The thing is, this is something you train. Sneako has been on a bunch of debate showing his inept ability of debating, but that is still far more experience than Penguin. Sneako has been on this topic for months and i doubt Penguinzo has barely put more than a shower thought into it. A person with 86 IQ could win a flat earth debate with enough research and debate tactics vs a 120 IQ guy with 0 experience of debating and barely any research. With that being said, penguin should stick to making his videos , Sneako should continue debating people who do not know what they are talking about, scoring points for his 15 year old audience.
@@adamostman3509 a debate is about points and counterpoints. This discussion had no structure. So I wouldn't call it a debate. They were simply elaborating on their viewpoints.
I mean his contents are just, 1) Find interesting new topics 2) Follow majority opinion from Twitter and Reddit that doesn't cause controversy or dumb take 3) Make video of it and pretending all of his opinion is pure from him not normies take on social media 4)???? 5) Profit
ehhhhhhhhh he tried his best to sit on the fence with this one, but when you're chronically online (its his job, i dont necessarily blame him for it) its tough to tell where the fence actually lies. The internet is just an echo chamber of extremism
The question that everyone is talking about “is underage marriage grooming?”…the answer is yes. The part that is controversial (for some reason) “is transitioning grooming?” Sneako always digs a hole with this argument. Most people like Charlie don’t care what people do with their lives so long as they aren’t hurting others in the process. More people regret getting plastic surgery, and implants than full fledged transition surgeries. Not to mention the amount of people who regret transitioning is a minority of a minority. I think that minority should still be taken care of.
@@roarinfireball People have a problem with children consenting to the very problematic "gender care" process where children are getting access to puberty blockers and surgery. This is very nasty as it can ruin that person for life, and a child cannot consent to such procedures just as they can't consent to many other things that adults should be able to decide for themselves. Charlie should simply answer no, and it would be the end of it.
Nah, I think he needs to watch more destiny and take notes lol. There's no argument that destiny is a great debater, or he wouldn't have landed appearances on peterson, shapiro, piers Morgan, secular talk, lex fridman etc.
@@pablowall Another Destiny fan who just wasn't awake for the last two weeks. Every single one of those people disavowed him (except for Piers Morgan, the snake). You know that, right? I think what he's saying is that, like Destiny, Critical is constantly claiming to have no traditional moral principles, but then he will morally grandstand on issues that he thinks are immoral. It is far from intellectually stimulating to listen to in a debate.
@@samanthasmith733 What exactly did he grandstand on? I thought his views were pretty ok for the most part. A bit aggressive when he was on Piers Morgan but he cleared up his stance on the firefighter guy afterwards. I'm not aware of anyone "disavowing" him other than his regular hatewatchers who always come up with the same tired arguments any time he says something they don't want to hear.
@@lakewoodln1060 Have you not been paying attention to Destiny's rhetoric? His whole stance is that he doesn't have to feel bad about making fun of shooting victims because other people made fun of Paul Pelosi being assaulted. Then he turns around and goes off on Twitter about how awful being a hypocrite is on the political right. He wasn't just "a bit aggressive," on Piers Morgan's show, he completely doubled down on his whataboutism takes. And he didn't so much "clear up" his takes on the firefighter guy as much as he completely pivoted to the classic "guys it was just a joke," when he clearly was not joking. Those are excuses he made for himself, NOT apologies. By the way, only simpletons label all people who criticize someone as just "hate watchers with the same tired arguments." What a lazy, narcissistic way to combat criticism.
@@lakewoodln1060 Additionally, I know for sure that Peterson disavowed him, and there are many more that did as well. You, along with his other supporters, have a selective attention problem.
@@RolandRice-p9eYou should. It’s fun to see how bad moist debates. Also I caught a lot of times Sneako let his emotions almost completely get the best of him. He slips up some words which moist could’ve used against him.
people saying moistcritikal can't debate, it's not that he can't debate it's that he has no standing he actually believes in and even tells everyone this that his morality is based on what everyone else thinks. He doesn't have anything he believes in because he hasn't thought anything out and what it would mean for what else he believes in, it's all surface level. His position is whatever gets him twitch subs and it's fucked up how twitch streamers like moist are held up as big hitting intellectuals
I think moist is arguing through a societal norm of what the age of consent is typically considered in the u.s. I was with his stance until the child transitioning statement. (Which was off topic but still a bad take nonetheless) I personally think 16 is the lowest age of consent I would personally go when it comes to sex. Getting married is a different matter.
i agree with the first half of what you said, but deep down charlie knows he doesn’t agree with some of the things he says. and calling him a money-hungry content creator is beyond me. he donates and gives back more than most streamers on the platform. he has a good heart and you can tell that because he tries to conform to what everyone else believes and what makes him uncancellable. he knows what he’s talking about, he just beats around the bush too much.
@crownwire7468 not when you realize sneako thinks you can just go get your gender changed in a day and it won't take years... getting married having sex and anything he argued could be done in a night its not wild you are just uninformed on how that works
@@jakenoobyno he wasn’t at all, since the VERY beginning of the stream he was arguing based on morality but also somehow “objectivity”? He is dumb as fuck and he hasn’t gotten fucking obliterated by someone who forces him to be specific
Personally I don't let pedophiles "win" a debate under any circumstance. I don't care what they say, they lose. Weird how many debate lord people in the comments don't care about the substance of the conversation and only care about who "won"
1:18:20 charlie advocates child mutilation through transitioning, yet he admits when he was a kid "I would have no idea how to process that, I am a child".
@@normalnick5391 So mutilating yoursefl is okay just because government approves it? I guess slavery was also okay because government approved it aswell.
@@KazLxrd i know, you might disagree with sneako's position, but from a purely debate perspective , Sneako was way above Charlie. In fact i believe Charlie might have been surprised by him. He might have thought sneako would be an easy kill, boy he wasn't expecting this!
brother,they werent debating anything,he said on stream that he wasnt trying to debate him but just hear his opinion which is why he didnt record to make content from it,otherwise wouldnt he have also allready made a video about it?he has uploaded what 4 videos since this happened and none are even remotely related to it. inform yourself before talking for fucks sake
Watch his video explaining his point. Trans surgery where the genitalia is straight up chopped off isn’t just given to anyone especially minors. Charlie meant it in hyperbole, not literally since he thought sneako was exaggerating.
You can hear how unprepared Charilie is Sneako knew his takes were gonna get hated on. He knew he would take the “L” in all futures. So all he needed to do was just say his points and wait for Charlie to absolutely fuck up.
@@unknowniam121 What am I coping with? Both absolutely sucked. Charlie just had a lot more to lose and he did, than not cope. That’s a fact. Sneako literally defends pedophiles, there's no future where the same men agree with him. But Charlie was unprepared and his take on children's gender transitions, even with the context everyone hated. You’re coping by refusing to see reality.
I love Charlie and all but I’m really surprised to see how little he was able to flesh out his perspectives.. from a debate standpoint I hate to admit but I feel like sneako did better, even if his point is ridiculous
@@_smerte42this is something I wish more people understood. Charlie doesn’t debate on the regular where as sneako made a career off of contrarian debates, edgy debates and grifting. All he does is debate and Charlie is just having a conversation and stating his beliefs and not trying to 1 up sneako or hit him with any gotchas.
Bro it was basically 2 grown men saying sum that’s lowkey if jot very predatory should be okay with parental consent, no matter who made the most sense tbh it was weird that they even tried to differentiate them cuz they really felt like the same shit with different fonts and counters. As opinionated as the opinions are with it I gotta say this is just a oddly disturbing draw to me that I wish didn’t even exist cuz I think a lil low of charlie and lower than it already was before for for sneako
@@_smerte42 that's just Charlie coping though. Listen to his stream after. He was coping so fucking hard about saying some dumb fuckin stuff. Plus if Charlie would have won the debate it would have been a complete different story. He would have actually posted it on his channel do some long intro bragging about how good he is then the whole UA-cam community will be posting talking shit about sneako. But because Charlie looked bad it's cope
@@_smerte42you’re just admitting that he hasn’t thought out his own opinions and when confronted with logic couldn’t back him up, but you still are on his side. Cool 😂
“A child can consent to procreate” “No that’s stupid but a child can consent to permanently maim and mutilate themselves and rid themselves of the ability to procreate” Both dumb
transitioning saves lives child marriage doesn't (and birth defects and death of mother are also higher so you could argue that child marriage leading to pregnancy takes lives)
@@ILoveFunAndTheWorld 11% of trans women and 4% of trans men detransition, so it isn't as high as you think. In addition, many people that detransition cite discrimination, not being able to find a job, and transitioning taking too long/being too hard as reasons (although a small amount of the already small amount that do detransition cite feeling pressured by parents, which is abhorrent obviously, so don't claim that I claimed otherwise).
I had no idea that he even had this debate. I found out from other UA-camrs. What a garbage fucking take thinking that children can make the decision to transition.
Sneako also simultaneously had some of the most laughable debate points I've ever heard though. Were we listening to the same debate? "Killing you would be a personal choice", hello??? Yes the transitioning take was bad but Sneako is way worse. And his takes in this debate only scratch the surface of his beliefs. I also still don't think that to this day, he understands the point of age of consent laws. Dude said that age of consent laws don't exist, and he apparently won. Or I mean I guess he did win a "debate", but I don't even know what that's worth. Sneako goes around learning debate tactics all the time, this isn't Charlie's realm. All in all, this debate made the world dumber, can't lie.
@@ricardobernardofardo7397Sneako said the age of consent laws shouldn't exist and he gave a reason for that, either you are ignoring it or not accepting it. If you look at statement at a face value, it can seem dumb. Look at the why to get a full picture.
Moist’s argument is based on if it’s just “weird” or “it doesn’t seem right” as to sneako who at least had a consistent stance backed up by his own thinking
Oh shit. Sneako actually had some good points. Once you take some of these arguments out of the US these arguments get super muddy. I genuinely dislike sneako but damn. Not everything he said but some things.
Ngl I was concerned about the amount of times sneako made me go "wait a minute" 😅 I fundamentally disagree with 80% of his takes, but he had a few points here and there.
@@fraydizs7302 the issue for me with all of the topic though is Sneako equating it back to Culture. Like there have been studies that some 16 year olds are better decision makers than some people in their late 20s and that’s if we take away intelligence. Now at 16 I would have considered myself smart and if someone asked me to make a life changing decision at that age I would agree that I was old enough to understand but looking back in my 30s now I realize 16 year old me had no idea about consequences or what things could turn into down the line even if I swore I did and could list them. There are some decisions that shouldn’t be made young. My little brother, at 16 got a Chevy tattoo. I told him not too, my parents told him not too, he got it. Now at 20 he hates it and wants it covered with another bad idea tattoo. Still he doesn’t make the best decisions.
