I Joined TikTok And A Conservative Challenged Me To A Debate...

[@destiny]

Destiny has joined TikTok in his search for non conspiracy conservatives to debate and he's found one who specializes in abortion debates. Follow Destiny on TikTok if you like short debate clips and zoomer responses ► www.tiktok.com/@destiny? Timestamp Click▼ 0:00 - Teaser/Intro 0:36 - Pro-choice as a policy and the impossible task of assigning personhood 6:12 - TikTok conservative's explanation of consciousness and bad baggage 25:00 - Slippery slope fallacy...? 17:15 - Destiny poses a question and problems w/ considering the moral consideration of life that doesn't yet exist 30:17 - Stages of development is arbitrary, conscious experience and what constitutes as death? 41:57 - The body continues to develop post death and Tyler addresses chat saying he's mad 46:10 - Q&A (fallacies, valuing people without conscious experience, how to prove conscious experience)

[@edwuncleriii1922]

You lost the debate

[@fedea82]

Destiny you wouldnt treat a brain dead human as a person with the right to life, but you would if he or she was just asleep, regardless of him or her having consciousness in the past or not, amnesia etc. Then you say that potential for consciousness is necessary but insufficient, however if you think about it it's both necessary and sufficient, according to your standards regarding these examples. Then you strangely don't apply the same logic to the fetus, although it IS a human being "asleep": the potential for consciousness is there, as well as the human being. Their past or present experience is irrelevant to their right to live, by killing this human you are destroying their potential for future conscious experience.

[@RobberClobber]

Lemme just back up and ask a quick question. Are these two white guys talking about whether a woman has a right to decide what she does with her body? Then ask the conservative what happened to a person's individual rights... 🤐

[@younggotti8195]

@@RobberClobber 1 I don't think Tyler is white and 2 abortion isn't a woman's rights issue

[@edwuncleriii1922]

@@RobberClobber why does it matter if they're white? You're kinda sounding like a Jewish supremacist.

[@summers7554]

So... my biggest problem with Tyler has always been his instance on immediately and shamelessly declaring his opponents use of (lists 15 logical fallacies) before a conversation has even gotten off the ground, as if hes tossing down yugioh cards lol I suspect he feels that, as long as he is the first person to declare his opponent is the one whos logically flawed, then his own audience will just shut off their brain for the remainder of the conversation lmao

[@testaccount1657]

Yup, this is what happens when he’s being put against the ropes and doesn’t have a proper response. He tries to discredit His opponents. Destiny was smart enough and told him to be careful in doing this.

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

He is indeed a Dragon Link player. Only has 2 Brain cells and is just clicking cards (fallacies) on Ygomega (tiktok.)

[@Bansheeflyr]

What a clown

[@liluglyboi]

@@haruhirogrimgar6047 i understood this analogy perfectly and i don’t know how that makes me feel

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

@@liluglyboi Are you a degenerate combo player or do you play the game for longer than 2 turns and need to use your brain? That sort of decides it lol.

[@RamzaBeoulves]

He really said he's not talking about morality then started the next sentence talking about what's right or what isn't. He'll flip between morality and logic every time his position is challenged

[@eskimo5274]

It because he doesn't know what any of those words mean lol

[@MW-ud8zp]

Yeah. "I don't care about morality I just care about what we ought to do" lol

[@conradkorbol]

@@MW-ud8zp to be fair that’s not morality morality is what I ought to do. Ethics is what society out to do. Ethics is where we can talk about logic and philosophy. Ethics is understood to have greater importance and to have like rules. Where as morality is a lot like an opinion. Or at least this is what I was taught in my ethics class. But it was at a community college? So you know

[@blacksheepnomad9000]

@@conradkorbol what we ought to do seems like he's speaking from the Viewpoint of what Society should do not just his own moral standpoint

[@conradkorbol]

@@blacksheepnomad9000 yeah, he doesn’t care about morality. He cares about ethics. He isn’t educated enough to say that.

[@TheWill920]

This guy was doing okay until roughly 23 minutes in when he asserts that he doesn't care about morality immediately by the sentence "the only thing I care about is if somebody SHOULD BE GIVEN the right to life", and showed that he completely misunderstands what a moral question is.

[@harrisonthompson]

omg im so with you! this guys brain melts right about there when destiny defines what he means by moral and the guy is like yeah none of that matters.... its like dude.... thats what this convo is man....

[@RB-ns2nn]

it also seems like a human rights question.

[@NavyNukerz1337]

he only cares about FACTS & LOGIC

[@rowdymatt]

Absolutely, I felt the same way. I was really excited for a really actually good debate until I heard him say that.

[@dylankempthorne]

The guy was trying to say he doesn't wanna argue about morals during an abortion debate. Like isn't that the whole point 😅

[@commentersrule]

This guy sounds like he just discovered debate culture so he's throwing out words like fallacy and logic without actually understanding what they mean. Entertaining to see Destiny trying not to flip out over his misuse of them though.

[@leajey4279]

Destiny really wanted to too lol

[@BlakeZeb]

@Troll Bait FGR?

[@summers7554]

Dude, He's been debating for a minute now and, trust me, he has always been like that lol

[@303TAG303]

@@summers7554 which is worse because he's learned nothing

[@maxse6221]

Its hyper cringe

[@headmaster1510]

Polite Destiny is something else. Hopefully we'll continue to see more of this based and chill-pilled version of Destiny

[@moderndistortion2957]

When he's chill he is a million times better at debating but, his heated debates can be pretty entertaining

[@beamerkiller11]

Trying to decide if I enjoy chill Destiny dismantling arguments with a smile or angry Vowsh smashing through irrational arguments with shouts and insults. 😅😅😂

[@ft4903]

@@moderndistortion2957 Bonnells razor

[@laurentbergeronmusic]

It all depends on how much the other person is trying to interrupt him

[@oTummo]

Lmao

[@SequesteredEquestrian]

I'm glad destiny is slowly but surley getting back to debating conservatives it's nice to have both types of content

[@mypartyisprivate8693]

He's been debating conservatives this entire time. Now, he debates Lefties too. There's no "getting back into it." I see this comment copy-pasted every conservative debate video.

[@dimthecat9418]

Nice 1966 mustang

[@ethan-scott]

@@mypartyisprivate8693 Nah. The lefty arc has been strong. If you can’t see that, then 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@supershot9729]

@@ethan-scott how long has this arc been going on for then? Lol I can find some anti conservative shit 3+ months old

[@ft4903]

@@supershot9729 Literally post leftist arc bud

[@featherton3381]

This guy keeps talking about how logical his arguments are. But as soon as Destiny follows his premise to its logical conclusion, instead of responding logically he immediately responds with "I don't care about that." The irony is palpable.

[@deeku.4009]

Keep up, my guy. I've already made a literal stew from the palp. Mmm, smells like.... IT'S JUST ABOUT READY.

