The full transcript

see and hear me, Nick?

I do.

Okay, we have to join the other Discord room with, uh, with Dean. Um, okay, so, um, how you feeling tonight? You good?

I'm feeling good. I'm excited.

Uh, dude, it's, it's actually like a pleasure to talk to you, bro.

Likewise. Good to talk to you too.

He does have aura.

Let's go. You have, you have aura.

Thank you, bro. Hold on, what's—

what's that?

Your camera's still on.

Oh shit, shit, shit, shit.

I got it. Well, we're going to—

you're about to go to the—

yeah, yeah, yeah. All right, I'm going to invite you to this room. Don't leak it.

All right, okay.

Glaze off, right?

I don't—

nah, my boy Dean got aura too.

All right, one second here.

What's up, Dean?

What's going on, Aiden? How you doing?

Good, brother. How are you?

Dude, I'm doing all right. I'm, I'm— dude, I'm a little bit nervous. I've had, uh, Knicks fans on, on the, on the Twitter account.

They're a little—

hey, what's going on, man? How you doing?

What's up? I'm good. How you doing?

Doing all right. It's a good night.

Let's have a great time despite— Dean, it's a pleasure to meet you, man. Despite whatever I believe in, you know, like I said, I believe in a couple of your guys' points for certain topics. Me and Sneako are gonna hold our ground and be as neutral as possible.

Cool, sounds good. I appreciate y'all for that.

Sneako, Dean, by the way, Dean, Sneako, you're not gonna be able to see him 'cause we're kind of reacting over you, but here, I'll turn my camera on for a quick second. You could meet us face to face. This is Sneako.

What's going on, man?

What's going on, dude? I was a little bit disappointed to hear that the debate between you and me wasn't happening, but you know, here we are nonetheless.

Good to meet you.

I didn't even hear about that. I didn't know that that was confirmed.

I told you it was.

It was never confirmed.

I literally told you it was.

I have the texts.

Show me.

You want to see the texts?

Yeah.

Well, it was over FaceTime, actually.

I don't, I don't know too much about you. We saw some of your Jubilee video, so— but I've heard good things about your, your debating.

But Aiden told me that you like agreed to the topics.

No, I didn't.

Okay, I, I must have—

I'm angling a debate towards, uh, Ethan Klein and HasanAbi right now. But if it makes sense, it makes sense. You know, I'll debate anybody.

Okay. Today we'll be moderating.

I moderate debates pretty frequently, so I'm gonna stay neutral. Obviously, like, I've known Nick for quite some time, but yeah, we don't wanna come off biased at all. We're gonna keep it fair and make sure that we can cover all the topics.

Cool, sounds good. Nick, your webcam is not—

Yeah, Nick, let's get your camera right.

I'm trying to get set up here. Give me one sec.

Okay.

I'm trying to figure out how I can do this here.

Dude, I see Aiden giving you that side eye. I'm not gonna lie, that's crazy.

It's because there's sexual tension.

Okay, word.

God. All right, I guess I'll just do it like this. My audience won't be able to see, but maybe I'll—

All right, I'll let you guys—

we're gonna—

you guys go ahead and introduce each other.

Take it away, Nick. You got it first.

Hang on. What's else? Okay.

I guess while he's— I guess while he's figuring that out, I'll go ahead and give an introduction of myself to everyone watching. I am Dean Withers. I am a 20-year-old liberal. I really enjoy— I enjoy politics. I enjoy debate. And I started streaming on TikTok about a year and a half ago, yapping my mouth to maybe a crowd of 30 people. And here we are a year and a half later on a debate stage on Aiden Ross's stream.

Hang on. But then this will be—

All right, thank you, Dean.

It's gonna be a fun night, guys.

Thank you very much. It is gonna be a fun one. We're just waiting for Nick, and then we'll let Nick introduce himself, and then, uh, then we gotta agree on topics and terms and everything. No, no, they already both agreed on the topics.

They have?

Yeah, there's 4 good topics.

I think they should do, um, maybe a 2 to 5 minute intro depending on what they agree on, and then—

I agree. Then we'll ask a question.

And then we'll do free-flowing, and if they interrupt each other, then we can go to 90-second, 2-minute back and forth.

Correct. And then we, we have the ability to server mute as well.

Oh yeah, guys, if you want to like formalize this, go for it. Honestly, I was coming in here expecting a back and forth conversation. Well, it is.

No, no, for sure.

You know what I'm saying? If it becomes too much interruption, then we'll do time back and forth.

Yeah.

Cool.

We'll figure it out.

We don't wanna hear you guys talking over each other the whole time.

Hey, Nick, if you can hear me, I know how to fix your issue, bro.

Okay, what's up?

So start— are you using OBS Studio?

Yes.

Okay, so you're gonna go ahead and start a virtual cam. You'll see that. And what that'll do is you can basically use your webcam at the same time as, um, using it on your stream. So it's like you can use Discord and the stream. Make sure your virtual camera is selected to your video, uh, source that you're using on OBS.

Okay, let me see.

I'm surprised you're not banned on OBS. I'm kidding.

Hang on, let me see. Yeah, no, I used to be. I don't know, I got a screenshot now.

Got lazy.

That's insane.

What is this? This is the— yeah, so why isn't this working?

Okay. So click on— you know what you got to do? Go to the camera icon and click the little down arrow.

Exactly. Other settings. This one.

Jewish tech support.

Come on, man.

That's not even bad.

Source. Oh, okay, hang on, I think I got it. Okay, I think I got it. Sorry, guys.

No, dude, you're good. Take your time.

There we go, there we go.

Okay. All right, can you see?

Yes, we're good. Okay, now let me do this like this. Okay, there we— that wasn't too hard.

All right.

All right, Nick, let's—

he gave it a little introduction. I would like you to give a little introduction and tell us, you know, the new viewers and stuff who you are, what you do, talk a little about yourself. And yeah, go ahead.

Sure.

Yeah.

Well, my name is Nicholas J. Fuentes. I'm a livestreamer. I've been doing a show called America First for 8 years, almost 8 years now. I'm 26, from Chicago. I'm a reactionary Trump supporter. Well, I was a Trump supporter, not so much anymore, but I'll be defending Trump. It's fine from, you know, debate point of view. And yeah, so that's me. So I'm excited to be here. It's going to be good.

Sweet, sweet.

Okay.

Well, you know, the first topic, as everyone knows, I told the chat as well, you know, is who is the better presidential candidate. Dean, we'll start with you.

Yeah, sure. So, I mean, obviously, I think that the better presidential candidate is Kamala Harris. But I just wanted to clarify with Nick, you said that you're not much of a Trump supporter. So are you voting for Trump?

No, I'm not. I'm not going to vote for him.

Who are you voting for?

+2 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Nick Fuentes · low confidence: excluded from score

I'm not voting.

Oh, OK. Holy shit. Well, I mean, you know, the reason I chose that topic was because, you know, I thought that you were voting for Trump. I don't really see much like use in it if you're not voting for Trump.

I mean, well, it's worthwhile because I'll argue that people should. I'll just argue that Trump is better than— I think that Trump would be a better president, but I'm not going to vote for him.

Okay.

Yeah, sure.

So we could argue that.

Yeah, I guess we'll start there. I disagree. And, you know, one of the main reasons why I disagree, we could come out of the gate swinging, is his economic policy. I think that, you know, it's pretty clear and we could probably both agree on this. That the average American should be doing better than they are today, and they should not be doing worse than they are today. Donald Trump's proposed economic policy will make the average American worse off with his tariffs, and then his TCJA for another 10 years disproportionately benefits rich people. It will also just add reckless spending to our debt. It'll inflate it even more than it is today. I think there's an estimate from the CBO putting that right at $5.8 trillion. He has no fucking plan how he's gonna pay for it. Then we look over at Kamala Harris. Okay. Her proposed tax policy so far is $2.4 trillion. She knows exactly how she's going to pay for it. And they're designed for 100 million American workers in the low and the middle class. And it's going to make them better off. Donald Trump is going to make them worse off. Argument's clear.

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-137

Okay, that's it. It's just the economic proposals. That's all you got.

We can start there.

Okay.

Sure. We can reference other things, too. I didn't want to just throw everything at you at once. If I mean, sure. Well, multiple things.

Yeah. Well, let me, let me address all that. I mean, so with regard to the tariffs, J.D. Vance pointed this out. The Biden administration continued many of the Trump-era tariffs. So that's kind of a moot point. I mean, not— I don't know if Kamala is going to— of course he did. Of course he continued.

They continued the tariffs, but it's not a moot point. I disagree with the Biden-Harris administration because they continued the tariffs on China. But what Donald Trump is proposing today is a 10 to 20% flat tariff on all goods imported into the country. Right. I could say that any and all tariffs are bad. Right. But a 10 to 20% flat tariff on all goods is worse than tariffs on goods imported from China.

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-122

I don't think it's a flat tariff. Is that actually the policy? I don't believe that's right.

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty · Nick Fuentes

It is. Right. I think that J.D. Vance was talking about this last night. I don't think so. I think you could reference his own policies. He's talked about it multiple times in the past. If you don't think this is—

It's only on certain countries. It wouldn't be— there would be no 15. That doesn't make any sense. There'd be no 15 to 20% tariff. But even if that were the case, Fine, let's say for the sake of argument that's true, because I don't know the Trump policy. They keep saying that Trump is going to put in place— they're calling it a consumption tax. A consumption tax is value-added tax. They're saying it's going to be like a sales tax, and that's the idea that the taxation occurs at the point of a sale of goods. And that's actually a real proposal, but that's different than a tariff because— and here's the difference— when you put a tariff on goods and services, to call that a consumption tax is to imply that the consumer will bear the full cost of the tariff. And that's not necessarily true. Trump had a lot of tariffs in his first term, and the price of goods did not significantly increase in spite of the tariffs. Everybody says that it would only be the case if the full cost of the tariff was passed down to the consumer, but that flies in the face of the fact that foreign corporations will bear the cost of the tariff. Or almost all of it. And not— and certainly not all of it is passed down to the consumer. So that's just not true. That's one. 2, with regard to deficit spending, tax policy, I mean, you know, I know you're a young guy and everything, but like Republicans and Democrats, there's a bipartisan consensus on spending. Let's just talk about spending. Most of the spending on an annual basis is not even discretionary. Okay? There's mandatory spending and there's discretionary spending. Mandatory spending means you can't change it. Okay, the executive doesn't change it. Congress can barely change it. And that is liabilities like Social Security, Medicare. It's baked into the cake. It's a vast majority of it. And who, who is going to cut entitlements? Nobody. Republicans aren't proposing to cut entitlements, although they'd be more willing to than Democrats. Democrats are certainly not touching entitlements. Biden always attacks Republicans in his State of the Union saying they're trying to touch Social Security. What do you think's driving the deficit of the debt? It's Social Security and Medicare. It's unfunded liabilities. In terms of military spending, military spending has gone up every year under the Biden administration. It's like $850 billion per year. That's the largest item in the discretionary budget. So mandatory spending is gonna go up in perpetuity under Democrats and Republicans. Discretionary spending is gonna go up because military is by far and away the biggest component of that. And Biden spends more, and he spends more on military appropriations because of all the foreign aid. We gave $175 billion to Ukraine. We gave $27 billion to Israel, another $8 billion to Israel last week, $7 billion to Taiwan, $1.3 billion to Egypt. That's in addition to the $850 billion per year, which that's like the highest ever under Biden. So, you know, spending's not coming down under anybody.

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dean Withers

Well, that's just wrong. I'm sorry for interrupting you. You can reference the— what's wrong about that? Spending didn't go down under Biden and Harris compared to Trump. You could reference a committee.

I didn't say that. I didn't say that.

You said that spending wasn't going down under anyone, right? We can make a comparative analysis between the 2 last terms and we could show how it's gone down. Okay, go ahead. A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget indicated that Donald Trump signed $8.7 trillion of debt into law. Meanwhile, Biden and Harris only signed in $4.6 trillion. I mean, we could break that down into COVID and non-COVID. Like, for instance, Trump signed $4.8 trillion of non-COVID-related expenditures into law. Meanwhile, Biden only signed in $2.2 trillion. But the first point that you made, I Wanted to touch on that. You were talking about the tariffs, right? You just kind of related it back to how, like, the Kamala Harris campaign is calling it, you know, like a sales tax. And then that's kind of all you said. Yeah, I don't really care what they're calling it. I agree. That's just a term that they use to convince the average American that doesn't know much about what a tariff is that it's really bad. But at the end of the day, the impact of the tariff, right, still does serve as a detriment to the consumer. And you were very careful with your words here because you told me that that that tax, right, that tariff isn't fully paid by the consumer, implicitly kind of conceding there that some of it is. Right. And that's what I'm talking about. That is a tax that in some sorts is passed off to the consumer. We could also consider other attributes, such as the idea when we reduce the overall supply of a good with a constant demand, the price will go up. That's basic macroeconomics. That's going to happen when we reduce the imported— the amount of imported goods without increasing the amount of supply manufactured here at home in the US. At the end of the day, tariffs are bad. This is a unilateral, like, agreed-upon consensus, Republicans and Democrats alike. You go to any economist, they'll tell you this, unless they don't have the necessary qualifications to be. And that's a fact. And then when we kind of consider these tariffs alongside his policy disproportionately benefiting the rich man, and seemingly at the expense of the poor man with these tariffs, it becomes quite clear. If we want to serve to the average American and their best interests, we need to be voting for Kamala Harris, because her policy does exactly that. I mean, 83% of the taxes—

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-132

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Nick Fuentes

No, it doesn't.

That's just rhetoric.

↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-135

Not at all. 83% of the tax cuts in the TCGA for the last 7 years went to the top 1%. I mean, let's— is that just rhetoric?

↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-135

Okay, is it my turn?

↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-135

Go for it, sir.

Okay, so with regard to tariffs, yes, some of the cost is passed down to the consumer, but it's marginal. And the point of tariffs is to reshore manufacturing. I'll give you a perfect example. China has now become the largest manufacturer of electric cars. Huge industry. you could buy an electric car in China for $10,000. Tesla does not cost $10,000. If we allowed China to dump their electric cars in America, there goes Tesla, there goes our American electric car manufacturing. It's a— and it's a national security problem. There's a lot of problems. You have to put tariffs on the cars. Probably China will send them here regardless because they're still so cheap. And yeah, they're not gonna be $10,000, but there's a value in making cars in America. There's a value, and by the way, because then Americans get those jobs. So, you know, you could say that free trade creates the lowest costs, but the only reason it creates the lowest cost is because they can undercut us with wages and with their lower standard of living and monetary policy that they have in their own country. So tariffs are essential for a holistic understanding of the economy. The increase in prices is marginal. It's not significant. And when you call it a consumer tax or a sales tax, you know, that does matter because They're conflating that with a VAT tax. That's very different. The 15%, 20% to the— and I don't know that they're doing it on every country, so I'll take your word for it. It's not gonna be passed down to consumers beyond a marginal amount. That's one. In terms of, you said, oh, well, Trump had more deficit spending. Almost all of that is accounted for by the pandemic, almost all of it. When you say, well, Trump had a $6, $8 trillion deficit, that was because of the COVID stimulus. No, how come it wasn't? The cash payments.

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-129

↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-135

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Nick Fuentes

Half of it.

Almost all of it. And here's the point.

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-140

No, go to CRDF.

Hang on, hang on, hang on. I'll let you finish.

Yes, sir.

You said so. The structural problems with deficit spending, they're there under Trump, they're there under Harris. And by the way, Republicans tried to get limitations on the deficit. That's what they got elected on. Republicans regained control of Congress in '22 saying they'd limit the deficit. They negotiated it over the debt ceiling negotiations last year. They negotiated it over military appropriations last year with the October 1st deadline, tried to negotiate it this year. Democrats wouldn't come to the table on deficit reduction. Either way, like, the deficit is baked into the cake, okay? The debt is $30 trillion. Interest rates are high. Interest to service the debt is going up. Neither Harris or Trump is meaningfully going to reduce the debt or the deficit. So it's just moot without bringing down Social Security and Medicare. Just forget about it. Without bringing down the military, it's not going to happen, you know. And there are these extraordinary measures like COVID and Ukraine war. It's really neither here nor there. Also, I mean, I think deficit is really besides the point. If you want to get further into the deficit—

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-131

I've heard a Republican say that, by the way.

Yeah, well, I'm not a normal Repub— I'm not like a fiscal conservative. Okay, look, you mind if I respond to the points you've made so far? The debt—

what's that?

Do you mind if I respond to the points you've made so far? Yeah, go ahead.

Sure.

So like, first of all, real quick, Dean, Dean, I'm not cutting you off.

Uh, guys, we just have 10 minutes on this topic. Just 10 more minutes on this topic. Go ahead. Okay.

0 R-6.3 · Procedural cut-off · SNEAKO & Adin Ross

Okay.

Right.

So the first claim that you made, that, that tariff isn't passed off to the consumer. Yeah, that's wrong. Because what would the point of the tariff be then? Okay. We see an increase in domestic production given tariffs because that is passed off to the consumer. Would you agree there?