The point most people are missing too is the fact he keeps saying if the father consents. Just like in India and other places the family is a big part of the marriage process it's a family deal. So it logically makes sense. The problem in the west is we've made fathers a joke and have it only be a personal decision instead of a community one
Moist is getting grilled because he has conflicting morality. To not be mature enough for marriage but to be mature enough for HRT is logically inconsistent.
@@MarukaiXwhy? You actually have to justify that statement with an Argument that also justifies why adults who haven’t fully developed (18-24) can consent to a binding contract like a marriage. An arbitrary age of 18 isn’t ‘common sense’ when the majority of the world disagrees.
@@mike_hock the age of 18 isn't an arbitrary concept, it's a failsafe. It's saying that even 18 -year-olds might not be able to consent but at the very least, we can't fall below that line. that line may be subjective, but the truth that people under 18 can't consent isn't. some kind of line needs to be put down between adults and children marriage isn't the same as consent, that's just a different topic. There's a lot of things 18-year-olds are allowed to do despite not being fully developed, including voting for those in power, taking out debts, living alone etc
@@meowsca that doesn’t answer why 18 is the chosen age, why not 26? the frontal cortex isn’t developed until around your mid 20s and that’s what this debate was about, it regulates the decision making and logic that children *CAN NOT* understand even if they were fully informed. So if an 18 y/o hasn’t fully developed it their capacity for reasoning, why can they be allowed to go into debt and/or sign binding contracts?(like a marriage certificate) here is another question: do you agree the drinking age should be 21 to stop irrational teens from stunting their development? After all, they are the age of consent to understand the ramifications right?
Dude at the end of the debate sneako asked one more time SUPER specifically, - “so you think if a 9 year old wanted to FULLY transition and their parents gave consent, the kid gave consent, and the doctor gave consent, would it be okay?” And Charlie said “yes”. This statement Charlie made about not understanding the question or thinking sneako was “speaking in Hyperbole” is just a load of BS and basically just him trying to backtrack due to the backlash he’s been getting. But make no mistake, sneako asked this same question a few times VERY clearly and Charlie was saying it’s okay. His views are completely warped and he should never have kids. (For the record I don’t agree with sneakos views either on the age of consent)
Transitioning FULLY doesn't mean anything much less sugerys it could be puberty blockers and name change, which would be the most at that age, yall are just putting what you imagine Transition fully means onto this
It's a bizarre case where both were wrong about the argument they were presenting and completely right about the argument they were opposing. But compare this to Hitchens Vs Anyone and realise these are the great minds of this generation. It is tragic on both fronts.
critical's point is "it's rape if its anyone over 18 fucking anyone under 18 unless there are certain circumstances like R&J laws that make the situation acceptable", whereas sneako's point is hovering somewhere in the bizarre realm of "if they're having their period or producing a certain amount of testosterone they're A-OK to start fucking anyone even/ESPECIALLY people older than 18". critical slipped up and gave into sneako's retardation at certain points for the sake of moving the conversation past the brain cell-deleting feedback loops that kept getting thrown at him over the nuances of "physical maturity vs culturally accepted adulthood age". everyone who can't understand these two goobers is a fucking idiot.
A lot of Sneako’s arguments are nothing but contrarian points, he’s been very successful building a “career” off doing this. He’s not a dumb guy, far from it, but a lot of his “beliefs” are nothing but controversial takes for the sake of controversial takes.
He probably believes that 16-17 is ok wich i dont think that's morally wrong in some cases but because of his religion he bites the bullet a bit in the 12-15 year old wich was the only thing moist got on him but sneako genuinely stands on this and its not even a bad belief in my opinion if you understand where his coming from he wants marriages if you actually process your thoughts correctly with both sides and information you wouldn't comment this stupid brainless critique
@@skatoulhs6610 Elaborate on how a 12-15 year old should be able to get married in your book, please. Because to me it feels like he's just trying to argue that it would be okay to get into a little kid's pants; marriage, most of the time, leads to living together, which can result in outcomes that were not originally accounted for in his argument. With such close contact between an adult and a child, plus the legally binding vows that were spoken, the adult is put into a position of power (until that child is 18 years old, if we're using today's laws). Sure, in his world it would be legal, but from a moral standpoint it's wrong. If the adult were to wait for the child to turn a certain age for them to morally justify themself, the situation would still be textbook grooming due to the constant close contact with a minor, a position of power, and being in love with the child.
@Waking.Up.You heard the beginning then right? Sneako word for word said "I don't believe in the age of consent." Btw any age under 18 hell I say anyone below 20 is wrong for a adult to get with. Under 20 is just morally, but legally 18. That's here in canada, I don't understand why that's so low in the states but you have to 21 to smoke, drink, and legally gamble. P.s Make whatever paragraph you want. If someone replies whatever, someone doesn't oh well
@Waking.Up. Sneako never directly said it was wrong to go out with a child? He said he personally wouldn't do it, but he wouldn't care if somebody else did it. Addressing what you said regarding adulthood, I believe that what you're saying is true, however, that's the sole reason WHY the age of consent exists. If kids were allowed to claim themselves as adults and have that be recognized as factual by everyone around them, relationships like 12 and 63 would be normal. With relationships like those, we as humans would be regressing hundreds of years. The age of consent in each country serves as a general limit to how young an individual may be to be considered an adult while also taking into account the maturity of their peers. Sure, one fifteen-sixteen year old may be mature enough to be an adult, but you can't just go off of that one teen to describe their peers. It doesn't work that way; everyone is different; which is why limits and guidelines regarding the age of consent or the age of when someone becomes an adult exists in the first place.
@milliondollarmentality ok so first lets go back to the start. an adult defined is someone who is biologically containing the traits of an adult. pedophilia is defined as attraction to a pre pubescent. now with this out the way. if and this wont apply as commonly today that a 12 to 15 year old SOMEHOW reached adulthood. it would be fine. i am not saying ALL 12 to 15 year olds. i am saying that an ADULT. a person who can understand consent and has a grown body can and should be allowed to marry. this also appliws in the reverse. a prepubescent 18 year old shoulsnt be allowed to marry.
Charlie had the better stance and for the most part I agreed with his takes but Sneako just had better arguments ready even if he had the most grotesque and outlandish takes imaginable. As a fan of Charlie, I really expected better arguments from him but watching this felt like watching the seemingly unstoppable good guy lose, like this entire debate was just the equivalent of reading the comic where Batman gets his back snapped by Bane. Seriously this was horrendous.
I've learned to hate most popular youtubers because they're all fake and do it just for the money. The only reason they're popular is because UA-cam lets them be.
They are. They’re actors. They’re here to distract us from what’s going on behind the scenes in the world. They’re here to put you to sleep. It’s a big waste of time.
This debate was such a shame. Neither of them take their position correctly. They BOTH contradict their own arguments. Moist thinks the kid can consent to permanent trans surgery. But not to marriage. Then sneako thinks they can consent to marriage but not the surgery. Bizarre. The argument really has nothing to do with age or puberty or the number 18 or the law. It has to do with brain development. The idea of consent doesnt have any bearing on physical development. 18 admittedly is technically arbitrary but its a good average for mental development. And the romeo and juliet laws help mitigate excess consequences for teen relationships that straddle both sides of 18. The current consent laws are solid. Sneako advocating for lowering the age or basing it on “maturity” which is completely subjective, would also open up the possibility of children consenting to their own mutilation.
Exactly how I feel, in a sense they literally have the same weird mindset pertaining children. Literally is like watching two guys who got caught on tcap argue over who’s more weird.
Fuck at least sneako is trying to use some form of logic, however stretched as it is. Charles is just saying "I don't know" and "that is what was established." Without explaining WHY he has that side. 35:55 this bit here is what I'm talking about. "I don't know but those are the agreed upon rules."
You are missing one key detail. It's not Moist's position against Sneako's position. It's Moist's against the Quran. Moist's position is based on ad populum, which is fallacious logic. Sneako's based on religion with a presupposition of God informs what is and is not moral. Whether you choose to believe in a God or not, Sneako lives on an objective standard.
He literally said in his new vid talking about this that he does not believe a child should be able to do tran surgery??? Are you braindead or being purposefully ignorant
@@knoobiez Because regardless of whether or not a female is capable of reproduction, a girl that age hasn't reached a level of mental and emotional maturity that would make it socially or morally acceptable to engage in sexual acts with a 12 year old. Even if someone that age gives enthusiastic verbal consent we say no because kids can't be trusted with that decision. Much like how we don't trust them with vehicles, houses, bills, careers, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. There's absolutely no reason sex should be any different. YT prolly gonna delete this 'cause they hate me.
Who would have thought that a reddit NPC who can only punch down and say poopoo peeepee fart would be good at debating? Lmfao, he lost one debate and went on a hiatus, and wh*te boys worship this dude🤣😂
I agree... I think Charlie just hasnt thought deeply enough on these topics to reply with anything more than "but society says so"... There were SOOO many easy ways to blow up every point Sneako brought... I was screaming at my screen...
Sneako is using literal middle school debate tactics against critikal like talking over him, getting him to answer hyper specific questions and then making huge generalizations and exaggerations and critikial continuously lets him get away with it. Somehow Sneako forced him into a corner on every point and critikal was way too ill prepared to answer any of the questions. Critikal also refused to explain any of the terms he used so at the very least Sneako would understand what he was saying and this allowed Sneako to essentially put words in Critikal's mouth or just interpret what he was saying in the worst way possible. Probably one of the worst debates ive ever seen
Moist didn't even seem to have preparation at all and the debate was supposed to be about the age of consent, while Sneako manipulated the situation to revolve around a more serious topic to catch Moist unexpected and see his reactioon.
@@potshead it's because it wasn't a debate, he had no idea sneako was streaming and was there to talk. Plus, how the fuck would you debate someone as stupid as sneako
Sneako shot his own point down when he said “mentaly read to have a kid” I would of slapped back with women aren’t done developing their brain until their mid 20s and for men it’s early 20s. He talks about maturity. Well with science we see 18 years old isn’t even fully mentality mature. So no way in hell would a 12 or 16 year old would be mentally mature to have children, also bring in what he thought of that 9 year old Muslim girl that died on her wedding night as her old man husband fcked her to death. Sneako argument is so frail it amazes me how stupid Charlie came across
@@T.T.T416 age of consent needs to be a fixed number because there's no reliable and effective way to determine whether someone is mature enough to have marry or have intimacy. when someone is a child every year has a large effect on their maturity, so 18 seems to be a pretty safe consent age compared to 17.
Why is none of these men talking about intercourse HURTING physically and is damaging mentally for kids under 16. It’s unacceptable and whoever thinks otherwise needs to be charged for assault
Sneako won because his argument was logical and Charlie's wasn't. Sneako's point is simple: "People reach adulthood physically and mentally at different ages, when they reach that time for them to be considered an adult they can make decisions regarding their life." Charlie's was: "Children can make some irreversible damaging decisions but not some other ones with no reasoning to why or what the difference is."