[@JesterRace139]

Well, yea. The narrative goes to a specific point, and anything beyond that doesn't count.

[@ponderoustomes9005]

Interlocutor: "I'm not begging the question" ...then goes on to beg that very question*

[@nicholatemple9296]

"It just makes logical sense" is not an argument.

[@ZombHarris]

Yes it is because it makes logical sense, and that makes logical sense because it makes logical sense, and that…

[@Stopthecäq]

@@ZombHarris wow.

[@wscheets1600]

Only if followed up with compelling evidence of it being logical sense. Does it make the beginning thesis of an argument.

[@EpicShadeSlayerSauce]

Holy shit this guy is dense as fuck. He kept repeating the same argument over and over and didn't answer destiny's qualm about consciousness vs development

[@nicholatemple9296]

@@EpicShadeSlayerSauce But muh fallacy

[@grantlauzon5237]

40 minutes in and God hasn’t entered the chat yet. Impressive.

[@DJSchug]

The guy is atheist in pretty sure

[@cavemanraveman1]

Good anti-abortionists, or just ones that have argued it enough, stay far away from involving God because they know that that's just an instant dead end.

[@strategymarketing1921]

You missed the part when he said I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANIMALS. That sounds like RELIGIOUS DOG WHISTLE to me.

[@KingstonHawke]

It did, he just didn't use the word God. He was just skipping the justification and implying that humans have the intrinsic worth that religious people claim comes from God. That's why he had such a hard time justifiying his special treatment of conception. Because it's based on God and he wanted to pretend it wasn't.

[@kylxd]

@@KingstonHawke how did he imply "that humans have the intrinsic worth that religious people claim comes from God"? there was 0 mention of god.

[@summers7554]

Destiny: So we can establish all stages [A, B, C and D] are arbitrary right? Tyler: Yes, agreed Destiny: And I chose stage B because (gives reasons) Tyler: BUT picking B is arbitrary *[pulls begging the question magic card] [pulls circular reasoning trap card]* Destiny: ...but isn't A arbitrary? Tyler: BUT its LOGICAL, because A is the first one, A B C D Destiny: But isn't that circular Tyler: No Destiny:... well what value are you giving A??? Tyler: Im not giving it a value Destiny: Your not???? Tyler: No ?🙃🙃🙃🙃? What is this conversation lmao

[@colton6457]

This guy is the unironic logic lord. Don’t get me wrong, he seems in good faith and fairly smart. But still

[@summers7554]

@@colton6457 I do agree, I think he is sharp. But the problem is his refusal is concede to misunderstanding, or any failure in his own argumentation. Thats why he tends to laugh when his opponents give any ground in good faith, and why he is always the first to declare deadlock when he cant justify a statement. Sadly, he will neve better his philosophies or ideas this way.

[@colton6457]

@Brian Takam logic lord is an insult, it means someone who appeals to logic excessively to try and seem superior when really they are making emotional arguments just like everyone else, or bring out “fancy” terms to try and seem smart.

[@crazy75able]

He also doesn't recognize what he thinks is the beginning (conception) is actual the middle part. You could argue there is sperm/egg before that, or go as far as there was a big bang at the beginning. He takes the current definition of life and gives it inherent value instead of making new definition or redefining the old one.

[@OkeyVision]

Conception is the most logical part because it has unique DNA it is essentially human. The reason it's less arbitrary than the other parts is because those rely on consciousnesses, or heart beat, or other dlc added to the baby map. While saying conception is balls to the wall, no compromise human life is life and shouldn't be destroyed before it can stretch it's wings. I can only accept the argue for abortion if that person just admits they are killing another human being.

[@Mykulveli]

Tyler keeps attempting to dismiss the morality of the debate, basically citing what he thinks the law should be. However, I don't think hes connecting that laws are created from moral judgements. Many conversations are so frustrating now because it feels like the vast majority don't think through anything they say. Shout out to people critically thinking everyday out here.

[@ft4903]

Utilitarianism, most americans would say "keep that chinese ideology away from murica"

[@ataridc]

Love the bait with that second preview clip lmao

[@commenttroll6933]

I always skip past the ‘coming up’ part because it always cuts off at “The cure to cancer is...”

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

I really hate the preview section. It is so annoying to have to fast forward every video by 30 seconds before I can enjoy it.

[@benjamindover8221]

@@haruhirogrimgar6047 yeah, it takes a lot of hard work to skip those 30 seconds

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

@@benjamindover8221 Well when I normally have a video in a playlist to listen to while I drive around. Yeah, skipping or sitting through 30 seconds is not the most convenient thing.

[@VASTSports]

@@benjamindover8221 lmaooo

[@commenttroll6933]

@@benjamindover8221 Not everyone is glued to the screen while listening you “oh yeah yeah” pfp’d social reject.

[@itsallawork5756]

"Why should we value your point" "Exactly, if we agree..." WHAT?

[@barabbas89]

Doesn’t it get exhausting talking to people who just flat don’t even understand half of the concepts you try to pose…. The patience of a saint.

[@navi7919]

Destiny has a lot of experience man. His patience is Master level

[@holtreich]

The way this guy constantly declared his own arguments logical and rational was so cringey.

[@nicholasburge9594]

Sad part is in communities like his that is considered advanced rhetoric 😢

[@jeremias-serus]

@@nicholasburge9594 TIKTOK LULW

[@ThalassicMeasure]

"I believe personhood begins at conception because it's the most logical. B can follow A. Logic."

[@Hypergangnam]

Not to mention, he is a complete psycopath. Anyone given the choice, saving a human or their own pet, chosing their own pet, is a person completelly void of any moral compass. I understand its a difficult choice, as ones own pet will die. But one has a bigger moral obligation to save our own specie. One could ofc, go down a rabbit hole, evening out the choice, but "a fucking stranger", is the correct choice, over your own dog, or cat.

[@dio8429]

@@Hypergangnam why does human life matter more than animal lives?

[@rage2904]

Life starts at horniness!

[@ZealotKing343]

But it can end after post nut clarity

[@sgtpatton]

if youre horny, then youre livin!

[@tochichiagoro3483]

I am hard therefore I am

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

I could be okay with that tbh.

[@ft4903]

@@aronchai lmao that's amazing

[@BardChords]

The editor has 3 computers lined up, rendering one video, uploading another one, and he sits at the third one poring through hours of footage. 26 hours/day. As it should be.

[@LVArturs]

Uploading isn't really a resource-intensive task, so a separate PC seems unnecessary.

[@BardChords]

@@LVArturs Workflows are a deeply personal thing, I try not to pry too deep.

