Uploading the one of him debating Dean Withers soon, subscribe if you want to see that! Guy debating Parker: www.tiktok.com/@juztkojo Clipped by: www.tiktok.com/@clancyirl
Who's the guy in this video debating Parker? Is it the owner of this Brain Rot Central channel or someone else? I'd like to follow him. He's slick and quick.
Agree with everything u said except the "sit to pee" part. Idk why its used as an insult. I also sit to urinate. Why? So that i dont risk dirtying the toilet bowl cover or surface. Why are our bathroom habits and proclivities being weaponised as insults?
@@JoshuaCZEBecause that's weird? Like... Very weird. Unless you're already taking a dump or something. Though I do agree that insult came out of nowhere. But it was funny.
Parallel Parker curbed himself. His debate tactics are dirty. He swears he’s the main character, which is why he constantly tries to steamroll the conversation. When he doesn’t have mute powers he turns into a whinny schoolgirl who’s never been told no.
yep something I've noticed with these people is that when they clearly are losing the argument (and they know it) they try to take charge of the conversation or be dominent in any way they can. In this case, Parker started saying over and over until he got his way like a whiny kid interuppting his parents "can I ask you a question." Its just so obvious and makes him look incredibly stupid
I wanted to hear a debate, but by the end I got nothing out of the convo other than high blood pressure wanting to wring Parker's neck! He is just as bad as Destiny and David Packman. They are all just so smug and insufferable!
Parker is not respectful at all. I think his entire strategy is to get whoever he’s debating so irritated with him that they just leave and he can claim he won because they left.
I mean, they could just control their emotions. His strategy is dismantling their argument by defining the terms they use because most of the time they don't understand the application of their terms. Yet they use them in a debate on a topic like they do. I liked his set up. Good show, I'm subscribed and look forward to more and maybe even being on here.
@@sebastianknight1793 that's a weak ass strategy lmao... that's why it didn't work here. No argument is presented and when you run into someone who knows what they're talking about what are you going to do? He just disagrees with them, asks them for examples, and then throw a red herring or strawman out lmao.
People are mad because kojo kept muting parker, but he only kept muting parker because parker kept interrupting in order to pivot, so what's the problem?
@@BartoniusAustiniusthe same could be same to you! I bet your using your "intuition" though huh? If your not strong enough to continue the conversation and run away, you lost dude. Forfeiting is losing. Back your claim up till the end. There would've been more respect if he did.
To be fair the black guy was bottlenecking him and if you're going to have a debate you must let the other person get an opportunity to answer and be willing to answer some back and forward questions in between those addressing of those answers
@spacedandyland1989 he wasn't bottlenecking per se; he was seeking an actual explanation. He presented a question and then sought the logic that upheld Parker's answer because his response didn't have a leg to stand on.
@@spacedandyland1989he was seeking understanding of his position by asking him questions about terms being used improperly to get the bigger picture of his argument and what its rooted in and then Parker tried to circle back and make an argument about his reasoning to do so.
Parker isn't as smart as he thinks he is, especially if he's using definitions counter to how society generally would use them. He's creating his own language for himself.
The problem with "subjective" definitions is that you're able to change the definition at whim. You can also describe what your definition is with other words that have "subjective meanings". It's a problem when words don't have meaning. Treating words like some people out here treating their gender, so fluid it's completely meaningless.
Parker strays away from every single debate question. EVERY DEBATE I have seen from him he acts this way or he sperges out. He does what Destiny does, but even worse.
Exactly! When he debated Charlie Kirk, he just kept interrupting him, asking question after question about things unrelated to the topic, just so he could attack him. That was my first exposure to Parker and I never liked him since then. HES the child 🙄🤣🤣🤣🤣
Parker has such overbearing and attention-seeking behavior. Threatening to leave multiple times, and not leaving? Childish. Getting muted, and unmuting himself with combative intent? Butthurt. Trying to skip over important terms and definitions so they seem vague? Manipulating the argument. Disregarding the boundaries and rules set so there can be a civil debate? Domineering. How do people even enjoy watching this guy?
Unfortunately he’s got the perfect audience… tik tokers. These guys get all their news from tik tok so they probably aren’t much of critical thinkers when it comes to politics.
@@Atrocities85but in a debate you presupposed to make logical discussion. You can make a claim distinction on what said by people to make him collapse. Also you can argue from an atheist worldview you can’t justify past and future but that way to complex for so much people and this would be very knew for most people.
@@xanander4693 I disagree, I’m an abolitionist and I really dislike Parker, but I also think the pro life guy sounded really smug which shouldn’t represent the “pro life” side, abolitionists like T. Russel Hunter are much better
@@krichard_ After seeing several views of Parker, I don't blame anyone being smug with the guy. He rarely defends a single statement. He rattles off shit prepared statements that he's memorized to a T - word for word, and his entire shtick is to talk as fast as he can while interrupting you so you can't finish a sentence. Just like Destiny. Oh and his definition of a woman is basically "someone who identifies as a female."
So the person interrupting & having temper tantrums is calling the other person a child? 🤔 Do these people live in reality? Also 98% of biologists agree that life begins at conception 🤷🏼♀️
Parker have all these pre-written answers in his head, and if the conversation ever deviates from what he is comfortable with and he has to answer actual questions he instantly folds, as he can't debate. He can only regurgitate pre-written answers he wrote down, interrupt, insult and pivot.
Parker is the definition of someone who thinks they are smart because they can talk fast and use big words without really know what they mean. In actuality his arguments and technique for debate are quite stupid.
Parker: "I want to use my own definitions, not any definitions that people typically use when discussing this debate topic, that way in response to anything you say I can just deflect and take no accountability for intellectual honesty". And, "I'll keep interrupting you out of spite just so you can't have any talking time to string together a coherent thought, because I can't possibly defend my position otherwise."
yea g i don't understand just let him talk, it's always " oh but your wrong so i have to interrupt you" like bruh just wait for them to finish he is so obviously overcompensating for his lack of a strong argument by trying to get in as many inflated stats or points he can possibly spit out and make people think he won. bro is a stunt debater
This EXACTLY. These guys (parker and his bed-buddies) aren't interested in an honest, good-faith debate, they're interested in leading you through their golden-path script using their own subjective "definitions", sprinkled with a few gotcha traps along the way. And if you get off track, they mute you to save face until you get angry enough to leave so they can claim you left because you can't defend your position. This guy played the debate EXACTLY right. Force them to defend THEIR claims. Super impressed with the pro-life guy.
Parker is wrong. As usual. Parker can be wrong about his definition in regards to the context of the conversation. For example, if the conversation was about water and parkers definition of wet was something that is dry, he'd be WRONG. How? Because his definitional concept does not correspond to the context. He cannot describe dry as what dryness means and then also claim it corresponds to being wet. Unless he wants be incoherent. Definitions ought to describe something. You cant just describe or define anything as any other thing. He was wrong about what potential means in context of this debate.
@@a-atheistdepending on the context, it’s not always wrong in every context, but in conventional contexts sure, since that’s not how it’s used conventionally
This isn't real life, donut. God damn the simps in here are braindead. Anyone who thinks this feminine black dude can hold anything down IRL is delusional. All these online debaters are a bunch of grifting pseudo intellectual bozos with almost no real-life experience or intelligence. But most of their audience is younger than 18, so it's easy for them to seem competent 😂😂😂
He's a child, trying to portray an intellectual capacity he doesn't possess. He is a horrible debater, and tries to dominate the entire conversation. When the other person realizes there is no point being there, and he is not doing any of this in good faith..they leave. I dont blame them. I wouldn't have given him the consideration, to begin with.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 How, parker does the same shit over and over again, he did it with andrew wilson and he keeps running, muting someone because they wont stfu isnt insufferable its reasonable
Projection is a powerful delusion... parker projects really badly and he interprets everything through the lens of his own motive and perspective " the man with jaundice sees everything yellow"
When i watch the abortion debate i see the same thing every time. Conservatives always have the same clear argument for when life begins, but Liberals arguments are always changing. The level of gymnastics that Liberals go through to try and make there nonsensical arguments work is astounding.
