Destiny Teams Up w/ Conservative In Abortion Debate

[@aidanhennessey5586]

I went into this conversation pro-life, but listening to the back and forths between Tree and the Christian girl made me wish I was aborted.

[@NoFreedoms-f1d]

Wait what?

[@AveSequoia]

Uh ok¿

[@CrispBaker]

THAT'S NOT LOGICAL I'M A MASTER OF LOGIC OBEY MY LOGIC OR PERISH Keeeeerist

[@Elgerino]

@@NoFreedoms-f1d You claim in another thread that Destiny isn't smart and then a pretty simple joke flies right over your head.

[@Gerald-of-Riviera]

@@Elgerino got em

[@ModernDayDebate]

Thanks for coming back on, Steven! It was a pleasure as always! 😎

[@killer500226]

based

[@sgtpatton]

thank YOU !

[@nickterooze]

Middle guy brings the best content

[@Opno]

Middle guy best guy dggL

[@jonsel27578]

Based middle guy is based

[@Dork20]

Rachel: "I do debates all the time I'm a *student of logical argumentation*" Also Rachel: “A pink demon is just as likely to exist behind me as oxygen” Jesus Christs. If she would've just lead with that, we could've all saved ourselves the 30 - 45+ minutes of valuable time we lost listening to her.

[@room9podcast]

hahahaha

[@EluvietteNikki]

I love her saying she doesnt want to use religion for this argument but uses "souls" as an argument. lol

[@KingAntDaProphet]

Stop listening to debates you obviously missed the point

[@Dork20]

@@KingAntDaProphet You're quite frankly mentally handicapped if you think I "missed the point" based on my satirical comment 😂

[@mrm2946]

Rachel claims to be logical but then asserts a soul exists but fails to present any evidence that confirms a soul

[@scarletcrusade77]

This video is proof that Destiny does indeed love black people.

[@chepulis]

Just two women of colour kicking ass, as they do

[@moiseslopez981]

Proof Destiny isn't a beta male bc he teamed up with a conservative and as we all know Liberals are BEYTAAAAS

[@scotts3335]

He do

[@orangetaho4u207]

Amazin.

[@seanmckinley5678]

N word pass obtained

[@epintherager9479]

Tree is the last person I thought would be pro-choice, but she argued for it exactly how I imagined she would

[@spell105]

I expected it, honestly. She's crazy, but she's kinda down to earth on topics like this.

[@Morgan-Madsen]

She didn't do black women any favors here...

[@Jo-bs2uu]

poorly?

[@disclaimer4211]

same. I find it interesting how she used the "well why does God kill babies" he didn't kill them. People with paganistic views killed them, such as the Egyptians and many of the Middle Eastern countries in the BC era and somewhat early AD era. He also can predict when someone will be pregnant and what not and can make someone pregnant. In the bible, God is against this because as he states he has a plan for each person when born and unborn, whether it be to live life or to change it but people in the end still have the choice to follow it. And when it says this, every Christian is immediately against abortion because it's basically making a conceived child unconceived or "murder" which it can be in most circumstances but the argument remains. "why be for abortion when you can just not have sex until you think its the right time after marriage" reason I bring the marriage in is that some married couples actually do get abortions believe or not. while you could say "well in that case if God is real why would he allow such a thing". that's the thing, he doesn't control sin. Sin is the consequence of a choice and it states in the bible that whatever choice you make you have no effect over it but rather the ruler over what the consequence of your actions are. As a result, it was why he didn't kill Satan in the first place because he was the prodigal angel, but because he deceived adam and eve he suffered a great consequence as a result and stated that man will be the one to injure him not God. not until the end. he doesn't micro manage lives instead lets people have the freedom to either do as they please. be immoral and will suffer for it in the end, be moral and receive goodness and blessing even through hard times depending on their relationship with God. like it or not pretty much almost every single fundamental law known to man dates back to the creation of the ten commandments.

[@Benbones99]

She has no brain cells.

[@Squatch_And_Learn]

Man it was so nice listening to kendon. It's refreshing to hear someone actually engage with questions honestly, even if it isn't the answer he wants or "i really don't have an answer to that", instead of evading and pivoting. Super good talk

[@lozzy8152]

I think his answer to death was a little wack but after that I think he was really a good person for the panel

[@UnseenOct]

I've seen several of this debates. I never agreed with him but I've always respected his way of debating. It's quite refreshing

[@Rocky29798]

“My argument is not a religious one, it is purely logical” “Death is when the soul leaves the body”

[@SpectreBagels]

That's not religious, that's just a spiritual way of thinking not really tied to a belief in a god or lack thereof Edit: rereading it I can see a different interpretation I didn't originally, saying her refering to souls wasn't logic rather than saying her talking about souls was religious. My bad for thay

[@enriquewicks7797]

@@SpectreBagels it is supernatural my dude, however you want to spin it, it isn't secular

[@SpectreBagels]

@@MrMctastics What does that have to do with what the original person said or what I said?

[@argentumoblinit7960]

@@SpectreBagels When referring to your own argument as "purely logical" making a statement that presupposes the existence of a soul doesn't seem to be very fitting

[@SpectreBagels]

@@enriquewicks7797 ok....but the comment was about her believing in souls automatically made her argument religious. At most it's a spiritual view but not religious, which is what the OG comment was refering to

[@EmilyWilliams-rh6dr]

Kendon was super respectful and could admit when his point has reached as far as it can go as well as find common ground. Pretty cool guy even with the difference in opinion

[@WizardofGargalondese]

Yeah he's had a few conversations with Vaush before (I believe trans people and blm) and they were actually pretty good faith convos

[@BenjaminBattington]

I'm pro choice, but if every pro lifer was like him (anti death penalty, advocating for more government resources spent helping the poor and people with disabilities) the world would be a better place.

[@tripledigit4835]

@u04R could be worse, he could be American 😎

[@tripledigit4835]

@u04R American “primates”

[@GTVR-tx1jl]

Listening to Rachel and Tree argue with each other when they clearly are both completely misunderstanding their respective arguments (as stupid as those arguments may be) is so mind numbingly painful, I must say quite the experience.

[@Joyness333]

I do thing Tree was making a valid argument, though. Was frustrating that Rachel was either being deliberately obtuse or just not getting it. She was equating services being performed to help keep a person alive with literally using someone's body as a host.

[@GTVR-tx1jl]

@@Joyness333 True, I suppose I should have clarified I'm in agreement with Tree's original argument, it's just frustrating that she wasn't able to defend it properly. And I agree, Rachel either couldn't logically think through Tree's position or was arguing in bad faith. Tree obviously wasn't arguing that if someone is dependent on another person that that person should have the right to kill them, that line of argument opens the door for a ton of other situations. What about someone with disabilities, or someone recovering from surgery, or someone fighting a serious illness? Of course their caretakers shouldn't be justified in killing them just because they're dependent on them. I would say Tree should have presented some clarifying qualifications for her argument. 1. It's an undeveloped fetus yet to have an experience in the outside world (or you could argue able to have a mental experience period, as destiny did.) 2. The fetus is physically connected to and thus directly dependent on the BODY of another person for survival. Important distinction there.

[@Joyness333]

@@GTVR-tx1jl I agree. She didn't pull everything she had in the arsenal for that argument. I usually say it's the difference between a legal argument and a moral argument. They're both ethical arguments but one revolves around ethics of a government's involvement and the other revolves around the ethic's of the mother's decision. I make certain the other person knows I'm arguing for the ethical decision of a government which would be crossing a personal boundary if it were to legislate the decisions one makes regarding their body (and do they even have jurisdiction there). The thing is that argument is only good for when you're combating a state's decision to investigate a miscarriage, or jail a mother for drinking while pregnant, for example. Not the banning of a procedure like abortion. For that your first point, and Destiny's argument apply better.

[@jeffwells641]

Tree understood Rachel's argument just fine, which is why she asked the question about the mother dying after birth. Rachel either didn't understand where Tree was drawing her line, or understood it but intentionally mis-framed it to attempt to win the argument. Tree was saying is that up to a certain point in every pregnancy the baby is 100% reliant upon the mother for survival, that is too say if the mother dies then the baby is guaranteed to die as well. After that point the baby is less and less reliant on the mother, to the point of birth, at which point the mother is not inherently necessary at all, because literally anybody could take the place of the mother and the child will survive. Tree was saying that while the baby is 100% reliant upon the mother for survival, the mother gets to decide whether the baby lives or died. This argument extends past this stage just fine, but the baby's reliance shifts more and more to society at large than the mother herself, so the mother isn't the one who has sole authority. More and more it's society at large that gets to decide whether a baby survives. Our society typically chooses to keep the baby alive as much as possible.

[@MzSoulll]

I was hoping to find someone who felt that way. SO ANNOYING!

[@nage9465]

I'm genuinely confused by this woman's arguments. She says she doesn't want to argue from a theological perspective yet uses the existence of a "soul" to attribute moral consideration to a fetus.