[@blacksheepnomad9000]

And we thank August for his work. hell Ive thanked August for the videos tons of times . I've only thanked Destiny for the content a handful of times😉

[@comicconcarne]

truly this is omni-liberalism

[@MAR1N4M1]

That dude just kept using the wrong words in the wrong spots with impressive frequency. He must practice. 🤣😂

[@ft4903]

I'm so tired of normies invoking fallacies incoherently

[@scrub3359]

OmG uR uSiNg tHe NorMie fAllaCy!!!! ARGUMENT DESTROYED INSTANTLY

[@ft4903]

@@scrub3359 lmao

[@ft4903]

@Pyro Lmao bro he got every single fallacy incorrect and said "I don't care about morals/value" in a discussion about prescriptions for society. Hes a joke bud, if you want to understand philosophy talk to an actual philosopher. How about Alex Malpass?

[@ft4903]

@Pyro BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[@SickBuckNaStY]

@Pyro Mr. Fart in your beer! 😂

[@zeekawesomecus917]

It's so frustrating listening to someone say they're right because their view is more logical, but when you ask why it's more logical they can't explain why. And then goes on to say their argument doesn't involve morals or values, which makes absolutely no sense.

[@aClownBaby-]

It’s sad.

[@irod9235]

This sounds like the title of a light novel.

[@atmaweapon3958]

*That time I went to a world where debate skill equates to physical power and became God and also got a harem*

[@lubu2960]

Lol destiny anime protagonist

[@xiqy1959]

@@atmaweapon3958 I love this comment section

[@Simok1234]

My little tik tok can't be this cute!!!

[@siavashpurfallah3552]

LMFAO

[@justlooking1087]

*Tyler:* the possibility of having consciousness in the future is what really matters. *Destiny:* so do you feel the same about Zygotes? *Tyler:* No. *Me:* 🤨🤔

[@abdullahiabdi3268]

After that, just punch me in the fucking face.

[@ft4903]

@@abdullahiabdi3268 No, you must be concious for the tiktokers in the comments who know nothing about philosophy to tell you that destiny got rekt

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

Tylor was really frustrating to argue with but when he state he didn't care about zygotes?

[@michaelhansinger1641]

This guy was outpaced intellectually.

[@mustacheman4476]

By this guy you mean Destiny right?

[@kawanzaii8698]

@@mustacheman4476 We watched the same debate right?

[@Proletariat12]

@@mustacheman4476 yup. Destiny has been outpaced intellectually by conservatives. Oh how the mighty have fallen!

[@cleo7066]

@@Proletariat12 Holy Crap you know people can see all 58 replies to this channel you’ve made right? Like not if you don’t like him why are you supporting him.

[@Proletariat12]

@@cleo7066 Your sarcasm detector is broken, you moron. lol Congratulations, you played yourself. Even after the original post got so many upvotes, did you really think that many people are hating on Destiny?

[@gwenvansande6056]

"i don't give a shit about animals" 30minutes before that : "I value my dog's life over your life."

[@enochannor6550]

@@mindlander Just because the dog provides him happiness doesn't mean he only cares about the utility of that dog. I'm pretty sure if he was giving the option of either giving his dog away to another owner, losing that happiness or killing the dog he would pick giving the dog away because even though the dog would no longer provide him happiness he still cares about the wellbeing of that dog.

[@sergiopulido1584]

Which means he really doesn't value the life of others, idk why conservatives care so much about abolitioning abortion only to then not care about those saved babies

[@yellowtitan6040]

That was so disingenuous. If he had a gun and was forced to shoot either Destiny or his dog, obviously he would shoot his dog. I have no idea why he ever said that, it just made him look stupid.

[@sergiopulido1584]

@@mindlander I love Destiny, but he can argue for arguments sake.

[@gwenvansande6056]

@@yellowtitan6040 I don't think that's obvious. Maybe because of the legal consequences he would shoot his dog over destiny but not because of morals.

[@nateworthy530]

As someone who leans towards the anti abortion party I must say Destinys argument the most sound stance that I have heard. He draws a line in the moral sand in right and wrong arena with an argument that makes humanitarian sense. This was really well done.

[@bobbobbuie4485]

I'm completely unsure if Tyler can walk away from this thinking he didn't take the L (and I don't even mean with the actual topic at hand which ultimately falls in to a moral perspective in the first place). It's so strange to me that you can have such strong beliefs in certain things and not really understand where the flaws of your specific argument lie: it just makes you seem like you lack perspective. This is why I can very easily and quickly write certain people and narratives off quite quickly, because they don't inherently take in to account the fatal flaw of the very same argument they try to propose.

[@nateworthy530]

@@bobbobbuie4485 yea. This guy tried to present the same argument Crowder did at one of the change my minds. Two major differences though. Destiny presented a time frame at which he believed it was wrong to preform that procedure and explained why. And this kid didn't have the same conviction.

[@bobbobbuie4485]

@@nateworthy530 Right. I actually quite enjoy listening to conservatives on this topic more than I do liberals because it really does take a lot of thought to justify how and why we should give fetuses the same rights as sentient humans (this is phrased about as poorly as one can expect with my own predisposition towards the topic at hand). I haven't been convinced of the position, but there is a certain amount of compassion, morality and empathy that conservatives/pro-lifers show towards the protection of human life that I find endearing that I don't really see from the same group elsewhere, so I find the perspective generally fascinating and humbling. Obviously, this only takes in to account the subtle majority of people who hold this position and discounts the (hopeful) minority who only hold this position as a form of power and policing, and those who hold this position in the name of tradition. Those groups are generally, in my opinion, pretty pointless to have any sort of discussion with.

[@nateworthy530]

@@bobbobbuie4485 i actually think that Destiny had a fair amount of compassion in his stance as well. It was the first time I have heard a pro abortion argument with his angle. Usually it's either all or nothing.

[@jascu4251]

@@bobbobbuie4485 I'm part of the way there with you on this, but where I struggle is with pro-lifers that don't situate their convictions within a broader framework of policies that would help negate the number of abortions requested in the first place. There are lots of ways that would reduce the number of abortions, that pro-lifers generally seem to be opposed to.

[@johngamer-bp3pc]

it seems whenever something gave Bluntman trouble he would just hand wave it and say "i dont care about that". destiny did a good work to stay calm

[@itsjayswelly]

This guy hand waved away so many arguments when he realized that he couldn't rebut them

[@nicholasburge9594]

Tyler finally climbed off the table Dylan smashed him through during the Hippy Dippy Rumble and he goes straight to Destiny? Dylan must've really knocked him silly.

[@Demarco-Zae]

I haven’t seen this panel, can I get a link or video title?

[@nulltheory2560]

@@Demarco-Zae I think it's on Politically Provoked's KZbin channel. I could be wrong, though

[@Demarco-Zae]

@@nulltheory2560 thanks m8

[@karimshebeika8010]

@@Daniel-ih4zh Why be blond?

