April 2, 2020
  • 3:58 am L’ Islam Est la Religion De Proprete Par Excellence | Français Converti à l’Islam Musulman Ep 7
  • 3:58 am (ENG SUB) Coping with COVID-19
  • 2:58 am 12 Inspires: UMMBC pastor shares inspirational message
  • 2:58 am TELUS Talks | Finding the new balance with food
  • 1:58 am The Maya and More: Mesoamerican Tour
Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D’Souza in NYC – Presented by Pangburn (CC: Arabic)


hey guys welcome to Pangburn we’re being a crybaby does not improve the strength of your argument if you’re interested in having good-faith discussions about the issues that really mean the most to humanity please hit the subscribe button and hit the notification bell so that you’re notified when we release new awesome content for those of you who don’t know I have recently declared ideological war on ben shapiro for his views on infant circumcision i think we should stop slicing baby dicks and he seems to disagree so ideological war declared to learn more about my ideological war with ben shapiro please go to the war of ideas org now please hold onto your butts and enjoy Matt Dillahunty verse Dinesh D’Souza [Music] all right everyone hello nice to see you all I wanted to come out and just congratulate you all thank you all for investing in intellectual discourse I know you guys get to see the event but really to make these things happen you need to have investors like you guys and those of you who are watching through our livestream thank you guys as well for contributing to this discussion I need to recognize four key investors for this event because this wouldn’t have been possible without them and first Sally Jennings from right here in New York City she was a huge reason why we were able to do this event and Thank You Sally my two friends Jeremy Williams and Ben Lang came through for me and for all of us they really believed in what I do and what we do at Pangburn so thank you so much to them the lights are really bright and final person is my good dear friend a huge supporter of mine and believes in what I’m doing is well Dana McLeod she has supported me in so many different ways and she is such a good friend and I really appreciate her but here we are Matt and Dinesh are in the house guys excited I think and I’ve said online the reasons why I think this so you guys if you go to Pangburn calm you can follow what I do or what we do at Pangburn but I think this is going to be the biggest challenge of both of these speakers career and I hope you feel excited to be here to experience that live and that’s about it for me I don’t want to waste you guys as time please put your hands together for Matt Dillahunty and to de Souza Hey [Applause] they showed up there’s people out there Wow I know there’s people out there because I can hear the clapping unless they’re playing like a track but the lights are good huh how is everybody so that’s an interesting thing is we have no idea you and I just met like an hour and a half ago at most we have no idea what the audience makeup is who’s here for who who walked in with what preconceived notions I thought I would dress as much like Satan as possible to make it really easy to do the breakdown I’ve got my USA socks yeah it’s make a more modest I’m sure I’ll find an excuse to burn them at some point just to irritate somebody how are you I’m doing well thank you I’m I’m pleased to do this for those who don’t know once upon a time we would have agreed incredibly strongly I think we’ll find out because we’re gonna we’re just gonna sit here in kind of a free-form discussion for 80 90 minutes or something and then we’ll be taking questions there’s mics set up on either side so you get your questions right in you can I don’t know if you want to really be obnoxious you could Google in fact check either one of us and I got you but mostly it’s there were people asking you know why are you doing this I have no idea why you’re doing this why am i doing it yeah well okay well first of all I want to I want to commend Travis because debate has become kind of rare in our society debate used to be pretty common in fact you could go and see an annual cost fire you know michael kinsley on the left and pat buchanan on the right now if you watch a CNN panel it’s 12 guys who think the same i concur and i concur and i concur so this is made i impoverish I think our public debate so a I like the idea of debate and B debate on these topics that go beyond politics and engage philosophy with ystem ology God are even rarer yeah and so for this reason I thought this is fun when the late Christopher Hitchens was alive I did a bunch of these debates on mainly on campus and I haven’t done one in a lot of years I’ve been focused on the boulevard unfortunately well yeah it was unfortunate because I really he and I got along well we died in fact often sit after the debate and put down a bottle or two of wine and then he’d tell me gossip about the Clintons and about the time that the mullahs chased him down the street in Iran and things like that so we act and we actually had some political common ground so it was interesting yeah that was one of the things that I noted because well a hitch and I only met briefly we have a bunch of mutual friends and there were political areas where I disagreed with him but I spent most of my time I spent a good chunk of time like I was a rush limbaugh dead ahead and then I was kind of a political and of cost of course now it it seems that everybody is more political and a lot of people will say oh well we you know in the olden days it was we shouldn’t discuss religion in politics and I’m like those are the things that matter most and the things that I’m most interested in discussing although I tend to lean more on the religion front because I was a Southern Baptist you I believe if I’m even correct were Catholic but are nondenominational and Christian now I mean yeah I was you know I was raised in India my family going generations back was converted by Portuguese missionaries and to Catholicism that’s kind of how I got the Portuguese last name de souza which my parents then married to an Indian first name but we were just you know was a social Christianity rather than a devout Christianity and then when I came to America obviously are largely a more Protestant country I began to think about these things a little different and I so I would say I actually adopted my faith more in adult life then I did as a kid when I was a believer but in a very routine eyes Sunday Mass kind of way so the title of this event when it was being promoted everything is God Trump in the future of America so I mean they would probably like to switch to order of those yes but nevertheless I would like to remove one of them I thought what god I know prompt – I know remove one from the discussion the other one I don’t need to remove because I don’t have a reason to think he exists but the discussion is good well don’t you make your life talking about him I I do spend a lot of time talking about it maybe like if I’ve spent my life talking about unicorns it would be except that you don’t live in a world where the overwhelming majority of people believe in unicorns and are trying to legislate what other people can do based on what they think unicorns want such what’s any what what is sin since we’re into it this is how it goes yeah what is a specific concrete example of someone trying to do that I’m trying to well somebody who says God told me X and I want you Matt therefore to do y ou says that is who takes up position that you’re spending your life fighting sure so alright are we in any way suggesting that there’s not a particularly loud and well financed fundamentalist religious right who are stacking the courts in accordance with their ideology which is influenced from by their religious things I have like I have family members who are primarily single issue voters like if there’s two candidates and one is you know set out to end abortion and the other one’s not that’s the only thing that matters to them and so I think it puts people in position where they’re probably voting against their own best interests can you name I mean just just pursuing this to see what we’re talking about can you name a single Supreme Court justice who in your opinion does not arrive at their judgments for any constitutional or jurisprudential or moral or philosophical reason but simply consults a divine Oracle in order to make a ruling can you name one of them oh no no I’m not I’m not in any way suggesting people don’t genuinely have these beliefs it’s just that if if people’s views like people within all of them whether the Supreme Court justices or not they’re going to have particular views on how the way the world is going to work you and I are and sure there are people I have no idea if you’re one of them there are people whose you on how the world should work should be everything should be working in accordance with my understanding of this deity well well let’s take it let’s take an example because I think this taught the discussion can become kind of Airy if we don’t pin it down okay let’s talk about abortion sure okay did you know for example that Christopher Hitchens was pro-life ah I know for example that Christopher Hitchens was not pro-life well he was so there’s two different there’s two different aspects of this first of all it doesn’t matter what Hitchens believed in the first place but he wasn’t against he wasn’t in favor of making it illegal and my primary issue when it comes to like abortion is the legality not whether or not somebody thinks it’s immoral or not I interviewed Hitchens years ago for a magazine and we talked about this issue and he made what I thought was an interesting point coming from an atheist perspective which was he said look it’s one thing if you say that you believe in Hindu reincarnation which we have many different lives or if you believe that there is a life to come in which if you happen to be terminated in the womb you’re gonna go to life everlasting because I don’t believe any of that I believe we have one life this is it this is the only one and and and and so ultimately it is the greatest value and if you have a life that is coming into being and it’s snuffed out all its choices interrupted at the outset he goes you gotta think before you do that right now let’s leave the legality issue because I think the abortion debate has become radicalized since Hitchens died whether Hitchens would have supported late term abortion we don’t really know but what I’m trying to say is that here’s Hitchens and I don’t really care you don’t really care but the point I’m trying to make is this you’re saying that religious people apply a worldview and I’m saying you do too Hitchens does too and all of us have a worldview I’m not I think I just said that like okay good the issue is whether or not so if somebody’s saying that their worldview is right because it comes from the divine and there’s no demonstration that a there is anything divine or that they have any good understanding of what the divine would want then I would hope that we would agree that that is at least a fallacious appeal to an authority that can’t be demonstrated well but I would argue that that first of all none of us in America conducts a voting test in which when somebody comes into the booth and decides for example why do you want to have an abortion someone could say because it’s fun someone could say because I think it’s a form of birth control someone can say in other words what I’m trying to get it is we don’t conduct a rational scrutiny test to make sure that people who vote about climate change if someone says I believe in climate change I’m like don’t you own an a house that’s on the water yes you do has that house gone down in value no now if is that the test for whether I don’t know what I’m trying to say is we don’t subject people’s political views to a scrutiny in which we ask are there irrational in that way well let’s say somebody says I’m just trying to make sure I understand what you’re saying well you’re saying that when it comes to religious believers right right they there’s a compartment that they have let’s call it the divine compartment for some right and so they appeal to this from your point of view irrational source and they try to import that source into politics which according to you is fallacious they shouldn’t be doing that and I’m saying all kinds of people who are not religious say the wackiest things okay fallacy that’s that’s what about ISM I I would object to anybody doing things on behalf of irrational reasons I’m just saying that so you would like to see our democratic process purified of the irrational I would like to see our universe purified of the irrational okay and and how would you go about doing that education by actually teaching people not only critical thinking but logic and fallacies so that instead of believing something when they don’t have a good reason they reserve belief until they do have a good reason you shouldn’t believe anything until the evidence actually supports it now you’re gonna get into arguments about how much evidence is enough or we you know do I have enough evidence for this but we’ve been on the god subject I mean III was just having a conversation it’s like what is the evidence for God what is the reason that anybody should believe there’s a god at all okay and so far despite countless debates nobody seems to have come up with a sound reason for that and yet they go 10 steps further which is not only is there a God but it’s this God and my understanding of this God and this is how either I you know and the Bible is is the true guide book or the Quran is the true guide book and the question then becomes we have a proposition any proposition whether it’s God or climate change or whatever how do we go about determining whether or not that proposition is reasonable to accept okay when the God front I’m maybe you have something better than anybody else has come up what is the right what is the reasonable warrant for accepting that there’s a God at all okay let me try to answer that I start with the fact that here we are flung into the world with no clear understanding of a where the universe came from not the earth but the universe be why we’re here and what the purpose of our life is and see what if anything happens to us after we die I would argue that so we are in a very peculiar position where human beings were flung into the world and that three of the most important questions we could possibly ask we have no answer to now now I’m old on with you you do you agree or you not gonna agree with you on two of the three the middle one on purpose I think assumes there’s a purpose that has there’s been a demonstration there’s a purpose to it what if any purpose we have for our life okay so now we are in agreement that on the three cardinal questions we are in a certain kind of blindness we’re in a certain kind of blind ignorance because we don’t know correct so I I don’t so if we start you’re saying we’re flung into this universe without an understanding of the origin the universe the purpose of life or its afterwards right where the universe came from if any one or what made it if any one be what the purpose of our life is if any and see what if anything happens to us after we died we are in violent agreement right now perfect now the second question Rises what does science have to say about these three questions can science either now and if it can’t now settle these matters in the future let’s look at them one by one let’s take them in reverse order sure can science decide the matter of whether or not there is life after death yes or no it depends depends on what so science only deals with the natural world correct and so if in fact there’s a supernatural existence after this then it may forever be beyond the purview of science correct or if there is another universe that operates according to different laws and we happen to move somehow into that universe science would have nothing to say about it correct necessarily because if it’s a naturally only we have like hypotheses about a multiverse or whatever I can’t say what science we’ll be able to test for in the future or whether or not there we are permanently confined to the cosmos that we experience I can’t say I can’t even rule out I can’t say that science could never say anything about the supernatural all I can say is that as it stands right now I’m unaware of any supernatural claim that has any evidence for it that science could evaluate to determine that it was true right let’s put it a little differently because because we I don’t want to debate the detail here I just want to look at the macro picture and what I’m basically saying is Shakespeare said I think correctly death is the undiscovered country no one has been to the other side of the curtain and it essentially reported given us empirical evidence one way or the other correct we don’t know what happens I don’t know that so see here’s the thing I promise I’m not being difficult this is just just for clarity as a skeptic my position is not you know like when the the the psychics who claim that they’re speaking with the dead my position is not they’re wrong and that’s my position is they cannot demonstrate that what they’re actually doing is what they claim and so I can’t say nobody’s been to the other side and communicated back I can just say there’s no reliable evidence for it and I don’t know what shape that evidence would take in order to demonstrate that okay I want to come back to that because that you’ve now made to me very striking claim namely that we should I think you’re saying disbelieve all claims for which there is not sufficient evidence so not just so we should prove take an agnostic position but we should disbelieve them that’s two different things so if you mean just believe as in believe they are not true that’s the exact opposite of what I just said okay what I said was we should believe things when there’s evidence for it and that is both the proposition that the supernatural is real and the proposition that supernatural is not real you can cause silicosis ISM isn’t some middle ground between believing acts and believing not X there is no middle ground you are either convinced of X or you are not convinced of X and I’m not convinced that the supernatural is real that doesn’t mean that I’m convinced that the supernatural isn’t real it’s kind of like if you go into a courtroom okay I can i I may have to say not guilty even if I’m not convinced of innocence because the burden of proof is on the claim of guilt and so the people who say I have good evidential warrant to believe in the supernatural have adopted of burden of proof and they have to meet it and until they do I am not convinced okay but we’ll come let’s be clear about what that burden of proof is because I’m not saying I have definitive proof that God exists or these are his attributes here’s what I’m saying I’m saying I don’t know if there is a God in the sense of no I call myself a believer now right away we distinguish between a believer and a knower right I believe there’s a place called Papua New Guinea because I trust maps and I’ve studied about it and but I know my brother I wouldn’t say I believe I have a brother cuz I know the guy so knowledge are you saying you don’t know that there’s a pepperoni Guinea no I’m saying I’m saying III know it in the sense that I accept the authorities from which I learn about it I trust it well whether they’re I’m just relying on Authority is its actual evidence so you have a belief in a proposition right whether or not it qualifies as knowledge is a