[@darthrevan6713]

As a christian myself I can understand both sides and I asked myself what exactly is it that stops me from agreeing with Destiny and almost every time it was because i believe in a God. Remove God from the equation and i probably would be forced to agree with Destiny’s logic. I think thats why its so hard for Christians to argue on abortion without bringing some sense of spirituality into it. The part for me to get my head around is that because I believe God is real, who am I to say when a life starts and whether a fertilised egg constitutes as a soul.

[@YodasPapa]

She just actually believes in the soul as a real thing, I think, and can't really imagine not believing that. From her POV it would be like saying "I'm conscious" and then everyone says "that's theology!" I couldn't listen to this stuff for very long though, too stupid and shouty for my taste.

[@JulyIzHere]

@@darthrevan6713 Also the Bible says pics begins at first breath.. and gif orders a woman to drink something with the guarantee of forced miscarriage (abortion) if she’s been cheating.

[@jerrywheyland7324]

Hold it. She is a master of logic, you are just not understanding her.

[@Kappi__]

@@darthrevan6713 imagine this. 😂😂😂

[@randomyoutubecommenterr]

I am more and more appreciating the contrast between Stevens super simple opening statements versus every other debaters LITERAL ESSAYS.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

People who can say what they think in a simple and clear manner have a better understanding than people who are wordious. I believe Destiny alluded to this once

[@brittig8983]

He just says the crux of his viewpoint, every other argument he makes boils down to that one simple statement. He knows he doesn't need to waste time expanding on it because he's gonna debate it later, very efficient method

[@jessecraft1199]

“This is what I think, this is why I think it.” The best kind of opening statement, glad Destiny is utilizing these now.

[@unconcernedcitizen4092]

Sometimes a prepared opening statement is a necessity. Maybe I’m just biased due to performing in “formal” debates as a philosophy professor, but even Destiny recently used a prepared opening statement in his debate with Nick. It was beneficial to his argumentation.

[@michaeldromes3948]

While i do appreciate how clear and direct it is, Tree's story left much stronger impact on me, even if it was just an appeal to emotion. She complimented Destiny's style perfectly imo, even if they argued from a different place.

[@Camibug]

She mentioned the spirit leaving as a point when life ends but then calls everyone’s arguments irrational and even refuses to defend her points based on religion. Yikes lady.

[@SAKA701]

"I do debates all the time I'm a student of logical argumentation" *Dies of cringe*

[@J13-h6y]

Giga Karen

[@Euthyphro]

This really hurt me to hear

[@chrisjohnson-tn3gl]

to be absolutely fair, the black lady's logic was pretty wild: "god doesnt have a problem killing a fetus or children, so why cant i?" well if we go by that logic... people die every day, if you attribute that to god, why cant you go and kill your parents or your neighbors? those people die every day too

[@chrisjohnson-tn3gl]

i just realized her name is "tree of logic" now i'm even more ok with calling out her flaws in logic in a slightly condescending manner

[@jonascelentano9251]

Lol, 100% agree.

[@user-jt6rh8xy6n]

“When is the person considered dead” Rachel- “For me it’s when the souls leaves the body” I’ll leave this here for people to dwell on for a bit

[@Diamond_Eyes86]

@@johnlonne7062 she said she wasn’t arguing from a religious standpoint and then when asked when death occurs refers to when a soul leaves the body which isn’t secular or based in logic. It’s reference to the supernatural.

[@rexyz5875]

@@Diamond_Eyes86 if we're talking about logic then lets not pretend that men can be women and women can be men

[@ccash3290]

@@johnlonne7062 Magic can also explain personal identity. Magic and souls are equally well defined and have an equal amount of physical material evidence.

[@Diamond_Eyes86]

@@johnlonne7062 Wow that was a lot of talk for someone who didn’t actually say anything. Also it’s you and me Talking John. Not women.

[@Diamond_Eyes86]

@@rexyz5875 okay let’s not.

[@tea_fran]

Rachel: "I can't answer that because it's not part of the conversation, debate, or argument" Also Rachel: "Here's a completely ridiculous anecdote that is not part of the conversation, debate, or argument and I expect you to answer it or else you lose" This girl's fkn brain is a bottomless pit.

[@Avenger222]

We all know what her answers are. She just won't state them because she knows they make her look insane.

[@note4note804]

This girl is the peak example of, "if someone has to state over and over that they possess a trait and that other people don't possess the trait that they have, they absolutely do not possess that trait." Doesn't matter if it's logic, being an alpha, being compassionate, etc.

[@BlakeZeb]

Ma’am, she’s using logical arguments. She’s sorry you can’t follow logic.

[@Guccipoooch]

Oh god I f’ing hate her

[@theminingbat]

@Andrew Davis she’s absolutely not

[@everythingtaken3674]

​@@theminingbat one of them is kinda dumb the other one is terrible at talking about things she disagrees with lol

[@spacetoast7783]

Speaking as someone who was 51% confident in being anti-abortion, I have to say this was Destiny's strongest pro-abortion argument.

[@Jim-km1xt]

When Tree of Logic can make your opponent look stupid, I don't think you can really call it a debate.

[@nikmarshall2989]

Personally against it or think it should be illegal?

[@Tehownilator]

How can you just be 51% confident that abortion is murder?

[@NoFreedoms-f1d]

@@Jim-km1xt Destiny is not that smart. This is what happen when you learn big words and go to college thinking you are smart.

[@jharris6737]

@@Tehownilator They are probably stating that although they think abortion is wrong or even murder, it's very hard to hold a 100% view of anti-abortion if you were faced with a rape victim or a minor. I know in my case I believe that abortion is murder and is wrong, but I also can't say that a little girl that has been raped and is pregnant should be turned away and has to give birth. This conflict in my mind is something I don't think I can ever solve because if I think abortion is murder, how can I be ok with an innocent life being taken even if its a little girl that's been effected. If I think abortion is murder of an innocent life, there should be no exception, yet my emotion and empathy still guide me and shake my confidence in my opinion. It is very hard to think about. An easy solution would be to be pro-choice but still anti-abortion, but how can I be pro choice if I believe abortion is murder, I cant just say its up to someone else if they want to murder an innocent person and there should be no repercussions for them to do that. idk what the answer is and it pains me.

[@SublimeCS]

Holy shit Rachel is one of the most bad faith people Destiny has ever spoken with. I'm so mad.

[@drewmyers3916]

Rachel is? are we serious here. did u not listen to a single word tree said?

[@giovanni4225]

Tree somehow manages to make me laugh and facepalm at the same time🤣 Props to Destiny for laying out his position clearly and challenging the arguments made by all 3 other panelists

[@ll2323]

Rachel makes me facepalm even more.

[@Benutzername0000]

@@ll2323 becuz u izz brainlet?

[@velrch3973]

Tree has never been saner than here. Still not good but compared to that other girl Tree was Plato ;).

[@falseprophet1024]

@@velrch3973 The "its moral for me to kill babies because god did" woman is like Plato? If the other girl dropped the soul bs, she would be pretty on point. I dont know what Tree would need to do to be on point. Her arguments actually justify murder. She is so far gone, i dont even know where to begin..

[@velrch3973]

@@falseprophet1024 have you listened to her other stuff with destiny? When compared to that she was the incarnation of sanity in this. Rachel had no point. Tho it was hilarious how her non theological argument was clearly based on her faith.

[@jogadorjnc]

"I did not make a single christian argument throughout this entire debate" Her argument was: 1. Forcing a soul to leave a body is bad. 2. God says that souls are created at conception.

[@helios1087]

The debate in a nutshell: Rachel: "And, when you ask pro-choice people X, they are unable to answer!" Destiny: "But I can definitely answer, it's-" Rachel: "Asking X is such an easy way to defeat all of their arguments, it's impossible for them to answer that"

[@cleancut3301]

The audacity of the Teflon-smooth brained lady saying other people can’t follow logic or don’t have a grounding while simultaneously never giving a single consistent argument for when or why a life should be valued was astounding to behold.

[@edar8881]

Life should be valued, I mean most dog owners don't abort their litter do they? No, they give them away to adopt or have another person handle that situation. Abortion should be a last result situation unless its the result of a bad situation but not just to abort whenever.

[@apexvoice1952]

Tree was losing her mind. White lady didn’t have strong arguments but atleast didn’t “feeeeeel” everything

[@tb8654]

@@edar8881 holy hell bruh relax with the false comparisons

[@garininderdeo8010]

bro what are you talking about. Human life is human life which is human life which can be established that human life ought to be protected as human life. its a powerful argument. if you say it enough times, human life becomes a term worth being protected. if words are worth being protected than the term human life cannot be created without a fetus. Therefore to protect language all of human life must be protect.

[@evad687]

@@edar8881 I’m fine with aborting puppies

[@Reese842]

Holy hell the two women arguing over who could murder who quicker 🤣

[@Tavat]

Lol “murder.” So dumb.

[@anamomonouse]

You tryna get bad on me?!

[@ll2323]

It’s not conscious yet. There is no “murder”. It’s a removal.

[@art-gx7qp]

@@ll2323 so if I kill someone that is unconscious it's fine right??

[@benmckay4004]

@@ll2323 they were talking about killing each other

[@Epeefencer34]

I dont think people get how embarrassing it is when they claim to have some sort of formal logic training and then do a terrible job at doing formal logic. It doesnt make you look better, it makes you look way worse.