[@ericsummann2184]

@@Demarco-Zae it on DylanbyrnsTv KZbin channel, I think it was a hippy dippy championship panel. You’ll see tyler in the thumbnail

[@freyjaplaysgames3293]

A fetus becomes viable at 26-28 weeks. A fetus does not have normal brain activity that resembles a newborn until 30-32 weeks.

[@Pharomid]

And what is your point? Fetuses without normal newborn brain activity can be aborted? Seems like a pretty arbitrary rule to make. Do newborns that resemble abnormal brain activity have no right to live? Or maybe you're just stating a fact, but I don't see the reason for that.

[@logiboy123]

By viable I take it you mean “can survive the outside world”. The number is slightly less then that, the youngest prematurely born baby to survive was 20 weeks. Regardless using this as a measure is still arbitrary and shows no connection to the concept of dignity of life. As for your brain comment it seems odd to try and compare brain activity “type” to that of a new born. The human brain develops for a long time after birth. Brain development however starts as early as 5 weeks.

[@ft4903]

@@logiboy123 The scientific consensus is that the brain structure necessary for conciousness to emerge does not exist before 24 weeks. Also you're commenting on 2 subjectivists morality with comments about arbitrariness, why?

[@noahhale4862]

@@ft4903 Just because they're subjectivist doesn't mean that things like verisimilitude and consistency aren't important to them

[@ft4903]

@@noahhale4862 And it's a good thing no one mentioned either of those things as opposed to arbitrariness.

[@summers7554]

Oh, Tyler... this man always has big big debate bro energy lmao You know he watched bloodsports back in the day

[@peewee130946]

That’s a slippery slope fallacy. You can’t say because he’s a debate bro that he had to have watched blood sports.

[@MsHumanOfTheDecade]

@@peewee130946 thats a fallacious use of the slippery slope, which in itself ISN'T a fallacy! checkmate atheist.

[@summers7554]

@@peewee130946 DAMMIT, I tripped your slippery slope trap card! (Shocked Seto Kiaba face)

[@karimshebeika8010]

Dunning kruger said he was ad hominem But thats ok

[@Pharomid]

@@summers7554 My argument has no pathetic fallacies, Joshua. But it does contain, the unstoppable EXODIA.

[@kjk607]

Tyler: "I agree that consciousness is imperative when determining whether or not a person is still alive" Destiny: "ok cool. So do you feel that consciousness is important in defining whether someone is actually a person?" Tyler: "No. Consciousness isn't really all that important to me to be honest." Me: WHAT!?!?!?!

[@yewhannes]

I don't agree with the guy, but I think he was probably referring to current/past consciousness BC that's what he knows destiny values, which he stated he didn't care about from the beginning

[@kjk607]

@@yewhannes So to summarize, Destiny was trying to state that he believes personhood begins and ends at consciousness and Tyler refused to share why he had different determining factors for the beginning and end of humanhood. He clearly acknowledges the importance of consciousness yet he doesn't want to give it any credence because he knows it will benefit Destiny's argument for abortion. Thus he takes the debate in this continuous loop just to waste time. Destiny had already acknowledged, before the debate even got started, that this inevitable impasse is the reason he doesn't rule for government action in determining the moral standing for abortion.

[@yewhannes]

@@kjk607 it's okay you don't have to summarise, I watched the whole video and understood it perfectly. the thing is, Tyler's beginning and end point aren't actually different at a foundational level; Tyler stated he believes life should be protected at the beginning of conception due to it having the potential of a conscious experience, he believes life shouldn't be protected at brain/ cardiovascular death as there is no potential of a conscious experience. the only difference is that Destiny believes an important determining factor is whether or not there is/ has been a conscious experience (which I agree with, since as Destiny pointed out, Tyler's moral system can lead you down a slippery slope).

[@kjk607]

@@yewhannes I wasn't summarizing for you. I was doing it for myself. Helps me better understand the flow of conversation. You're right, Tyler does state the value he puts on potential of consciousness. But I still find it funny because he argues against importance of consciousness defining personhood but rather the potential of it and refuses to see how this moral impasse would call for some reconsideration for some.

[@yewhannes]

@@kjk607 ohhh okay that's understandable. oh trust me I don't disagree with you at all, I'm right there with you when it comes to him arguing against the importance of consciousness 😅

[@ZZ-by9zk]

Destiny completely destroyed this guy..lol

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

His gaslighting is insane though. "Yeah, yeah, we agree." Immediately after Destiny disagreed and explained his disagreement.

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

@Pyro Tbf there is no reconciliation with people who are anti-choice. They are the lowest scum of the earth and nothing will change their mind. They don't care about the suffering they enforce, they don't care about the logical consistency of their position, they don't care about the consequences of their position. Or if they do, they just want people to suffer.

[@BlankNames111]

@@haruhirogrimgar6047 you are insanely wrong, I changed my mind on the topic because of this video. I was pro life because there weren't any arguments against my points

[@ft4903]

@@BlankNames111 Press X to doubt... X

[@BlankNames111]

@@ft4903 wait what's so hard to belive? I didn't belive that life starting at consciousness makes sense when we consider people as moral agents when they are unconscious

[@hayax]

The world is strange isn't it. The fact that people will go through the effort to defend ideas written by people 2000 years ago, even though they have no basis in reality

[@itsjayswelly]

In his analogy about guns vs safety, he demonstrated that he values the right to own arms over other people's safety. So it is an argument about values.

[@vakamak]

Yea. I honestly dont know why he felt like dancing around the word "value."

[@Crispman_777]

@@vakamak Because then he doesn't have to back it up apparently

[@ze_chooch]

Bro. This was an absolutely beautiful dismantling. Congrats man. You’re really good at this.

[@timbow1833]

sleep does not remove sentience, it is just a different mode of being, hence dreams

[@Demarco-Zae]

This goes into weird science, how we determine consciousness but its not relevant to the debate, I think destiny did some research and learned about how you can have brain activity without consciousness hence dreams this is the same reason why brain dead people can have some activity but still be past the point of moral consideration like consciousness isn’t binary, its a gradient its just impossible to define

[@furyberserk]

@@Daniel-ih4zh Some people feel through it though.

[@usucdik]

@@furyberserk that's just because they weren't fully under. There is no "feel though it", that would be magic.

[@silversalmon9909]

@@Daniel-ih4zh i happen to be genetically resistant to common anesthesia lmao. Guess I just have an inclination towards consciousness.

[@abdullahiabdi3268]

Jesus, Tyler? This is going to interesting.

[@crvstalfiction]

listening to this makes me feel like i'm hopelessly falling into a void of meta-analysis. this guy would argue against mousetraps, and then immediately walk into one, then for 45 minutes say, "i don't know why i have to repeat myself, rationally, mousetraps are just arbitrary."

[@SillyPutty125]

The "organism begins at conception" argument is also arbitrary. If you split an embryo in half, as is the case for identical twins, and then put it back together, did you just create a new organism and then kill it? Zygotes and embryos are not human beings, but are better described as "human material" or the ingredients for making human beings. Everything is continuous and arbitrary. This idea that "the life of an organism begins at conception" comes from the desire to have a solid line, rather than a gray one, but that line is just not in the right place. Life isn't that simple.