You're absolutely correct and it's kind of hilarious how so many people missed this (or are desperate to not see it because they're so scared of being called a you-know-what). As you say, Sneako's point was simple and valid, which means the only reasonable way to undermine Sneako's position legitimately is to either attack his premises or the effectiveness of the policy change he proposes on the basis of the argument's conclusion. Of course, Charlie is an NPC who lives in the Twitch streamer left-wing bubble who is praised for either shooting fish in a barrel (e.g., dunking on already disgraced individuals) or repeating the latest talking points, so he was incapable of recognizing this. All his arguments were longwinded versions of "other people think this". I don't think Sneako's a smart person by any means, but it shows that he at least knows himself and came to his own conclusions. I respect that a helluva lot more than an NPC like Charlie regardless of what their actual opinions are.
@@bingus4901 minor (below a certain age) is not the same as a child (a prepubescent). Sneako was talking about adults who are physically and mentally mature at whatever age they may achieve that. Definitions matter which is what Sneako was saying.
age doesn’t matter. If both people are physically mature. Mentally mature. And both families and both married people consent then why is it wrong? And how is 18 adult when people have puberty way younger
@@XChrisClipsXbecause people are UNABLE to be mentally mature until 18, and even that isint full mental maturity until 24. How fucking stupid do you have to be to take “mentally mature” as a theoretical or something that depends on the person, it’s fucking science, it’s not up for debate. Being “physically mature” aka. Getting a period is not even close to mental maturity, and a PERIOD, is the goddamn BEGINNING of maturity.
The youngest known mother was 5 years old. That 5 year old was able to have a child. Does Sneako think a man having sex with that 5 year old was ok because she was able to have a child?
If she agrees to marry, her parents agree to marry (which they wont cuz that is taboo in our current norms), if the groom and his parents agree (which is also taboo in OUR norm), and if there is no force/compulsion/greed/dealership involved then they can marry. Note, since in our norms, marrying someone of this age is obsolete therefore the culture protects the marriage, this is why Allah in Islam did not fixed an age for marriage cuz it is a subject to change with time and circumstances.
I would never marry my daughter even if she reaches puberty at age 4 cuz I dont consider this an age for Mental Maturity in our Norms, ofcourse. But the point is that this Mental Maturity is an ever changing standard. People of past norms had different mental models therefore their practices vary from us.
@@asfandyarmuneeb7263 you don't know her parents wont agree. There are almost 8 billion people in the world. Are you saying none of them are evil enough to marry off their 5 year old daughter? Even if most parents wouldn't do that, shouldn't we protect children from their abusive parents?
children are their own people, not the responsibility of the state. not the responsibility of their parents. the second they can emote is the second they can make these decisions. i don’t like the fact anybody can get these invasive surgeries. you however are opposed to lax morality laws and you’re weird.
Sneako does realize he is contradicting himself. He's saying only parents should be able to consent to marriage. If your parents have to give you consent to do something than you aren't an adult capable of making your own decisions and shouldnt be getting married or having sex for that matter. It's dumb. Why would you need parental consent as an adult to do anything? Then he says the definition of consent is arbitrary. It's not at all, in fact its pretty cut and dry. It's when as an adult you are giving permission for something to happen. Parents can only consent for you when you are a child, once adult you dont need parental consent. So arguing that consent for marriage should only come from the family is same as arguing that children should be able to get married. It's a really dumb point.
Why is it crazy if both families and both people are consenting and both people are physically and mentally mature, what’s the problem? The thing is you are anchored by the government and some people age laws and don’t think logically Anyone who is physically and mentally mature is by definition an adult
The stupidest debate that they could ever make, oversimplifying two very complex dynamics, comparing random made up scenarios with no scientific background whatsoever..
if the statement "people older than 18 fucking people younger than 18 outside of the acceptable range that R&J laws cover is rape" is fence sitting then I guess I'm riding the fucking pole like a horseman
Regardless of whether you disagree with Sneako's take, he did a great job at defending his stance and posing difficult questions to the opposition. Charlie, on the other hand, was contradicting himself every other minute, and the strange thing is, he didn't even realize he was doing so.
Funnily enough age of consent in Europe like Britain 16,france 15 heck Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia and Germany is 14 according to charlie these countries are PDF files. What sneako said wasn't even controversial lol
I don’t understand why people insist that 18 is the age of adulthood. Like are the other countries with the age of consent being 16 or 17 just straight up wrong.
@@pory913 from how I interpret it, adulthood is when growth plates in the bone fuse. For boys its 15-17. Add in another year for just in case. Which means an adult is guaranteed to be physically matured and hopefully “mentally” matured. Which usually is the case. Its a perfect balance between allowing freedom and not letting the angsty do smtg stupid
To flush out the answer to way incest is wrong a bit more, the reason is because the possibility of a sexual relationship between family members would destroy the core family structure. It becomes very difficult for family members to confide in other family members during their vulnerable moments when the possibility of a sexual relationship exists. In order to keep family relationships different from regular friendships, incest must remain taboo/stigmatized.
You can say the same thing about gay marriage and transitioning. Don't you think that it would affect the family structure if a person had two moms or two dads? And what about if one day one of your parents suddenly switches genders? Wouldn't that affect the family structure in a negative way?
@@GreatApeNRTH I think that was the thought for a long while... but the idea of having 2 moms or 2 dads instead of no moms or dads seems to have trumped that thought. Whether or not a parent is gay or trans doesnt seem to hurt the family relationships between family members all that much when compared to a situation where sexual activities are a possibility. You could still confide in a gay or trans family member during a vulnerable time just fine.
@grimtrix you can confide in a mother and a father teaches you to be mentally and emotionally stronger. They are both needed in different ways. Having both can be detrimental to a child's psychology. That's why when there are same sex marriages there is one parent who is more feminin and one who is more masculine. They try to replicate what nature has already established with a mom and dad.
@@GreatApeNRTH I would probably agree with it being better to have a mother and a father... but as I said, I think 2 mothers or 2 fathers is better than not having any parents at all. I also dont know that you can confide in a mother or father if the possibility of sex exists. It would be no different than confiding in a friend... and there is definitely a difference as it is today.
@@GreatApeNRTHthe reason why your argument doesn’t apply to LGBTQ+ families is because we have been taught that we absolutely NEED to have a mom and a dad, only boyfriend and girlfriend, and boy and girl to have good harmony. These are all things that are taught. If society accepted same sex marriage, then the concept of LGBTQ+ wouldn’t even be a thing. It would just be normal. Kids would be raised the same way as those who have opposite gender parents. It only disrupts the family dynamic because of society normalizing homophobia.
I think people forget that Charlie didn't go on to debate. He was expecting a normal conversation to talk things out rather than debating. And he didn't know he was being streamed for content by Sneako. Personally, I think they were both wrong but more so Sneako. A minor can't marry an adult. A minor is a child and a child is anyone under 18 years old. Marriage is when two people consent to being married. A child can't consent because they're not an adult. They haven't reach mental maturity. Sneako is VERY wrong in that. A child (anyone under 18) CAN NOT marry an adult (anyone over 18) not matter how "ready" their body is. It's not about the body anymore. It's about the mental and emotional maturity. A child can't transition because they can't consent since they are under 18 and not mature yet. This is mainly because of the same reason of the marriage debate. However, I will give props to Charlie for admitting wrong. In his new video, speaking about the debate, he told his side of the situation, why he said what he said and that he shouldn't have said what he did. He admitted that he doesn't know a lot about transitioning and admitted wrong. Sneako however...sticks by what he said. He even made an argument about the movie "Cuties" about a year ago. If you've watched "Cuties", you know why it's wrong. Sneako isn't sorry about what he's said and he does think that minors can marry adults WHICH IS PEDOPHILIA and A CRIME. And the fact that he didn't tell Charlie it was going to be a debate or streamed is shady.
Charlie didn't admit to anything big. He gaslighted everyone about what happened. Sneako is a pdf, Charlie is a liar and manipulator hiding behind a nice guy mask.
Why would he even have a conversation with sneako though? He is verifiably crazy and yet he still wants to have a conversation? At what point do you just stop giving this guy the time of day to spout his crazy beliefs.
This is weird !!!!!! The better question is what age is a child? a 16 year old is a child.Adults and children shouldn’t be mingling. The societal number is based on societal activities & lifestyles. A 16 year old doesn’t have the same lifestyle or activities as an adult such as any sort of contribution to society or choices ability to have children be stable. WHY MUST THIS BE DEBATED
After Destiny I think a lot of people are starting to realize that people's standards for "debaters" on streaming and video platforms are WAY too low. Moist is doing the cringe edgy-adult thing of claiming to have no traditional values but then morally grandstanding on how immoral some of Sneako's opinions are. Hot take: Citing "common sense" or "common morality" but rejecting any existence of traditional morality is cringe. We all could use a little more culture and civility. I don't care how traumatized you are by rude religious people.
@@highdefinition450"What if a child is an adult tho" was one of his literal points, which OP equates to child consent, which is still more fair than you d-riding a pedo prophet.
how is it hard for people to see sneakos argument? he claims an adult is someone who has reached maturity, and a child is someone who has not matured. these are textbook definitions. moist even agreed with him on the definitions. now when it came to marriage sneako isn't arguing that 12 is the age which people mature. everyone matures at different ages in their own lives. based on that a person would then be identified as an adult when they have matured enough that they could be seen as well an adult. when i was 16 turning 17 people couldn't tell if I was a teacher or a student at my school because I had a beard and was physically developed enough that they couldn't tell me apart from a 16 year old and a 25 year old. this is my own experience because well maturity is based on the individual not the government. even now I am 20 years old and people who don't know me think I'm 25-29 years old depending on how long I grow my beard. there were girls who were younger than me in highschool who I believed to be older than I was based on how mature they looked and acted. perfect example. all it takes is for people to not look at things from a biased view and just take in how people look as is without asking them. you would be shocked to see how young many people who you would assume is over 18 just by looking at them really are. there are plenty of videos on UA-cam where streamers are talking to underaged girls who look 18 or older skip over them after finding out they are younger than 18-16. I don't know how this comes as a surprise to people. this isn't a new thing... also what's the point of the definition of the word if people don't use it?