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-122

No, absolutely not.

Okay. So then why do we see production given tariffs?

Because when you produce something in China, you can make it for cheaper. So your margin is bigger. So you can—

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-140

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dean Withers

Or you make it more expensive for the consumer at the grocery store by imposing those tariffs. Right.

And then secondly, I agree with you again because China will pay the tariff to get their goods to the market because they need access to the market.

But then why won't we buy it? Because it costs more money. Right. And that's my whole argument is that tariffs cause the end consumer to pay more at the grocery store, to pay more at Best Buy, to pay more at the car dealership.

Do you know what a tariff is?

It's a tax on— it's a tax on an import. And there's another point that you brought up there about how we want to, like, spur domestic production of goods. I don't disagree. I absolutely agree. We should have a more industrialized economy where we produce goods here at home in America. We just disagree on how we get there. Right. I— right.

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground · Dean Withers

How do we get there without tariffs?

Yeah, sure.

Right.

By driving further competition through the natural— through the natural market. We do that via investment.

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-164

What's the natural market?

We do that by investing in money. I'm sorry, investing the money. That was crazy. Investing in U.S. producers of goods like the CHIPS and Science Act under Biden and Harris's administration. that invested billions of dollars into US chip producers to further drive competition, right, with those imported goods just via, just via innovation in the product. Right. And the fact that you as a conservative are sitting here telling me that we need a government to impose a regulation on the free market by tariffing those goods that are being imported to our country is just new. You know what I mean?

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-164

Well, it may be new to you because, like, your only context of Republican is like Reagan. But if you go back to Henry Clay and Friedrich List and the American system, Alexander Hamilton, the country was basically funded by tariffs until we had an income tax.

+6 R-2.2 · Ad hominem · Nick Fuentes · low confidence: excluded from score

Yeah, do you know why?

Okay, we only had an income tax 100 years ago. Before that, the federal government made its money from tariffs. Yeah, but do you know why? By the way, it's just basic mercantilism, 'cause we wanna make the stuff. And by the way, when you say, well, we're just gonna invest, it doesn't work. China's dollar goes 3 times as far because the standard of living is lower, they're rich in raw materials, they have an endless supply of labor, cheap labor, The idea you're gonna chips and sciences your way out of China having systemic advantages, economic factors of production like labor, they have 1.5 billion people. You're not gonna pass a bill that's gonna change those fundamental imbalances in the economy. We have capital, we have tech, we have entrepreneurship. They have labor, okay? How about we need to— It's the same reason, hang on, and it's the same reason why we're even, when we try to, they call it friendshoring, we're gonna take our factories from China and give 'em to our allies, Philippines, it's still going to China because they have all the cheap labor. You just can't compete with that. You can't compete with the fact that they make everything, they have all the people. So you agree that we should reindustrialize? You literally cannot do that unless you protect industry. And by the way, China has tariffs too. All countries have tariffs. We're the country that doesn't have tariffs. They're eating our lunch as a result. So, you know, that's just not true. What you're saying isn't true.

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-140

No, Donald Trump's taken away the average American's lunch as a result. Like, once again, we've already went over how tariffs can cause prices at the grocery store to go higher. Every single time we've historically increased tariffs on China, what have we seen? A reduction in US agricultural exports. What did Trump have to do when he imposed his tariffs on China? He had to bail out American farmers with $28 billion. You say you want American industrialization, you say you want more US production of goods, but then you also say that you want these tariffs on China to absolutely destroy American farmers, and you want the average American to be worse off, meaning they have less economic mobility to go and start a business in the first place. This is why Kamala Harris's tax policy is better, right?

Because we're not going to— Democrat talking points.

+4 R-2.6 · Unfalsifiable dismissal · Nick Fuentes · low confidence: excluded from score

Okay, well, can you dispute them?

Yeah. Like I said, tariffs, the other country will pay the cost of the tariff.

Okay.

You're saying consumers will pay it and that's just wrong. Okay. So you don't think the Trump administration— hang on. The Trump administration— Trump, I'll give you a perfect example. Trump administration implemented tariffs against Canada, against Europe, against China. Inflation was low. Hang on. Inflation was like 1.3% under Trump.

Okay.

So if what you're saying is true, that the cost of the tariff would be passed down to the consumer 1 to 1 or even significantly, inflation would not remain at or around 1%. What if— if— and by the way, Biden administration has tariffs too. Inflation is very high, but the cost of goods going up has everything to do with fuel prices going up.

Hey, guys, we got—

Because of the war in Ukraine.

Yes. 5 more minutes.

Everything to do with it.

neck.

A very crucial point. A very—

with the quantitative easing, if they don't cause—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dean Withers

if they don't cause inflation of the pricing of goods at the grocery store, then why would we see an increase in domestic production?

Because it will make it competitive for America to make the same things.

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-140

How?

If China— because it's, it's so— it's basic math. If it costs— I'm going to if you stop interrupting me. If it costs less to make something in China because they have abundant labor than it does in the United States, then China can sell it at a lower price because their cost is lower. But if we make them pay more to bring their goods to the market, then they have to sell it for more or they have to pay the tariff and they make less profit. And that makes it profitable for American companies to make—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dean Withers

You're right.

Can you stop interrupting me? Can you put Chinese products costs more. Can you stop interrupting me, please?

Sure.

It adds. But who pays the cost? China pays the cost to bring it to the market, not the consumer.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-140

And who pays the cost once it's in the market?

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-122

Well, the consumer does.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-140

Thank you.

But they're buying— but they're buying what they're already buying. They're just buying it from an American producer.

Yeah. For a higher price, right?

Yeah. So for a slightly marginally higher price, so we can have American production.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-140

Okay. Okay.

But there's also economies of scale.

Thank you.

It stimulates American industry, and then America is able to produce what China would ordinarily produce.

Okay. All right. And America will produce it for a more expensive price because we don't have as cheap of labor as they have in China.

It protects the American industry, which is on the decline.

By causing inflation, right? Can you agree with me there?

Marginal. Marginal. It's marginal.

Marginal increases. But either way, we're getting somewhere.

But it's really not here. Well, and I said that earlier, so it's the same thing. But either way, the Biden administration has tariffs too. So it's basically a moot point.

No, it's not a moot point because once again, he wants to impose tariffs on all—

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-128

But you disagree with the Biden administration's policy, right?

Absolutely right. Okay.

So what are we even arguing about? Trump had tariffs. Biden has tariffs. No, tariffs protect industry in America. You support that?

No.

So the reason—

yeah, this isn't it. This is the reason that this is a bad argument is because Trump wants more tariffs. Right. I don't understand how this isn't evidently clear. I think what you're trying to do is kind of confuse people between me saying that tariffs that Biden and Harris imposed were bad and me saying that when Donald Trump is elected, he wants to impose all tariffs on all imported goods.

That's just not true.

Right.

One is just not true.

Another. Okay. So they're not—

they're not putting tariffs on all imported goods.

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-128

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-129

Okay. Does he just want to keep the ones on China?

It's going to be on— I don't know the Trump policy, but it's not on all imported goods. That's just—

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-129

Okay.

So then how is he going to pay for the $4.8 trillion associated with—

You can fact-check that.

Borrowing. Borrowing.

Like they pay for all— like how they pay for $175 billion to—

And what's the biggest expense of our government?

Liabilities.

Liabilities? No, it's interest.

Medicare, Social Security. That's totally wrong.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-233

No, the biggest expense of our federal government is interest on debt.

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-234

Totally wrong.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-233

Okay. I don't think that's wrong.

It's liabilities.

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-234

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-233

Totally correct.

Okay, we're wrapping up on time here. Let's— we'll give a—

0 R-6.3 · Procedural cut-off · SNEAKO & Adin Ross

Well, you're wrong on the Trump policy and you're wrong on spending.

Okay, we'll give a 1-minute closing. To Dean started, so we'll one minute closing for Dean and then one minute for Nick.

Oh, you could go first, Nick.

Who gave the first opening statement? You or me?

It was Dean who started first.

Yeah, so Dean, we want to let Nick finish.

That means I go last. That means I go last.

Dean, you start, and then Dean, the next one Nick will start.

Okay. All right. Yeah, that's fine. I was just looking for a source to justify what I said there. So yeah, my closing statement would just be. Right. Obviously, I think that economic policy is a very prime reason to vote for Kamala Harris because she's going to make the average American better off. Donald Trump is not going to make the average American the better off. He's going to make them worse off with his tariffs. Right. Nick essentially did concede there, saying that tariffs do cause higher prices for the consumers at the grocery store. And then Nick also just kind of says that he doesn't really care about debt. Okay.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-134

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-132

So—

True. If you, if you want more debt, vote for Donald Trump because he's going to throw $5.8 trillion on our nation's debt. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris's proposed tax policy is going to be self-sufficient over the 10-year lifespan of the bill. And then one other final point here, there's much more reasons why Kamala Harris is a better candidate than Donald Trump that we didn't get to touch on, such as the fact that we probably shouldn't be voting for a rapist, we probably shouldn't be voting for a religious persecutor, we should probably be voting for the individual that wants to enshrine federal protections for all 170 million American women and girls' right to choose, right? And plenty of other reasons that we didn't get to get to, and I'm sad that we didn't, and hopefully we might be able to get back around to it later. But I'll go ahead and concede the rest of my time. Take it away.

Thank you.

Yeah. All right. Well, Aiden and Sneako, could we do immigration? I feel like that's a big one. We could do a few of these other issues. Real quick before— big issue.

Can you just do your statement really quick?

Yeah.

Yeah. I'm just saying, like, can we, can we make that one of the topics?

Well, that's something that we had to talk about prior. Dean, if you would like to as well, we could do that next.

Can you repeat that?

I was a little—

He wants to talk about immigration. If you want to keep Trump or Kamala going, we have other subjects.

But on the subject of Trump or Kamala, you guys didn't agree to that prior. But if you guys want to agree to do immigration, we can do that next. It's up to you guys. Both of you have to agree.

Yeah, you just wanna see, I mean, like maybe we could throw it in there at the end. I mean, get through the 4 topics we have agreed upon.

Sure.

And if there's time, we might be able to talk about it.

Okay, so please give your closing statement, Nick.

Yeah, so I mean, my closing statement on Trump, I don't even think fiscal policy's the biggest issue. To me, that's really a side issue. And the reason is because both parties are profligate spenders. Republicans, Democrats are both profligate spenders. Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden, they're all huge spenders. They're huge spenders on the military. They're not touching liabilities. Well, there's talk about tax cuts increasing the deficit. You can look at the Laffer curve and debate whether that's really the case. I mean, the theory behind tax cuts is that it stimulates economic growth, which it certainly does. It brings in more tax revenue. Maybe you find that convincing, maybe you don't. Point is, neither party's gonna rein in the deficit. I just don't think it's an issue. In terms of tariffs, the consensus has changed. Democrats and Republicans used to be free traders. They're not anymore. Bill Clinton, Bush, Obama were free traders. They're just not anymore. Trump is not a free trader. Biden's not a free trader. Trump has tariffs. Biden has tariffs. And that's because there's a recognition that we need to have a supply chain in America. 85% of the economy in America is services. Only 15% is construction, agriculture, and manufacturing. And this is a big— it's not only a national security issue, but it's also a jobs issue. We need to make stuff in America. The only way that we're gonna beat these other countries that are undercutting us with wages is with tariffs to protect our industries. And yes, that does result in technically marginally higher consumer prices, but it's more important to have good jobs and industry.

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-140

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-131

All right. That was good. So we can— we'll circle back to Trump and Kamala. But to keep it on the subject, we have 4 very different topics right now.

Real quick before, I just want to say thank you both for giving you guys, you know, you guys are very— letting each other talk and stuff. Thank you. I appreciate that. But go ahead, Sneako. I'm sorry to cut you off.

All right. So the next subject that we agreed upon was Christianity. But to make it interesting, Nick, do you We can be more specific. We could talk about Christian nationalism.

Sure.

Okay, so the subject will be, is Christian nationalism good or bad? And okay, well, let's start with Nick because we started with Dean last time. We'll do, um, let's do 3-minute intro. I'll give you a 1-minute warning and then I'll give Dean a 3-minute intro and then we'll go free-flowing. Then if it's interruptions, we'll time it. But it was, I think it was good so far. But Nick, take the floor, 3 minutes.

Okay, well, I believe that America should have a religious government. We should have a Christian Catholic government.

You like that one.

And, you know, we have to face the fact that liberalism has failed. And the best example that liberalism is failing is that we're not having enough kids. The society, the civilization that doesn't have kids will cease to exist and it will lose. And it is losing. Liberalism around the world is receding. And these more ancient tribal perennial cultures are thriving. Islam is the fastest growing religion. China is on the rise. Tribalism, racialism, all these things, all these revanchist historic ideologies are on the rise, and they're all beating back liberalism because liberalism is, uh, weak. It is ineffectual. It's causing all kinds of perversity, degeneracy. People are not having kids. Um, it's, it's just sort of like anti-human and inimical to the human body. So, I mean, in addition to Catholicism and Christianity being true, liberalism is clearly bankrupt. Liberalism is clearly having a hard time. I think we should replace our state religion of liberalism with the state religion of Christianity. And, um, I'm interested to see where, uh, Dean wants to take it, because obviously it's a huge topic. But I think we should have a Catholic country, not a liberal atheist one.

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-273

Yeah, I think that there's a lot of different ways that a conversation about Christian nationalism can go. I mean, I've debated people on Christian nationalism before that will concede even if Christianity is false, right? We should still be Right, a country that upholds Christian nationalism because it promotes better outcomes. But I think there's a couple points there that you made I'd just like to respond to real quick. About declining birth rates, immigration, that's crazy. Then about, you know, a couple of the other points that you brought up. I particularly think that Christian nationalism is bad because it doesn't allow us to effectively legislate. Given, like, the Christian religion, right, we are led to believe that particular things are wrong because God said so. You said that you're a Catholic. I think in the Catholic faith you'll kind of have a different range on how bad things are. Something can be a mortal sin, a venial sin. But something that I'd say here that is a very absurd conclusion given Christian nationalism is shit like blasphemy. So blasphemy, as defined by the Bible, is the worst sin that anyone can commit. Does that mean that people should go to jail for life for blasphemy? Well, I don't know, because we know that people should go to jail for life for murder, and if blasphemy is worse than murder, and we're operating under a system in a society with a government that legislates on the basis of the Bible and these foundational beliefs as prescribed by Christianity, are we going to start sending people to jail for blasphemy too? I don't see how you'd be able to respond to that. I don't. And then, like, a couple other things that we could say here. The Bible promotes very harmful, bad beliefs. I mean, 1 Samuel 15:3, God tells Saul and his men to genocide the Amalekite men, women, and girls. I bet if I was to engage in a conversation with this guy specifically about 1 Samuel 15:3, he'll end up saying that sometimes genocide's okay. Leviticus 25:44-46, God tells the Israelites that they can own the non-Israelites as human property for life. I bet if I was to have a conversation with this guy about that topic, he'd end up saying that no, slavery hasn't always been wrong, alongside other things, right? So we could talk about how Christianity is false. We could talk about how it doesn't allow us to effectively legislate. We could talk about the absurdities that are already present in the Bible. But one last point that I'd like to bring up is if you're going to make an argument on the basis of the efficacy and the outcomes in which it would generate in society, which seemingly you started to there, Well, what if we find another religion that generates better outcomes than the one that you hold to?

1 minute.

Okay.

So the reason that you want a Christian nation is because it will promote human well-being and happiness. People are going to be having more kids and following these commandments. They'll be doing good. No degeneracy, none of that shit. Well, what if I told you that the LDS Church had even better outcomes than the Catholic Church? Would you all of a sudden be in support of an LDS-led state? Probably not.

↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-276

Okay. Right.

So that's another contradiction on its own. So feel free to kind of pick and choose there. Respond to the point that you want. Take it away.

↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-276

So the— you said about birth rates or immigration. Well, here's the problem, okay? One, the people that have liberalism are killing themselves, okay? So the people that, that invented liberalism, that live in liberal societies, literally and figuratively are killing themselves. They're committing suicide.

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dean Withers

They're dying. The guy that you worship.

Are you going to interrupt me like 30 seconds into my rebuttal? That's crazy. No confidence. They commit suicide. They They die from desert despair, they're addicted to drugs, all kinds of things. They're all dying over there, okay? We're dying in America, we're dying in Europe. And by the way, these people come from non-liberal or illiberal societies, and then their birth rate goes down. So even if you wanted to argue, oh well, like, we, you know, we could salvage liberalism with an endless supply of immigration from illiberal societies that have kids, when they get here, their birth rate goes down. And these are not liberal people. They come from illiberal places like China or Africa or Latin America. They come here, they assimilate, and within a few generations, the birth rate goes down because liberalism is suicidal. With regard to the question about efficacy and outcomes, I'm not arguing that we should have the religion with the best efficacy. I said liberalism has failed, and we know it's failed because it's committing suicide. So clearly liberalism as a system is not working. And that's why, you know, it's such a radical notion people think that we would have blasphemy laws or religious laws. They think it's a radical notion, it's unthinkable. The current system must be replaced. It's an imperative. It's not a question of, you know, whether or how or anything like that. It simply must be because it will cease to exist. And so that's really the crux of the argument. You know why it should be Catholicism? It's because Catholicism is true. But the point I'm trying to make is for people that say, it's, it's so radical that we would go backwards. I would say we went backwards with liberalism, as evidenced by the fact that it's not even reproducing itself, and that's a huge problem. Um, with regard to the stuff about the Old Testament, I mean, look, the Catholic Church, Christians today are not in favor of genocide or slavery. You know, if you want to get into that, this is just like New Atheism 101. Just like, are you an atheist? Let me just— are you an atheist or something?

