Although I disagree with Brad, I am thrilled to have watched this debate. Brad was calm, precise, and reasonable. The moderator was also top notch. We need more of this!
We need more of what? Condescending to a vulnerable group of people and keeping their lives and rights perpetually in limbo as we """debate""" whether they are deserving of basic human dignity and medical care for all eternity?
@@chrisl3987 yes. Because our ideas of what constitutes 'rights', basic human dignity and especially 'medical care' are different and need to be discussed. So yes, more debates like these on a variety of issues would do wonders for the world.
@@chrisl3987 Yes debates like these are exactly what we need, before we enact legislation. We don't make laws and then debate them after, we debate and then create laws. We need to hear both sides of an issue before we make radical changes to our country. I won't even disclaim which side of the issue I'm on, but this is exactly what we need more of desperately in our country. (USA)
That sounds like a statement a woke person would make about conservatives who lives in their own echo chamber. There are lots of progressive thinkers who can have great nuanced debates, just as there are conservatives, such as Marc Lamont Hill, Slavoj Zizek, Cornel West and John McWhorter to name a few.
@The Agnostic Philosopher or.. you wandered too far outside your box? If you're the type who'd never engage in the rational discussion, you'll be mocked and treated like a child while they double down on your insults. Don't wanna engage in the psychology differences that come with different communities? They'll drop the most abysmal names possible because if rational discourse is impossible, emotional manipulation wins. It's not that complex. At least their refusal to engage literally comes from a more intelligent political stance, unlike the screeching that accompanies every single one of these speeches, refusing to even hear out the other side or convey their own thoughts.
0:12:22 *Preface* 0:15:29 *Debator Introductions* 0:18:20 *Roadmap & Debate Introduction* 0:20:41 *Protestors Screech* 😱 0:21:53 *Knowles's Opening Statement* 0:26:58 *Polumbo's Opening Statement* 0:33:26 *Knowles's Rebuttal* 0:36:55 *Polumbo's Rebuttal* *Discussion* • 0:39:10 Q for P. - Is K. wrong or imprudent? • 0:41:43 Q for K. - Why lie about only some things? • 0:46:05 Q for K. - Why should the gov. make truth? • 0:47:34 P. gives his take • 0:48:01 Q for P. - Who should be committed? • 0:49:22 K. gives his take • 0:49:55 Q for K. - Where are you uncertain? • 0:52:13 P. gives his take • 0:52:23 Q for P. - When is someone an adult? • 0:54:35 K. gives his take • 0:55:24 Q for P. - Why for adults but not kids? • 0:56:19 Q for P. - What can a parent consent to? • 0:57:33 Q for P. - What about growth hormone? • 0:58:48 Q for K. - But the children say so • 1:02:07 Q for P. - But the children say so • 1:05:45 Q for K. - Isn't big gov. dangerous? • 1:07:19 Q for K. - What about seesawing laws? • 1:09:36 Q for K. - Is Left winning or Right losing? • 1:11:24 Q for K. - You're anti-1st Amendment • 1:13:00 Q for P. - What is free speech for? *Q&A* • 1:16:02 Q for K. - Why use big gov.? • 1:18:28 Q for K. - U.S. too large to be governed? • 1:18:51 Q for both - What about private schools? • 1:20:19 Q for P. - How much did they pay you? • 1:20:53 Q for both - Age of adulthood • 1:24:37 Q for K. - How to become a commentator • 1:27:02 Q for both - What is truth? • 1:31:13 Q for both - Where have you been wrong? 1:32:08 *Knowles's Closing Statement* 1:34:21 *Polumbo's Closing Statement*
Ehh, she got all pissy when the gay dude said tits. It went right through my ears until she brought it up. It was kind of “women’s empowerment” type of BS I can’t stand.
The Question about children lighting up and feeling happy when allowed to cross dress, my children lite up and are very very happy when I gave they ice cream for dinner instead of veggies and meat. As a parent it is my job to make sure the child has boundaries, direction morals ethics and so on. Weather they are happy about it or comfortable is not the end goal. Happiness is a momentary feeling, life gives you on a daily basis many emotions. My job is to teach the child how to manage those feelings, all of them good or bad. Stop trying to be thier friend be a parent.
Wow this debate was really nice. I love hearing two level headed people have a conversation and respectfully go back and forth allowing people to come along for the journey. We need more of this, a lot more of this.
Totally agree. I still wish that the original debate would have taken place, as I think it is vitally important to put the two opposing views side by side with 2 competent debaters. I wish we could have people from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum come together in civil debate. Are we past being able to have that occur? I certainly hope not, but I’m hardly comforted with how things turned out. That being said this was a refreshingly cordial experience, and still gave a great deal to think about.
There is a lot of this. Ben Shapiro is one of the few conservatives who does this on a regular basis. There are plenty of podcasts and discussion videos available depending on the topic you’re interested in. The Unbelievable? Podcast for example is a great podcast that always has 2 opposing views regarding the topic of Christianity. Modern Day Debate is another podcast where they always have a dialogue with 2 different opposing views. Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig debate morality on veritas. But just type in the debate topic you’re looking for on UA-cam and you’ll find plenty of respectful dialogues between two opposing views.
I think this debate is arguably more important that the one with the trans Harvard grad that was originally planned. This brought the different between the Libertarians and Conservatives, who oftentimes are on the same side into the light. If we’re gonna succeed as a movement we need to have a clear vision, and fence sitting isn’t gonna work.
i was there, if you were wondering what happened at around 1:02:55 when both moderator and Brad stopped abruptly and Knowles said “some people were transitioning to the front row”. a smaller young lady with a black N95 mask, dark sunglasses, and a hat (clearly trying to mask her appearance) got up and very slowly and grandiosely walked towards the debate stage, prompting all guards in front to begin converting on her, then she sat down in one of the empty reserved seats. She was the 2nd question who asked Brad how much money he made off the event.
(Funny if she’s a trust fund baby or the like.) I love when people want to attack someone for making money, God forbid… As if it has to be the only reason somebody’s doing something. As if it’s automatically dirty and completely negates who someone is and what they do, say, and stand for… Unless we come from a rich family or even still, most of us have/want to earn a living somehow… At least Brad & Knowles (etc) are making money doing something of substance that’s meaningful, something they want to do that’s of service to others, instead of working a fruitless job they hate. You can do both… At least they can individually stand for what they believe in and are capable of discussing it out in the open with maturity. Instead of being passive-aggressive antagonistic creepers that hide behind masks, shades, and head coverings (accomplishing nothing productive whatsoever, in fact doing the opposite)… Good on Brad for honestly clapping back with, “A lot of money.” More power to him. She and most of these protestors are clueless about a lot and haven’t even dealt with the real world yet.
Shoutout to Brad for stepping up and taking this debate and providing a good debate for all those who bought tickets and those who were waiting to watch this online
Yea true but Polumbo is so dumb for comparing Michael to trans activists because the trans activists are trying to force people to bake the cake. Michael isn’t forcing anyone to do anything. Trans people literally have the same rights as everyone else, Michael is just saying they don’t get special privileges to enter women’s spaces because of their identity problems.
Wichael knoWles for the WIN. I have never seen Michael get angry or pass sneaky remarks no matter how dumb his opponents arguments are. Always laughing , always smiling and putting his points across in the most polite and respectful way 🐐💯
@@MrScubajsb But the other guy also has objective truth on his side. He doesn't actually believe men and become women and vice versa. The rest is about vague political ideologies and 'social cohesion', nothing objective about it
One of the best moderators I’ve watched in a long time. She was knowledgeable to both points of view which allowed her to ask the best questions and push on topics for both speakers in the moment. Great job 👏
Doesn’t she do this for a living? Wouldn’t that be why she is moderating this debate? I’m not being a smartass either. I just figured this is her job which is why she’s the moderator.
She literally was too empty minded to determine a conclusion was being stated, and resorted to robotic "your time is up" a mere 3 seconds from the sentence's finish. If she doubled down on this brainlessness and just stayed quiet rather than interjecting with half baked "gotchas", she would be a decent moderator! Instead, she's just not.
Really? I can't stand her. She's stuck up, rude, and arrogant. She's the type that would send someone to jail for speeding even though they were speeding to the hospital because their passenger had just been shot and was about to die. She reminds me of every self-absorbed tyrant I've ever met. The fact she cut off Michael's story because "there were so many hands" was moronic. The whole reason people are watching this is to hear whatever Michael and Brad have to say. She's a control freak with delusions of grandeur.
The debate was great, but above anything else, I have to say I am so impressed with the Moderator. She did a fantastic job of controlling it, being neutral, and aiding the discussion instead of what I have seen from ANY debate put on by any network.
Serious props to the moderator. I'm not sure it would have been a seriously contentious debate because she obviously held biases, but for this format she was perfect. She really pressed them on the issues to flesh everything out for the audience. Seriously entertaining and informative. I came out of it knowing exactly what both sides believe.
Polumbo is so dumb for comparing Michael to trans activists because the trans activists are trying to force people to bake the cake. Michael isn’t forcing anyone to do anything. Trans people literally have the same rights as everyone else, Michael is just saying they don’t get special privileges to enter women’s spaces because of their identity problems.
A great debate from both sides! My issue with Brad's argument is that the transgender debate stopped being about "live and let live" a long time ago. The trans-activists are already forcing their way of life onto society at large, via the media, Hollywood, major corporations, big tech, etc...while I agree with the premise that government sucks at pretty much everything, where else can we turn, to demand that our culture and beliefs be upheld and protected. For all the references to the 1st amendment, neither Michael nor Brad brought up the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. To Michael's point, societies must have some shared ideas and beliefs, in order to function peacefully. We ban behavior like theft, rape, and murder, because we as a society can agree that these behaviors are morally wrong, and destructive to the cohesiveness of society at large.
Those behaviours, like murder and rape, can be banned entirely on the basis of it being an infringement on the rights of the individual rather than based on some sort of moralistic stance. People chemically and surgically altering their bodies to look like the opposite sex is not an infringement on anyone's rights (with the exception of children who are incapable of consenting).
@@BaackTheBaptist So you can simply make it illegal for it to be pushed upon children and illegal for minors to medically alter themselves and thereby force it into a state where its affect is restricted, as much as reasonably possible, to the individual.