The only reason why people aren’t capable of seeing through sneako points (im not a fan of him but he gave really good points that made me think) is because we humans are morally superior species and anything that we perceive as bad we are against it even though deep down inside sneako has a point. There is no magic age for consent or maturity. Nature is the one that picks maturity through puberty and development. I’m 18 and im biologically the same as a 15,16,17 year old. But legally I’m seen as a “adult” because the government said so. Even though science also claims that 16,17 are also adult depending on how mature they are. I’ve meant 14 year olds who are both physically and mentally more mature than me. And I have people I know who came here from other countries who are younger than me and legally minors and get mistaken for adults because how mature they are and look. The only reason they aren’t capable of doing mature thing (even though in there home countries they can do adult things) is because here in the U.S the government said they can’t. We must understand that the age of consent laws are inherently rooted in puritan history from long ago. I’ve even meant morons who want to raise the ache of consent to 25. Stupid i know. But we people cannot question those people and there laws because people would be called “pedophiles” that’s also one of the main reasons why people disagree with sneako. Because they are Afraid of being called the P word. Even though none of sneako arguments of pedophelic by definition. A pedophile is someone who find prepubescent children attractive (children who haven’t even hit fucking puberty yet) that’s a pedophile. A man finding a hot girl with boobs and ass is not pedophelic because they are attracted to the mature looks. This is why we need to be careful because some girls truly look wayy to grown.
moist thinks that if a child and their parents consent to transitioning its perfectly fine, then he gets asked if he was a child and he was introduced to the idea of that he responds “i wouldnt even know how to process that, im a child” ive never heard a bigger contradiction than this lmao
so according to charlie a child is smart enough to make the decision to change their gender for life but not smart enough to know if they wanna get married…? does he not see how flawed this logic is? how can u be “smart enough” to make such a drastic decision of mutilating urself, but same said person apparently can’t decipher the true feelings of love towards another human? like come on please make it make sense ur contradicting urself with ur own logic💀
Sneako smashed moist...I didn't think sneako was going to make sense but he's right, we say that under 18 is wrong because the government made it that way but 200 years ago people didn't live to 30 so they were married and having kids by 15. To turn 25yrs old made u an old man back then. The government constructed this number and said it's the age u must be. If the government said "as of right now 8/7/24 you are an adult at 25yrs old" there would be a lot more pedophiles in the USA cuz then anyone 25+ that's dating a person 24- would be pedos
Why is it wrong if both families and both people are consenting and both physically and mentally mature, what’s the problem? The thing is you are anchored by the government and some people age laws and don’t think logically
@@XChrisClipsXthe problem is that it is LITERALLY impossible for a child to be mentally mature. You can argue your “physically” bullshit but that doesn’t matter, the point is that a child CANNOT be mentally mature. Full mental maturity is achieved at fucking 24, and maybe even later. I watched my sister make horrendous mistakes at fucking 20 which she made due to being literally unable to comprehend them. Even an 18 year old is a little young to comprehend a whole lot of shit, whatsoever a 14 year old. This take is insanity.
That whole morality doesn’t equal legality Sneako brought up does make sense, but he instead of advocating to raise the age of marriage, he wants to lower it is crazy
@@GREATSLUMBER"a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." This is literally the definitions and there are 2 and the latter one is a State depicted age. While the former definitions defines it as anyone before puberty
exactly, charlie walked into a trap when sneako mentioned transgender an approriate response would be that has no prevalence to the argument at hand instead he gave his opinion on an obvious red herring
@@PepePig-th6sy I think Sneako (Who I really don't care for) had a very consistent moral stance, while moist's was just to go with whatever he thinks the people around him will believe (IE the worst kind of human being)
@@riverphenoix1023 ya but we dont bring back things from 500 yrs we evolve i dont agree with either of them but bringing the hey few hundred years ago it was fine to marry a 12 yr old is equivalent to hey few hundred years ago we had slavery lets bring that back.
So Charlie’s argument is a child can make the life altering decision of a puberty blocker but cannot get in a relationship because they’re not mature enough to make a life changing decision? I think he’s mixed up on the age of consent like what Sneako says. If I were Charlie I would’ve asked, “What if a mature 14 year old wanted to date an immature 15 year old? Would that make the 14 year old a pedophile?” I mostly agree with Charlie’s take on age of consent but I don’t agree with childhood transgenderism. The issue is they are looking at it through different lenses and don’t even want to attempt to see the other point of view.
Yea the ability to consent to sex with an adult is DIFFERENT than the ability to discern your gender identity. I suspect you think trans identity is abnormal and wrong, which is why you disagree
Charlie drops the ball with the transition section, and sneako makes no sense with being fine wirh being 20ish and marrying a 'mature for their age' 15yr old and then disavowing things done out of Wedlock. Pretty poor debate overal ngl
Moist: "if there is a physically capable mentally capable 12 year old.." Sneako: "That never happens practically, It is moral if they are mentally capable the age is not the point" Moist: "oWOWOWOo YoU BeLivE ThErE cAn Be A mEnTAllY CapAblE 12 YeaR Old??" I don't even agree with sneako in most things but this was an obvious attempt of defamation, he actively tried to make him look bad with no actual argument.
To Sneako: Incest is wrong because the “romantic” relationship between family members aren’t actually romantic. If a parent is romantically in love with their child, and the child “seems” to be in love with the parent, it still wouldn’t be romantic because the child is taught that this is okay. When you’re taught something, that something is automatically not authentically yours to begin with. The parent has the advantage of the child because the child is impressionable and only knows how to replicate what they’re being shown. Now, in a situation with two siblings at the same age(or not), it’s still not romantic since the idea of romance is blurred between them. Growing up with someone means you’re familiar with them. So of course it’s easy for siblings to fall in love because they know each other for longer, but that shouldn’t be romantic. Their perception of romance is taught, and whoever taught them that love/romance is only okay when you know someone for your whole life is wrong because then the whole world would be filled with incest by that logic. Everyone would marry their sibling/cousin since it’s easier because theyre more familiar with them than anyone in the world. Which is obviously a problem because then no one would procreate. I don’t know why this was even a question, but I hope I explained this well.
there are a shitload of fallacy in what you said lets point out a few; first of all you are talking about a situation where the child has grown accustomed to the way of the parents. yes the child would not take it as romance like the parent HOWEVER what would you say when the child grows up? growing up, a child is most definitely taught with different morals that comes from different people from different society hence the former child knows the difference between parental love and romance. the former child gives consent to the romance then. how do you justify that? why is that wrong? secondly, same thing as the last point, but when you said and i quote "So of course it’s easy for siblings to fall in love because they know each other for longer, but that shouldn’t be romantic." my question is, why? why shouldnt it be romantic? by definition its technically the same. also your logic of the world being filled with incest doesnt make more or less much of a sense. another thing, you're asking why this was a question. and the answer to that is the fact that he was trying to set a ground where the morality was coming from. of course incest is absolutely fucking disgusting but how and why do you justify that is what he was trying to get from charlie. he's debating from a religious standpoint where his ground is never-changing and firm. charlie's entire point is an absolute fuckin mess considering he had no consistent ground to stand upon. to debate about something controversial like that, its important that you understand where you're coming from.
@@pingupingu9614 I already explained why it wouldn’t be romantic. It’s taught behavior. The majority of the world is taught that incest is wrong as children and as adults. So, why would children end up falling in love? Where would they learn that this is okay? Who enables that behavior?: the parents. And let’s say this wasn’t the case, let’s say that they do end up falling in love and they’re not taught that incest is wrong. What do children know about love? Love is a vague description, it can mean many things. Children touching each other sexually is just another thing they’ve been taught. They probably saw sex for the first time and wanted to try the moves on each other. Which shows how bad the parents are but anyway. Once sex is brought in, the sibling dynamic is broken. You can’t confide in them with intentions that aren’t tainted by sex. The definition for family changes all the time but the one thing that stays concrete about family is the fact that it’s never sexual or romantic in most cases. The reason for that being is to maintain the family dynamic and of course because they would ruin the family tree. So, the real questions is: Does love genuinely exist or is it just taught? Do romantic relationships only exist between non-related people because it’s taught? The more I think about it the more I question life tbh. I need a professional to discuss this. Also, I agree with your last paragraph.
@@pingupingu9614 sorry my first point got deleted for some reason. To answer your first question: Even if the child grows up and is at the legal age to consent to marrying or having sex with the parent is still wrong because there’s a power dynamic. The parent literally changed their diapers, took them to school, taught them their ABC’s, and knows their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe they could be in love (even though I genuinely don’t think so but that’s beside the point), if the child of the parent in this relationship were to ever get raped by the parent or the parent breaches their trust in any way by doing something illegal, the one that gets away with it is the parent. The power dynamic is not balanced.
Why is it bad if both families and both people are consenting and both people are physically and mentally mature, what’s the problem? The thing is you are anchored by the government and some people age laws and don’t think logically Anyone who is physically and mentally mature is by definition an adult
Never thought I'd see Sneako being ultra-based. What a timeline we're in, this is something else. Charlie got clapped. He's such a holder of no opinion and tenets that he folded over in this debate. The real take-away here is that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. That's Charlie's downfall. Sneako W.
15:00 we definitely need a definitive moment in a person's life for age of concent and adulthood. My cousin's 13 year old is more mature than some 30 year olds. Maturity is way to vague. Just like you can't buy alcohol until you turn 21, and cant sign up for the military or sign legally binding contracts until you turn 18, just like you cant rent a car until you turn 25. Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. 24:00 incest is wrong because its disgusting, and im from Arkansas. If you share parents with another individual, you shouldn't be sharing a bed. 32:00 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as, "A human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier The age of majority, also known as legal age, is the threshold of legal adulthood as recognized or declared in law.[1] It is the moment when a person ceases to be considered a minor and assumes legal control over their person, actions, and decisions, thus terminating the control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over them. Most countries set the age of majority at 18, but some jurisdictions have a higher age and others lower
It’s fucking baffling that people can’t just leave people under 18 alone😭why is that so hard for all the pedophiles to just fw people their own age. Saying there’s no age for consent is borderline demonic
and why gays can't just leave the same sex people alone? you are born a pedophile, it's not your choice. it was a sexual orientation not so long ago. early 2000's I think
@@PiperWheelzbut 18 is a number that is stated in law. What about other countries that do not have 18 as the age of consent? Are all of the marriages in those countries considered pedophiles?
Sorry 1:00:30 charlie got cooked here. People really tried to cancel him because he misgendered Kris even tho bro was talking to minors. It's actually crazy and really scary how it's ok and normal to shame and degrade people if they do a crime like wishing death or rape upon them and telling them they had it coming... but if you do something as little as misgender a trans person that commits a crime you have to still be respectful and call them by their pronouns or else you're a transphobe and you're doing it out of pure spite and hatred towards trans people. Using that 3yr old logic, that means straight people are hated on☠️? I really don't understand how it got this bad, there is literally no way in HELL that the trans community holds that much "power" if you can even call it that, and people are actually and full heartedly following along.
So if a women does something terrible, do you think saying « that person doesn’t deserve any rights cus they are a woman”is that acceptable? Or if a black person commits a crime is it ok to say “that n word had it coming”? Nobody is saying that people who do crimes shouldn’t be shamed but shaming them based on race or gender identity is just stupid and isn’t impactful.
