Destiny FINALLY Debates Dillahunty, Gets Stumped w/ Hardest Question In Existence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- DEBATE: Destiny finally debates Matt Dillahunty hosted by Modern Day Debates...
Date: 19 Nov, 2022
▼Follow Destiny▼
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Follow Modern-Day Debates
►TWITTER - / moderndaydebate
►RUclips - / moderndaydebate
Matt Dillahunty
/ @sansdeity
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
#destiny
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This is so much better than all the streamer drama. Actual good faith debates are so interesting to watch.
Its hard to find people like this ngl. I hope they talk again in the future.
Ill take this over drama any day.
Ill take 3 hour lav talks over Richard Wolfe
I no. Sometimes I think Steven waists so much time playing high school games. I think thats why alot of the bigger politics guys don't take him seriously. I'm not gonna deny I get caught up in it, but then I realize how stupid it is. A soap opera drama. Waist of a good mind .
Just debunked Richard Spencer on race and iq in my recent video
@@drdavinskythat sounds like something we needed 3-4 years ago. Why not cover more recent asshats?
Properly one of the best debates I have ever listened to, never mind a subject like this. Provided extra clarity on my position which is all one could ever hope for. Thank you.
Props to Matt and Destiny for a refreshingly cordial conversion.
This is content I love. This debate wasn’t about winning, it was about trying to be correct. This was fascinating and better at promoting thought than typical debate bro content.
They agree on the issue they're discussing though, so why are you worshiping them for that
@@DjZephy worship? I’ll leave that for the delusional god botherers. I just respect the fact the agree and still challenge each others position to test the voracity of argument. More productive that debating talking points or watching idiots get taken apart.
@@DjZephy They agree on the end result, sure, but there is still value to be had in figuring out what makes you get to that end result. And they both differ quite a bit in that regard.
@@Uhdksurvhunter I'm an atheist so I respect Dillahunty. However I also lean pro-life. As things like "rights" are simply a humanistic construct, I found it extremely concerning how Dillahunty dismissed the fetal personhood issue altogether by way of cobbling together a poorly reasoned statement that the "fetus doesn't have the "right" to use your body". As if there's intent by the fetus or some directed force other than nature.
As life is purely materialistic, I find it odd a biological imperative would be classified in such terms by him - a hierarchical weighing of "rights". Sadly not even atheist thought-leaders are immune to political beliefs that borderline on the religious. Once he introduced "rights" into the debate, he set himself up for losing. Because if we use rights to judge an issue, what possible "right" can trump the basic and essential right to life itself??
@@Reclaimer77 It depends on where you arbitrarily draw the line, like anything else in society. Preferrably this would be logically consistent.
Personally i lean more towards Destiny interpretation of the morality of abortion, over Dillahuntys.
The case is very logically consistent, if your line for where life is valued is after having had a concious experience.
Been a while since i talked about abortion. Its usually a boring subject since 99% of people arguing against is doing so purely on emotional grounds.
Destiny, this is SOOO refreshing! I think it's a good idea to talk more with (1) informed people (2) who have an adult brain (3) the ability to listen and (4) to formulate their own views properly. That's what happened here and it's SOOO much better. I mean, respectfully, 90% of your arguments are with dumb, narcissistic, childish, narrow minded, arrogant kids who can't string one complete sentence together. We need more real conversations where two functional human beings have a good discussion like here. Thanks for that! Hope we can have it more often :)
Because that's what gets clicks
good faith debate by two pseudointellectual hacks with identical opinions sounds like such a fascinating debate!
Destiny is immature. He is addicted to sex and he plays video games all day long.
@@shuheihisagi6689 so you’ve stated that he’s immature and then you’ve utilized two examples (one of which isn’t factual), of which indicate maturity, as a means of justifying that? How does that work? His “video games” are his work. It’s a job. Furthermore, he does a lot more than just “play video games”. Your logic is a fallacy.
Dude they're not even fucking having a debate you're literally just discussing without any real counter arguments. What you're really saying is you want to see two people that you essentially agree with reinforced each other.
I don't think you're an honest person if you label abortion as murder.
Damn, I lived my life for a bit, blinked and you were up 300k subs. Crazy growth. Happy for you
This debate is a great exchange. Too many other debates devolve into "Why are you refusing to answer the question with a yes or no?!"
Man, this was something I never expected. Was a massive fan of Matt back in the day, and admittedly couldn't stand Destiny when I first watched him. Since, he has grown so much, to where I definitely see him as a source of reason and pretty grounded moral principles.
More of this, please.
Destinys problem is he can be abrasive. Then at times almost too charitable when he did his Nebraska Steve rant about the lengths he goes to accommodate conservatives I better understood what he was doing. For awhile I thought too much contact with the keffals of the world was poisoning his mind but rather he was twisting himself into a pretzel to accommodate conservatives in a debate maybe too much to the point where he was attracting conservatives in the same way he was attracting lefty fans.
I know this because we see dogshit DGGers who are super conservative being surprised and spewing dogshit arguments when he says something they don’t like (including that Nebraska Steve video) which mirrors early on the lefties in his audience being shocked by his capitalistic takes like supporting citizens United for some odd reason (maybe it’s misinterpreting the narrow ruling that should have happened with the actual ruling? Maybe I’m wrong but it’s been awhile)
It’s often easy especially if you see him clip chimped to have a real negative view of destiny.
@@OpiatesAndTits Literally me. I couldn't stand him a few years back in the Obama era. He always argued on hypothetical analogies that didn't really line up the way he made them seem. It made him come across just very "im right so hard, and there is 0 chance of me being wrong". But he slowly started to get more grounded in reality, politics and the material he talks about. He became much more interesting to listen to as you could track his developing ideas.
@Slava Ukraine you failed to consider those problems could have been caused by too much money in politics in the first place. also, people saying take money out of politics dont mean that people shouldnt have the right to donate to a campaign they agree with, they mean legal bribes ("lobbying") and corporations giving unlimited amounts of money to politicians, which effectively undermines democratic principles by giving unreasonably big sway over the opinion of people in power to corporations.
by the way, there are dozens of countries that do not have the so-called "money in politics" and they do not face the problems that usa faces.
@@OpiatesAndTits jesse wtf are you talking about
@@suckston Of course, you are correct. Crazy to me that someone would argue otherwise.
Great talk. A proper civil conversation. Something often lacking in the debatosphere.
Yo I hope he comes on destinys stream to get involved in the chaos. Seems like a smart fella
Autonomy vs resources, so its OK to force morality onto child bearing species but its not OK to use bodily autonomy as a resource (for those who did not get this, prostitution is outlawed)
Actually fire debate bro. Props
That child support quip was not it. I wonder how Destiny’s opinion on the subject might be affected if he didn’t view pregnancy as just an inconvenience to the pregnant person.
Where does he say he believes that?
I feel like it’s the other way around, one of them argues they are in favor of personal sacrifice to protect the life of a child whereas one argues they can terminate it at any point. I agree with parts from both ends but I definitely think Matt’s argument is more self-oriented (which isn’t neccessarily a bad thing)
i love how in these irl debates steven always has fantastic posture.
The bodily autonomy argument goes both ways, it does not only apply to the mother but also the unborn. The mother should have the right to remove the unborn from her body at any point in pregnancy (their body, their choice) but this does not necessitate the right to kill the unborn under circumstance in which fetal viability is more than likely (i.e., when the unborn has sufficient bodily autonomy).
Then with this you'll need a system to support said baby after its birth
@@showcase0525 Indeed, that's the societal responsibility that comes with it, as the child can only survive with the help of the community.
Yeah this is why i view abortion as immorral, but societally necessary so long as social care is subpar.
I don't think there is a single good moral argument for abortion.