@@cinspectorblyatrussauttp4354 The infringement takes place when they occupy spaces intended for the opposite sex. Many of these "adults" demand affirmation, and refuse to allow other people to live their lives.
Props to you, Brad, for standing up for your beliefs and actually showing up to the debate. Without a conversation about the things we disagree on, we will never find common ground or a solution.
Brad was a pretty good debater; and I understand where his more libertarian views come from. But Michael had objective truth on his side (as well as Knowles tier class 😏) and he took this debate.💪 #Wknowles
Michael does not have objective truth on his side, he has what he thinks is objective truth but is really his subjective interpretation of a book written by people. Michael advocates for a theocratic, authoritarian style of government that imposes his preferred religious values on everyone and restricts others ability to pursue their own beliefs. If muslims wanted to impose Islam on all of the US, I would not like that and you wouldn’t either. There should be no difference for Christians.
I thought this was a more thought-*provoking debate than the originally scheduled debate would have been. I was and am more aligned with Michael's point of view, but both debaters spoke the same language so that they could actually debate the other person's arguments. They were also sympathetic to the other person's arguments, as I'm sure much of the audience was as well. My only disappointment is that the bathroom question kept getting interrupted before it was answered. If I'm in any building and they offer a women's restroom - and even moreso a locker room - I should have the reassurance that if I take a future daughter into that locker room she will not be exposed to an adult male. That problem of course is mitigated by single-use restrooms, but the problem cannot be ignored because men/women's restrooms/locker rooms still are implemented nationwide.
and single use restrooms aren't necessarily practical. that would take up ALOT of space. imagine trying to do this at a stadium, or skyscraper. half the building would be bathrooms and we can't compell business owners to take on such costs either
@@GrandMoffOfMars but all women’s bathrooms are singular stalls etc. They are not like a men’s urinal which is the only instance when someone’s genitalia are on display. There is no way that your daughter is going to see any genitalia in a female type bathroom. Even if there were males in there.
Do you see other women’s genitalia on display when you go to a female bathroom? I thought only at men’s urinal do we see penises, unless you are suggesting that urinals be installed in women’s bathrooms for the convenience of trans people. I don’t think you have thought this out have you.
I personally thought some of the main points of disagreement were never quite addressed, to the point that I overall found the debate frustrating. This might be an unpopular opinion, but I thought that every time they started to dialogue and hash out the main points of disagreement (especially where and why we draw the line between regulation and freedom), they were diverted by another question. Just because the questions were good does not mean they all needed to be asked when they were asked.
@@peterbluesman in locker rooms they would, and I believe they still have the right to not have males in the bathroom with them as a matter of safety. Not all trans or men will abuse, there are those that will and will take advantage.
The problem Brad has is he's trying to be honest with a dishonest (and he knows it's dishonest) premise. He can't see the inconsistencies: We draw an arbitrary line with age... and the government draws that line legally... but we can't draw a line for what a woman is. Etc...
When a child(under 12) can't be charged with a crime because they can't fully comprehend the consequences of their actions how can they then justify allowing these same age groups to make such a life altering decision as surgically and permanently changing their bodies
@@t.y.3966 When you have the biggest institutional power in the world, big pharma, whose in circular ownership with woke asset management companies Blackrock and Vanguard. Logic and sense doesn't really matter because they're paying off and blackmailing the people in government that make real decisions to stop this kind of stuff. IMO, the problems discussed in this debate are downstream of the institutions that are causing them. More discussions need to be had about legislative action against domestically housed internationally operated companies. It's these institutions attempting to impose a corporate one-world government that need to be discussed and debated on this scale and larger. Unfortunately, people get stuck in the weeds of things like transgenderism when it's these institutions paying 10-100's of millions of dollars to shove it down people's throats through the media and actor politicians that's the problem.
@@t.y.3966 ohh really then you explain how said argument is wrong? big phram, gets paid when hormones, are given, when surgery happens, and hormones arent a one time thing, its a ongoing treatment. thats why many detransitioners states, that doctors, rushed to get them on hormones, to get them in the operating room. theres a video of a conference, where doctors in the industry admit, this is a multi billion dollar industry, and its profitable, they stated getting a patient for life. so whats your counter? how is it false?
1:05:46 This is the best libertarian argument. My immediate response is that we already live in the world where that bureaucracy is imposing its left leaning ideology onto the rest of us. We’re not starting at neutral and are therefore debating unintended consequences. We’re debating how to respond to a movement and ideology that’s already actively taking ground.
Great content. The Moderator did a fantastic job and both debators were poised and respectful and represented their views well. This was also a good debate to show that libertarians and conservatives are closer ideology than they tend to think.
@@ljb8157 wait so at this point the homosexual who says parents should be allowed to dress their sons up like girls is a right winger? What the hell man
The same people who say that sex change surgeries should be allowed have never seen one. Skin, flesh and muscle are carved out of somebody's arm/leg and attached to the groin, and then they try to stretch the urethra canal so pee can come out, but imagine the infection when your pee comes through your flesh. All health breast tissue is scoupe out of somebody chest, but as you can't possibly get all out, if the person stops taking hormones the residue breast tissue grows and forms lumps on the chest. Or when somebody penis is cut open, the testicles removed, then the remaining skin is turn inside out and the glande put through a hole, while a open wound is formed and the person has to dilate every day so the wound doesn't heal properly... Lobotomy is a walk in the park when compared to this.
This was an absolute pleasure of a debate to watch. We need a lot more of this type of debate in our lives. Although I don’t fully agree with either side, I appreciated the respect and even humour they shared while making their points eloquently and with obvious passion. Also, where can I see more of this moderator, she was incredible.
so is he ok with legalizing minors smoking/drinking/getting tattoos etc? if not then hes ok with some social laws, and he has to explain why some things that ppl regret what they did young hes not ok with legalizing, or is he? hes either gonna be consistant, or he will admit a double standard...
@@117Ender Well yeah, minors should be legally allowed to do that, they are minors, in Scandinavia for example you are allowed as a minor to buy alcohol as a 6-year old, but you are not allowed to sell alcohol to a minor who is 6 years old.
Its like you people didnt watched the debate, brad was against child transtitioning, michael is against transition as a whole, he wants the goverment to ban transtition for children and adults, wich is friking stupid, brads point was that, the goverment can and should ban children transitioning because thay are not of age and have no consent, but you cant put laws on what people over the age of consent do, and let me say something to put things into perspective, the BIG mayority of trans people dont do genital operation, they only do breasts and face, so this is my question, are we banning plastic surgery? Because this is whats that is, face surgery to look more feminine and implanting some tits, are we banning these surgeries to people? Thats stupid
I'm going to disagree with most and say the moderator wasn't effective. This didn't feel like a debate at all. Neither side was able to really question each other and really nail down on one point. It was all over the place.
@@clairelovins8139 I'm curious why you think this issue specifically was such that the debaters shouldn't have been allowed to question each other more.
@@TonyKeeh Ah, I guess I don’t really think that. It would’ve been nice to see more of that. But I still think it was interesting the way it played out. Rather than one “defeating” the other, having a more polite philosophical conversation seemed to be a good way to keep the audience more open, rather than just getting more “fired up” in their original beliefs. That said, I would’ve loved to see Michael *destroy Brad with facts and logic*, but maybe that’s for another time.
I fully agree. Several aspects of the debate were left half-unpacked because of her interjections. It was as though she had a rigid vision of how the debate should go.
@@clairelovins8139 I would agree, except it wasn't even an effective conversation. It was a conversation that kept being interrupted by the moderator, who interjected with a slightly new topic every time they finally started getting somewhere. That's just my opinion.
To the phantom Mccloskry's question regarding parents seeing their children happier playing the role of the opposite sex, there are many harmful things that make people happy that parents should have the foresight to help their children avoid. Eating nothing but candy, smoking weed, drinking alcohol, staying up until 2 a.m., being on social media, playing video games every waking hour. And sometime saying no to things that are wrong causes unhappiness, but that's what it means to be a parent.
1000%. Being a parent means being responsible for your children and being responsible means being tough on them, means holding them accountable and not allowing them to destroy their lives by abdication of our parental responsibilities.
59:33 simple I do it with my son, I tell him “that’s for girls” and boom he immediately doesn’t want whatever it was anymore. A couple times he really wanted rainbow shoes and that I actually felt bad because he doesn’t know about lgb stuff he just really liked rainbows… but that’s also because of lgb stuff everyone in his school, tv pride month crap etc. it’s been all over the place lately, so I just tell him no that’s for girls because I feel the need to counter the propaganda going around trying to influence the children. Hell there was some cartoon show he started watching and I usually hangout and watch it with him, the girl has two dads. I immediately told him sorry bud we can’t watch that, it’s weird. I don’t think it’s our job as parents to let children do whatever they want, dress however they want, speak however they want etc. I think we teach them to be independent, respectful, aware, creative, loving and disciplined and many more. Like with my son I try to implement stoic and man values. Because he’s still learning how one should be socially. and I want him to grow up with strong male values. When he’s older he can make his own decisions and I’ll always be honest with him. You play with girl toys imma tell you that’s for girls and you’re not a girl. We’ve become so soft and afraid to tell someone they’re wrong or afraid to hurt feelings. Like younger kids sports not keeping score or whatever / participation trophies. I’ll tell ya my son keeps score on his own in his soccer games lol. He’ll be the first to tell you they won or they lost. And it builds character. So don’t be afraid to tell your kids something their doing isn’t meant for them or is wrong. Even if they seem to really really like it… because they will get over it in about 2 mins. But if you feed into that you’re planting and watering the seed.
I agree, in my view gender roles are grossly misrepresented. I think gender roles are the best case for everyone, and the issue arises with some exceptions aren't allowed. But I think the average man and average woman does best and is happiest when adhering to tradition. Though the rebellious spirit of humanity probably disagrees with me lol
On the note of the rainbow, I’m not religious but, technically Christian’s get to claim the rainbow and they should take it back, after the flood it was supposed to be Gods promise not to do it again… I might have that a bit off… we need to stand in their way when they try appropriating things…
My grandson is very male. Has always been and is always so. Period! When he was 5-8 yr old, he would play with my little ponies, barbies or whatever his little neighbor kids from the apartments next door were playing with, so that he could get on their level and have someone to play with.