separate question because knowledge is a subset of belief in philosophy would be justified true belief I tend to use a more kind of colloquial because I’m a telethon I’m an uneducated oaf who just talks a lot but if you have a proposition and you accept that it’s true that’s all I mean when I say I believe it you either accept it or you don’t if I say I know it all we generally mean almost people mean when they say I know something is that they really really really really really really believe it they’re talking about the confidence level that they have in that proposition that it is likely true and when we say I know something generally we’re saying I believe this to the extent that it would be worldview altering to discover it was wrong and so I believe there’s a papua new guinea I would actually argue that I know I have evidential warrant that there’s a papua new guinea without Archer without actually ever having been there this is your people used to do the oh well you you don’t know there’s an Australia well I do now cuz I’ve been there but even before I was there I think that I had evidentiary warrant for it yeah but okay I agree with that and I know that there’s a pop up any in that sense let’s do a different example if let’s say I were to tell you I’m from India okay okay you have no reason to doubt me you probably believe I’m from India yeah now you don’t actually know that it depends on what you mean by no well by you 100% sure no dude is 100 percent certainly required for knowledge not necessarily but I would what are your bar I have so I don’t think you can be a hundred percent certain about anything okay that’s why I abandon the notion of certainty which is why when I talk about knowledge I talk about it as a subset of belief and that is a confidence level but also I genuinely don’t really I’m unimpressed when someone says they know something because we don’t wait till we have knowledge to act we act in accordance with our beliefs and whether or not your belief rises to the level of knowledge doesn’t change what you’re gonna what your actions gonna be all right so let’s let’s let’s sort of circle back to where I was going with the three big questions and I think you we started with death we’re in right you’re in violent agreement that the cause right that we don’t know the cause of the universe you don’t and we don’t know any prescribed purpose for our lives we try to discover it but we don’t know it and we don’t know what happens after death yeah I’m not convinced that anything does but I don’t agree we don’t know fair enough now let me ask you this question what do you do about belief when you are in exactly this position when if something is true it would have tremendous implications for example you would concede that if there was life after death that would greatly affect the way we think about life on earth now depending on what that life looked like and depending on whether or not anything in this life had any impact on that life correct so let’s just say if the religious narratives are correct and there is some sort of cosmic justice in which let’s just say the the crimes that are the undiscovered crimes of this life have to be accounted for in a future life we would probably have to start thinking about all the stuff that we get away with in private because even though we escape human accounting there would be some sort of presumably divine accounting so in other words all I’m trying to establish is that there’s a relevance to these questions even if we don’t definitively know anything about them anything about the answer the answer matters which way we go I would I agree the answer matters it’s just the answer right now is I don’t know and you can play the what if game for any one of them what if there’s nothing what if it’s the end what if there’s a being who’s going to judge you based on whether or not you fell for things without sufficient evidence what’s the whole agreement okay so what you seem to so what you seem to say is I think about something and if I really can’t answer the question right I take the default position that that’s something doesn’t exist until evidence shows up that’s going to convince me it does of course that’s your view that is sound epistemology that excelled a mr. ma legitimate according to you sure let’s go according to me because I need to cite anybody else right because I’m right because okay hold on let’s see because you’re the CEO right alternative would be to to say that I’m justified in believing something before there’s sufficient evidence for it but I would argue that you do that every day let me let’s give me give you a cardinal example but that doesn’t change the fact whether I should you should I know I’m saying you we’re all gonna make mistakes usually you do when you should look our life is always lived in anticipation of an unknown future right you’re dating a woman yeah and and so what you do is you being a very reasonable guy plug in all this data right about this woman and you’re trying to make a rational decision let’s say is this the woman I want to spend my life with let’s assume you’re thinking about that question for the sake of your argument we’ll assume I’m thinking about that okay now I would argue that in reality given the way human beings are you could never really know what life with this person is going to be like let’s just say over the next thirty years first of all you’ll be different people in ten years are different people in thirty years so this question about what its gonna be like is unanswerable with any high degree of certainty which is one of the reasons why I unlike many religions actually support the notion of divorce and and I’m opposed to the notion that there’s a soulmate out there that you’re going to be everything to forever if we’re both in agreement that we don’t know what the future holds I don’t make a decision but I mean that’s that’s the tediously predictable response I’m not going there where I’m going with it I think you were going there no because right where I’m really going with is the fact that in making a decision of whether or not to be with this person yes or no you are necessarily taking a huge leap of faith no no no see that’s the thing my the way I operate my life and maybe I’m a weirdo is so for example in this case I have no plans to end this relationship and neither does she but we are both adults and we as in my one there were two rules be honest have fun that’s it that’s all be honest enjoy life and as long as we’re both honest we can reevaluate the nature of our relationship at any point I am friends with every one of my exes including my ex-wife who I just spoke to we went into it with this optimism that perhaps we would spend the rest of our lives together and with the realistic notion then it doesn’t happen anybody who the divorce rates 50 some odd percent anybody who goes into a marriage now thinking ah we’re never going to get divorced is already in opposition with the actual data and so I as a huge proponent of David Hume one of my favorite quotes for him is that the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence so my confidence in any proposition including this particular relationship lasting until I die is based on whatever data I have I don’t have some delusion that some other people want to run around the person and we’re definitely going to be together forever because life is uncertain and it seems that rather than gauging in that self-deception I’m fine saying this is what I hope happens I hope that I am with you for the rest of my life I hope that for the rest of our lives or whatever but I don’t have an unrealistic expectation of don’t you make plans sure I make plans for tomorrow because that’s the pragmatic you don’t mind sure enough like you don’t you don’t put money into a 401 K and you don’t you don’t put money into educational funds yes you do right so in other words that’s because I have a reasonable confidence based on data about how long I’m likely to live and what benefits are likely to be rewarded from there so as a faith let me ask you this what you’re talking about is confidence in the absence of certainty but I’m my confidence is proportional to the evidence the fact that there isn’t certainty about the future doesn’t mean that it’s an exercise of faith I’m saying that the evidence you are invoking is bogus because according to you if the divorce rate were five percent you would make lifetime plans because according to you there’s a much higher chance ninety-five percent probability that’s not remotely well in this case make lifetime plans because I hope to have a lifetime not because what the divorce rate is well I know what the life expectancy is for people in the United States for me roughly I can I can make a rough guess as to barring some other consequences how long I’m going to live so of course I’m gonna plan for the future you plan for what you are optimistically hoping for but I could get hit by a bus out here in New York where by the way the no doesn’t matter which direction you’re walking down these streets the wind is always in your face sorry that is that may be true look I think life is lived in the moment we look at memory as a reliable although not very reliable account of the past but we trust it even though again if someone were to demand we substantiate that trust we’d be a little hard pressed to do it it would be memory is very selective other people remember different things than you remember and so on and life is it has an unknown future stretching in front of us now at all times in history people are in huge ignorance about the world large parts of which in the past were completely unknown if I was Socrates walking in the in Athens in the 5th century BC and I looked up the sky I’d see seven stars right now if I was taking the rationalist position I would say well I see seven stars I have no reason to believe that there are any more stars in the sky and just for clarity yes are you saying this is remotely accurate or is this just an example because anybody who thinks that back then people only saw seven stars I got problems with no fair enough fair enough I’m using I’m using the limited radius of our empirical knowledge just I knew that just for your benefit it’s an analogy right yeah and and you know the yeah so the ancients knew the earth is round so on but but the truth the point here is that you have this limited body of data but if you really reflect on the data and you also reflect on yourself right away you see hey I’m Socrates I’ve never moved five miles away from the police I was born I don’t even know how big the earth is they could very well be a whole bunch of other stars out there and just because I have not one ounce of empirical evidence for them I can’t be close to them or declare them out of bounds or declare that my whole life has to be lived without regard to that possibility because it’s a very real possibility so let’s say you and I both lived on on this particular plot of land in New York our entire lives and we had only ever seen seven stars right I’m not ruling out the possibility that there are other seven other stars I’m not healing with people who are saying there are more than seven stars and they can provide no evidence for it right but let’s let’s just say that those people who say that there are more than seven stars right have the following type of reason for those for saying that they say first of all let’s just say that we’re part of a natural universe right this is Kant’s the starry heavens above and they also know that I can’t see very far so because I only see seven stars and I know that I can’t even see a guy who walks over the horizon I probably think there are a whole bunch of other stars that I just can’t see because my eye only goes that far would that be an irrational reason to believe in more stars even though I only see seven yes it would be irrational according to you while you can come up with that as a justification the reason that it seems like I’m talking I’m talking within your analogy of with my analogy we only ever seen seven stars that is not so we have deductive reasoning and then we have inferences which is basically where science operates and then there’s AB duct of reasoning it’s an abduction is going to be the weakest and abduction is going to be arguing towards a the best explanation and in that case we need candidate explanations what you’re talking about is is an inference that seems intuitive but has no evidence to actually support it it does the fact the fact that I can only see so far should should guide my brain to say I should not be reaching conclusions about what is beyond my ability to see okay so let’s take for example you’ve seen a certain number of dogs in your life correct yeah okay said everyone right a B above and beyond that you haven’t seen other dogs that are outside the radius of your empirical experience true correct do you believe in that there are other dogs other than the ones you’ve seen I have evidence of other dogs on earth if it’s not evidence I’ve seen video footage I have but let’s just say the video footage let’s count those among the dogs you’ve seen what about the dogs you haven’t seen sure you believe they exist on earth yes but if you tell me that I should then then believe that there are dogs on Saturn that’s the level of thing we’re talking about oh it’s not it’s not absolutely not see this is the heart of the matter this is the hardly matter because according to you religious people believe that there is a God who like in ancient Greece inhabits the natural world that’s living on another planet and so your reasoning is at the level of the cosmonaut so go up into the sky and go no God up here therefore God doesn’t exist no that’s not well you just said that that I’m proclaiming a dog on Saturn yes and I’m saying I’m that’s not what I’m doing at all so if I can only see seven stars there is a weak inference that there may be more stars but to believe there actually are more stars isn’t yet justified by the evidence the dog example on earth even though I have not experienced every dog I can actually do pretty much a rough estimate of dog by searching through data on how much dog food we sell how many people buy Kong things for their dogs how many pets are us are scattered around the world there’s all sorts of data that get to this thing where now it is a strong inference that there is a dog in China that I have never met and will never meet do I believe that that’s the case yes because that’s where the data should point to to go beyond what the data show I’ll tell you that just because I’ve I I know that I have a limit to my vision and I can see seven stars therefore I believe there are more that is to go beyond what the data presents you could though invent a telescope and improve your vision and get new data which is exactly what we did to discover that we don’t just live in the one and only galaxy and that the earth isn’t the center of the universe once we got that data we began to have a better understanding of it there are things like the Higgs boson for example which are a part of theoretical physics that we didn’t have physical empirical evidence for but that the math pointed to I’m not in any way denying that math is good data which is one of the reasons why well alright I won’t go there yet because we’re still well I mean here we are on common ground if you’re talking about science if you’re talking about quantum physics if you’re talking about relativity if you’re talking about the Big Bang if you’re talking about evolution we have nothing to argue about I’m on board with you 100% hang on you included science in that science yes I’m one boy weathered climate change science climate change is at least in the in the public sense it’s understood in no way science ok we’ll probably get back to that afterwards we can come back to that but it’s it isn’t no way science I’m not a climate so it’s I mean I am on board 100% with the science of the greenhouse effect if you when people say 97% of scientists and you actually look at what 97% of scientists believe they believe in the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse effect is simply basically saying the release of carbon into the atmosphere warms the atmosphere you’ll get no disagreement for me on that now there are several other propositions that are married to that I think’s smuggled under the carpet things like human beings of the primary cause of these differences second of all the best way to tackle them is to change ultimately the temperature of the earth in various ways that we could we could try to affect through human behavior objections is and and I will get back to God like right after this I don’t I don’t know how far apart we are and I have no expertise there but it seems that your objections primarily about how much are we the cause what can we potentially do about it what are the potential solutions less so than what’s happening well I mean look yeah normally if I walk out and it’s really hot there are two possibilities one is I can try to change the outdoor temperature right the other is I can take off my jacket those are two ways to respond to the same phenomena what’s your polar bear unless you’re a polar bear now there’s a woman who counts the number of polar bears on the earth and she has nothing to do with climate change she did a report a couple of years ago saying there are more polar bears walking earlier than ever the polar bear population has multiplied now right away she finds herself in controversy why not because the counting is wrong it’s difficult to count polar bears admittedly but she’s the best one doing it in the world but the reason she’s controversial is it’s not supposed to be the case the glaciers are supposed to be melting the habitats changing the polar bear is disappearing so the very fact that they’re all use polar bears thriving and running around is like a major embarrassment and so you have to dump on her an attacker as but even though she’s giving you a valuable piece of data scientific data that bears upon the truth of this hypothesis the hypothesis is that the earth is getting harder now think of it the earth is getting hotter by a degree or so Celsius over a hundred years and this is measured by things in effect putting thermometers in the ocean which depend upon how far the thermometers are from the coastline what the level of the ocean is of the game and these measurements are then modeled in other words put into computer programs to generate conclusions which ultimately have massive implications for the world economy so what I’m getting at is there are people who are asking us to change our way of life because of a one degree move in the climate now my view on climate change is this I watched the people who say this to see how serious they are about it the very people who is your mistake well for example I look at Mike Bloomberg Mike Bloomberg owns I believe 11 homes stop looking at Mike Bloomberg cuz well those ads are everywhere like I got the time where and it’s like right we couldn’t we every time Mike Bloomberg but I’m just saying here’s a guy who says it’s gonna be a priority for him as president and I would say really if you have 11 homes shouldn’t you go down to 7 if you really thought that your carbon imprint is a little too big I would completely agree with you there but Mike’s hypocrisy isn’t really relevant to what are we talking about the hypocrisy of everybody because no I’m talking about what the data show okay let’s here’s the data everyone can see this data okay now the Obamas who have major apostles of this data just bought a twelve million dollar house right on