[@GO-GO_SO-SO]

"Me, it's when the soul is no longer in the body." "Where's the soul at?" lol

[@FaylunaRaRa]

It could be explained, kinda... I think one philosophy of the mind which has blended well with Christianity is dualism which is the idea that the mind (or perhaps similarly the soul) is a nonphysical and separate substance that is not strictly tied to the brain in any way or any other physical thing... It's a popular explanation for what the mind is if you are someone like Rene Descartes who enjoys believing in other immaterial things like God... It all works together nicely... Kinda has a fair amount of criticisms though... Not a philosophy I'd go with... I think from my philosophy of the mind class I was more sold on computational theory or this other one I think, but it's been awhile so I forgot it... I feel like consciousness is sort of comparable to like an operating system in a lot of ways... It's like a core piece of software in your brain that is needed if you want to be able to really do much of anything...

[@cameron4332]

@@FaylunaRaRa schizo post

[@vicariouschism86]

@@FaylunaRaRa What you're talking about going away is consciousness. Not a soul.

[@FaylunaRaRa]

@@vicariouschism86 Yeah, but the soul would be the same idea as the mind in dualism... It's this supposedly immaterial thing that is somehow tied to who you are and in someway connected to (yet separate from) your material body...

[@vicariouschism86]

@@FaylunaRaRa Your mind/consciousness is an emergent property of firing neurons in the brain. We can see neural pathways of the brain and understand how the brain interfaces with stimuli. No God magic required.

[@ponwind0727]

Does anyone know where I can check out studies 20-24 weeks Destiny is talking about? I would like to read about it. 31:31 time stamp in video.

[@pickagreatname]

Man, Rachael got fucking rekt. That wannbe-smug attempted-face-saving smirk on her face after each instance of getting dismantled is so satisfying to see.

[@Smithens12]

Have a shot everytime Rachel says the word "logic".

[@JaySmokes97]

you're a murderer

[@anthbills307]

Finish the bottle when she says "I am trained in logical argumentation."

[@spell105]

If I did that I'd have a post-natal self-induced abortion.

[@nnekt7542]

@@anthbills307 you would die from alcohol poisoning lol

[@Dhakhar]

The only way to survive this challenge is to remember that the measurement of a shot is ARBITARY

[@__Sphynx__]

This is like watching the dumbest kids in the class try to argue with the teacher

[@oceansandhorizons2091]

Tree clearly said “when the baby depends on by body” and Rachel kept changing it to “the bandy depends on somebody”… and then kept saying she’s having a logical argument lol

[@billsmith8397]

Nah I don’t agree with Rachel but she was totally right in that argument. Babies can stay alive after birth for only a few hours before someone has to step in and take care of them. If no one took care of them, if no one used the energy their body created to keep the baby alive, that baby will die. If a mother one day decided to stop taking care of her baby after birth because she didn’t want to anymore, she would be out in jail. With that mindset, you can’t argue that you can kill a baby/fetus (lets skip over the “when is it a baby debate since that wasn’t a part of that specific argument)busy because a mother doesn’t want to take care of it or bring it to term just for the sole reason that it’s her body. If a parent cannot suddenly stop caring for their kid, then a mother can’t suddenly stop caring for this “thing”. Again, I am pro choice. I think abortions should be legal. But Rachel was 100% making a sound argument that Tree refused to see and got emotion and cringe over it.

[@oceansandhorizons2091]

@@billsmith8397 The argument isn’t wether or not the baby needs somebody to take care of it. It’s that while the baby is in the wound it needs it’s mothers body specifically. Now if they have a way of changing that meaning they can take the fetus out and do something. That would have it grow to be a baby then cool. I’d be all for that as an abortion method. But currently since that is not the case then the argument that was being made is correct. The baby is dependent on the mothers body specifically up until a certain point. After that point then yes the mother can not just abandon the baby and say I don’t want to take care of it. But the distinction is very clear between the baby being dependent on the mothers body specifically and the baby being dependent on another human in general

[@theghostofumarskoolishere.4632]

@@billsmith8397 no she wasn’t right. One is in someone body the other isn’t

[@Torjen]

@@oceansandhorizons2091 How can one be dependent on a human in general without that in some form necessitating use of said humans body in ways that the child cannot use its own?

[@oceansandhorizons2091]

@@Torjen I genuinely do not understanding your question

[@swaggitypigfig8413]

I approve of Steven siding with the BLACK WOMAN on this issue. We LUH black people and RESPECT women over here and I am proud of Steven for representing these values. Good job buddy.

[@iwanttodieinawar6085]

Amazin

[@Lebronwski]

Shut up lol

[@DegenerateFilth]

Back peepo

[@AcSlaytah56]

is your name designed to mess with dyslexic people? lol

[@aze4964]

Destiny fans are so unbearably cringey

[@KingHalik]

I really like the team. Tree does the trash talking while destiny remains calm and provides the arguments. It is like good cop bad cop.

[@Fabric_Hater]

It's too bad we don't actually know if destiny believes anything he argues for or against.

[@jessekappler4160]

@@Fabric_Hater yeah the guy who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for sticking to his beliefs that were controversial is just grifting.

[@Fabric_Hater]

@@jessekappler4160 "lost hundreds of thousands"? Lmao He's proven and admitted that he can argue any position. Then moved to Florida for no income tax run by people he has said don't believe in healthcare. He doesn't believe what he says by his own actions.

[@Fabric_Hater]

@Gloomies that's a long winded way of saying "I won't live my values". Lmao Infact it's worse, he openly lives against what he advocates for.

[@Fabric_Hater]

@Gloomies how can anyone believe what he says when he openly lives against what he advocates for? When he lies to justify debating positions he doesn't believe? Why should anyone takes his points seriously when he has a history of these basic, provable facts? Do you believe what politicians tell you too?

[@ChipCheerio]

It’s people like Rachel that slowly push me from being fine with abortion in the first 20ish weeks to just saying we need to full send it. I cannot express how enraged it makes me to see someone operate in such terrible faith.

[@ChipCheerio]

@@Maissiz So the anti abortion crowd doesn’t understand frustration or hyperbole, huh? I can’t say I’m really surprised. Almost every single position both sides take is emotional, not logical. So you can get off the high horse. And this Rachel character is a horrible interlocutor, who wouldn’t engage honestly with anything asked of her. Her partner was far more fair, and as such I had no problem with him.

[@Guitarmaster7272]

She has completely circular reasoning. Destiny was trying to ask this lady when she believes a human life becomes a human life, Or what defines a human life, and her answer was that human life is human life. You must protect human life because it is human life, And you know it's a human life when it is a human life. But when!? WHEN!

[@wooww91619]

Lmao right. Can’t tell if the way she constantly talks up her logical ability comes from insecurity or pure narcissistic delusion. But every time she follows it right up with some kind of fallacious reasoning.

[@telepathyclub]

We must protect the cancerous tumor because it's human life PEPE

[@orkinho1]

The question is dumb tbh. A fertilize egg is an individual of the human species and it's not dead, so by definition it must be alive. Human life. That's when it starts. Clinging onto this or that specific characteristic that would be developed later in life is a dead end.

[@godwinwong2809]

@@orkinho1 But is isn't an individual...It literally could not be more dependant on another living being. So it isn't a human life. It is just a living fetus.

[@telepathyclub]

@@orkinho1 It is human life but it's not (yet) human life in any way that actually matters or is worth any moral consideration.

[@Seri-dy5dd]

Tree’s arguments were messy but the other girl bringing up logic and how logical she is every other sentence was way more annoying lol

[@JulyIzHere]

Trees arguments were very good. And no one could answer why black women should be forced to give birth when their 3x more likely to die during labor

[@rabiespuddings1735]

Personally I enjoyed trees input, because it’s usually always terminally online lefty white dudes that are arguing pseudo intellectual points and smelling their own farts when black women are disproportionately the most affected by abortion bans. While yes her points weren’t the greatest, I’ve heard way worse from a lot of tone deaf dudes arguing in favor of abortion. Rachel however was massively cringe.

[@jaunzelmullins1508]

@@JulyIzHere yea they could.lol. it's a very straightforward argument. If you are irresponsible enough to participate in an action that you know will have dire or permanent consequences then you are responsible for whatever follows. Simple. Take accountability for your actions. You made a decision, the child did not. Therefore you should be the one to pay for your actions not the child.

[@chris-m1v]

@@jaunzelmullins1508 by dying? Genius right there

[@jaunzelmullins1508]

@@chris-m1v 😂 it's funny you say that. But you will still have sex tho. What a genius you must be as well. Secondly, stop it, the vast majority of women don't die in child birth. It's not even close. So people need to stop hiding behind the unlikely tragic events of others to try to justify thier terrible decisions.

[@tsgcomics2684]

This is honestly one of destiny’s best performances not only on this topic but in general.

[@drg8687]

"For me, people die when the soul leaves the body." Lady, the air has left your head.