Everyone is like BUT IF I DONT LET THEM THEY MAY HATE ME OR COMMIT SUICIDE LATER and I'm like you are a damn coward bc you don't really care about your kids well being, you are using extreme what if paranoia to take the easy way out and not have to make hard parenting decisions
Agreed. Young boys have to be taught how to be good and strong productive men. They crave rules and challenges whether they know it or not. They need male authority in their lives. This is why sports are so good for boys. We’ve let women and beta males dictate what raising children in our society is supposed to look like for too long. Even my wife, who is a strong conservative woman, sometimes second guesses whether I’m being too hard on my boys. But later she admits that’s what they need.
This moderator is awesome! Challenging and concise questions… quick, adaptive and assertive style. I feel she could do a challenging debate/conversation to either side and I would totally chime in!
I think the biggest problem with Brad's argument is that we don't live in a libertarian society. In the real world we have anti-discrimination law and jurisprudence that isn't going away. The law is either going to come down on the side of women or of transgenderism, it can't do both. It would be great if the courts hadn't destroyed freedom of association in this country but they have and we have to deal with that reality, because the chances of it changing anytime soon are virtually non-existent.
No, he's already addressed that. It doesn't matter which kind of country we live in, we once lived in a slave country. It's irrelevant. Brad's point is, specifically, to keep your government out of the decisions of free people. Not one time did that criticism come up and Knowles properly address it. I expected much better of him here, I was not expecting a Palumbo domination.
@@GarrettTraversI swear I have the exact same thought. I opened the video expecting Michael to dominate the entire debate but I didn’t foresee polumbo Being a very reasonable person and I actually agreed with him a great percentage of the time as opposed to agreeing with Michael only a small bit.
@@GarrettTravers But the government isn't going to stay out of the decisions of people on this, so the point is moot. The government will either recognize a man in woman-face as a legal woman or it won't. If it does, they will have to be treated the exact same as biological women under the law and the courts, police, etc will enforce that. You won't be able to enforce a different standard in your private business. There might be some religious protections for awhile, but nothing outside of that. What exactly is the libertarian solution to that?
Such a great debate!! I most definitely agree with Michael. We need to live by the truth and society must have some rules and norms to guide people. Do the libertarians want no rules at all?? No age limits, no speed limits, no laws on drugs? We must have some limits
Also - Badass moderator, really appreciated how much she pushed the principles of each debator to flesh out the concepts presented on this controversial issue. Freakin' beautifully done l:,)
W For the chat. These comments are wonderful. We need more of the civil discourse and reasonable debate. The though provocation of reasonable debate allows us to consider every side and only with this can we make informed decisions about how we want to live our lives but also how we want our government to be formed and operated.
How can he be quite good if he is wrong? Makes no sense. Either he’s right and thus good, or he is totally wrong in which case he isn’t good by any metric. Grow a pair and stop being a wimp. He’s an enemy of conservatives and actively pushes for the most filthy pedophillic and openly anti-white garbage one could imagine. People like him are why children are getting transed and getting twerked on at drag shows, And you’re here saying he’s “quite good”? To what end? Because you were told lolbertarians are your allies? They aren’t. The founding fathers of the United States would’ve had this guy arrested and locked away for being a pervert. Not joking even 1%.. The founding fathers were far right ethno-nationalists who made homosexuality a federal crime, and made it so only white peoples can hold office, be one citizens, vote, immigrate here or own land etc. . They were not what brad and his team are claiming. They weren’t secular leftists who loved race mixing and homosexuality. All those things were crimes in America. Rightfully so. There were laws against living improperly. This moronic neo-Marxist myth that at any point in American history you could live however you wanted and do whatever you felt like with no government interference, is utter nonsense. Homosexuality was a crime until the 1960s. And here you are cheering the pervert who has decayed this country…. 🤦♂️ I don’t mean to pick on just you. Many on the right do this. But it needs to stop. You don’t cheer your enemies. We are literally on the edge of collapse because of perverts like brad. The founding fathers would be disgusted at this country today. Brad needs to be deported to his own homeland and take his anti-American foreign perversions with him. This is why the right ALWAYS loses. A bunch of weak, effeminate wimps who couldn’t fight back of their children’s lives depended on it. If you actually think groveling to your enemies will win you points somehow. It won’t.
@@Giorginho if you genuinely think that, then you just might not be aware of how low standards of public debate and discourse have fallen in recent years. They both debated well.
How refreshing to hear a debate where both sides are respectful, friendly, well spoken, and not screaming over the other or losing composure. This is what mature discussion looks like and it's LOVELY to see!
Brad defeated his whole premise in the Q&A when he commented rights and laws should stop when it’s only effecting you. Imagine your a female student athlete and a guy just decided he wanted to compete against women and you lose your scholarship because the guy is faster. Or, you feel uncomfortable with the guy going into the locker room and exposing himself. And, when going to the coach or school administrators to complain and ask him to stop exposing himself towards you and the other females, the school tells you to shut up or you’re going to be removed from the team and lose your scholarship. A guys choice of forcing himself into traditional female protected areas does affect those women’s rights.
@@Dan16673 Fully transitioned into what? A eunuch? Men cannot become women and to suggest they have fully transitioned suggests they can and then begs the questions of what is a woman that qualifies them as “fully transitioned”.
We know this. Exactly why people like Micheal knowles exists. What i am noticing is that other men have to be the voice for biological women, cause when biological women speak up were told to shut up. The rights of women are definitely being taken away by....MEN. 😔
@@sg5720 oh trust me, men who speak out about trans people taking over women's spaces are being told to shut up as well. You should see the hate both Knowles and Matt Walsh have been getting recently.
The biggest flaw in libertarian thinking is that it seems to be able to see how a child might not have the right mental faculties to make good decisions but it can’t seem to recognize when an adult wouldn’t be able to make good decisions because of a mental illness. I’ve always had a problem with libertarians saying ‘if someone wants to shoot up drugs in the street and cut off their body parts then who am I to judge?’ Like, you don’t need to judge someone but you should be able to recognize when someone is not mentally well and is incapable of making good decisions and must be guided towards a path that will encourage a higher quality of life.
I think another flaw is the pessimism that America will just "keep getting more liberal". If we love our country and have kids thinking we have a future here we've got to stay optimistic and keep doing our small part to help keep this country as free and successful as possible not just for ourselves but future generations of Americans.
The problem with that line of thinking is the government then gets to determine which adults are or arent fit to make their own decisions, which im sure i don't need to explain to you how that could easily be exploited for evil/malicious purposes.
I really do have to applaud the moderator, even though I felt kinda bad for Brad because I dont think he meant to use that word in a disrespectful way. However, I was really impressed with her patience and fairness for everybody. Excellent job!
Fantastic debate. Watching ISI debates is FAR more satisfying than the non-news we get from the cable channels. Fantastic all around. I thought Knowles won it handily, but it was a great debate all around.
This was an excellent debate. I see Brad's pov, but I definitely agree with Michael. Brad put up some good points. Much better debate I think than the original one planned.
I came to watch this knowing who I was rooting for. I really wanted to know what the opposition is and how they defend it. If an idea can't stand up to scrutiny then it's got to go. If hearing a different side makes me abandon the one I came with, I didn't really understand or stand with it in the first place. Thanks for having this highly civil debate about something that does matter, and will only become more critical until hard lines are drawn.
1:30:31 here is where Brad is accidentally right. He notes that the government intervenes when rights conflict which is precisely what is in question when we talk about whether or not women have the right to their own spaces or whether certain males are allowed to override those rights.
Really enjoyable debate. Came away respecting even the debater I disagreed with. The moderator was truly excellent too. When Brad was shut down for his language is gonna stay in my head. Excellent.
I appreciate the Ben guy for debating Michael but Michael was the clear winner. Michaels opponents comparing about abolishing social security to eradicating transgenderism was just not a very good comparison overall
Love it! Glad Brad stepped it because his position is the reasonable one that needs to be presented and discussed. The position of the professor that chickened out is ridiculous and impossible to defend, there would have been no debate just name calling.
@Only 2 Genders your position is entirely incoherent. You say you disagree with transgenderism yet think we should indulge the delusions and take away the rights of women to their spaces. It’s incoherent. If it’s a lie then we should treat it as a lie.
I live right off Fifth and tuned into this to see what all the hubbub was about. I've never really payed attention to this stuff but the more conservative guy was making a lot more sense than the other guy. They were both really nice though - I tuned in expecting a shouting match based on how it was described!
I absolutely love that there were three well-spoken and professionally acting speakers. Getting people to listen to you has a worthwhile position in discussions.
Andrew Ryan Isn't it a shame how the local news media failed to mention that the event that was being protested by the 'mob' WASN'T 'hate speech', but a discussion between 2 individuals about the transgender issue? The 'mob' is being encouraged to be aggressive and irrational based on what they hear from their 'friends' and from social media, as well as the left-leaning news media.
I understand Brad's concerns about majority rules or top down legislative policy making, but if we agree that rules are needed, we have to make rules somehow! The reason it is illegal to murder, steal and vandalize is because the majority of people recognize those behaviors as objectively amoral. The minority of people who think those things ought to be legal have the opportunity to freely speak their mind, make their case, and try to win people over to their side. I think Brad assumes that morality is far more self-evident than it actually is to us humans. We have a way or making many immoral behaviors legal in society simply because it suits our individual vices and appetites. Either laws are good because they put constraints on immoral human behaviors and are based on declared truths, or they are bad because of their potential to oppress moral behaviors, and then lawlessness is the only ethical solution. There are a few ways to decide what is legal and illegal. One option is a dictator or sovereign monarch who decides for everyone, another option is direct democratic rule, where a relative or absolute majority gets their way across the board. A third option is elected representative republic whose duty it is to represent the interests of people who elected them. Our founding fathers settled on the republic, with only a local issues being subject to a direct vote. As difficult as it is to see how frustrating that form of government can be for those of us who are impatient and morally outraged by what we see as unethical governance, I'm not sure the other two solutions would be any better. God bless these men for daring to take a position and attempt to defend it.