This reminds me how their argument for most issues is that everything is "a social construct". Nothing is concrete so everything is open to interpretation and change - a constant state of revolution. They run on upheaval and absurdity.
yea I really don't understand the attention this clown gets. He really said you're not predicating the baby off of life but dna while asking for a distinction made at conception that doesn't apply to sperm. Bruh you failed biology.
@Christisking864 there's no need to answer that. Life intuitively has value. It's saying that life DOESN'T have value is the point that needs to be justified.
@Christisking864 The fact is the science is extremely clear that life begins at conception, the overwhelming concurrence of biologists (93%) agree. That's the premise that has to be established. Now we have to make a decision, either ALL human lives matter or only certain human lives matter. There are a lot of ways to go through this point, the most obvious being a certain ww2 bad guy that also thought not all human lives matter. Sentience is a bad qualifier because we don't just terminate come patient's. Really no qualifier for human life is going to work once you've gone through them all. The only reasonable ans intellectually consistent stance you can take is that all human life begins at conception and all human life has moral value. To argue anything else is to enter the land of the subjective. This is the only consistent and objective stance.
"All definitions are subjective because truth is subjective, and all objective truth is subjective truth because truth is ultimately subjective, and we know this because... All definitions are subjective because truth is subjective, and all objective truth is subjective truth because truth is ultimately subjective, and we know this because... All definitions are subjective because truth is subjective, and all objective truth is subjective truth because truth is ultimately subjective, and we know this because..." *Parker's worldview in a nutshell*
Those who subscribe to a certain political ideology have always believed that some of us are persons while some of us are disposable regardless of who the victim is.
I dont understand how they can say things are good or bad and then say its subjective, like then your entire idea no matter how convincing could be trampled by conservatives who are willing to oppress people and say subjectively they are right 😭 i put this very very simply but we need objectivity to justify kindness and equality
@Zpahcihfaerry This is why postmodern horseshit is horseshit, and also why it tends to result in truly horrific behaviors that cause immeasurable amounts of suffering and huge amounts of death, yet they proudly perpetuate these horrors under the guise of empathy and compassion. Even Hitler sincerely believed he was doing good, as did the particularly rabid hardcore bigot and sociopathic eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood, a woman so grotesque that she was an inspiration to the Nazis for their final solution. And yet here we are with modern leftists still claiming that some of us are persons while some of us are disposable, some even still chant things like "gas the Jews" and "there is only one solution".
Because he can't have a real debate with Andrew. Andrew likes to make people defend the statements that they make. Parker doesn't like to defend his statements. He likes to rattle off a quick definition and try to hit a "gotchya." as quickly as he can. If you talk fast enough you don't really have to defend any statement you make. He basically uses the same tactic as Destiny. Just keep rambling until the other person gives up on trying to debate you. It's not an honest debate, it's a child spewing forth a bunch of wordvomit to avoid having to back up any claim they make.
well Parker was refusing to answer directly. What he tries to do is say let me just ask one question and if you let him then he starts to run off then he won’t say can I ask he will just ask and if you humor him AT ALL you lose because then he bombards you with question after question and refuses to let you answer and then claims victory despite not winning on the points. He tried that here. He tried to start asking several questions and then tries to talk over him. Parker wants to answer immediately instead of addressing the points because if the argument gets laid out it destroys his arguments throughly. He wants to control the convo and will be as annoying as possible to try and get control so he can steer it off the cliff. Strawman, Gish Gallop, Equivocation, False Dichotomy, Complex Question. These are all the mostly used Fallacy of Parker.
@@acejulyan Why should sentience be the line to decide whether a human life can be unalive or not ? Will it be okay to unalive a comma patient because they aren't at the same level of sentience as a normal human being is?
People are being brought up in raised in dead end ideologies (girls can be boys brings this stupid subjectivity shit to the table) take away this thinking shit will go back to normal within time but who ever really put this motion forward in the first place knew what they were doing. Divide and conquer is the next chapter
If Parker is not insecure, he wouldnt be rude to disrupt his opponents. An excellent debater allows their opponents to investigate their claims. Parker feels the need quickly shut down his opponents by interrupting their points. He says he wants a 'conversation' but how can you have a conversation when you consistently disrupting someone. He should learn to listen not listening to respond.
@@Reformed1-e1c that's exactly it. He can't stand to be analyzed because he's really just going with whatever other people say. And attacking the pro life position because we/they're the "minority"
How many times is he gonna say he's going to leave LOLOL Parker buddy you're not in control of every conversation JUST because you can talk over everyone and filibuster them.
@@christophfinnigan3967 Allowing your emotions to influence your perception of a situation reflects a tendency to prioritize sentiment over objectivity, which can be considered a more feminine trait. I'd recommend a carnivore diet to increase T
@@blinqe3592 Reading into comments made in a jocular manner and over-analyzing it in order to make a blanket statement and offer a scientifically incorrect solution is a deeply feminine trait, I'd recommend suicide.
"Are definitions subjective?" That was a really annoying question for me, because whether or not it's subjective or not is irrelevant. If you want to have a conversation, you have to have clear definitions that you agree on. If he defines it his own way that is counter to how most people use the words, does he really expect others to bend their definitions to specifically address him? There's definitions that juztkojo is using that are also used in academia. Therefore, he's right when he says that Parker's definitions are wrong when it comes to the abortion debate.
"Are definitons subjective?" Yes but only to an extent. You can't say "My definition of a sun is a block of ice that freely floats around the universe ignoring any and all gravitational forces." and expect everyone else to say well okay I guess if that's your definition you get to be right.
What amazes me is how people don't seem to get the problem this argument represents. If all definitions are subjective then the only way to communicate would be to give your definition for every term. But presumably you would use words to do that so then you would have to define those words. But you use words for that so then you would have to define those words. It starts a never ending cycle of just defining everything in an infinite loop. The alternative option of course is to oh idk....try and stick to dictionary definitions as much as you can. Dictionaries being filled with definitions that are widely accepted and so more likely to be understood by the person you're speaking to. Which of these two options sounds more effective?
@@davidryan8547the problem only occurres when a term is relevant on close detail. If you’re talking about potential, most of the time a vague common understanding is enough for a functioning dialog, but when ”potential human life“ is the vocal point of the discussion, the exact definition of those words becomes insanely important. I‘d say you wouldn’t even have to agree on a common definition. It would be enough to understand what the other person means with those words to fully comprehend their argument. Obviously all of that is only relevant for good faith, genuine discussions and not tik tok debates, where those guys jobs is literally endlessly wordfighting to gain attention and money. That’s the problem most people don’t understand with professional debaters and public debates, those are essentially entertainment shows, there will never be any agreements made or common ground established. The one thing both sides will always agree on is that the war must go on so that all of them keep making money. Genuine debate is for your personal relationships and if you‘re lucky your work, even tho realistically most of those will also be political in the sense that at least one party has interests or at least ego to defend. Maybe the only way truly genuine debate might be possible is in total anonymity about topics no party has a big emotional attachment to.
When right and wrong is left up to the individual, you can justify such horrible things as killing your own children. Absolute madhouse of a world we live in.
This is the root of the problem. Everyone has an opinion on everything. We all know that opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they all stink. We all derive morality from God and his teachings in the Bible. Whether you want to admit it or not.
The idea that definitions can be subjective is like saying words can mean whatever I want them to rather than societal consensus. That's such a disingenuous and immature argument to stand on.
Parker the male feminist who always finds himself next to the black out drunk girl at each party wants no restrictions on abortion...who would have thought.
13:15 Parker mutes himself by accident again coz he believes the other dude can't hear him so he clicks the keybind again😂. Dude got frazzled by this debate so bad. Needs to hear his own voice
It’s weird: they both seem very intellectually well-trained but both so unmannerly and uncivil that I cannot imagine either of them having a real conversation.
@@malvoliosf they’re both kind of insufferable, the pro life guy can’t really claim moral superiority because he lowered himself to Parker’s level debate wise
And the debate etiquette department too. He has no idea how to have a proper debate. He always interrupts, and is dismissive, as well as talking so quickly and not clearly at all. He just wants to control the conversation and doesn't like his stances being analyzed, i. e defending himself. He also insults the other every chance he gets, exactly how he did like 2 min in 🤣🤣🤣🙄
Developing sentience is no different than any other part of the growth process. The fetus is a human being and has unique DNA that has already determined who that baby is. Life begins at conception when that DNA forms. And the right to life must protect all human life equally which includes unborn humans. Self awareness of one's existence cannot possibly be the defining line between life and the right to life. The right to life begins when the life begins. That's absolutely objectively true. There is no excuse for abortion. The life of the mother is never the reason for the abortion. 99% of abortions are elective with no reason behind it. We are not upholding the rule of law under the constitution if we are not stopping the murder of the unborn. This is a legal, moral issue that should not be political.