[@shecklesmack9563]

Right after trying to sound smart about logic and shit. lmao

[@godwinwong2809]

I wish someone asked her when the soul entered the body. Why does it have to be at conception? It doesn't even make sense for it to be then. I can understand months down the line after the brain is moderately formed, but at conception? Why stop there? Every egg and sperm has a soul. Wooooooo

[@isaacvelasco5559]

@@godwinwong2809 Heck, even biblically it isn't clear when the soul enters the human body. As far as the book of Genesis goes, it was when Adam took his first breath after being formed from the dust of the earth. Suffice to say, it isn't as clear cut as she would want you to believe. I'm Christian, and if someone asked me when the soul enters the body, I would give them a guess and try to point to different theories or scriptures to show the different positions, but I wouldn't say it is 100%.

[@abrosis2768]

I missed debate Destiny. When he pulls out the notepad you know he's about to rock someones shit in the most polite way.

[@cngotham4111]

I mean doesn't he still write down the debate when it's actually challenging?

[@ixcibit8774]

Halfway through and Rachel is still relying so strongly on pretending there is no difference between caring for a life and growing it inside one’s body. She must realize she’s being dishonest at this point. Also not letting anyone finish any statements lol

[@jaunzelmullins1508]

@@jackbrown6328 Racheal is hard to listen to but you enjoy Tree's argument. That's wild.

[@feasted2941]

Also, the difference there is consent. Once a baby is born you consented to parental obligations. You did not consent to a fetus utilizing your body as an incubator

[@jaunzelmullins1508]

@@feasted2941 yes you did. People be acting like they don't know the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. You consented as soon as you engaged in a sexual activity that is specifically meant for reproduction. Because you knew there was a chance to get pregnant and you did it anyway. (Not you specifically but in general).

[@feasted2941]

@@jaunzelmullins1508 You are the one imbuing sex with intentionality or purpose. The majority of people just have sex for PLEASURE and fun. I completely reject your premise that the main purpose of sex is for reproduction. Secondly, consent to sex is not consent to becoming pregnant (or remaining pregnant). You are trying to make the case that having an understanding of the RISKS associated with an action means you actively CONSENT for the risk to occur. In other words, if you drive a car and someone hits your car, then you consented to being hit because you knew car accidents are a risk factor when driving a car? I reject your second premise as well. Both of your arguments were erroneous.

[@jaunzelmullins1508]

@@feasted2941 No I am not mixing anything. They are intrinsically linked by default it is modern society that is attempting to divide the 2. Deciding to IGNORE the risk does not excuse anything. thats the problem with people these days. They dont want to face the consequences for their actions. Yes that is exactly what it is. that is literally how the world works. If you decide to participate in an activity in which you acknowledge that a specific risk is likely to occur and then you decide to do it anyway you have given your consent. Thats how it works anywhere else. Only when it comes to sex do we ignore the consequences. "if you drive a car and someone hits your car, then you consented to being hit because you knew car accidents are a risk factor when driving a car?" No you agreed to the responsibilities that comes with getting in the car. If you start driving knowing that there is a possibility for a car crash you are consenting to being responsible for any consequences that follow. (Whether it is your fault or not) Thats why people get insurance. That why medicine companies have disclaimers. Thats why there are liability wavers. That why fathers have to pay child support. So that if you still decide to partake even knowing the consequences then it's on you not them. Its only abortion where this rule just magically doesn't apply.

[@magicianofd8434]

I'm starting to suspect that the lady who kept arguing that we can't define what a conscious experience is may not actually have one herself.

[@niclastname]

The audacity of Rachel to keep saying someone "downt understyand lagic" while she can't grasp the simple clarifying questions to define her stance consistently is astounding. She keeps hammering Tree with slippery slope fallacies as "lagical canclooshuns" as her seemingly-only counter argument, but anytime Destiny brings up a hypothetical (to _clarify a stance_ not as an argument) she does a god damn backflip to avoid it and say "wyell thyats nyat anyaligis!". She can't follow the basic logic of her own stance just to clarify her position. He's not even arguing with her, just trying to get her to make a consistent definition. ffs

[@ThePainkiller9995]

Seems to me like the more someone uses words like "logic" and "epistemology" the less they actually understand what those mean lol

[@Mant111]

Tree's argument was dumb as a brick though. As a logical person myself I can definitely see Rachel's frustration in dealing with, sorry, a dumbo who can't follow a simple 1+2=3 logical followup.

[@niclastname]

@@Mant111 I agree that would be frustrating. That's why Rachel was so frustrating to listen to when Destiny tried to get her to take a consistent stance on literally anything lol. She kept going on about logical conclusions, but couldn't even follow her own. I would say I was more frustrated with hers than Tree's though, simply because Destiny was asking for clarification and testing consistency, whereas her follow ups to Tree were always just slippery slope counter-arguments. I think Tree and Rachel were both misunderstanding each other in their exchange, but when it was Destiny and Rachel, she seemed to be the only one struggling and dodging lol. To me, if two people are slap-fighting over dumb arguments it can be entertaining, but when it's just one person being dumb and smug about it it's painful to watch haha.

[@Mant111]

@@niclastname Destiny was the worst to me this time around. He never let Rachel finish a single thought constantly interrupting and cutting her off at anything she tried to say. He kept pushing for a false parallel between a building being built and a baby being grown despite the fact that the building doesn't build itself if left alone, while the baby does, which marks a clear difference. He also kept pushing for his anti-historical notion that "consciousness" is what defines life medically throughout history, which simply isn't true, with nobody calling him out on it. Frankly I feel this whole debate didn't have a single person with an actual working brain. It was just various different degrees of bad.

[@Tabnito]

@@Mant111 you need to pay more attention to the video before you make up things that didn't happen. The building thing was about the language being used not directly comparing a building 1:1 with a baby. Any cut offs are to clarify and pin something down, because that lady rambles like crazy, weird you complain about it but she didn't. I don't remember the concioisness history thing so you may be right on that but it definetly doesn't sound right, if somebody else cares enough or cares about your opinion they could comment but it's not like I'm saying any of this for you, since it doesn't appear your perception really lines up with reality anyhow, if it were just misunderstanding or making a mistake you wouldn't be so rude at the end there.

[@godwinwong2809]

There is no logical route that ends with "I should get to decide what you do with your body. And I am always right."

[@SOJACjac]

"I'm not making a religious argument, you don't know what I'm say" Brings her religious ideology into nonstop

[@mrmr2488]

Simply not true. It started out with Tree asking if she was a pagan, she said no, said she was a christian and then TREE went down the religious road. Rachel repeatedly said she isn't making a religious argument. She went to great lengths to keep her religion out of it. Anytime the "spirit" or "soul" came up, was when Destiny or Tree asked about it. How did you actually watch this whole debate and come away with "Brings her religious ideology into nonstop"?

[@SOJACjac]

@@mrmr2488 aside from tree, she did bring up religious metaphysical operators, with cleat societal connotation then when pushed about it, she side steps saying 'I don't want to talk about religion'. She also would tell destiny "metaphysics herpperdir" when he is being abstract and then complains he's being too literal or science. There is so many things she did wrong no matter which side you are on. That was a bad debate for her, that's for sure

[@ChipCheerio]

@@mrmr2488 Fat L on your part. She pretty consistently operated from a position of religion without ever letting the conversation be brought to question her religious ideology. Her Orthodoxy is pretty clearly motivating everything she says, but she doesn’t want to talk about any of it.

[@art-gx7qp]

@@ChipCheerio no she did not. She didn't even bring religion up really at all. It was only brought up when they kinda forced it out of her. I swear you anti religious types reeeee the f*** out anytime religion is slightly mentioned. If feels like people were bringing up religion to debate her points more then she actually did.

[@ChipCheerio]

@@art-gx7qp You’re just kinda slow aren’t ya? She very clearly operates out of a framework entirely shaped by orthodoxy and Christianity as a whole. She even said so herself in this very debate when Destiny pressed her on it. My issue isn’t that her position is religious in its origin, my issue is that she keeps trying to raise “secular arguments” as a shield. If you believe God makes life valuable then just say it, why go through all the other nonsensical arguments? She never defined her position, operated in terrible faith, misrepresented the philosophy of science every time she mentioned it, and then we have actual brainlets like you who stroll through and think it was all fine and good because it happened to align with your worldview.

[@Dizzifying1]

The one girl needed to frame the argument about the baby dying outside the womb as follows: Will the baby die if there are NO people left to take care of it after birth. They were getting stuck on 'the mother' and the idea of 'other people taking care of it'. That is completely irrelevant to the point the one chick was trying to make.

[@chibichanga1849]

Maybe, but the point that one chick was trying to make was in response to an argument nobody in the call was making. And rather than letting them clarify their positions and responding to what they actually said, she stuck to her straw man interpretation and its logical extensions she wanted to knock it down with.

[@NoFreedoms-f1d]

So women want to have children and not take care of it. That is what the right has been saying for awhile thanks for proving them right.

[@Igelme]

@@chibichanga1849 her argument was a response to tree's "without my body this baby will die" argument. It's a stupid line to go down for both, but she was in the right to respond with it.