Brad's position that the state shouldn't arbitrate truth appears weak because its logically impossible for the state not to arbitrate the truth of who is/isn't man/woman and make laws regarding men/women. Taken to the logical conclusion the state either must arbitrate some truths (this issue included) or the state shouldn't exist. Then the debate completely changes, which I think is the root of the libertines vs conservative difference.
I think we can legislate to stop transgenderism when it comes to things that are objectively harmful, like transitioning children. We can even get away with banning the teaching of the ideology and it's adjacent ideas. That's pretty much as far as we can go without risking giving the government too much power though. We can't stop adults from doing things that don't directly harm others. Also, the government is incapable of defeating an idea. Only another idea can defeat an idea. We have to come up with something better to offer people, and it can't be just cold hard facts. We need an appeal to emotion, as people don't typically change their minds when confronted with solely facts and logic.
@@russellmania5349 o rly? then you would agree we should destroy the catholic church? cause they have damaged more kids than any trans gibberish could ever hope. Yet micheal is still a hard core catholic. funny how that works. Rules for thee but not for me. Conservatives are just progressives in a differen outfit.
Audience question... "How would you fight back against a school with an implemented pronoun mandate to force people to use a student's preferred pronoun?" Michael answers, "Maybe seek out a school that will provide you with a better education if the school you're attending doesn't even know the difference between Men and Women." lol
Don’t addres that person unless you can just say their name. Example. “Mrs Clark, I would like to be in the same group as Kelly, Kelly said that it would be okay and that Kelly will go find the supplies and I will get started” you just refuse to say she or he - call them by name only. 😌
Easier said than done. That's like Tim Pool's position on cities. Just move out of them. Take your whole life and relocate it. Can't afford to do that? * shrugs shoulders * Depending on your location you might not have access to alternative schools. The solution can't be to just tuck your tail and run.
@@spracketskooch On one hand I do have sympathy for this concern. I know making huge changes in your life isn't easy, especially when there's a financial or social barrier as well. But at some point you just have to bite the bullet and make the change. American pilgrims left everything behind when they came here. Many did so as stowaways. They knew that there was a good chance they wouldn't even survive the voyage. Compared to that, taking your family on a seven day trek across state lines doesn't seem so bad. I don't envy anyone who feels that they have to make that decision, but unless you're being confined by armed forces, you have the option to relocate. We're just too used to comfort to consider it.
@@nanowasabi4421 Again, easier said than done. We're talking about some people that can barely afford necessities, and can't afford to even rent a movie. It's not just a seven day trek across state lines. You have to find, housing, employment, as well as cover all the expenses of a move, unless you're just going to leave behind everything you own. I just don't think you actually understand the barriers that prevent people from moving. Don't you think they would have already done it if they could? Also, I don't get this whole "people did difficult things in the past, they survived harrowing scenarios, so people these days should be able to do the same thing". People have survived years of rape and torture. That doesn't mean anyone else should be expected to do the same. Not to mention that the pilgrims were an extremely small percentage of the English population. Most people just stayed and suffered. You're also forgetting that they had large ships. Do you know how expensive large ships are/were? Someone among the pilgrims had money or insane connections, elsewise they couldn't have afforded ships or the supplies for both the journey, and the first few months of settlement. Then there's also the fact that not everyone, by definition, can just run away from a problem. If conditions are to improve, then some people are going to have to stay behind and try to change policies. Is everyone going to abandon the cities? They'll just create cities elsewhere, and in all likelihood end up creating the same problems in the new cities. If someone doesn't address the cause of the reasons why people are moving, then it'll just become a giant game of whack-a-mole. I appreciate your comment, and your point of view, but I honestly don't think it's as simple as just biting the bullet and moving.
@@spracketskooch Of course there were barriers that I didn't mention in my post. If I brought up every complication I'd have to write a book. But none of them change the essence of what I was saying. I think we need to stop acting like it's ridiculous to expect people to do hard things if the situation demands it of them. I appreciate your point that just because people in the past had it hard, doesn't mean we should expect people today to go through the same struggles. I do have a counter point (though I'm not sure where exactly I stand after taking it into consideration). It is good for people to go through hard times. To channel my inner dad energy, "it builds character". If we live lives that are too easy, we stand the risk of becoming so weak we can't handle a moderate catastrophe when it does happen. "Don't you think they would have already done it [moved] if they could?" It's all a matter of prioritization. My point is that, at some point, if the situation is actually as bad as someone says it is, then moving becomes the preferable option. If they haven't moved yet, then that means the situation isn't that bad.
You are right! We all need to be able to protest and debate, I grew up in the 80s and we had debate in high-school. I loved it, why don't we have move of it, both sides , we always had two have pro and cons. Do they still do that do in high schools, make you think you think for yourself. Not what your teacher teacher thinks but what you think?
Brad constantly referred to any use of government power as authoritarian. I wish Michael had pushed more on the fact that we are a self government, and that all laws are enforcement of morality.
@Only 2 Genders I commented on a UA-cam video, this isn't an essay or a debate. If you somehow missed Brad's multiple accusations of authoritarianism, that's your problem, not mine 👋
which morality? the pedo morality of his faith, catholocism? Or of the bible, which endorses abortion if cheating was involved, slavery, genocide? the list goes on...
I love how Michael handles hecklers. Always calm and finds humor in it
He is an idiot on 2 feet. Never has an argument and shapiros his way through life. I have sympathy because he got molested by priests. But that is it.
Laughing at someone’s threat or insult is the best way to deflate them and show fearlessness and superior self control. Great tactic.
@@CJFrasher I’m I’m just l
I disagree, his jokes were distracting at best
@@mypimpeadorI don't remember anyone asking you
Thank you Brad for stepping up and being willing to debate unlike the previous debater who chickened out.
Amen
What was their name?
@@mallasik4985 I think it was just one person, though i don't remember his name.
@@mallasik4985 dedria mccloskey I think
I agree, I found refreshing a libertarian view
Although I disagree with Brad, I am thrilled to have watched this debate. Brad was calm, precise, and reasonable. The moderator was also top notch. We need more of this!
I'll agree that he was calm, lol
We need more of what? Condescending to a vulnerable group of people and keeping their lives and rights perpetually in limbo as we """debate""" whether they are deserving of basic human dignity and medical care for all eternity?
@@chrisl3987 yes. Because our ideas of what constitutes 'rights', basic human dignity and especially 'medical care' are different and need to be discussed. So yes, more debates like these on a variety of issues would do wonders for the world.
@@chrisl3987 Mutilation and hormonal poisoning are not medical care. Lying to the mentally ill is not dignifying.
@@chrisl3987 Yes debates like these are exactly what we need, before we enact legislation.
We don't make laws and then debate them after, we debate and then create laws.
We need to hear both sides of an issue before we make radical changes to our country.
I won't even disclaim which side of the issue I'm on, but this is exactly what we need more of desperately in our country. (USA)
It is amazing how smooth and informative debates can be when it doesn't involve leftists
That sounds like a statement a woke person would make about conservatives who lives in their own echo chamber. There are lots of progressive thinkers who can have great nuanced debates, just as there are conservatives, such as Marc Lamont Hill, Slavoj Zizek, Cornel West and John McWhorter to name a few.
@The Agnostic Philosopher or.. you wandered too far outside your box?
If you're the type who'd never engage in the rational discussion, you'll be mocked and treated like a child while they double down on your insults. Don't wanna engage in the psychology differences that come with different communities? They'll drop the most abysmal names possible because if rational discourse is impossible, emotional manipulation wins. It's not that complex.
At least their refusal to engage literally comes from a more intelligent political stance, unlike the screeching that accompanies every single one of these speeches, refusing to even hear out the other side or convey their own thoughts.
@kentuky123 you lost me a marc Lamont hill and cornel west.
@@bzeldin82 You got me at hello.
@kentuky123 now you've lost me, Jerry
0:12:22 *Preface*
0:15:29 *Debator Introductions*
0:18:20 *Roadmap & Debate Introduction*
0:20:41 *Protestors Screech* 😱
0:21:53 *Knowles's Opening Statement*
0:26:58 *Polumbo's Opening Statement*
0:33:26 *Knowles's Rebuttal*
0:36:55 *Polumbo's Rebuttal*
*Discussion*
• 0:39:10 Q for P. - Is K. wrong or imprudent?
• 0:41:43 Q for K. - Why lie about only some things?
• 0:46:05 Q for K. - Why should the gov. make truth?
• 0:47:34 P. gives his take
• 0:48:01 Q for P. - Who should be committed?
• 0:49:22 K. gives his take
• 0:49:55 Q for K. - Where are you uncertain?
• 0:52:13 P. gives his take
• 0:52:23 Q for P. - When is someone an adult?
• 0:54:35 K. gives his take
• 0:55:24 Q for P. - Why for adults but not kids?
• 0:56:19 Q for P. - What can a parent consent to?
• 0:57:33 Q for P. - What about growth hormone?
• 0:58:48 Q for K. - But the children say so
• 1:02:07 Q for P. - But the children say so
• 1:05:45 Q for K. - Isn't big gov. dangerous?
• 1:07:19 Q for K. - What about seesawing laws?
• 1:09:36 Q for K. - Is Left winning or Right losing?
• 1:11:24 Q for K. - You're anti-1st Amendment
• 1:13:00 Q for P. - What is free speech for?
*Q&A*
• 1:16:02 Q for K. - Why use big gov.?
• 1:18:28 Q for K. - U.S. too large to be governed?
• 1:18:51 Q for both - What about private schools?
• 1:20:19 Q for P. - How much did they pay you?
• 1:20:53 Q for both - Age of adulthood
• 1:24:37 Q for K. - How to become a commentator
• 1:27:02 Q for both - What is truth?
• 1:31:13 Q for both - Where have you been wrong?
1:32:08 *Knowles's Closing Statement*
1:34:21 *Polumbo's Closing Statement*
You’re a saint 🙏🏽
Not all heroes wear capes🙌
👑
You’re an Angel, thank you!
Thank you!
A+ moderator, she fleshed out every aspect of this topic from both debaters and wasn't hesitant to press them for the finer points
Agreed. One of the best debate moderators I've ever seen.