Exactly, I always find it so confusing when they draw the line between "Valuable Human life that needs to be protected" Vs. "Clump of cells you can destroy", what draws the line between these 2 very much opposite things, for them is whether it has SOME level of identifiable consciousness. Why is this what determines if you can execute it or not? The consciousness of a newborn baby is at such a low level, even beneath most animals, so why exactly is this arbitrary quality drawn as the line between if the life is valuable or if its okay to execute it? It's such an arbitrary nonsensical line to draw that they can't justify
@thevipez8740 exactly. Unless we all agree on the objective beginning point of life then who gets to decide when that point is? Its left to speculation and never arrives as a conclusion with their worldview. That's the problem. If the beginning of life can be arbitrarily defined by people rather than objective facts such as life beginning at conception, that means that it can keep changing depending on who's in power. So who is to say that a child up to 5 years old isn't viable because they still rely on the mother for life? Or because nobody can remember anything before that age? Its absolutely ridiculous that we are still having this debate. There is no debate. Life begins at conception and all human life is protected by the Constitution
because rights are a social construct that dont exist in the state of nature, so they can be changed and are only upheld by people willing to enforce them.
@@patriarchmikethe debate should have been over with, “when does life begin?” This was the major issue in the 80’s when it comes to the abortion debate. Thanks to modern science, and the ability to communicate that information, we know when life begins: conception. However, IMO women just want to have abortions and feel justified in doing so. So the argument has mutated over the years from “when does life begin?” To, “when does personhood begin?” To “when does value begin?” The entire argument is at this point convoluted and absurd.
I agree with this. Personally I never had a stake in the matter either way, I’m a huge believer in choice but also in consequences. My biggest problem is the moral clause, liberals try to explain away any accountability for their actions in taking life through abortion instead of owning it because they don’t want to feel bad. I would never consider abortion because it is morally and ethically wrong, but at the same time these crazy people can do what they want, I just don’t want my tax dollars going to subsidize murder.
It’s insane that someone can say “I have an intuition that’s girls should have abortions” As if that’s anywhere close to the definition of intuition. They literally just take words and decide they mean whatever they want… it’s mind blowing
Sperm have future sentience??!!😂😂😂😂 This whole time, humanity has been worried about alien invasions or A.I. takeover, little did we know the real threat was “The Rise of the Sperm”
Yeah if I have a gf and I'm planning to have s-x with her while she's ovulating with no protection, there's potential for one of my sperm to have sentience. How does this not track?
Sperm have the potential to have future sentience yeah. You weren’t aware of this? That’s the absurdity of why people who take the pro life view are absurd for claiming it immoral for early term abortion.
This is some juvenile teenage bullshit, its understandable if you don’t actually want to have a productive conversation and just want to try and make people frustrated but it’s not in good faith. I like to see this in a moderated debate so we could actually get a good conversation going.
what's funny is when someone else asks Parker for the definition of a word they keep on using(alluding that Parker isn't correctly using the word) Parker will say that it is not relevant to the question lmao even though he would do it all the time in the 1v25 debates on jubilee what a hypocrite.
I would argue this kid WASN’T bullied. I don’t think he’s had his ass kicked enough growing up, hence why he feels he can be so disrespectful to people and get away with it
Both people are the type of people to use big words to feel smart. Rather than actually debate, half the time was them arguing over the meaning of said big words.
@@rofeky I mean, are the “big words” not relevant to the conversation? it’s almost always necessary to argue the semantics of words when you’re having a philosophical debate
We can’t even agree on words or definitions. Thats why theres no middle ground. We define things differently, that’s why the greater meaning + application is talked about..
Shouldn't have gone with the argument based on that definition of intuition or intuitive.. Regardless, it is great you didn't let him interrupt you. The amount of bad faith arguments Parker makes is crazy.
Ok, now let me break down how pro choicers fail or they are logically consistent to absurdity. Parker’s view is very broad on “person hood” this is why there are philosophers who are pro choice and disagree with one another. Because it’s very subjective what humans are a “person” example Peter Sanger believes you’re not a person until months after birth. Some like David Bonon would say even IF!! There is a person in the womb does not matter because he’s more bodily autonomy. So a very important question to ask is should we have the right to take another humans beings life because they don’t meet MY! Or YOUR criteria of a person. I’m sure they will say no. But based off their logic we can devalue humans based off “not a person to me” now think about that. The pro choicer on this video uses a false equivalence fallacy. What he did was try and compare sperm. We don’t exist as sperm we exist biologically after conception. From there on we are developing more and more before and after birth. Because we have not reached a certain stage of our development does it mean we have no worth using this logic ? Now! Parker uses sentience. Well what in an experience exactly gives us or anything a right to life ? “ experience” bees are sentient, rats are sentient, ect ect does this mean they can’t be killed? He has to explain what in sentience gives value. Just saying past, present, future” not not explaining the why. Also! If the unborn without sentience has no moral consideration. There’s so many good reductions you can run on them. Leading to absurdity
Yep, this is the argument about being in a comatose state. Are they "sentient" if they are in a coma? What if they have the chance to never wake up? What about children with extreme disabilities. I live by one who is essentially a vegetable. Is he "sentient"? If not then we can kill them. The other thing Parker said which is absolutely moronic is he says: "how is my definition wrong? Definitions are subjective" Okay then I guess we can't talk about anything because all definitions are subjective so you could mean anything at any point in time and I wouldnt know. Languages don't work that way and if Parker just took one philosophy, logic and rhetoric class he would know what these terms mean lol
sentient creatures can be killed if their potentiality is limited to that of an animal with respect to that of a human. A fetus has the potentiality and shouldn't be killed, but an adult with no prospects hooked to the television is a useless vector for material production, grouped with the animals. Animals can be killed because their potentiality has a limit that reduces it to a useless entity in terms of the conscious observation of the world. What in sentience gives value is the mediation between Art and Animalism, temporality against permanence. We give meaning to a world which would otherwise remain unseen by the animals, living to die and breed with nothing in between, living in the equilibrium point of consumption and production. Humans have the capacity for far more than equilibrium on both sides of the scale. Some fall into hyper-consumers - they live a life of Hell and are as such Animalistic, others produce and extend vision into permanent objects. Animals are not immoral, within their frame of reference they live a beautiful life and are to be cherished in this regard, but for a man to live Animalistically is a total failure.
Should’ve asked him how he quantifies sentience or how he proves when sentience begins. How can he choose a nebulous, unknown variable like sentience as a qualifier for human value/personhood, when we don’t even truly understand the nature of consciousness and singular subjective experience/sentience? If near-death, out-of-body experiences are legitimate, our knowledge of consciousness is so vastly underdeveloped and potentially misunderstood. Parker’s stance is highly problematic. Great job, though! I’ll definitely have to take notes. You’re highly intelligent. It’s nice hearing somebody wreck Parker for once. Thanks for that.
I'm by no means a philosophy guy so please correct me if I'm using terms incorrectly but my understanding is the following: So essentially the major part of the pro life argument here is that it seems we can more accurately describe and preserve the ontological understanding of the human experience when we consider unborn persons as having moral value as it is consistent with how we treat born persons, and to do otherwise would threaten that paradigm entirely. And parkers brilliant response is "well everything is subjective desires and utility for me is woman having abortions and that's my desire so checkmate". How does he not realize he essentially has zero bases to argue or propagate his claim if he attacks the very core of what makes argumentation possible.
I guess murderers can just define murder differently, and relative to how they personally feel to explain how they didn’t murder anyone. Thanks Parker, makes sense.