[@sargeteg5927]

@@Igelme It's not a stupid line. I don't like the justification for abortion purely based on bodily autonomy but Tree's argument was that the fetus directly relies on the woman's body for survival while it can easily be kept alive after birth without the mother. Rachel argued that the born baby still relied on someone taking care of it and that one could therefore use bodily autonomy to argue for killing the baby after the birth. But those aren't the same kind of dependencies. Like Destiny said, how often did her husband carry around and feed the fetus versus vs. taking care of the baby after birth? Rachel had an incredibly stupid take and was unwilling to resolve the misunderstanding she had.

[@Igelme]

@@sargeteg5927 I don't think I am following what you're saying. I said it's stupid because being dependant or not is not revelant to anything (in my opinion) discussed. As for the arguments in the video, tree simply said that the baby relies on her thus is her choice, and Rachel replied that it would still rely on people after birth, and it wouldn't be her/anyone's choice then. categories of dependancies and their ethical whatever were not talked about at all as far as I know, what you're talking about would be a next step in the discussion.

[@riverhale6469]

This conversation shows the extent at which the Socratic method can be useful in practical terms. Destiny tried to use it in order to better understand what they define as a human life and when it deserves mora consideration, yet all he got was frustration since people don’t like to go down these paths when they find some issues in their logic

[@justinpurcell3717]

The white lady did an extremely bad job at framing her argument, just saying "It's logic" doesn't win an argument lol. What she should have said is that " the baby will always depend on help from someone far after birth and that's the reason why it's a bad argument ". I understood what she was TRYING to argue, but she failed in conveying it hardcore. Still don't agree with her, there should be a cutoff range though but I don't think it should be completely banned.

[@damiancarr168]

I think she conveyed it fine. TreeOfLogic was just too thick or biased to understand it. Explaining it any simpler would come off as offensive so there wasn't a road for her to run down. I would have given up same as her because Tree was being literally stupid

[@lawrencelord9777]

@@damiancarr168 nah she did a bad job. there was definitely another way to explain it but she simply could not.

[@MasteringJohn]

It would have been better if she had asked Tree if the community/institution now possessing responsibility for the motherless child would be within its rights to kill or abandon the child for economic purposes. Against Tree's point, this absolutely did occur in premodern societies, as abandoning children that could not be cared for was quite common. It's actually theorized that one of the reasons behind Christianity's growth in the Roman Empire is that Christians would often adopt abandoned babes who, being female, would later end up drawing non-Christians into the faith.

[@ConsciousRobot]

Framed badly or not, the argument is still wrong and fails to actually address Tree's argument. It's irrelevant whether the baby has to rely on people to feed it to survive. It's no longer dependent on the body of the mother specifically to survive. No reasonable person is arguing for the right to abort babies late-term, let alone after birth.

[@idkfa1000000]

yeah while i dont agree with her. i think she could have done a much better job. i will be real, her talking this way hurts not only her argument but also anyone else who shares her opinion just due to the fact of how stupid she sounds in the framing of things

[@francothesucc9701]

“Why is it that God is allowed to kill babies but i’m not?” DUMPSTERED

[@falseprophet1024]

I mean its a good question.. here are a few more.. Why is god allowed to blow up cities but im not? Why can god flood planets but i can't?

[@Adultz94]

Yeah and when she replied with the correct answer that Tree could be killed she got flustered and said she couldn’t get killed because she’s the black John Wick 😂🤣

[@WestinsChannel]

@@falseprophet1024 um... I guess because it is beyond your physical ability, I suppose?

[@theunholinesswithin70]

And EVADED. She actually went on about her story being emotional.

[@mekullag]

@@falseprophet1024 It´s a good question for a 5y.o. to ask. But that doesn´t mean there isn´t a pretty clear answer. In Christianity god *is* good. He doesn´t *do* good, what he does *is* good by definition. So the question is generally valid - if we use god as a moral standard then would that mean that destroying cities is a good thing, since it´s something god has done several times? But that would be like saying "police have killed people on several occasions, therefore it must not be a crime to kill people". So there´s two issues: the first is assuming that what happened in one case can be applied to literally any other situation. Police killing a mass murderer in a shootout is not the same as me sniping my neighbor while he´s doing some garden work. The second is assuming everyone has the same authority. God has absolute authority to take the life he has given. Random people do not. I don´t know enough about Christianity to say whether it would be reasonable to say that god has *sole* authority to take human life, but it´s certainly restricted (you know, "thou shalt not kill" and such). Even if you killed someone that god thinks deserves death it might be vigilantism, which is in itself an evil because you´d be undermining god´s authority.

[@SigurTibbs]

Rachel is incapable of giving an honest answer when she realizes the position she's staked out is untenable. It's also the bad faith thing of never answering in the affirmative to anything your opponent says because you perceive it as losing or falling for a trap. It's a sign of having a poorly thought out argument.

[@stupafly06]

'this person? you trying to dehumanize me now?' Lolololol i actually laughed too hard. Never in my life would I think calling someone a person be considered dehumanization.

[@WestinsChannel]

Same. That was probably the most nonsense I've heard on the internet today... and I was listening to a Biden speech earlier...

[@zumzumman5135]

Glad someone else picked up on that. Gave me a good laugh

[@eqglobel]

I think it's because it was unnecessary otjerizing thing to say. Like you're talking to one of 4 panelists and you're saying "this, person", it was just off-putting. It's something that still shouldn't be made into a whole thing, like I'm glad that's all it was. It was probably a mistake but funny to point out is all.

[@stupafly06]

@@eqglobel Oh I agree, it was clearly used to minimize or trivialize Tree, but jumping to dehumanizing is just funny

[@TierDvik]

@@stupafly06 Yeah it was a minimizing tactic NOT a dehumanizing tactic. Tree just took anything said as a personal insult constantly

[@iliya2098]

I think I largely agree with Destiny. However, I think he was straw manning and confusing Kendon (not intentionally I don't think, just a minor misunderstanding) when he accused him of committing a ontological error. I don't think Kendon was ever asserting that something that is a life is the same thing as something that has a potential to become a life. Rather, I think what he was trying to say is that both a life and something that has a potential to become life are both within the realm of moral consideration - an entirely different claim . Though, I don't think he was ever really able to identify this within the subtly of the argumentation, but he still obviously felt that something was wrong about it and I think this is what it was.

[@ciarantaaffe4199]

Yes, I think you are correct. Just like making holiday plans is a valuable step, and you would be sad if those plans fell through. Even though not as valuable as the experience of going on holiday. He merely wanted to assert that the fetus is of *some* value. And therefore, allowing corporations to control abortion gives them power

[@managerialelitetoaster3456]

If there are unborn puppies in a dog it's an ontological dispute as to whether they're alive.

[@adognamedsally]

Yeah, I was sure he was going to pick up on it with the building analogy. While the in-progress building isn't a building, you're still more upset with it being destroyed than the pre-building parts being destroyed because it was developing into something rather than just being a protean mass of disorganized pieces. It seems like you can say that a fetus gains moral gravity with time. That the potential for life increases with time and so too does the consideration it warrants.

[@thepubquiz3198]

*I know it's long, but it needs to be to respond to "I think I largely agree with Destiny" ha Which I would be interested in hearing your point of view on* What I don't understand about Destiny's argument, and why I don't agree with him, is that he states that his reason for having a conscious experince at some point, being his definition of when life begins (around 20 weeks) is essentially a matter of preference that a being has, a will to live or a will to life, meaning even in an unconscious state, you still would want to live. To me what this boils down to is an instinct to survive. There are many situations where a person cannot show that they want to live even before going into a coma etc, but we understand that they have an instinct to survive. Some babies can't even cry etc. but we know they have an instinct to survive. If a person tries to commit suicide and ends up in a coma, their last shown preference was to die, but we keep them alive, because we understand that they at least, may, have a preference to survive as many people who attempt suicide would want to still be kept alive. And even if they wake up, and still wanted to be killed, their rights were not violated, because again, we understand that whilst in the coma they had an instinct to a will to live whilst in the coma. So this is what Destiny's definition of life boils down to, to me, not really so much to do with consciousness, but the fact that he believes consciousness is the point that you are able to have a will to live. So it is a will to live that is his definition of human life, and a human life that should be protected. Yet you do not need to of ever had a conscious experince to show a will to live. The very fact that 100% of us don't die in the womb definitively shows, a will to live. And why should we allow any human with a will to live to be killed ? Will "to try to do so" So to try to live. And in many scenarios we are establishing that an instinct to survive, or live, is a qualifying reason to have a right for your life to not be ended, or for you to not be killed etc. In other words a will to live without conscious thought being a factor. *Instinct* Instinct " Natural quality that makes people and animals tend to behave in a particular way using the knowledge and abilities that they were born with rather than thought or training" Born "to start to exist" A zygote when it starts to exist, has a natural instinct to survive, by using the knowledge and abilities that it was born with. In order to survive, we need to take in nutrients, and when we are a zygote we are able to absorb nutrients because of our knowledge and ability to absorb that nutrients. The very act of absorbing nutrients is a will to life. The very act, of not dying with zero interference is a will to life, or a will to live. If we had no will to life when we are a zygote, we would always die, not sometimes, if something went wrong, but 100 % of the time, there would be no humans anywhere on the planet and we would go extinct. *Why we should have rights at conception* So because at conception a unique fully formed human genetic code is created. It is human, because it has fully formed human genetic code, it is an individual human because it has unique, fully formed human genetic code. And we have a will to life, from the moment of conception, because we do not die 100% of the time in the womb. So from the point of conception, we are a unique individual human being with the will to life. And any human that has the will to life, should not be allowed to be killed in my opinion, (accept for the obvious reasons that apply to everyone) and should have legal protection to not be killed, and we are entitled to that from conception just as much as we are when we are fully grown adults, again in my opinion. Yet please correct me if you disagree.