Leah libressco Sargent. Amazing human
Ehh, she got all pissy when the gay dude said tits. It went right through my ears until she brought it up. It was kind of “women’s empowerment” type of BS I can’t stand.
@@Joshuaiwanski0019 mine perked right up when he said that, as it seemed out of place for a formal debate.
@@Joshuaiwanski0019 Such language is improper for a formal debate. And of course she's a devoutly religious person.
The Question about children lighting up and feeling happy when allowed to cross dress, my children lite up and are very very happy when I gave they ice cream for dinner instead of veggies and meat. As a parent it is my job to make sure the child has boundaries, direction morals ethics and so on. Weather they are happy about it or comfortable is not the end goal. Happiness is a momentary feeling, life gives you on a daily basis many emotions. My job is to teach the child how to manage those feelings, all of them good or bad. Stop trying to be thier friend be a parent.
Your child isn't going to cut off their own genitals if you give them veggies though. They might only throw a temper tantrum
Wow this debate was really nice. I love hearing two level headed people have a conversation and respectfully go back and forth allowing people to come along for the journey. We need more of this, a lot more of this.
Totally agree. I still wish that the original debate would have taken place, as I think it is vitally important to put the two opposing views side by side with 2 competent debaters. I wish we could have people from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum come together in civil debate. Are we past being able to have that occur? I certainly hope not, but I’m hardly comforted with how things turned out.
That being said this was a refreshingly cordial experience, and still gave a great deal to think about.
My thoughts exactly.
There is a lot of this. Ben Shapiro is one of the few conservatives who does this on a regular basis. There are plenty of podcasts and discussion videos available depending on the topic you’re interested in.
The Unbelievable? Podcast for example is a great podcast that always has 2 opposing views regarding the topic of Christianity. Modern Day Debate is another podcast where they always have a dialogue with 2 different opposing views.
Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig debate morality on veritas.
But just type in the debate topic you’re looking for on UA-cam and you’ll find plenty of respectful dialogues between two opposing views.
I think this debate is arguably more important that the one with the trans Harvard grad that was originally planned. This brought the different between the Libertarians and Conservatives, who oftentimes are on the same side into the light. If we’re gonna succeed as a movement we need to have a clear vision, and fence sitting isn’t gonna work.
Embracing Libertarian ideas was the dumbest thing conservatives ever did. It's why we're in this mess.
Good point, hadn't fully thought of it in those terms.
@@jaredcaldwell4270 100%
I believe it would not have been as thought provoking with the original debater
@@jaredcaldwell4270 HEAR HEAR
i was there, if you were wondering what happened at around 1:02:55 when both moderator and Brad stopped abruptly and Knowles said “some people were transitioning to the front row”. a smaller young lady with a black N95 mask, dark sunglasses, and a hat (clearly trying to mask her appearance) got up and very slowly and grandiosely walked towards the debate stage, prompting all guards in front to begin converting on her, then she sat down in one of the empty reserved seats. She was the 2nd question who asked Brad how much money he made off the event.
Especially with the added fear of the violent protest outside, i think most audience members thought she was going to attempt something violent
I whispered to her “that didn’t go as planned did it?”
so she's there trying to make a statement and the best she can do and is try to make this about money?
(Funny if she’s a trust fund baby or the like.) I love when people want to attack someone for making money, God forbid… As if it has to be the only reason somebody’s doing something. As if it’s automatically dirty and completely negates who someone is and what they do, say, and stand for… Unless we come from a rich family or even still, most of us have/want to earn a living somehow… At least Brad & Knowles (etc) are making money doing something of substance that’s meaningful, something they want to do that’s of service to others, instead of working a fruitless job they hate. You can do both… At least they can individually stand for what they believe in and are capable of discussing it out in the open with maturity. Instead of being passive-aggressive antagonistic creepers that hide behind masks, shades, and head coverings (accomplishing nothing productive whatsoever, in fact doing the opposite)… Good on Brad for honestly clapping back with, “A lot of money.” More power to him. She and most of these protestors are clueless about a lot and haven’t even dealt with the real world yet.
he made 10,000 of the event its public knowledge who gives a fuck
Shoutout to Brad for stepping up and taking this debate and providing a good debate for all those who bought tickets and those who were waiting to watch this online
Yea true but Polumbo is so dumb for comparing Michael to trans activists because the trans activists are trying to force people to bake the cake. Michael isn’t forcing anyone to do anything. Trans people literally have the same rights as everyone else, Michael is just saying they don’t get special privileges to enter women’s spaces because of their identity problems.
He is a problem, he is homosexuals
If only we could have a moderator like this during presidential debates.
Wichael knoWles for the WIN.
I have never seen Michael get angry or pass sneaky remarks no matter how dumb his opponents arguments are. Always laughing , always smiling and putting his points across in the most polite and respectful way 🐐💯
@@MrScubajsb But the other guy also has objective truth on his side. He doesn't actually believe men and become women and vice versa. The rest is about vague political ideologies and 'social cohesion', nothing objective about it
One of the best moderators I’ve watched in a long time. She was knowledgeable to both points of view which allowed her to ask the best questions and push on topics for both speakers in the moment. Great job 👏
I love this debate moderator. She needs to do this for a living because she’s incredibly fair with how she handles herself and the debaters.
Absolutely
Doesn’t she do this for a living? Wouldn’t that be why she is moderating this debate? I’m not being a smartass either. I just figured this is her job which is why she’s the moderator.
She does do this for a living
She literally was too empty minded to determine a conclusion was being stated, and resorted to robotic "your time is up" a mere 3 seconds from the sentence's finish.
If she doubled down on this brainlessness and just stayed quiet rather than interjecting with half baked "gotchas", she would be a decent moderator! Instead, she's just not.
Really? I can't stand her. She's stuck up, rude, and arrogant. She's the type that would send someone to jail for speeding even though they were speeding to the hospital because their passenger had just been shot and was about to die. She reminds me of every self-absorbed tyrant I've ever met. The fact she cut off Michael's story because "there were so many hands" was moronic. The whole reason people are watching this is to hear whatever Michael and Brad have to say. She's a control freak with delusions of grandeur.
The debate was great, but above anything else, I have to say I am so impressed with the Moderator. She did a fantastic job of controlling it, being neutral, and aiding the discussion instead of what I have seen from ANY debate put on by any network.
Agreed. The moderator stuck out more to me than anything else. She was a model for what a moderator ought be.
This is what happens when generations of men are addicted to touching themselves. The average, biased and dimwitted appears the opposite. Sad.
She was far from neutral. A very bad moderator in my opinion.
This was a wonderful debate. Everyone was respectful… never seen that before.
Not surprisingly, both of the debaters come from the right side of the aisle.
@@corybarrett2394 Polumbo is obviously on the left lol
Serious props to the moderator. I'm not sure it would have been a seriously contentious debate because she obviously held biases, but for this format she was perfect. She really pressed them on the issues to flesh everything out for the audience. Seriously entertaining and informative. I came out of it knowing exactly what both sides believe.
Polumbo is so dumb for comparing Michael to trans activists because the trans activists are trying to force people to bake the cake. Michael isn’t forcing anyone to do anything. Trans people literally have the same rights as everyone else, Michael is just saying they don’t get special privileges to enter women’s spaces because of their identity problems.
Her biases were obvious. Obviously a diversity hire, and not a good moderator.
A great debate from both sides! My issue with Brad's argument is that the transgender debate stopped being about "live and let live" a long time ago. The trans-activists are already forcing their way of life onto society at large, via the media, Hollywood, major corporations, big tech, etc...while I agree with the premise that government sucks at pretty much everything, where else can we turn, to demand that our culture and beliefs be upheld and protected. For all the references to the 1st amendment, neither Michael nor Brad brought up the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. To Michael's point, societies must have some shared ideas and beliefs, in order to function peacefully. We ban behavior like theft, rape, and murder, because we as a society can agree that these behaviors are morally wrong, and destructive to the cohesiveness of society at large.
Those behaviours, like murder and rape, can be banned entirely on the basis of it being an infringement on the rights of the individual rather than based on some sort of moralistic stance. People chemically and surgically altering their bodies to look like the opposite sex is not an infringement on anyone's rights (with the exception of children who are incapable of consenting).
Theft, rape, and murder effect other people. What some adult does with there body does not effect me or you.
@@evacody1249 They push it on children, so it doesn't only effect themselves.
@@BaackTheBaptist So you can simply make it illegal for it to be pushed upon children and illegal for minors to medically alter themselves and thereby force it into a state where its affect is restricted, as much as reasonably possible, to the individual.
@@cinspectorblyatrussauttp4354 The infringement takes place when they occupy spaces intended for the opposite sex. Many of these "adults" demand affirmation, and refuse to allow other people to live their lives.
Props to you, Brad, for standing up for your beliefs and actually showing up to the debate. Without a conversation about the things we disagree on, we will never find common ground or a solution.
Brad was a pretty good debater; and I understand where his more libertarian views come from. But Michael had objective truth on his side (as well as Knowles tier class 😏) and he took this debate.💪 #Wknowles
Michael does not have objective truth on his side, he has what he thinks is objective truth but is really his subjective interpretation of a book written by people.
Michael advocates for a theocratic, authoritarian style of government that imposes his preferred religious values on everyone and restricts others ability to pursue their own beliefs.
If muslims wanted to impose Islam on all of the US, I would not like that and you wouldn’t either. There should be no difference for Christians.
Couldn’t agree more, Knowles was excellent and as I have to side with him for speaking the truth
Libertarians are living in fantasy world and their ideas have been demolished years ago.
@@Mobius118 Which True, the religious one? lol
@katrinayakizz
And what's wrong with a religious truth? Or you're trying to sound half smart?
I thought this was a more thought-*provoking debate than the originally scheduled debate would have been. I was and am more aligned with Michael's point of view, but both debaters spoke the same language so that they could actually debate the other person's arguments. They were also sympathetic to the other person's arguments, as I'm sure much of the audience was as well.