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-275

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-276

I'm an agnostic, but I wouldn't particularly use these verses in the Bible to say that your religion is false. I use these verses in the Bible to say that your religion is absurd. To say that your religion is false—

No, wait, wait, wait.

But I just wanted to ask you that. And then let me, let me finish the last point. So it's very funny when atheists who have no objective source of morality, it's like, you know, their morality is something like, hey, man, just leave everybody alone. What if I disagree? What if my morality says, well, I want to kill everybody or something? What if the majority of people said our morality says, well, we want to harm and we want to rape and we want to do this and that. An atheist has no God that says, well, you know, so-and-so has the authority to say this is correct. That's a problem. And yet they have a problem with blasphemy laws. It is good to have a God that is a source of authority, that gives us our morality, that is unquestionable. With regard to the Old Testament, if you want to get into the debate about, you know, what's bad, I would start with the question of how do you know what's bad?

Hey Nick, I'm sorry.

You claim that certain things are bad. You don't know where good and bad that comes from? And how do we know the good and bad are even real if we're all material? If we're only atoms and we don't have souls, why does it matter what happens to any of us? I mean, what is justice? Is there such a thing as the conceptual if there is only matter? Where is the conceptual? Can we see it? Can we feel it? Is it located somewhere? Let's let Steve respond. Well, and I'm making a point here. I'll wrap it up quickly. So for an atheist to point to the Old Testament and say, well, You know, how could a God who does these things be so immoral? I would say to the godless, what is moral? And who are we if we're not just stardust being rearranged? I mean, slavery, these things, these are conceptual. It can only exist with a, with a real philosophical viewpoint, not with this kind of lame, like, sky daddy isn't real sort of stuff. So, you know, there's just a lot of assumptions there that kind of need to be interrogated.

Okay, Dean.

Yeah, well, I mean, right before you go, Dean, interrogated is the fact that you asked me, well, what do I do to a group of people who like to murder, rape, and kill others? What if God said that? Then we would have to do it. That's the question that we need to ask.

Then we would have to do it.

Wait, wait, really? If God told you to rape and kill a baby, would you do it?

Well, God would never do that because God is good and those things are evil.

Okay, so raping and killing is evil. So when he commanded us to rape the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:3, that was evil?

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-276

God is telling us to rape and kill babies right now?

So specifically about killing, in 1 Samuel 15:3, he did command Saul and his men to kill the Amalekite babies.

Rape babies? He told them to rape babies?

No, to kill babies.

Well, yeah, then if I were one of those guys, I would have done it, but not rape them.

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-294

Okay, so if God commanded you to kill a baby today, would you do it?

+4 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Nick Fuentes

Yes.

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-294

Okay, so why would you kill a baby, but you wouldn't rape a baby?

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-293

Because that would be cruel or something.

Wait, is killing a baby not cruel?

In the Old Testament, it worked differently.

No, I'm talking about the fallen world. You particularly said that you would kill a baby today if God asked you, but you wouldn't rape a baby if God asked you. So how come you'd kill a baby today but not rape a baby?

Because the context of the Old Testament is that it's a fallen world, and that's the context you're talking about. You said that in, in the Old Testament— Dude, we're not talking about the—

dude, please answer my question.

Yeah, we are. We literally are.

You're not letting me answer.

We're not talking about— wait, wait, wait. If we're not talking about the Old Testament, what are we talking about?

About the fact that you told me today if God commanded you to kill a baby, you would do it. And then I followed that up by asking you if God commanded you to rape a baby, would you do it?

And you said God wouldn't do that because it's evil.

Okay, so killing a baby today you would do if God commanded it, but raping a baby today you wouldn't do because God wouldn't command it.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-293

Well, you—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dean Withers

first of all, are you making the implication that killing a baby today is evil?

No, what you said is that in the Old Testament—

Okay, so then you wouldn't do that either, right?

Well, hang on, hang on, let's rewind, let's rewind, because you said in the Bible God says to rape babies. Can you just retract that? Because that never happened. No, if you rewind— yeah, okay, people can rewind the clip. You said kill and rape babies because you got a little— and rape people because you got a little ahead of yourself. Because you got a little ahead of yourself.

I can really clear this up so easily. If I said God commanded Saul and his men to rape babies in 1 Samuel 15:3, I misspoke. In 1 Samuel 15:3, God commands Saul and his men to kill babies. But you are not answering my question. This is a damning non-answer. Every single person watching this stream can see that you said if God commanded you to kill a baby today, You said you would do it.

Can you affirm that? Can we be serious? Can we be serious for a second?

We are being dead serious. Can you affirm the fact that you said if God told you to kill a baby, you do it?

Can we be serious? Can we grow up?

Why won't you answer my question?

Well, because we're talking about the Old Testament, are we not?

Dude, we're talking about today. How many times do I need to say that?

You're talking about the Old Testament. You're citing the Old Testament. You're talking about a specific verse in the Old Testament. Oh my God. You can— you can look, you can giggle.

I specifically asked—

Can we confirm that we're talking about the Old Testament? Is that correct? What are we talking about?

Exactly. I'll tell you exactly what we're talking about. We are talking about the fact that I asked you a damning hypothetical question.

I asked you— It's not.

It's a cheap— You mind if I have 30 seconds?

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Nick Fuentes

Context. No, no.

You're interrupting because you don't want me to talk because you know that you're losing.

Yeah, because the Old Testament says bad things in it. I know I'm a new atheist and I just discovered— here's my answer to your question, if you'll allow me to answer it. I know you want a cheap gotcha question, but let's add a little context. The Old Testament takes place in a fallen world.

Oh, boy.

We live in a fallen world because we have free will, okay? God created human beings. Human beings disobeyed God and sinned. Because we disobeyed God and sinned, we have the penalty of death, war, shame, guilt, pain at birth, all these things. In the fallen world, people kill. In the fallen world, people kill, people lie, cheat, steal. Cain kills Abel. In the world, the fallen world before Jesus Christ arrived, it was a world with slavery and warfare and iniquity. It is in this context that God commanded the chosen people to kill certain tribes to establish their survival, to secure a line for the coming of the Messiah. God does not approve of killing because it says in the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not kill. God does not approve of rape because it says thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, and so on and so forth. So God obviously does not support killing, raping. Oh, would you kill and rape a baby? No. But in the Bible, God prescribes laws and specific actions at the beginning of the world, which was fallen without Christ, without a savior, in sin, for the survival of the chosen people. So the rules worked a little bit differently in the Old Testament. It doesn't mean that— And of course, Taking a life in and of itself— You don't know that. Hang on. There's a difference everybody knows between killing and murder. If I go and murder you for no reason, that's immoral. If I kill in self-defense or self-defense of my children, it's a different story. God commanding the people of the Old Testament is an extraordinary exception based on the fallen old world. That's one. Two, when Jesus Christ arrives, he fulfills the law and saves people from hell. Before Jesus Christ arrived, nobody could even go to heaven, and it was a world of iniquity. And Jesus Christ changed and created this modern world that we're living in. So now, now here's the thing: God is the authority. If God commands us to— look, I know it's a complicated issue. You can't fit it into a TikTok where you do the Destiny drive-by to Trump's making your grocery prices higher, you know. But it's actually a complicated issue where you were talking about— you're talking about evil, the existence of evil. So Does that mean that God is not an authority? Of course not. God is an authority. Would God command us to do those things today? Probably not. But if he did, in a hypothetical scenario, we'd have to trust God if we truly believe in God. Otherwise, you would say something like, we know more than God, or God is not good, or we're better than God. And that negates the concept of a God or good itself. So that, that's my answer to your— Oh, so when you said killing babies, there's— it ties into like abortion policy. It's just like cheap, low-IQ, left-wing bullshit. But anyway, go ahead.

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-276

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-294

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-284

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem · Nick Fuentes

Cool, thank you. So I hear everything that you just said. I will give that a great response. Uh, I sure did. But before I give that a response, I wanted to take a brief moment to go back to the question that I was attempting to get you to answer prior. I understand that you just kind of gave me the story of the Old and New Covenant. We had different rules before, you know, the Messiah came back down, created the New Covenant, whatever. I get it. Thank you. Okay, but the question that I asked you was, if God commanded you to kill a baby, would you do it? You said yes. I then asked you, Nick Fuentes, if God commanded you to rape a baby, would you do it? And you said no, that's too cruel. If you'd like to take 15 seconds to kind of clear up that gap, like, does that make the implication that killing a baby is—

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-293

I answered the question. I answered the question.

You didn't. Okay.

Is this a debate about Christian nationalism, or is this like a weird New Atheist By the way, why do you think killing is wrong? Where do you get that information from?

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-287

So first of all, I don't think that killing is inherently wrong. I think that murder is wrong, OK?

The unjust— Oh, OK, so you agree with me, then.

Right, and then what I'd say here about murder is that's just gonna be driven given my intuitions. I'm a subjectivist, we all know this, but I think you are, too. Would you agree with me—

He's a subjectivist.

Would you agree with me that objectivism can be defined as like a stance independent, like, truth?

It's an independent truth? What did you say? I didn't hear you.

Like a stance-independent truth. That's what it means for somebody to be—

A stance-independent truth?

Yeah.

Of independent truth or that there is independent truth?

Okay.

Wow. The sentence construction doesn't make sense.

Okay. So like, like in, like philosophy, right? When we're referencing terms such as moral objectivism or moral subjectivism, we define objectivism given like when I say murder is wrong, that is true independent of any stance of any actor of any mind. Okay.

When I say— Yeah, no, I understand what you're saying. I don't understand the, the construction. I'm not—

you're like mumbling to yourself.

Yeah, I believe— yes, objectivism is that there's an independent truth. Yes.

Okay, so is moral— is morality independent of God?

No, no, because God is morality. God is good.

So morality is subject to God.

Okay.

Could God create a box so heavy he couldn't lift it? Yeah, that's great. So if you believe that killing is not—

I didn't give you a contradiction. I just showed you that you're an objectivist. I know.

Thank you. So, so where do you believe that killing is wrong then? So you believe it's subjective. You don't believe it's absolutely wrong.

10 minutes. Right. Oh, what's that? Oh, what's that, Aiden?

10 minutes, guys. Great.

Yeah. So, I mean, I could kind of give you a little bit of an overview of my, of my, of my stance here on morality. So metaethically, you know, I'm just going to be a subjectivist, a relativist. When we like to, when we like to reference like why I think things are wrong, it's just going to be driven, like given, driven by intuition. I mean, like, we could talk about different moral frameworks. I myself am what is called a threshold deontologist, meaning that I believe that, like, particular things could be always wrong, but meanwhile we should consider, like, the consequences of others. It's pretty interesting.

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-345

Is the Holocaust wrong?

Yeah, the Holocaust was wrong.

Objectively?

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-287

+4 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Dean Withers

No, because objective truth in the context of morality doesn't exist.

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-345

Nothing's objectively wrong.

In your opinion it's wrong.

Because that standard doesn't exist.

In your opinion it's wrong.

In accordance with my index standard, it's wrong, yeah. But I mean, just saying, oh, you believe in subjectivism, But I'm going to counter that by asking you, is it objectively wrong? That doesn't really achieve anything.

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-345

I could literally ask you— What is your qualification?

Was the Holocaust objectively wrong?

Of course it was wrong. Of course it was objectively wrong.

But you just agreed with me that morality is subject to God.

Because morality is God. It's identity, not subjectivity.

Wait, God is identical to morality?

Yes. God is good. God is the good.

Okay, so when I say that hugging your mom is good, I'm just saying that hugging your mom is God?

Yes.

Okay, okay, so can you just say that for me? Like, every single time you kiss your wife, uh, that's a really God thing to do?

Love is good. An act of love that expresses love is good. God is the good. God is being itself. We are participating in being.

Oh wait, now we have some more issues here, because earlier you told me that God would never command you to, like, rape a baby because that's evil. But now you're saying that God is identical to goodness, meaning if God is all-powerful in the sense that he could do anything that's logically possible and he's identical to goodness, why wouldn't he be able to tell you to grape a bit— to rape a baby?

Did you say grape?

I did. TikTok words. I know, I know.

I guess God also tells us that God— that God's plan is very complex.

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-294

Why won't you answer my question?

Because these are just like low IQ.

No, that's not a low IQ point at all. We're literally talking about what you think goodness is, what its derivative And how would it apply to your God? Actually, we could extrapolate this out to the problem of evil as a whole, right? Like you actually said earlier that you think that the Holocaust is objectively wrong. Would you say if it happened?

If it happened at all, by the way.

But yeah, let's theoretically.

What the fuck? Hey, I'm getting it.

Of course it happened. Do you see what I'm talking about? Yeah, dude. Nick, what the fuck, bro? This guy's over here saying, oh my God, the Holocaust happened.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-396

Oh my God. But then he asked me.

of the Holocaust is objectively wrong. Get a load of this joker.

So I just want to ask you a fucking question.

Get a load of this joker. Oh, yeah. Get a load of this joker.

How about another joke? What do you got?

You need to unmute your mic. Get a load of this. You want to tell me another joke? Keep talking. I'm going to go ahead and ask you a question. Would you say, all things considered, that the Holocaust is wrong?

If it were real, yes. Yeah.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-396

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-396

Oh my God.

And it is. And it is. And it absolutely is.

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-396

You're so fucking spineless. How the fuck can you sit in front of 45,000 people and say that the most well-documented thing that has ever happened in history might not have happened. I want to ask you a question. How the fuck do you know that Jesus resurrected from the dead, but you don't know if the Holocaust happened?

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-396

+6 R-2.2 · Ad hominem · Dean Withers

Please answer that question. Shroud of Turin.

Shroud of Turin.

That's been taken by multiple— the Shroud of Turin is a more reliable standard for evidence than the 250—

Than the thing that Jesus happened?

That would justify that the Holocaust exists?

Listen, this isn't a Holocaust debate. Let's try to stay focused. This is a Christianity debate.

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-409

No, let's talk about it. The Shroud of Turin specifically, We had 4 different groups of scientists take different parts of it. None of them could date it back to anything after 400 years AD.

I'm just saying it's a lot of people.

No, no. I want you to tell me how the fuck you know that Jesus rose from the dead with a lack of any historical evidence that exists from during his lifetime, from a first-person experience.

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-409

Calm down. This is a factual debate. This is a factual debate, Kamala. Tamp on Tim.

Yeah, go for the emoji because you know that you're losing the argument.

One, Shroud of Turin, impossible to create other than with Jesus ascending into heaven. That's one. Two, all I'm saying is, all I'm saying is that's a lot of bodies unless we forgot the technology to cremate them. Look, I don't know. I wasn't there and you weren't either.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-410

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-396

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-409

Wait, wait. So you're telling me that it was absolutely impossible for some random—

Impossible.

Impossible for the Shroud of Turin to exist? Then please tell me why.

Oh, you don't know the facts.

Then please tell me why.

You don't know the facts.

Tell me why the earliest carbon dating on the Shroud of Turin that we've gotten from the material used to create the Shroud of Turin is like from 1200 AD.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-416

That's not true. That's not even true.

It's either 400 or 1200 AD.

You can fact-check that. That's not even true. They just did a new study on it and they proved it's 100% real.

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-429

+2 R-2.9 · Unfalsifiable sourcing · Nick Fuentes

They proved it's 100% real.

It's 100%. It's like super real.

That's one. Okay. Okay.

2, we have secular historians that testify that Jesus was a real person and was crucified. Josephus, Tacitus.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-410

We also have— Josephus isn't secular. Let's get our facts straight. He was a Jewish historian.

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Nick Fuentes

Okay, he was Jewish. Okay, he was Jewish. I mean, non-Christian. Thank you for the clarification. Is it—

are we good? Does secular mean non-Christian?

Are we good? You know what I meant. I mean, if you were to say that a Christian source is biased, then arguably a non-Christian source would be unbiased. That's the point. Josephus, Tacitus. But you also have the earliest versions of the gospel stories going back to the 1st century. The earliest fragments of it go back to the 1st century, and you have people that went to their death. That's part of why Christianity spread. They went to their death. The Christians were martyred testifying that they saw a resurrected Jesus. Liars don't go to their death testifying that something happened if it didn't, certainly not— excuse me— 11 out of 12 of them, or every single one of them. And that is the basis of how it spread in the ancient world. So, I mean—

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-410

Yeah.

There's others that— there's the Shroud of Turin. There's non-Christian historians. There's the fragments of the gospel.

