogan being the male Oprah is actually genius
Andrew had Dave so confused and flustered I think Dave literally couldn’t keep track of what he was saying out of his own mouth.
I don't think I've never seen a worse performance in a debate. I hope for Dave Smith's sake, his brain correctly identified the total mind and body violation happening, and decided to put him in PTSD auto-pilot mode so he can quickly quarantine, then forget such a violation ever took place.
This debate literally gave me 2nd hand embarrassment. Holy Shit.
Watch an episode of the atheist experience, most callers there are worse. But they are laymen defending delusion so they
Shout out to Andrew, who, while he was a bit agressive, understood the assignment and material.
Dave Smith is a comedian and typically, comedians are intelligent and insightful. What happened is Dave Smith was basically right about the COVID issues and JRogan platformed him and people mistakenly thought he would be intelligent and well read about a host of other issues. The problem is, Dave Smith is also arrogant af. So he accepted a debate that had the title of his supposed worldview in it and thought he could bullshit his way through the debate. The problem is Andrew literally describes his method of debate as gladiator debating or whatever. Basically he believes in taking your soul in a debate. That’s what he did. As for Destiny saying Andrew should have sucked Dave off for his career, the guy needed an ego check. If Dave can’t respect the skill and intellect and is going to be a dick because he didn’t get the softball treatment remember what he did to Cuomo. Did he grant him any grace or did he obliterate him and say it over and over? Don’t bring surface level views to a meta fight.
How does he perscribe to libertarianism, and hold the belief that two consenting adults (when related) should be forced by the state not to engage sexual action and that people should be forced by the state (or anyone in his case) to not cause harm to oneself.
As someone who finds interest in liberatarian views and hold views that often align, it would seem to me that a liberatarian would argue (or should argue) that a person should be allowed to do either of these things. Otherwise I must have completely misunderstood the basics of libertarianism.
Exactly. That's why Andrew focused on the question, because it showed that Dave had no foundation for his beliefs.
He just gave up the NAP as soon as it resulted in something he just didn't like.
In the same way the n8zi party said they were socialists.
Vegan Gains just destroying our Gusan al-Gaib out of nowhere was unexpected, but welcome.
Yeah but he asked the stupidest question that destiny has been on record about multiple times, when he asked why wouldn't you eat a cat? Destiny would eat a cat and has said so, because he doesn't recognize the moral difference between a cat and a pig.
@@thomaswalmsley8959 My comment was sarcastic. I was merely pointing out a situation I thought was humorous lol
@@cogitoergosum9069 nvm. I'm the asshat
The duality of libertarians: hey fuck those laws…except the ones I agree with
It's crazy how having children can brake some people's brain so bad.
Bro, you might be on to something 😂
Dave brought a nail clipper to a sword fight
Anyone who’s an old school Destiny fan probably remembers the incest debates. Good times and a genuine introduction for having to lay out your thought process and morals without just arguing things are “icky”.
40 mins in and you realize this is the most worthless debate/conversation to be had
I wish i could like this comment twice
It pretty clearly demonstrated that Dave Smith is a hack that doesn't understand his own belief system. I'd say that's worth something.
It was insanely bad faith. But statists gotta grasp at anything to help them cope.
@@nolan13075you get that from.bad faith actors?
@@Fabric_Hater no, I got that from Dave Smith saying he's cool with the state barging into private homes to arrest people for having sex with another consenting adult.
I'm not even mad about the dictionary. I've definitely been in debates where people have made up definitions to a word to suit a bias, even when it has nothing to do with the word . Like he's a Nazi or fascist, when people using it as a term for a person they dont agree with.
Well, Nazism and Fascism are very specific ideologies. Something like "ownership of yourself" can be taken in many ways. Owning myself in the eyes of God? Yes. Christians will say they have free will. However, they also belong to God. Do I have ownership of my brain? Yes. Well, what about the limbic system? What controls the brain? Neurons? Do you have control of your neurons?
I agree that definitions matter, but when you get into the nitty gritty of, especially philosophically, ideas and concepts, the Webster dictionary doesn't really suffice.
Dave Smith is NOT grifting about the god stuff. If he was, I’d kind of respect him more. He alluded to it, but he literally just had a kid and changed his mind. Before that, he was a pretty firm atheist. It’s really indicative of his thought processes that his most firm beliefs are really based on not much more than a feeling.
Kind of a weird thing though.... what if the kid grows up to be an a hole? Will he become an atheist again?