My only disappointment is that the bathroom question kept getting interrupted before it was answered. If I'm in any building and they offer a women's restroom - and even moreso a locker room - I should have the reassurance that if I take a future daughter into that locker room she will not be exposed to an adult male. That problem of course is mitigated by single-use restrooms, but the problem cannot be ignored because men/women's restrooms/locker rooms still are implemented nationwide.
and single use restrooms aren't necessarily practical. that would take up ALOT of space. imagine trying to do this at a stadium, or skyscraper. half the building would be bathrooms
and we can't compell business owners to take on such costs either
@@GrandMoffOfMars but all women’s bathrooms are singular stalls etc. They are not like a men’s urinal which is the only instance when someone’s genitalia are on display. There is no way that your daughter is going to see any genitalia in a female type bathroom. Even if there were males in there.
Do you see other women’s genitalia on display when you go to a female bathroom? I thought only at men’s urinal do we see penises, unless you are suggesting that urinals be installed in women’s bathrooms for the convenience of trans people. I don’t think you have thought this out have you.
I personally thought some of the main points of disagreement were never quite addressed, to the point that I overall found the debate frustrating. This might be an unpopular opinion, but I thought that every time they started to dialogue and hash out the main points of disagreement (especially where and why we draw the line between regulation and freedom), they were diverted by another question. Just because the questions were good does not mean they all needed to be asked when they were asked.
@@peterbluesman in locker rooms they would, and I believe they still have the right to not have males in the bathroom with them as a matter of safety. Not all trans or men will abuse, there are those that will and will take advantage.
The problem Brad has is he's trying to be honest with a dishonest (and he knows it's dishonest) premise. He can't see the inconsistencies:
We draw an arbitrary line with age... and the government draws that line legally... but we can't draw a line for what a woman is.
Etc...
Some states are hones to say that a 14 year old can marry. Well that is wrong
@@katrinayakizz yeah repubs defend that. folks like michaels friend matt think that is ok
So why can't we draw an arbitrary line for women which includes trans women? Your logic doesn't take things any further.
@@Dan16673 I doubt that
@@Dan16673 Seems like ur just promoting zombie claims based on nasty and untrue stereotypes
Don't make a "one size fits all" solution he says, after suggesting a "unisex" bathroom, lol. Ironic.
When a child(under 12) can't be charged with a crime because they can't fully comprehend the consequences of their actions how can they then justify allowing these same age groups to make such a life altering decision as surgically and permanently changing their bodies
Easy answer. Big pharma doesn't make money if a child is charged with a crime or not.
Bingo
@@franke102 Spoken like someone who doesn't know anything about this topic that watched a debate and still understood nothing.
@@t.y.3966 When you have the biggest institutional power in the world, big pharma, whose in circular ownership with woke asset management companies Blackrock and Vanguard. Logic and sense doesn't really matter because they're paying off and blackmailing the people in government that make real decisions to stop this kind of stuff.
IMO, the problems discussed in this debate are downstream of the institutions that are causing them. More discussions need to be had about legislative action against domestically housed internationally operated companies. It's these institutions attempting to impose a corporate one-world government that need to be discussed and debated on this scale and larger. Unfortunately, people get stuck in the weeds of things like transgenderism when it's these institutions paying 10-100's of millions of dollars to shove it down people's throats through the media and actor politicians that's the problem.
@@t.y.3966 ohh really then you explain how said argument is wrong? big phram, gets paid when hormones, are given, when surgery happens, and hormones arent a one time thing, its a ongoing treatment. thats why many detransitioners states, that doctors, rushed to get them on hormones, to get them in the operating room. theres a video of a conference, where doctors in the industry admit, this is a multi billion dollar industry, and its profitable, they stated getting a patient for life. so whats your counter? how is it false?
Praise Jesus.
👍📖🇺🇸🕊️🙏💯
Amen brother.
Amen Alleluia!
Why?
@@traditionalsoldier3639 Youll see one day
Good moderator. She's in control, polite, and well informed. Nice work!
1:05:46 This is the best libertarian argument. My immediate response is that we already live in the world where that bureaucracy is imposing its left leaning ideology onto the rest of us. We’re not starting at neutral and are therefore debating unintended consequences. We’re debating how to respond to a movement and ideology that’s already actively taking ground.
Libertarian - communism for cool kids.
You're confused.
@@t.y.3966 In what way?
Great content. The Moderator did a fantastic job and both debators were poised and respectful and represented their views well. This was also a good debate to show that libertarians and conservatives are closer ideology than they tend to think.
That's because neither of them are on the left.... so, of course, it was civil!
@@ljb8157 wait so at this point the homosexual who says parents should be allowed to dress their sons up like girls is a right winger? What the hell man
@@slapyomomma8727 I didn't say that. He's a libertarian. That's not the left. Not even a little.
Nice to see a debate with a good moderator. I hope we get more of these debates, really interesting to listen to
This was Incredible. Much respect to all of the speakers in the stage.
I've listened to Michael Knowles show every day for years. But this moderator is the smartest in the room. Total Champ.
The same people who say that sex change surgeries should be allowed have never seen one. Skin, flesh and muscle are carved out of somebody's arm/leg and attached to the groin, and then they try to stretch the urethra canal so pee can come out, but imagine the infection when your pee comes through your flesh. All health breast tissue is scoupe out of somebody chest, but as you can't possibly get all out, if the person stops taking hormones the residue breast tissue grows and forms lumps on the chest. Or when somebody penis is cut open, the testicles removed, then the remaining skin is turn inside out and the glande put through a hole, while a open wound is formed and the person has to dilate every day so the wound doesn't heal properly... Lobotomy is a walk in the park when compared to this.
Gruesome.
Dear LORD 😥im gonna hold onto this piece of information. Very useful, thank you
So nice and refreshing to see a real, actual debate.
I apreciate you both for having this debate thank you for stepping up🎉❤
This was an absolute pleasure of a debate to watch. We need a lot more of this type of debate in our lives. Although I don’t fully agree with either side, I appreciated the respect and even humour they shared while making their points eloquently and with obvious passion. Also, where can I see more of this moderator, she was incredible.
I’m fully prepared to be this moderator’s devoted fangirl.
She’s got some great talks about her conversion on UA-cam. Brilliant lady used to teach ‘stats’ I think as well being a debate liberal arts person.
@@markbirmingham6011 what's her name?
@@ilikecommenting6849 Leah Libresco Sargeant.
@@ilikecommenting6849 Leah lebressco Sargent (if you watched the video, don’t say tits around her lol)
Absolutely. She was tits.
Brad did a great job at defending the undefensible. His position is, I don't want government passing social laws.
so is he ok with legalizing minors smoking/drinking/getting tattoos etc? if not then hes ok with some social laws, and he has to explain why some things that ppl regret what they did young hes not ok with legalizing, or is he? hes either gonna be consistant, or he will admit a double standard...
@@117Ender Well yeah, minors should be legally allowed to do that, they are minors, in Scandinavia for example you are allowed as a minor to buy alcohol as a 6-year old, but you are not allowed to sell alcohol to a minor who is 6 years old.
Its like you people didnt watched the debate, brad was against child transtitioning, michael is against transition as a whole, he wants the goverment to ban transtition for children and adults, wich is friking stupid, brads point was that, the goverment can and should ban children transitioning because thay are not of age and have no consent, but you cant put laws on what people over the age of consent do, and let me say something to put things into perspective, the BIG mayority of trans people dont do genital operation, they only do breasts and face, so this is my question, are we banning plastic surgery? Because this is whats that is, face surgery to look more feminine and implanting some tits, are we banning these surgeries to people? Thats stupid
One of the best debates Ive ever seen- thank you!
What an awesome debate. I was challenged to think about things differently and the question has deepened rather than the answer. Thank you.
I'm going to disagree with most and say the moderator wasn't effective. This didn't feel like a debate at all. Neither side was able to really question each other and really nail down on one point. It was all over the place.
I see your point. But I honestly think she and her style of moderation were perfect for this issue
@@clairelovins8139 I'm curious why you think this issue specifically was such that the debaters shouldn't have been allowed to question each other more.
@@TonyKeeh Ah, I guess I don’t really think that. It would’ve been nice to see more of that. But I still think it was interesting the way it played out. Rather than one “defeating” the other, having a more polite philosophical conversation seemed to be a good way to keep the audience more open, rather than just getting more “fired up” in their original beliefs. That said, I would’ve loved to see Michael *destroy Brad with facts and logic*, but maybe that’s for another time.
I fully agree. Several aspects of the debate were left half-unpacked because of her interjections. It was as though she had a rigid vision of how the debate should go.
@@clairelovins8139 I would agree, except it wasn't even an effective conversation. It was a conversation that kept being interrupted by the moderator, who interjected with a slightly new topic every time they finally started getting somewhere. That's just my opinion.
To the phantom Mccloskry's question regarding parents seeing their children happier playing the role of the opposite sex, there are many harmful things that make people happy that parents should have the foresight to help their children avoid. Eating nothing but candy, smoking weed, drinking alcohol, staying up until 2 a.m., being on social media, playing video games every waking hour. And sometime saying no to things that are wrong causes unhappiness, but that's what it means to be a parent.
1000%. Being a parent means being responsible for your children and being responsible means being tough on them, means holding them accountable and not allowing them to destroy their lives by abdication of our parental responsibilities.
God bless Michael et al. Thanks to Brad, Leah, & ISS for the event!
God the hater?
Very nice to see and listen to a respectful informative and polite debate. I've not seen one in the long time.
59:33 simple I do it with my son, I tell him “that’s for girls” and boom he immediately doesn’t want whatever it was anymore. A couple times he really wanted rainbow shoes and that I actually felt bad because he doesn’t know about lgb stuff he just really liked rainbows… but that’s also because of lgb stuff everyone in his school, tv pride month crap etc. it’s been all over the place lately, so I just tell him no that’s for girls because I feel the need to counter the propaganda going around trying to influence the children.
Hell there was some cartoon show he started watching and I usually hangout and watch it with him, the girl has two dads. I immediately told him sorry bud we can’t watch that, it’s weird.
I don’t think it’s our job as parents to let children do whatever they want, dress however they want, speak however they want etc. I think we teach them to be independent, respectful, aware, creative, loving and disciplined and many more. Like with my son I try to implement stoic and man values. Because he’s still learning how one should be socially. and I want him to grow up with strong male values. When he’s older he can make his own decisions and I’ll always be honest with him.