the ocean right on the water in Martha’s Vineyard okay these are the same people who are saying that in 12 years or 10 years Miami will be engulfed by the ocean the oceans are gonna rise and swamp coastal properties right and my point is not just that the Obamas are hypocrites that would be one small piece of data by itself here’s my point if the data is believed if it’s plausible if it’s even probable if there’s even a 50% chance that that would be the case real estate properties worldwide on the coast would plummet and the inland would rise but the fact that that’s not happening anywhere to my knowledge tells me this real estate agents know it’s buyers no it’s sellers no it’s everybody knows that’s curious all those people have no scientific foundation to assess the data maybe those people are buying those because they know we’re screwed and they only got a few years left to spend their millions might as well enjoy it on the coast really that’s what you think it’s it’s a I’m looking I’m when I’m evaluating this and first of all I have no definitely want to get back to the god thing I’m not a climate scientist I’m not going to pretend any expertise and there are areas of this where you and I are still are gonna be in agreement but when I’m trying to figure out whether or not something is real I’m looking at the science and what the experts have to say and you’re looking at whether or not the Obamas are hypocrites or whether Bloomberg’s a hypocrite no that is not a sound epistemology determine out no not the climate you see okay well a couple things first of all the climate scientists are and I think we this is more true of this branch of science and it is generically true they’re highly interested observers of this phenomenon climate science is a massively funded Enterprise it gets gigantic dollars and the gigantic dollars are aimed at finding a predetermined conclusion I don’t think you’re innocent of the idea that researcher is getting huge grants take research also get huge grants from pharmaceutical companies this is bull this is bull yes because now the the bulk of the world has at least let’s let’s assume that is that the climate change stuff is BS the book the world is bought into it and as are making efforts to change things to change the way we live our lives mostly so we can have a life but now wouldn’t there be more money and the people who are actually going out to debunk this this is this is a sort of conspiracy level think people raised about science all the time oh the money is leading them towards this conclusion there’s money and anything that you can demonstrate to be true this is why I don’t buy under the big pharma conspiracy stuff of trying to keep us sick etc okay because there’s money in a cure there’s money in new diseases there money in this there’s money in that this money where’s the money and debunking it let’s say I have an eye I have charts right here and I’m sure you the whole thing is BS who’s gonna pay me all those people buying coastal properties that you think are hypocrite why would they pay me because now if you can demonstrate that it’s BS now their property values go up even more because now that just means they’ll give the money to the root to the real estate agents and to the buyers but how are they gonna fund me how do i benefit you’re suggesting that people will fund people to do research towards a foregone conclusion that benefits them unless it’s the foregone conclusion that benefits them that I mentioned no I’m saying I’m saying that it’s simple common sense that that when there is a proposition that leads to certain climate change is a huge industry it’s a it’s a multi-billion dollar industry you look like a guy like Al Gore Al Gore’s been a government servant his whole life do you realize Al Gore has a net worth of 200 million dollars how do you get two hundred million dollars he got two hundred million dollars through climate change ok it’s a very profitable business ok the bunkers of climate change are sitting in obscure research institutions collecting of $55,000 salary which I would argue is an ad hominem fallacy that says nothing about whether or no it’s not is it’s pointing to the fact that that research is not disinterested that’s not an ad hominem is not doing research the fact that he can profit off something is independent from what researchers are finding out you don’t get to shame researchers because they may don’t know but I’m saying the researchers profit in a huge way to look at look at climate scientists and and look at that look at the money ok it goes into the read okay look I will investigate how much clients ok climate so when you said you said something else as well which i think is reflects a lack of understanding of markets which is you said the real estate agents the stock market the real estate appraisals those people are not scientists right those people may not be scientists but they see they are in the business where they put their money where their mouth is yes right so in other words it’s one thing for me to say I’m running for president and on the earth is getting harder it’s another thing for me to say you know what I’m living in this house on the ocean it’s a million dollars it’s going to be worthless in 12 years I should sell it to the National hundred thousand because it’s literally gonna be worth zero the fact that they don’t necessarily believe that doesn’t say anything what an individual’s belief about what they think is gonna happen with respect to climate change says nothing about what the data show with respect to climate change you’re talking about how convinced people are you might as well be running around claiming and we get back to the god thing because we still got the supernatural and the afterlife in the ordinary universe this argument is essentially the same as saying look at how many believe people believe it and how strongly they believe it and how much house some of them are willing to sacrifice their lives for this that must mean it’s true no that gets to what humans do or don’t believe which is why your objection about hypocrisy is one that I share the fact that there may be hypocrites or maybe maybe they’re just looking at it saying hey I got this money I’ll do this we’ll see what happens maybe well change maybe it was here’s the problem all irrelevant to what the actual fact of the matter is with regard to climate change or God well let’s focus on climate change for a second we’ll turn to God in a moment all I’m trying to say is that here is an issue that is that is transporting itself into the domain of public policy so it’s not an issue of pure science this is not like was Einstein right in it at e equals MC square and we can send somebody to go look at an eclipse and verify whether what what I verify that Einsteins prediction was true that’s an argument in the domain of pure science in the climate change argument it’s going to have to come into the public domain because we’re asked to make decisions like don’t use some plastic straws and try I agree right and so but now we’ve moved from what the data show about what is happening to what we should do about it and there I think there’s plenty of room for disagreement just God should everything else that’s that’s where the disagreements occurring it’s not occurring over if you’re telling me that the earth has warmed by one degree over the last hundred years I grant that to you I say what have you really shown me so far very little very little sure okay but neither of us are climate scientists exactly and and and you’ll be right and these are the same by the way the same scientists who told us the same climate scientists who told us in the 70s and 80s that the earth was ruling yes the same guy the 70s well I mean it’s they like 84 now well ok fair enough fair enough so so you’re telling me now that even though we’re measuring the same duration ie not 1982 now but let’s just take for example the the earth from 1900 to 1980 you’re telling me that there’s a whole group of scientists at top universities there’s a book by Lowell Ponti in the 70s called the cooling all the apocalyptic rhetoric of today is duplicated in that book with the sole exception that the earth is cooling it’s not getting harder it’s getting colder global cooling in fact I think this is the root of the substitutionary phrase climate change because the climate somewhere in some way is always changing but the point is this there all these measurements from 1980 going back to previous 80 years show a cooling trend so you’re telling me that they were wrong and the new guys are anything well I’m just saying that you know you’re accepting now that a new bunch of guys are come in measuring the same phenomenon right maybe using better instruments and and it’s how science one gets better yeah yes but it gets better by and large by greater precision do you not I basically sing that up is down and down is up sure but if you find so that there’s and and I have no specific expertise in a fly in this particular what the thing is this is the science got it wrong before so it likely has it wrong again which is a fallacy and in itself because the fact that the only thing in the entire and let’s probe that fallacy why is it a fallacy because the past doesn’t necessitate the future right in fact that’s something we discovered that science was wrong about something is doesn’t mean that our new discovery is wrong or as likely to be wrong or anything in the neighborhood science is the single most consistently reliable method for accurately understanding the world the natural world and the only thing that has ever come along to correct a flawed finding in science is more and better science not religion not hypocrisy not what’s the market but it wouldn’t well that’s silly because that’s okay that would mean that would be like me saying science is greater than philosophy because scientific findings are cumulative and they have gotten more precise and accurate about the natural world whereas in philosophy we haven’t advanced all that far past Plato okay I’ll buy that you’ll buy that so philosophy which I love I’m a philosophy geek especially when it comes to epistemology so full of it I don’t think we’ve what have we done on epistemology since oh I’ll just stick with Hume when you once you have the foundations of thought there’s not much left to explore there once you have identity and on contradiction excluded middle once you have the foundations of a syllogism once you have the foundations have set three and Venn diagram and you’ve got your pistol mala gee now that’s when science can say ah now we can tell when we’re when we’re justified in accepting something and when we’re not and to what extent and so that science then does this inferential testing to build a model that is our best example of the universe and it is tentative and subject to revision that’s that’s what science science doesn’t make proclamations about truth yeah but I think you’re but scientists do so if there’s a climate scientist out there that says the truth is this that’s not science that’s preaching on behalf of science what they should be saying is the data show this here’s the model this is the extrapolation of this model this is our best understanding and best estimate for what’s going to happen in the future so that they’re making decisions like I am about my future based on actual data and not and and what we you know and not just what we hope happens well I think it was Vidkun stein who said that when even if all possible scientific questions could be solved the most important human questions would still be on the table now the importance of that is this I think you’re you’re awarding a sort of prize to science based upon a stacked deck you’re you’re defining scientific truth as somehow superior and you’re declaring that on that basis arguing inside the bubble of science science comes out first prize but and according to you philosophy because it’s dealing with enduring human you may say eternal questions like what is good what is right how do you tell right from wrong not to mention questions like how do we know what we know or to port to pursue here’s a manual can’t you asked who went past Hume I would say content you ask questions like when I look at at something in space is the space in the world or is the space a mode of my perception it’s time something out there in the world to think about time is a thing this object with no wait no an object well it is an abstraction is an abstraction and abstractions by and large live in our mind yes so Kant’s point is that space and time are dimensions of them that they are there are things that the mind brings to experience they are not something out there in the world now I’m not I’m not trying to resolve that issue okay I don’t think either Wes is going to top Conte on this one in the next 30 seconds oh oh you all I’m trying to say is that to argue that this kind of a question is somehow either settled or unimportant because because there is no way of sort of addressing it in a scientific sense I think reflects a certain narrowness of perspective about the wide range of human knowledge the wide range of disciplines mystery to psychology and anything remotely like that but I didn’t well you gave a little kind of science comes first and that’s what I was reciting this is the most consistently reliable method of accurately understanding the universe the cosmos not well in natural world the natural world perfect exact but we live in a world where not we are in a natural world to be sure right but we are anomalous objects in that natural world right first of all we are conscious of our own existence we are conscious that here we are in the world observing the world that makes us different from most of the world true yeah okay I can tell yeah and as far as we can tell even in the living world and in the animal kingdom we are anomalous in that we not only have consciousness but we have self-consciousness true some of us okay okay and to push it further coming back a little bit to Conte here as well Khan says I am amazed by the starry heavens and then I’m equally amazed by the moral law within me so now we come to another thing which is worth mentioning which is well Adam Smith’s phrase for it was the impartial spectator which is the quote Adam Smith there is this man within the breasts sort of another guy as Smith envisioned him inside of us that is clearly not us because this guy let’s call him a guy is a bit of a nuisance this guy how did we reach the conclusion that it’s not us first of all I’m not I’m not gonna go here here’s why an in here or that he’s not me well no but but but the only point I’m trying to make in a roundabout way is that as humans we are inherently moral beings morality is part of the equipment of being human and in fact it’s it’s a necessary part in our criminal law for example if somebody is considered not to know the difference between right and wrong we don’t even hold them accountable for their actions which is to say we consider morality true that’s not true if somebody let’s say for example some guy is so insane that he thinks he’s Napoleon and he goes out and kills somebody else we still hold them responsible for their actions we just have graduated to a point where we are killing fewer people who are of diminished mental capacity thankfully but we are also committing people the institution’s for their own benefit it’s not like you just walk in and say ah blameless well I draw and ink leave was at an institution for shooting the president in the United States and he’s out so he was he better as he shot anybody else he hasn’t shot anybody else but but my point is he was held not responsible for that act in a criminal sense that is that is a technical definition within the law he was still held responsible okay but if we let them get away with I’m not saying that what I’m saying is if somebody has no moral comprehension whatsoever we basically call them a psychopath or a sociopath and all I’m trying to say is that that’s a way of saying that you are outside the human community because the normal moral equipment that the rest of us have that comes into play so just for clarity or suggesting that those individuals and and I would stay away from diagnostic terms normally but Psychopaths says you’re best they don’t have that inner man that I’m saying if society makes a determination that that someone is in a sense of psychopathy or social they are considered as it’s outside the normal moral community of human beings not accountable to the same no but so for clarity we start off with this we all have this and now we’ve identified a group of people who don’t have it and and and I’m saying that those people who don’t have it or at least have somehow I’m not saying they weren’t born with it I’m saying I agree I do think that our moral equipment like our other equipment can be damaged it can be destroyed it can be squelched it can be brutalized so yeah let’s assume that there’s somebody who’s gone through whatever experiences that have caused them to be morally anesthetized okay and so for example they could bring in a little dog right here and joyfully stomp on it as the audience gasps in horror or if you want a more mixed reaction a cat the point I’m trying to make however is very bad the point I’m trying to make is just this that that we try to understand the cosmos we don’t just understand the physical world which is the domain of science I agree sure what I’m saying we have to just we have to understand ourselves I couldn’t agree more that we should understand ourselves and I think that one of the biggest problems is there are a number of assumptions the biggest problem humans make is probably asking the wrong questions like what’s the purpose of my life as if it was externally imposed and extant as a real thing that you could discover rather than I make my own meaning and purpose in life but we’re talking about this moral being I would prevail I mean you you just made a absolutely ridiculous statement so I good have to stop pause a little bit here cuz I’m sort of that’s fine grass you make according to you we don’t have a life purpose I mean let’s think about it first of all almost all of us are in some sense trying to discover what the purpose of our life is right and the huge industries devoted to this talk shows devoted to this as well so it’s a quest that just about all of us probably most wasn’t the audience are on and you’re declaring at the outset that it’s a it’s it is a quest according to you that has no answer or at least has no external answer no I it is a quest that I don’t see any reason to think that there is an externally imposed purpose the fact that you might desire there to be a god and deveined or a universe imposed purpose doesn’t mean there is one the fact that humans quest for things doesn’t mean that the answer is there or doesn’t mean that the answer they hope for is there of course not so well no one is saying that the the wish to have a purpose is enough no I’m not even saying that the universe is somehow what is our purpose well I would say this that that I think in life we are always asking this question am I dinesh living the best life that I can live in other words is the life I’m living now somehow off-track inauthentic is there when I when I say something is there there’s me saying it but is there a better me that would have said something different in other words I agree okay so in other words the my quest to find not only the choices I make but the choices I ought to make is completely valid true so there’s a contextual thing that this is where we got with the the labels and how we end up looking