By his logic a conjoined twin has the right to kill their sibling because he/she is using his/her body
By his logic a baby seconds away from crowning is no different than a newly fertilized egg
Man I used to watch the atheist experience all the time. It's like my old school debates vs my new debates lol
The analogy Destiny uses with the swimming pool and the kid falling fails to take into account the fact that giving birth for women is dangerous and could reasonably result in death or harm to the mother as complications form it. And there's a sever under appreciation of the effects of things like PPDD.
I wonder why cause he usually tries to account for things like that
Agreed. Literally every pro-lifer dismisses this as well. It is so easy to get wrapped up in the fetus, that people tend to ignore how traumatic pregnancy really is. Which is why, all aspects of it should be left the female and the doctor.
@@jamesbarker3517 Lmao, but trust a religious nut in a trailer park… 😂😂
So you can predict the future 🤨 how do you know that 🙄 did “”god”” tell you 😇
What you can see on the screen is intellectuals conversing. What you can see in the chat is what would happen if chimps got access to the internet.
Around 40 minute mark Matt mentions voluntarily giving up some autonomy for military service. My question to him is does he think that a person who does this retains the moral right and (more importantly) should retain the legal right to at any point withdraw consent to this suspension of bodily/personal autonomy. If it's right for society to say no, you carry a legal obligation to complete your service even if doing so puts your personal wellbeing at great risk, why should not society be able to similarly say if you consent to coitus and thus become pregnant, you carry a legal obligation to see that pregnancy to term?
Yeah, I feel like Destiny really didn't push Matt where he should; I haven't finished the video, but I don't know why something like pregnant mothers drinking alcohol or taking thalydomide hasn't come up.
Perhaps the most common justification for illegitimate abortion (that is, the murder of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings) is that a woman ought to have AUTONOMY over her own body. Of course, those who raise such arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the pre-born human, by the same token, is entitled to the very same bodily autonomy as its mother! Those who are afflicted with a demonic mentality (which, after reading Chapter 14 of "FISH", as well as many other chapters of this treatise, one should come to understand to be practically every person on the planet), especially those persons residing in nations/countries with a predominantly leftist (“adharma vādin”, in Sanskrit) populace, will never come to accept the fact that no human being who has ever lived is his or her own master/mistress, and therefore, has no such “right” as autonomy over his or her own body. Does a newborn child have autonomy over him/herself? Obviously not, otherwise no parent would dare to regulate the activities of their offspring! Does a mother have autonomy over herself? Definitely not, since her lord and master (the word “husband” literally denotes the master of a house - see Chapter 27) has absolute authority to direct and control her actions and movements. Again, this bitter truth, will never ever be accepted by the vast majority of the population, but the truth must be proclaimed, nevertheless.
Incidentally, the very same paradigm outlined above, applies also to societal organization, in which a father has full authority over his family, a grandfather has full authority over his extended family, a patriarch has full authority over his clan, a chief has full authority over his tribe, a (genuine) king has complete and utter authority over his subjects, and finally, a (genuine) priest has authority over his entire society. The only humans who can possibly claim to have complete AUTONOMY over themselves are those excruciatingly-rare men who have risen to the role of World Teacher (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), and only then, solely upon their actual entry to the Holy Priesthood. As children, Avatars are subject to the authority of their mothers, then, upon adulthood, to the authority of their fathers, and if they happen to perform some kind of work prior to entering the Priesthood (as with Lord Jesus Christ, who worked as a carpenter before He began His priestly ministry), to their employers.
Following, is a simple syllogism, attempting to summarily explicate the most dharmic view of the bodily AUTONOMY of a pregnant woman:
PREMISE 1: Human beings, like virtually all species of animalia, is an inherently hierarchical species, and cannot be otherwise, given the facts.
PREMISE 2: According to the principles of dharma, as explicated both in this chapter and in the glossary, those who have legitimate hierarchical authority over their subordinates, can (and indeed, should) exercise that authority, by issuing commands and instructions to their underlings, on the obvious prerequisite that such commands, orders, and instructions conform with the ethical/moral axiom of “Do no unjustified harm”.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, no human, including pregnant women, has ultimate or absolute authority or autonomy over his or her own body, and in the case of a pregnant woman contemplating the murder (that is, the illegitimate, illegal destruction) of her unborn child, the woman’s superiors, such as her husband, father, grandfather, uncle, adult son(s), et cetera, have the duty to prevent such a murder from eventuating.
Clearly, any woman (not to mention pathetic, leftist “men”) who disagrees with the above conclusion, should be accused of utter hypocrisy if they believe that their own subordinates, such as their children, have the authority or autonomy to do as they see fit with their own bodies!
Of course, such foolish leftists (“adharma vādin”, in Sanskrit), will invariably counter with the assertion that, because they are adults, they can do whatever they want with their own bodies, and that children do not have the same privilege. However, that argument contravenes the fact that adults too, are subject to societal hierarchies, and becoming a sexually-mature individual has absolutely no bearing on a person’s ability or authority to dictate his or her own course in life. Anyone who believes that a nine-year-old girl, upon experiencing her first menstruation, has the power to prescribe her own path, is naught but an abject degenerate. The fact that most every government on earth considers adulthood to begin at some random, arbitrary age, such as eighteen, is further evidence that this viewpoint is fatally flawed. On this view, the very second a girl (actually, a woman, definitionally) turns eighteen, she is completely independent of the directives of any of her superiors, whereas a single second previously, she was fully under the auspices of her parents, which defies any semblance of logic. Even an adult gentleman is obliged to obey his geriatric father, according to the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). One’s age is entirely inconsequential to bodily “AUTONOMY”.
The problem is that Matt is talking about legislation and Destiny is talking about morality. You can believe that abortion is generally a bad choice while still wanting the government to stay out of it because it will result in significantly more bad outcomes if they try to legislate it.
Wait, I understood it the other way around. I feel like Destiny is leaning his position more on the benefit of the legislation rather than his moral beliefs, while Matt is sticking to his fundamental belief.
@@kurokamithe7th900no. Matt is arguing for rights, freedoms and what to legislate. Idk how you came to the opposite conclusion after Destiny spent the whole time using goofy moral analogies. Not trying to be rude. Just frustrated with Destiny’s rationale, he makes his stance very muddy in his moral argument. Maybe that was his shtick to get deep into this but I think Matt and I see this as a much more simpler issue and Destiny is just talking all over the place about everything.
@@IgonDrakeWarrior I havent watched this debate ever since it came out tbh, but I just do remember thinking that Destinys view on abortion was standing more on what would be more acceptable by the majority in legislation, but Matt was just basing everything of his moral fundamentals. Destiny pitching analogies was to test Matt's fundamentals and the consistency with his proposed legislations, but Matt didn't really argue on the basis of legislation like youre saying. I think he had the body autonomy fundamental as a foundation and thats what he based his arguments on.
if the fetus is a person it doesn’t get to consent to being brought into existence and it doesn’t get to consent to being terminated. That is one of the reasons why that presupposition matters.
Dillahunty keeps saying he doesn't care morally, he only cares legally. But I don't believe it for a second. He just punts it when he thinks he's fucked.
murdering Jews was legal in Germany. that argument falls off quickly
@@veganpowergrab Let's be honest. If tomorrow abortion became completely illegal across the country, matt would never turn and say "Oh, i guess that means abortion is immoral."
He's only staking this position because he just happened to be born in a country where it's legal.
@@Jay-qu2bc well I know that Matt guy is a liar. Just look at the few times he interacted with veganism on call.