You play with girl toys imma tell you that’s for girls and you’re not a girl. We’ve become so soft and afraid to tell someone they’re wrong or afraid to hurt feelings. Like younger kids sports not keeping score or whatever / participation trophies. I’ll tell ya my son keeps score on his own in his soccer games lol. He’ll be the first to tell you they won or they lost. And it builds character.
So don’t be afraid to tell your kids something their doing isn’t meant for them or is wrong. Even if they seem to really really like it… because they will get over it in about 2 mins. But if you feed into that you’re planting and watering the seed.
I agree, in my view gender roles are grossly misrepresented. I think gender roles are the best case for everyone, and the issue arises with some exceptions aren't allowed. But I think the average man and average woman does best and is happiest when adhering to tradition.
Though the rebellious spirit of humanity probably disagrees with me lol
On the note of the rainbow, I’m not religious but, technically Christian’s get to claim the rainbow and they should take it back, after the flood it was supposed to be Gods promise not to do it again… I might have that a bit off… we need to stand in their way when they try appropriating things…
My grandson is very male. Has always been and is always so. Period!
When he was 5-8 yr old, he would play with my little ponies, barbies or whatever his little neighbor kids from the apartments next door were playing with, so that he could get on their level and have someone to play with.
Everyone is like BUT IF I DONT LET THEM THEY MAY HATE ME OR COMMIT SUICIDE LATER
and I'm like you are a damn coward bc you don't really care about your kids well being, you are using extreme what if paranoia to take the easy way out and not have to make hard parenting decisions
Agreed. Young boys have to be taught how to be good and strong productive men. They crave rules and challenges whether they know it or not. They need male authority in their lives. This is why sports are so good for boys.
We’ve let women and beta males dictate what raising children in our society is supposed to look like for too long.
Even my wife, who is a strong conservative woman, sometimes second guesses whether I’m being too hard on my boys. But later she admits that’s what they need.
This moderator is giving a master class in how to ask very tough questions to both sides
This moderator is awesome! Challenging and concise questions… quick, adaptive and assertive style. I feel she could do a challenging debate/conversation to either side and I would totally chime in!
Big respect to Brad for stepping up last minute and saving the event.
Worst homosexual
Awesome and professional debate guys. 👏👏
Both held their own. Good debate. I end up siding more with Michael.
I love the host. Wonderfully done!
There is NOTHING better in a debate than good sportsmanship between the two opponents! This was a great example of that👏👏👏
I think the biggest problem with Brad's argument is that we don't live in a libertarian society. In the real world we have anti-discrimination law and jurisprudence that isn't going away. The law is either going to come down on the side of women or of transgenderism, it can't do both. It would be great if the courts hadn't destroyed freedom of association in this country but they have and we have to deal with that reality, because the chances of it changing anytime soon are virtually non-existent.
No, he's already addressed that. It doesn't matter which kind of country we live in, we once lived in a slave country. It's irrelevant. Brad's point is, specifically, to keep your government out of the decisions of free people. Not one time did that criticism come up and Knowles properly address it. I expected much better of him here, I was not expecting a Palumbo domination.
@@GarrettTraversI swear I have the exact same thought. I opened the video expecting Michael to dominate the entire debate but I didn’t foresee polumbo Being a very reasonable person and I actually agreed with him a great percentage of the time as opposed to agreeing with Michael only a small bit.
Freedom of association means the country breaks apart
@@GarrettTravers “keep government out” is a lame general sentiment at best, and isn’t possible in reality.
@@GarrettTravers But the government isn't going to stay out of the decisions of people on this, so the point is moot. The government will either recognize a man in woman-face as a legal woman or it won't. If it does, they will have to be treated the exact same as biological women under the law and the courts, police, etc will enforce that. You won't be able to enforce a different standard in your private business. There might be some religious protections for awhile, but nothing outside of that. What exactly is the libertarian solution to that?
Thank you for a civil and well moderated debate. God bless our country
Such a great debate!! I most definitely agree with Michael. We need to live by the truth and society must have some rules and norms to guide people. Do the libertarians want no rules at all?? No age limits, no speed limits, no laws on drugs? We must have some limits
Also - Badass moderator, really appreciated how much she pushed the principles of each debator to flesh out the concepts presented on this controversial issue. Freakin' beautifully done l:,)
Major difference is that Michael is advocating for children and Brad is advocating for adults. Children come before adults.
Really enjoyed this. I am on Michael's side; but, Brad had some great points and concerns. Thank you both for a respectful debate.
Excellent debate...each side made great points. This is the debate I have in my head everyday.
W For the chat. These comments are wonderful. We need more of the civil discourse and reasonable debate. The though provocation of reasonable debate allows us to consider every side and only with this can we make informed decisions about how we want to live our lives but also how we want our government to be formed and operated.
Honestly I disagree with Brad but he was quite good
Great debate all around
Im a Libertarian and disagree with Brad on some stuff but he is none the less always an honest actor which is all that matters in the end.
How can he be quite good if he is wrong? Makes no sense. Either he’s right and thus good, or he is totally wrong in which case he isn’t good by any metric.
Grow a pair and stop being a wimp. He’s an enemy of conservatives and actively pushes for the most filthy pedophillic and openly anti-white garbage one could imagine. People like him are why children are getting transed and getting twerked on at drag shows, And you’re here saying he’s “quite good”? To what end? Because you were told lolbertarians are your allies? They aren’t.
The founding fathers of the United States would’ve had this guy arrested and locked away for being a pervert. Not joking even 1%.. The founding fathers were far right ethno-nationalists who made homosexuality a federal crime, and made it so only white peoples can hold office, be one citizens, vote, immigrate here or own land etc. . They were not what brad and his team are claiming. They weren’t secular leftists who loved race mixing and homosexuality. All those things were crimes in America. Rightfully so. There were laws against living improperly.
This moronic neo-Marxist myth that at any point in American history you could live however you wanted and do whatever you felt like with no government interference, is utter nonsense.
Homosexuality was a crime until the 1960s.
And here you are cheering the pervert who has decayed this country…. 🤦♂️
I don’t mean to pick on just you. Many on the right do this. But it needs to stop. You don’t cheer your enemies. We are literally on the edge of collapse because of perverts like brad. The founding fathers would be disgusted at this country today.
Brad needs to be deported to his own homeland and take his anti-American foreign perversions with him.
This is why the right ALWAYS loses. A bunch of weak, effeminate wimps who couldn’t fight back of their children’s lives depended on it. If you actually think groveling to your enemies will win you points somehow. It won’t.
He really wasn't any good
@@Giorginho if you genuinely think that, then you just might not be aware of how low standards of public debate and discourse have fallen in recent years. They both debated well.
@@suv2w I mean his arguments are weak and arbitrary, he himself has some charisma as a debater. Though I agree the standards are pretty low
I appreciate the debate and thank you Polumbo for taking on Knowles 😊 since mcklosky was scared
How refreshing to hear a debate where both sides are respectful, friendly, well spoken, and not screaming over the other or losing composure. This is what mature discussion looks like and it's LOVELY to see!
Great debate. Thanks!
The moderator was incredible, did a great job at bringing them back to the question at hand
Brad defeated his whole premise in the Q&A when he commented rights and laws should stop when it’s only effecting you.
Imagine your a female student athlete and a guy just decided he wanted to compete against women and you lose your scholarship because the guy is faster. Or, you feel uncomfortable with the guy going into the locker room and exposing himself. And, when going to the coach or school administrators to complain and ask him to stop exposing himself towards you and the other females, the school tells you to shut up or you’re going to be removed from the team and lose your scholarship. A guys choice of forcing himself into traditional female protected areas does affect those women’s rights.
only allow it if they fully transition
@@Dan16673 Fully transitioned into what? A eunuch? Men cannot become women and to suggest they have fully transitioned suggests they can and then begs the questions of what is a woman that qualifies them as “fully transitioned”.
@@briandeal8927 I mean commit to doing the full surgery. That way you at least eliminate the tuckers and bearded "ladies"
We know this. Exactly why people like Micheal knowles exists. What i am noticing is that other men have to be the voice for biological women, cause when biological women speak up were told to shut up. The rights of women are definitely being taken away by....MEN. 😔
@@sg5720 oh trust me, men who speak out about trans people taking over women's spaces are being told to shut up as well. You should see the hate both Knowles and Matt Walsh have been getting recently.
The biggest flaw in libertarian thinking is that it seems to be able to see how a child might not have the right mental faculties to make good decisions but it can’t seem to recognize when an adult wouldn’t be able to make good decisions because of a mental illness.
I’ve always had a problem with libertarians saying ‘if someone wants to shoot up drugs in the street and cut off their body parts then who am I to judge?’ Like, you don’t need to judge someone but you should be able to recognize when someone is not mentally well and is incapable of making good decisions and must be guided towards a path that will encourage a higher quality of life.
I think another flaw is the pessimism that America will just "keep getting more liberal". If we love our country and have kids thinking we have a future here we've got to stay optimistic and keep doing our small part to help keep this country as free and successful as possible not just for ourselves but future generations of Americans.
The problem with that line of thinking is the government then gets to determine which adults are or arent fit to make their own decisions, which im sure i don't need to explain to you how that could easily be exploited for evil/malicious purposes.
Great opening on both sides. I love these debates.
I really do have to applaud the moderator, even though I felt kinda bad for Brad because I dont think he meant to use that word in a disrespectful way. However, I was really impressed with her patience and fairness for everybody. Excellent job!
He shouldn't have let that one slip out. It was obviously incredibly disrespectful.
@@inchristalone25pleaseee it wasn’t
I really enjoyed the debate. Very well moderated
Fantastic debate. Watching ISI debates is FAR more satisfying than the non-news we get from the cable channels. Fantastic all around. I thought Knowles won it handily, but it was a great debate all around.
Happy I'm not a libertarian after this...
Libertarians are too busy arguing with each other
Super impressed with the professionalism of the debate moderator.
Excellent debate. Well done by all 3.
Great moderator and interesting talk.
This is a high quality debate. Well done, everyone.