@@akeneo1169 I never said anyone who commits a crime or anything of that sort don't deserve rights. And no it's not ok if someone used a slur against another person if that person committed crimes. I never stated anything you brought up, I said people let it slide because they committed a crime so it's automatically ok to shame them and degrade them, no one bats an eye. But you misgender a trans which isn't even that serious, and you're a monster? Again I'm not saying that stuff is ok, that's just something that's normal if someone commits a crime, they are automatically seen as less human and it's ok for people to shame them. But it's like if you do something like that to a trans you're a transphobe. How does that work? That makes it seem like trans are superior to others.
@@akeneo1169 Last I checked the word he wasn't a derogatory term, and it also accurately reflects their sex, which doesn't mean one won't be offended but it doesn't make it incorrect or morally wrong. But if you want to say its equal to calling someone the N word sure.
@@Hybredcome on obviously the word he isn’t a derogatory term by itself, but it can absolutely be used in a derogatory way. if you were walking around as a man and you’ve considered yourself a man your whole life and people just started calling you mam and miss for some reason, that’s derogatory. Maybe it’s not equivalent to saying the n word but it’s judgment based on gender identity which is entirely irrelevant.
@@akeneo1169 I see what you're saying, but none of what you said is my point. I'm not talking about rights or anything of that sort. I was saying when let's say a rapists rapes someone. when they get caught, people will shame them and say very vulgar and derogatory stuff to them. Saying "they had it coming!" And wishing they get raped to feel how it feels like. I wasnt saying it's ok, I'm saying that's usually how it goes and it's normal. I'm not saying someone should have their rights taken away, society has made stuff like that as Normal where it's ok to trash on someone that commits a crime. But it's like if you do the same thing to a trans then it's bad and you're a transphobe. Even something as little as misgendering them? My whole point is how is it ok to degrade people and shame them that aren't trans but it's bad if you do it to a trans. Me personally, I don't think either is good, but the fact that you have to still respect their pronouns while people that aren't trans get trashed is concerning. And I disagree with pronouns somehow being derogatory. There is no way possible that you can make the words "miss" or "ma'am derogatory. People will look at you crazy because it's seriously not something to take offense of. That even sounds absurd that now pronouns can be seen as vulgar words. And I wasnt talking about people shaming other people that do crimes based on their race, I was speaking in general and that's my point. Trans automatically assume it's because they're trans and they feel attacked and in some cases that's true but it's not solely the only reason.
Why is it wrong if both families and both people are consenting and both people are physically and mentally mature, what’s the problem? The thing is you are anchored by the government and some people age laws and don’t think logically Anyone who is physically and mentally mature is by definition an adult. What has changed from the 16th century in human bodies?
the thing is marriage is reversable, how is a kid developed and sound enough to say they want to mutlilate themselves for life, but at the same age not sound and develop enough to say they want to get married imo both are unthought out delusions of a child, but the thing is if a child said they wanted to get married n realized first hand why thats wrong, because it is. they can atleast correct the mistake and get a divorce. but with surgery once the child develops just even a little bit more the decision is permanant and now they can never have kids and they have a life full of regret.
Movable object vs stoppable force
😂
Lmao very good
🤣🤣🤣
me when i'm moving furniture i guess idk
Lmao genius
No more debates for moist. Stick to making fun of people for ad revenue.
Well now I don't think he has that privilege to make fun of others. lol
The thing is, this is something you train. Sneako has been on a bunch of debate showing his inept ability of debating, but that is still far more experience than Penguin.
Sneako has been on this topic for months and i doubt Penguinzo has barely put more than a shower thought into it.
A person with 86 IQ could win a flat earth debate with enough research and debate tactics vs a 120 IQ guy with 0 experience of debating and barely any research.
With that being said, penguin should stick to making his videos , Sneako should continue debating people who do not know what they are talking about, scoring points for his 15 year old audience.
@@adamostman3509this wasn't a debate though. More like an explanation of their beliefs.
@@Jeremy-wp4yh They are both arguing about a subject/topic and trying to make points, how is it not a debate?
@@adamostman3509 a debate is about points and counterpoints. This discussion had no structure. So I wouldn't call it a debate. They were simply elaborating on their viewpoints.
MoistCr1tikal has always been a fence sitter, but when he suddenly has his own opinion on something and has to defend it, it goes horribly wrong
I mean his contents are just,
1) Find interesting new topics
2) Follow majority opinion from Twitter and Reddit that doesn't cause controversy or dumb take
3) Make video of it and pretending all of his opinion is pure from him not normies take on social media
4)????
5) Profit
ehhhhhhhhh he tried his best to sit on the fence with this one, but when you're chronically online (its his job, i dont necessarily blame him for it) its tough to tell where the fence actually lies. The internet is just an echo chamber of extremism
@@Connor.HellebuyckHe forgot the fence is where it felt colder on the cheeks
The question that everyone is talking about “is underage marriage grooming?”…the answer is yes.
The part that is controversial (for some reason) “is transitioning grooming?”
Sneako always digs a hole with this argument. Most people like Charlie don’t care what people do with their lives so long as they aren’t hurting others in the process.
More people regret getting plastic surgery, and implants than full fledged transition surgeries. Not to mention the amount of people who regret transitioning is a minority of a minority. I think that minority should still be taken care of.
@@roarinfireball People have a problem with children consenting to the very problematic "gender care" process where children are getting access to puberty blockers and surgery. This is very nasty as it can ruin that person for life, and a child cannot consent to such procedures just as they can't consent to many other things that adults should be able to decide for themselves. Charlie should simply answer no, and it would be the end of it.
What watching too much Destiny does to a mf
Nah, I think he needs to watch more destiny and take notes lol. There's no argument that destiny is a great debater, or he wouldn't have landed appearances on peterson, shapiro, piers Morgan, secular talk, lex fridman etc.
@@pablowall Another Destiny fan who just wasn't awake for the last two weeks. Every single one of those people disavowed him (except for Piers Morgan, the snake). You know that, right?
I think what he's saying is that, like Destiny, Critical is constantly claiming to have no traditional moral principles, but then he will morally grandstand on issues that he thinks are immoral. It is far from intellectually stimulating to listen to in a debate.
@@samanthasmith733 What exactly did he grandstand on? I thought his views were pretty ok for the most part. A bit aggressive when he was on Piers Morgan but he cleared up his stance on the firefighter guy afterwards. I'm not aware of anyone "disavowing" him other than his regular hatewatchers who always come up with the same tired arguments any time he says something they don't want to hear.
@@lakewoodln1060 Have you not been paying attention to Destiny's rhetoric? His whole stance is that he doesn't have to feel bad about making fun of shooting victims because other people made fun of Paul Pelosi being assaulted. Then he turns around and goes off on Twitter about how awful being a hypocrite is on the political right.
He wasn't just "a bit aggressive," on Piers Morgan's show, he completely doubled down on his whataboutism takes.
And he didn't so much "clear up" his takes on the firefighter guy as much as he completely pivoted to the classic "guys it was just a joke," when he clearly was not joking.
Those are excuses he made for himself, NOT apologies. By the way, only simpletons label all people who criticize someone as just "hate watchers with the same tired arguments." What a lazy, narcissistic way to combat criticism.
@@lakewoodln1060 Additionally, I know for sure that Peterson disavowed him, and there are many more that did as well. You, along with his other supporters, have a selective attention problem.
Fixed timestamps for the children transitioning parts
39:45 - 46:10
1:18:22 - 1:19:30
1:58:04 - 1:59:42
Thank you I’m not watching all of this shit
@ptwoeight
@@RolandRice-p9eYou should. It’s fun to see how bad moist debates. Also I caught a lot of times Sneako let his emotions almost completely get the best of him. He slips up some words which moist could’ve used against him.
1:18:22 charlie counters his own point, this is so wild lmao
@@Homiloko2 he contradicts himself constantly throughout the debate
people saying moistcritikal can't debate, it's not that he can't debate it's that he has no standing he actually believes in and even tells everyone this that his morality is based on what everyone else thinks. He doesn't have anything he believes in because he hasn't thought anything out and what it would mean for what else he believes in, it's all surface level. His position is whatever gets him twitch subs and it's fucked up how twitch streamers like moist are held up as big hitting intellectuals
Yes people are coping in the comments that he wasn't prepared and whatever else to justify there morality that doesn't have any standing
His beliefs are what his advertisers say they are.
I think moist is arguing through a societal norm of what the age of consent is typically considered in the u.s.
I was with his stance until the child transitioning statement. (Which was off topic but still a bad take nonetheless)
I personally think 16 is the lowest age of consent I would personally go when it comes to sex. Getting married is a different matter.
i agree with the first half of what you said, but deep down charlie knows he doesn’t agree with some of the things he says. and calling him a money-hungry content creator is beyond me. he donates and gives back more than most streamers on the platform. he has a good heart and you can tell that because he tries to conform to what everyone else believes and what makes him uncancellable. he knows what he’s talking about, he just beats around the bush too much.
Basically he can't think for himself. Good to know.
charlie's justification for trans surgery on kids was wild
I agree with your statement
It's the youtube consensus train
Cuz he doesn’t rlly believe it lol, 2013 moist would roast the shii out of himself
@@Ninjabdulthat was over 10 years ago I love Charlie too but people can change
@crownwire7468 not when you realize sneako thinks you can just go get your gender changed in a day and it won't take years... getting married having sex and anything he argued could be done in a night its not wild you are just uninformed on how that works
“ The worst debater in history vs the worst debater of today"
Nah. Sneako was debating well but he had a horrible stance/claim, but Charlie had a great and easy defense but horrible debating
@@jakenoobybasically yeah
@@jakenoobyHe didn't had a horrible stance/claim
@@jakenooby his stance was reasonable but charlie tried to exaggerate it
@@jakenoobyno he wasn’t at all, since the VERY beginning of the stream he was arguing based on morality but also somehow “objectivity”? He is dumb as fuck and he hasn’t gotten fucking obliterated by someone who forces him to be specific
Bro wtf is this week , we got mr beast getting cancelled and penguiz0 losing a debate 💀
we're approaching the dark ages babe
penguin0 has never really been very good at debates, he has beliefs but doesn't know why
@@carlosvalezx6426 we're already knee deep into it...
and, losing to Sneako of all people
Personally I don't let pedophiles "win" a debate under any circumstance. I don't care what they say, they lose.
Weird how many debate lord people in the comments don't care about the substance of the conversation and only care about who "won"
1:18:20 charlie advocates child mutilation through transitioning, yet he admits when he was a kid "I would have no idea how to process that, I am a child".
He said if the government and people more knowledgeable than him approved it.. it’s really not a hot take 😭
@@normalnick5391So the government and some crackpot scientists control your children? Interesting point, comrade.
@@normalnick5391 So mutilating yoursefl is okay just because government approves it? I guess slavery was also okay because government approved it aswell.