[@secondengineer9814]

I feel like the way pro-life folks argue, they should be vegan...

[@pargonyan]

Not if you’re a based human supremacist

[@thecatmagnet2978]

Everyone should be both

[@alexd4566]

@@thecatmagnet2978 I’m pro-life in the sense that I value the life of an autonomous woman over the life of an unborn child

[@ParchedPinemarten]

I'm pro-life and vegan. Best way to go and feel consistently based.

[@Chrysostomus_17]

Not if you want humans to be healthy.

[@BouncinBrandon]

"you should care about life at conception because that's when life starts but also I don't care about animals so I'm only talking about human life so I don't actually in fact care about life at conception but I'm gonna debate you about why we should value life at conception" cool fucking story bro

[@Pharomid]

They stated they were talking about only humans though. You could make that same argument against Destiny. Does a newborn baby have more consciousness, if any, than animals?

[@ft4903]

@@Pharomid Yes

[@sadboipotato3382]

Plus the same people who claim to be pro life are also usually pro death penalty, which is an amusing contradiction.

[@yew7607]

@@sadboipotato3382 There's no contradiction. Please, if your going to argue against them, make stronger arguments.

[@yewhannes]

to be fair to the guy, he doesn't care about life at conception because that's when life starts, but because that's when the potential for consciousness begins, which is the same as his end point I'm more aligned with destiny's view, but yeah

[@BRobMint]

Bruh Tyler Bluntman has been bodied so many times on Tik Tok

[@znyan1077]

this guy learned the word rational and thinks he wins the argument by saying it enough it's really funny

[@BeetleHunter]

Everything destiny said was a contradiction to his previous statement.

[@ft4903]

@@BeetleHunter Great, give us the timestamps

[@BeetleHunter]

@@ft4903 16:07

[@BeetleHunter]

@@ft4903 how bout where he makes a shitty analogy that isn’t even analogous to the point he’s making at about 100 people go into a room and one persons injured.

[@ft4903]

@@BeetleHunter You realize that you said he said something that contradicted something he said earlier? Wheres the second timestamp? Lmao how is that disanalogous?

[@TheJuggernaut88]

i love you so much destiny. this debate was so cringe, i hate it when the other party starts grasping at straws to maintain their position. its so pathetic, thanks for being calm!

[@akura3459]

Destiny understands philosophy, he understands the tenants of philosophy and I’m afraid his opponent does not, this debate reflected their values.

[@peaceandlove1255]

I swear that the quality of online debating would increase tenfold if people stepped back from their auto-choosing of positions based on whether they’re, for example, ‘left’ policies, or ‘conservative’, and actually built their belief system from the ground up. It’s often jarring to go from high-quality debates into panel videos where people are just falling over each other to make the most ridiculous claim.

[@jordanthegoatnotle4-63]

Lol >destiny understands philosophy >destiny: confused ad hoc/inconsistent/incoherent as all being "The same thing", thinks you cant prove a negative, openly admits ignorance of basic discrete math/mathematical logic, list can go on. I'm in no way saying tyler is good at philosophy, but let's stop pretending as if destiny has a solid grasp of philosophy.

[@NathanExploshin]

36:46 this is the point where Tyler either has to give up his point therefore give up the debate or continue NPCing his bedrock talking point. He chose the latter

[@JCDGAMING01]

This guy keeps using “rational” or “logical” but what he’s really pointing to is some kind intuitive claim.

[@Tallefier]

A-----1--------------2--------B Development begins at A Consciousness begins at 1 Consciousness ends at 2 Development ends at B Destiny is saying it's logical to go from 1 to 2 tiktok bro is saying it's logical to go from A to 2 Why not A to B? Pick a system. He's mixing human development and consciousness. Start in one, end in another. He picks A instead of 1 because A has potential to get to 1. But that potentiality is arbitrary. But that's his logic for using two different systems for start/stop. I argue that is illogical. It is logical to start and stop within the same system. Destiny's choice of consciousness is logical. And the main point, Destiny's point, is that it is impossible to objectively say one system is better than the other. Thus, legislation on the matter makes him uncomfortable. People should be able to choose for themselves. I feel like the debate, in the end, made a good case for that point.

[@ft4903]

@blueaxial Dis gon be gud

[@chronographer]

@@ExsoLam I thought he was more saying it's somewhat arbitrary to _choose_ consciousness as the point to care about.

[@ceka50]

The slippery slope thing he said was the dumbest thing i've ever heard lmao

[@RebirthFlame]

TL;DR He values "personhood" which he doesn't really define and he thinks he is correct because "logic." Sigh

[@DoubleO88]

I was leaning pro life but this debate is making me lean back to pro choice. Destiny idea of not enforcing his morality on others is so solid and this guy says he's not fighting for a moral good then what is he debating this for, why does he care? Debating just to debate?

[@noahlibra]

It’s not an enforcement of morality to say something shouldn’t be murdered. I’m completely comfortable (even as a Minarchist) to say that any potential life has a right to said life.

[@DoubleO88]

@@noahlibra Saying something shouldn't be murdered is morality, that's why we say murder is immoral is it not?

[@noahlibra]

@@DoubleO88 Fair enough, I worded that incorrectly. Rather what I meant to say is it isn’t an inconsistent enforcement of values with western ones. Where here in the west we value both life and liberty: this being an issue of life. So I think the whole thing of it being an enforcement of morality is a red herring. What the real question is: as destiny said is where does life start? All places for this are arbitrary besides conception.

[@DoubleO88]

@@noahlibra I understand what you mean now but it seems Destiny’s reasoning is; even if he personally finds abortion immoral he can't campaign for it to become illegal because many, including the women who have to carry the babies, do not share that same sense of morality because no one can truly define the start of life. But then again we've established that abortion is wrong/shouldn't be done/is immoral? After what 6 months of pregnancy? (I'm not sure the exact timeframe pls feel free to correct me) Yet the biggest argument for pro choice is women's body autonomy and if that's the most important thing, more-so than an unborn baby's right to life, why can't we just abort babies 9 months in even while the woman is in labor? I mean the baby is still in her body right so technically it should still be her bodily autonomy until that baby is breathing oxygen. Seems contradictory that the woman's body autonomy suddenly doesn't matter post the 6 months mark? Almost feels like unless the woman is dying, we don't feel comfortable aborting an unborn baby when it starts to look more human. So the disconnect isn't so much "when does life begin?" but "when do we start to feel uncomfortable with this?" which seems cowardly and convenient.