at this yeah I’m my view is that my life has whatever meaning and purpose I give it okay the notion that I should be looking for some externally imposed purpose is not only not only going to not have a good reason to think that there is such a purpose or that there would be or could be and you’re saying but whatever answer you give to that question of what is let’s take what is the purpose of Matt’s life and you’re saying whatever answer you give is valid yes because if in fact there is some God who has a purpose for my life I don’t care what his he thinks my the purpose of my life should be my life is mine okay let’s let’s explore that let’s just say that you were to come here announcer this audience the purpose of my life Matt is to I realize is a difficult example I was gonna say to count the hairs on my head it doesn’t really work in your case there are hairs here on my light there you go my head there you go there you go okay but you said that’s what I live for every day I wake up and I spent a few hours a day at least at the time I’m not working or eating counting the hairs on my beard yeah right now I would submit that everybody here let’s say Matt you know what I don’t think you’re living your best life pal you know that’s nothing wrong with what you’re doing but it’s kind of pointless can you can you show that that this isn’t the purpose of my life that there is some other purpose well yes I would I mean I think I think I could make arguments to that effect okay let’s pursue the example even further make it more ridiculous so we can see how obvious is let’s just say for example and yeah I don’t mean to be going to the trans territory but I’m I’m gonna go there a little bit let’s say I were to say I identify as a toad okay okay and so what I do is I get up in the morning and I start jumping around like a toad and for a while people go I got guys an eccentric man what the hell is he doing and then I go listen it’s not just up to me I’m getting a little annoyed that there are all these haters out there who don’t respect my identity as a toad Disney won’t cast me in toad races and their movies I don’t get and I I’m denied rights under the Constitution all these people look down on me and big jokes when I come you know jumping by okay so and my point is not that I’ve decided to become a toad my point is I’ve always been toad I’m just a toad in a human body okay now and I seriously press this you would come to me I think and say – you know you are a member of Homo sapiens you’re not actually a toad this purpose of your life that you have ascribed to yourself it’s based on some deep psychological disorders you have very poor self perception of who you are as a human being and who you as a human because you’re a son you’re a brother you’re graduate of an Ivy League college and you make movies you know go do those things and find a better a higher purpose in life than jumping around in a dirty pond you think that’s what I would come to you and say I hope so unless you yeah I hope so you may know you you might come back you might come join me because first of all I’m not a busybody who worries about what other people do and how they feel and what their views but also but also I try to avoid fallacious arguments and in fact you are a homo sapien but Homo sapiens include multiple different genders and even the fact that someone’s gender identity doesn’t match what you think it should be is none of your damn business oh okay so right up at this point you’ve been invoking science right yeah and suddenly science is trumped by psychology no yes yes no yes because according to you now your gender is not something it’s not a fact in the natural world your else yeah your gender or genetics sex and what your chromosomes are those are facts but your gender is a social construct this is the difference between let’s say someone who’s genetically male and someone who’s genetically female someone who has XX or XY chromosomes and by the way there are more than two of those because there’s all sorts of chromosomal abnormalities there are intersex people the number of people who are born in every year would shock most people because they just don’t think that this sort of thing happens however that is about what your chromosomes are what genetic predisposition you have but it doesn’t talk about what your state of mind is what sort of a self perception you have and so in addition to genetic sex we also have gender which is fall actually falls into a number of different categories so my apologies to all of my trans friends for the things that I’m about to get slightly wrong there’s a difference between gender identity and gender expression and that was the gender identity is the gender that you associate with but these the reason I say these are social constructs is because what is a man what makes a man a manly man well you have the machismo aspect of the the brawny and Bobbitt but is someone who is weaker and more effeminate somehow less of a man these this is why this is a social construct because it has to do with what roles we as a society put on it which is why a hundred and fifty years ago pink was for boys and blue was for girls and now it has reversed although I would go with black for everybody but the thing is at the end of the day what I would say to you if you were hopping around like a frog is I would ask you how you’re doing I would ask you how you feel and if you’re able to communicate to me that you identify as a frog I’m not gonna be running around saying oh my gosh let me fix this it’s when there’s a demonstration that what you are doing may be something that society should care about that it that is gonna result in some sort of self harm or a problem for your life in in in other words I’m okay with living and living but as long as my trans friends are committing suicide and an inordinate rate and are being murdered left and right because there are bigots who think that whatever your chromosomes are or whatever particular genitalia you might have dangling is the one thing that matters as long as I’m a friend of mine in point well not an actual friend of mine but someone in Puerto Rico the other night was murdered for using the bathroom that they associate with when bathrooms are for peeing and pooping and hopefully washing your hands when you’re done what people are doing to try to suggest that you can’t be who you are is absolutely repugnant and it is busybody there’s nothing anti science about this it is psychology and even if we were to say and I’m not saying this so before I’m saying this because this comes up even if you were to say this is all gender dysphoria and it’s mental illness and these people aren’t what they think they are what science has to say so far based on what we’ve explored and discovered within these individuals is that being supportive encouraging and allowing them to transition is the single best path to them living the life they want to live and surviving and until that changes I will absolutely support what the data show is the best way to encourage trans people [Music] [Applause] so what I think you’ve done here is changed the topic the topic was I’m pretty sure you said trans before I did I I did I did but I did by by analogy the point I was trying to make was is there such a thing as male and female the point you’re trying to make be wise because because cuz we got you took the category of male which actually is a scientific category it has a it’s like life is a sign between male female and man woman right and then what you did is you introduced a new concept which I wasn’t introducing of manliness and I agree manliness which is to say the cultural accouterment of being a man let’s just say for example smoking a cigar or growing a mustache and hanging out at a club that is manliness and I agree that that is a social construct I would argue as a social construct a and large in accordance with nature because culture and society develops and congruence with a given human creature okay so he’s suggesting that the roles have a historical perspective I mean a historical biological well it’s not a historical concept it’s a biological concept when I say historical I was not denying biology I’m saying that because of certain biological things that sets up norms of these are the hunter-gatherers these are the ones that are going to go out kill these are the ones that are nursing children etc else those those norms are constructs of our head there’s nothing wrong with a stay-at-home dad there’s nothing wrong of going on a woman working there’s nothing wrong with a woman earning as much as a man makes for the same work let’s look at what we are arguing about okay so in the civil rights laws of the 1960s we had the principle of colorblindness which is to say equal rights under the law the law let’s say should not pay attention to race I realize this is complex with affirmative act let’s leave it aside let’s just say that the basic principle of of the civil rights laws is that race is the painted face I think that was Morris visas phrase from the 60s and therefore the law should not take it into account that was the general norm now right away when when sex was added to race in the Civil Rights Act there was a bit of a problem which is to say that men and women are very different particularly in certain areas on average they’re not different in every individual case so for example men are stronger than women men are taller than women now you can’t refute that by saying well here’s Sally she’s 6-3 and years freddie’s 5-4 right we’re talking we’re talking about in general yeah but the the normative conclusion from that simple biological fact is we establish something that was abhorrent in the area of race let’s call it separate but equal’ separate but equal was the hated doctrine of segregation right different water fountains well we have separate but equal for example in men’s and women’s sports in Wimbledon the men play the men the women play the women we did that because we recognize that gender is not the same as race gender is not the painted face men are in fact stronger than women and they can hit the ball harder on the tennis court and therefore Martina Navratilova gets to play Chris Evert and Pete Sampras gets to play Andre Agassi so our laws are norms a based upon this biological irreducible fact the norms are a social construct but there are social construct you may say in obedience to biology now what you’re saying is I take it that Pete Sampras or take it if Pete Sampras can say well I came in you know I was the runner up and Wimbledon next year I’m gonna enter the women’s division because I identify as a woman because after all hold on gender is a social construct and this is ridiculous this is going on all over the country right now your example is ridiculous why is it reversed of all its sports and sports ball is ridiculous but what I’m sorry that was a joke for somebody else okay my sincere apologies because I should be I’m not a sports but I’m not this isn’t about what the law is my view on sports by the way and many sports organizations have already dealt with this sort of thing dealing with individuals who are transitioning and studying the Simon science of it of various hormonal levels and things like that and we’re still in the in the fledgling process of getting this sorted I think that there shouldn’t be any gender restrictions on something if somebody what we should just have these in the category like a tear a tear being tear C to D and you compete in whatever level you can compete at that way people who are whether they’re women men or neither whether they’re you know whatever their identity is they compete at this level I am a big fan I play a lot of pool and snooker and the fact the matter is if you look at the statistics over history generally speaking in that particular discipline women can’t compete as well as the men that’s just what the data show from the past however there should be no reason why anyone whether they are a woman under your criteria or a woman under their own shouldn’t be able to compete against anybody else they want if they can play at that level and so I don’t care for gender divisions along sports I think sports because it’s a physical test should be divided up on physical characteristics irrespective of what gender somebody identifies with their expresses with to go to the sports thing the reason I say it’s ridiculous is yeah we’re working out these things but the world doesn’t turn well alright Sports makes a lot of money no denying that we’re talking about the law and how it treats people and we’re also talking about human beings and how we treat people right so if you saw me walk into a women’s bathroom what would your reaction be it’s clearly we’re at a restaurant its marked women’s and I walk in what’s your take on that well I don’t know what might take or not give you my wife’s take on it what would feel very uncomfortable if you sprang your testicles in a women’s bathroom why is what most of the other fights I bring my testicles yeah the most women I think aren’t you assuming I have testicles mind real eyes that may be a conjecture but but the more important point is most women would be freaked out if a man walked into the women’s bathroom while they were there okay that’s a fact the thing is there’s a lot of factors that are missing from from that example which is not not least which is which my reason is but do we have any evidence to show that anybody is in danger when a trans person goes into the bathroom that matches their gender identity to use it do we have any examples or data anywhere that somebody is more danger do we have any evidence that trans people who would use their own biological bathroom are being psychologically harmed by doing that where’s the evidence for that so the evidence for that the evidence for that is in the depression rate and suicide rate of people who are being emotionally harmed well not hold on right here stop right there that’s not okay this is what I call arguing inside your own bubble inside your own bubble somebody who is biologically male but thinks they’re female right are not having any kind of inner clash no inner trauma between physical and psychological realities let’s call them they are not depressed or traumatized by the very fact that their own body does not agree with them right rather they’re just traumatized by the fact that when that they have to go into a men’s bathroom I would argue that that if there are higher rates of depression suffered by trans people a lot of it might have to do with being trans not being in that particular no a lot of it might have to do so I want examples of who’s in danger when somebody uses the bathroom associated with their gender because force him to use the other bathroom and you know you know when it when it when a trans woman walks into a woman’s bathroom you know who’s in danger the trans woman they’re the ones that are being killed they’re the one in Puerto Rico that was shot just the other day for going into that bathroom they’re the ones that are in danger for doing that from bigots well I don’t I don’t want to go down this road only because how many how many oh I don’t know what’s to stop me whether I identify as a woman where I’m first of all if I was dressed as a woman you wouldn’t even know what you don’t know what my junk is if I go in and open the door and sit down and use it you don’t have no idea and it shouldn’t be anybody’s business what’s in my pants or what I’m wearing well quite quite honestly if I can remain general from the bathrooms entirely what you say is true that people don’t know you wouldn’t even need laws because this would be this is sort of like don’t do anything to help there’s nothing stopping me from walking into a woman I’m an assaulting but see I think I think what you’re missing here is this you know you’re usually when you see a fence in this case the fence is the distinction between men’s and women’s bathrooms right I know maybe we’re over playing this topic but what I’m getting at is if you want to take a fence down always ask why was the fence put up in the first place who did it and why not if it’s my property I don’t care why they put a fence up fair enough but but but the point I’m making here is that we have men’s and women’s public bathrooms for a reason and the reason by and large is I would say mostly for the protection of women it’s not that men yeah trans women are women okay but I’m not look what I’m getting at is the the sexual this we could have 21 types of bathrooms for 21 genders well just have one as you can all pee next to me I don’t care yeah so what you’re basically saying is that is that the distinctions that we make between men and women in our society are culturally according to you arbitrary according to you for example take tennis I’m just using sports because we’re familiar with it you say people should play at their own level and therefore if the top 100 tennis players are all men yes that’s bother you with the slightest basically the conclusion is men are better than women in tennis although what we would say is maybe the top 100 tennis players all have this particular chromosomal makeup whether they identify as men or women yes I see where you’re going okay hey guys a few minutes ago we can talk about God some more but let’s t know two five more minutes and then sure so we’re not gonna get to Trump let’s spend five minutes on the future of America and take questions sounds good what do you want for the future for okay I’m gonna out softball it because it may be and this is legitimately I don’t know and I am interested I am a staunch proponent of the separation of church and state the separation of religion and government as my friend would call it I have no idea you might completely agree with me the your staunch proponent a separation of religion and government right I would agree to a point it would depend on what we mean by this so let’s take examples sure though I think that a religious hospital that receives government funds should be forced to do an abortion know do I think that a a person of religious convictions has to somehow pocket their religious convictions before stepping into public square no though I think that Amy Kony Barrett should be disqualified from being replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court because she’s a devout Catholic no so I agree with parts of most of those okay so let’s point to an area where we might disagree where is that wall being breached where you think I’d fall on one side of the divide and you on the other so so for example I don’t think anybody has to check their religion at the door when they become a public servant however if they legislate on behalf of a particular religion showing favoritism towards one over another or a religion over irreligion that is a huge problem agree completely okay now when it comes to for example I love the way you phrased it a religious hospital being forced to perform it Luke’s or you know sure Catholic hospitals the big problem here is that hospitals from my perspective should be secular I love the fact I mean the only reason that we have religious hospitals and religious universities is because the monumental religious privilege a privilege that religions have have endured and benefited from throughout history there are tax-free institutions they have people donating money to them and finally I have no problem with people doing good build a hospital build a university but if you’re gonna build a hospital that’s going to service an entire community then the hospital services need to be medically sound and not based on religious doctrine or dogma well the