Why would you respect him more if he was a grifter?
also having a child will make you question everything you value. Logically if you don’t you are prob a incapable robot. Many people would actually find your opinion meaningless as you’ve never had a child, so you can’t possibly fully understand the world. I agree
@@dieselbaby no, they’re not at all unless you’re using a super pedantic meaning of feeling. You can come to conclusions in a logical way, even if feelings influence your conclusion.
@@ThinWhiteLuke because then at least he knows his argument is dumb but argues it anyway cause money. Like Peterson defending Christianity. It’s like playing devils advocate but for money.
Despite disagreeing with Andrew on almost all of his beliefs, I think this was incredibly impressive and entertaining 😂
Andrew's moral system is gross, but he's a solid debater and a fairly logical thinker and (seems) to have a solid understanding of philosophy.
@@thomaswalmsley8959Not sure how Christianity is "Gross". I guess love your enemies is gross. 😂
@@Emmanuel_EEE 1) Wilson isn't a normal Christian, he's a subset of Christians, not all Christians are gross, but some definitely can be (because of their beliefs not as an ancillary thing).
2) Wilson doesn't love his enemies, nor does he advocate for it. He's not the lovely dovey hippy Christian. Let's not pretend Wilson is something he isn't.
You could actually make an argument that wouldn't be flatly dishonest about Wilson, which could go something lole" is it gross now to be against degeneracy?" As an example, where I would have to contend with his actual position, but you can't even be bothered to do that, and are just crying about some strawman critism about the whole of Christianity.
@@thomaswalmsley8959
1. What the hell is a "normal" Christian? Christianity has different denominations, they generally all have the same foundation beliefs. Love thy neighbor as yourself, the Trinity, and some sacraments.
2. Can you give me an example where Andrew didn't love his enemies? He may be aggressive when debating, but I haven't heard him tell people to off themselves because of what they believe.
3. Degeneracy is bad for society because it mess with the order and designed of humans. Humans have a higher moral standing then animals do. So to engage with degeneracy is to be just like animals.
4. No one's crying, you made a claim that Andrew's moral system is gross which directly means that Christianity is gross.
Honestly, this is the type of Destiny content that I enjoy; I feel like he really hasn't done this in a long time. His foreign policy debates are not nearly as interesting since they largely come down to the question of which source to believe.
Would be nice to see a debate between Andrew and Alex O'Connor
Destiny you have gained a couple points in my book. Its refreshing to see someone with different views not hinder your view on a debate.
Destiny, you fundamentally misunderstood how this Dave is interpreting libertarianism. He's not using it as a moral philosophy. He's using it as a instrument for government management. It's equal to your opinion on is capitalism good. You don't have any moral connection to capitalism. You just think it's the best way to organize society.
But I think there is an important difference. You can be pretty flexible with practicing capitalism in different flavors and still call yourself a capitalist, but whereas if you a abandon the NAP whenever you take personal issue with something, like the incest example, you shouldn't call yourself a libertarian any longer.
And that's what these guys do all the time. "oh well Yea that just gross so we would make that illegal." well OK then why the f are going out of your way to profess libertarianism?
@@shafferfs but I believe incest is something Dave would consider "Malum in se"(The legal term) so obviously immoral that there's going to be nearly universal agreement. I understand that's not justified but in all likelihood he thinks it is and most people agree. A similar thing is probably with suicide. However, it's pretty clear that he's not actually interested in the state doing that. He makes it clear in the conversation that while he would want someone to step in if they could, he doesn't actually want to make that the responsibility of the state. This is what he meant by saying there can be a moral and legal divide, he believes that you should probably morally intervene, but it's not worth the state intervening. Now destiny didn't fully watch the video but I did, I don't know why destiny suddenly gives presuppositionalism the past like it's a legitimate form of argumentation when it's circular logic at its bedrock. We've literally watched destiny tear people apart for the same type of argumentation that Andrew's using, but with this guy he seems to let it pass and treats it as legitimate because of its historical legacy. Also for these niche moral issues for someone like Dave are self-evidently immortal, He's willing to just accept them and move past it so he can talk about the bulk of the issue with structuring the government which is where Dave wanted to have the conversation. It wasn't debate purgatory, He just didn't think it had any bearing on how you should evaluate libertarianism.