This is exactly what Parker does to other people. This is the first time somebody did it back to him and he is utterly disgusted. of course, he won’t realize that these are his disgusting tactics, but at least someone made him feel the frustration of having to engage with his tactics
I think answering that definitions are subjective was the wrong answer. Words have to be objective for us to be able to talk to each other. Having the belief that words mean what ever I want them to mean is a terrible way to live life. Imagine someone is court said "Your honor, I understand she said no. But my personal subjective definition of the word no when she said it, was actually understood as her saying yes, according to my subjective definition. Does everyone see how absolutely crazy the world becomes if someone TRULY believes the definition of words are subjective.
Parker sounds and acts like Destiny when he realizes he isn't being consistent or realizes he could be wrong about something he really wants his view to be true or valid on
What does having intuition mean? : immediate apprehension or cognition without reasoning or inferring. 2. : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition. 3. : the power or faculty of gaining direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.
Exactly. He makes himself sound and appear so smart, but that definition was SO WRONG lmao it actually surprised me that he said it was "what you desire". You don't even need to look up what intuition means. You have intuition about what intuition means 🤣
people & things are Not defined by our subjective definitions: everything is, what it is, even before we decide to interpret it or define it: if I say subjectively: "to me; the sun is cold and it's square and it comes out only at night" ...That may be a nice sentiment but it's not the objective truth
Parker: “intuition, intuition, intuition…” “What do you mean by ‘intuition’?” Parker: “that doesn’t matter!” Parker is like a little kid version of Destiny- doesn’t understand how logic works and if he can’t steamroll the conversation, he just leaves.
As an unbias third party who doesn't care about the host or Parker, I can acknowledge that both of these guys are being disingenuous. The host is monologuing, refuses to be asked a question, and skips over points without letting Parker respond to them. And on the flip side, Parker was never able to justify why his stance is morally right. Both of these guys need to work on themselves
Nah bro, the host is just checking where he's standing. You can't argue with someone about how the sky is blue if they think the sky is purple, you need to know the other party argument to begin yours, that's why he asked the questions and then explained his position. But the crybaby Parker just doesn't like being in the wrong and proved wrong so he talks louder, thinking that makes him right
k (the host) began the discourse stating Parker was going to be on the defensive end, and when Parker wanted to ask questions meanwhile he was being investigated. The host said he could press him on his own stance, after he was doing investigations Parker’s. The host had no problem with being pressed on his stance, it just doesn’t make since for his stance to be mentioned meanwhile someone else’s stance is being investigated. You’re going to wait to explain your own stance once you’re done investigating Parker’s:
How ironic that parker doesn't like it if someone cuts him off, doesn't listen to his point and mute him hahaha maybe learn from this and learn to debate properly
@@cainification it becomes a rhetorical battle once one of the people aren’t engaging in good faith. that’s how it becomes a matter of only wanting to win in most debates tbh
@@channelBRCnah you came out the gate with it. Your inability to work with your guest to establish an agreed upon structure for your dialogue belies your intellect and ability to express your thoughts.
The pro life guy was a good debater and intelligent but the clapping was a bit of distraction from his arguments. If he can get rid of that small habit he would be an AMAZING debater!
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
Uploading the one of him debating Dean Withers soon, subscribe if you want to see that!
Guy debating Parker: www.tiktok.com/@juztkojo
Clipped by: www.tiktok.com/@clancyirl
You good sir are a marvel I wanna debate, and or have a conversation with you. If we find a topic of disagreement, let's debate on your channel 😊
Who's the guy in this video debating Parker? Is it the owner of this Brain Rot Central channel or someone else? I'd like to follow him. He's slick and quick.
@@esperago no offense but i literally linked the tiktok account of the debater in my comment. is it not appearing for you?
Parker gets really angry if he can’t control the conversation. It’s like a little rich kid who doesn’t get his way.
Like most progressives
Parker was trying hard to lil bro him and couldn’t.
His "intuition" tells him that's the way the conversation should go. 😂😂
That’s why he and the little boys that he calls “his crew“ won’t debate in a live setting. They don’t have a mute button.
@dejanfun3251 parkers application of intuition is crazy.
If I talk louder and faster than you I win.
Nothing but a destiny stan.... destiny talks a whole lot but says literally nothing at all
I agree with you, he did sound like a destiny clone SMH lol 😆
@@AP-zq6hvhe does, like for example when he destroyed emilysaves America
The destiny method
The destiny approach
Parker continuously muted Andrew Wilson then cried when it was done to him. He sits to pee and is an absolute hypocrite
Agree with everything u said except the "sit to pee" part. Idk why its used as an insult. I also sit to urinate. Why? So that i dont risk dirtying the toilet bowl cover or surface. Why are our bathroom habits and proclivities being weaponised as insults?
@@JoshuaCZE parker insults people all the time stfu rage baiter
@@JoshuaCZEBecause that's weird? Like... Very weird. Unless you're already taking a dump or something.
Though I do agree that insult came out of nowhere. But it was funny.
@@JoshuaCZEI stand to poop
Because women cannot stand to pee and only retards confuse the 2. Congrats on the retard part@@JoshuaCZE
first 30 seconds: "youre childish, youre childish"....proceeds to interrupt and act like a child for 20 minutes...XD
Parallel Parker curbed himself. His debate tactics are dirty. He swears he’s the main character, which is why he constantly tries to steamroll the conversation. When he doesn’t have mute powers he turns into a whinny schoolgirl who’s never been told no.
yep something I've noticed with these people is that when they clearly are losing the argument (and they know it) they try to take charge of the conversation or be dominent in any way they can. In this case, Parker started saying over and over until he got his way like a whiny kid interuppting his parents "can I ask you a question." Its just so obvious and makes him look incredibly stupid
Not even one minute in and Parker starting calling him childish 3 times 😭😭
Yeah that shows emotional immaturity.
And proceeded to act like a child, himself, the entire conversation.
@@ReaperOfRockyup! Was just about to comment that. Lmao. Projection is the game they play as well as gaslighting
Whilst being immature makes it that much more hilarious
Wow Parker is truly a moron 😂
Parker’s biggest problem is that he is Parker
he cannot be offended
He sounds like McLovin
I wanted to hear a debate, but by the end I got nothing out of the convo other than high blood pressure wanting to wring Parker's neck! He is just as bad as Destiny and David Packman. They are all just so smug and insufferable!
Parker is not respectful at all. I think his entire strategy is to get whoever he’s debating so irritated with him that they just leave and he can claim he won because they left.
I mean, they could just control their emotions. His strategy is dismantling their argument by defining the terms they use because most of the time they don't understand the application of their terms. Yet they use them in a debate on a topic like they do. I liked his set up. Good show, I'm subscribed and look forward to more and maybe even being on here.
Parker is much like Destiny in this way. Both just want to throw out offense tactics and not answer anything.
@@sebastianknight1793 that's a weak ass strategy lmao... that's why it didn't work here. No argument is presented and when you run into someone who knows what they're talking about what are you going to do? He just disagrees with them, asks them for examples, and then throw a red herring or strawman out lmao.
@@sebastianknight1793his strategy is Not allowing them to respond. Weakest black man I have ever seen in my life.
opposite
People are mad because kojo kept muting parker, but he only kept muting parker because parker kept interrupting in order to pivot, so what's the problem?
Parker has no debate etiquette 🙄
Parker And Destiny Are The Definition of: You Can't Fix Stupid
and Parker's boyfriend Dean, and Harry Sissy
Sorry who is destiny ? I saw parker on an open mike at a charlie kirk thing so that's how I became aware of him.
Man it felt good to see Parker get put in his place. He is insufferable.
You might want to check your bias if you think the dude in the red hat won
@@BartoniusAustinius He did in kid use ur head parker is a circular debater its embarrassing
@@BartoniusAustiniustry looking in a mirror first
@@BartoniusAustiniusthe same could be same to you! I bet your using your "intuition" though huh? If your not strong enough to continue the conversation and run away, you lost dude. Forfeiting is losing. Back your claim up till the end. There would've been more respect if he did.
@@BartoniusAustiniuseveryone here agrees he won pipe down
Parker considers himself a debater, but is incapable of both following the rules of a debate and establishing arguments to reinforce his positions.
That's because his definition of a debater is subjective to himself. 😂
To be fair the black guy was bottlenecking him and if you're going to have a debate you must let the other person get an opportunity to answer and be willing to answer some back and forward questions in between those addressing of those answers
@spacedandyland1989 he wasn't bottlenecking per se; he was seeking an actual explanation. He presented a question and then sought the logic that upheld Parker's answer because his response didn't have a leg to stand on.