services of these hospitals are medically sound what we’re talking about is something that they agree not all hospitals do and everything hold on hold on there are children’s hospitals that don’t take adults I guess right there are cancer hospitals and don’t take diabetes patients sure if a Catholic hospital were to say listen we provide the full ensemble of of medical services we just don’t do abortion they are acting in line with their conscience this is not to say that abortion is not available in the street by what you would’ve thought I would somebody who believes in freedom want to force somebody to act against their conscience because would you like it if I’d because I don’t care if it about your conscience if it’s affecting whether or not somebody else can live it well it’s not affecting whether someone else can look because that guy can go if you have a Jehovah’s Witness hospital that refused to perform blood transfusions is that okay well it’s okay if you want to go there I wouldn’t go there I wouldn’t either right and that’s awesome let’s just say – the only thing I’m well there are Javas witnesses I’m thrilled that we’re in boots that you want to do blood no I’m saying that you don’t always have a choice about what hospital you go to or what medical services go to because one of the reasons why we have government and government interaction and government oversight because if my only medical provider within any reasonable driving distance of me will not provide that what do I do this is why the better example is the conscience of the pharmacist because first of all a Catholic hospital may be a hospital that was built by Catholics that was built with Catholic donations that was built from Catholic donors but not every doctor there is a Catholic not every nurse there is a Catholic not every page there is a Catholic so why should they all have to adhere to Catholic doctrine just because they built a hospital instead the gun should say if you want to build a hospital it needs to provide these services irrespective of your religion if your religion can’t can’t accommodate that then you don’t get to build a hospital I think I think you here you’re you’re disrespecting a distinction between the public and the private sphere in I all in every other domain of life we have private sector institutions educational institutions social work institutions and those institutions develop policies based upon their mission and their conscience then deciding with that as long as you don’t give government funding both Sooners they do as soon as now it becomes something that is in the public interest okay so let’s take Planned Parenthood okay Planned Parenthood is one minute left parting on Planned Parenthood well I was gonna say before you guys touch that yeah why don’t we do a little bit of a vote do you guys and just use your voice will do voting for either to keep the conversation going for the rest of the night or to move to Q&A so let’s go Q&A all right and and then if we do keep the conversation rolling we’ll go in to trump so conversation rolling okay well let’s let’s do that how much time have we got left we got about a half hour all right we should transition the Trump be careful because he’s promising Trump and we started with God and we didn’t finish that and you had three things for God I’m not even sure we finished one of them I think we’re gonna need a couple more nights with you guys we don’t you wanted to go to well and Parenthood let me since you mentioned God let me kind of make make a point about that because I think I think that’s where my three points were going okay let’s take a let’s take the question I ended with is there life after death I have no idea you have no idea and you know and neither do I cool of course not but here’s my point if I say I believe in life after death you would say that’s an irrational position Dinesh speak no I would say what’s the evidence for what’s the evidence for it and I would say I don’t have any evidence for it neither do you but but I’m not believing it right but it is and this is the key point it isn’t the nature of the subject that no empirical evidence could settle the question because death is the termination of experience and therefore for you to demand evidence in a domain where evidence is unavailable is the height of foolishness so when you say death is the termination of experience it sounds like you’re arguing that there is no after death I’m arguing that our natural life I mean I think the religious believer is fully on board with this is complete our natural life in this world will completely irrevocably come to an end with death and so in the empirical world that we live in yes there is not going to be evidence nor will there be evidence in the future that settles a question of what happens after natural experience ends and the question about whether there is any you know let’s let’s remove the Christian context look at the Hindu context the Hindu context is that there’s a life after death right it’s a natural life but it’s not in this domain there’s a world behind the world and that that natural life will occur there but we have no access to it because we live in the empirical world that is according to Hinduism something of an illusion leaving aside the doctrinal parts of it all I’m getting at is this here’s a point where you are demanding that I settle the issue on the basis of an empirical evidence that is never forthcoming and yet you agreed with me at the beginning this is one of the questions that all intelligent people think about it’s relevant to their life because the answer to it even if we don’t know it determines how we should live today and all I’m trying to get you to admit is that since you don’t know any more than I did then I do it is the same leap of faith that I’m taking to say that there is that you’re taking to say that there isn’t because you don’t have one ounce of evidence any more than I do why or the other give me a round of applause that’s outstanding cuz after an hour and so sitting here and having explained this over and over again you managed to get my position exactly exactly wrong because I’m not you I’m not asking you to settle it do you believe in life after that I do not believe that there is life after death perfect so your opposition hang on okay it does not only that it’s not the same as I believe there is no life after death I’m saying as you we both sat here and said we don’t know what’s what and I’m saying I’m and you’re saying I believe there’s something afterwards okay but you’re missing my poll and I like I don’t believe that and I’m saying I do and my position is not in any Yoda less rational than yours yes it is because you are accepting something and acknowledging that you have no evidence for it and I am not accepting that something because there is no evidence we agree there’s no evidence and you are saying you are rational to accept it despite the absence of evidence and I’m saying you’re not which is why I don’t accept it but to demand evidence in the opening page of the critique of Pure Reason cought says many of us profess to be apostles of reason but never once do we step back and ask this question what is it that reason can actually know in other words we live in a world where reason has the ability to arbitrate certain questions and on other questions reason is in a sense completely deaf it has nothing to say at all and you admit it for example that if you were a Greek in the fifth century BC your reason in the empirical sense would have nothing to say about the world beyond the observational world your reason is in a sense silent I have to go to the fifth century okay well today but here’s my point I accept whatever the data show and I cannot go behind that and claim that I’m reasonable and go beyond it you clearly have but I don’t get to claim that I’m reasonable by saying you and I have no evidence of what happens tomorrow but I believe this okay well let’s take it let’s take a let’s take a secular example to test this proposition okay I take two guys let’s just call Manby you and me and let’s just say that I say I believe that there is life on other planets okay you say to match this I don’t know right hence you say what do I say I don’t know what’s the evidence you support your bully okay so you say I don’t know if there’s life under all right are not the planets and I don’t either okay now I don’t either but you believe it so my next question is what is the evidence that causes you to believe this okay so now I might say something like well the reason I believe it is we have an unimaginably vast universe we might even be living in an infinite infinite universe life as we know it we are we are on one tiny speck of this universe and life as we know it has developed by various causes natural causes in the universe what is the actual likelihood that is this event remotely improbable though it might be and we can’t say what the probability of it is but let’s just say it’s one in a hundred million but we live in a universe that’s vastly bigger than that so what are the odds that this combination of attributes called human beings exists nowhere else in this vast universe not just human beings that are like us but life of any sort at all what’s the probability of that and let’s say I just think that that’s improbable for the reasons I’ve just outlined and therefore I believe I don’t know it like if you asked me to produce an alien I can’t but I would argue my belief is in no way irrational no now you might say I’m gonna wait until the alien walks on stage and then I’ll believe it or because you’re your reason for disbelief may require much higher degrees of certainty than mine are but I would argue in in me believing it and you not believing in all awaiting the evidence I this is a fake pomposity that comes out of just saying because I don’t know for sure therefore somehow my belief is more rational than Dinesh’s even though Dinesh has all kinds of good reasons for believing what he does of course if we if if empirical evidence shows up I’ll be as open as you to pay attention to it but I’m not in some epistemological second-class status because I believe something for which I have my own reasons even though there’s not empirical proof okay so the example that you gave first of all at some point something go back through this video and find the number of times that he says what my position is likely to be versus how many times I’ve tried to even attempt what your position is I actually asked so if you’re just gonna set up strongmen it’s gonna be really easy for me to knock them don’t know I mean only time you do that you say you could say this and here’s the thing the examples that you’re talking about we live in this vast universe one of the likelihoods what are the odds right all this stuff great great questions and there are things that we can address with data but the the belief that results from that the belief that results for that is not I believe that the setna justified belief from that is not I believe there is life outside of Earth or intelligent life outside earth was to think of that the warranted belief is I believe that there is a likelihood consistent with the data of life outside of that that’s different than this is the case okay I agree with that sure and this is what I’m saying it’s the example that you’re giving is fine the summation is perhaps sloppy in the sense that we’re not distinguishing between I believe there’s life outside of Earth versus I believe that the data show that there’s a likelihood of this because my response to that is to say I think that that is a good estimation of the data that we have and by the way I think we can go further because we can look at something like the Drake Equation which will evaluate those things about what the probability is and also considering the the likelihood of when technologies get so advanced are they more likely to you know destroy themselves or die from not paying attention to climate change or or whatever sorry well you know I but hang on but when when we do that I’m I’m I strive to be as careful as I can with what I say to not overreach to not pretend that I pretend to read minds onstage but not to pretend I can read minds in this stuff and also say I should have a discreet position that is clear based on the evidence and if that purpose is if the current position is the evidence does not warrant a position so there may be plenty of good evidence to suggest that life probably in some form occurs throughout the Gaza we have found the building blocks of life out in space from exploration so it would seem likely that possibly there is life whether it’s intelligent life you know whether what’s possible who knows outside that’s one thing but to say I believe there is intelligent extraterrestrial life just based on the likelihood that we’re not necessarily alone it doesn’t rise to that level it’s about being consistent in with the data I’ll try to illuminate the point by pivoting into politics because I think that sometimes we talk about God and religion we astir we establish sort of special distinctions and categories that are not normal in everyday life so I’m gonna throw it a bunch of beliefs okay I believe it’s likely the Trump will be reelected how do you – I believe that if Bernie were elected the day after the stock market would take a severe hit as a more severe hit than it has in last couple days probably because because because Bernie would be a walking virus for four years I don’t believe that but that doesn’t mean that I’m convinced you’re wrong correct so what I’m getting at here is now again I’m making these statements of I believe I believe that if if Trump is re-elected the market will do well over four years but when I say these things I’m making I’m stating beliefs anchored in my knowledge of politics there’s not too much I’m not there’s no empirical fact that I’m leaving out and it would mean no objection to these beliefs for you to say to me somehow tarnish my position on this is actually rather Jesuitical I draw a distinction between warranted belief and beliefs that are ultimately don’t have sufficient warrant I would say we’re talking about the future Matt none of us knows I grant that in that sense it resembles life after death we’re plugging in all the data we have and we’re making a judgment about something that affects our life just like life after death does we have act upon it because we have investments and portfolios we have to cast our own vote so we’re gonna make decisions about the future based on what we think is gonna happen my belief is in no way irrational because I cannot have either certitude about it or I don’t have the kind of empirical evidence that would enable me in some census to declare the belief warranted no it’s more it did so first of all here we go again I don’t disagree the thing is is that you’re making you have beliefs about what’s likely to happen in the in the economic and political realm and you base it on actual data I have no objection to that at all but this I think gets to the heart of where and how you and I are dramatically different not just in epistemology and what may or may not warrant believing in something without evidence because I can’t imagine a both acknowledging I have no evidence but I believe it anyway that’s not the same thing it’s what we’re talking about now you have a lot of evidence you have market research you have other information you know what’s likely to happen you know where the majority of people are you know what what they’re looking forward to here’s here’s the mark the difference between the two of us at every instance tonight when we when we got to something that was potentially political or that was about policy you went to money where are they spending their money are they building this on the coast what are the markets gonna do what is this gonna do I don’t give a rat’s ass about money I give a rat’s ass about human beings and as a humanist I’m looking at how the world can be better with policies that lift people up and I’m not talking about you know I’m not I have no problem with Bernie I voted for him before I’m not a Bernie or Buster I’m not a Bernie bro matter of fact they know that crap out of me and yet I will be supporting probably almost certainly whoever the Democratic nominate nominee is for a number of reasons but I think the big one is I have a focus that is on human beings and doing whatever we can to lift people up and not to make rich people richer or to make markets just better so that we can say we made markets better because if the market goes nuclear and just we’re it’s not like we’re not already the wealthiest country as it is but if we all got you know if we all got wealthier there in the United States market just went through the roof I don’t think we’ve lifted all boats I think the gap in income the gap in wealth the gap in value of human beings is widening and I don’t think focusing on the market is the fix for that okay first of all in the in the two or three times that I’ve cited markets my purpose in citing them was as mechanisms of information in other words a market is a sign of how seriously people with money who have to put their money on the line take a piece of data right so I’m not using the market as the market is always right I’m simply using the market as if people really thought this was gonna happen they would start moving their cash and that’s just a fact about people sure all right if somebody’s really thought this is what the market was gonna do that’s where they move it exactly but what they think about the truth has no bearing on what the truth is just like the number of people who believe something how strongly now you you through this contrast up between you mentioned the issue of inequality yeah and you said you don’t care about markets you care about people I was being hyperbolic hyperbolic but but let’s look at that a little bit so it’s not like you throw it out of course but what I was when I was gonna say is this the reason and I agree by the way we have more inequality now than we had for example in the 1970s and it is true also that CEOs and entrepreneurs today make a lot more money as a multiple let’s say of the average worker than they did in the 70s the reason for that I think is because CEOs and 70s didn’t do a whole lot if you are a CEO of hewlett-packard or Ford Motor Company by and large your job is organizational you are in straighter you say I’ll open a new plant over here I’ll do this over there the entrepreneurs who have made job gargantuan amounts of cash I would mention you know the obvious ones even Bloomberg but certainly a Jeff Bezos I’ve certainly Steve Jobs the reason that they got so rich it’s precisely because they have augmented human welfare to such a gargantuan degree everybody who I see people didn’t even we normally we think of markets as responding supply response to demand but as far as I know there’s not one person in the world who wrote Steve Jobs and goes you know what take an ordinary phone you know figure out how it can take photos let’s figure out how it can do email a texting put all these features and then get rid of the stylist use your finger here’s what I’m getting at Apple built the phone before we knew we couldn’t live without it sure and everybody who put a client there cuz I’m on Android yeah okay fair enough well what I’m getting at is everybody who made these people like Bezos and and Jobs so rich did it happily by waiting in long lines in the Apple Store because of great boosts and human welfare that they were able to create so I would argue we’re living in an entrepreneurial boom now the last time