This was an excellent debate. I see Brad's pov, but I definitely agree with Michael. Brad put up some good points. Much better debate I think than the original one planned.
At least brad is against transitioning kids.
Why are you against brad?
I came to watch this knowing who I was rooting for. I really wanted to know what the opposition is and how they defend it. If an idea can't stand up to scrutiny then it's got to go. If hearing a different side makes me abandon the one I came with, I didn't really understand or stand with it in the first place. Thanks for having this highly civil debate about something that does matter, and will only become more critical until hard lines are drawn.
Excellent drbate. Loved that things stayed civiled. Monitor was amazing, can she do the presidential debates if they occur? 😁
1:30:31 here is where Brad is accidentally right. He notes that the government intervenes when rights conflict which is precisely what is in question when we talk about whether or not women have the right to their own spaces or whether certain males are allowed to override those rights.
41:25 look I’m not picking sides or anything, but the fact that she got so mad at him for that is so irritating to me
Yeah I’m glad I’m not the only one that thought. You could tell the way she was holding the gavel she was just so power hungry
Same. And I am very conservative and disagree with Brad entirely on this. I don’t like such language but that was out of line.
(Also Blaire would absolutely not care about referring to breasts as tits lmao)
It came off as very sanctimonious.
You can tell she’s never been told she’s got nice ones.
Well done by the debaters, but especially excellent work by the moderator! I'd like to hear more from her.
Really enjoyable debate. Came away respecting even the debater I disagreed with. The moderator was truly excellent too. When Brad was shut down for his language is gonna stay in my head. Excellent.
Everyone involved did great 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Another victory by Michael, god bless yall.
I appreciate the Ben guy for debating Michael but Michael was the clear winner. Michaels opponents comparing about abolishing social security to eradicating transgenderism was just not a very good comparison overall
I dont see how? I believe we need to erradicate bad religion
Love it! Glad Brad stepped it because his position is the reasonable one that needs to be presented and discussed. The position of the professor that chickened out is ridiculous and impossible to defend, there would have been no debate just name calling.
@Only 2 Genders your position is entirely incoherent. You say you disagree with transgenderism yet think we should indulge the delusions and take away the rights of women to their spaces. It’s incoherent. If it’s a lie then we should treat it as a lie.
Wow, Michael, what a brilliant and articulate debater you are…who knew!
41:30 She did not fail to seize that feminist moment.
Very well argued - respectful and civilized and in good faith and also very well moderated, she's really great. Impressive performance by all three!
I live right off Fifth and tuned into this to see what all the hubbub was about. I've never really payed attention to this stuff but the more conservative guy was making a lot more sense than the other guy. They were both really nice though - I tuned in expecting a shouting match based on how it was described!
I absolutely love that there were three well-spoken and professionally acting speakers. Getting people to listen to you has a worthwhile position in discussions.
Andrew Ryan Isn't it a shame how the local news media failed to mention that the event that was being protested by the 'mob' WASN'T 'hate speech', but a discussion between 2 individuals about the transgender issue? The 'mob' is being encouraged to be aggressive and irrational based on what they hear from their 'friends' and from social media, as well as the left-leaning news media.
Great debate! I wish the focus of "the bathroom issue" was discussed more.
I understand Brad's concerns about majority rules or top down legislative policy making, but if we agree that rules are needed, we have to make rules somehow! The reason it is illegal to murder, steal and vandalize is because the majority of people recognize those behaviors as objectively amoral. The minority of people who think those things ought to be legal have the opportunity to freely speak their mind, make their case, and try to win people over to their side. I think Brad assumes that morality is far more self-evident than it actually is to us humans. We have a way or making many immoral behaviors legal in society simply because it suits our individual vices and appetites. Either laws are good because they put constraints on immoral human behaviors and are based on declared truths, or they are bad because of their potential to oppress moral behaviors, and then lawlessness is the only ethical solution. There are a few ways to decide what is legal and illegal. One option is a dictator or sovereign monarch who decides for everyone, another option is direct democratic rule, where a relative or absolute majority gets their way across the board. A third option is elected representative republic whose duty it is to represent the interests of people who elected them. Our founding fathers settled on the republic, with only a local issues being subject to a direct vote. As difficult as it is to see how frustrating that form of government can be for those of us who are impatient and morally outraged by what we see as unethical governance, I'm not sure the other two solutions would be any better. God bless these men for daring to take a position and attempt to defend it.
he is playing the middle ground. michael wants its completely gone
Brad's position that the state shouldn't arbitrate truth appears weak because its logically impossible for the state not to arbitrate the truth of who is/isn't man/woman and make laws regarding men/women. Taken to the logical conclusion the state either must arbitrate some truths (this issue included) or the state shouldn't exist. Then the debate completely changes, which I think is the root of the libertines vs conservative difference.
I think we can legislate to stop transgenderism when it comes to things that are objectively harmful, like transitioning children. We can even get away with banning the teaching of the ideology and it's adjacent ideas. That's pretty much as far as we can go without risking giving the government too much power though. We can't stop adults from doing things that don't directly harm others. Also, the government is incapable of defeating an idea. Only another idea can defeat an idea. We have to come up with something better to offer people, and it can't be just cold hard facts. We need an appeal to emotion, as people don't typically change their minds when confronted with solely facts and logic.
@@Dan16673
The trans activists brought this on themselves and have nobody to blame, but themselves.
@@russellmania5349 o rly? then you would agree we should destroy the catholic church? cause they have damaged more kids than any trans gibberish could ever hope. Yet micheal is still a hard core catholic. funny how that works. Rules for thee but not for me. Conservatives are just progressives in a differen outfit.
Audience question... "How would you fight back against a school with an implemented pronoun mandate to force people to use a student's preferred pronoun?"
Michael answers, "Maybe seek out a school that will provide you with a better education if the school you're attending doesn't even know the difference between Men and Women." lol
Don’t addres that person unless you can just say their name. Example. “Mrs Clark, I would like to be in the same group as Kelly, Kelly said that it would be okay and that Kelly will go find the supplies and I will get started” you just refuse to say she or he - call them by name only. 😌
Easier said than done. That's like Tim Pool's position on cities. Just move out of them. Take your whole life and relocate it. Can't afford to do that? * shrugs shoulders * Depending on your location you might not have access to alternative schools. The solution can't be to just tuck your tail and run.
@@spracketskooch
On one hand I do have sympathy for this concern. I know making huge changes in your life isn't easy, especially when there's a financial or social barrier as well. But at some point you just have to bite the bullet and make the change. American pilgrims left everything behind when they came here. Many did so as stowaways. They knew that there was a good chance they wouldn't even survive the voyage. Compared to that, taking your family on a seven day trek across state lines doesn't seem so bad. I don't envy anyone who feels that they have to make that decision, but unless you're being confined by armed forces, you have the option to relocate. We're just too used to comfort to consider it.
@@nanowasabi4421 Again, easier said than done. We're talking about some people that can barely afford necessities, and can't afford to even rent a movie. It's not just a seven day trek across state lines. You have to find, housing, employment, as well as cover all the expenses of a move, unless you're just going to leave behind everything you own. I just don't think you actually understand the barriers that prevent people from moving. Don't you think they would have already done it if they could?
Also, I don't get this whole "people did difficult things in the past, they survived harrowing scenarios, so people these days should be able to do the same thing". People have survived years of rape and torture. That doesn't mean anyone else should be expected to do the same. Not to mention that the pilgrims were an extremely small percentage of the English population. Most people just stayed and suffered. You're also forgetting that they had large ships. Do you know how expensive large ships are/were? Someone among the pilgrims had money or insane connections, elsewise they couldn't have afforded ships or the supplies for both the journey, and the first few months of settlement.
Then there's also the fact that not everyone, by definition, can just run away from a problem. If conditions are to improve, then some people are going to have to stay behind and try to change policies. Is everyone going to abandon the cities? They'll just create cities elsewhere, and in all likelihood end up creating the same problems in the new cities. If someone doesn't address the cause of the reasons why people are moving, then it'll just become a giant game of whack-a-mole.
I appreciate your comment, and your point of view, but I honestly don't think it's as simple as just biting the bullet and moving.
@@spracketskooch
Of course there were barriers that I didn't mention in my post. If I brought up every complication I'd have to write a book. But none of them change the essence of what I was saying. I think we need to stop acting like it's ridiculous to expect people to do hard things if the situation demands it of them.
I appreciate your point that just because people in the past had it hard, doesn't mean we should expect people today to go through the same struggles. I do have a counter point (though I'm not sure where exactly I stand after taking it into consideration). It is good for people to go through hard times. To channel my inner dad energy, "it builds character". If we live lives that are too easy, we stand the risk of becoming so weak we can't handle a moderate catastrophe when it does happen.
"Don't you think they would have already done it [moved] if they could?"
It's all a matter of prioritization. My point is that, at some point, if the situation is actually as bad as someone says it is, then moving becomes the preferable option. If they haven't moved yet, then that means the situation isn't that bad.
Great job Michael.
You are right! We all need to be able to protest and debate, I grew up in the 80s and we had debate in high-school. I loved it, why don't we have move of it, both sides , we always had two have pro and cons. Do they still do that do in high schools, make you think you think for yourself. Not what your teacher teacher thinks but what you think?
Brad constantly referred to any use of government power as authoritarian. I wish Michael had pushed more on the fact that we are a self government, and that all laws are enforcement of morality.
@Only 2 Genders What do you want, time codes? Just watch the video 🙄
@Only 2 Genders I commented on a UA-cam video, this isn't an essay or a debate. If you somehow missed Brad's multiple accusations of authoritarianism, that's your problem, not mine 👋
@Only 2 Genders That was obviously hyperbole. Weren't you just accusing me of making a strawman? 🤣
which morality? the pedo morality of his faith, catholocism? Or of the bible, which endorses abortion if cheating was involved, slavery, genocide? the list goes on...
Never fallow the side that not only looks scared but lives in fear and thus will rule with fear. Knowles wins by a long shot.
Very good debate and very good moderator.
I love these debates. Keep em coming. And any violent and rude protesters should be kicked out of the premises!
The original debater a trans professor decided to back out at the last minute LOL