Damn, I’ve never heard of Destiny till now (wish he’d use his real name) but he actually conveyed the most coherent pro-life arguments I’ve ever heard. Not the most compelling, but at least he can do it without stuttering and saying hitler was pro-abortion🤷♂️🤷♂️
Matt’s a class act as always, I can feel he deeply appreciated debating an actually honest person for once. Would love to watch them debate other ideas also.
Matt is a person who grants himself a right to ban you from establishing a hospital that would not perform abortions - as per his discussion with D'Souza, yet simultaneously believe he's not a busybody who tells people how to live their lives..
@@darkfazer no one is forcing you to abort your soon to be child but if it will die or the mother will die the hospital needs to be capable of accommodating those circumstances and the government shouldn’t be influenced by peoples religious beliefs. Separation of church & state and all that.
@@darkfazer Ya if a hospital refuses to do certain medical treatments, they shouldn't get federal funding. Once you start letting hospitals pick and choose what they want to offer, then peoples health and wellbeing becomes a luck of the draw. Hope I don't get pregnant in the wrong place or get a wound in a Mormon state (Mormons don't allow blood transfusions for JW).
Anyone who argues for abortion has abandoned all truth and goodness. Matt D is a truly evil man, wholly given over to hatred of life.
@@Ichabod_Jericho you are wholly corrupt
Since he keeps mentioning that he is ALL about the law and rights concerning abortion.
Here is a simple question for him:
If I kill a woman that is pregnant, do I get charged for 1 murder or 2??
According to his argument, it would only be 1
It's kind of funny people in the comment section calling this a debate. This is literally too left-wingers discussing an issue, this is like a wolf and a lion arguing about what's their favorite way to eat a zebra
Personhood is the crux of the argument. Rather than pregnancy, imagine if sex resulted in the possiblity of becoming physically connected to one of your already existing children, in such a way that if the connection was severed, they would die. Your child did not make a choice to "use" your body. You made a choice and consented to sex, which is your right. But you did so knowing there was a distinct possibility this connection would occur. Now let's say that there is a routine surgical procedure that can sever the connection, and as long as it is done within the first 3 months, then your child will live - anytime after that however, they will die. In this scenario, you have every obligation to sever the connection within the first 3 months, and should you fail to do so, you lose your bodily autonomy after that, because you are the one who chose to make the connection to another person and make their life dependent on yours.
there's no child to begin with, according to matt
If a pro abortion law is passed, then the father should have rights to legally abandon the baby up until the same point as the mother. He has no say about paying for child support for 18yrs. Using his body to do so.
Wrong. Not the same and they literally addressed that
@@elijahgavin6706 agreed they are not the same, and they did touch on this. However, there is still an uneven fairness. If a woman can avoid consequences with pills, iud, or the option of abortion. Be it that she didn't want to be pregnant, or change her mind for any reason. The man does not have any action. They both could hookup agreeing not to have a child if it happens, but if the man goes on his way and she changes her mind. She can come back 9 months later and legally require him to work off his responsibility for 18yrs.
Side note: conjoined twins that share vital organs. Does one have the right to kill the other. This situation does actually happen.
@@timprobst7905this is not a question about equality.
Ima stop you right there - Matt Dillahunty is one of the greatest debaters of all time!
Not really. He's a little better than the usual low IQ peasants Destiny talks to.
PLEASE have him back on stream to do more and longer debates! this and the debate with the theology professor are the best, most educational and reasonable content youve done
Just debunked Richard Spencer on race and iq in my recent video
Who’s the theology professor?
But LAV and DAN and REM and ABA and MR METOKUR are in chat!!!!
@@jameswhitaker4357 gordon menzies
Nah he is a little boring outside of religious debates.
"I don't give a sh*t what sells better, I care about what's right" -- Best statement in the video.
inane tough guy shit
That's pretty much the point that wins the debate for him. I don't think Destiny ever took the high ground after that. Because democracy doesn't function without a bill of rights and freedoms. Otherwise it's tyranny of the masses.
Except he spends the whole duration saying that he doesn't care about the ethics of what's right and is interested in the legality....
Right around 37 minutes he says he doesn't give a shit about morality.
@@zakpodo
You're misrepresenting there. He said:
"with body autonomy, I don't give a shit about morality"
Which holds up. If you're saying that people have body autonomy, it doesn't matter what's moral or immoral, it's saying that people have rights to their bodies and how they're used.
If body autonomy is accepted as a right, the morality doesn't affect that right. Is it immoral to not donate blood? Is it immoral not to do living organ donations? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. It's your body, and you have the right to decide how it is used.
@@xenophiliuslovegood6914 it is a blatant self contradiction. I actually agree with him on a lot, but it's a cheap tactic to try to play both sides; simultaneously claiming to not be interested in the morality discussion but dropping the indignant chestnut that he's only interested in what's right at an opportune moment.
What is what is right? It's what is in accord with an ethic or morality. Whether on an individual or societal level, it's a moral claim. Which he's not interested in...
We've wanted to see Destiny v. Dillahunty for ages. Kudos to Modern-Day Debate for facilitating this epic match-up.
Don’t let this distract you from the fact Destiny is running from our debate after blocking me on Twitter
Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Destiny is a girls name
True, I soy'ed out hard when I saw this lineup
I wanna see them team up, maybe they can even throw a bone to the good Dr above and make him look silly if that's what he really wants
Oh! This was modern day debates? Fantastic work MDD!
jesus christ it's nice to see a good faith disagreement where two people are willing to say, "i'm sorry let me clarify," or "oh yeah, i misunderstood you," or how Matt even started with, "And to see if I might be wrong."
It's just such better content than two people trying to "win"
Sure it's nice to see but remember that they mostly agree with each other on fundamentals. Get two people together who don't fundamentally agree on core issues and you'll be lucky to have it be as civil as this.
You weren't able to infer that I already knew that by the inflection of my comment? Wild... @@faismasterx
@@markfelt5650 Words on a screen can have inflection? What? lol
Of course they can. Look at the usage of "lol" in your previous comment. You used the common acronym "lol" in order to denote your inflection by writing that you are literally vocalizing laughter out loud. Essentially, tone and inflection mean the same thing within communication. Albeit, tone is generally for speaking and writing with inflection generally being relegated to speech.
But if you wanted to focus on being a pedant - go off I guess. @@faismasterx
@@markfelt5650 Honest question, are you on the spectrum?
The quality of this conversation is incredibly high. Amazing hearing Destiny debate someone who is actually intelligent and principled, versus the low quality thinkers Destiny usually debates on his own channel. More like this, please
I’d rather hear him call [redacted] a [redacted] [redacted]
Don’t let this distract you from the fact Destiny (manlet) is running from our debate after blocking me on Twitter
Matt is brilliant. He is one of the smartest people in this space I'd say.
So far I'm 3/4 the way in and the discussion has been "I don't care about the moral argument." And then Destiny arguing the morals of it. So it's definitely not a mud slinging drama fest but I don't feel like the conversation has been all that high quality, honestly. This discussion has taken 20x longer than it could have been.
@@darestone3335 tbh doesn't seem that smart, seems like a great speaker who has homed his arguments. However, I'm 7 minutes in and there's already a huge hole in his argument.
Theres no fundamental difference between bodily autonomy and labor autonomy, yet a parent isn't allowed to abandon their child for death? You cannot recind consent after creating a life, you can't choose to not use your body to labor for your child, because that child never consented to exist.
Edit: It takes until 25:00 for Destiny toncounter him with this argument and he gets stumped lol
Kinda trippy seeing them both in the same room. I grew up watching Dillahunty and then slowly transitioned to watching Destiny without ever even imagining they would ever interact with each other. It's like my teenage years and present day mixing up.
yes, this has those strange MCU crossover vibes. Dillahunty and Destiny. the closest thing i saw before was when Kyle Kulinksi debated Destiny on Destiny's stream about free trade v protectionism. (imo Destiny won.)