this happened is in the era that progressives called the Gilded Age but the Gilded Age is also the age of the Telegraph the car the airplane so that was actually the the biggest communication revolution of all time we’re living through the second biggest one and all I’m getting at is these are huge amounts of human welfare that have been created by entrepreneurs for which they’re being rewarded voluntarily by people who are happy to pay three hundred dollars to get a phone so wait where does the social injustice come from oh okay who who is who is Steve Jobs ripped off how many how many phones is Steve actually manufactured a lot zero Steve man Jobs never manufactured a phone in his life well Apple Apple yeah so why I’m an agreement with you entrepreneurs by all means I mean how many cars did Henry Ford himself personally make yep I agree the thing is by the assembly line if we’re gonna if we’re gonna determine how much the invention itself is important and there certainly entrepreneurs who are as self-made as possible however that’s not the sum total of wealth and it doesn’t mean that if I invent something and then have twenty five thousand employees some of which I don’t give a particularly good living wage to manufacture those phones so that I can make as much money as possible off of my invention that I’m actually doing something that is in the best benefit of society or that is boosting Sassari and you get to decide that you a magician I do sitting here decide here’s a voluntary transaction well let’s let’s elaborate the example so we can see capitalism in its pure form let’s just say everyone in this audience has $10 so we live in a socialist utopia we all have ten bucks okay and then you stand up and do a magic trick and you say I’ll do this magic trick if if some of you would agree to pay me a dollar okay and let I will say let’s just say the twenty five people in the audience said we’ll give you a dollar so everybody else clears the room you do the magic trick they give you a dollar a perfect equality is now interrupted by inequality right what would say inequality because in that example hold on I manufactured 100% yes yeah the magic Marcel correct but but but here’s the point the point the point is that well you might have an innocent assistant and you bought equipment and you might have bought that at cheap prices and so on we’ll leave all that aside the main point is that the guy who gave you the dollar thought you a magic trick must be worth at least at all but I’m not complaining about the person who willingly gives Apple money for their phone okay so so and I’m not by the way I’m not ragging on Apple or the iPhone or any of that right I’m saying yes there are entrepreneurs and yes there are people who justifiably go from nothing to immense wealth I’m not objecting to wealth I’m not advocating for an absolute equality where everybody gets $10 and that’s all you’re ever gonna get but you’re stepping aside let’s take Walmart ordinary guy who works in worrell mechanic at the cash register makes twenty five thousand dollars a year that’s the average pay at Walmart for a cash register guy the managers and Walmart make about 200 grand now the the family that owns Walmart makes a killing as you know here’s my question who are you these are people who voluntarily show up for work they could go work at Target they choose to work at Walmart they could be it the cashier at advance or at Kroger’s they want to be at Walmart they take the best job they have there’s an agreement between them and Walmart about how much to be paid they should be paid for all I’m saying is where do you get to waltz in and say things like baseball players make too much and I didn’t say that ok or that Apple should be paying more money to its managers because Steve Jobs made more than they did it’s not because Steve Jobs made more than it basically you’re saying where do I get off coming in when these people voluntarily work right and so that if we can get them to work for a dollar fifty an hour so that they have to work five jobs and they I just let you talk on and on and on about hey go ahead you’re suggesting that that Who am I to say that it’s a bad move for us to pay some people so little to pay a cash register working twenty five thousand dollars a year I can tell you who I am to say that I am someone who may end up in that position but I’m also someone who may have family members in that position who may have friends in that position I’m also somebody who lives and works in a society that benefits from them and I benefit from them staying healthy and productive in society it’s not to pretend that the massive wealth disparity is all down to somebody had a really good idea and other people agreed to work for a pittance and that’s just fine it may be true that some people had a good idea and some people work for fitness but that doesn’t mean it’s just fine it doesn’t mean it leads to a better society it doesn’t mean that people can afford health care and if they can’t afford health care then guess what they’re potentially getting me sick if they can’t this is why we were this is why the government steps in to suggest that you need to vaccinate your kids because vaccines don’t freakin cause autism they protect and save lives I know you didn’t say that yeah this is this is something I would trumpet and there are people out there who can’t have vaccines who depend on her immunity and similarly they need the person who’s checking them out handling their giving them back their change that when they coffin their hand had had it back to them they at least have the same opportunities that health care should be a basic human right and if it’s not then we definitely have to pay people more the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States the the issue of health care is worth focusing on for a moment because to me the problem of health care is really simple the this is where we talking about Trump I didn’t say the solution I didn’t say the solution oh I said the problem the problem of health care can be summarized in this way the guy who receives the service is not only not paying for it but he has no idea what it costs it never occurs to him or her to ask what it costs and this crucial fact is known by every provider of health care who recognizes that a third man not present here is paying for it and it’s gonna be very easy to screw that guy because he’s not here and so we will be sending him a bill which could be as gargantuan as we like because the guy getting the service is never gonna show the slightest interest in the social cost being borne by that third guy let’s call him the taxpayer so it’s a ripoff scheme engineered ultimately and and everything would would work like health care if we allowed it to you said health care czar right well I would say eating is a right I have a right to eat I shouldn’t starve I mean I live in a prosperous country so let’s say I want to tell you all right you have a right to food when you go to Vaughn’s just to fill your cart just take what you think you need and go to the counter and then they’ll just check you out and so you look at the milk and milk was you know you normally it’s two dollars and fifty cents and you buy two cartons you say I’ll buy ten cuz I’m not paying so you fill up your cart you show up at the counter now here’s the important point your behavior is completely understandable you’re taking as much as you can the guy behind the counter by which I mean the management they realize that the guy in the line is not paying so they realize milk doesn’t have to cost 250 it could cost 25 bucks why because that guy’s not gonna ask and he’s not gonna care and so as long as we get to shaft some third guy who’s gonna be paying for it we’re gonna jack up the prices and what I’m trying to say is that that’s a meta in all the areas where we want entitlements that’s the scam that we’ve been subjected to colleges why do you think my daughter went to Dartmouth cost me 60 you did because I did yes yeah if he asked the easy questions I gotta take him cuz I know I’m gonna get them right yes that’s that’s an easy one and but why does college in an in an age where technology should make educational delivery services easier in an age where colleges already have gigantic endowments why these high bills and the answer is really simple the guy who’s walking in the door is not paying the college knows he’s got a $10,000 Pell Grant he’s got all these loans people willing to put so what we do is even though inflation is 0% a 1% we’re gonna increase our feast 20 percent every year for the past 30 years why because we are conspiring with the student and his family to screw the third man who’s not here so what I’m trying to get at is that hang on hang on you are exactly exactly and and so either you are aware of this and we’ll be voting for Trump or you’re a happy sucker who wants to pay even more who wants to pay even more because he is okay with this collective rip-off scheme yeah so but it’s the guy who got the services was paying our health care let’s think of it this way let’s say the government were to say all right the people that you’re worried about who go bankrupt they do that because of catastrophic health situations right catastrophic health situations are I need a heart surgery I need a new lung and this is gonna cost $100,000 I don’t have $100,000 what I’m saying is we could insure the entire American population against catastrophic events kind of like hurricanes and so on except in this case disease and allow people to pay at least people who are not poor people on Medicaid pay their routine health care bills where are you okay I’m okay with Medicaid for the poor can’t afford it yes socialist no it’s not socialist no I know it’s a finatus hi I’m working just waiting yeah there’s a couple points I have to address okay so the point we’re gonna make is in an American health care system where we paid our routine health care bills and the government ensured us against catastrophic illness you would magically begin to see health care prices plummet you go to the doctor he goes I’m gonna run seven tests you’re like really seven tests just because I have a cold in a sore throat what are the seven tests why do I need seven tests suddenly the guy next door would be offering for tests and and half the price and I’d walk across the street because I’m paying if the government gave us a ten thousand dollar health care voucher and said to you listen if you can spend it all on health care but if you only spend a thousand you could pocket the other nine notice the tremendous behavioral change that would sweep across this country suddenly people would demand to know what health care should cost and it would change the system so that’s all I’m saying you’re you’re fighting a caricature whereas I’m saying there are better ways to run these things and deliver the safety net we want and I think Trump represents that it’s not obvious he does but that’s what he does I wouldn’t breathe hey Matt we have time for your response yeah yeah so a WoW I just lost like half my train of thought right there as soon as we mentioned Trump and just happens every time okay so there are things about the system that I I’m in complete agree with you I’m not denying the facts there are certain things about what you said were you talking about the guy going in for services is not paying for it the unfortunate fact is that there are there are guys who going in who are paying for it directly because the problems with the insurance and other things it’s not always just the the prices I agree with you on the economics of how this ends up happening and how they end up raising the promise is that there are also guys who aren’t paying for it because it can’t afford it they don’t have insurance they can’t get it and the example that you came up with of going into the grocery store and take it what you need first of all we could have a conversation about food but I’m not gonna go in for three root canals just because they’re free I’m not going to go in to have 15 gall bladders removed just because of not paying let’s pause right there so I agree all those examples but there are misleading examples no your example was mentally misleading to suggest that it’s somehow the problem that if we start giving people health care that they’re going to necessarily take advantage of it even though we no human being human behavior will have people take advantage of it not in the way of let me grab as much milk as I can that was my problem with the example there are ways to fix the system to lower the prices so that we’re not because by the way the insurance companies are not getting screwed they’re making money and so the guy who goes in who’s not paying for it it’s not the insurance guy that’s getting screwed it’s everybody else and the other thing is if the doctor tells me I need seven tests and this doctor tells me I need four tests and I’m not a doctor what if the one of those three tests is what I actually need this this is the problem because we have people who are okay yeah there’s people who are lazy lazy thinkers and people but generally I don’t have time to become an expert on everything no you don’t so I have to rely on experts and so if the doctor says I need seven tests going to the guy that’s got four tests doesn’t mean I’ve done anything to improve the likelihood that I’m going to be healthy it just means I saved a couple dollars and if the focus is on getting me healthy and we changed the way the health system works so that people can go in and get whatever tests the medical community feel are necessary to best diagnose their thing to best diagnose their issue that’s what we should be aiming for I’m not proposing any solution I’m not an economist I don’t necessarily buy into what you know individuals are saying I’m just saying if we’re going to use examples let’s put the blame where it should be let’s put let’s put the responsibility where it should be it’s not somebody coming in to their insurance company because they’re in pain and the insurance company’s going to pass on that cost to all of us so the real scam from my perspective and I fully acknowledge that I can be monumentally wrong here is that you want to call it a scam in that there’s a conspiracy amongst the medical community to scam the insurance community out of as much money as they can and my view is that it’s a scam in the sense that we’ve convinced people that health care needs to be expensive and that it’s not something that people should have access to access to and if we just point to that this is the scam the true scam is when we make it so that there are people who are dying for treatable things because the person who goes in to get their flu shot protects you and me too of course and it helps us to have a healthier society it’s not 15 it’s not 10 gallons of milk and by the way there are people who need probably 10 gallons of milk they have way more kids than I’m ever gonna have I’m never gonna have kids and once upon a time I had this notion of why the hell should my tax dollars go to somebody else’s kids going through school that’s yeah that’s not what I’m saying but they should go to that because those kids are part of my community they’re gonna be the ones that are working they’re gonna be the ones that are curing my whatever cancer I end up with in 20 years it’s worth it even though I don’t have kids to provide and contribute to the society that I benefit from which I don’t think you deny I don’t deny that at all that was that was me preaching that so yeah right so we should knock straw man here the the the scam of health care hold my beer the scram of health care the scam of health care at least Obamacare was a scam between the government and the insurance companies against the American people and here’s what I mean Obama went to the health care companies which he knew would oppose Obamacare cuz it involved greater federal control and Obama basically said listen guys I’m gonna give you the greatest profit windfall in your history why I’m going to force every living American to buy health insurance it’s not optional it’s kind of like if I were to force every American to buy broccoli the broccoli industry would be orgasmic with delight so you are going to be making money hand and foot cuz there are a lot of people young people particularly who may not even need insurance they’re perfectly healthy they can make a decision for themselves whether they want it and what kind of insurance they want I’m going to shove it down their throat whether they want to or not in exchange for this profit windfall I want you to lobby for Obamacare I want you to fund my campaign so we will go into this together and so all the insurance companies if you notice we’re all for Obamacare running ads for Obamacare why because Obamacare was a scam perpetrated between the government and the industry not the first time in history by the way on the American people that’s point one point two the vast majority of our health care budget goes on older people not surprisingly that’s when you need the most health care but that’s when your root canal example completely breaks down because anybody who is in the health care industry or works in a hospice or even works in a hospital as a nurse dealing with old people recognizes that we have a massive problem in our society and it may be more unique to Western society of loneliness loneliness old people by and large don’t live with their kids they don’t see their grandkids so they’re so because of loneliness health care becomes a form of counseling of therapy I need this I need that first of all I’m in favor of counseling in therapy especially for theyo but I’m just saying it is a it is an empirical fact and you’re all about empirical facts in the world it’s an empirical fact that the demand for health care in the elderly community sure is huge and a lot of it and some of us may know this from personal example that people like to see the doctor because a they liked it because the doctor is first of all one of the few people who takes a direct personal interest in them will spend by and large as much time as they want get it with the doctor because he’s billing I get it so all I’m getting at is this it’s not like a root canal you and I hate to see the doctor we hate to see the dentist we would never go for any reason other than we are being dragged there by our spouse or whatever but I’m saying there are lots of people who like going to the doctor who like to actually discuss their ailments who think they have more ailments than they actually have if you can show if I can if you can show that this is a significant contributor to health care prices I’ll buy you a steak dinner okay if I show you okay I think it’s good to end all that that’s a good deal I think we’re gonna need like three or four more hours of conversation between these two guys what do you guys think I don’t have time tonight though not tonight though well let’s just thank you very much to Nash and Matt for taking the time and being brave and engaging in this discourse magic tricks $1 Matt will be doing magic in the lobby we’ll come hang out for a while with you guys I as you notice I have my new shirt on I got this mate it says ben shapiro likes infant genital cutting so for those of you don’t know i’ve recently declared ideological war on ben shapiro you can learn more about this at Pangboche burn calm to learn more about what that means but anyways i just wanted to say thank you guys so much for coming tonight and I hope to be back and to do more events in New York thank you thank you all thank you very much everybody thank you [Music] [Music] you