@@Tyyppllmao y’all are unhinged
@@Tyyppl if sex transitioning is mutating to u then we have bigger problems brother
No genuine person who watched the whole thing can come to a conclusion that Cr1tikal won!
None of them won, they both had horrible moments
Honestly he just got tired after the first 30 minutes lmfao
@@KazLxrd i know, you might disagree with sneako's position, but from a purely debate perspective , Sneako was way above Charlie. In fact i believe Charlie might have been surprised by him. He might have thought sneako would be an easy kill, boy he wasn't expecting this!
brother,they werent debating anything,he said on stream that he wasnt trying to debate him but just hear his opinion which is why he didnt record to make content from it,otherwise wouldnt he have also allready made a video about it?he has uploaded what 4 videos since this happened and none are even remotely related to it.
inform yourself before talking for fucks sake
Sneako definitely isn't the type to praise for winning, though.
bro why is moist even having a hard time debating ,this is such a hard watch
Bc the truth won its hard to watch lol
It means Charlie doesn’t put much time and thought on his take
Cause he’s not very smart
@@WowAndleSneako's shockingly unintelligent. He just puts more effort into drilling a handful of points and being rhetorically effective.
@@chemseddinechabanetruth being 16 years old should date with grown idiotic adults like sneako?
Charlies take on kids being able to cut their genatalia off is insanity
yeah dude I love charlie but what an awful take
Watch his video explaining his point. Trans surgery where the genitalia is straight up chopped off isn’t just given to anyone especially minors. Charlie meant it in hyperbole, not literally since he thought sneako was exaggerating.
he never said that stop lying.
@@HA-kf9kk lol
Bro lagged out to think of an answer
Hahhaha
im pretty sure he was using a lag switch or straight up turned off his wifi lol
@@notshane3827 Ah yes. He is using a lag switch trying to connect to a person across the country. Brother these sneako fans get more brainrotted
@@greekwashingmachine295 Are those sneako fans in the room with us right now?
@@greekwashingmachine295he wasn’t across the country, rather the world. 😂
You can hear how unprepared Charilie is
Sneako knew his takes were gonna get hated on. He knew he would take the “L” in all futures.
So all he needed to do was just say his points and wait for Charlie to absolutely fuck up.
And fuck the multiverse because this universe is the one where Charlie fucks it up horrible
NPC excuse
kinda disorienting to speak with someone as mindnumbingly stupid as sneako
Coping much?
@@unknowniam121 What am I coping with?
Both absolutely sucked. Charlie just had a lot more to lose and he did, than not cope. That’s a fact.
Sneako literally defends pedophiles, there's no future where the same men agree with him. But Charlie was unprepared and his take on children's gender transitions, even with the context everyone hated.
You’re coping by refusing to see reality.
I love Charlie and all but I’m really surprised to see how little he was able to flesh out his perspectives.. from a debate standpoint I hate to admit but I feel like sneako did better, even if his point is ridiculous
that's the thing, charlie is not a debater and he didn't know that this was going to be a debate
btw I'm on charlie's side, fuck sneako.
@@_smerte42this is something I wish more people understood. Charlie doesn’t debate on the regular where as sneako made a career off of contrarian debates, edgy debates and grifting. All he does is debate and Charlie is just having a conversation and stating his beliefs and not trying to 1 up sneako or hit him with any gotchas.
Bro it was basically 2 grown men saying sum that’s lowkey if jot very predatory should be okay with parental consent, no matter who made the most sense tbh it was weird that they even tried to differentiate them cuz they really felt like the same shit with different fonts and counters. As opinionated as the opinions are with it I gotta say this is just a oddly disturbing draw to me that I wish didn’t even exist cuz I think a lil low of charlie and lower than it already was before for for sneako
@@_smerte42 that's just Charlie coping though. Listen to his stream after. He was coping so fucking hard about saying some dumb fuckin stuff. Plus if Charlie would have won the debate it would have been a complete different story. He would have actually posted it on his channel do some long intro bragging about how good he is then the whole UA-cam community will be posting talking shit about sneako. But because Charlie looked bad it's cope
@@_smerte42you’re just admitting that he hasn’t thought out his own opinions and when confronted with logic couldn’t back him up, but you still are on his side. Cool 😂
“A child can consent to procreate”
“No that’s stupid but a child can consent to permanently maim and mutilate themselves and rid themselves of the ability to procreate”
Both dumb
transitioning saves lives child marriage doesn't (and birth defects and death of mother are also higher so you could argue that child marriage leading to pregnancy takes lives)
@@ppleberryndsureeeee… what about detransitioners?
@@ILoveFunAndTheWorld They never want to talk about detransitioners
@@ILoveFunAndTheWorld 11% of trans women and 4% of trans men detransition, so it isn't as high as you think. In addition, many people that detransition cite discrimination, not being able to find a job, and transitioning taking too long/being too hard as reasons (although a small amount of the already small amount that do detransition cite feeling pressured by parents, which is abhorrent obviously, so don't claim that I claimed otherwise).
@@boop99 They never want to talk about literal underage marriage. Read my other comment.
Charlie got cooked. No wonder he didnt want to release the debate.
I had no idea that he even had this debate. I found out from other UA-camrs. What a garbage fucking take thinking that children can make the decision to transition.
Sneako also simultaneously had some of the most laughable debate points I've ever heard though. Were we listening to the same debate?
"Killing you would be a personal choice", hello???
Yes the transitioning take was bad but Sneako is way worse. And his takes in this debate only scratch the surface of his beliefs.
I also still don't think that to this day, he understands the point of age of consent laws. Dude said that age of consent laws don't exist, and he apparently won.
Or I mean I guess he did win a "debate", but I don't even know what that's worth. Sneako goes around learning debate tactics all the time, this isn't Charlie's realm.
All in all, this debate made the world dumber, can't lie.
Or I mean Charlie did disappoint tbf, but Sneako honestly didn't really do much. I can only say that he got him during the trans debate.
@@ricardobernardofardo7397Sneako said the age of consent laws shouldn't exist and he gave a reason for that, either you are ignoring it or not accepting it. If you look at statement at a face value, it can seem dumb. Look at the why to get a full picture.
@@ricardobernardofardo7397lmaoooo take the L
Moist’s argument is based on if it’s just “weird” or “it doesn’t seem right” as to sneako who at least had a consistent stance backed up by his own thinking
Oh shit. Sneako actually had some good points. Once you take some of these arguments out of the US these arguments get super muddy. I genuinely dislike sneako but damn. Not everything he said but some things.
Ngl I was concerned about the amount of times sneako made me go "wait a minute" 😅
I fundamentally disagree with 80% of his takes, but he had a few points here and there.
@@fraydizs7302 the issue for me with all of the topic though is Sneako equating it back to Culture. Like there have been studies that some 16 year olds are better decision makers than some people in their late 20s and that’s if we take away intelligence. Now at 16 I would have considered myself smart and if someone asked me to make a life changing decision at that age I would agree that I was old enough to understand but looking back in my 30s now I realize 16 year old me had no idea about consequences or what things could turn into down the line even if I swore I did and could list them. There are some decisions that shouldn’t be made young. My little brother, at 16 got a Chevy tattoo. I told him not too, my parents told him not too, he got it. Now at 20 he hates it and wants it covered with another bad idea tattoo. Still he doesn’t make the best decisions.
@@TheBeardedAtheist What studies?
@@bingus4901 PMCID: PMC6551607NIHMSID: NIHMS1025357PMID: 30762417
The point most people are missing too is the fact he keeps saying if the father consents. Just like in India and other places the family is a big part of the marriage process it's a family deal. So it logically makes sense. The problem in the west is we've made fathers a joke and have it only be a personal decision instead of a community one
I’m watching 2 men walking through a field of bear traps.
Shoulda just left it at clips and mags
lol that would be the best choice
Poor Internet Anarchist had to see the guy he glazes each time get humiliated...
I was looking for this comment 😂
I wonder if Moist realizes that marriage is far, far less permanent than gender transition.
pedophilia is indeed know to have very light impact on the children, got that right champ.
Well for a lot of these "religious" "traditional" folk, they also want marriage to be permanent and hate divorce.
I wonder if you realize sleeping with kids isn't something you can undo.
Moist is getting grilled because he has conflicting morality. To not be mature enough for marriage but to be mature enough for HRT is logically inconsistent.
Charlie did a very very bad job at debating a very easy debate
Literally it's not hard to say grown adults with a more developed brain should not be with a child who's still learning how the world works
@@MarukaiXwhy? You actually have to justify that statement with an Argument that also justifies why adults who haven’t fully developed (18-24) can consent to a binding contract like a marriage. An arbitrary age of 18 isn’t ‘common sense’ when the majority of the world disagrees.
@@mike_hock the age of 18 isn't an arbitrary concept, it's a failsafe. It's saying that even 18 -year-olds might not be able to consent but at the very least, we can't fall below that line. that line may be subjective, but the truth that people under 18 can't consent isn't. some kind of line needs to be put down between adults and children
marriage isn't the same as consent, that's just a different topic. There's a lot of things 18-year-olds are allowed to do despite not being fully developed, including voting for those in power, taking out debts, living alone etc
@@meowsca that doesn’t answer why 18 is the chosen age, why not 26? the frontal cortex isn’t developed until around your mid 20s and that’s what this debate was about, it regulates the decision making and logic that children *CAN NOT* understand even if they were fully informed. So if an 18 y/o hasn’t fully developed it their capacity for reasoning, why can they be allowed to go into debt and/or sign binding contracts?(like a marriage certificate) here is another question: do you agree the drinking age should be 21 to stop irrational teens from stunting their development? After all, they are the age of consent to understand the ramifications right?
1:18:35 then why should a child now be able to make that decision??😭💀
Dude at the end of the debate sneako asked one more time SUPER specifically,
- “so you think if a 9 year old wanted to FULLY transition and their parents gave consent, the kid gave consent, and the doctor gave consent, would it be okay?”
And Charlie said “yes”.
This statement Charlie made about not understanding the question or thinking sneako was “speaking in Hyperbole” is just a load of BS and basically just him trying to backtrack due to the backlash he’s been getting.
But make no mistake, sneako asked this same question a few times VERY clearly and Charlie was saying it’s okay.
His views are completely warped and he should never have kids.
(For the record I don’t agree with sneakos views either on the age of consent)
I think this is where alot of people sit on this
Transitioning FULLY doesn't mean anything much less sugerys it could be puberty blockers and name change, which would be the most at that age, yall are just putting what you imagine Transition fully means onto this
It's a bizarre case where both were wrong about the argument they were presenting and completely right about the argument they were opposing.