"transition" to Destiny??
@@Cheesesteakfreak we just started to prefer watching people with girl's names.
Same here. Watched a lot of Dillahunty with TAE during my university years, before I even knew who Destiny was (and perhaps before _anybody_ knew who he was).
@@joeysantoro4835 girls of color*
An actual intellectual conversation without someone crying and back peddling for 3 hours. My day has been made
Yeah just bad arguments being made.
Glad you enjoy both of the types of content the D man does. One of which he does a lot more of and get most of his views from. I'll let you guess which one.
@@lampad4549none of the arguments are bad you just disagree. Just because you disagree with an argument doesn’t make it bad. That just makes you a partisan hack.
@@peewee130946 They aren't strong arguments, just by definition. Countless exceptions, vague standards, open ended moral quandaries (the drinking while pregnant). Just judging by strength of argument, it's poor at best.
@@MrGgabber countless exceptions- literally no neither of them really had many exceptions at all. There was no vague standards one guy standard is conciseness and the other is extreme bodily autonomy neither is vague they are clear and precise. Open ended moral quandaries that argument is so vague I barely no wtf you’re talking about. If you are talking about drinking while pregnant specifically then yeah no shit it’s open ended because and destiny explained why. The arguments on both sides where very strong and most importantly very consistent. So again if you disagree that’s ok but to say the arguments are bad is bad faith.
Damn Dillahunty, that was a loong time ago, the atheist experience was one of my first introductions to debate content.
One of the original debate-bros!
Was my first as well makes me feel old seeing how different he looks now
And then he fell for all the feminist BS and went braindead.
Yeah, the Bible is a fairytale. That's the easiest puzzle to figure out. You're not special.
I bet he could "beat" Destiny on somthing they truly disagree with. He just has too much experience. Hell, I agree with him on the bodily autonomy viewpoint.
Me too!
all these live debates destiny does recently, are so much better than the online arguments.
@@KennedyIvy true, but live debates can get pretty heated too
Neither one of them even brought up what happens if you get pregnant by a shark.
@@bigcrackrock This is easy. This phenomenon led directly to the creation of the song baby shark do do do do do. Which caused a great amount of harm in society, therefore it's amoral.
@@jamesbarnett6772 dude… so effin annoying. But amoral means it had no moral bearing, I think you mean immoral.
I love that Destiny openly and proudly brags about him being stumped or proven wrong, it shows a level of open-mindedness most political commentators don't have.
The opposite of destiny’s approach to potentially being incorrect, is often cognitive dissonance. I see it everywhere and it’s incredibly disappointing. Any opportunity to learn should be appreciated. Obviously delivery matters but regardless that fact stands
That's because they agree on most things.
Because that almost never happens to him
It's called "clickbait"
@@mikerotchersonYou're simply too dense to understand what's going on here.
Love watching two good faith debaters having a conversation.
i am not sure that guy has an open mind tho. Seemed like he was pre stubborn
Let me know when you find one.
hardest question timestamp?
two hwyte males talking about aborting a bebe
Matt doesn't Iike faith
Two good REASON debaters* 👍 😁
So good to see Destiny in a conversation with someone, actually finding common ground, and picking at each other when they disagree, picking each others brains. We need more of THIS.
THIS
It is a relief to see intellectuals taking rationality as far as they can. It is a beautiful thing to watch"
However, the frustrating conversations with people who haven't reach rationality yet, MUST BE DONE nonetheless! We cannot just consider a large part of society a "lost cause" (in a democracy) since they VOTE, right?
Matt is correct. Destiny and others are trying, but cannot come up with a solution to tyranny over the pregnant female.
Debates won't solve this. Better science can. Want to save fetuses ?? Invent a machine for carrying them to term without forcing your will on human females.
It's almost unbelievable hearing a good-faith debate where each participant is truly trying to understand each other's, and their own, positions to the best degree possible.
Sorry, but Destiny is not “listening” to Matt - he is just waiting for his turn so he can cite random references and Gish gallop.
@@4Mr.Crowley2 I’m not getting that from this debate. Can you reference where destiny is lying? Or where is he throwing half truths? Otherwise I cannot see your argument.
Destiny is Hillary Clinton on Adderall.
@@4Mr.Crowley2 can you link some timestamps on that?
@@4Mr.Crowley2 If that is how you view Destiny approaching this conversation, who would you cite as examples of debaters who don't use this approach? so I can see the difference?
A very decent and productive debate where the participants show mutual respect for each other. This is how it should be done, when the opponents actually are listening to each other and learn from each other.
As long as you make it clear you're still in good faith and engaging genuinely, you can always get an excellent conversation out of Matt Dillahunty. He's one of the most enjoyable debaters on the internet, and has been for many years.
a master, if you will >_>
It’s too bad he got the woke mind virus. Around 2010 it seemed like atheism was picking up speed and might even sweep across America; then woke infected it and it burned to the ground like everything else.
@@therainman7777 When has he ever been woke..? He even had to leave the ACA because he wasn't woke and the ACA didn't like that.
@@halosaft You haven’t been paying enough attention. Even in this conversation he references the fact that they shouldn’t really be talking about abortion because they’re both men 🙄
@@therainman7777 And right there you just highlighted that you didn't pay attention to Matt at all. He *clearly* explained, in detail, why he said that. He said it's purely because of the optics. Then he even clarified that abortion is *not* a womans issue, not even a "people with wombs"-issue. It's an everyones issue. That's him basically saying FU to the woke crowd that's been telling him for years that he can't have an opinion on abortion because he's a man.
Listen next time.
Omg it's so weird Matt was like the first online person I followed in circa the early 2010s. To see him with Destiny( someone I have followed more so in the past 5 years )is such a shock. Makes you think home much you change in a decade.
İkrrr
Small world
Yeah followed matt from atheist experience for like 10+ years and destiny from starcraft
@@ShrivelledHeartSoftware dam u old timer 😅
Same. Matt is the reason why I'm an atheist today. I've been watching him for about 10 years & only destiny for about 5 too. It's awesome seeing them together.
Holy shit what a blast from the past, I was in my teens when I last watched The Atheist Experience. This was a fantastic conversation, both sides brought good arguments and it remained good natured and civil. Breath of fresh air against all the drama bullshit.
i was wondering why he looked familiar
I used to watch videos of him and prank callers that he would take the bait of and tip his fedora to, and then thunderf00t making fun of what this guy did to the whole atheism shit. Besides that he always seemed very boring and only repeated things that you'd expect and stereotype an atheist to say.
@@chewbecka2067 It’s not his fault that he has to talk with any prank callers and treat them seriously (unless it’s like just a terrible troll job and it’s blatantly obvious). Just like it’s not firefighters’ fault that they have to take calls seriously even when it’s some immature edgy 15-year-old making false reports. Because fighting fires and blind faith are both very important things to do.
@@ZhangK71 let's not get too extreme with the comparisons lol, I was talking about his atheist talk show and yes it seemed pretty obvious.
@@chewbecka2067 Show us on the doll where Matt hurt your theistic beliefs.
I'd kill for a weekly call-in show hosted by Destiny and Dillahunty. Dillahunty just left the ACA a few weeks ago, he's got some spare time. For shts and giggles they could call it D&D.
More of this!!! Intellectually stimulating content with smart people presenting smart ideas instead of interpersonal drama.
Its really weird, i was just thinking this the other day.. i’ve seen a lot of matts atheist podcasts and he’s brutal af. I wondered if destiny would ever work with him
@@phantasticmrphasma9874 Watch his formal debates, he's much calmer
This aint intellectual...