@@shafferfs The NAP shouldn't be seen as an absolute right. David Friedman has an excellent talk on this. ill take me for example. I think Capitalism is the best system we have id like to have free markets and take society further towards it etc. the problem with people like Murray Rothbard is that they assume that the academics and philosophers will figure out the ethics and morals and build a libertarian society like that. David Friedman argues that Laws created on the free market might not be necessarily libertarian if a large group of people feel strongly against drugs or incest they would be willing to pay a higher price to make sure those things are made illegal.
Andrew and Dave were just talking past each other for three hours. Dave's is very clearly using Chrisitianity (or a generic Divine Command, since he didn't want to put a name to the religious sect he follows) to determine what is moral, whilst also using libertarian philosophy to justify the role of the State in our lives. There were two avenues of morality, yet Andrew kept trying to get him to admit one doesn't work. Sure, they need to work together.
Game Theory strategy backs up why non-aggression plus cooperative behavior is better for everyone when everyone behaves that way. But that's why building a culture of treating others how you want to be treated is so successful. The problem is that it's harder to convince people because short term, treating others can be to your advantage if you have a power imbalance that's to your advantage.
Most philosopher’s agree you can’t have objective morality without a religious belief. Alex O’Connor does a good job discussing all the reasons for this.
But muh “philosophers have written about it” 😂
You clearly haven't seen Alex's discussion with Joe Schmid then
Yeah, not at all true. There’s an entire branch of philosophy called “Moral Philosophy” or “Ethics” that derives morality from other first principles.
@@joge2468 u mean like what kant tried to do but failed? And kant actually believed in God, he was just trying to make a system that could pin point morality with just logics and he failed, his categorical imperative just devolves into circularity.
@@pamelapamper Don’t go bashing Kant now. Yes, he believed in G-d. It doesn’t follow that the categorical imperative fails. Like Rawls’s fairness principle, it’s a perfectly legitimate form of morality to arise from humans using reason to derive a system upon which they could all agree. It’s amazing what a state of blindness can do.
damn bro im actually hyped I predicted daves response at 1:06, appeal to nature, typical
Dave Smith is just the typical garden variety libertarian where his core beliefs are rooted in bumper sticker statements. He will answer the question and then proceed to dismiss the question at the same time. The power of the dismissive.
Me thinks Destiny is recovering from the amount of ass kicking over Gaza/Israel debates.. such a child!
Is it just me or is the editing up a notch
A lot of people think that ad absurdum is a logical fallacy but it’s actually a valid logical argumentation to test the cut off point or extent of a logical claim
Dave Smith finally exposed
the problem with the government isn't that they make professional licenses, it's the coercion. Anarchist society would have an equivalent if every important government institution, but you get to opt out.
dave has been around louis so long he's convinced he's super smart rather than louis is super dumb, big jay is a more successful comedian, louis owns it all and dave is the smart political guy, please dont take that away from him
Im just saying its crazy how destiny classifies simply two people in agreement on a topic or area of concern is somehow one person is winning and one person is losing its so detrimental to where we should want to be headed towards a place of mutual respect and recognition of peoples personal experience which has lead them to their current opinions and views. If everything has to have a winner and a loser then that only further hardens peoples refusal to alter or adjust their positions for fear of being the loser
What a braindead analysis of what took place here culminating in an equally braindead comment.
Someone has quite the collection of participation trophies
cool, I found this right in my feed!
great work!
:-)
A few things to clarify. The word clan means family, tribe often means an extended family, the word singular doesn’t mean single it means unusual or distinct. it’s still understood when people use it incorrectly but it’s a useful word to when used as it’s meant to be used. It think Steven is right on this analysis, Dave seems to be completely panicking, would love to see more deliberative analysis from Steven on how best to get out of these mismatched arguments.
we’re so back
56:29 massive L for Destiny not choosing “The Picky Eater” that is objectively hilarious due to how abstract it is
Dave Smith has built up a large ego as a debater
1:38:10 no, destiny. You are wrong. Tribes aren't the foundation of community or civilization. Within a "tribe" are core families and maybe some stragglers or Individuals. A band of independent and single individuals does not make a tribe, maybe there's exceptions but not the majority or standard of what a "tribe" is.
I can't believe I used to listen to Dave Smith and value his perspectives on things when it's grounded in nothing
This is the first time I heard of Dave Smith. I didn't even know there were libertarians that advocated for banning things! I had to stop watching Destiny's video because I wanted to actually hear the discussion and it did not disappoint. My favorite part was at around 20 minutes in where Dave was flustered because he thought his questions weren't being answered. It's even more funny to me that people in his audience will side with him or think that he won somehow. What a way to start my day.