[@michael2713]

but when pressed for justification, all he had was that one will become the other, restated a few times

[@broken_arch]

Best part of the debate was at the end when the woman said "you can't prove a soul anymore than you can prove consciousness" in her case, it is unknowable.

[@haloplayer9855]

Treeoflogic gave me like 4 crazy turns in her opening statement, loved it

[@KnightEnjoyer69]

'''Im talking about logic'' 3 mins later ''im talking about souls''

[@kmatt2335]

Listening to Rachel crumble is one of life's simple pleasures

[@calebcampbell9280]

The lady who ardently believes in souls grilling Destiny over basing his stance on something he "doesn't have a good logical reason for" is too funny.

[@majesticpbjcat7707]

Hey Calebs.

[@ConsciousRobot]

Hey cable

[@55thstreet66]

Sounds arbitrary to me :^)

[@SAKA701]

Rachel is a perfect example of the dunning Kruger effect.

[@Michael_Paul585]

you can't be pro-life if you accuse people of "not liking" your argument every time they debunk your argument. that causes aneurysms and death.

[@Reglei1]

even with Rachels incessant rambling and tree's... energy, i really am convinced of the conscious experience position, destiny has shown it to be very consistent as he was able to answer all the questions with a solid position.

[@rumbletown69420]

I just want Kendon and Destiny to have a conversation. Both of the females seem to just go off the rails within a few sentences.

[@ericsinclair9914]

“Just don’t have sex and you won’t get pregnant” says the woman advocating for belief in a religion based upon a woman not having sex and getting pregnant.

[@hartyewh1]

Steven's inability to pinpoint the moment when consciousness arises is irrelevant. He sets the line before the ability for that to happen so there is no problem.

[@BedrockPorkchop]

We’ll apparently consciousness is up for debate LMAO

[@cngotham4111]

@@BedrockPorkchop yep we know you need a brain stem and some different function parts of brain. Anywhere within that is most lily consciousness. Unless if we get some insane new discovery.

[@is44ct37]

Tree made absolutely horrendous arguments, but managed to crush it based off pure rhetoric, I am stunned and laughing

[@kevlon_]

Tree was peak content since the first time she got on stream a few years back

[@leehalloway8787]

She got invited last minute, she did okay considering.

[@eigna8914]

Horrendous???? 😂😂😂😂😂 What was Rachel's argument? Tree's was straight to the point.

[@eigna8914]

​@@leehalloway8787She did great. I'm still wondering what Rachel's points are. She thinks a demon behind you is proven like oxygen is behind you. Gtfoh

[@AnonymousC-lm6tc]

Tree kept reiterating the same moot point in her argument and didn’t structure her points as well as Destiny. She mostly served entertainment purposes and wasn’t particularly compelling in the philosophical department, I would say the same for Rachel.

[@JassZoigel]

You missed out, you don't choose to get pregnant, you choose to have sex, you can even choose to have sex to try to become pregnant, and it would still not be choosing to become pregnant.

[@Winasaurus]

Which is a nothing statement. You don't choose to have sex, you choose to move your muscles in a way which means your body interacts with another person. You don't choose to do that, actually you choose to fire off neurons that send those signals to your muscles. Meaningless rewording, what is clearly being implied, as everyone picked up, is that choosing to have sex without protection is implicitly accepting the risk that you may get pregnant. In the same way that choosing to cross a road without looking is implicitly accepting that you might get hit by a car. Sure, you didn't CHOOSE to get hit by a car, but you made prior decisions which put you in the way of it.

[@JassZoigel]

@@Winasaurus and if you don't look when you cross the road should you be refused medical treatment? Just want to see if this is a consistent point.

[@Winasaurus]

@@JassZoigel My analogy was more to describe fault since that was the point people were stuck on. When it comes to prescriptions/morality of outcomes it doesn't quite fit because getting hit by a car typically means you NEED treatment, but a vast majority of abortions are elective, not medically necessary. Same goes for the treatment, that's not morally equivalent to the abortion since treatment is by default good, but an abortion wouldn't be. In my opinion, for every single elective, non-emergency medical procedure, including elective abortion, you should be restricted from having access to that procedure if you brought the issue upon yourself. If you were raped, all for abortion. If you were not, no go. I'm even very sketchy on cosmetic procedures. If they don't have a significant medical reason, they should also be a no go. Eg, no nose jobs because you think you look bad, but if you're having issues breathing properly because you have a deviated septum, sure.

[@JassZoigel]

@@Winasaurus sick dodge

[@Winasaurus]

@@JassZoigel So wanting to be more accurate with my analogy is a dodge? At least you're upfront about just wanting me to use the framing you tell me to because I guess accurate analogies are a worry for you. As they would be.

[@charred6683]

The "tadpole is not a frog" is a fallacy. This is basic semantics where languages decide to categorize ONE THING with many names identifying the many steps of its evolution. We're just used to slap the word "tadpole" on the animal that looks like it and then change the name we give it when it becomes what we visually recognize as "frog". It's THE SAME ANIMAL the entire way through just like the human fetus is THE EXACT SAME PERSON from this point up until they die at 95 years old or something, during this entire SINGULAR LIFE it went through being called fetus, baby, infant, child, kid, teenagers, adolescent, young adult, adult, and so on until old hag or crumbling schmuck. Many names for the same one life process for the same one living entity, the same life is present the whole way through but it evolves through all the different experiences, including attaching to the uterus after conception, just like having a cute nurse wash their butt cuz they're too old to do it themselves. The question isn't when life starts, we know that, the question is how do we justify the killing.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

Destinys argument centers around whether the creature has experienced consciousness yet or not. That he finds with the presence of brain activity in a fetus.

[@NoFreedoms-f1d]

the left brain is to dumb to realize that.

[@WestinsChannel]

@@DieNibelungenliad so... I mean... in that case, wouldn't we need to try to measure brain activity before every abortion? I could be wrong here, but I feel like we don't have the equipment to read brain activity inside of a womb... do we? So by that standard wouldn't we have to either assume none have brain activity, up until they are born, or they all do?

[@jonsmith590]

@@WestinsChannel That's why his argument relies less on brain activity and the general idea of when the Brain creates the necessary structures for the brain to exist in the first place and its why he has set his cutoff when he did.

[@GeassChicken]

@Charred Aite. So for your next birthday when you get: 1 ½ cups granulated sugar 1 cup (8 oz.) unsalted butter, softened 4 large eggs 2 teaspoons vanilla extract 2 ¾ cups (about 11 3/4 oz.) all-purpose flour 1 tablespoon baking powder ½ teaspoon kosher salt 1 cup whole buttermilk You'll thank me for the birthday cake right?

[@FaylunaRaRa]

I like how sometimes chat gets purged en masse in Destiny videos, and then you see the rest of chat who survived the purge saying "Get fucked!" and laughing at them...

[@rreeeekk]

The back and forth around 1:40:00 is really good and gets to the root of the argument.

[@fabricio4314]

Yeah thats crazy....... Manifesto when?? 👀

[@Alienxmilk]

Huffin on that pure grade, I see.

[@broganwarrior4844]

Destiny really knows how to find the unhinged

[@dand2810]

The maternity leave in Germany is usually 14 weeks. If she lived there for 5 years, she must've searched for ways to validate her ideology, rather than enjoy or understand anything about that culture

[@JesterAzazel]

Rachel should spend more time debating people that are actually here, rather than constantly debating what randos on twitter are saying. If you want to discuss that, go on your own channel and do it. If you're in a debate panel, you should be addressing the arguments given by others on the panel.

[@senykmartin]

I'm sorry, her story was not harrowing

[@integrallens6045]

@16:59 if you had dominion over your uterus then you would have made your uterus reject the conception of the baby before it began. So no, you do not have some authoritarian dominion over your organs, most function unconsciously.

[@nitaireizel7979]

Props to destiny. He was especially clear and coherent during this debate. Phenomenal job.

[@magnus7965]

conscious experience. If we know it will one day be valuable, why shouldn't it be valued? Should I not start a retirement account now because it isn't worth a lot of money right now?

[@evad687]

@@magnus7965 You said it yourself, >will one day be valued. Nobody is saying you shouldn’t start saving for when you’re older now. But, if you throw 5 dollars into an account and say “I have enough money for retirement”, you would be lying

[@mrmr2488]

I felt he went a little too debate bro. He refused to talk about or discuss anything outside of the narrow subject of consciousness as viability. I understand why he didn't, he stated that clearly enough but I think it was a bad move. It would have been far more entertaining if he got in the mud with the others.