Facts I notice no comments from Parker....weird
@@spacedandyland1989he was seeking understanding of his position by asking him questions about terms being used improperly to get the bigger picture of his argument and what its rooted in and then Parker tried to circle back and make an argument about his reasoning to do so.
Parker isn't as smart as he thinks he is, especially if he's using definitions counter to how society generally would use them. He's creating his own language for himself.
Exactly, with his own definitions he is living in his own world and in his own world he "never" loses.
This is exactly what the story of the Tower of Babel is about.
@@cameroncorrado3935no lol
The problem with "subjective" definitions is that you're able to change the definition at whim. You can also describe what your definition is with other words that have "subjective meanings". It's a problem when words don't have meaning. Treating words like some people out here treating their gender, so fluid it's completely meaningless.
@@randfall and that's the whole problem with leftist thought these days. They believe everything is subjective.
Parker strays away from every single debate question. EVERY DEBATE I have seen from him he acts this way or he sperges out. He does what Destiny does, but even worse.
Exactly! When he debated Charlie Kirk, he just kept interrupting him, asking question after question about things unrelated to the topic, just so he could attack him. That was my first exposure to Parker and I never liked him since then. HES the child 🙄🤣🤣🤣🤣
Parker has such overbearing and attention-seeking behavior. Threatening to leave multiple times, and not leaving? Childish.
Getting muted, and unmuting himself with combative intent? Butthurt.
Trying to skip over important terms and definitions so they seem vague? Manipulating the argument.
Disregarding the boundaries and rules set so there can be a civil debate? Domineering.
How do people even enjoy watching this guy?
Parker is so mad he couldnt interrupt you in those bullet points.
Exactly, he's not good at debating at all. He has no etiquette 🙄🙄🤣🤣🤣
Unfortunately he’s got the perfect audience… tik tokers.
These guys get all their news from tik tok so they probably aren’t much of critical thinkers when it comes to politics.
Parker the bad faith debater
Yes. He’s also manipulative.
Debater is subjective to Parker. He has his own definition of debater. 😅
All Democrats are bad faith
Yep,it's based on emotions
@@Atrocities85but in a debate you presupposed to make logical discussion.
You can make a claim distinction on what said by people to make him collapse.
Also you can argue from an atheist worldview you can’t justify past and future but that way to complex for so much people and this would be very knew for most people.
He's calling you a little child for just asking not to interrupt while asking a question. wtf
And he keeps threatening to leave like a child holding their breath to get their way.
@@ghettomarc50seems like they’re both childish
@@krichard_not all all. Just Parker
@@xanander4693 I disagree, I’m an abolitionist and I really dislike Parker, but I also think the pro life guy sounded really smug which shouldn’t represent the “pro life” side, abolitionists like T. Russel Hunter are much better
@@krichard_ After seeing several views of Parker, I don't blame anyone being smug with the guy. He rarely defends a single statement. He rattles off shit prepared statements that he's memorized to a T - word for word, and his entire shtick is to talk as fast as he can while interrupting you so you can't finish a sentence. Just like Destiny. Oh and his definition of a woman is basically "someone who identifies as a female."
Parker is Sperging more than usual because Trump got into power.
LOL
You people wouldn’t be if Kamala won?
Ahahahaha
Sore winners ahahahahahahahahahahaha
You people wouldn’t be if Kamala won?
Ahahahaha
Sore winners ahahahahahahahahahahaha
Also TKA is a Russian Bot.
Do better.
@@mrmacwayne6046Ha ha- she didn’t win! Ah ha ha ha! Not even the popular vote- ha ha ha ha!
So the person interrupting & having temper tantrums is calling the other person a child? 🤔 Do these people live in reality?
Also 98% of biologists agree that life begins at conception 🤷🏼♀️
This guy Parker sounds soft as fuck. “If you don’t let me talk I’m leaving” proceeds to not leave…..
Parker is an angry rainbow
The angry blue rainbow
This made me laugh for no reason, and I'll be using it from today onwards 😂
Poopy pants Parker can’t stand it when he gets perpetually muted like how he mutes everybody on his live. Love it when Parker cries
Parker have all these pre-written answers in his head, and if the conversation ever deviates from what he is comfortable with and he has to answer actual questions he instantly folds, as he can't debate. He can only regurgitate pre-written answers he wrote down, interrupt, insult and pivot.
Damn ig we are dokkan❤
He debateslike a Latina on her period,loud and obnoxious making no sense
Parker is the definition of someone who thinks they are smart because they can talk fast and use big words without really know what they mean. In actuality his arguments and technique for debate are quite stupid.
"We all have different intuitions" is not a good response to "What is the justification for your parameters?"
Parker: "I want to use my own definitions, not any definitions that people typically use when discussing this debate topic, that way in response to anything you say I can just deflect and take no accountability for intellectual honesty". And, "I'll keep interrupting you out of spite just so you can't have any talking time to string together a coherent thought, because I can't possibly defend my position otherwise."
yea g i don't understand just let him talk, it's always " oh but your wrong so i have to interrupt you" like bruh just wait for them to finish he is so obviously overcompensating for his lack of a strong argument by trying to get in as many inflated stats or points he can possibly spit out and make people think he won. bro is a stunt debater
This EXACTLY. These guys (parker and his bed-buddies) aren't interested in an honest, good-faith debate, they're interested in leading you through their golden-path script using their own subjective "definitions", sprinkled with a few gotcha traps along the way. And if you get off track, they mute you to save face until you get angry enough to leave so they can claim you left because you can't defend your position.
This guy played the debate EXACTLY right. Force them to defend THEIR claims. Super impressed with the pro-life guy.
@@oosn0b0ardroo I found it funny that Parker kept "threatening" with "if you mute me again I'll leave". 😆
Parker is wrong. As usual. Parker can be wrong about his definition in regards to the context of the conversation. For example, if the conversation was about water and parkers definition of wet was something that is dry, he'd be WRONG. How? Because his definitional concept does not correspond to the context. He cannot describe dry as what dryness means and then also claim it corresponds to being wet. Unless he wants be incoherent.
Definitions ought to describe something. You cant just describe or define anything as any other thing. He was wrong about what potential means in context of this debate.
@@a-atheistdepending on the context, it’s not always wrong in every context, but in conventional contexts sure, since that’s not how it’s used conventionally
Parker is too used to being a keyboard warrior and not getting checked IRL. 🐈
Checked and decked IRL
This isn’t irl dumbass
This isn't real life, donut. God damn the simps in here are braindead. Anyone who thinks this feminine black dude can hold anything down IRL is delusional. All these online debaters are a bunch of grifting pseudo intellectual bozos with almost no real-life experience or intelligence. But most of their audience is younger than 18, so it's easy for them to seem competent 😂😂😂
The black dude needs to make more content, I’m for it!
He's a child, trying to portray an intellectual capacity he doesn't possess. He is a horrible debater, and tries to dominate the entire conversation. When the other person realizes there is no point being there, and he is not doing any of this in good faith..they leave. I dont blame them. I wouldn't have given him the consideration, to begin with.
@@SacredWaves Who are you talking about
Only one of the two behaved in the manner described. The black dude was insufferable.@@HolyYudaria
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 I found him. I found the room temp IQ individual in these comments.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 How, parker does the same shit over and over again, he did it with andrew wilson and he keeps running, muting someone because they wont stfu isnt insufferable its reasonable
Projection is a powerful delusion... parker projects really badly and he interprets everything through the lens of his own motive and perspective
" the man with jaundice sees everything yellow"
Parker starts with interrupting and ad hominem within the first minute.
When i watch the abortion debate i see the same thing every time. Conservatives always have the same clear argument for when life begins, but Liberals arguments are always changing. The level of gymnastics that Liberals go through to try and make there nonsensical arguments work is astounding.
Well, that's because definitions are subjective, remember...
You missed my point.
@@producerlou8241kcraulston was joking
@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 I'm picking up what you're putting down. Thanks!
This reminds me how their argument for most issues is that everything is "a social construct". Nothing is concrete so everything is open to interpretation and change - a constant state of revolution. They run on upheaval and absurdity.
“Why does sentience, past, present or future, a necessary condition for moral value?”