Jean Kelley

RELATED ARTICLES

100 COMMENTS

  1. Pangburn Posted on March 13, 2020 at 6:54 pm

    Join us for the
    @Matt_Dillahunty vs @DineshDSouza WATCH PARTY tonight at 7pm Pacific time.
    Trav will be taking live calls and engaging with you in the chat as we watch this epic discussion!
    Link: https://youtu.be/LRjpxMbnsMU

    Reply
  2. Susan Steinkraus Posted on March 20, 2020 at 5:59 pm

    At about the 45 minute mark D'Souza asks, "Who would pay me to debunk climate change?" How about OIL COMPANIES?

    Reply
  3. AmosTheTalented Posted on March 20, 2020 at 7:24 pm

    D’Souza was on the defense the whole time, but the second the conversation turned to economics, all his arguments took a nosedive.

    Reply
  4. David Anewman Posted on March 20, 2020 at 7:36 pm

    Matt doesn't believe people are entitled to take a position on anything and have what he deems irrational positions without evidence; yet, Matt has nothing but an irrational position without evidence because Matt has accepted his irrational position based on irrational scientific ideologies which are based on nothing but the world view of its proponents.
    Matt didn't adopt his world view based on science and cannot claim his position was based on evidence. Matt's position is based on an errant world view and that is all. It was not supported by evidence that the Bible is not true. Matt bases his position on his supremely fallible morality and corrupt selfish decisions.
    In other words, nobody holds a rational position and we are all insane or one of us is wrong and either God exists and created the cosmos in 6 days or the world is full of liars and bogus science. I'm opting for the world is full of liars as this is a proven science.
    If we adopt the old age cosmology and ancient mankind, we must reject all of history and science and live in an alternate reality, otherwise deemed insanity.
    I'm glad at least Matt admits since he doesn't know anything with absolute certainty, he has extreme faith in his position.
    Climate scientists claim the world is doomed; yet, if they weren't telling us all we were doomed, nobody would have guessed we had a climate crisis. I am 57 and have never noticed a climate crisis and I don't think anyone else has either.
    The only thing climate change propagation proves is that there are Communists trying to gain control of the entire money supply who want to make malleable slaves of 99.99999999% of the population.
    Matt is such a nutcase and his cesspool morality cannot help the world in any way and is only super destructive and nihilism. It's a good thing American law restricts his psychopathy to deluded fool and not exalted supreme commander of The People's Democratic Republic of North America. Our population would decrease by 80% under Matt's leadership as he would support every single unscientific and depraved ideology propagated. He has no clue what real science is or what good is.
    Matt: I'm pansexual and panspecies and will relieve myself any where I so choose and I will marry any species that I prefer at any given time and I will expect the SCOTUS to make laws protecting my insanity because my feelings will be hurt and I could suffer some form of violence and discrimination if the retards of the court don't buy into my right to be as evil as I so choose.
    Matt thinks America is wealthy when we cannot begin to pay our debt. America is the most impoverished country in the world. Our insurmountable debt is the result of our inferior morality and inability to cause people to pay their debts and to restrict the checkbooks of those who have no conscience or accountability for their extravagant spending. All of these problems are the result of a no faith position and the warfare resulting from the errant world views that disagree with the Bible.
    Matt: Slavery is immoral. Paying people below what I think is an acceptable wage is immoral. If people don't have healthcare it's immoral.
    Matt if you think the absence of healthcare is immoral, then pay for the 3rd world healthcare first. If you think people are paid inferior wages, invent something or come up with an idea that benefits society and pay your employees a good wage.
    If slavery is immoral, then having custody of children is also immoral as you can beat and rape your children at will in America.

    Reply
  5. Bob Skane Posted on March 20, 2020 at 7:41 pm

    So DD thinks that we can't trust scientists because they are in it for the money. Instead he trusts the real estate agents selling million dollar beach properties who have every incentive to deny climate change. What a D'nouchebag!

    Reply
  6. Jungle Jargon Posted on March 20, 2020 at 7:55 pm

    Crying about circumcision is hopelessly irrelevant.

    Reply
  7. Jungle Jargon Posted on March 20, 2020 at 8:23 pm

    I know that all power comes from a greater power and all wisdom and knowledge comes from a greater wisdom and knowledge and that there can only be one all knowing all powerful Maker of everything there is, which is the definition of the Biblical God of Abraham Isaac and Israel.

    Reply
  8. Jungle Jargon Posted on March 20, 2020 at 8:40 pm

    There are dogs 🐕 in the Amazon rainforest that don’t have servants to order dog food for them.

    Reply
  9. Damian Luch Posted on March 20, 2020 at 9:51 pm

    Dinesh – the more you speak, the stupider you sound

    Reply
  10. yourforceofwillchannel Posted on March 20, 2020 at 10:43 pm

    Matt’s position on gender is really disappointing and disturbing. I like his religious positions. Every thing else is really messed up.

    Reply
  11. Dustin Osborn Posted on March 21, 2020 at 12:36 am

    Well D’Souza certainly said the most words. Is that how you win?

    Reply
  12. Mr. Ace Posted on March 21, 2020 at 12:45 am

    Bald white guy fans- hes dunking on that dumb desouza dude! Bald white guy fans- white people are so priveledged, who do they think they are?. Oh well I personally support gay marriage and abortion I mean please dont procreate we are trying to build superior humans, thank you and bye felicia!

    Reply
  13. Mr. Ace Posted on March 21, 2020 at 1:12 am

    Very funny how he dismissed gender and invokes genetics when the root word here is gene in both cases talk about mental gymnastics and semantics. The anatomical sex is the gender or the genetic make up or the Gene's that make up an individuals biological gender.

    Reply
  14. Mike Birmingham Posted on March 21, 2020 at 1:30 am

    Matt. You are far too nice, even with jp You need to get your rage on and start bludgeoning people that keep putting up straw men.

    Reply
  15. Ockham's RAZR Posted on March 21, 2020 at 2:51 am

    Again and again and again Dinesh D'Souza fails to rise above the level of the garden-variety kooks that call up Dillahunty on his show on any given Sunday. Not sure why I expected better from him … but I did.

    Reply
  16. Martin Hendy Posted on March 21, 2020 at 4:35 am

    Even Matt Dillahunty abandons science and reason when it comes to the transgender issue. Can't believe it. Lost all respect for him now.

    Reply
  17. Golden Dog Woodworks Posted on March 21, 2020 at 4:48 am

    Danish exposes how immoral person he is. If there is a less moral person than him including Trump, I have not seen him.

    Reply
  18. Davy Manners Posted on March 21, 2020 at 5:43 am

    I wonder why so many of the strongest debaters for atheism are magicians and mentalists

    Reply
  19. Gustav Schröder Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:33 am

    Can’t make up my mind if dinesh is slightly stupid or not. Time and again he completely misses the point. A half step off at every turn. This was not a conversation but a looong schooling.

    Reply
  20. Thel 'Vadam Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:50 am

    Why did he have to bring transphobia into this?

    Reply
  21. i might be wrong Posted on March 21, 2020 at 9:14 am

    1:14:14 it's snooker not snucker

    Reply
  22. PGoogle R.N. Posted on March 21, 2020 at 9:22 am

    lol this is my first time hearing about D'Souza. Not a great first impression.

    Reply
  23. HappyHippieGaymer Posted on March 21, 2020 at 9:23 am

    What a klutz… actually pretends that claims of dogs is equal to claims of god. When Matt actually brings this idiot back to reality by mentioning a dog on Saturn (analogous to god) he changes the subject, because it completely destroys the argument he spent the last 3 minutes building up.

    Then we get into childish assertions about hypocrisy and conspiracies though that magically means jack and shit to science. He actually thinks you can’t profit from something because he is that stupid. Assertions, assertions, assertions. Zero data

    Apparently has no idea how science and research is performed or funded, poor idiot didn’t stand a chance against Matt.

    Reply
  24. Phillip Mamouf-wiforts Posted on March 21, 2020 at 10:41 am

    Dinesh talking about integrity made me gag a bit

    Reply
  25. gus tativo vlc Posted on March 21, 2020 at 10:58 am

    rod stewart and ron wood were once together in a band. The band was
    called "Lemmy Kilmister reading a book of ancient poetry inside Kylie
    Minogue's gastrointestinal tract". They had killer hits such as " I
    married a nazi tree"

    Reply
  26. gus tativo vlc Posted on March 21, 2020 at 10:58 am

    rod stewart and ron wood were once together in a band. The band was
    called "Lemmy Kilmister reading a book of ancient poetry inside Kylie
    Minogue's gastrointestinal tract". They had killer hits such as " I
    married a nazi tree"

    Reply
  27. Tor Hunemark Posted on March 21, 2020 at 11:29 am

    So if he determines what is right based on people's behavior, we can be pretty sure that all world religions are absolutely true in their respective area of dominance.
    In India it is true that we have several gods. In the middle East, Allah his prophet. In the US and in Russia Jaweh and mother Mary are still alive. In Russia,
    North Korea and China, Putin, Xi jinping and Kim jeong-hoon are the gods and are objectively good. Because of how people behave.

    He's forgetting that people are idiots.

    Reply
  28. Jose Sousa Posted on March 21, 2020 at 11:42 am

    D'Souza was excellent here and with exceptional patience. Good job

    Reply
  29. Phillip Mamouf-wiforts Posted on March 21, 2020 at 11:45 am

    Using dinesh’s own logic I’m the third man in terms of wars I never agreed too , or multibillion dollar military equipment , or churches tax free status

    Reply
  30. Ernest Everhard Posted on March 21, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    Capitalist Dsouza: Capitalism is so great. If you pay people money, they deliver real value. It''s a highly ethical economic system. You ever read Ayn Rand?

    Also capitalist dsouza: Dude, money corrupts climate change scientists.

    Reply
  31. Bubba Tao Posted on March 21, 2020 at 1:23 pm

    Dinesh – Proof once again that all apologetics are 3D – Distract, Divert and Dissemble. They certainly are not stupid. It takes amazingly quick thinking to avoid thinking.

    Reply
  32. J w Posted on March 21, 2020 at 1:52 pm

    If you disagree with Matt you are strawmanning him, if Matt says something it right. Atheists online are just a bunch of nutball zealots who want everyone to think like them, they have become no different from the religious they despise.

    Reply
  33. J w Posted on March 21, 2020 at 1:55 pm

    So trans are being emotionally harmed by using their biological bathrooms. If that traumatizes them, then to bad. We don’t get everything we want to do in life.

    Reply
  34. J w Posted on March 21, 2020 at 1:59 pm

    Matt just thinks we all just think the way he does. He doesn’t care who pees next to him, well maybe a lot of women do, maybe women don’t want big fat Harry men coming into their bathrooms or locker rooms. Matt just makes his own rules and thinks we should follow them.

    Reply
  35. Chris Ducharme Posted on March 21, 2020 at 2:01 pm

    I love watching Matt do talks but it’s also so frustrating to listen to his opponents. Dinesh has no idea what he’s talking about.

    Reply
  36. J w Posted on March 21, 2020 at 2:04 pm

    Matt telling religious hospitals that they have to perform every service he wants, is like ordering a hamburger at a vegan restaurant. There’s lots of hospitals, and go to another one if you cannot get what you want.

    Reply
  37. J w Posted on March 21, 2020 at 2:09 pm

    matt, dinesh doesn’t think there is no evidence, obviously he believes there is evidence just not a scientific expiremental evidence. There’s many other types of evidence

    Reply
  38. Josh Herbel Posted on March 21, 2020 at 3:18 pm

    Did I miss the vote that made Matt the arbiter of the validity of evidence. I don't actually trust a feelings based vitriolic cynic to decide what I can find valid. If you agree with everything Matt says, you might be a cultist.

    Reply
  39. Library TV Posted on March 21, 2020 at 3:22 pm

    This guy is not making any scientific point. I actually don't think we only have 12 years. I think we have more than that. And therefore may be because of how humans reacts that is why they gave us something else

    Reply
  40. Library TV Posted on March 21, 2020 at 3:23 pm

    This is the same guy who believes in the Bible that has never benefited him.

    Reply
  41. brassholio Posted on March 21, 2020 at 4:06 pm

    How about you let me make my own mind up. I don't need your massive speech to help me be a reasonable, moral human being. Shut the fuck up right now.

    Reply
  42. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 4:24 pm

    Matt is on God's path, just in the wrong direction. Read your own obsession Matt.

    Reply
  43. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 4:35 pm

    Matt loves science, but has never heard of the concept of the AXIOM!
    I am sure this guys performs poorly on real science.

    Reply
  44. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 4:50 pm

    Matt's has faith in data! lol

    Reply
  45. John Mead Posted on March 21, 2020 at 5:19 pm

    1:08:54 I'm a huge fan of Matt. But if he's talking about data. Men that take estrogen to change their hormones to transition are at a astronomical chance of committing suicide. I've worked at gay clubs for years. I've seen it first hand. This is not a fucking joke. It's definitely a mental illness if you're wanting to commit suicide

    Reply
  46. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 5:50 pm

    The guy dressed as a CLOWN or the FAKE SCIENTIST got irritated towards the end of his poor performance. Dinesh is the BOSS

    Reply
  47. Chris Shaw Posted on March 21, 2020 at 5:58 pm

    One thing I've noticed is how many times dillahunty and all comments against desouza use the term "strawman" which it sure seems is a cop out comment when there is no legitimate rebuttal, or a sensible and rational (peanut gallery) comment… Directed towards a form of hate most of the time

    Reply
  48. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:11 pm

    This socialist CLOWN has been beaten like a dog! Just like his buddy Bernie, only Bernie doesn't dress like one.

    Reply
  49. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:13 pm

    Matt stop watching your SWISS watch, this will end soon! LoL

    Reply
  50. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:17 pm

    Matt probably believed the data of the Chinese communist back in January 1st. Data is not evidence! Evidence is Data, that is not the same. MATT is an utter Fraud.

    Reply
  51. Jesse Cole Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:21 pm

    Dinesh is what happens when Millhouse Van Houten grows up to become a dishonest debater.

    Reply
  52. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:24 pm

    Muslims love infant Genital cutting. Try that shirt pang what? Beware of Darwinism these days Pan', there is something in the air right now, this Wuhan coronavirus is MUTING.

    Reply
  53. Brian Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:29 pm

    This is why i hate skeptics. They do a terrible job defending human nature.

    Reply
  54. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:41 pm

    Hungry for evidence? Here you go:
    https://youtu.be/4G4sj8hUVaY
    The Flag? Constantinople! Watch.

    Reply
  55. David Armstrong Posted on March 21, 2020 at 6:56 pm

    Holy crap, this guy's ideas of climate change are so wrong, it's not even funny.