You have a God sweetheart youre a creature
@@chadingram6390 ok. Well, i’m not saying i dont like his brutal delivery 😅 well sometimes he can take it a bit far, but punks respect pressure
Greatest pet peeve of these debates as much as i love them is not giving the audience microphones when they ask questions.
At least have a moderator who can repeat the question with a microphone
I used to watch Matt on The Atheist Experience in the mid 2000's, this is a crossover I never thought I would see.
Both are clearly intelligent and well-reasoned, but this didn't need to be an hour. It felt like after 20 minutes they were talking in circles.
Agreed. Destiny kept trying to define where Matt believed ethical/moral virtue became obligatory etc, when he clearly said this is not what he is interested in and has no relation to the question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal. Annoyed me a bit how they didn't dive into a more legal POV
Destiny is the analogy master. These debates are about as riveting as abortion.
@@pakchoy9334 Just because Matt insists there is no relation doesn't mean that's true. There is a clear relationship between legal rights and moral duties, namely that legal rights entail negative moral duties. Matt needs to take Ethics 101.
@Sop Lip (Lily) As Matt pointed out, there are morals that do not have laws associated and there are laws that do not have moral obligations associated.
While the two are often linked, and for good reason, that does not mean that we are required to establish moral obligation in line with a well-reasoned law before we can enact it.
@@CatOnFire Yes... but the whole point about the abortion debate is that there are two rights clashing. He cannot simply assert one is legal and the other is moral lol; insofar as rights are concerned, they are directly associated to positive or negative moral duty (Please know there is a distinction between meta-ethics and ethics/ rights and laws).
Destiny is attempting to finetune which right trumps the other, while Matt is not even understanding the fundamental ethical issue.
Why does an interaction like this feel so rare? Why does this feel so special? This display of coexistence should be normal for everyone. Great conversation with many considerations.
Because you are looking in the wrong place. You are likely spending all of your free time perusing the internet instead of local venues or regional institutions that promote open debate and intellectualism.
@@Lord_Vadr fair point. But not all my free time goes to interesting internet debates lol :P thanks for the suggestion as i do hope more these types of cordial conversations are out there.
this is what a true good faith debate looks like, not just when you're sacrificing intellectualism for vanity like most political content creators.
Because people got used to screaming while having conversations (I might be wrong but this is my guess).
I don't understand you people acting like this is special this is literally to left-wingers, both of which are pro-choice merely discussing just how extreme they should be with their pro-choice standards
I've listened to hundreds of abortion related debates and I'm still not actually sure where I sit. But I appreciate these two guys sitting and hashing it out. Still pro-choice, but I'm leaning more towards the 20-week cut off.
Mind you, in the cases where the mother is in danger, there is no question in my mind that she deserves absolute and singular consideration.
I think I have it figured out and there is no intellectual copyright: the abortion debate is confounded by the physical act of abortion, which is performed by a third party. In order to properly make the value judgments for either side, we must divorce the concept of abortion from the action. Because when you do this, the implications of the abortion of a 2nd trimester pregnancy are much different, and for me this closes the moral gap. If aborting the pregnancy means killing the baby and that act is not facilitated by a third party, there is no doubt to me what the morality of abortion is and no one else has any doubts either.
So many words, yet so little substance
THE ETHICS OF ABORTION:
Even though (illegitimate) abortion is merely one of a long list of crimes, it is such a controversial issue that it is being given its own subsection.
Although some pro-life advocates use the term “abortion” solely in those cases in which the aim and purpose of the procedure is to terminate the life of the unborn child (as opposed to those cases in which the aim is to save the life of the mother, and the death of the embryo is an undesired consequence of the procedure), this author sees no semantic advantage of making such a distinction, and so, in this document, the term “abortion” is applied to any medical procedure in which the life of an embryo or a foetus is DELIBERATELY terminated, for any reason.
Of course, just as there is a definite distinction between justified (i.e. legitimate) animal consumption and unjustified (i.e. illegitimate) animal consumption, so too is there a distinction between legitimate abortion and illegitimate abortion. Thus, the terminology has been established.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without a doubt, a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious.
Because there are some pro-abortion (that is, pro-unjustifiable-abortion) advocates who make desperate attempts to find flaws in the pro-life position, here, “conception” refers to the very moment that a spermatozoon nucleus fuses with an ovum nucleus, and syngamy takes place. However, it is important to understand that the question of the precise millisecond when a unique human life begins is completely redundant, because nobody is likely to surgically operate on a woman shortly after sexual intercourse has taken place, in order to prevent a fertilized egg from achieving syngamy! As mentioned in Chapter 28, whenever any one of the procreative, recreative, or unitive aspects of sex is omitted, sex becomes a selfish, sinful act, and so, to prevent a newly-fertilized ovum from its natural course of events, would count as a criminal act.
Any human with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is still not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary phases of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve-year-old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the phase of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is fully human. The aforementioned prenatal stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life cycle, and although, according to normative mores, the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five-year-old child, that is insufficient justification alone for extinguishing its very life! Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human zygote or an embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. Before contemplating the brutal destruction of an innocent human being, one should have an exceedingly-justifiable rationale. Demonic humans (see Chapter 14) are constantly inventing multifarious excuses for murdering poor, innocent, defenceless children, purely in order to rationalize their wicked agenda, but there are only two scenarios in which abortion may be lawful. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Gautama, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
In brief, abortion is justified only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is endangered. Obviously, that does not imply that the life of the baby of a raped woman MUST be terminated. As mentioned in the next paragraph (in relation to my own course of action in the hypothetical case of the rape of a female family member), I would do everything in my power to convince a raped family member to lovingly nurture the child unto birth, and then relinquish the child to an adoptive family. Therefore, when all is said and done, the need for any kind of (legitimate) abortion would be such a tiny fraction of one percent of all pregnancies that it would be more simply expressed as a negative exponent. Only if the expectant mother is acutely distressed by carrying the child of her rapist, should abortion be considered, and it would be preferable for the raped woman to do so as soon as practical. It would be a truly savage, barbaric act for her to kill her child in the third trimester of pregnancy!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if she was the victim of rape, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe!
As noted in the glossary of this book, it could be seen as hypocritical, or at least somewhat disingenuous, for a person to kill a non-human animal unless that person is willing to do so with his or her bare hands. I could never squeeze a rat to death using just my bare hands, so I ought not dismember a member of my own species, no matter how small it may be, without proper justification, according to moral norms.
Perhaps the most common justification for illegitimate abortion (that is, the murder of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings) is that a woman ought to have AUTONOMY over her own body. Of course, those who raise such arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the pre-born human, by the same token, is entitled to the very same bodily autonomy as its mother! Those who are afflicted with a demonic mentality (which, after reading Chapter 14, as well as many other chapters of this treatise, one should come to understand to be practically every person on the planet), especially those persons residing in nations/countries with a predominantly leftist (“adharma”, in Sanskrit) populace will never come to accept the fact that no human being who has ever lived is his or her own master/mistress, and therefore, has no such “right” as autonomy over his or her own body. Does a newborn child have autonomy over him/herself? Obviously not, otherwise no parent would dare to regulate the activities of their offspring. Does a mother have autonomy over herself? Definitely not, since her lord and master (the word “husband” literally denotes the master of a house - see Chapter 27) has absolute authority to direct and control her actions and movements. Again, this bitter truth, will never ever be accepted by the vast majority of the population, but the truth must be proclaimed, nevertheless.