[@magnus7965]

@@evad687 true. Are you saying we shouldn't value a pre-conscious fetus at all or we should grant them some moral consideration, but not as much as post consciousness?

[@freedomextremist7921]

Summarizing Destiny's arguments: 1) Fetuses shouldn't be protected because they don't have consciousness. 2) Fetuses having the potential of acquiring consciousness is irrelevant because historically we have applied different standards between things that have the potential to became something and that something. These arguments are fallacious because: 1) We don't really have a good understanding of what consciousness is or when it starts. Try telling a panpsychist that starts after 24-28 weeks of development. 2) Appeal to tradition.

[@temero123456789]

2) Ok but isnt it irrelevant? If we treat the potential of life as same as life itself then we should get every woman pregnant whenever its possible or were „murdering“ potential life.

[@integrallens6045]

@44:41 I don't see where they are trying to make that argument. What they seem to be arguing or what they SHOULD be arguing is that the person in the comma with a good chance of regaining consciousness is close enough to being the same as a growing fetus that is essentially guaranteed to have consciousness emerge.

[@monkeybudge]

“I’m going to stick to a more rational logical argument here” Soul! It’s all about your soul guys! lol

[@nunumere5307]

nothing irrational about the soul

[@mannymm7887]

@@nunumere5307 other than it doesn’t exist but yeah, totally rational and logical. Medical doctors definitely measure the amount of soul left in your body before they pronounce you dead. Not brain or heart. That’s silly

[@nunumere5307]

@@mannymm7887 got any proof that it doesn't exist?

[@mannymm7887]

@@nunumere5307 can you prove that it does exist? So because we can’t prove that it doesn’t exist it does exist until proven otherwise. By that smooth brain logic then the Sasquatch is also real since we can’t prove it doesn’t exist. Aliens are real since we can’t prove they don’t exist. Ghosts are real since we can’t prove they don’t exist. I guess slender man also exists since we can’t prove it doesn’t exist. Genius.

[@henrygore2177]

@@nunumere5307 what is the rational argument for the existence of a soul?

[@kevinwalter4078]

It's so frustrating agreeing with Tree despite how emotional she is about it, and how poorly her arguments are formed. The first altercation was just a complete failure to communicate. She clearly sees it as a reliance on her uterus, but the argument is ultimately an appeal to viability, and the problem with that argument is that humans can't survive on their own for the first several years of their lives. They are reliant on someone's body for their survival, not necessarily the mother's, after birth. So should it be acceptable to terminate a child's life until it's old enough to survive on its own? Should that decision be made by whoever the child is reliant upon? If the mother wants to give the child up for adoption but nobody wants to take care of it because of their own bodily autonomy, should the child be put to death? That's the argument that was being made, and she refused to look past her uterus to see the fallacy of her own argument and just got emotional and belligerent.

[@Koooles]

Yes, I found a lot of people disagreeing with Tree in comments, but I think her points where fairly consistent. Her problem was indeed that she was being quite rude, or sometimes the points themselves aren't relevant, but they weren't bad (like when she went on the whole tangent about social services, good point, irrelevant).

[@YouJGSousa]

@@Koooles she didn’t understand the argument. She was focused on dependency on HER uterus instead of the general dependency on a caretaker. The answer to the question of “why doesn’t the child die if the mother dies” is because we as a society think it’s monstrous to let a newborn baby die. It’s not a morally acceptable solution to say “I don’t want to take the burden just die”, which exactly the argument Tree is using to say she can kill the baby because it depends on her. Many mothers say that the baby is more of a burden AFTER birth, completely dependent on the mother.

[@jeffwells641]

@@YouJGSousa You're completely wrong, she was making the distinction between when a fetus is 100% reliant on the mother, and when another caretaker can take over the role of the mother. That line exists, it is distinct, and it occurs about 5 months into a pregnancy. Her argument is when the baby is 100% reliant on the mother, it is a part of the mother and the mother has sole authority over the baby. Once others are capable of meeting the baby's survival needs, then the authority shifts and is no longer solely the mother's. Interestingly, if it became possible to bring a baby to term artificially from the moment of conception, then by Tree's argument it would be totally reasonable to ban abortion.

[@YouJGSousa]

@@jeffwells641 why would the responsibility shift to others? What a non sense argument, so the fetus is a huge burden on the mother , but a newborn who comes with much more work and attention needs then the fetus, is somehow “other peoples “ responsibility? Sorry but no. The mother doesn’t get to just drop the kid and expect “someone” will take of it, for the same reason you defend abortion, “my choice”. If it’s the mothers choice not to care, it’s the “others” choice not to care. In our society people will usually accept the shift because morally we don’t accept newborn death. But that’s morality at work, the same morality the extreme pro choice people like Tree despise. The morality of people like ACB who take the responsibility and give a life to people.

[@vintinoo1924]

@@YouJGSousa it’s quite simple without writing paragraphs. Baby out body = fully conscious experience. That’s the difference. Hope you can understand that ☺️

[@integrallens6045]

@19:35 exactly the baby is still depending on someone. Just because it is no longer inside the body does not mean it is now some how able to live without the mother or someone playing the role of mother.

[@hellshakeyano7686]

Wtf I love Tree now Edit: It looks like she has 180’d her position from her early debates with Destiny, where she brought up her ‘success story’ as an illustration of the power of freedom of choice, whereas now she underlines how improbable it was given the circumstances

[@powercore2000]

One thing I'll give tree is that she is honest about trying to improve and develop her positions for the most part

[@ogolthorp]

@@powercore2000 yeah I disagree with her a lot, but she does seem to be a very genuine person.

[@messman2000]

She was terrible, mocking people, trying to create self stories to make her points via feelings, calling people liars (btw, she lied, you dont have 2 years maternaty leave in germany, its around 18 weeks), telling people to shut the f up, creating "my dick is longer" type arguments... horrible conduct, and btw, horrible points.

[@Ez.bake_evan]

I wanted to hate Kendon, but he seems like a pretty reasonable and down to earth guy. I think he actually could change his position on this down the road.

[@matthewpeterson2317]

I wouldn’t say I wanted to hate him, but I know what you mean and I agree. Especially next to Rebecca he seemed very chill and willing to make concessions or admit the limits of his understanding.

[@bigheadrhino]

Yes, the way he will pause and really consider Destiny’s logic when it makes sense instead of just automatically pressing his preexisting position isnvery respectable.

[@waffleassassin204]

You know it’s gonna be a good debate when people start talking about killing each other and “id get you first” lovely stuff

[@JesseSelbert]

I love how Rachel and her debate partner both agree that their fundamental reasons (religion) isn’t a convincing argument.

[@tommystrizzle5265]

The dude said he was non secular so how could his fundamental reason be religion?

[@11DaltonB]

They both gave arguments that didn’t rely on religion. You and Tree’s obsession with trying to shoehorn every argument into “it’s religious so it’s bad” doesn’t make your own arguments look stronger.

[@art-gx7qp]

@@11DaltonB thank you. Someone had to say it. It's extremely annoying.

[@mekullag]

@@11DaltonB the problem is that her view of what makes human life and why it´s valuable even outside of the ability to have a conscious experience seemed to rely on her belief in the existence of souls. So fundamentally her position was still based in her religion and could not function without it, something she didn´t seem to realize, as she was really confused why everyone was questioning her on her religion. Its true that she didn´t start by arguing from the bible, but it´s not a coincidence that she ended up talking about souls when people pushed her to get to the bottom of her positions

[@DemothHymside]

@@mekullag , she is religious and has religious reasons for being anti-abortion. While I don't like Rachel and disagreed with her arguments, she was not making a religious argument. It was Tree who kept forcing her to discuss her religious views despite that not being a component of her argument. If I may an argument for why I don't believe kids in school should be forced to pray, my reasons may be completely separate from the fact I'm an atheist, and be rooted more in personal freedom to practice, and not be forced to practice, religious ceremony.

[@CynicalGear]

Destiny destroys his whole argument with the Loki paradox. They didn’t know where the neck started, and ended so they didn’t kill Loki. That means if you don’t know when life. Begins or ends you shouldn’t kill them.

[@integrallens6045]

@20:33 at 5 years old a child is still dependent on your body because your body or someone else's body is going to need to provide food to that child. I know she means to say physically attached to her body and dependent on the nutrients that her body gives the baby but she is not being specific enough with her reasoning. Logic can be hard.

[@ixcibit8774]

Holy shit that lady was being so dishonest with Tree. Kept pretending Tree was saying that if no one takes care of the baby it would not die somehow when in fact she said that if the mother (specifically) died the baby would not die. At least the guy answers honestly that it wouldn’t necessarily die just because the mother passed. Funny watching her go logic lord mode and yelling over Tree that she doesn’t understand logic lol. What a train wreck.

[@DemothHymside]

I greatly disagreed with everything Rachel says and believes, and understand why Tree got upset with her initially. However, with how off the rails Tree got any time she interacted with Rachel ended up with me pretty much skipping ahead until Tree was done with her tantrums.

[@RanEncounter]

I think Tree was actually this time totally warrented to be upset. Rachel did not either understand where she was wrong or did not want to understand the distinction between a viable featus that is dependent one a specific persons body or just a baby that is dependent on other people to survive.