Tribes _are_ families, that's kinda the point. Everyone is tied to and related with everyone else. That's why, in the bible, there are tribes called "Judah" and "Levi." They are all descendants of the patriarchs of those tribes. Or in Romeo and Juliet the Montagues and Capulets are two large clans of inter-related people.
In other cutlers there are still strong ideas of larger interrelated, tight-knit lineages. This has in most societies been the foundational structure historically.
What Destiny is thinking of is the Nuclear Family, the 1950's idea of 1 Mom, 1 Dad, 2.5 kids and one dog. One couple and the dependents of that couple which, yes, is a pretty historical formulation. In America clan ties aren't as strong as other places in part due to being a young nation of immigrants, highly individualistic concepts of self, being extremely large and spread out.
The Downside is that it's "dog eat dog" and the upside is that we tend to avoid blood feuds, fighting more over ideologies.
You do own yourself regardless of slavery you can choose to be subjugated or rebel. If you rebel you would probably been killed or you could have escaped. Ultimately the decision is up to you.
This is the argument I think I would go down. If your choices and decisions come down to you, then you must own yourself. Nobody else can make you do anything. They can apply pressure and you can give up and allow it but there is always the option of disobeying and allowing death. But then you get into torture and methods of psychologically breaking someone and manipulation. It’s a hard one.
100% and I don't understand why Dave didn't take that route. But what makes it even dumber is that Andrew believes in free will which is essentially the same concept. They were just too debate brained and talking past each other in this segment for the more interesting discussion about the differences between those two concepts to take place... also probably need someone more philosophically based than Dave Smith who is more a 'how it should work' than a 'why it should work this way' type of debater.
Dave avoided this because it undoes libertarianism. If self-ownership is not a social construct and you really do own yourself, then he cannot answer any interventionist question (eg. the brother/sister section) without violating the non-aggression principle. I mean, he still didn't answer that without reverting to god, but I'm sure he'll have a good think about it.
So ownership is about control. Then how can you claim stealing is wrong, what gives you a claim to ownership over something you don’t control anymore?
1:59:01
Debate Pervertry:
The Phantom Library/ Standing on the libraries of giants:
When an individual gestures to written work in order to come across as more understanding of a topic, while having not read a single word of it.
lol I’ve used that “how do you pronounce your name again?” And they are like…” Dave “ 😂
What's crazy is the comments on that video. Everyone hating Andrew. They might not have understood what Andrew was arguing, either, though.
Nah, we pretty know he's a debate perv. "Do you own yourself" is probably the most pedantic question possible after "how do you know you exist".
@@justwannabehappy6735 but the question is to gauge Dave's fundamental beliefs. I didn't necessarily think Andrew is looking for a concrete answer, but rather, Dave's thought process to the question. Which he didn't have any.
I guess being a debate perv is okay because asking "how do you know you own yourself" is a valid question if dave doesn't believe that which was demonstrated during the incest part.
@@cointomato9768 how do you know you exist.
@@justwannabehappy6735 debate demon
Defining terms is a key component of debating.
I fucking hate Andrew but this was actually a super satisfying performance from him. He had me questioning atheism there for a minute and ready to come over to Christian dominionism
How did he have you questioning atheism?
I was an athiest until i started to listen to andrew wilson
Come to the dark side
@@vesuvius2444 it was a joke. Lol.
@@biglennys1fan441 W
I needed this sooooooo bad haha
Singular:
1. of or relating to a separate person or thing : INDIVIDUAL of, relating to, or being a word form denoting one person, thing, or instance
a singular noun of or relating to a single instance or to something considered by itself
2. distinguished by superiority : EXCEPTIONAL
an artist of singular attainments
3. being out of the ordinary : UNUSUAL
on the way home we had a singular adventure
4. departing from general usage or expectation : PECULIAR, ODD
the air had a singular chill
5. of a matrix : having a determinant equal to zero
6. of a linear transformation : having the property that the matrix of coefficients of the new variables has a determinant equal to zero
- Merriam/Webster.
I believe in Jesus, I loathe how people are using Christ's name in this current age, American conservatives like Candace, acting like she's so pious. Firstly, Christ is King of Kings, and secondly, he said 'You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.' So enough obsessing over trans and onlyfans girls to try and make you appear better, Jesus died for your sins too Candace...