Yeah.

So there's prophecies that are fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament.

The Shroud of Turin, that shit just goes straight out the fucking window. We have carbon dated it. Not a piece of it dates back to when Jesus was alive in accordance with Josephus and Tacitus, which you reported.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-416

Carbon dating is flawed. Oh, carbon dating is flawed.

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-429

+2 R-2.6 · Unfalsifiable dismissal · Nick Fuentes

And there was—

and that's not true.

It's earlier than it is, but we just—

And that's not true. Well, one, it's not real. Because carbon dating says that, like dinosaurs.

Then how do we know that it was from—

And 2, 2, there was a recent study done.

How do we know it's from—

2, there was a recent study that was done that showed that it literally would not even be possible using the technology at the time to create a forgery. So it had to have been created by something with luminosity that just didn't exist back then for it to imprint throughout the entire Shroud. They didn't have that kind of technology back then.

Wait, I have a question.

It's impossible to create it any other way.

Do you mind if I ask you a question here? Okay, so I like this argument. Let's just go ahead and say that you're right. It was impossible to create without some sort of divinity. Jesus Christ is a prophet of the Islamic religion. Can you please give me any reason to believe that Christianity is true more so than Islam being true?

That's just a stupid question because—

Given that his humanosity could be granted either Islam being true or Christianity being true.

Do you know what Muslims— let me ask you this question. Do you know what Muslims believe about Jesus Christ and the crucifixion? Can you tell me?

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-456

The prophet of God, he didn't actually die on the cross, someone else stepped in his shoes.

Oh, oh. So what was the Shroud of Turin? Do you know?

Oh, it was over him in the burial.

Ah, so, so how would we know Islam isn't true? Well, let's see. If he wasn't actually crucified, then how would they lay the shroud over his body and his soul leave to make the imprint? So it doesn't— you don't even know what you're talking about.

↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-459

I mean, no, you don't know what you're talking about.

Trying to work it out on the fly. Doesn't even know, doesn't even know the order of How could it? How could the Muslim Jesus leave the Shroud of Turin imprint if he was never crucified? And then there was—

what did they say about the person that was crucified?

Hello?

What did they say about the person that was crucified? Who did he look like? Who did he present as?

But he wasn't Jesus, so he wouldn't have ascended into heaven and left the luminosity. It would be— he was a lookalike.

↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-459

Oh, that's terrible.

You can say that, but you don't know what you're talking about. Oh, I don't know. Normal— hey, normal people They said it was a body double, someone who looked like Jesus. Normal people don't leave a luminous imprint on the shroud they put on them at the point of death, so the lookalike wouldn't have done that.

Wait, I'm just curious, could you give me the study?

I don't know the name of it off the top of my head, but it was recently completed.

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-429

Sure, I would love to.

You should investigate it. You'd probably become a Christian if you're being objective.

Hey guys, let's do it.

Let's do it, guys. Hey, real quick, real quick, let's do a 2-minute closing statement. We're gonna start with you, Nick.

Uh, ready to get on to the next topic?

Go ahead.

Sure. So I mean, the good news is we just had a platform to demonstrate the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. You do have real archaeological evidence like the Shroud of Turin. You have the Gospels. You have the secular historians. No serious historian would testify that Jesus wasn't real or didn't live or wasn't crucified. And if Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, it's because of the well-documented martyrdom of the disciples of the early church. If you would go to your death testifying that something, a lie or a fabrication, didn't happen, you know, then maybe you believe they all faked it. I think that you go to your death only if you saw something true. And even still, people won't tell the truth if they're afraid of the mafia. You would only go to your death telling the truth if it was God in the flesh. So I think that's just all obvious. With all that being said, we should have a Catholic government. We all have a conscience. The moral law comes from God. It's also written on our hearts, and we know And that's where our intuition comes from, the subjective idea that we get from rationality or empiricism that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, the same objections agnostics and atheists raise against the Bible. You know, and, and the thing is about the Old Testament, if people are turned off by that, it really just amounts to the problem of evil itself. Evil exists in the world that was created by a good God. This is answered by the philosophical concept of the privation of evil. Prior to the coming of Jesus Christ, it was a world without the good, and therefore it was evil, and thus there was no mercy, compassion, those sorts of things. But it's a very complicated topic. I hope people aren't turned off when they hear, you know, bad things happen in the ancient world, therefore there can be no God. It's obviously false. So anyway, so that's just the long and short of the whole Christian debate distilled.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-410

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-273

Yeah, sure. So I'll go ahead and give my closing statement.

Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead, dude.

First, about the Shroud of Turin, uh, anyone watching, feel free to look up any of the multiple groups of scientists that have dated the Shroud of Turin. Not, not a single one of them have been able to place a date on the Shroud of Turin from a point when Jesus was alive. Uh, so that's automatically thrown out of the window. About next— about Nick's second point there, specifically about the people that went to their deaths after seeing the quote-unquote resurrected Jesus, this is something we see in all religions. I want you to go ahead and look up Prophet Muhammad's grandson in the context of the Islamic religion. He was martyred because of his beliefs in his grandfather being a prophet of God. That's present always. If this makes a religion true, all religions would be true. About your third point about the historicity of Jesus Christ, we have no firsthand accounts about Jesus Christ or his life. I do think that he was a real man that lived and died via a crucifixion, but Josephus, Tacitus, all these people came long after he died, and I think it's crazy that you're gonna sit here and say that we have sufficient historical evidence to justify justify that Jesus Christ died and resurrected from the dead, but we don't have historical evidence to justify that the Holocaust happened and 6 million Jewish people died. I can give you a source right now that 6 million people did die. In fact, I could give you 200. For everyone watching, look up holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com. It will give you an index to published evidence on mass extermination in Auschwitz, uh, in Auschwitz in Germany. There will be over 200 sources there, much more abundant evidence than what he could ever give for the existence of Jesus Christ and the idea that he's our God. So, already contradictory there. And about the last point about the problem of evil, you said that the privation of evil was the fact that there wasn't a lot of good before Jesus came. No, the privation of evil is an ontological statement of evil. I didn't say that. Okay? So, you don't know what your philosophical terms mean. You're also confusing what the problem of evil is. Okay? Right? I would say my problem of evil would be the fact—

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-409

↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-416

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-409

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Dean Withers

20 seconds, Dean!

God's all good, God's all perfect, and God's all-powerful, then nothing evil should exist in the world that we live in. I wish that we could have a longer discussion about this, man. Get into philosophy, show you that you don't know shit. But I guess we're gonna move on to the next topic.

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem (competence attack) · Dean Withers

Thank you guys. All right, we're gonna do topic number 3 is, uh, is homosexuality bad?

And we'll, we'll start with, uh, we'll start with Dean again. I'll give you a 3-minute intro, same thing in like 3 minutes, and then I like the free phone. It's been good so far.

I, I probably won't, you know, go ahead.

Go ahead, Dean.

Uh, all right, no worries. Um, yeah, so I probably won't need all 3 minutes. It'll be pretty easy. Uh, I don't think that being gay is wrong because there's no good reason to believe that it is wrong. Uh, there's just, you know, multiple arguments that, you know, Nick could probably give me. One would just be, uh, gay wrong because, uh, Sky Daddy says so in the Bible. Another argument you give me is something to do with like telos, like the natural function of our bodies would indicate that we have a prescriptive purpose on how we're supposed to use them. That's not how we're supposed to use them. I'd say that doesn't exist. Uh, at the end of the day, I— my stance is clear. Being gay is not wrong because there's no reason for it to be wrong. And I guess we'll just hear Nick's reason why it is wrong, because that's probably where we're going to start. So I'll concede the rest of my time. Take it away, Nick.

+4 R-2.2 · Mockery/ventriloquism of a position · Dean Withers

Yeah, I love the sky daddy thing. It's like the idea that there's a transcendent God. You think there's a man in the clouds and I don't because I listen to science. It's just like the most brain-dead new atheist lie. I'm surprised this stuff still exists.

Bro, you told me that you'd kill a baby if God told you to.

Hey, Dean, Dean, Dean.

He has 3 minutes. Interrupt Dean. No more interruptions.

Yeah. Silence. Silence while I attack your position. So here's the thing, okay? The homosexuality thing. I mean, we could argue that the faculty of the reproductive organs is to have sex. The purpose of them is to have sex. We have sexual organs to have sex, and sex is for the purpose of insemination, procreation. It's what it is. It's not— we can't get too creative. It always ends the same way, and it's made for one purpose. We could argue that there is a prohibition of it in the Catholic catechism and in the Bible. But I don't even think we need to go that far. It's really a question of whether we think people can do whatever they want. And this gets back to morality. If your conception of morality comes from, you know, a vague idea of empathy or do no harm, you know, against harm, then you would say there's nothing necessarily wrong with suicide, drug abuse, homosexuality, gluttony, you know, laziness, all kinds of other behaviors, because people say, we own our bodies, we can make decisions, we're empowered, and we can kind of do whatever we want as long as we don't interfere with other people, as long as they're not an imposition on other people. That's really the fundamental premise. I reject that premise. I think that because we're created beings, we're created with a sense of dignity. Our souls and our bodies are connected, and God wants us to be dignified. And I think we all recognize that there are things that are dignified and things that are undignified. It's undignified to be an addict. It's undignified to be lazy. It's undignified to undergo a transgender surgery. It's undignified to do plastic surgery. And yes, it is undignified to engage in sodomy. And what is it, 1 minute?

Yeah, 1 minute.

So, you know, sodomy is something that is violent. It's filthy, it's undignified, and I think it's a travesty. It's such an unfortunate thing. You know, people celebrated the way these flags— but they're waving a flag of really a filthy and violent and gross act, uh, that I think any, you know, anybody has a natural sense of morality would reject it. Um, so I mean, I just think it's disgusting, and things that are disgusting are probably wrong.

Okay, your argument: it's disgusting, therefore it's wrong. Hey Nick, got a question. Is shitting disgusting?

Uh, no. Shitting is wrong. Good point. That's a good point.

That's the argument you're giving.

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-498

I never thought of it that way.

You said, you said it's disgusting, therefore it's wrong. Yeah, shit, shitting, that's pretty gross.

It's a pretty good heuristic, yeah. It's a pretty good— well, and look.

That's the account, that's the argument.

Well, if you wanna talk about—

It's literally so fucking simple. simple. Like, I mean, if your argument is, oh, this is aesthetically unpleasing, therefore I find it disgusting, therefore I'm going to describe it as being morally wrong.

This is just, first of all, low IQ.

+6 R-2.2 · Ad hominem · Nick Fuentes

Do you mind if— no, it's not low IQ.

Go ahead.

Yeah, go ahead. Explain, explain, explain your, uh, your syllogism.

Yeah, sure. Uh, so anyways, here's my perspective. Uh, you're just saying that you find it disgusting given your subjective mental states that lead you to the conclusion that it is something that's non-aesthetic. Uh, I think it's funny that you're giving me this argument when you've been chirping down my throat for the last 30 minutes that we need to rely on some objective standard to tell us what's right and wrong, even when we disagree. But now you're like, oh, my mental states are not conducive towards me finding this to be aesthetically pleasing, therefore it's morally wrong. It's just a little bit, you know, out of reach for you. But overwhelmingly, I don't even— I don't even know if I should give a dignified response to what you just told me. Nick just said, I don't like it, therefore it's wrong. You also referenced a couple other things there. about just engaging in dignified actions. Once again, that's another I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, right? I could say that being Nick Fuentes and talking about how 6 million people didn't die at the Holocaust is undignified, and all of a sudden in my worldview, you're going to fucking jail, right? But I think that if you're going to make the argument that it's either wrong to be gay or it's wrong to engage in same-sex intercourse, you're going to have to give me a little bit more reason than the fact that it doesn't align with what's aesthetically pleasing.

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-498

Are you gay? Let me— are you gay? Just to establish for the debate.

No, I'm straight. Unlike you, I am empathetic. I'm able to place myself in other people's shoes and see the world from a perspective and realize—

You empathize? You place yourself in gay people's shoes?

Yeah, yeah. And I can—

Do you imagine what it would be like to be gay?

No, I imagine what it would be like to be at the receiving end of your fucking tyranny.

The receiving end. You empathize with the receiving end, huh? What is that like?

Of like the tyranny of you and the other like white Christians that just come out and say— Oh, tyranny.

Gay, so bad.

Therefore, we're going to persecute you. these people.

Therefore, you're empathizing with a gay man, are you? Okay, interesting. Do you, do you think about like gay sex? Do you empathize with gay sex at all?

+6 R-2.2 · Ad hominem via identity insinuation · Nick Fuentes

Why is it always the homophobic straight men that want to talk about gay sex?

It's a debate about— it's a debate about homosexuality.

Yeah, you're talking, but you're, you're getting a little bit too personal, Nick. I have a girlfriend. I'm sorry.

Okay, I'm just asking. I'm just asking.

I, I, I said— I know, I know.

I'm just asking.

One of the many. One of the many.

So here's the thing. I didn't say if it's disgusting, it's wrong. What I mean is it's a pretty good heuristic that something is disgust— if something is found to be disgusting, it's probably wrong. And here's— you brought up fecal matter. You brought up— you said shit. I'll say fecal matter. I'll be polite. Fecal matter is offensive to us. It has offensive odor. It has an offensive look and so on. Why is that? Why do we find it disgusting? Why are we repelled by it? Because if we were to handle it and touch it, we would get sick and die. If we were to eat it, we would get sick and die. If we don't properly dispose of it, it would poison the community and we would die. So the act of excreting waste is not an evil act, but, but fecal matter in itself, it disgusts us on an instinctual basis for a very good reason. Okay. And that's why it's a heuristic. And we find the same thing about about surgery and blood. You know why? And about snakes and about spiders. There's a reason for that. And the same thing is true about homosexuality. Now, it's like you look at the homosexual act, okay? Eventually—

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-497

Mind if I respond to that?

Yeah, go ahead. Sure, sure.

Yeah, you're just further— like, I look at it, it's further—

What? You're just not hearing me.

So I am, I am. So this same— You're not empathizing. The same intuition that you're describing to me and like the other how many people are watching, I don't even know. is essentially that you have this innate-driven psychological response that when you look at this, it's bad. You kind of related this to looking at shit, and because when you look at shit, it's bad, you know, that's like driven via the fact that if you eat it, it could give you, uh, like bacteria, can make you sick, whatever. Okay, but here's my point. The same innate, uh, like prejudice-driven response that you are holding towards gay people that leads you to the conclusion that it's thereby wrong is the same innate-driven prejudiced response from white supremacists towards Black people. So what would you say to a white supremacist giving you the same exact argument that you're giving me about gay people, but about Black people? What if they made the argument that they just feel on some innate behavioral level that it is just wrong to be Black? When I look at Black people, I feel this way and that way, the same way that you're describing to me right now. And the reason that I think this point is so important to bring up here Is, well, you're just describing your prejudice.

Okay.

Well, I would say, first of all, I don't have a prejudice against gay people. I really don't. I'm describing the act. I'm describing the act of what they're doing, which is filthy. If you look at a guy walking down the street, for the most part, like, let's say it was a guy wearing like guys' clothes, but he was gay. You wouldn't know he was gay. and your disgust reflex wouldn't be triggered. But when you think about sodomy, when you think about sodomy, which involves a whole host of gross stuff, I mean, they have to take drugs to loosen their buttholes. They have to flush out their buttholes of poo because the penis is going where poo is. This is disgusting stuff. And the idea of it's disgusting and it's the act which is disgusting. So it's got nothing really to do with prejudice or anything like that. It's that the act itself. Yeah, I think— Hang on, hang on, hang on. And by the way, it's also universal. It's universal and it's instinctual. There was a study that was done, for example, that said that men who witnessed 2 gay men kissing had the same disgust reflex as seeing maggots. I'm sure you've heard of that.

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-497

Nick, I'm just trying to get you to recognize that—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Dean Withers

Can you not interrupt me? Why interrupt me every single time? I'm trying to make a point here.

A white business owner in the 1960s would have said the same thing that you're saying about gay people right now about Black people going into their business.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-535

No.

I asked you a question. The reason why I'm interrupting you here Is because you're not giving them—

it's a false syllogism. You're bringing in white supremacy to homosexuality as a behavior.

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-537

Can I tell you particularly? No, homosexuality is not a behavior.

It is a behavior.

Okay, so what do you say?

Well, what is— obviously homosexuality is a behavior. It means if a man, if a man is attracted to another man but never has sex, is he really homosexual?

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-537

Oh wait, I have a question. Was Jesus straight?

He—I don't think he had a sexuality because he was God.

Okay, so it's perfect not to be attracted to women because Jesus was perfect and he wasn't attracted to women. What are these false?

It's always just like bullshit. Oh yeah, I have a question.

You don't like gay people.

What about white people not liking black people? Was Jesus straight?

What'd you say here? If you never engage in gay sex, then you're not gay.

So Nick, I didn't say that. I said homosexuality is. Sex is an act. It's an act. Oh, okay.

So you said if you don't engage in gay sex, you're not homosexual because homosexual is predicated on the action.

I didn't say that. I said it's an action.