But compare this to Hitchens Vs Anyone and realise these are the great minds of this generation. It is tragic on both fronts.
it’s weird how Charlie didn’t post this video on any channel after he said he probably would
MoistCritical's only point in the debate is literally "why are you even debating your point of view" LMAO
critical's point is "it's rape if its anyone over 18 fucking anyone under 18 unless there are certain circumstances like R&J laws that make the situation acceptable", whereas sneako's point is hovering somewhere in the bizarre realm of "if they're having their period or producing a certain amount of testosterone they're A-OK to start fucking anyone even/ESPECIALLY people older than 18". critical slipped up and gave into sneako's retardation at certain points for the sake of moving the conversation past the brain cell-deleting feedback loops that kept getting thrown at him over the nuances of "physical maturity vs culturally accepted adulthood age". everyone who can't understand these two goobers is a fucking idiot.
A lot of Sneako’s arguments are nothing but contrarian points, he’s been very successful building a “career” off doing this. He’s not a dumb guy, far from it, but a lot of his “beliefs” are nothing but controversial takes for the sake of controversial takes.
He probably believes that 16-17 is ok wich i dont think that's morally wrong in some cases but because of his religion he bites the bullet a bit in the 12-15 year old wich was the only thing moist got on him but sneako genuinely stands on this and its not even a bad belief in my opinion if you understand where his coming from he wants marriages if you actually process your thoughts correctly with both sides and information you wouldn't comment this stupid brainless critique
@@skatoulhs6610 Elaborate on how a 12-15 year old should be able to get married in your book, please. Because to me it feels like he's just trying to argue that it would be okay to get into a little kid's pants; marriage, most of the time, leads to living together, which can result in outcomes that were not originally accounted for in his argument. With such close contact between an adult and a child, plus the legally binding vows that were spoken, the adult is put into a position of power (until that child is 18 years old, if we're using today's laws). Sure, in his world it would be legal, but from a moral standpoint it's wrong. If the adult were to wait for the child to turn a certain age for them to morally justify themself, the situation would still be textbook grooming due to the constant close contact with a minor, a position of power, and being in love with the child.
@Waking.Up.You heard the beginning then right? Sneako word for word said "I don't believe in the age of consent."
Btw any age under 18 hell I say anyone below 20 is wrong for a adult to get with. Under 20 is just morally, but legally 18.
That's here in canada, I don't understand why that's so low in the states but you have to 21 to smoke, drink, and legally gamble.
P.s Make whatever paragraph you want. If someone replies whatever, someone doesn't oh well
@Waking.Up. Sneako never directly said it was wrong to go out with a child? He said he personally wouldn't do it, but he wouldn't care if somebody else did it.
Addressing what you said regarding adulthood, I believe that what you're saying is true, however, that's the sole reason WHY the age of consent exists. If kids were allowed to claim themselves as adults and have that be recognized as factual by everyone around them, relationships like 12 and 63 would be normal. With relationships like those, we as humans would be regressing hundreds of years. The age of consent in each country serves as a general limit to how young an individual may be to be considered an adult while also taking into account the maturity of their peers. Sure, one fifteen-sixteen year old may be mature enough to be an adult, but you can't just go off of that one teen to describe their peers. It doesn't work that way; everyone is different; which is why limits and guidelines regarding the age of consent or the age of when someone becomes an adult exists in the first place.
@milliondollarmentality ok so first lets go back to the start. an adult defined is someone who is biologically containing the traits of an adult. pedophilia is defined as attraction to a pre pubescent. now with this out the way. if and this wont apply as commonly today that a 12 to 15 year old SOMEHOW reached adulthood. it would be fine. i am not saying ALL 12 to 15 year olds. i am saying that an ADULT. a person who can understand consent and has a grown body can and should be allowed to marry. this also appliws in the reverse. a prepubescent 18 year old shoulsnt be allowed to marry.
Charlie had the better stance and for the most part I agreed with his takes but Sneako just had better arguments ready even if he had the most grotesque and outlandish takes imaginable. As a fan of Charlie, I really expected better arguments from him but watching this felt like watching the seemingly unstoppable good guy lose, like this entire debate was just the equivalent of reading the comic where Batman gets his back snapped by Bane. Seriously this was horrendous.
I've learned to hate most popular youtubers because they're all fake and do it just for the money. The only reason they're popular is because UA-cam lets them be.
bingo
True.
Oooh, you’re so different
@@pory913😂😂😂
They are. They’re actors. They’re here to distract us from what’s going on behind the scenes in the world. They’re here to put you to sleep. It’s a big waste of time.
Ngl I’m a moist fan but he got cooked
I agree, his statement on trans kids was ablsolutely horend. While I dont agree on 90% things sneako says he kind of had a point there
This debate was such a shame. Neither of them take their position correctly. They BOTH contradict their own arguments. Moist thinks the kid can consent to permanent trans surgery. But not to marriage. Then sneako thinks they can consent to marriage but not the surgery. Bizarre. The argument really has nothing to do with age or puberty or the number 18 or the law. It has to do with brain development. The idea of consent doesnt have any bearing on physical development. 18 admittedly is technically arbitrary but its a good average for mental development. And the romeo and juliet laws help mitigate excess consequences for teen relationships that straddle both sides of 18. The current consent laws are solid. Sneako advocating for lowering the age or basing it on “maturity” which is completely subjective, would also open up the possibility of children consenting to their own mutilation.
Exactly how I feel, in a sense they literally have the same weird mindset pertaining children. Literally is like watching two guys who got caught on tcap argue over who’s more weird.
Fuck at least sneako is trying to use some form of logic, however stretched as it is. Charles is just saying "I don't know" and "that is what was established." Without explaining WHY he has that side.
35:55 this bit here is what I'm talking about. "I don't know but those are the agreed upon rules."
You are missing one key detail. It's not Moist's position against Sneako's position. It's Moist's against the Quran. Moist's position is based on ad populum, which is fallacious logic. Sneako's based on religion with a presupposition of God informs what is and is not moral. Whether you choose to believe in a God or not, Sneako lives on an objective standard.
He literally said in his new vid talking about this that he does not believe a child should be able to do tran surgery??? Are you braindead or being purposefully ignorant
100
i feel like i woke up in a parallel universe like a year ago lol
bro this entire year is something else, this year for the internet is just insane
Yeah 2023 was boring and 2024 is like the fun guy who shows up late to the party
Started in March 2020ish
@@dewwwd3431 big facts
@@dewwwd3431 shit just got more intense last year lol i feel like 2012 was the end honestly
1:02:00 - 1:13:00 why is no one talking about Sneeko making a point that a "mature" 12 year old should be able to marry an adult? Like dude.
As wild as that is it pales in comparison to saying a child can consent to having their dick cut off.
A 12-year-old in Africa or some Chinese ghetto is more mature than the modern Western 20-year-old.
Why not?
Bro??@@knoobiez
@@knoobiez Because regardless of whether or not a female is capable of reproduction, a girl that age hasn't reached a level of mental and emotional maturity that would make it socially or morally acceptable to engage in sexual acts with a 12 year old. Even if someone that age gives enthusiastic verbal consent we say no because kids can't be trusted with that decision. Much like how we don't trust them with vehicles, houses, bills, careers, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. There's absolutely no reason sex should be any different.
YT prolly gonna delete this 'cause they hate me.
We got a public figure involved with grooming minors and two public figures debating about minors in the span of like 2 weeks
Don’t forget the most followed user on UA-cam being cancelled
Bro Charlie is really bad at debating, he let sneako dodge questions
He himself dodged 😂
Who would have thought that a reddit NPC who can only punch down and say poopoo peeepee fart would be good at debating? Lmfao, he lost one debate and went on a hiatus, and wh*te boys worship this dude🤣😂
I agree... I think Charlie just hasnt thought deeply enough on these topics to reply with anything more than "but society says so"... There were SOOO many easy ways to blow up every point Sneako brought... I was screaming at my screen...
No lol he himself dodged questions
He mentioned multiple times and called out Sneako on him not answering questions and going on tangents. Did you watch the video?
Sneako is using literal middle school debate tactics against critikal like talking over him, getting him to answer hyper specific questions and then making huge generalizations and exaggerations and critikial continuously lets him get away with it. Somehow Sneako forced him into a corner on every point and critikal was way too ill prepared to answer any of the questions. Critikal also refused to explain any of the terms he used so at the very least Sneako would understand what he was saying and this allowed Sneako to essentially put words in Critikal's mouth or just interpret what he was saying in the worst way possible. Probably one of the worst debates ive ever seen
Perfect example of how you can win a debate with pure preparation and technique, not logic.
Only if against the uninitiated like Charlie who kept fumbling over his words. Anyone else would have destroyed Sneako here
Moist didn't even seem to have preparation at all and the debate was supposed to be about the age of consent, while Sneako manipulated the situation to revolve around a more serious topic to catch Moist unexpected and see his reactioon.
They both had god awful arguments that were weird. Like they both lost😭
@@potshead it's because it wasn't a debate, he had no idea sneako was streaming and was there to talk.
Plus, how the fuck would you debate someone as stupid as sneako
What logic was lacking? This was a textbook example of presuppositional argumentation.
I feel like Charlie actually tried to talk sneako out at first but after 30 minutes he just gave up and looked like he just wanted to leave already.
Sneako shot his own point down when he said “mentaly read to have a kid” I would of slapped back with women aren’t done developing their brain until their mid 20s and for men it’s early 20s. He talks about maturity. Well with science we see 18 years old isn’t even fully mentality mature. So no way in hell would a 12 or 16 year old would be mentally mature to have children, also bring in what he thought of that 9 year old Muslim girl that died on her wedding night as her old man husband fcked her to death. Sneako argument is so frail it amazes me how stupid Charlie came across
He easily could have. But he wanted to promote his new friend Sneako. I'd have never known who this was if not for him.
@@OddOtter707that's dumb, they've been in back and forth beef for years. Sneako is very famous
@@Messi-lu3ij if the beef was that serious I doubt he'd do another stream with him though. And idk they sounded pretty close at the start.
@@OddOtter707the fuck do you even think you're on about?
both arguments get so easily crumbled lmao
Sneako was right
@@T.T.T416 age of consent needs to be a fixed number because there's no reliable and effective way to determine whether someone is mature enough to have marry or have intimacy. when someone is a child every year has a large effect on their maturity, so 18 seems to be a pretty safe consent age compared to 17.
@@its_lucky2526 not really it’s only a one year difference
@@T.T.T416 as i said one year makes a large difference when you're a kid
@@its_lucky2526 once again it is unfair to give everyone the same ruling as some people are mature by 13.
Why is none of these men talking about intercourse HURTING physically and is damaging mentally for kids under 16. It’s unacceptable and whoever thinks otherwise needs to be charged for assault
1:30:52 Oh damn. Sneako straight up called it. I did *not* expect that.
"Has there ever been any proof that DrDisrespect did what he did?"
Bro, he literally admitted to it...