Observing Destiny in this mode makes me believe we have a chance at being friends. Because our views and opinions are so different, sometimes when he is debating I find him abhorrent. I appreciate this very logical yet down to earth dialogue. This makes me feel like if i was in the same room we wouldnt need to resort to shouting if we were discussing differences of opinion. I appreciate you Destiny. I hope one day you will believe that Jesus really did die on the cross to pay for your sins. I promise i say that out of love not hate.
Seeing Destiny and his fans give Andrew praise is peak irony 😂
You do realize you can disagree with Andrew's philosophy and also see that he clearly showed Dave to be a fool?
What’s ironic about it? It was a debate. One guy won. You don’t have to like the guy to understand that he clearly won the argument.
As a philosophy student, Merriam-webster is the answer key to all philosophical questions.
Libertarians are so hilarious lmao. The family guy speech is top notch
Andrew is a very very good debater in his fields of knowlege. He is very polite but wipes the floor with him. I dont remember who he dabated, but he was making the claim that women are beeing given their rights by men. And he had a counter argument for every opposition. very impressive
I'm sorry if this is addressed, but is the crucial word not "You" in "Can you own yourself", as in, even if I were a slave I could decide not to do something anymore, even if tortured to do it. So yes I own myself. Since for in the situation I am in, I am free to do with myself within these bounds.
That's where philosophy comes in. You could indeed argue what you did but then you can't argue that ownership is a social construct since the social construct of slavery would mean that you do in fact not own yourself even if you resist torture or have your own thoughts since ownership is decided by the social contract (society agreeing that OWNING other humans is ok).
The frame of reference here is the libertarian philosophy in competition with a Christian fundamentalist philosophy.
That is why Dave is so embarrassing here since he navigated himself into a corner from which he can only argue that ownership is not a social construct which in turn devalues and dismantles his self described "libertarian" philosophy as that is one of the most fundamental parts of it: "Ownership as a social construct".
So on short, yes you could bring the argument you yourself brought but that wouldn't be a libertarian argument which makes it pointless to Daves or Andrews stance in this specific debate.
So if it is about control, like I can control my body so therefore I own it, does that mean that if I take something from you, that I now rightfully own it? If I take your car, you don’t control it anymore, you can’t decide what to do with it anymore. So how could you then claim you still own that car after I take it from you?
@@PuddingXXL Soo... that means that because there are some situations one can not own oneself under the terms of "Ownership as a social construct." Therefore stating that ownership is a social construct is false. Is that correct? If that is how philosophy works, I guess so. But can concepts not be multiple things? As in X consist of part Y and part Z? Where Y applies Z does not, and vice versa. Or am I missing something?
"does that mean that if I take something from you, that I now rightfully own it?" I mean, you own it. But not rightfully (depending on the rights of course).
A more interesting thing would be to argue that ownership as stated as "the ability to do with it as you wish" constitutes ownership over everything one is able to destroy. Which is kind of silly end point for ownership.
But I believe multiple things can be true at once. So yes I (rightfully) own the car and yes you (physically) own the car.
You can argue that and then the Mutualists / market socialists will say AH HA got you now only usufruct property is valid
In this convo, is the best response to Andrew's explanation of divine morals (Our morals are based upon fundamental Christian beliefs, etc.): "So if all your morals are taken from biblical scripture, which is where Christians get their fundamental beliefs, what if the writer of the bible was incorrectly believing he was hearing the words of god or hallucinating it as Andrew put it."
Not trying to debate the validity of Christianity, just curious about the rhetorical arguments.
Then it would make it as valid as the beliefs of people that just create the morality themselfs from their own thoughts,since we are not able to assure someones rationality only the posibility of rationality(true rationality doesn't exists).
Dave Smith just feels he's intelligent because he hangs out with people that are either dumber than him or that agree with him. This was the funniest piece of comedy Dave Smith has ever done
I love how Destiny breaks down the debate. I hope people learn from him and Dave’s bad example.
Yep he’s crazy talented at it, the fact that he does it off the cuff is incredibly impressive.
It’s a bad clip of Dave but this whole video is a super cringe clip of destiny as well. He’s clearly pretty worked up about the Wikipedia comment from Dave 🙈
Andrew Wilson's question about owning oneself demonstrates a rather childish understanding of ownership. The way we can objectively state that one owns oneself is that ownership is a negative right, not affirmative. One does not actively acquire or gain the right to be; the mere act of existing denies all other beings the ability to exist in your existence.
The act of being or existing is not defining ownership though. Yes you're existence can't be affirmed or negated by negative or positive rights but that was not the question.