Incidentally, the very same paradigm outlined above, applies also to societal organization, in which a father has full authority over his family, a grandfather has full authority over his extended family, a patriarch has full authority over his clan, a chief has full authority over his tribe, a (genuine) king has complete and utter authority over his subjects, and finally, a (genuine) priest has authority over his entire society. The only humans who can possibly claim to have complete AUTONOMY over themselves are those excruciatingly-rare men who have risen to the role of World Teacher (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), and only then, solely upon their actual entry to the Holy Priesthood. As children, Avatars are subject to the authority of their mothers, then, upon adulthood, to the authority of their fathers, and if they happen to perform some kind of work prior to entering the Priesthood (as with Lord Jesus Christ, who worked as a carpenter before He began His priestly ministry), to their employers.
Possibly the saddest aspect of the abortion debate is the fact that the sex that has evolved to MOST nourish and protect vulnerable human offspring, is more in favour of illegitimate abortion. Personally, I am very thankful that my mother was not a miserable, rabid feminist who would have considered murdering the next World Teacher for any trivial reason whatever. Apart from the legitimacy of abortion in the very rare instances of rape or danger to the life of the mother, not a single one of their frivolous reasons is reasonable to a person of civility and intelligence. There will always be at least one decent family that will gladly take an unwanted newborn baby from a murderous parent.
N.B. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in this subsection.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas are you a unitarian universalist leaning more towards Christianity? I would argue that when we come to politics we should leave religion out and apply morality here. The reason being morality is practically and logically discussable in comparison to something most might contrast themselves as not having the leap of faith. Religion gives us the stance, but then we should further justified it other than just "faith", which is why it is always an ongoing process of even more learning of how this position aligns us with universals.
@@thienyetan2035, have you ACTUALLY read my comment?☝️
If not, I suggest you ACTUALLY read it.
Kudos to Dillahunty. This is great content!
I could only listen and not watch, but it sounded to me like while they were taking the discussion seriously, they were having a great time going through it.
And honestly the good faith, "hey I just want to understand you and where the lines you draw are" from both of them is just... So good.
Not a moment of my time felt wasted. Excellent job.
guess the algorithm is pushing this because people are saying the same thing about the cenk debate lol
@@Toxodos that's weird. The Chenk debate was really disappointing. Destiny let him get away with so many lies.
This actually made my brain feel good. So many debates get lost in the weeds and no actual conversational progress occurs. I enjoy both of these individuals!
Its just so refreshing seeing two people with different views have a discussion like this.
Are they both not godless atheists?
@@Khyrid What is your point? Their views are still different. You could ask aswell "aren't they both human beings?". Still wouldn't change a thing about my statement.
@@TehTip Don't worry, I'm just being silly
@Khyrid im gonna kiss you 💋
Wasn't expecting this. Always enjoy listing to Matt and Destiny, and had no idea they were going to talk. Glad this happened.
11:40 I love when dillahunty bites the bullet instantly and the chad emotes start rolling in lol
You grant the child permission to use your body by creating it. Acceptance of consequences is is required when you have made a choice. Dillahunty brought up his responsibility in the Navy based on a choice that he made. Exactly the same thing with having sex and pregnancy.
Well duhh, obviously by birthing a child you kinda owe the kid some resources. You dont owe it anything before then though, given its not a person yet. Just a biomass of human cells growing INTO a person.
It's always good to see Matt finally debate an honest person.
What about Ray Comfort? He's honest , 😆
@@inrealitywetrust2610 lol, in a very disingenuous way 😂😂
@@tshepokgwele1789 Exactly 😁
If he was honest he’d actually listened and asked different questions. I saw several points where he could asked and continue from Matt’s answer but he did not and instead went on to ask questions more related to his points
Destiny is not an honest person; that being said the video is fun to watch.
I've followed Matt for around a decade and Destiny for a couple years. This discussion was a blast to listen to. I hope they have more conversations.
I think the problem with the abortion debate is we start from the supposition that a human life is a precious and inherently valuable thing. They aren’t. Life in general is a disposable. Nature treats it this way often. Humans treat it like this depending on who we think deserves to live or die. As a society we routinely kill off masses of innocent humans, humans who have already lived and contributed to the world. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, that’s her decision alone and no one else should have any say in the matter.
One of the very few conversations online that I must put in my favorites. It's so refreshing to see actual good faith debates and very compelling arguments
Part of the problem is too many people are willing to continue conversations of contentious philosophical topics, where this amount of good faith is not present.
When I debate on my show or in person, I regularly guard for and check for continued good faith in the discussion, or it stops. Your interlocutors owe it you, and you should feel just in demanding it, but most people don’t think that way.
That’s an idea worth spreading so we can have better conversations moving forward.
Matt would have a “debate” and not get upset every day if his opponents would just be honest and have a reasonable conversation.
Totally man, it's everybody else that's the problem.
@@jeremyinvictus I’m glad you agree😜
@@pete6769The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
@@SkeletalMisunderstanding where did that show up?
That fallacy is not present here@@SkeletalMisunderstanding
Videos like this give me hope for civilization. To find calmed, intelligent discussion on RUclips over such polarising issues is a breath of fresh air. A huge thank you to both for showing what a true debate/discussion should look like.
They're both leftist how is this fucking a debate this is two guys on the left discussing just how extreme they should be.
Rather an arrogant grown ass man who hates his mom saying killing babies is okay because he decided it is, mind you he wasn’t aborted what a joker
Your hope is misplaced.
Hope for civilization? you just listened to Dillahunty say nobody has the right to anothers person body, according to his logic a mother can give birth to a child and not breastfeed him and let him die as a result and she's not guilty of anything cuz the baby doesnt have the right to the mothers body, and people sat around listening to him and thought that doesnt sound strange at all. what kind of twisted morals do u live by?
@MarkoGh your missing the point. It's not that we don't have morality, it's that we have no way to anchor that morality in terms of absolute morality.
The last two years has shown support for abortion when the mothers life is at risk seems to make no difference in several states when in the mothers life is at risk. The mother becomes disposable.
Unstoppable Force vs. Immovable Object
True
Beautifull debate! Verry calm and deliberative. These kinds of things ACTUALLY help our society. They help everyone use this discussion to find new points of view and use that to reflect on their own thoughts and corresponding beliefs. Giving the chance to change your mind or create a stronger base for our belief. Love it
Matt was THE guy that actually made me question my faith as a kid, helped me understand the world just a bit better. Great guy with a great mind for challenging hard-baked beliefs.
And where do you believe now?
Or are you too afraid to share your current worldview?
@@danielsmithiv1279 I’m definitely still atheist bc that’s how I was born and I was never indoctrinated into a cult as a child so I’m still a free man.
Same here his atheist experience show was good
Same here, I've learned a lot from Matt and those around him, and they have opened my mind to explore more. Though I don't agree with all of his options about certain things, there's no denying that he has influenced me greatly.
I’m glad he helped you become a nihilist and believe life has no ultimate meaning. I hope you in the long term are happy on your death bed that “this is it”.
33:33 Spoken like a guy who has never breastfed! (lol) but seriously, it ain't the same as just sitting down and letting someone suck your finger. It can be painful. It isn't sunshine and lollipops. Some nipples are more sensitive then others and not everybody can breastfeed.
I really enjoy the different thought processes and the concise discussion and exploration of ideas. Looking forward to more of this type of discussion.
Matt Dillahunty is so well spoken. I have seen many of his previous debates and he knows how to articulate his points in an effective manner. So it was nice seeing him debate Destiny. Really liked the conversation.
Unfortunately being well spoken is a great way to fool people into thinking you're smart. I don't think he's very smart. In fact, he spends much of his time yelling at people and cursing them out, which is a sign of someone who thinks that they are smart.
@@DangerRussDayZ6533 unfortunately people never answer his questions honestly because of their cognitive dissonance.
@@DangerRussDayZ6533 I think you would get upset too if every time you give a detailed comment the other person says you're wrong because of faith, magic and make believe.