[@DemothHymside]

@@RanEncounter being upset is one thing, but going as off the walls literally any time Rachel opened her mouth was like the behaviors I see with pre-teens with behavioral issues.

[@RanEncounter]

@@DemothHymside I agree. Tree as a person is insufferable to me. I wish she would just be upset in a grown up way and now that I think about it maybe you originally meant that that level of upsetness was not warrented.

[@DemothHymside]

@@RanEncounter , yeah, I just meant that Tree was going absolutely buck wild any time Rachel said anything after she initially acted stupid towards Tree's question. I think the issue is that Rachel was not acting in bad faith initially, she is just literally too dense to understand certain concepts. Even if she was being purposefully combative, Tree took it hyper personal and made any discussion afterwards a complete circus.

[@RanEncounter]

@@DemothHymside Fair enough. I fully agree.

[@xYiazmatx]

The line of argumentation at 1:17:00 made sticking with this one so worth it. Just… chefs kiss. Truly a student of logic

[@TsuruchiBrian]

Watching 2 people argue who are bad at logic is like 4 times worse than when it's just one person.

[@MrAtbillings]

Tree's a great debate partner for Destiny, I love the unbridled rage

[@JulyIzHere]

Good cop bad cop duo , I love it

[@iwillgowiththatcat8667]

@@JulyIzHere i did not look at it that way earlier but it fits so perfectly

[@YouJGSousa]

The reason why the baby doesn’t die if you the mother dies is because we as a society find it morally wrong to let a newborn die, and nobody uses the “the baby is dependent so screw it” to let it die.

[@MrLTLB]

*...yeah but when it comes a Fetus, the Fetus is strictly dependent on a Women's body and since that's the Case all Women should have The Final say and every Right to decide whether or NOT to Abort the Pregnancy.*

[@YouJGSousa]

@@MrLTLB I don’t know what you are adding besides your personal opinion, making no arguments why dependency inside the body is so much different from dependency outside the body, or why the baby in the womb can be killed, but not outside given it’s still dependent.

[@MrLTLB]

@@YouJGSousa In a 10 Week Pregnancy...can the Fetus survive outside of a Women's womb? No...right? 10 weeks after an Infant had been given Birth...can the Infant survive outside the Women's womb? Well Duhhh, and an Infant can survive without it's original mother. It's no longer strictly dependent on the Birth Mother after it is Born. How is that so hard to understand? Also a Fetus is an Unborn Undeveloped Human, if it's unborn then how can it be "Killed"? *It's ridiculous to accuse me of sharing "personal opinions" when you just referred to a Fetus in the Womb as a "baby", and that a Fetus can be "Killed"? ...GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!*

[@YouJGSousa]

@@MrLTLB the question of whether the child can survive without the biological mother is quite irrelevant, the real question is whether we allow a dependent “entity” to die, and the answer is a big no. It’s not morally acceptable to let a newborn die, and if a mother lets him die, she will be socially condemned, and it doesn’t matter that “other people could take of it”. If no one accepts responsibility for the child the mother most take care of it, or otherwise suffer social stigma. She can’t just say “screw it, someone will take care of it”. That is the case because we socially acknowledge that letting a newborn die is morally wrong and unacceptable. Why should we let a fetus in the womb by killed just because it’s dependent , when we don’t allow the killing of dependents outside the womb?

[@MrLTLB]

@@YouJGSousa *...to be honest I could care less now of what you consider "moral", because that example of a "Mother" leaving her newborn infant is something that has happened...is happening...and will continue to happen especially if Republicans continue to its plans to Ban Abortions in half of the 50 State's in our Country.* *Seriously...stop this illogical, unscientific, and absolutely ridiculous claim that a Newborn infant is the remotely the same thing as an Unborn FETUS! They are not the same.* *Terminating a Pregnancy is NOT the same as taking the Life of an ALREADY Born Infant. It's just Reality. It's FACTS! Whether you like it or NOT, that's why for the last 50yrs Abortions Nation-wide have been accepted within Society. Because NO ONE SEES THE FETUS FROM ITS EARLY STAGES TO ABOUT 6 MONTH'S WITHIN THE PREGNANCY, AS A "LIVING HUMAN". Those are the Facts, that's Reality, and no one cares what you think or believe about this.* *Honestly you've been completely disingenuous in this discussion, you make illogical arguments, you can't even stick to Biological and Scientific definitions and understandings...what is the point of anyone having reasonable and HONEST discussions/debates with anyone like you?*

[@chronographer]

27:16 "death is after the um the heart has stopped and there's no more brain activity" - Missed a slam dunk here, so if a fetus has no heartbeat and no brain activity then 100% okay, it's not even killing a living thing. Although that pushes it quite early, that's at least some headway past the 'soul' position.

[@tylercarter9965]

love it when rachel doesn’t like destiny’s hypotheticals cuz they aren’t perfectly “analogous.” but then in the Q&A section she defends her “fetus is same as an external child.” and says it’s perfectly okay even though it’s not really all that analogous.

[@HawtLS]

People are giving tree a lot of shit here, but to be fair to her the argument being presented was likely very frustrating. Tree was essentially advocating for my Body my choice, and the PLer was saying “the logical extension is that even after born we should be able to kill the child”. This isn’t at all a logical extension which is why tree was calling her disingenuous and a liar, tree was just poor at explaining why. When a fetus is physically dependent on solely the mother’s body, it’s drastically different than when they’re born and not physically dependent on anyone. They are still DEPENDANT in that they can’t care for themselves, but they are not physically occupying someone else’s BODY dependent. There’s a difference between “I don’t want to take care of this” and “I don’t want this in my body”. But on the subject of logical extensions, the logical extension of PL arguments is to criminalize pregnant women for self induced abortions as murder. Or a woman who falls down stairs and has a miscarriage as manslaughter. Or a woman who drinks wine while pregnant as child abuse. Or a woman who eats too much shellfish for the same. If we start telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies, EVEN if it has an effect on the fetus, the logical extension is that pregnant women’s rights are all subject to revocation. Or that the fetus’ life outweighs the woman’s right to her own body. The counter to this, of course, is always “well don’t have sex then!”. So if you’re having sex, you must be willing to forfeit your bodily autonomy, as well as several basic human rights such as deciding what to do with your body, what to put in your body, and how careful you need to be with your body. Great, now no one is ever having sex again, thanks Obama

[@TianaaLee]

Take a shot everytime Rachel says the word “logical”

[@thegamingmachine9316]

Bruhhh she keeps saying 'logical argumentation', more than actually logically arguing! And 'metaphysical', too. She's just gesturing to some intellectual capability she has never herself demonstrated lol

[@pepcore]

Alcohol poisoning incoming. 😵

[@SpecterSeventy2]

Destiny - “Define human life?” Rachel - “Human life is human life.” … and Rachel prides herself so much on her knowledge and understanding of how “logic” works. 🤦‍♂️‼️

[@johnnyphive8197]

neither do you. if you heard circular reasoning, your biases control your reasoning.

[@SpecterSeventy2]

@@johnnyphive8197 Oh buddy, try again because you don’t even know what your talking about. What she said is a tautology. For anyone to say (repeatedly) that they know logic so well and then use a tautology to support their assertion is truly laughable. Circular reasoning takes two or more different subjects to create loop and that is not what she did in that fallacious statement. *However she did use fallacious circular reasoning at other points in the discussion as well.

[@reydelmuerte]

@@johnnyphive8197 how does "neither do you" even remotely make any sense here?

[@johnnyphive8197]

@@reydelmuerte wow

[@reydelmuerte]

@@johnnyphive8197 indeed

[@integrallens6045]

@42:35 I would say that the statement that "unique human DNA emerges and begins to grow at conception" would be a non normative statement that is purely descriptive and not prescriptive. It isn't stating when life takes on value or how we should treat that life, it is just clearly pointing out or describing when unique human DNA emerges and begins the process of growing, which is what only biological matter or living matter can do.

[@Narhwal_OG]

I don't sit on either side of this argument but, it is weird how everytime you hear someone say "if you don't have sex until your ready to have a kid" someone always saids that's ridiculous.... I really don't understand how that's such a CRAZY concept... it's as if having sex for fun is something that HAS TO happen... like, what's an actual argument against that? Why is it so crazy to just not have sex?

[@jgbgw591]

Or use as many birth control methods as you can to protect against your body doing what it's biological intended to do.

[@jaek__]

generally because of sexual liberation I guess, I don't really fully understand how that is intrinsically good on its own but that's one of the reasons people might say its ridiculous

[@romofin]

@@jaek__ In that case it's an argument of sexual liberation vs preserving human life. And don't we value life over everything else? Murder is obviously seen as the worst crime.

[@leniwolf]

The Christian girl and her "logical extension" BS is basically the new "So what your saying is...." and my gosh, she really hates Tree.

[@randomaccount6146]

26:40 So this woman spent literally 25 minutes arguing about not using emotions or religion and using logic. And now on the first talking point she is already pulling the soul card. Please abort me already.

[@beeley]

I like how divided the chat is on Tree. She’s really fun- I’d like to see her more tbh.