Yeah, so you're telling me if you don't engage in that action, then you're not that. Dude, how fucking— do I need to write it on a piece of paper?

If you are a person that engages in that act, you are that person.

Right, so no. What I'm telling you is that sexual orientations are not defined upon the actions that you engage in.

What are they defined on?

On your attractions, right? And I'll give you a really good reason to believe this. Uh, Nick, at what age did you lose your virginity? Like 25?

I haven't. I haven't. I'm Catholic.

Oh shit.

I'm going to get married.

Nick, you're not straight by your definition because you've never engaged in the action of heterosexual intercourse.

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-560

True. I'm asexual. I'm an asexual incel.

You can't get out of this one. So you're gonna make a joke because you know you can't get out of it.

It's not a joke!

Wait, so Nick, you're not straight?

Not yet. But I will be.

Let me be the first here, folks. Nick Fuentes is not straight. Nick Fuentes is not straight, ladies and gentlemen. I want to make that one clear. I want to make that one very clear.

Okay, that was good.

That was good. So do you now see why we should predicate the definition—

My sexuality is incel. It's involuntarily celibate.

So do you now see why we should predicate the definition of like straight and gay based upon this?

No, no, I think homosexuality is an act.

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-559

Oh, okay, okay. So if you— I mean, then you think being straight's an act too? All right, so Nick Fuentes is not— okay, that's the absurdity that I'll reach. If you want to say, uh, that like being straight is predicated based upon the action, uh, then go for it. It just means that Nick Fuentes isn't straight, okay? Uh, and then also I want to talk about that action.

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-560

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-559

So you're empathizing with gay people. If you're envisioning yourself being gay, you're not straight either, buddy. If you're empathizing, if you're getting in their head, getting in their shoes, getting in there wherever. Okay, okay. I don't know, I think it seems like you're kind of all the above. But Nick, that's really childish. I just want to respond to that question is whether it's moral.

Let me respond to that.

Please tell me about your empathy. I want to hear about it.

Yeah, sure.

So which partner do you empathize more with, the one that's on top or the one that's on bottom? I'm curious, right? Where's the empathy directed, right?

I got a question. God's all-knowing, right?

Here we go. Yes.

So God knows what it's like to get fucked in the ass by two dudes. So God empathizes with it.

Why can't I? That's great. Very good. Very good. No, God doesn't empathize with those people. God casts those people off.

Terrible. Oh, that's so bad.

That's great. It's very low IQ humor.

It's very low IQ humor.

No, you're getting fucking dunked on repeatedly.

I thought you'd be a better debater.

You're the guy that said you're empathizing with gay people and you're saying that poo isn't filthy or something. Oh no.

So once again, my argument was is that you have absolutely no reason to believe that being gay is wrong, and the existence of yourself alongside others just like you that hold this baseless trivial prejudice has led to generations of members of the LGBT. One moment. Let me cook. That led to generations of members of the LGBT community. Let me cook. You're getting a little bit frustrated, sir. Do I need to put the polka dots? No, no, no, no.

Give us the whole acronym.

Yeah. So generations of the LGBTQ+ community, right, have lived under an oppressive system because people like you like to. open up the front door of their house and then scream and shout how wrong it is to love another person in a consentful adult, a non-incestuous relationship. It is absolutely fucking insane to me. And here you're gonna see— you're gonna say, oh, Dean, you're boring me because I'm able to empathize with other humans. Is that like—

Oh, brother.

Yeah, no, because you're a really good person. Being in favor of gay sex means you're a really good person and you empathize with people and care. It has nothing to do with whether you believe there's a natural law or anything and things we ought to do or not do with our bodies. It's because you're a really fucking wholesome, good person.

What reason do you have to believe, right, uh, that we ought not to be having sex?

Homosexuality is bad for people. I mean, it's, it's an unnatural act because it's, it's incompatible.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-495

Wait, can you define unnatural?

It's filthy, it's violent, it doesn't work. I mean, what is a sexual act? Wait, what is a sexual act?

10 minutes, guys. 10 minutes on this topic.

Yeah, like the sexual act.

That's contrary to its purpose, contrary to its nature.

Okay, so you're saying it's contrary to its nature. So you're saying that like every part of your body has a nature. The nature of the penis isn't to enter into an asshole.

Correct, yes.

Okay, what's the nature of your lips?

To do everything that a lip does.

Like eat food, talk, speak.

Sure, yeah.

So it's wrong to kiss your girlfriend because that's going against—

No, they're made for that too. They're made for that. That has a purpose in sexuality.

As well. If you could say that your lips are made for kissing your girlfriend, why can't I say that the peepee is made for being inserted into the asshole?

Because the asshole isn't meant to be penetrated. Because when that happens, it has long-term health effects. You could look— there are a lot of like ex-homosexuals that talk about how they have long-term— I mean, I don't want to get graphic, but they have to wear diapers. They have to wear diapers.

So because it's not natural, effects equal unnatural.

Yeah. If you're persistently doing something that leads to long-term chronic problems like that. Yeah.

Okay. Wait, I think so. It's dirty.

And that's why there's disease that results from that as well.

I think that this is another trivial argument. Would you say that it's wrong to play the piano because you're unnaturally using your fingers to hit the keys that could lead to long-term health effects?

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-626

↳ evidence for the P21 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-606

No, because it's not contrary to its nature.

Oh, wait. But it leads to long-term negative health effects. In some people, it could lead to like their hands seizing up. Or I forget the particular word, but it essentially leads to very, like, bad long-term health effects, like within the hands. So, like, given your logic, why wouldn't you say that it's wrong to play the piano, granted, right, that it's not in the nature, right? That was a trivial assumption, and it leads to negative long-term health effects.

Oh, it's obvious because, because, I mean, what do we, what do we call the penis? It's a sexual organ. It's for the purpose of sex. Fingers are a little bit different. Lips are a little bit different. They have all kinds of different potential utilities and things like that. But the sexual organ is directed towards the sexual function. I mean, why do we— the reason that— the reason the penis is shaped like it is, the reason— It's a toy. Okay, now, now you're gonna interrupt me. The reason that it's shaped like it is and positioned where it is and all those things, it's for one purpose. The reason that it— I mean, not to get graphic, but the reason it does all the things it does is for the purpose of insemination. It's not for the purpose of inseminating a person's colon. Or rectum. And by the way, a butthole has literally one purpose. Okay? A butthole has one purpose, which is to excrete waste, not for— Do you mind if I give you my stance on this?

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-495

I'm going to give you—

Yeah, let's hear it. Well, it is a debate, so I wouldn't mind that at all, actually.

Yeah. So, I mean, I don't think that we could prescriptively define the function of like any part of our body or really like anything for that matter. We could only descriptively define them. Uh, like, I could give you a good analogy here. Like, if you, if you went to like a hardware store like Lowe's or Home Depot, right, and you went to buy a hammer, uh, and the instruction manual on this hammer tells you that it's supposed to put nails into wood, well, I mean, all of a sudden you are misusing the hammer if you're not putting nails, nails in the wood. Uh, but if you go into the middle of the forest and you find a rock in the shape of a hammer identical to the one in Lowe's, you're not doing anything wrong regardless of how you use it because there wasn't any intention behind it its design. And that's exactly what I would say about the human anatomy, right? There was no conscious intention behind the design of the human anatomy. I think that we could descriptively define how we use parts of our body, and I think you kind of implicitly conceded to this earlier when you told me that it's in my nature to use my hands to play the piano or to use my mouth to kiss my girlfriend. Those are not intentful, prescriptive, uh, claims that you're making about the function or use of my hands. Yes, they are. These are going to be descriptions about how we can use my hands, about how we can use my And that's exactly how I'd reference, right, these sexual organs. Okay?

↳ evidence for the P21 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-606

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession: teleology depends on the God premise · Nick Fuentes

Yeah.

And the only way for you to justify your claim that there is intention behind the design of the human anatomy to justify that there's incorrect uses of it would be God. And of course, I dispute the existence of God. You couldn't prove that God exists. If we had 30 minutes, I could be able to give you an argument to show that it's logically impossible for the Christian God to exist. So I think what it's best for you to do right now is to either concede your position or just say it outright. You think being gay is wrong because God said so. You think being gay is wrong because you trivially believe that God built our bodies to function in a particular manner that is adjacent to the use that you like to describe to our fingers or to our mouths. Say it out loud.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-626

Well, like I said, if you were listening at the very beginning of my opening statement, I said we are created and we are ensouled, and our souls and our bodies have to be treated with dignity. And yes, that's— you're 100% right. I mean, if you believe that, if you're a nihilist or a materialist, and you believe there's only matter and everything is subjective, then yeah, like, there's no problem with putting this in there and that over there. But if you think that we are created, and if you think there is such a thing as a natural law and a moral law, then we would have to abide by what we can assume are these functions, or what we are told are the functions by revelation. If you're— if you believe in a religion with revelation, then it's revealed. If you believe in a religion which is is philosophical, then you have to deduce it rationally. But when you look at something like the anus, you know, E. Michael Jones has a famous quote about this. The anus is not a sex organ. It's obviously not. It's there for one purpose. And I think, you know, we all sort of know, like, yeah, of course you can do these things. No one's arguing that you can't. Of course you can. It can be done. You're capable of doing it. The question is, ought— should we do these things? You know, and if these things are contrary to their nature and there's evidence that this is the case because they result in problems, then we probably shouldn't. And you don't even necessarily need to believe in God to understand that. I think that— I think that— hang on, I'm not totally finished. I think that even if you don't believe in God, I think there are a lot of people that actually don't believe in God that still find it to be a, a kind of degenerative, indulgent—

Yeah.

But hang on, undignified practice. I'm not finished yet. You're very disrespectful in that way. I'm so respectful and you're being very rude the way you're chirping with these little interruptions. And the thing is, I mean, let's imagine what it is when they're walking down the, down the street waving that flag. It represents a filthy, violent act where you're evacuating fecal matter out of your bowels to make room for sex, and it's never fully gone. And this is why they get AIDS, because you're putting a sexual organ where the shit is. And that's just something that, like, yeah, is objectively gross, I think, for very good reasons, which is a pretty good heuristic that it's also immoral. And so, you know, people that are same-sex attracted, people that are tolerant of same-sex attracted persons, and people that are not, I think, should all be able to recognize that sodomy is something that is— there's something deeply wrong with it and it should be avoided, even if you're not religious.

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-497

Let's do closing statements, 1 minute each. I'll give 1 minute to Dean. And then 1 minute to Nick. We'll go on to the next topic.

Great. Thank you so much. So Nick Fuentes made 2 arguments. The first argument that Nick Fuentes made was that I think it's gross, therefore it's wrong. Uh, in Nick's closing statement, what he will not do is give me the logical distinction with him saying gay gross, therefore wrong, and a white supremacist saying being Black gross, therefore wrong. There's no logical distinction between the way in which those 2 beliefs were And he won't be able to give it to me. The second argument that Nick made here was that we can deduce that it's not within the teleological, like, me— like, the teleological use of these sex organs to use them in such a manner where the penis is inserted into the anus, because doing so can reap long-term negative outcomes. Okay? Right? He will not be able to give me the difference between saying this is why gay sex is wrong, And me saying, well, it's wrong to play the piano because when you use your hands to do so, this could reap negative long-term outcomes such as arthritis. So those 2 arguments alone show us all that Nick's logic here is unreliable because of the absurdities in which they yield, right? If the same logic that you're using to justify that being gay is wrong could lead a white supremacist to the conclusion that being black is wrong and lead a dumbass to the conclusion that playing the piano is wrong, Maybe your logic isn't that sound. And I think that's going to be my closing statement. If Nick Fuentes was honest with us here, folks, he would tell us that being gay is wrong because he's just a little bit prejudiced, don't you think?

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-535

Okay, that was a bit over. Nick, I'll give you 90 seconds to close here.

All right. Yeah, I don't know why we got to do the debate club stuff. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what Nick Fuentes is going to try and— it's like this is a very informal— we're on Aiden Ross. Okay, bitch, this is Aiden Ross Live. There's no rules here. Okay. Other than the time limit. My closing statement is very simple. It's just like how I started. If you believe— and I tend to think that every decent person does, even if you're not Christian or necessarily religious— if you believe that we are more than just matter, meaning that we have souls, meaning that there is something deeper, there's a ghost in the machine that is a true source of identity, if you believe that the universe is created and we're created, then you believe that moral conduct is not just about avoiding harm or hurting people. There's also a way to conduct your moral life independently, and it's how you treat yourself. It's your actions. We all understand there's an idea of discipline, cleanliness, all those kinds of things. And the idea of sodomy, which people should think of when they think of homosexuality, I think according to any decent person in any culture, is something that is violent, filthy, and those things tend to be wrong. It's contrary to the nature of sex, what we know the, the anus and the penis to be for, you know, or, you know, for lesbians for that matter. It's contrary to the purpose of those things. Um, and I would say that on top of all that, you have evidence that this is the case because there's such a low incidence of it. It's a very small percentage of the population, has a very high coincidence with mental illness, and there's a very common family pattern that produces that behavior, that disposition.

Hey, you got about 10 seconds, Nick. 10 seconds.

Okay, it's a, it's a very particular kind of behavior that's a response to things. It should be avoided. I think any decent person realizes that.

Hey, Aiden.

Yes.

There's no more. No more on the subject.

Dean, hold on. What is Dean about to say? Yes, Dean.

Well, I mean, I would like to propose giving Nick another 60 seconds to respond to my closing statement. As I pointed out in my closing statement, he wouldn't respond to the arguments I gave, and he still didn't. So I just wanted to see if Nick wanted more time to do that. If not, we can move on. But he probably won't.

Can we give him 60 more seconds to actually respond? Okay. Can we do the next topic? We're going to respond to your stupid syllogism about white supremacy and the Holocaust and January 6th or whatever.

That's a damning non-answer. Let's go to the next topic.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We're going to go to the next one.

And then, Dean, you agreed to do immigration. We'll circle back to Kamala Trump after the last agreed-upon subject. Is that cool?

The reason, the reason why we might have to do a 5th topic that we both agree on, guys, is because a lot of the audience, uh, you know, is enjoying this and they're deep in on this. And I think it's almost—

you guys are almost kind of tied right now.

They're, they're— a lot of them are agreeing about a tie. So, um, maybe a 5th, we'll see. Let's get to the 4th topic.

Well, how about this?

Because we've been going about 30 minutes each subject, so for brevity's sake, why don't we do 20 minutes on the last subject and 20 minutes on immigration to keep it?

What's the last subject?

Are men superior to women? Okay, but if you agree to do immigration.

Because you're gonna lose on that one. I don't know.

Okay, Nick, is that fine with you if he doesn't want to do immigration?

I don't.

Let's just hold on a second, Dean.

Dean, Dean, Dean, do you have a topic that you a fifth topic that you might want to cover, touch base on? Just something for the end. It doesn't have to be that long either, like maybe fifteen minutes.

Yeah, what? No, we can get the big immigration. All right.

Okay. All right. So the next topic is are men superior?

Yeah, we'll start with our men.

Debate partner. You're good. It's all. It's not personal.

I just want you to know. Are men more superior?

No, just superior. Are men superior to women? We'll start with Nick. I'll give you three minutes and then three minutes to Dean.

Yeah, men are awesome. Women suck and they're dumb. And no, I'm kidding. Yeah, the thing is though, men obviously were made to lead, and I do think that women should have a secondary role in society. I think that's absolutely true. I do believe in a fundamental equality between man and woman. You know, the Bible says that God created them man and woman, so we're both created with dignity and should be respected, and there's an equality before God that we both have. Uh, but we were created with 2 distinct and different natures. Um, you know, they are 2 essential— maleness and femaleness are essential about a person. They're essential to the soul, they're essential to the body. They come with a function, they come with a particular anatomy, they come with a brain chemistry. And as such, those things have social roles. The idea that, you know, these clearly 2 distinct categories, 2 essential types of people, would be treated precisely the same or exactly the same in society, it belies the fact that they have 2 different natures. And I think it's obvious that men are celestial. They're individualists, they're rationalists, they're leaders, they're risk-takers. They should be working, fighting, running society. Women are terrestrial. They're nurturers, they're caregivers. They should be the mothers. I don't think that they should be necessarily precluded from working, but I think that they should be encouraged first and foremost to be mothers for their benefit and for the benefit of society as a whole. And that's, that's kind of the gist of my position.

Okay. So I have an opening statement. I guess I'll use it up. My position is pretty clear. No, one human being does not have more intrinsic moral value than another human being. I don't think that we could take this qualification of your gender identity or what's in between your legs and abstract that out to this, this norm of who's going to be better at leading. I'd say the qualifications of determining who's better at leading the qualifications of determining, you know, half the shit that he named off over here is not going to be, right, uh, what's in between your legs or your gender identity, but rather other various traits. Uh, but I guess just to make this quick, uh, we could kind of cut to the chase here. Uh, why do you think men are better at leading than women? I would appreciate specifics. You kind of pointed out like different natures, different biological differences, neuroanatomy, etc. I want you to name the specifics. Maybe I could ask you a question here. What are specific biological differences between men and women that make men better at leading than women?