Parker: “because that’s what I believe”
Nice reasoning, genius
yea I really don't understand the attention this clown gets. He really said you're not predicating the baby off of life but dna while asking for a distinction made at conception that doesn't apply to sperm. Bruh you failed biology.
How would a pro life justify moral value?
@Christisking864 there's no need to answer that. Life intuitively has value. It's saying that life DOESN'T have value is the point that needs to be justified.
@Christisking864 The fact is the science is extremely clear that life begins at conception, the overwhelming concurrence of biologists (93%) agree.
That's the premise that has to be established. Now we have to make a decision, either ALL human lives matter or only certain human lives matter. There are a lot of ways to go through this point, the most obvious being a certain ww2 bad guy that also thought not all human lives matter. Sentience is a bad qualifier because we don't just terminate come patient's.
Really no qualifier for human life is going to work once you've gone through them all. The only reasonable ans intellectually consistent stance you can take is that all human life begins at conception and all human life has moral value.
To argue anything else is to enter the land of the subjective. This is the only consistent and objective stance.
@@correypeta But you are doing the same thing. You say that your belief is intuitive, Parker says the same.
"All definitions are subjective because truth is subjective, and all objective truth is subjective truth because truth is ultimately subjective, and we know this because... All definitions are subjective because truth is subjective, and all objective truth is subjective truth because truth is ultimately subjective, and we know this because... All definitions are subjective because truth is subjective, and all objective truth is subjective truth because truth is ultimately subjective, and we know this because..."
*Parker's worldview in a nutshell*
he's too dumb to understand that "all truth is subjective" is an objective truth statement lol
repent to God
Those who subscribe to a certain political ideology have always believed that some of us are persons while some of us are disposable regardless of who the victim is.
I dont understand how they can say things are good or bad and then say its subjective, like then your entire idea no matter how convincing could be trampled by conservatives who are willing to oppress people and say subjectively they are right 😭 i put this very very simply but we need objectivity to justify kindness and equality
@Zpahcihfaerry This is why postmodern horseshit is horseshit, and also why it tends to result in truly horrific behaviors that cause immeasurable amounts of suffering and huge amounts of death, yet they proudly perpetuate these horrors under the guise of empathy and compassion. Even Hitler sincerely believed he was doing good, as did the particularly rabid hardcore bigot and sociopathic eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood, a woman so grotesque that she was an inspiration to the Nazis for their final solution. And yet here we are with modern leftists still claiming that some of us are persons while some of us are disposable, some even still chant things like "gas the Jews" and "there is only one solution".
Never heard someone so scared of defining their own argument
Watching Parker rage out when we have seen him do this exact same thing to people like Andrew Wilson in order to avoid a criticism was so nice to see.
Because he can't have a real debate with Andrew. Andrew likes to make people defend the statements that they make. Parker doesn't like to defend his statements. He likes to rattle off a quick definition and try to hit a "gotchya." as quickly as he can. If you talk fast enough you don't really have to defend any statement you make. He basically uses the same tactic as Destiny. Just keep rambling until the other person gives up on trying to debate you. It's not an honest debate, it's a child spewing forth a bunch of wordvomit to avoid having to back up any claim they make.
@@randfall you hit it right on the head. He's so full of himself he can't even debate properly.
Parker calls people for being childish and running away from the debate when he’s the one doing so
Parker got killed here.
Neither did great , they didn’t flesh out a lot.
well Parker was refusing to answer directly. What he tries to do is say let me just ask one question and if you let him then he starts to run off then he won’t say can I ask he will just ask and if you humor him AT ALL you lose because then he bombards you with question after question and refuses to let you answer and then claims victory despite not winning on the points. He tried that here. He tried to start asking several questions and then tries to talk over him. Parker wants to answer immediately instead of addressing the points because if the argument gets laid out it destroys his arguments throughly. He wants to control the convo and will be as annoying as possible to try and get control so he can steer it off the cliff. Strawman, Gish Gallop, Equivocation, False Dichotomy, Complex Question. These are all the mostly used Fallacy of Parker.
@ he did with regards to sentience
@@acejulyan
Why should sentience be the line to decide whether a human life can be unalive or not ? Will it be okay to unalive a comma patient because they aren't at the same level of sentience as a normal human being is?
@@rohitbhushan8855 for me it’s a mind
If definitions are subjective words have no meaning.
it means nothing has meaning because words are meant to represent meanings
@James13234 yes that's why definitions are objective not subjective so people can understand what other people mean.
People are being brought up in raised in dead end ideologies (girls can be boys brings this stupid subjectivity shit to the table) take away this thinking shit will go back to normal within time but who ever really put this motion forward in the first place knew what they were doing. Divide and conquer is the next chapter
They always go straight to insults.
Parker almost immediately going for the, you're a little kid, insults.
This kid hates not having control lol he needs that mute button and he hates not having it
If Parker is not insecure, he wouldnt be rude to disrupt his opponents. An excellent debater allows their opponents to investigate their claims. Parker feels the need quickly shut down his opponents by interrupting their points. He says he wants a 'conversation' but how can you have a conversation when you consistently disrupting someone. He should learn to listen not listening to respond.
Parker tries to argue, something he can only do online. Unless he tried someone like you.
@reapin3444 I'd rather debate a man not a child who is confused about gender.
@@Reformed1-e1c that's exactly it. He can't stand to be analyzed because he's really just going with whatever other people say. And attacking the pro life position because we/they're the "minority"
How many times is he gonna say he's going to leave LOLOL Parker buddy you're not in control of every conversation JUST because you can talk over everyone and filibuster them.
I'm pro-choice but god damn I hate Parker
Bro could be anti hitler and i would stand agaisnt parker just on merit alone. Thats how bad it is bro.
Life begins at conception, every other line is subjective. Thus, abortion is murder.
@@christophfinnigan3967so real
@@christophfinnigan3967 Allowing your emotions to influence your perception of a situation reflects a tendency to prioritize sentiment over objectivity, which can be considered a more feminine trait. I'd recommend a carnivore diet to increase T
@@blinqe3592 Reading into comments made in a jocular manner and over-analyzing it in order to make a blanket statement and offer a scientifically incorrect solution is a deeply feminine trait, I'd recommend suicide.
Parker accuses of being a child, while acting like a child, when he doesnt get his way.
Who is this young brother thats destroying parker? Great job!!
"Are definitions subjective?"
That was a really annoying question for me, because whether or not it's subjective or not is irrelevant. If you want to have a conversation, you have to have clear definitions that you agree on. If he defines it his own way that is counter to how most people use the words, does he really expect others to bend their definitions to specifically address him? There's definitions that juztkojo is using that are also used in academia. Therefore, he's right when he says that Parker's definitions are wrong when it comes to the abortion debate.
"Are definitons subjective?" Yes but only to an extent. You can't say "My definition of a sun is a block of ice that freely floats around the universe ignoring any and all gravitational forces." and expect everyone else to say well okay I guess if that's your definition you get to be right.
What amazes me is how people don't seem to get the problem this argument represents. If all definitions are subjective then the only way to communicate would be to give your definition for every term. But presumably you would use words to do that so then you would have to define those words. But you use words for that so then you would have to define those words. It starts a never ending cycle of just defining everything in an infinite loop.
The alternative option of course is to oh idk....try and stick to dictionary definitions as much as you can. Dictionaries being filled with definitions that are widely accepted and so more likely to be understood by the person you're speaking to. Which of these two options sounds more effective?
@@davidryan8547the problem only occurres when a term is relevant on close detail. If you’re talking about potential, most of the time a vague common understanding is enough for a functioning dialog, but when ”potential human life“ is the vocal point of the discussion, the exact definition of those words becomes insanely important. I‘d say you wouldn’t even have to agree on a common definition. It would be enough to understand what the other person means with those words to fully comprehend their argument. Obviously all of that is only relevant for good faith, genuine discussions and not tik tok debates, where those guys jobs is literally endlessly wordfighting to gain attention and money. That’s the problem most people don’t understand with professional debaters and public debates, those are essentially entertainment shows, there will never be any agreements made or common ground established. The one thing both sides will always agree on is that the war must go on so that all of them keep making money. Genuine debate is for your personal relationships and if you‘re lucky your work, even tho realistically most of those will also be political in the sense that at least one party has interests or at least ego to defend. Maybe the only way truly genuine debate might be possible is in total anonymity about topics no party has a big emotional attachment to.