    Let's go through this one-by-one:

    1) The 97% is not on scientists' belief, it's on the scientific research. 97% of papers expressing a position on climate change agree that it is primarily caused by humanity.

    2) The issue with polar bears is human observation, not increased population. We can't say anything with any confidence on the data of polar bear population prior to 1980. Also, asserting that the population being high means they're "thriving" is a non-sequitur.

    3) To give you an idea of 1*C, this is 1/14 of the way to the highest recorded level in Earth history (the Eocene Climate Optimum, ~14*C higher than today). Moreso, the last time we had a temperature change of 1*C occurred over 20 000 years. It's literally increased 1*C in 200 times shorter a period.

    4) 1 word for his question of "who is going to pay me": Oil. Two more words: "Koch" & "Heartland".

    5) The 1970s global cooling is a myth: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

    6) Global warming, as a term, was coined in 1975. "Climate change" as a term, was coined in the 1950s. The term "climate change" was never a "substitutionary phrase", whatever that means.

    It's sad, because these 6 claims are made repeatedly by climate "skeptics", and even the most basic legitimate skepticism quickly will show just how fundamentally flawed they are. Check out Potholer, who has tackled each of these points throughout his video series on climate change.

    Reply
  56. Metal Garukumon Posted on March 21, 2020 at 7:02 pm

    This Indian fella is just speaking"Crap" I'm from India Don't Judge me also a convicted felon I guess ur God will forgive ur scam

    Reply
  57. Celtic Spirits Coven Posted on March 21, 2020 at 8:12 pm

    Life on earth will end with a fiery explosion. Think of volcano eruption, asteroid, or sun explosion. "Climate Change" isn't going to do it. Plants SURVIVE and THRIVE in a higher greenhouse environment which produce MORE oxygen.
    Climate change is a myth — and we've been hearing the EXACT SAME thing since the 1970's. Doomsday "climate change scientists" are nothing more than the homeless man standing on the street with a cardboard sign that says the end of the world is neigh.
    If you believe in climate change killing the earth… you are a sheep to people who want to keep you dumb so you don't find out the truth – that is how they keep their power – keeping you DUMB and DEPENDENT on them like slaves to the slave master.
    Don't be a slave to these rich elites who wish to control every facet of your life. WAKE UP.

    Reply
  58. curtis boschult Posted on March 21, 2020 at 9:04 pm

    Listening to Matt avoid the obvious is difficult to listen too!

    Reply
  59. Ajinzem Posted on March 21, 2020 at 9:10 pm

    This is so fucking hard to watch. That idiot was not only constantly talking and taking way too much time in this dialog, he was also preaching the whole time. And it wasn't even good preaching … he was babbling random shit without any sorts of coherence or reason whatsoever.

    Reply
  60. A. Anderson Posted on March 21, 2020 at 9:43 pm

    ATHEISTIC TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT

    FROM MATT DILLAHOUNTY'S EXISTENCE

    1. Christian God can not exist.

    2. If Christian God can not exist, then if Matt Dillahounty exists, then Christian God doesn’t exist.

    3. Matt Dillahounty exists.

    Ergo : Christian God doesn’t exist

    Reply
  61. Erik Davis Posted on March 21, 2020 at 9:49 pm

    I would love to destroy Dinesh on climate science. He gets nearly everything he says about it completely wrong, and the things he doesn't get completely wrong are misunderstandings, out of context, fallacies, and/or half-truths. It is painful to listen to for anybody past a 5th grade education on the topic.

    Reply
  62. Celto Roma Posted on March 21, 2020 at 10:43 pm

    Fact. This channel actively CENSORS freedom of speech in the comment. Silencing is the backbone of the socialist and fascist mob. This is the big difference between this wannabe and Ben Shapiro.

    Reply
  63. Kit Posted on March 21, 2020 at 11:08 pm

    why are christians so dishonest

    Reply
  64. GIANT OF SKYLIFE Posted on March 21, 2020 at 11:09 pm

    Those boots are Fucking awesome‼️♥️♥️

    Reply
  65. Lore Sogge Posted on March 22, 2020 at 12:53 am

    This douch doesn't believe in God, but wants to look like Satan? Obviously he believes in God.

    Reply
  66. Dewey Gaedcke Posted on March 22, 2020 at 1:05 am

    Has anyone every seen a more STUNNING example of deflection, denial, emotional reasoning and logical fallacies than from this idiot Dinesh …. his picture should go in the dictionary next to motivated cognition.

    Reply
  67. LawLibertyCompassion Justice Posted on March 22, 2020 at 1:57 am

    Dinesh, "I'm not saying I have proof God exists or here are his attributes." Then you aren't a Christian Dinesh. EVERY Christian must be able to give testament (proof) to the attributes of Christ and how he died for your sins.

    Reply
  68. B LC Posted on March 22, 2020 at 2:23 am

    Dinesh struck me as a particularly dishonest interlocutor. He constantly moved the goal posts during the conversation and shifted the topic at every point he was challenged.

    Reply
  69. Michael Doran Posted on March 22, 2020 at 5:02 am

    I took Matt seriously until the transgender stuff. Data data data!!! But gender is a social construct. Btw- 40% suicide rate doesn't budge after surgery.

    And near the end, income inequality and poverty arent the same thing. The poorest people in the U.S. Have refrigerators, tvs, etc. Inequality sucks, but capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty than any other system, by far.

    Plus, Matt says that the workers who make the phones deserve much more credit. This misses the person who had the idea, bought equipment, supplies, logistics, and of course they take all of the risk.

    At first, Matt seemed smart and respectable. I appreciate that he came out to debate. But it is impossible to debate leftists ideas because they are really dumb no matter how many times you say DATA! Haha. Get out of your echo chambers, lefties!

    Reply
  70. LawLibertyCompassion Justice Posted on March 22, 2020 at 5:16 am

    Climate change is where Matt jumps the shark. He has zero knowledge on the subject.

    Reply
  71. Izzy's Travel Diaries Posted on March 22, 2020 at 7:59 am

    Dinesh hasn't heard that you should live as if you died tomorrow and you died a hundred years from now.

    Reply
  72. Robert Voss Posted on March 22, 2020 at 8:09 am

    I cannot say if this man is a sinner. I was blind but now I see.

    Reply
  73. gray intheuk Posted on March 22, 2020 at 9:05 am

    Dinesh is just painful to watch I'm sorry to say. I'm sure he's a lovely person but has terrible ideas and arguments.
    I hope he rewatches this a few times and sees his mistakes.

    Reply
  74. Brandon Maxwell Posted on March 22, 2020 at 9:10 am

    This conversation was a pinball game!

    Reply
  75. Bjorsa M Posted on March 22, 2020 at 10:29 am

    Obviously, pithcing against the oil companies and the big business dependent on cheap energy is hugely profitable. Compare that to the truth-seeking idealists that are working for all humanitarian Big Oil. Scraping by, just barely maikng a living trying to serve the people of the world.

    It's always been like this. I mean, come on, we all know those scams that agitated against tobacco got rich AF.

    (Less than 95% of the doctors at the time agreed smoking caused cancer, btw.)

    Reply
  76. Hans Kraut Posted on March 22, 2020 at 10:49 am

    Enjoyed the discussion also enjoyed righwing arguments being discussed for real and altho I do not agree with a lot of Dinesh I agree when he said TV is not having enoth Debattes anymore and its 12 People agreeing (basically narattive or short clips, not enoth enphesis is put on reasonable logical discourse and concentration to detail because u can say wrong stuff very easyly while sounding very right, well at least when ur as skilled at talking as D'Souza for example u could theoretically mislead very very good I think he can mislead better than Matt if he wanted to (not saying he isnt already)) – Thumbs up more debattes jam

    Reply
  77. Reuben GMons Posted on March 22, 2020 at 12:01 pm

    Matt in a "Religious-Mantis-Orca" mode
    BEAUTIFUL!

    Reply
  78. Klemen Hudobreznik Posted on March 22, 2020 at 12:22 pm

    i would lose my shit when he would denied climate change and berate him until he submits i am right . he cant listen then i will force him to!!! and tell him if cant listen and intellectually honest he shouldnt debate me or have discourse with me because i become every dangerous when understimate me and will go any length to make know where you are inferior to me in verbal sense when if break your ego. even if was able be patient i wouldnt be because he didnt earn it!

    Reply
  79. Za Az Posted on March 22, 2020 at 2:43 pm

    Dinesh I want to respect you but either you have a deep misapprehension of his reason and logic work or you are perversely disingenuous.

    Reply
  80. Za Az Posted on March 22, 2020 at 3:00 pm

    Omg dinesh I’m embarrassed for you

    Reply
  81. Za Az Posted on March 22, 2020 at 3:34 pm

    Dinesh is monumentally wrong concerning epistemology and; Matt doesn’t understand liberty and conflates gender with sex and vomits our appeals to emotion. Both are blind.

    Reply
  82. Za Az Posted on March 22, 2020 at 3:59 pm

    Matt is a communist … idiot

    Reply
  83. Za Az Posted on March 22, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    Wow Matt health care is nit a right you moron. What is wrong with you? Do you want to control what everyone does?

    Reply
  84. Bjorsa M Posted on March 22, 2020 at 4:25 pm

    Income inequality doesn't matter, yeah, except Sweden, Norway and Denmark has:
    *less crime
    *much less murder
    *better health
    *much less obesity
    *longer average life expectancy
    *much longer health adjusted life expectancy
    *less teen pregnancy
    *better reported life satisfaction
    *less pollution
    *more environmentally friendly policies overall
    *less homeless people
    *more inventions per capita
    *more trust in institutions and government
    *less corruption
    *less infant mortality
    …i could go on and if you don't believe it, f-ing google it

    Btw, the US has a messed up health care system and Corona is a litmus-test few can explain away say six months from now.

    F'ing Dinesh.

    Reply
  85. TrustInJesus111 Posted on March 22, 2020 at 4:48 pm

    How do I determine if the God proposition is true? What is the warrant? – Matt Dillahunty. You know the side that says "The burden of proof is with you not me" is the wrong way to determine.

    Reply
  86. greaper123 Posted on March 22, 2020 at 5:20 pm

    Spoiler: it seems like there was a semantics issue throughout most of this surrounding beliefs being rational vs warranted. DD seemed to take offense at being labeled irrational, but I felt as though Matt was labeling his beliefs as unwarranted (although, Matt used the irrational word a lot). I'm not trying to straw man Matt on this, but I wonder whether differentiating this might have resulted in a different discussion.

    Reply
  87. Fred Pallesen Posted on March 22, 2020 at 6:12 pm

    What the f… is he talking about! (Dinesh). Just killing time for the f… of it?

    Reply
  88. watchman Posted on March 22, 2020 at 6:37 pm

    Matt gloats in his arrogance…and yet he is still deluded..

    Reply
  89. Lord Zeus Posted on March 22, 2020 at 8:35 pm

    I was with Matt until the "gender is a social construct" part.

    Reply
  90. PARK Posted on March 22, 2020 at 8:46 pm

    Matt dillahunt is very intelligent but very intellectually dishonest

    Reply
  91. nnocon Posted on March 23, 2020 at 12:28 am

    All Dinesh D'Souza's points are so idiotic. I can't take it

    Reply
  92. Harry Pothead Posted on March 23, 2020 at 4:09 am

    Dinesh is such a vile turd. He lies with all the slime of Richard Nixon.

    Reply
  93. chencharoo Posted on March 23, 2020 at 5:59 am

    Dinesh D'Souza is rusty as a heel and wrong on so many levels, but here's one having worked for awhile in Real Estate Loan Origination and having family members in that business. The first inn were big money speculators that built and reconditioned properties in order to make a quick fortune flipping them. the suckers that bought trying to speculate together with the rest who got brainwashed into buying them are screwed. yes there are a very limited amount of upper middle class people and a few wealthy people that will be able to renovate or buy properties and condominiums re adjusted for the new regulations to withstand sea level rise and its problems. the rest are screwed just like the hundreds of thousands who are being wiped out by tornadoes and floods because an agent painted them a dream and sold them a nightmare.

    Reply
  94. chencharoo Posted on March 23, 2020 at 6:30 am

    Matt is underestimating sports, in Soccer the most popular sport in the world, the White Supremacists said and thought that they were superior to every one. that the Brazilians were not smart enough, talented enough etc… then came a 17 year old called Pele who changed the paradigm who invented many awesome moves and plays. then Brazil won Five World Cup Championships. many times both men and women in entertainment and sports have changed the paradigm. because they are at the forefront of popular culture.

    Reply
  95. Patrick Posted on March 23, 2020 at 6:47 am

    Right off the bat, Dinesh lies. He says he hasn't done debates in a while but doesn't know why. We know why: he pled guilty to a crime and was incarcerated (in a very low security setting) before Trump recently pardoned him. Also, CNN are not panels of people who all agree. CNN has Rick Santorum on their panels! During the 2016 campaign, CNN had Corey Lewandowski on their payroll while he was still being paid by the Trump campaign and was under a non-disparagement agreement with Trump.

    Reply
  96. Steve Bottrell Posted on March 23, 2020 at 7:05 am

    Why Matt? This guy is an idiot.

    Reply
  97. Dan MARTIN Posted on March 23, 2020 at 7:19 am

    After watching this, I have become a huge fan of Matt Dillahunty! The logic, thought/thinking and perspective you've shown and debated is spot on! In my opinion. But just to let you know, I became very frustrated at times when what you've said is not being clearly understood, agreed with or not. Most of this discussion/debate kept reminding me of Schrodinger's Cat. Nonetheless, I truly enjoyed this discussion, and I look forward to future vids.

    Reply
  98. Charles P. Posted on March 23, 2020 at 7:28 am

    Argh. Was hoping we’d get to Trump to hear Matt rip him a new one. Disappointing.

    Reply
  99. Nemilius Posted on March 23, 2020 at 9:07 am

    Christians have god and Jezus. Atheists have Hitchens and Dillahunty. But it’s still unclear to me which one is more religious.

    Reply
  100. Jupeth Villamera Posted on March 23, 2020 at 10:10 am

    This is a waste of time. Dinesh offered nothing at all.

    Reply
LEAVE A COMMENT