[@noahlibra]

@@DoubleO88 Well I was born at six months with absolutely no problems so if one were to go off of consciousness, the current legal standard in the west seems incredibly unfair even by Destiny’s standard… However my point was that the current legal standard is contradictory with traditional western values: where we prioritise ideals of life and liberty. It doesn’t seem to follow either if we abort children who will go onto have conscious experience. In the end, one has decided to be open to the risk of having a child, so it would be coercive to forcibly kill said foetus if one has taken the risk of welcoming it into existence.

[@coimbralaw]

Destiny rhetorically brutalized the smoothbrained conservative.

[@leot-j6312]

I love how he walked back from the moral argument saying how he only cares about the legal argument.

[@blondebomber-qo2uy]

It's so kind of Destiny to help remind Tyler of his own argument

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

It's frustrating when people can't do that on their own. The debate turns from an interesting exchange about difficult questions to an exercise in intellectual hand-holding.

[@Spencerwalker21]

Typical it's an abortion debate even vaush called this out on the TikTok conservatives.

[@Alexa-hh8so]

It's sad when they don't understand the point.

[@martrex2]

Well, his "logic" really fall apart rather easily.

[@darrinstanfill6846]

“When does life end” damn dude that’s something I really need to look into. Nice talk man

[@mattwellsva]

This dude started off so reasonable I thought he had a shot at good conversation, but then he went on to simply repeat the same argument 5 times and list off random unrelated logical fallacies.

[@MrSergnes]

I appreciate that Destiny continues to evolve, learn and better his own arguments as well as take in more perspectives.

[@gleekthemonkey4570]

I can’t tell if he can’t understand Destiny’s argument or if he’s arguing in bad faith. Lol

[@eskimo5274]

This guy doesn't even understand what the words "logical" and "moral" mean.

[@ghosty0612]

Seems more bad faith to me. In the beginning he really had a good grasp of things and latter he gets jumpy and tries to rush over certain conclusions to get them by destiny.

[@Forse702]

Nah I think he's pretty genuine. Although people seem to just want to attack the guy.

[@ghosty0612]

@@Forse702 well bad faith is probably to strong a statement, but I think its obvious he is trying to diminish certain arguments and wants to make them out to not be important. More because they make him uncomfortable than him being being malicious.

[@aClownBaby-]

@@Forse702 Logical

[@ezswagger6969]

this debate really frustrates me, i feel like adding for consideration that perhaps any moral position, if subjective, is inherently irrational, because there is no logical/rational basis for developing opinions. Arguing that one moral position is more "rational" than another in this case feels the same as if one were to argue that liking the color blue is more "rational" than liking the color red. This seems a little ridiculous to me. Further, it felt like throughout the debate, there was a focus on what "ought" to be done, without a clear understanding of what this means. The person debating Destiny here kept insisting that it wasn't about values or morals, and then the next sentence referring to what "should" be done or what "ought" be done, which are fundamentally moral questions.

[@drewroberts139]

I love how Destiny considers this guy's arguments, and offers rebuttals. But this guy just goes back to his PowerPoints. He doesn't even entertain Destiny points.

[@sk8n854]

And that's what makes him good at debating. I don't always agree with him but I can usually see where he's coming from.

[@shsch492]

He couldn't understand that using words like logical and arbitrary doesn't work... when both arguments are Logical and arbitrary! He just arbitrarily chooses the start to "Value" to give moral rights.

[@goodfaithanarchist3461]

I'm staunchly pro-choice but I'm not sure how I feel about Destiny's argument here. The TikToker was arguing that it's not consciousness itself but rather the _potential_ for human consciousness that determines a being's moral worth as a person. This is perfectly consistent with both birth and death, since a fetus has the potential to become conscious whereas a dead person does not. Moreover, Destiny's argument could just as easily apply to an infant post-birth whose consciousness is severely limited or someone in a coma who still has a chance of recovery--both beings to which I'm sure he'd ascribe moral worth. I feel like a better discussion would have been on the ethics regarding the mother's obligation--or lack thereof--to commit their bodily resources to a developing being. Either way this discussion was interesting to watch!

[@BrutalKnight55]

I definitely feel the same as you. In my opinion, the right to bodily autonomy is a much better pro-choice argument, due to the fact that it still holds true even if the fetus were fully sentient and assigned personhood.

[@DC-lp5ly]

Yep. It's not about whether or not the fetus has personhood. That actually doesn't matter because the real issue is whether or not you can legally force someone to stay pregnant against their will.

[@johnluca3865]

@@DC-lp5lythe problem with that argument is if on principle your not okay with forcing the mother to be pregnant 9 months w the baby, what abt when there is 2 months left. What about 1 second left. Id personally be willing to force a mother to carry a pregnancy on for 1 more second if it means saving a consciousness human life. Overall I still subscribe to pro life but there r moral dilemmas that arise with literally everything

[@johnluca3865]

I disagree here. Destiny address why dealing in potentials is not the best. Was Hilter’s mother a awful person because she birthed a son who had the potential to murder millions. This is getting into the anti nasdalist argument again I guess. Idk if that was the best example but let me try to put it another way. We don’t celebrate Washington because of the potential that he had to accomplish X, we value what he actually did. If he died before he help found America, then we wouldn’t value him because he only had the potential to, but never actually did it. I think both positions cannot be objectively proven therefore legally you have to let people make their own moral choice. You do bring up a good point of if a fetus was in a coma from the time it would have gained consciousness to after it leaves the womb. If this baby were to leave the coma and become conscious 20 minutes after birth, destiny would be okay with chopping off its head prior to that 20 minutes. I agree there is some moral dilemma but honestly I would still stick with destiny here that I wouldn’t value it becomes it’s never had a conscious thought so there is nothing to value besides skin and bones really.

[@DC-lp5ly]

@@johnluca3865 no actually my point still stands because at that point in a normally developing pregnancy they can just induce labor or schedule a C-section to end the pregnancy & just deliver the baby. No licensed medical doctor is out here terminating viable pregnancies that can survive outside the womb.

[@composerken]

I’m new to Destiny, this is the first debate I’ve seen him in, and I’m rather impressed how cool-headed he was here. I’m a little disappointed that the caller wasn’t able to understand him and thought Destiny was just going in circles. It was quite clear that Destiny was trying to point out a flaw in the caller’s reasoning, but the caller simply became “exhausted” about going in “circles.” Destiny’s argument and question seemed pretty clear to me.

[@edwincollins5847]

Tyler has been in enough debates to know when he is losing or beginning to. And the slippery slope fallacy was killing Tyler. He usually debates for over and hour and this time decided to cut it short. I think we know why

[@firstname2801]

Agree.

[@SuperGreat23]

This lost me when the ticktoker said he didn't care at all about "morals" or "values" when talking about human life and abortion. These are the foundations of the human life and experience, this is how we make any decision. Edit: Ok, now it makes sense. It got worse :(

[@OmniKoneko]

exactly, I don't know how someone can be so stupid and contradicting

[@chronographer]

I kind of get it, but you can't say what laws *should* be without some moral system.