Smarter, stronger, all of the above. No, I mean, in actuality, in actuality—

What are those, your 2 qualifiers?

No, no, I'm being a little bit funny.

Well, be honest with me here.

The reason why they're better leaders— well, one, I think they're, they're really only qualified to be leaders because They are physically stronger. And, you know, this is one of the reasons why we have a feminist society. It's because we live in a world where we have technology. In the old days when there was fighting, it was very physical and it was very direct. It was hand-to-hand combat. And the only people that could do it were men. As such, the militaries that were raised up were comprised of men. The people that fought and enforced sovereignty, law, borders, all those things were men necessarily. Then They're the decision makers. And so, you know, the idea that it has something to do with what's between your legs, uh, well, it has to do with what's between your legs and the fact that you have testosterone. You're physically stronger. And by the way, because you have testosterone, it means you're more aggressive. It means you're a bigger risk taker. Uh, those are 2 things that are important for a person to be a leader. They need to be able to stand against the crowd. They need— and that means a risk taker. It means you need to be disagreeable. It involves a certain amount of aggression and a competitiveness that women simply lack. We all know that women are very agreeable, passive— not all of them, but generally speaking, they are. Uh, they're peacemakers, they're more introspective, they're more emotional, less decisive, and all of that makes them worse as leaders. Now, there can be women that are good in, in particular leadership roles in certain circumstances, and individual women might But as a general rule, because of their nature, they don't make good leaders.

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-665

Okay. Thank you so much for your response there. Let's talk about it all. One of the reasons that you gave me that men are better at leading than women is physical strength. That is a totally and completely moot point. You would not be able to name me one social category in the world today where leadership is determined on purely physical strength. I also bet That you would not be willing to vote for a 15-year-old on steroids that can bench press 600 pounds over Donald Trump just because he's physically stronger. Another point that you brought up is that women are more emotional than men. I'd actually say that's false. 72% of people who commit suicide are men. 85% of people that abuse hard drugs as a substance abuse hard drugs as an, as an emotional reaction to, uh, like particular external stimuli are men. We see that 95% of violent crimes are committed by men. We see that men are much more likely to start wars, to start genocides. We see that men are much more likely to engage in irrational risk-adverse activities such as drunk driving, reckless driving, or gambling. Meanwhile, we see women have a higher IQ and EQ on average. Women outperform men in the context of school, going to it more, getting better grades and better degrees, and we see that women could actually deal with stress better than men. And that's one of those biological predispositions that you were talking about. Women have thicker dendrites in their neuroanatomy compared to men for the reason being that evolution has designed women to deal with childbirth. Okay. Right. And that made them deal with stress better as well. That's why we see that female surgeons outcompete male surgeons.

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-666

surgeons.

Uh, the JMA and the AMA did a massive study on 1.7 million patients on 6 continents and evaluated that if you're operated on by a male compared to a female, that you're more likely to die as a result of your surgery, and you're more likely to experience post-operative outcomes. So this is a quick recap. Physical strength doesn't mean shit. I have bigger biceps than you. I bet you think you're a better, better leader. Uh, emotional maturity— women are more emotionally mature than men. than about intelligence and all the other shit you brought up. We could get into that, but I'll let you respond to the points that I brought up so far.

Yeah. So you said it was risk-averse to gamble and drunk drive. It's the opposite. You said men are more willing to drunk drive and gamble. Those are risk-taking activities, and risk-taking is fundamental in leadership. That's why. That's why. Yeah, fair enough. And that's why, you know, the richest people in the world are all men, because the entrepreneurs are men, because an entrepreneur is a risk-taker. And, you know, one man's gamble gambling is another man's entrepreneurship. One man's drunk driving is another man's self-destructive, obsessive, maniacal, uh, quest for, you know, building the best company or being the president or, or anything like that. It's absolutely essential. Uh, with regard to higher IQ and EQ, it is true that on average women have a higher IQ, but it's also true that the distribution is different. There's more geniuses among men. I mean, the, the curve, if you will, is flatter. So there's, there's more men that are on the left side of the curve, there's more men on the right side of the curve. Although the average for women is higher, they don't have those outliers and those extremes. That's why you don't see a lot of female geniuses. And that's just true. I mean, earlier today in preparation for the debate, I asked ChatGPT, I said, name some female geniuses. They got to like 3 before they had to name a feminist. They did like Marie Curie, some ancient Neoplatonist no one ever heard of. And then it was like all the, all the like first and second wave feminists. There's no female geniuses. There's very few female billionaires that didn't get their wealth outside of divorce. There's very few female heads of state. People say that's oppression, it's misogyny, and we all know it's because they're not risk takers, they're not tough. With regard to they handle stress better, yeah, maybe certain kinds of stress, but I think we all know women, and I think we all know that when women are put in stressful situations, they cry.

+1.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: women average higher IQ · Nick Fuentes

+2.5 R-2.3 · Appeal to a source in place of argument (ChatGPT) · Nick Fuentes · low confidence: excluded from score

Oh my God.

They cry. They cry. They get upset. They freak out. They call their boyfriend. They call their mom. Hang on, hang on. Let you go on. I'll let you go on and you say that ridiculous stuff. Well, let me finish. Let me finish. I'll wrap up. I'll wrap up. But I let you finish and I let you say that women, women handle stress better. That's insane. Okay. And with regard to physical strength, you know, look, I said today physical strength is not a qualifier because of techniques, because we have missiles, we have tanks and things like that. But the point is, it used to be the case that what qualified you to lead is that you would go out there and be doing the fighting and all of that. And that is still true. It's not necessarily true in the United States, but it is still true in other countries. In countries like Israel, for example, or Iran, their presidents and their ministers are frequently military leaders that are actually having to be in the tanks and in the battlefield. And, you know, it's hard to be in the battlefield when you're getting your period. It's hard to be in the battlefield field if you're pregnant or something like that. Men don't get pregnant. Men don't get their period. Men are physically stronger. The men are— men have more endurance. That's why, by the way, it's not just that they're stronger, they're faster, they're, they're all the above. That's why women don't compete with men in sports. That's why men make better soldiers. And so, you know, yeah, it kind of does matter that if there's a war, men are going to be the ones fighting and dying in it, and that's why they're leading. And there's deeply related to their biology there as well. But go ahead, since you want to interrupt me already.

↳ evidence for the P26 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-675

Yeah. Yeah. Let's do something here. I've kind of felt this way, like, the entire time that we've been having the discussion. I feel like we both like to talk a lot. I think that that's been evidently clear. We just kind of go at each other with like these 2 to 3 minute responses. Can I ask something for you from you?

What is it? Depends on what it is.

I kind of want to break down each point you've brought up and demonstrate to you why it's flawed instead of just giving these long-winded responses.

You want to do a fact check? 5 minutes.

I want to do that point by point with our last 5 minutes. The first point about physical strength. Who would you rather vote for, a 15-year-old that can bench press 1,000 pounds or Donald Trump?

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-672

But that's not what I'm— I'm not saying that the most physically strong person should be the king. I'm saying that— what are you saying as a category? As a category, women are not soldiers. They're not— they're not tasked with defending the country. And that is effectively what the king or the president is supposed to do, is defend the realm.

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-677

Didn't Trump dodge the draft 5 times?

Oh my. Okay. So are we just going to do the resistance liberal thing now? I said the United States, techniques notwithstanding. Are you capable of understanding like a concept?

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem: 'capable of understanding a concept' · Nick Fuentes

Can non-soldiers defend the country?

President Bone Spurs, we're talking about whether women should be leaders if they can't physically defend the borders.

Okay, so you'd say the weaker you are physically speaking, the worse you are at leading?

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-672

No, no.

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-677

So then what the fuck is your argument?

Yeah, it's like you're not even listening. I said as a category, as a category, because sex is a category that's not going to be indicative of leadership ability.

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-677

When the question is, why are men better at leading than women? Why do you name a category where we see these general biological distinctions between men and women if it's not indicative of men being better at leading than women? I ask you to name the specific biological differences between men and women that make men better at leading than women. I'm trying to— You said strength was one of them, and now you're saying it's not. You're saying that emotional intelligence was one of them. Then you conceded that women are more emotionally intelligent than men. Another point that you brought up was intelligence, specifically IQ, with the highest geniuses of the men being smarter than that of the women. I'd say there's going to be some social aspects thrown in there. I mean, if you look at the average IQ of an Arab individual compared to a white individual at home here in the US, US, the white individual has a higher IQ. But then if you go to an Arab-dominated country in the Middle East, you'll see that the Arab individual has a higher IQ. What this means is that socialization, access to opportunity and resources can play in, right, to like your deviated IQ. So of course we'd see more men having higher IQs at the end of the spectrum compared to women just because they have more opportunity, resources, and access to education.

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-675

+4 R-2.2 · Ventriloquism of the opponent's position · Nick Fuentes

Oh, it's because of misogyny. It's misogyny, right? Women are dumb because of misogyny.

Uh, well, actually, I'd say that not being in the top 10% of IQs doesn't make you fucking dumb.

Let me ask you a question.

You ask me questions, let me ask you a question. I want to ask you a question about leadership. What do you think are good leadership traits? Can you give me some examples of what, like, good leadership traits are?

That's a great question, and I think I'll give you a great answer. We could talk about a good morally virtuous character. We could talk about ability to get along with other people, bring people together, and get them to follow you. Another thing that I'd say, a good leader isn't just someone who could bring people together, but a good leader is also someone that can lead those people into a positive direction. The reason that leadership exists in the first place is because when you take a large group of people and you set them on their own paths, they're not gonna get shit done. Thereby, you choose one of that large group of people to lead them all in what? A positive direction. So you're looking for someone with a good character, you're looking for someone that could bring people together, you're probably going to be looking for someone that's pretty damn competent as well, and someone that could like achieve like the highest level of eudaimonia for the group of people that they're leading. I'm sure there's other attributes that we could assign to leadership here, but there's going to be a drin roll since—

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-666

look, Nick, let's do a, um, do you need to respond or could we— let's do a 1-minute closing statement here.

Can I just respond and then we could do— sure, yeah, go ahead. Okay, so just to respond to that, I mean, and this is kind of the whole essence of the debate, is you coming off last I'm funny, go ahead. You fundamentally misunderstand human nature and you know nothing about leadership. You say it's about bringing everyone together to move in a positive direction. It's like, this is the problem with Gen Z. It's like this kind of kindergarten— You fucking nihilist. Hang on, can I, can I finish please? I didn't interrupt all that nonsense. It's just sort of like, hey everybody, let's all hold hands and let's just create, you know, like everyone's being nice to each other. The world is a mess, okay? The world is a knife fight on the global scale. When you're talking about leaders and armies, it's a knife fight for existence. existence. We're talking about companies, it's a knife fight for existence. We're talking about anything, human competition, it's practically homicidal between people. And anyone that's serious about anything will tell you that. Anyone that's obsessed, anyone that's ambitious, anyone who is ruling, who is actually the leaders in society who earn their role there, they'll tell you the same thing. It's cutthroat. And yeah, like, though there are some abilities, like you said, like, yeah, you need to inspire people, things like But more than that, you need a willingness to do what it takes. You need an ambition. You need to take risks. You need to be willing to make decisions and stand by them. These are all qualities that, that purely because of gender and hormones, because of their biological role, women don't have those things. Because women have to have a baby grow inside of them for 9 months and then hear it scream and cry and take care of it and feed them from their breast and have like basically a dependent They're just not made for that kind of competition. They have a completely care-based ethics. They're totally dependent. Men who are individuals, risk-takers, aggressive men who can exist independently of women when it's really not so the other way around, they alone have the ability to do what it takes to lead. And that's why even with all the DEI in the world, you're still gonna have men running everything, the private sector, the public sector, the military, because because men are the ones that, that can lead, and thus they do. It's only through ideologically motivated policies from human resources departments that you get women doing fucking anything other than like creating schedules and being nurses and being fucking teachers and stuff like that. That's just reality. Everyone knows it. And you could give me 100 studies, that's human nature.

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-665

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-675

+6 R-2.2 · Ad hominem: 'you know nothing about leadership' · Nick Fuentes

Dean responding, then we'll go to closing statements.

Yeah, yeah, it's funny how you're saying that you can't get women to do anything. If a woman didn't do something, you wouldn't be sitting here having this debate with me right now. But I just wanted to respond to that. You're saying men are so much better at leading than women, and I hate women because I haven't touched one since conception. Sorry, that's not what you said. You actually said, you know, you know, because they're not aggressive enough.

I touch them. I just don't have sex with them. They're not my wife.

Ooh, I don't know about that. Anyways, so—

You're a rapist.

I'm not going to call you—

Orange man bad.

Orange plaid.

So anyway, what I was going to ask, well, if like ambition, risk-taking, and aggressiveness is what makes you a good leader, Hitler was an incredibly ambitious, aggressive risk-taker. Given your qualifications, would you thereby say that Hitler is a good leader?

+4 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question (Hitler) · Nick Fuentes

It's indisputable he is. Indisputably. You could even say he's evil. He's— he made Germany great again. Even if you believe he's evil.

Who would you rather have run our country right now, your wife or Hitler?

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-708

Hitler, of course. Of course. I don't— I don't have a wife, but if I did, she would not be fit to run the country. I could tell you that much. She can run the kitchen. She can run— she can't run the lawnmower. I'll put it that way. And I think anyone would— ones in the chat, if you'd rather Hitler over your wife, twos if you prefer your wife. We'll let the chat— we'll let the fucking numbers do the talking over here. I don't think I'm alone in that.

↳ evidence for the P28 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-709

Okay, let's do a 1-minute closing. Let's do 1 minute Nick and then 1 minute Dean. Nick, go ahead.

Okay. Yeah. So my closing statement is that, you know, look, it's human nature. I am not an empiricist. I don't think we need to consult the studies. I think we know our nature. I think God God created a man and a woman. We're created with 2 different reproductive faculties. We're created with, as a result, different anatomies, different natures, different dispositions. We're made with complementarity. Men and women are not only made differently, they're made to complement each other, which doesn't mean that they're necessarily opposites, but it does mean that there's like reciprocal differences. As a result of these essential immutable differences, we should treat men and women women differently, and we do. That's why we have things like chivalry. That's why men don't hit women. That's why men and women don't compete in the same sports. And, you know, a lot of people understand that, but then they don't understand why we would say we don't want a woman president, or why we wouldn't want to send women into combat, or why we think that men aren't badass bikers and whatever in the same way that men are. But it all proceeds from the same essential complementary nature That the 2 sexes were given by God.

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-665

That's not—

Otherwise, is to ignore our eyes and our experience and what we know about ourselves and, and the people in our lives.

Dean, got 1 minute.

Yeah. First of all, you said that's why men don't hit women. Men do hit women. It sucks. Second of all, let's talk about why men are not better at leading than women. Every single point that Nick Fuentes has Has been reduced to him telling us all that Hitler is a better candidate for America's president today compared to Kamala Harris or his very own wife. I don't give a shit about the 12 or 13-year-old little boys spamming 1 in Aiden's chat. Anyone with half of a fucking brain cell can tell that this logic is not immutable, and it leads you to being a fucking incel RNC droid repeating the same alternative media talking points. points that you got from Andrew fucking Tate. Okay, right. The facts of the matter are this guy said men are better at leading than women because they're physically stronger. Physical strength is not indicative of being better at leading. Go talk to the biggest guy in your gym and see who would be better at leading. This guy also brought up levels of emotion.

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-672

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-666

+6 R-2.2 · Ad hominem in closing: 'incel RNC droid' · Dean Withers

How are they all—

We all know this. That's why they commit vast majority of violent crimes. That's why they commit vast majority of suicides. That's why they abuse hard drugs more.

It's about time, Dean.

Kidnapping, etc. More. Another point that he brought up was intelligence. Women have a higher IQ on average. Let's face the facts, folks. There's no evidence to believe that men are better at leading than women. And I suggest you treat the women in your life damn well and don't tell them to stay in the kitchen or you're not going to get a wife. That's how a 28-year-old over here hasn't been able to get a girlfriend since he was born. That's why, folks, that's why you're an incel. But we're going to go ahead and move on now.

OK, let's go back to Trump-Camilla in the beginning. We'll say who's stronger on immigration, Trump or Camilla.

Oh, this one's so good. We'll start with Dean.

We'll give you— let's do 2 minutes. We'll keep this one a little shorter. 2-minute intro.