Hos views of defending meat eating was really poor though. Will give it a try.
@@DangerRussDayZ6533 He did not use to do that but after years and years of hearing the same bs. re: religion, he has lost all patience with stupid people.
I really appreciate how Destiny clearly put a meaningful amount of effort into preparing for this discussion. Matt has been doing this sort of thing for decades so there isn't really a question to me that he is the stronger "debater" on the topic. I think this turned out to be a really great and respectful back and forth between these two and as someone who doesn't follow destiny or anything this made me far more impressed with him.
Na. Dillahunty lost this debate. He cemented his failure when he used his tired " I'm not convinced" statement. His and Destiny's job is to debate and "convince" the audience.Dillahunty is not the audience.
I dunno about that. Most of Destiny's debate was morality whereas Dillahunty was debating legal rights. It was a bit of a muddied debate in that regard, so I don't see a winner, just a good conversation among two intelligent people.
@@marstru1498 Yes. And the position of US law, and in effect, moral duty of society is to come up with a principle that defines when it is okay to take away the rights of a pregnant human. I am sorry, feeling bad for the fetus is not enough to force someone to do something with their body that is in fact life threatening. Destiny and others cannot come up with a solution, so they appeal to emotion and polling. That is not an argument.
If you want to save the fetus' life, become a biologist and a doctor and invent an artificial womb. Forcing your will on someone based on your emotions is the F word.
@@marstru1498l pop lzzzzzzzzz
@@marstru1498 Matt said several times that he doesn't give a shit about the moral aspect and that's what Destiny kept doing, so I'm not sure how you got the idea Matt lost.
Watch again and use your brain this time.. This was just an interesting conversation that shows several potentially new points of view for the audience to think on.
In short, there were no winners or losers, just an interesting conversation on a topic.
The main issue with telling woman they CANT have an abortion, is that at that point we are essentially taking control of her body. And I can't in good conscious reconcile with that.
That might be the most stupid comment on this subject I have ever read.
If you believe the child in the womb is a person, and you allow abortions, then you are allowing the mother to kill a child. This logic can be flipped the other way around.
I think that being forced to carry a child to term is not as bad as killing a person.
I think a big point is the idea that if you believe it is murder then its easy to make an argument that you CANT murder somebody.
@@thomasmusgrave7595 But I think the ease of justification based on bodily autonomy is evidence that it is not in fact murder.
Pro abortion people seem to not understand that they should argue why abortion is not murder. No one that is agaist abortion cares about this argument about bodily autonomy. This argument is so weak that it leads to accepting a pregnancy termination even in preterm pregnancies when the fetus is 'completely formed' but not mature yet.
What a great conversation between them. Very interesting points!
nice of them to get destiny a high chair
****phone book
Holy crap, that is the best pro choice argument I have ever heard.
Destiny committed to buying a house, knowing full well that houses sometimes get broken into. he therefore (buy his own argument) has no right to kill the unwanted burglar. because he knew the possibility of this happening before he bought the house.
As he explained the difference is that their is another moral agent commuting a transgression.
Imagine someone gave me a pill that would give me an awesome experience but as a price for it, I would need to put a pill in someone’s drink that had 99.5 percent chance of doing nothing but 0.5 percent of the time they will need a kidney transplant and my kidney is the only one that can replace theirs. If I consent to getting the awesome experience, and the rare chance they need a kidney transplant. Aren’t I responsible for helping them out of a situation that i put them in? Even if that restricts my bodily autonomy?
This is a quite an asymmetrical analogy, in your example the burglary isn't the direct consequence of buying the house, the burglar's existence isn't linked to you buying the house, pregnancy on the other hand is the direct consequence of unprotected sexual activity and sexual intercourse is the biological mechanism that generated the foetus unless measures are taken to avoid it, your analogy is flawed.
@@haurenox7686I think destiny was making a point that the sex is by default somehow consent to pregnancy which I don’t think is true.
Pregnancy is a consequence of sex, sure, but sex is not direct consent to pregnancy.
@@SuuupaGirl Maybe, I don't remember that he explicitly said that. Having sex isn't consent to pregnancy sure but it's consent to risking a pregnancy, just like bungee jumping isn't consent to fall on the ground and die but it's consent to take that risk.
@@haurenox7686 yes, that risk. You take the risk you may die during the bungee jump but if there was an option during it to get off, you absolutely should have the choice to do that. Just because you risked going on the bungee jump it does not mean you now must experience the full ride if you changed your mind about it after the first 5 seconds.
Isn’t it so weird that we are arguing over wether or not a human developing after reproduction is to be considered a human or a parasite. Like why? I just don’t understand how we can get to a point as society where it’s not about exceptional circumstances anymore but simply wether or not we value one life over another, by categorizing one’s suffering above another’s life or the opposite one’s life over one’s suffering. Now I see why religious people believe in a god it’s so much easier than simply being in a constant argument of moral value’s, when no real objective morality actually exists.
In my opinion, your duty to provide help massively increases if you are the reason the person needs help. Destiny should have pushed him more on that. Yes, you might not have a duty to swim 10 km into the ocean to rescue someone in general, but if you threw them overboard there, then situation is a bit different.
Exactly. When you put someone on life support the least you can do is pay for it.
You don't get to put someone on life support and then pull the plug because you don't feel like paying.
@@yarpenzigrin1893 “feel like paying”..
So you don’t value consent enough then? If I consent to give blood do I not have the right to stop at any time? Even If I consented to a pregnancy I’d have the right to end it any time because it’s MY organs being used. If you disagree then you see people as means to an end instead of ends unto themselves.
@@darkdragonite1419 Are you not aware that sex may lead to pregnancy?
You consent to the term of service when you engage in sex.
It's like going skiing and then crying that you didn't consent to breaking a leg. You did when you put the skis on.
@@yarpenzigrin1893 Exactly this. There isn't a single human being that has the capability to engage in sex that doesn't also understand that sex is how people are made. If you don't want to take that risk and be responsible for the outcome, then don't have sex.
@@darkdragonite1419 consent is such a dumb thing to bring up in the pregnancy and abortion topics. The Fetus didn't consent to be there, and didn't t take any action to put itself there, unlike the person having sex. So if you conceptualized the fetus as a person (I don't) you're violating it's consent far more than the person who is pregnant. So now where do you go from there. Cause if you go with consent that's the most easy way to say no abortions ever at any point.
if you have a kid you HAVE to take care of it. with your body. no if and or butts and if you dont your kid can be taken and you can be held criminally liable. im pro abortion but its a dumb argument a fetus do3snt have rights over its mothers body. weird way to support abortion
This was a fantastic conversation so fun to listen to!
Yo Pauly, where's the spice at?!
Wow - like I needed a reason to love Matt more :) - what a great debate: honest, intellectual and respectful - two great points of view (consent Vs personhood) by two reasoned and reasonable fellows. Kudos to Destiny also (first time seeing you)
Men deciding what women can do with their bodies. Some things never change.
They are both very pro-choice, what are you talking about?
This is actually just conversation porn. I love both Matt and Destiny and I always knew they would have an awesome debate if they ever had one. What an amazing discussion
The discussion is basically this 🔄 if talking around and around in circles is an amazing discussion then I guess so
@@kellmoney709 You expect such a complicated topic to be solved in an hour debate? They went down different avenues and got to different roadblocks. Thats the natural flow of a conversation like this where they are probing at very fundamental questions about what kinds of rights we should have.