[@SuperGreat23]

@@chronographer yea I totally get that too, but it seemed like without the law he didn't really know how to apply morality or values yet he seemed to just say things like "right" and "wrong" and didn't know how he came to those conclusions about why.

[@no_Ray_bang]

Tyler sure was in a rush to end the discussion after claiming to not understand the question. Also really good point about accusing fallacious reasoning

[@flintstonebeard2327]

I feel like this has been one of the best conversations I've ever watched destiny have.

[@WordUser]

Tiktok opens a whole new world of Insane lefties and conservatives alike, if the tiktok crowd bites we could get a entertaining arc

[@whipydip99]

This is the first interesting conversation I’ve seen you have in months. Really enjoy the good content. Much better than the lefty arc. Keep up the good work!

[@jbennett9165]

Hair and nails do not continue to grow after death - it's actually the dehydration of the skin that causes the skin to retract giving the appearance of longer nails and hair.

[@usucdik]

Yeah, then as your cells die the body eats itself because it's full of bacteria and parasites, and then external stuff eats it.

[@snjvxscape]

Excellent use of "when does life end" --> "when does life begin." I hadn't heard that argument before.

[@jaeva7276]

Destiny should do more content on Tik Tok appealing to his fellow non-binary latinx people, I think he should listen to Cole James Cash's classic quote of "I think you need to spend more time with your own people." tee hee

[@agustin4741]

Every time I read latinx I cringe so much

[@mariomario4068]

Did you just say latinx? Stop

[@pargonyan]

Brain melted reading that

[@SomersBugtopia]

Not based, is cringe

[@jaeva7276]

@@pargonyan if you unironically took this seriously, i think the brain damage was beyond terminal far before reading this

[@ClauNazepam]

Wow you are one of the best debaters I’ve ever seen. Thank your for articulating so clearly this debate. Many people don’t understand the core of the misunderstanding.

[@davidhrabec5761]

Does this guy only debates abortion? Because he cannot even debate that.

[@jessegarza2749]

Probably but he did a way better job against vaush

[@davidhrabec5761]

@@jessegarza2749 not really, maybe first 30 minutes of that debate Tyler had the upper hand, but after those 30 minutes Vaush bodied Tyler, because Tyler was just stuck in his analogies and was constatly interrupting Vaush.

[@AnythingAndEverythingAllAtOnce]

He argued his point very well especially when it was in front of a large audience. Couldn't be you

[@sehnsuchtstraeger]

Real pleasure to listen to, this one was good.

[@fooknagga9560]

"i cant for my morality onto them" I mean that's pretty much what laws are.

[@Gametastica]

Which law forces morality sorry? Pretty sure they are made to protect others.

[@fooknagga9560]

@@Gametastica every law is based in that societies morality. That’s why different societies have different laws. Laws in a Muslim nation will be based on Islamic morality, laws in western nations are based on western morality etc. You don’t think laws have anything to do with morality? Why do you think laws existed that banned gay marriage? To protect people? No they existed because homosexuality was seen as morally wrong back then.

[@Gametastica]

@@fooknagga9560 which was to protect there immortal souls from going to hell and to protect them from temptation

[@fooknagga9560]

@@Gametastica yes and that’s a type of morality in itself. Believing that you have to protect other peoples souls is a type of morality so if you form laws based around that those laws are based on your morality.

[@TheQuantixXx]

true and each and every law must be carefully considered because it projects subjective moral ideas onto everyone

[@stephenschmal3628]

Destiny: Explain why your position is better than mine. Tyler: It's arbitrary. Destiny: No, like you have an argument that you're bringing up, so defend it. Tyler: Idk what to say, bro. LMAO

[@richardlegrand4697]

35:56....destiny's end game. Tiktok gives up and starts repeating arguments that have crashed at this point

[@kingfillins4117]

Congratulations.Thank you... A discussion where you are grounded, relaxed and rational... so much easier to listen to!

[@SmartDave60]

The guest saying that life ends when future consciousness isn’t possible is arbitrary. A brain dead person on life support is not deceased.

[@nickmyers3065]

They both agreed on that.. once your really brain dead. There is no person left. It's just organs and flesh. So it loses its personhood and is no longer a he or her or other. It's tough to hear for anyone who knows a person who became brain dead

[@vivahernando1]

I have to give Destiny credit here. He sent this guy back to the drawing board. You could definitely sense it. He was way more succinct than Vaush was with this guy. Tyler Bluntman lives out my vision of hell debating about abortion 24/7 ..... I'd go insane

[@devinsweeten5354]

It’s clear that this guy was trying to run several times

[@carminacostello1036]

I’m still waiting for a coherent argument from conservatives

[@StevenKetchum]

Destiny should look into the bodily autonomy argument. We don't force parents or family to give up their bodies (blood, organs, marrow) to keep even their naturally-birthed children alive. Being pro-life would grant the unborn to have uber-rights over conscious people to use their mother's body (blood, organs, food supply) to survive.

[@MrMousseTache]

He already dealt with most arguments you can think off regarding the abortion debate. If I remember well, his answer to the bodily autonomy argument is that the person consents to the possibility of having a child when having sex (excluding rape), even when using contraception (because no contraception is perfect). He also gave an analogy to illustrate this, where (I don't remember it very well) if there was a super cool nightclub where if you enter, you have to spin a wheel with 1/1000 chance of being hooked to a dying person in a coma that would need your blood for 9 month or otherwise they'll die. The person that then chooses to enter this nightclub fully aware of the risks would not have the right to refuse the medical procedure if they loose at the wheel game. I'm probably misremembering a lot of the nuance of his position though, you should take a look at his old abortion debates with pro choice people.

[@Chris-Smith]

@@MrMousseTache except the parents are legally NOT required to give their children any organ, not even blood even if it will save their child. So no

[@MrMousseTache]

@@Chris-Smith I'd say that first, it's mostly a discussion about morality, not legality, so what's in the law of any country doesn't really matrer. Also, Plokky already said it above my comment, but it's not the same situation. If the parents accidentally have a child after sex (a risk that they consented to earlier), the parents knew they would create the situation where the child requires blood from the mother. So , they are directly responsible for this medical situation and they already agreed beforehand that, since there's only one treatment, the mother would have to let the child hijack some of her organs for nine months. It makes a stronger case in favor of the child in my opinion.

[@StevenKetchum]

@@MrMousseTache I think asserting that consent to sex extends to consent to having a kid doesn't make sense. Is driving a car consent to being in a car accident? It's like this pro-life argument about potential consciousness granting personhood. A society where people have to take full responsibility for all possible downstream effects creates dysfunction. A woman shouldn't be forced to be an incubation chamber for a child. It would advocate for a society with unequal opportunity; women essentially get fucked over.