Yeah, sure. Kamala Harris is stronger on immigration. Well, this one's just evidently clear. Donald Trump is pro-open borders. Huh. Why is Donald Trump pro-open borders? Because he torpedoed a bipartisan border bill in the House and the Senate 2 years ago, drafted by a, by a Trump-endorsed Republican by the name of Lankford. Okay. Trump is pro-open borders right now because he knows it's going to increase his chance of winning reelection. Another thought here. If I was a conservative and I cared about immigration, Donald Trump wouldn't be my guy. He essentially passed no policy that effectively mitigated increasing numbers of border crossings and entries into our country under his term. The wall didn't do shit. The Remain in Mexico policy didn't do shit. If you look at the graph behind Donald Trump at the rally that he got shot at, he claimed that his clampdown on the southern border started with Title 42 in code. The big public health emergency that Nick Fuentes over here probably thinks was a common cold is the only reason that we had as low of border entries under Trump's administration as we did. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, right, she wants to send more funding to the courts on the borders to expedite the asylum-seeking processes to reduce undocumented migration in our country. She's the only candidate in the race to prosecute transatlantic gangs. But the moral of the story, the one point that I want to stick for Nick Fuentes over here to respond to, is that Donald Trump is pro-open border because he torpedoed good border policy in the House and the Senate 2 years ago because he wanted the crisis to continue and make the Democrats look bad.

Nick, you got 2 minutes.

All right. Yeah, that's just like obviously out of touch with reality. I knew he would go there, and that's why I want to talk about immigration. I mean, you could make that case if history started in the year 2024, that Trump torpedoed the border bill and that's why the border is bad. But of course, time didn't start in 2024. It started with immigration a long time ago. Trump had a number of executive orders that curbed illegal border crossings. It wasn't just the Migrant Protection Protocols. It was a number of others. Meant to close loopholes with catch and release, and so they could return immigrants to third-party countries. It wasn't just Title 42. And the Biden administration undid all of them literally on the first day. Trump built a border wall. You say it did nothing. Department of Homeland Security says actually it reduced crossings, reduced drug trafficking over the border, reduced human smuggling over the border. That's all true. He built 386 miles of physical infrastructure. And he did it, by the way, after Congress refused to give him the money, after the Supreme Court— rather, a federal judge tried to hold it up in the court system. Finally, by the end of his term, he was able to get the money from the DOD to fill— to build a border wall. Biden stopped building it on day one. Biden also effectively ended deportations. There was a policy under Obama where they said they weren't going to prioritize most illegal immigration for deportation. Under Trump, they put an executive order that said we're going to prioritize all illegal immigrants for deportation. Biden rescinded that executive order. Trump had an executive order that said while you're waiting for your asylum claim to be adjudicated, you wait in Mexico, not in the interior of the United States. Biden rescinded that executive order. Trump said we will return you to one of the Northern Triangle countries, a third-party country. Biden rescinded that executive order. As a result, illegal immigration under Biden is higher than at any point in history by far. In the 10 years between 2010 and 2020, illegal border crossings only one year on average on a day-to-day basis were over 3,000 per day.

10 seconds.

It was 4,000, 6,000, and now it's over 7,000 border crossings. So it's almost 3 times the 10-year average And that's because they removed the Trump-era policies. Now they want to blame it on a Senate bill this year. I don't think so.

Thank you for all the information, Nick. I'm going to have fun with this. First of all, it's funny that you think you're so educated about the border and then you say that Lankford's bill was in the Senate in 2024. No, that was 2023. It started drafting in late 2021. Secondly, you mentioned all the policies that Trump enacted that Biden repealed. First of all, if you look at the border crossings under Donald Trump's presidency, they went up year by year by year until Title 42 was implemented. What does that tell us? Immigration after these great policies didn't go down. What else do we know is that these policies weren't in place under Obama's administration. Did we have a border crisis to the same degree that we have now under Obama's administration? No. At points, we had lower crossings than we had under Trump. Phenomenal. What does this tell us is that Biden repealing those policies didn't cause the crisis to start. So what did? That's a great question. Well, let's treat Title 42, the total and complete shutdown caused by or implemented because of the public health emergency, like a dam on a river. Okay. And that dam sat on the river for a year and a half, 2 years, however long it was. When you remove the dam from the river, what happens? What happens? Water gushes through. When Title 42 expired, guess what? All of those migrants that had been backlogged gushed through. This was natural, normal, and expected. We should evaluate the responsibility and the efficacy of our current administration based upon their response to this crisis being caused by the revocation of Title 42. And what was their response? To implement bipartisan border legislation. And the first step they took was to influence exactly that through the House the Senate. That was Lankford's bill. What happened next? Trump calls the Republicans in the House and Senate, tells them to vote against it, torpedoes the bill. Nick over here knows the story. But I would like to ask you a very crystal clear question, Nick, and it is in the sense of a hypothetical. If your house is burning down and the fire truck shows up to put out the fire and you tell the fire truck to turn around because you want the house to burn so you can claim the insurance money, Nick Fuentes Did you care about the House?

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-725

Well, it's an incorrect hypothetical because the bill would actually concretize the Biden-era policies. The bill does not secure the border. So the premise fails on that alone.

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-727

And the way that I'd respond to that—

Do you know? Wait, let me ask you, are the— do you know the details of the bill? Can you tell me the provisions that are in the bill, please?

Oh, I could tell you a handful. Like, what was it? Like an additional $500 million towards the courts on the border to expedite asylum-seeking claims. Uh, then we also had like some rolling, uh, some rolling average daily caps and weekly caps in which the president could then—

You know what they are?

Order down. I think it was like 5,000 a day, uh, for like the weekly cap. But here's my response to that. Uh, you said that the average over the administration was like 7,000 or 9,000 a day, whatever you said it was. If you were starving and I offered you a hamburger, would you take it or would you say, no, I want a bacon-wrapped filet? You Take the damn hamburger. So when the border crisis is exuberantly high and we have this bipartisan border legislation that the alt-right, like Nick Fuentes, isn't happy about, any rational, sane person would take the bill to decrease the impact of the crisis.

↳ evidence for the P31 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-734

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession: the border bill is imperfect · Dean Withers · low confidence: excluded from score

All right, now let me respond to that now, 'cause you went on your whole thing about, you know, you corrected me on some of these things. But you never answered the question. Well, because the premise of the question is wrong, but I'll answer it now.

I explained to you how it wasn't wrong.

Yeah, you want me to answer these like false hypotheticals and syllogisms, but that's not really how a debate works. Actually, if, if, you know, if passing this bill is like putting out a fire, would you pass the bill? Okay. So first of all, you said the bill was from 2023. The bill failed in 2024, and that's because it resulted from the impasse over appropriations in September 2023. There was an impasse in Congress over 12 military appropriations bills. The deadline was October 1st. It's why Kevin McCarthy was removed, because the Freedom Caucus, specifically the MAGA caucus within it, insisted on, on what they were calling— I forget the name of it, but a certain border provision in the spending bill. McCarthy wouldn't go for it. And they kept passing continuing resolutions until a bipartisan agreement was put together in the Senate. But at that point, and that was in February, Mitch McConnell said, my first priority is Ukraine, because that was the other sticking point in negotiations. So the Republicans, because they wanted Ukraine aid to pass, which was another subject of the impasse, they said, fine, fine, here's your border concessions. And I'll tell you the provisions 'cause you don't know. It said that it would only mandate enforcement of the border when daily apprehensions hit more than 8,000 per day. Again, the average of the past 20 years is 2,000 to 3,000 per day. It would say you only have to enforce—

↳ P31 raised again here · first raised at U-731

Hit a lot.

That's what the bill says. The bill says 8,000 per day. It says that—

Could we get a fact check?

It says that the administration can get emergency authority at 5,000 per day on average over a 7-day period, but it only mandates— it only— no, no, not a lie. It mandates enforcement at 8,000.

It's 5,000 for one day.

↳ evidence for the P31 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-734

Excuse me, excuse me. I let you finish your nonsense when you said it was in when it wasn't. So you're wrong about that. It mandates it at 8,000 per day. What's more, again, the daily averages for 20 years, 10, 20 years, was 2,000 to 3,000. Under the Biden administration, it goes up past 7,000. They wanna say, well, 5,000, you get emergency powers, 8,000, you have to use emergency powers. That's far too many. There's been— And this whole argument about a backlog because of Title 42, 10 million illegal immigrants have come in under Biden. Title 42 was implemented. When did the lockdown happen? March 2020. You think 10 million illegals were trying to get in in the 9-month period between March and December of 2020? Biden undid all the policies in January 2021. So that's just like an ad hoc— you're just fishing around for an answer. With regard to the Trump administration, you can see very clearly cause and effect on immigration. When Trump was elected, illegal immigration went down because foreigners anticipated that there would be enforcement. So, and you can see throughout the history of the country, when they threaten enforcement, illegals don't come. When they think they'll get amnesty or they think they'll get in, more of them arrive. So they thought Trump was going to be a hardliner on immigration. They didn't come. Then in September and October 2017, Trump floated a DACA amnesty. He said, we're going to give amnesty to all the deferred action on childhood arrivals. The reason that matters is because children being brought over the border is one of the 3 big loopholes for how illegals are caught and released into the country. They bring children that aren't there, and all kinds of other things. So Trump said, we'll give an amnesty. Then all of a sudden they started getting caravans from the Northern Triangle in the spring of 2018 because he said amnesty. They heard it, they started to come. Trump maintained a zero tolerance policy promulgated then by Jeff Sessions, and they said, we're going to separate the children. We're going to treat them as unaccompanied minors. There was a huge media outcry before the election. They had to reverse it. And then after they reversed it, it exploded. And May and June 2019, they hit a peak. Trump implemented the migrant protection protocols by threatening sanctions, or rather tariffs against Mexico. And then it came down again. And that is the story of illegal immigration in Trump and the Biden years.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-727

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-727

It has everything to do— I see a very different—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption during opponent's turn · Nick Fuentes

Hang on. It has everything to do with the Biden policies. They let in 10 million people and then they float out this half-assed bill.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-727

↳ evidence for the P32 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-745

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption during opponent's turn · Dean Withers

Wait, what policy did Biden pass?

Let me, let me finish. They put out this half-assed bill in the last year because everyone agrees the border's a crisis. They concretize it and, and basically make legal, make and codify in federal law Biden's policy to let 5,000 people a day on average here. And then when Republicans voted against it. They said, oh, Republicans are against border security. It's a political thing. Even Democrats acknowledge that it's totally fake. You know, you could keep going with it, but everyone knows it's fake.

↳ P31 raised again here · first raised at U-731

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-727

Okay. Well, apparently Trump doesn't. He said at a rally in Nevada to blame it on him if the border bill fails. So I think that Trump's big mouth actually does him a lot of harm because I just used Trump's own word of mouth to debunk Nick Fuentes. days supporting Trump. So yeah, see, that, that's the face of a losing man. Uh, and you said that you were—

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-725

↳ P32 raised again here · first raised at U-730

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-730

Basically, he's retarded.

Okay, well, I don't, I don't appreciate your use of the slurs, but I guess that's what emotionally immature men, when someone smarter than them lays down the truth. Isn't that right, sir?

10 minutes on this topic.

We make jokes. Men are funny. Men are funny. Women are not funny. That's another advantage, but that's the other debate.

+2 R-2.2 · Ad hominem: 'most unfunny specimen' · Dean Withers

Are you a woman?

You could call it emotionally immature. Oh my gosh, he said, he said the R word. That's what happens when an emotionally immature male— I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Go ahead. According to your logic. Go ahead on immigration. According to your logic. But I would like to specifically clarify that your comment about men being more funny than women was just another unfunny false fucking comment by an immature man. I didn't find it that fucking funny when you were telling us that the Holocaust was fake and that 6 million Jewish people didn't die. I didn't find it that fucking funny when you sat here and you told me that Trump didn't torpedo the border bill even though he said he did at a rally in Nevada. If men were so much more funny than women, then why are you the most unfunny fucking specimen that I've ever had the displeasure of sitting across the damn phone with?

Why are you mad, dude? Why are you mad? We're just having a debate. Wait, who's funnier, Trump or Kamala?

Who's funnier? Be honest. Trump is funnier than Kamala Harris.

Case in point, I win the debate. Men funnier than women.

Oh, okay. But you heard it here first. You understand the reason I'd say that Trump is funnier than Kamala Harris is because he's a guy. No, no, because he has the IQ of your fucking family pet and he sits on Twitter all day and he rants about how much he hates Taylor Swift just because Because he endorsed Kamala Harris.

It was funny.

She endorsed Kamala Harris. It's not a funny and a haha. It's a funny and it— look at this guy fucking burn.

Dude, why? It's always like this diminutive. It's funny because it's sad because you're a sad little— it was— dude, he's— the president tweeted in all caps, I hate Taylor Swift. You don't think that's funny? You don't think that's not hilarious?

Wait, the president? Do you think that Trump won 2020?

The former. I said the former president.

But do you think Trump won 2020?

100%. He did. That's a fact.

Can you name one court case that would find—

No, because they threw all the courts— they threw all the cases out because they lacked standing.

Okay. So is it okay believing things without evidence?

There is evidence. You asked about court cases, but the court cases weren't lost. They were thrown out because they didn't have standing. There's a difference.

↳ evidence for the P34 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-770

So there's not any evidence that there's—

No, there is evidence.

So what's the evidence of the widespread voter fraud in 2020?

The evidence is this. Do you know how many people voted early in the 2016 election? Do you know what percentage?

Significantly less than in the 2020 election.

Correct. Half, 35%. And in 2020, it was 70%.

Okay, so that's your evidence that Trump had the election stolen from him?

Well, hey, let me, let me— whoa, why so hasty? Let's, let's just talk about it.

I'm sorry. I'm having fun.

So the amount of— yeah, I can tell the amount of early voting Voting doubled because they changed the rules in all the states. They changed the rules in Pennsylvania, North Carolina. They illegally changed the rules with state election boards, with the state Supreme Court. In Wisconsin, they changed indefinitely confined status to mean anybody because of the pandemic. They solicited ballots. I literally got a ballot in Illinois for my uncle who has been dead for 20 years because they were soliciting ballots. And I would just say, if you— and let me ask you this. If democracy is so sacred, which you believe, you know, Kamala is gonna protect and preserve our democracy, we're not going back.

↳ P33 raised again here · first raised at U-768

Only because Trump tried to overthrow it with a fake election.

But if, but if, if democracy is so precious, then a ballot is a precious thing because the ballot is the currency of the election. Do you think that it's good practice to ship out ballots to every voter and then tell them to dump them off in a drop box box in a park unsupervised for a month at any time during the day? You think that's a good way to run an election?

Yeah. Okay. I mean, then Trump shouldn't have voted, right?

Well, is it? I'm asking you, is it? That's what happened.

Yeah. I think that mail-in ballots can be made secure. I understand, like, your immediate, like, response to them saying that, oh, if I use these words in this particular way, this doesn't seem like—

Well, just answer. I mean, do you think that's a good way to run an election? Obviously not.

It is. It is. And the empirics would agree with me. There's no sufficient evidence of widespread voter fraud. All the audits that were done on the outcome of the 2020 election indicated that it was the safe election recorded in U.S. history. Donald Trump—

Where do they conduct audits?

One moment. Donald Trump went to 63 handpicked courts, with 34 of those judges being Republican appointed, 17 of those judges being appointed by himself. All 63 of those courts ruled that there was no sufficient evidence and threw it out on the basis of no standing. And then Donald Trump even tried to form his own election integrity Committee and bumped millions of dollars into them to find absolutely anything. They came up with a 2000 Mules movie, which the producers admitted in fucking court that they were lying. And when he found out that he had no evidence, what did he do? He went to the DOJ with Bill Barr and tried to pressure him into falsely announcing widespread voter fraud when there wasn't any. And if you know anything about your history, Bill Barr had to resign from the DOJ Because half of the DOJ threatened to quit if he didn't. Donald Trump not only tried to rig the outcome of the 2020 election with the fake electorate plot, sending 7 different state slates of fake electorates to 7 different states to cast fake votes into Congress to either be certified as real by Mike Pence or to be like— or to be accepted by the House if Mike Pence were to claim ignorance. But he also lied about the outcome. Uh, your conspiracy theory that Donald Trump won is, uh, has no evidence for it. And the only thing you could come up with was Pennsylvania changing their voting rules because of COVID which, by the way, was ruled as legal by the Supreme Court.

↳ P34 raised again here · first raised at U-789

↳ evidence for the P33 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-789

You're just like not even listening. It was Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and basically every— and they all did it illegally. Basically every state changed rules of the election. And I would say you're telling me, oh, putting 70% of the voters voting early by putting them in mailbox a month out from the election in an unsupervised drop box. You're saying that is a good idea. You're just putting words in a particular order. Look, they don't do it like that in France because, you know, we didn't do it here in America. Absentee voting was so rare up until like 20 years ago, up until 4 years ago, because it's so prone to fraud. Obviously, when you vote in person, you got to present— Hang on. I just— I let you just go.

↳ P33 raised again here · first raised at U-768

You let me go.

You got to present your ID. You receive your ballot. They watch you. You go into a room. With curtains on it because there's privacy involved too. You fill it out and you submit it. It's called a chain of custody, meaning a supervisor watches the voter get their ballot, fill it out, and return it. It doesn't happen when you're doing so-called in-person absentee voting, and that's how 70% of people voted. That's a big problem. It's a big problem. They changed the rules without doing it in the constitutional way. It's a big problem that those cases weren't even considered in the Supreme Court. It's also a big problem, by the way, they didn't do an independent ballot audit in almost any of the states. They did one in Arizona. It was flawed. They still found— where did they conduct an independent ballot audit? Where did they conduct an independent— it wasn't independent. They did a recount.

Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and Oklahoma. That's just wrong. I knew that this is wrong. I knew that you would say that. I knew that you would say If you say this is wrong, search up U.S. States Election Assistant Commission election audits across the United States. It'll give you an entire—

↳ P34 raised again here · first raised at U-789

They're not independent. That's the problem.

It's the timing, the policies, the case studies, and the state-specific information indicating that, yes, these were independent.

It's like you're just not even listening through them. I didn't say they didn't do audits or recounts. No, in no state other than Arizona did they conduct an independent audit of the ballots. Of course, if the same people that oversaw the fraud and were covering up the windows in the stadium in Detroit, of course the state is going to cover its own ass. That's why it needs to be independent. And they didn't do it in any state, even though that's what we were asking for. And by the way, about fake electors, they're not—

↳ evidence for the P34 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-770

What do you mean by independent?

Independent, meaning not conducted by the state.

↳ evidence for the P34 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-770

Oh, okay. Independent of the state. So I just want to clarify. So you think that Donald Trump shouldn't have went to like the 17 judges that he appointed because those weren't—

So now you're just galluping onto something else. You said, oh, I was ready for you to say that. I have all this evidence. Oh, I didn't listen. And you said independent anyway. How about judges or something? Anyway, let's get back on topic.

Hold on, hold on. We've been going back and forth about January 6th. This topic is about immigration. Let's go to closing statements here. We'll do 1 minute from Dean and then 1 minute from Nick. So closing statements. You could bring up January 6th, but let's keep it to immigration if you can. Actually, I'll give you 90 seconds to reel it back a little. 90 seconds each.

About, about the specific ballot audits. I didn't know what you meant when you're referencing independent audits. I understand that you are now referencing audits independent of the state. I asked you to define your term and I understand that.

Yeah, because you're on ChatGPT Democrat mode. Let's give him 90 seconds.

Let's give him 90 seconds uninterrupted. I'll restart your time, Dean.

No, I just don't think that, like, an audit done by a state can automatically be discounted because you exist in an echo chamber of conspiratorial hearsay and you start off with the basis Trump can never lose. You move to the basis when Trump loses, no, he didn't. And then tangent of that, you say all of these audits done by independent states States are thereby null and void, and I shouldn't listen to them, nor the 63 courts. It's just conspiracy theory. That's what you are. Your mind's been rotted. Everyone agrees with me. No one agrees with you apart from Donald Trump, not even his old VP, Mike Pence, or 44 of the 46 former cabinet members. And that needs to be pointed out. Now, closing statements about immigration specifically. Was that what you asked for, Sneako?

↳ P34 raised again here · first raised at U-789

↳ evidence for the P33 verdict on Dean Withers · ruling prints at U-789

Yeah.

I thought it was 90 seconds each on J6 and then—

Yeah, I'm down for that. I'm down for that. I kind of like this.

That's fine. Go ahead.

Okay, let me do mine now on J6. So, you know, here's the thing about the Trump election. They doubled the number of early voting. There's obvious flaws with chain of custody. Like, it just doesn't even pass a smell test on that basis alone. You just can't take the authenticity of the election. And people say it's about you believe Trump can never lose. I don't think that at all. I think Trump may lose in 2024, but you have to recognize that 2020 was an anomalous election. So when there is an anomaly, when every state changes how they conduct their ballot, when there's an unprecedented— the former peak of early voting was 35%. It was 70% in 2020. It was different. When something is different, you have to investigate it. That's the basis of an inquiry. Problem is nobody wanted to investigate it as quickly as the election happened. They wanted to shut it down. They censored people for talking about it. They didn't conduct independent ballot audits. And there was even a Time magazine piece that came out in January 2021, and it said, this is the conspiracy to shut down the election deniers. And there was like a full-spectrum attack from the Democrats and the left on protesters, on people that were investigating this to prevent them from trying to decertify, trying to send over other slates of electors. And I would point out, out, it is the state legislature's constitutional authority to send electors. If they throw out the election because they don't want to certify it and appoint a different slate of electors, that's their constitutional right to do so. That's just the law. And I would just say, look, if you really believe that 80 million people voted for Biden, that the 2020 election had more voters than any election in history by far, and it just happened to be the one where there was all mail-in ballots—

↳ P33 raised again here · first raised at U-768

10 seconds, Nick.

And yeah, I just think you're dumb. I mean, so, so that's kind of my closing statement on J6. Let's go closing statements on immigration.

Let's do 1 minute each on immigration. Go ahead, Dean.

Cool. I'm just— you could take this off my time. Well, you told me that your whole theory here is reliant on a smell test. Nick, I fucking smell bullshit. We shouldn't be relying on our intuitions and our emotions to tell us who won the 2020 election. I think that conservatives are so funny. funny because they'll be like, listen to the science, trans women aren't women, I don't care about what you think or feel, you have XY chromosomes. But then sit over here and give me some bullshit smell test to dictate who won in 2020. About immigration specifically, I think it's evidently clear that Donald Trump doesn't care about the southern border, or else he wouldn't have torpedoed the bipartisan border bill in the House and the Senate 2 years ago. I think that it's evidently clear that he's not about getting shit done. He's repeating the same Republican tagline that every Republican in the last 20 years has with quote-unquote deport them all. My question to you would be, why didn't Bush? They can't do it. It's practically infeasible. I say that we deport all violent undocumented migrants and then give the rest a pathway to residency and citizenship, fix our southern border, make it faster, make it quicker, and make it safer, and then crack down further on undocumented migration when our legal systems are up to par.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-725

10 seconds, Davey.

You'd rather deport them all, right, get rid of $1.7 trillion from our economy over the next 10 years. You don't care about the debt. You don't care about the state of the economy. You don't care about the workers in the economy. All that you care about is spewing your fucking prejudice. You're doing the same thing with undocumented migrants now that you did with gay people and women 30 minutes ago. Take it away.

Closing statement, Nick. 1 minute.

Basket of deplorables, right? It was just a basket of deplorables. With regard to immigration, everybody knows Biden threw open the border. He rescinded every Trump executive order on immigration. He stopped construction of the wall. He effectively stopped deportations. Guess what happens? You get a lot of people. You get 10 million illegals in 4 years. That's insane. 10 million people in 4 years from Venezuela, from Haiti, from Africa, from— we don't even know who they are. The people that are coming here, they don't buy healthcare. They don't have a high school education. They have no resources. They're a massive drain on the economy. When they need healthcare, they go to the emergency room. They send their kids to public schools. It's a huge drain. And many states are eligible for SNAP. They're eligible for other benefits, and they work low wages because they're not educated. They work low-skill, low-paying jobs. They will never in a million years— maybe in a million, but they won't pay off in taxes what they receive in services. It's a big fiscal impact. They're in many cases, they're criminals. They don't show up.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-727

↳ evidence for the P36 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-816

10 seconds.

They're low IQ. And we can— I mean, it's just obvious that the— this border bill thing an ass-saving move. They poison-pilled it with a bunch of nonsense so that they could blame it on Trump. But we all know the reality, and it's wrecking our country.

↳ evidence for the P36 verdict on Nick Fuentes · ruling prints at U-816

Okay, thank you. That was 5 topics. I think this was a good spirited debate overall. I appreciate both of your time. Aiden, do you have any thoughts?

You guys were— I, well, I would say about 90% of it you guys respected, you know, each other's time speaking and stuff. And it was awesome. It was great, great conversations, great, great defense. Great offense. It's the first time I've ever done one of these and it felt really, really cool. I'm definitely gonna do more of this. Um, how do you guys feel? We'll start with you, Dean. Like, how would you feel overall about this debate?

Yeah, I, I mean, like— oh, oh, we got a little bit of an echo there.

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Nah, dude, you're all good. Uh, I mean, I think overall, like, I'll first just kind of give my thoughts about, you know, just having the debate on your platform. I— dude, I think that was like really, really, really cool. I like the idea of exposing more people to what I believe in and why. I ultimately think if everyone thought like me, the world would be better off. And you kind of gave me more of an opportunity to achieve that. All things considered, you know, it's good to have, you know, like a conversation about why people disagree. These conversations need to be held more. I'd say that you're overall doing a good thing here. I think that I did pretty well as well. Nick, specifically to you, I think for a lot of it, you know, you're a pretty disingenuous debater, but I'll keep my personal qualms to myself. I appreciate you for the conversation over the course of the last last hour and a half. And then, Aiden, maybe here at the end, I wanted to throw my socials out there for all the people in chat that may want them after watching me debate, but I'll leave that off until later.

Cool. Thank you so much, bro. I appreciate that, Dean. All right. And what about you, Nick? What would you like to say to the people? And last words to Dean. Go ahead.

Well, thanks for having me on. I thought it was a lot of fun. It's very informative. People get to learn about the topics. That's how you learn about an issue. You know, you have to hear both sides.

sides.

Um, that wasn't nice. I don't think I was disingenuous. I'm funny, okay, and I'm a little sarcastic sometimes, but I think it's pretty clear to differentiate. Um, you know, I think he's a young guy. I fundamentally— I think a lot of the partisan debates are kind of— they're too shallow. I think that we all kind of go through a phase when we're young, and not, not to like son you, I'm unc status now, but like we all go through a phase when we're teenagers. We're precocious, have a political disposition. And, you know, we kind of rush for like, I'm a Republican, I'm a Democrat, the Republicans are good, the Democrats are bad. The reality of politics is that Democrats and Republicans are really on the same side, and Republicans are one wing, and they're meant to create the illusion of opposition or dynamism where there really isn't any. And the personnel and the policies turn over from one administration to the next. There's very little difference. And I think that's even largely true in this election. And people get caught up in rhetoric and these appeals to emotion slogans. People have to really follow the money. They need to look at things like imports and exports. They need to look at energy. They need to look at institutional capture. That's where you really discern the truth. So these kinds of intramural debates are fun. We go back and forth, but it's so much deeper. It's such a complex subject, but it's good that people are interested in it. And I appreciate Dean, for coming on. I hope that he keeps reading. Keep reading, keep learning. You know, in 10 years, I guarantee you have a totally different viewpoint. Maybe you're still left-wing, but you'll have a different viewpoint for sure. I heard that when I was young. I didn't believe it. And then it was true. I only became more right-wing. But you have to have that curiosity.

I was— I'm sure you will. When I was 16.

I'm sure you will. Well, yeah. So I thought it was great.

Wait, sorry, Dean, you cut off.

You said you were a Trump supporter when you were 16.

Oh, dude, I used to be a vehement Trump supporter. Like, Aiden, I was like, I was like, I was like a big Trump fan. Like, like Andrew Tate guy. I was like all of that shit. And, you know, we could delve into the reasons why, not super necessary for the live. But I guess like the point is, the only reason I brought that up is because seemingly I've had a more progressive trend the more that I've matured.

I gotcha. Okay.

Well, you're going to ask him about a previous debate that Nick had On Twitch.

Nick, did you— I'm gonna ask you too, Dino, about something as well. Nick, did you previously debate, uh, HasanAbi on Twitch?

I did, yes.

And someone told me that you— that resulted in you getting banned on Twitch.

Yeah, yeah, that was the reason for my ban. Uh, Destiny mass reported me because he was on the debate as well.

Who won the debate in your— in, in the people's eyes?

Me. Well, it was me and Sargon of Akkad. Remember him? It was me and him. We won. How did I do compared to Destiny? Not as well, but Destiny is probably your top guy, I think.

Well, let me bust Nick. Nick, I'm gonna let Dean. I'll be real, man. You're 19, 20. Like, you're probably like the best well-spoken 19, 20-year-old debater I've ever heard. And look, and and I fucking no seriously. And look, and look, I don't agree with everything. It doesn't matter, but you. Still, me and Sneako are sitting here muted watching. You have a lot of great points. You have a lot of good discussions, you know, a lot of good counters. But I mean, but Nick, go ahead. What do you, what do you think about him overall as a debater?

You know, I think it's— I think on a technical level, the rhetoric is effective at debating. I hate rhetoric. There is too much like sloganeering in there and kind of like cheap turns of phrase that like Oh, you think that doesn't pass the smell test? This doesn't pass. Those like cheap turns of phrase. I think that's what they are. I think they're cheap. Some of the sloganeering, like when you're— Trump is going to make you pay more at the grocery store. This is just like political electioneering rhetoric. I like debates that are just very frank and brutal and straightforward and about the facts. And I like humor in there. So it's a different style. I think Dems lean a little more on rhetoric and sophistry. and syllogisms and hypotheticals. I think right-wing people are a little bit more plain talking and maybe lighthearted and fun. That's my view of it.

Yeah, I'd hold the exact opposite. But I mean, I'm guessing you'd be able to guess that I'd say that.

Well, yeah, you're you and I'm me. So.

Exactly.

Great. Well, let me ask you both a question, Dean. If you would like to call somebody out, I would love to have you on again. Again, Dean, I would love for you to call somebody out. I'll try to pull some who are like maybe two or three people, Dean, that you would like to debate on my stream next.

Oh man, Nico.

What topics?

We'll have to talk about it, man. Sure. I would love to debate you. I would love to debate you, Sneako. That's what I'd. like to do. I'd also— right, you said like a couple of people. I mean, if there's, if there's, if there's selections here, you know, Andrew Tate. Okay. This guy, he fucking tweeted at me on Twitter and he said I was the reason why, like, white people are being replaced or some, like, crazy Nick Fuentes shit like that. And then I, like, I quote, I retweeted it and called him out. It went crazy, but he's pivoting, he's dodging. I want to debate, uh, you know, Andrew Tate. Um, and then something else, I got a buddy, his name is Parker. If y'all ever have anything 2v2 going on, he would love to hop on one of these, and it'd be great for the content. Real smart guy.

For sure. Real quick, do you know who Harry is, by the way?

Yes.

Are you also Harry's friend?

Yeah, I'm friends with Harry.

Oh, okay. Now I was curious. Okay, and then, uh, Nick, Who would you like to debate next? I'll see what I'll work some—

Call Charlie Kirk. I'm calling out Candace Owens. I debate her. I debate Shapiro. I debate— I debate any of the above or any of the Democrats, you know, Harry Sisson or whoever. But I usually debate conservatives, actually.

So I got you real quick, really, really quick here. I do want to say, you know, Again, Dean, we've been trying to find you. I've been trying to find you a matchup for a while. I wanna let you know everyone was basically like, I'm busy, I can't do it. Nick finds out 2 minutes later, he doesn't even know who you are, says, I'm down, let's do it for sure. I just wanna let you know, you know, Nick, you know, I do appreciate the last minute. I was— we were— me and Dean have been trying to go at this thing for, you know, some— quite some time now. So last minute, Nick was just like, yeah, sure, I'll do it. You didn't even know who he was, no hesitation, you just— you just said screw it. Yeah. Yeah, because I will say, I'm not gonna say names, but a lot of people didn't want to debate Dean. I'll say that. A lot of people were not really wanting to do it. So—

Well, let me be— Nick has been trying to debate Ben Shapiro for about 7, 8 years, and maybe you could use the Jewish connections and say yes. That'd be a great one.

Well, it's not a Jewish connection to me. I would do it. But I will reach out to Shapiro and I'll see if he would like to debate Fuentes. Yeah, I'll do it.

Yeah.

Okay. Well, you guys were fucking awesome. I appreciate both of you. Again, guys, any last words you'd like to say before we head on out?

Yeah. Do you mind if I, if I plug myself?

Go ahead.

If you're watching the debate, I'm sure that it's a heavily right-leaning chat. I mean, this guy had Donald Trump on a couple of months back, so I doubt I'll get that much love. But if you liked what you saw and you enjoyed, you know, my debating style, I'm on Instagram @DeanWithers, D-E-A-N-W-I-T-H-E-R-S. I'm at Twitter, I'm on Twitter @ItsDean, it's Dean with 2 A's, 2 N's. TikTok is the same thing as Twitter. But yeah, I appreciate everyone for showing up and showing out. It was a fun little debate tonight. Okay.

And then Nick, anything you'd like to say?

Yeah, well, just thanks again, Aiden. Good to talk to you again, Sneako. Dean, thanks for coming on. Fun debate. Appreciate everybody watching. Don't— hey, I've defended Trump, but I'm telling people don't vote for Trump. He's not far right enough. That's my new— he's bringing us to war with Iran. He's not going to deport all the illegals.

I'm telling you, we got the Jill Stein of the right over here. We got the Jill Stein.

That's some bullshit, chat. I ain't gonna lie. Principled. Principled. I'm not gonna plug myself because that's just like, you know, follow me in real— I'm Nick Fuentes. Follow me at Nick Fuentes. I'm new to this. In real life. I'm new to this. Yeah, I know. It's fine. It's fine. It's fine. When you're young, when you're— look, when you're unk status like me, it's like, hey, follow me in the astral plane. Okay? Follow me in the ether. I am on Rumble though. But, but yeah. So it was a fun debate. Good, good meeting you and good seeing you guys, Aiden and Sneako.

Oh, sorry. I was muted. All right, guys. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much. You guys have a good night.