@@wibblemu9 I need people to stop pretending like this is a difficult conversation when the answer is really simple if women are afraid to get pregnant if it's consensual or not which doesn't make any sense because women ultimately make the decision on who can f*** them because force is illegal
1. Close her tubes and never have a parasite(baby)in her body ever
2. Close your legs and don't have sex
3. Seven forms of birth control
But honestly I'm starting to agree with pro-life for the long-term aspects as long as y'all women keep saying "my body my choice" no one would ever put a baby in that body which will ultimately mean the end of that bloodline so when pro-life goes extinct what's left "people that understand that's a baby" and for a man such as myself I can have babies at any time of my life so I rather play the waiting game until y'all go extinct have fun selfish pro-life people.
@@kellmoney709 so then you would agree that it is okay to live in a world where legally you sacrifice your autonomy for the sake of a goal, and that consent to sex is a binding legal contract to that agreement
@@kellmoney709 my bruv, that's one too many characters to say "I hate women".
I don't mean that flippantly, it's kinda how you're coming off tbh, I'm sure you actually don't, but it doesn't look good lol.
The argument destiny brings up about the parents locking their child in a room and starving to death because they no longer concented to "dealing" with their "crybaby" is yet another reason why abortion is sometimes necessary. BECAUSE.. a parent(s) who is okay with harming their child for being a child SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN. With that said, I very much enjoyed hearing about his position and grasp of the subject that so many people lack.
oh my God, is this argument stupid. So you'll murder the innocent because the parents are shit. Wow.. just wow. You'd fit right in in Nazi Germany.
Yeah, but you wouldn't kill a child because their parents shouldn't have them (assuming the fetus is a child)
Abortion is absolutely not necessary in this case. Adoption is the answer.
@@brandygibson7283it's not about what is or isn't an option or answer. It's about who gets to decide.
Eugenics is the best argument for abortion 💯
I wonder if Destiny will say anything sensible and educated during this...
When he debated Norman, he showed that research and honesty are not his most important objectives.
I dont understand why someone with little to no experience in these topics, speaks as if he's some intellectual authority 😅
Destiny is not a smart man. I wish he'd stop trying because if your only objective is to win, not to find truth, then you shouldn't open your mouth in public.
"Bodily autonomy" is such a midwit concept. He'll be pulling rocks with his bodily autonomy.
Sigh…😢
Two of my favorite content creators talking to each other: it's about time that Destiny and Matt had a discussion. This was an awesome talk to watch. 👍
It got boring after Destiny's 100th analogy.
One is redundant the other is a speed freak looking to never lose a debate.
I got locked the moment I saw dilahunty bust out the note pad! (around the 8 minute mark). Always a good sign someone is in it for the conclusion, not the fight.
The main issue of Destiny's and Dawkins premise, is that it is inherent on ANOTHER person looking after the birthed person, and we all know how the world treats children and parents that need assistance.
Very much as Matt said, you can have extreme changes in situation, be that financial solvency, family bereavement, critical illness that made having a family once viable is now no longer.
By definition, a foetus of any term is a parasite (I'm not trying to be rude), it literally feeds off a host for survival.
The foetus is total in trust of the birthgiver, and therefore the birthgiver should have full veto
Two of my favorite liberal, atheist, thinkers. Props to both of you guys for an engaging discussion… 👌🏻
destiny isn't an atheist its a girls name
I don't see Hasan and Tate here...
I would say centrist ,I don't believe anyone is truly left or right, however, these identities are pushed pretty heavily nowadays so I understand why you say liberal.
I think it's a shame that politics have become so polarized ...it really detracts from any meaningful discussion ,hinders progress and generally makes many ideological talking points into an episode of Hatfields and McCoys.
@@T1Slam Tate isn't an atheist
@@thefadebeta580 How old are you?
Matt dillahunty was my gateway to atheism 10 years back and I always appreciated his form of argumentation
Same here.
Check out His debate with Jay dyer(He’s an Orthodox Christian)
Holy Shit! My world colliding! Never thought I'd see the day Destiny got to meet up with Dillahunty
So excited to see these two finally talk! I would love to see some sort of relegious conversation as well, I know that Matt is likely much much more aggressive against religion than destiny has been recently
yes Destiny please study all of Dillahunty's anti-theism arguments, so we can have two good anti-religious debaters instead of just Dillahunty.
@@westingtyler1 nah I’m talking more outlook on religion.
As a conservative....I love hearing these arguments even if I don't agree with everything being said...thinking through these issues is important for both sides
That's nice, but what's the point of listening if doesn't actually make a difference? Which conservative points do u have? U r anti choice?
@@Nonamam It helps people reevaluate their arguments and take a stance with a more educated\considerate approach. They might reconsider who they want to vote for, based on those arguments, and that's where it makes a difference.
As a conservative? What does that mean, that you. just agree with whatever a 'conservative' tells you?
@@Nonamam I think the point is that he/she is at LEAST listening. If one of those two were pro life then the discussion would have been pro choice vs pro life. And since he/she is pro life (I suspect) then they would have spent all their time listening and cheering on the pro life speaker and shrugging off/ignoring the pro choice person. It would have been more about winning the debate in his/her head vs understanding the position(s). Not that the other type of debate doesn't have it's benefits also.
@@Nonamami guess hes a human with human emotions and against murder i suppose
There are actual laws that have allowed children (for example) to emancipate themselves from being used medically to say donate marrow to an ill sibling. In fact there famous examples of this in which a sibling refused, and then had to fight legally, to no longer donating marrow and even organs to an ill sibling. And plot twist - the sick sibling encouraged the other sibling to do just this and stop being forced to donate. These laws already exist; the fact that Destiny *never* discusses the pregnant woman in this situation but only the fetus (when the fetus gains legal personhood the woman loses her legal personhood).
The fact that he didn't shows an understanding that you lack.
Parents have responsibilities to their children. Siblings do not.
@@JamesJNothingIsTooSensitive James, should the Government have the right to force a parent to give one of their kidneys to save their child? For sake of argument, there is no other kidney available and the child will die without a new one. The only genetically compatible kidney is in the parent. Does the Government have the right to step in, force the parent against their will to be anesthetized, taken into a surgery room and have an organ removed? Should this be the law?
@@ThodEssmann Your child? Not someone else's? Yes. And that should remain the case for *_both_* kidneys. And any parent that *_required_* the government to do so, rather than being *_willing_* to die for their child shouldn't be a parent.
Being willing to die for your child - presuming they are in fact, still a child and not merely your *_offspring_* - is part of parenthood.
This is obvious for the same reasons parents are supposed to risk harm to themselves to protect their children in the event of a home invasion, or, like recently, when there was a shooting at a school, and the parents ran in when the cops would not, all to save their children, all while obviously putting their lives at risk.
It is *_your_* views which don't hold up in other circumstances, not mine. Mine hold up all over because they are *_consistent_* and don't have "avoiding responsibility" as the only *_real_* reasoning behind them, however cleverly masked.
Think you have a "gotcha" now? Go home. You aren't ready for this.
@@JamesJNothingIsTooSensitive You really support the Government, through use of force, taking an organ out of an unwilling person. Astounding. What if the child is 30 and the parent 50? The question isn't about morality, love, and caring parents, It is about empowering the Government to forcibly remove organs from an unwilling person.
@@ThodEssmann Strawman and Ad hominem. You have no argument.
Also, governments use force to impose on gree will all the time. It is literally the reason for them to exist. To exert force and rob people of their free will.
What do you think they're doing when they arrest a criminal? Or shoot a murderer?
"Free will" isn't some absolute virtue. What matters is what you are *_doing_* with it.
Similarly, violating free will isn't some absolute evil. What matter is why and how and in what context it is happening.
Grow up and either engage with the argument I actually made, or fuck off.
Usually I avoid debates but this was fascinating. I appreciate the respectful disagreement. I think a huge part of growing involves engaging with ideas/opinions we don’t completely agree with