@@PuddingXXL You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not speaking about affirming or negating someone's existence, all people and beings are presumed to exist. I'm saying that the fundamental concept of ownership isn't a societal construct because the core experience a being has is uniquely experienced by them by virtue of them existing as the being they are. Even in the times of slavery, a slave still owned his/herself because the slave was experiencing the labors and life of being enslaved.
That whole section of the debate seemed pointless to me. Essentially, they were trying to argue the practical difference between the concepts of self ownership (Dave) and free will (Andrew) which could be an interesting discussion but these two just talked past each other during that section.
@@TheWinterfox10 prove the slave owned themselves because they clearly did not
@@mariomario1462 Of course the slaves owned themselves, proving that is easy. Did the slave do the work, or did the master? Did the slave get beat, or did the master? Did the slave eat? What about sleep? Everything that slave experienced, the slave experienced for themselves and they didn't experience it on someone else's behalf. Whether the slave had freedom to choose for themselves isn't relevant, because ownership isn't about freedom. It's about the ability to be a being that no other being can be. If that makes sense.
You know that you own your house because no one else has the ability to live in YOUR house.
I’ve been WAITINGGGGGGG to see Dave and Andrew debate!!!!!
1:15:58 Destiny is I think using his terminology wrong... I learned about this from a political science class I took in uni... A negative right (or negative liberty/freedom) is a right that protects you from something... This is contrasted with a positive right (or positive liberty/freedom) to be able to do something... So for example, a negative right might be: Protection from slavery (aka the right to not be enslaved), protection from trespassing, protection from hate speech, protection from protests, protection from media coverage... Examples of positive rights might be as you'd expect the inverse: Freedom to own slaves, freedom to trespass, freedom to speak hatefully, freedom to protest, freedom to perform media coverage... You also may note that 'negative freedoms' are not necessarily a bad thing, just like 'positive freedoms' are not necessarily a good thing...
The freedom to kill people is IMO a bad positive freedom while the freedom to be gay is IMO a good positive freedom... The freedom from gay people is IMO a bad positive freedom while the freedom to have cosmetic surgery is a good positive freedom IMO...
So yeah, negative = freedom from/freedom to not have something happen... Positive = freedom to/freedom to have something happen...
EDIT: I will say though, its possible I might be confused as well because I think the examples he went with are just not very clear examples... I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could all be interpreted to mean different things...
Andrew wrecked him.. sheesh
"I only own this Guitar because we both agree I do."
But I do not. That is my guitar. And you say it's not. Neither of us concede the other owns it. So fuck your philosophy, because there is ALWAYS some one who can decide to not play the game and simply disagree.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm coming over to get MY guitar.
22:10
"I don't even know any actual theories of truth...cringe nerd shit."
- _Destiny 2024_
There are a lot of fake “God believers” but also I think a lot of people are actually going to God cause they’re waking up to how degenerate and evil our world has become.
Libertarians are just new and moderately rich guys who don’t want to pay tax. Like when school kids say they want to paint their rec room black.
I feel like this debate could’ve been summarized as Dave’s belief system regarding libertarianism being founded in practicality over some sense of meta-ethical foundations. And since that support of ideology is based on practicality, it allows room for amendments to a “pure” libertarian framework/perspective. I think exceptions and amendments are healthy and a human reality for most, which a majority of people use to combine belief systems into something more unified.
That said, Dave is massively out of his depth here XD.
I used tp call myself a libertarian. Then i got into philosophy and ethicsand other disciplines. Now its just very obvious that most libertarians have just not thought out their positions in any way. Other than malice, but hes an anarchist.
Stop looking at these conversations as so winner and loser binary this is exactly what people are critical of you for seeing everything with a winner and a loser its so cringe and doesn't help anyone better understand or empathize other peoples point of view
this is what happens when people dont have even introductory knowledge of basic phlosophical problems and concepts
I’m him
I can’t stand Dave. Like at all. But damn, this is almost getting uncomfortable.
2 things I've never seen Dave Smith do: say anything funny, perform well in a debate with someone who isn't just a D List celebrity
I haven't seen a chainsmoker in a long, long time.
If you review Andrew Wilson’s work you have to be willing to debate him again…
I'd be down to see Destiny take another L handed to him personally by Andrew Wilson.
@@Tauramehtar2-1
Destiny rocked andrew when he was a newbie, but their second one was a legendary w from andrew
This has been one of the most entertaining things to watch on RUclips in weeks holy shit lmao