[@MrMousseTache]

@@StevenKetchum Yeah I understand your points, and my opinion on the subject is not fully formed so I only gave you what I half remembered from old videos. To answer your analogy with the car, we kinda consent to the consequences of an accident when we drive it. Like if you're considered responsible in an accident where another party is involved, you'd have to pay some form of reparation to the victim, in addition to maybe jail time. I guess you could answer that this is money and not organs, and I can understand that. However, I could also see an argument being made that in another world, if in a car accident you put the life of a victim in jeopardy, and that the ONLY way to save them was giving them YOUR blood for nine months, you may be compelled morally, and even by law, to do it. And yeah, I agree with you that it would create an unequal society for women. But a lot of times, societies have chosen to uphold moral purity at the price of equality or functionality. For example, I may be wrong but I'd guess that laws against theft disproportionally affect the most disadvantaged socioeconomically, yet you'd see a lot of protest if we tried to "oficially" remove these laws.

[@existenceispain4333]

I love that this entire discussion only considers the personhood of the fetus and not the personhood of the ACTUAL PERSON in this situation, who has past, present, AND future experience, the one with the UTURUS!!!! Eventually you’re going to have to ask yourself, whose “life” should you value more?

[@crackeddecimal7688]

Usually around the time it gains consciousness is the same time it can survive outside of the womb on its own. That is a good question though. Once it has its own person hood it’s kinda tricky. Abortion should stay legal though the whole process though because miscarriages and abortions to save the mothers life should not be illegal.

[@Ms452123]

Vaush had a much more harder time debating this guy.

[@jessegarza2749]

I honestly think vaush lost that debate

[@Dlangguth]

I saw some clips about vaush (on tik Tok) before I knew more about him and thought hey, some of these are pretty good. Then I watched him try to debate and so many times he goes full cringe, trying to use a lot of similar arguments to destiny and falling on his face.

[@blitz8425]

But Vaush outpaced him intellectually.

[@Dlangguth]

@@blitz8425 damn bro, truuueee

[@nickreyes7976]

I think its because Vaush granted personhood in his debate and went to the violinist argument which seems at least murkier to defend

[@KoshJosh1594]

this debate was pretty damn enjoyable to listen to. even the conservative didnt scream or sound too mad, it was just kinda nice and slow and funny. much better than some of the insane shit youve been on in the last few months lol

[@StardustStreams]

Tyler is fun to talk to, even if I disagree with his opinions

[@nazonrev5087]

Yeah, he was super respectful and accepting of opinions that were far different from his in the beginning.

[@rockfacts3235]

@@nazonrev5087 only to other men. should watch his desbate with Victoria

[@alexandersanchez9138]

35:20 The issue is that Destiny is arguing that the stages of human development aren't arbitrary--they are separated into conscious and non-conscious stages. Edit: Never mind, they got there.

[@davec-1378]

You can grant all the “personhood” you want at any stage you want, it doesn’t change the right to bodily autonomy Fetuses should not be granted an extra right no other person has. No one else can force a woman to allow that person to use her body without consent It doesn’t change this fact by pointing out the spatial location of that “person” as being “in the womb”.

[@davec-1378]

I’m saying NO person has a right to use your body Age of person doesn’t matter If you allow the principle that an offspring has special rights to the parents body you then have to agree (it follows logically) to an older child having a right to use the parents body I’m making an argument founded in a principle. If you have “special cases” (the fetus is a special case versus a 5 year old child for example) then you are not adhering to the principle Granting a fetus this right is actually giving it a right no other “person” has. That’s a contradiction

[@davec-1378]

Your analogy fails because you are claiming A (mother) “forcibly connected to B(fetus) This is not the case because the women never wanted to connect in the first place so she isn’t “forcibly” doing anything. To the contrary she would like to disconnect (to use your terminology) Sorry but that’s just a false analogy I realize you have an emotional response to this topic so therefore believe emotional arguments are sufficient but they are not I made an argument grounded in the principle that bodily autonomy is a right Do you have an argument against that principle or can you show a contradiction in my argument At what age does an offspring lose this right you seem to want to grant the fetus? Can a hospital force the mother to give access to her liver, lungs, blood for the sake of the child’s survival? If not a child outside the womb you seem to be granting SPECIAL rights to fetuses we do not grant to anyone else We don’t grant those for good reason, the woman’s bodily autonomy

[@Proletariat12]

@@plokky8052 You forgot to actually make an argument for your point, you only explained your opinion.

[@krisanwaltham1772]

12:50 "If we agree, which we did, that every stage of development in a human's developmental process is arbitrary, then it is logical to start at the beginning of this person's life". This might just be me, but here I feel an obvious response is "what if the beginning is arbitrary too?". If they're talking about personhood via consciousness (which they both claimed they were) this is the obvious issue that has to be resolved. Am I wrong here?

[@commiehunter781]

Well even if it's arbitrary, it cant be before but only after. So conception is the only position that doesn't risk killing a person is the argument I would make. Sort of like Pascals wager.

[@AdvancedSquadLeader]

Bodily autonomy. Best pro-choice argument imho.

[@nunnie768]

personally I don't understand why if the thing is a live or not if it's violating someone else's body

[@AdvancedSquadLeader]

@@nunnie768 I cant parse that sentence without commas.

[@nunnie768]

@@AdvancedSquadLeader personally, I don't understand why it matters if the thing is alive or not. it's violating someone else's body

[@AdvancedSquadLeader]

@@FranklinW No one has the right to use your body, do you agree? If not, then if you allow the baby to use a womans body to grow inside to live then you would also have to give up a liver if the child needs it to survive. You see, you wanna grant the un-born child special rights that you wouldnt give any other person. The personhood doesnt even come into question, its a lot about bodily autonomy, that is your choice what happens with your body. You need to give consent for someone else to use your body. Just that simple.

[@nunnie768]

@@FranklinW No because if you don't want to be bothered by a living baby, you can give it away. I believe you first need to argue that someone or something should have a right to someone else's body

[@ast453000]

Everyone is pro-choice. Person-hood has nothing to do with it. Assume the fetus/zygote is a fully conscious person at conception. One person does not have the right to use another person's body without their consent, period. It doesn't matter what the reason is on either side. That's the end of the debate. Everyone agrees to this. To disagree would be to say that the State/Government has the right to forcibly remove your kidney, without your consent and against your wishes, in order to keep someone else alive. No one believes that. So everyone is pro-choice. It doesn't matter who 'caused the person to exist'. A fully grown child does not have a right to their parents' organs.

[@SequesteredEquestrian]

Alternate title: Level 1 player tries to go against end level boss

[@bemused6202]

Great discussion! Perhaps destiny could have focussed on the 'valuing the zygote' argument? It seemed that Tyler was arguing that the potentiality of conscious experience was the value. I know he denied valuing a zygote but repeating that argument felt easier to understand than the anti natalist argument. Well done keeping your cool Steven