The correct answer is "it depends on the word", The definition of "water" is not subjective but the definition of "wet" can be subjective.
@@Unknown-us3ii only to an extent. It would be weird if someone defined wet as "being on fire"
@@Unknown-us3iiyes it is, since it was made up, however it can be used incorrectly in conventional context
When right and wrong is left up to the individual, you can justify such horrible things as killing your own children. Absolute madhouse of a world we live in.
That's why society needs Jesus so badly
This is the root of the problem.
Everyone has an opinion on everything.
We all know that opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they all stink.
We all derive morality from God and his teachings in the Bible. Whether you want to admit it or not.
The idea that definitions can be subjective is like saying words can mean whatever I want them to rather than societal consensus. That's such a disingenuous and immature argument to stand on.
When that guy can't control the conversation by interruption or speed-talking, he cuts and runs.
Parker clearly has never been in a fight. Somehow I can tell.
Parker the male feminist who always finds himself next to the black out drunk girl at each party wants no restrictions on abortion...who would have thought.
13:15 Parker mutes himself by accident again coz he believes the other dude can't hear him so he clicks the keybind again😂. Dude got frazzled by this debate so bad. Needs to hear his own voice
It’s weird: they both seem very intellectually well-trained but both so unmannerly and uncivil that I cannot imagine either of them having a real conversation.
Love it 😂
Yeah, Parker was definitely the major offender in this debate, but the host could have been more level headed to show how childish Parker really is.
@@I.no.ah.guy57 I’m not sure I buy that. The host was insisting “I am asking the question.”
@@malvoliosf they’re both kind of insufferable, the pro life guy can’t really claim moral superiority because he lowered himself to Parker’s level debate wise
@@krichard_ to be fair, they never really got to any kind of substantive argument bc Parker kept interrupting and derailing the debate lol
Parker sucks but this guy is almost as bad. Not a good debate at all.
I‘m Glad i‘m Not alone with this opinion 🙏
Parker could use some assistance in the philosophy department
And the debate etiquette department too. He has no idea how to have a proper debate. He always interrupts, and is dismissive, as well as talking so quickly and not clearly at all. He just wants to control the conversation and doesn't like his stances being analyzed, i. e defending himself. He also insults the other every chance he gets, exactly how he did like 2 min in 🤣🤣🤣🙄
Developing sentience is no different than any other part of the growth process. The fetus is a human being and has unique DNA that has already determined who that baby is. Life begins at conception when that DNA forms. And the right to life must protect all human life equally which includes unborn humans. Self awareness of one's existence cannot possibly be the defining line between life and the right to life. The right to life begins when the life begins. That's absolutely objectively true. There is no excuse for abortion. The life of the mother is never the reason for the abortion. 99% of abortions are elective with no reason behind it. We are not upholding the rule of law under the constitution if we are not stopping the murder of the unborn. This is a legal, moral issue that should not be political.
Exactly, I always find it so confusing when they draw the line between "Valuable Human life that needs to be protected" Vs. "Clump of cells you can destroy", what draws the line between these 2 very much opposite things, for them is whether it has SOME level of identifiable consciousness.
Why is this what determines if you can execute it or not? The consciousness of a newborn baby is at such a low level, even beneath most animals, so why exactly is this arbitrary quality drawn as the line between if the life is valuable or if its okay to execute it? It's such an arbitrary nonsensical line to draw that they can't justify
@thevipez8740 exactly. Unless we all agree on the objective beginning point of life then who gets to decide when that point is? Its left to speculation and never arrives as a conclusion with their worldview. That's the problem. If the beginning of life can be arbitrarily defined by people rather than objective facts such as life beginning at conception, that means that it can keep changing depending on who's in power. So who is to say that a child up to 5 years old isn't viable because they still rely on the mother for life? Or because nobody can remember anything before that age? Its absolutely ridiculous that we are still having this debate. There is no debate. Life begins at conception and all human life is protected by the Constitution
because rights are a social construct that dont exist in the state of nature, so they can be changed and are only upheld by people willing to enforce them.
@@patriarchmikethe debate should have been over with, “when does life begin?”
This was the major issue in the 80’s when it comes to the abortion debate.
Thanks to modern science, and the ability to communicate that information, we know when life begins: conception. However, IMO women just want to have abortions and feel justified in doing so.
So the argument has mutated over the years from “when does life begin?” To, “when does personhood begin?” To “when does value begin?”
The entire argument is at this point convoluted and absurd.
I agree with this. Personally I never had a stake in the matter either way, I’m a huge believer in choice but also in consequences. My biggest problem is the moral clause, liberals try to explain away any accountability for their actions in taking life through abortion instead of owning it because they don’t want to feel bad. I would never consider abortion because it is morally and ethically wrong, but at the same time these crazy people can do what they want, I just don’t want my tax dollars going to subsidize murder.
Wow the man debating Parker was very impressive! Would love to see him debate more people.
He was very patient too, not many people like that on UA-cam debates.
It’s insane that someone can say “I have an intuition that’s girls should have abortions”
As if that’s anywhere close to the definition of intuition. They literally just take words and decide they mean whatever they want… it’s mind blowing
Exactly!!!
I don’t know why anyone gives this Parker guy credit, the guy makes the most elementary arguments
Sperm have future sentience??!!😂😂😂😂 This whole time, humanity has been worried about alien invasions or A.I. takeover, little did we know the real threat was “The Rise of the Sperm”
Yeah if I have a gf and I'm planning to have s-x with her while she's ovulating with no protection, there's potential for one of my sperm to have sentience. How does this not track?
Sperm have the potential to have future sentience yeah. You weren’t aware of this?
That’s the absurdity of why people who take the pro life view are absurd for claiming it immoral for early term abortion.
And he says that sperm has the potential to become a full grown human too, guess we don't need women to procreate XD
I literally laughed out loud.
Literally beat him at his own game, all Parker does is mute everyone else and then he whines when he can't talk after interrupting so much himself
Parker is the definition of bad faith
BRO GOT SHUT DOWN!!!
This is some juvenile teenage bullshit, its understandable if you don’t actually want to have a productive conversation and just want to try and make people frustrated but it’s not in good faith. I like to see this in a moderated debate so we could actually get a good conversation going.
Put him in his place, good shit. Dude can't go 5 seconds without interrupting
what's funny is when someone else asks Parker for the definition of a word they keep on using(alluding that Parker isn't correctly using the word) Parker will say that it is not relevant to the question lmao even though he would do it all the time in the 1v25 debates on jubilee what a hypocrite.
You can tell this poor kid was bullied really hard in school and is making up for it.
I would argue this kid WASN’T bullied. I don’t think he’s had his ass kicked enough growing up, hence why he feels he can be so disrespectful to people and get away with it
parker is a walking contradiction
Both people are the type of people to use big words to feel smart. Rather than actually debate, half the time was them arguing over the meaning of said big words.
🙏
@@rofeky I mean, are the “big words” not relevant to the conversation? it’s almost always necessary to argue the semantics of words when you’re having a philosophical debate
We can’t even agree on words or definitions. Thats why theres no middle ground. We define things differently, that’s why the greater meaning + application is talked about..
Shouldn't have gone with the argument based on that definition of intuition or intuitive..
Regardless, it is great you didn't let him interrupt you. The amount of bad faith arguments Parker makes is crazy.
Right. "What you desire" is NOT what intuition is even in the slightest lmao
Parker is such a walking L
I love that this dude wouldn’t let Parker dictate the conversation
I can’t wait til people stop believing Parker is smart
It’s not even really a debate. More like a vocab lesson. If you have to redefine words to support your argument, you’re probably wrong.
Ok, now let me break down how pro choicers fail or they are logically consistent to absurdity.
Parker’s view is very broad on “person hood” this is why there are philosophers who are pro choice and disagree with one another. Because it’s very subjective what humans are a “person” example Peter Sanger believes you’re not a person until months after birth. Some like David Bonon would say even IF!! There is a person in the womb does not matter because he’s more bodily autonomy. So a very important question to ask is should we have the right to take another humans beings life because they don’t meet MY! Or YOUR criteria of a person. I’m sure they will say no. But based off their logic we can devalue humans based off “not a person to me” now think about that.
The pro choicer on this video uses a false equivalence fallacy. What he did was try and compare sperm. We don’t exist as sperm we exist biologically after conception. From there on we are developing more and more before and after birth. Because we have not reached a certain stage of our development does it mean we have no worth using this logic ?
Now! Parker uses sentience. Well what in an experience exactly gives us or anything a right to life ? “ experience” bees are sentient, rats are sentient, ect ect does this mean they can’t be killed? He has to explain what in sentience gives value. Just saying past, present, future” not not explaining the why.
Also! If the unborn without sentience has no moral consideration. There’s so many good reductions you can run on them. Leading to absurdity
Yep, this is the argument about being in a comatose state. Are they "sentient" if they are in a coma? What if they have the chance to never wake up? What about children with extreme disabilities. I live by one who is essentially a vegetable. Is he "sentient"? If not then we can kill them. The other thing Parker said which is absolutely moronic is he says: "how is my definition wrong? Definitions are subjective" Okay then I guess we can't talk about anything because all definitions are subjective so you could mean anything at any point in time and I wouldnt know. Languages don't work that way and if Parker just took one philosophy, logic and rhetoric class he would know what these terms mean lol
Sentience can be a necessary but not sufficient condition for a "right to life".
sentient creatures can be killed if their potentiality is limited to that of an animal with respect to that of a human. A fetus has the potentiality and shouldn't be killed, but an adult with no prospects hooked to the television is a useless vector for material production, grouped with the animals. Animals can be killed because their potentiality has a limit that reduces it to a useless entity in terms of the conscious observation of the world.
What in sentience gives value is the mediation between Art and Animalism, temporality against permanence. We give meaning to a world which would otherwise remain unseen by the animals, living to die and breed with nothing in between, living in the equilibrium point of consumption and production. Humans have the capacity for far more than equilibrium on both sides of the scale. Some fall into hyper-consumers - they live a life of Hell and are as such Animalistic, others produce and extend vision into permanent objects.
Animals are not immoral, within their frame of reference they live a beautiful life and are to be cherished in this regard, but for a man to live Animalistically is a total failure.
@@AmpWave-x9m then what gives a right to life ?
@@chrisarmon1002 Being part of society.
‘Definitions are subjective, and that means you can’t say my definition is wrong.’
You just said his definition of “wrong” is wrong, congratulations.
Parker got a taste of his own medicine! 😁
Should’ve asked him how he quantifies sentience or how he proves when sentience begins. How can he choose a nebulous, unknown variable like sentience as a qualifier for human value/personhood, when we don’t even truly understand the nature of consciousness and singular subjective experience/sentience? If near-death, out-of-body experiences are legitimate, our knowledge of consciousness is so vastly underdeveloped and potentially misunderstood. Parker’s stance is highly problematic. Great job, though! I’ll definitely have to take notes. You’re highly intelligent. It’s nice hearing somebody wreck Parker for once. Thanks for that.
"Nah, I'll sperg"
Parker 2024
I'm by no means a philosophy guy so please correct me if I'm using terms incorrectly but my understanding is the following:
So essentially the major part of the pro life argument here is that it seems we can more accurately describe and preserve the ontological understanding of the human experience when we consider unborn persons as having moral value as it is consistent with how we treat born persons, and to do otherwise would threaten that paradigm entirely.
And parkers brilliant response is "well everything is subjective desires and utility for me is woman having abortions and that's my desire so checkmate".
How does he not realize he essentially has zero bases to argue or propagate his claim if he attacks the very core of what makes argumentation possible.
I have to talk to idiots like Parker on a daily basis in Customer Service call center work… insufferable.
You me brother the same… I hate it when they got that “the customer is always right” type personality.
I guess murderers can just define murder differently, and relative to how they personally feel to explain how they didn’t murder anyone. Thanks Parker, makes sense.
This is exactly what Parker does to other people. This is the first time somebody did it back to him and he is utterly disgusted. of course, he won’t realize that these are his disgusting tactics, but at least someone made him feel the frustration of having to engage with his tactics
Man I have to acknowledge that this was fun to watch xdddd
I think answering that definitions are subjective was the wrong answer. Words have to be objective for us to be able to talk to each other. Having the belief that words mean what ever I want them to mean is a terrible way to live life. Imagine someone is court said "Your honor, I understand she said no. But my personal subjective definition of the word no when she said it, was actually understood as her saying yes, according to my subjective definition.
Does everyone see how absolutely crazy the world becomes if someone TRULY believes the definition of words are subjective.
EXACTLY! When he agreed that definitions are subjective I went "WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT"???
Parker sounds and acts like Destiny when he realizes he isn't being consistent or realizes he could be wrong about something he really wants his view to be true or valid on
Definitions are not subjective. They point to rigid designators in our metaphysics.
Parker has a hard time even dealing with defining extremely basic words that he uses incorrectly (like intuition) lmao
He was SO freaking off lmao
What does having intuition mean?
: immediate apprehension or cognition without reasoning or inferring. 2. : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition. 3. : the power or faculty of gaining direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.
Exactly. He makes himself sound and appear so smart, but that definition was SO WRONG lmao it actually surprised me that he said it was "what you desire". You don't even need to look up what intuition means. You have intuition about what intuition means 🤣
Parker calling him a child after how he acts in debates? Cmon bruh
people & things are Not defined by our subjective definitions: everything is, what it is, even before we decide to interpret it or define it: if I say subjectively: "to me; the sun is cold and it's square and it comes out only at night" ...That may be a nice sentiment but it's not the objective truth
Literally didn’t understand a single argument made
Parker: “intuition, intuition, intuition…”
“What do you mean by ‘intuition’?”
Parker: “that doesn’t matter!”
Parker is like a little kid version of Destiny- doesn’t understand how logic works and if he can’t steamroll the conversation, he just leaves.
Who is the the guy defending the pro life position? What’s his @ on too tom
@@dubloun juztkojo is his username
He’s on TikTok btw
As an unbias third party who doesn't care about the host or Parker, I can acknowledge that both of these guys are being disingenuous. The host is monologuing, refuses to be asked a question, and skips over points without letting Parker respond to them. And on the flip side, Parker was never able to justify why his stance is morally right. Both of these guys need to work on themselves
I think the host was really only giving Parker a taste of his own medicine.
@@ForeverNovemebertbf, that counts toward not being entirely fair in his argumentation though
@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 yeah Im just saying the attitude was deliberate, but he was still talking facts
Nah bro, the host is just checking where he's standing. You can't argue with someone about how the sky is blue if they think the sky is purple, you need to know the other party argument to begin yours, that's why he asked the questions and then explained his position. But the crybaby Parker just doesn't like being in the wrong and proved wrong so he talks louder, thinking that makes him right
k (the host) began the discourse stating Parker was going to be on the defensive end, and when Parker wanted to ask questions meanwhile he was being investigated. The host said he could press him on his own stance, after he was doing investigations Parker’s. The host had no problem with being pressed on his stance, it just doesn’t make since for his stance to be mentioned meanwhile someone else’s stance is being investigated. You’re going to wait to explain your own stance once you’re done investigating Parker’s:
How ironic that parker doesn't like it if someone cuts him off, doesn't listen to his point and mute him hahaha maybe learn from this and learn to debate properly
Tell Parker put the fries in the bag 🍟
Nah this was just a battle of egos, at first I thought it was only the caller but the dude on camera was just as bad faith.
@@cainification it becomes a rhetorical battle once one of the people aren’t engaging in good faith. that’s how it becomes a matter of only wanting to win in most debates tbh
No way, Parker is definitely the only bad faith “debater” here
@@channelBRCnah you came out the gate with it. Your inability to work with your guest to establish an agreed upon structure for your dialogue belies your intellect and ability to express your thoughts.
@@thedappermagician6905 im obviously not the person in the video yall gotta start using your brain
Keep uploading these lol love to see him have a taste of his own medicine. Hes so immature
The pro life guy was a good debater and intelligent but the clapping was a bit of distraction from his arguments. If he can get rid of that small habit he would be an AMAZING debater!
This just seems like a cat fight. Also they weren't even debating each other. Literally both just talked