@@__.Daniel.__ there’s no proof he texted inappropriate messages to the minor, but he did text a minor
@@Baldman736He admitted to sexual messages
@@volkovedits in the tweet though he was saying there were texts to a minor but there were no intentions behind them
@@Baldman736stop defending a pedo, he was trying to meet up with a child by them selfs that is fucked no matter what
@@leafmanwithafryinpana former twitch employee outed him
Charlie is actually spineless
Rare Sneako W and Rare Charlie L
Never thought I’d see sneako win a debate
Man, Charlie seemed genuinely intimidated here and not faithful to his own "beliefs". Can't stand Sneako, but wow.
Sneako won because his argument was logical and Charlie's wasn't.
Sneako's point is simple: "People reach adulthood physically and mentally at different ages, when they reach that time for them to be considered an adult they can make decisions regarding their life."
Charlie's was: "Children can make some irreversible damaging decisions but not some other ones with no reasoning to why or what the difference is."
You're absolutely correct and it's kind of hilarious how so many people missed this (or are desperate to not see it because they're so scared of being called a you-know-what). As you say, Sneako's point was simple and valid, which means the only reasonable way to undermine Sneako's position legitimately is to either attack his premises or the effectiveness of the policy change he proposes on the basis of the argument's conclusion. Of course, Charlie is an NPC who lives in the Twitch streamer left-wing bubble who is praised for either shooting fish in a barrel (e.g., dunking on already disgraced individuals) or repeating the latest talking points, so he was incapable of recognizing this. All his arguments were longwinded versions of "other people think this". I don't think Sneako's a smart person by any means, but it shows that he at least knows himself and came to his own conclusions. I respect that a helluva lot more than an NPC like Charlie regardless of what their actual opinions are.
They both had the second argument though.
@@bingus4901 nope Sneako never spoke about children.
@@ZiadJimmy He was talking about minors as young as 12 years old.
@@bingus4901 minor (below a certain age) is not the same as a child (a prepubescent). Sneako was talking about adults who are physically and mentally mature at whatever age they may achieve that. Definitions matter which is what Sneako was saying.
Sneako said and 18 year old and a 12 year old should be allowed to get married and you guys are defending him…..
age doesn’t matter. If both people are physically mature. Mentally mature. And both families and both married people consent then why is it wrong? And how is 18 adult when people have puberty way younger
@@XChrisClipsXbecause people are UNABLE to be mentally mature until 18, and even that isint full mental maturity until 24. How fucking stupid do you have to be to take “mentally mature” as a theoretical or something that depends on the person, it’s fucking science, it’s not up for debate.
Being “physically mature” aka. Getting a period is not even close to mental maturity, and a PERIOD, is the goddamn BEGINNING of maturity.
My last two brain cells argueing while I'm black-out drunk:
The youngest known mother was 5 years old. That 5 year old was able to have a child. Does Sneako think a man having sex with that 5 year old was ok because she was able to have a child?
He clearly said when the person reaches maturity
@@vyshisaking4006in Islam maturity is when the women menstruates, so according to that she was mature.
If she agrees to marry, her parents agree to marry (which they wont cuz that is taboo in our current norms), if the groom and his parents agree (which is also taboo in OUR norm), and if there is no force/compulsion/greed/dealership involved then they can marry.
Note, since in our norms, marrying someone of this age is obsolete therefore the culture protects the marriage, this is why Allah in Islam did not fixed an age for marriage cuz it is a subject to change with time and circumstances.
I would never marry my daughter even if she reaches puberty at age 4 cuz I dont consider this an age for Mental Maturity in our Norms, ofcourse.
But the point is that this Mental Maturity is an ever changing standard. People of past norms had different mental models therefore their practices vary from us.
@@asfandyarmuneeb7263 you don't know her parents wont agree. There are almost 8 billion people in the world. Are you saying none of them are evil enough to marry off their 5 year old daughter? Even if most parents wouldn't do that, shouldn't we protect children from their abusive parents?
39:50 for anyone wondering how it all started
Charlie got cooked💀 , it's crazy how he made sneako look like the smart one.
Did you watch the full video?
"This pedophile looks so smart guys"
@@suzabakingbaked7975 if he didn't his point still stands Charlie got cooked
@@shawnswagger8942 they both lost the moral high ground a few different times. Just depends on how you cut the clips
He didn't. Sneako got destroyed and it wasn't even a debate.
Defending injecting children with permanent mind and body altering chemicals is insane, worse than Sneako’s (bad) claim if you ask me
children are their own people, not the responsibility of the state. not the responsibility of their parents. the second they can emote is the second they can make these decisions. i don’t like the fact anybody can get these invasive surgeries. you however are opposed to lax morality laws and you’re weird.
Transitioning saves lives.
When was the last time child marriage saved a life?
no no no no both are bad but sneakos was worse
@@ppleberrynd What fucking lives does it save, you delusional bot?
@@jops1513you are a complete clown 🤣
Sneako does realize he is contradicting himself. He's saying only parents should be able to consent to marriage. If your parents have to give you consent to do something than you aren't an adult capable of making your own decisions and shouldnt be getting married or having sex for that matter. It's dumb. Why would you need parental consent as an adult to do anything? Then he says the definition of consent is arbitrary. It's not at all, in fact its pretty cut and dry. It's when as an adult you are giving permission for something to happen. Parents can only consent for you when you are a child, once adult you dont need parental consent. So arguing that consent for marriage should only come from the family is same as arguing that children should be able to get married. It's a really dumb point.
Wtf even is this. This is crazy. Both have crazy fucking takes. KEEP THE CHILDREN INNOCENT AND SAFE UNTIL THEY MATURE. How hard is that.
You sound like moist
Why is it crazy if both families and both people are consenting and both people are physically and mentally mature, what’s the problem? The thing is you are anchored by the government and some people age laws and don’t think logically
Anyone who is physically and mentally mature is by definition an adult
That's literally what sneako said silly
@@minerpig64 Yeah I want an answer from him because I didn't see Moist answering
@@XChrisClipsX dude, a FULL GROWN ADULT CANT MARRY A KID OR TOUCH A CHILD INAPPROPRIATELY. THE FACT THAT YOUR JUSTIFIYING IT IS PATHETIC
The stupidest debate that they could ever make, oversimplifying two very complex dynamics, comparing random made up scenarios with no scientific background whatsoever..
Timestamps where Charlie makes statements about children transitioning
39:45 - 46:10
1:18:22 - 1:19:30
1:58:04 - 1:59:42
thank you
Bro made sure we can't click them...
39:45 - 46:10
@@littleweaselboy2865 true, I just copied these from my internal notes
They are arguing about a nuance conversation in 2 hours… without enough research, this is the main problem with streamers
How about focusing on the fact that Sneako is literally a closeted pdfile
Imagine being a 5"6 fence sitter
He's too short he can't hop off the fence.
You're dickriding a white supremacist by the way
@@graybonesau sneako is muslim bozo.
if the statement "people older than 18 fucking people younger than 18 outside of the acceptable range that R&J laws cover is rape" is fence sitting then I guess I'm riding the fucking pole like a horseman
Regardless of whether you disagree with Sneako's take, he did a great job at defending his stance and posing difficult questions to the opposition. Charlie, on the other hand, was contradicting himself every other minute, and the strange thing is, he didn't even realize he was doing so.
WOW charlie just insulted more than 99% of humans that ever existed 1:22:45
Did he tho?
Most people actually didn't support that
Funnily enough age of consent in Europe like Britain 16,france 15 heck Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia and Germany is 14 according to charlie these countries are PDF files. What sneako said wasn't even controversial lol
Ok?
@@Ausarisur gay
1:58:04 ”It’s like choosing a fucking sport” is CRAZYYY☠️☠️☠️
😂😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣 that’s crazyyy
I don’t understand why people insist that 18 is the age of adulthood. Like are the other countries with the age of consent being 16 or 17 just straight up wrong.
How bout 19? 20 and above?
@@certifiedbingus i think 18 is spot on. your out of school, basically done with tutorial
@@Flare_OfficialThe age where you’re out of high school can be different based on what country you’re in
@@pory913 from how I interpret it, adulthood is when growth plates in the bone fuse. For boys its 15-17. Add in another year for just in case.
Which means an adult is guaranteed to be physically matured and hopefully “mentally” matured. Which usually is the case.
Its a perfect balance between allowing freedom and not letting the angsty do smtg stupid
@@Flare_Officialand for women it’s 14-16 so wait another year and 15 to 16 is fine for u ?
To flush out the answer to way incest is wrong a bit more, the reason is because the possibility of a sexual relationship between family members would destroy the core family structure. It becomes very difficult for family members to confide in other family members during their vulnerable moments when the possibility of a sexual relationship exists. In order to keep family relationships different from regular friendships, incest must remain taboo/stigmatized.
You can say the same thing about gay marriage and transitioning. Don't you think that it would affect the family structure if a person had two moms or two dads? And what about if one day one of your parents suddenly switches genders? Wouldn't that affect the family structure in a negative way?
@@GreatApeNRTH I think that was the thought for a long while... but the idea of having 2 moms or 2 dads instead of no moms or dads seems to have trumped that thought. Whether or not a parent is gay or trans doesnt seem to hurt the family relationships between family members all that much when compared to a situation where sexual activities are a possibility. You could still confide in a gay or trans family member during a vulnerable time just fine.
@grimtrix you can confide in a mother and a father teaches you to be mentally and emotionally stronger. They are both needed in different ways. Having both can be detrimental to a child's psychology. That's why when there are same sex marriages there is one parent who is more feminin and one who is more masculine. They try to replicate what nature has already established with a mom and dad.
@@GreatApeNRTH I would probably agree with it being better to have a mother and a father... but as I said, I think 2 mothers or 2 fathers is better than not having any parents at all.
I also dont know that you can confide in a mother or father if the possibility of sex exists. It would be no different than confiding in a friend... and there is definitely a difference as it is today.
@@GreatApeNRTHthe reason why your argument doesn’t apply to LGBTQ+ families is because we have been taught that we absolutely NEED to have a mom and a dad, only boyfriend and girlfriend, and boy and girl to have good harmony. These are all things that are taught. If society accepted same sex marriage, then the concept of LGBTQ+ wouldn’t even be a thing. It would just be normal. Kids would be raised the same way as those who have opposite gender parents. It only disrupts the family dynamic because of society normalizing homophobia.
I think people forget that Charlie didn't go on to debate. He was expecting a normal conversation to talk things out rather than debating. And he didn't know he was being streamed for content by Sneako.
Personally, I think they were both wrong but more so Sneako.
A minor can't marry an adult. A minor is a child and a child is anyone under 18 years old.
Marriage is when two people consent to being married. A child can't consent because they're not an adult. They haven't reach mental maturity. Sneako is VERY wrong in that. A child (anyone under 18) CAN NOT marry an adult (anyone over 18) not matter how "ready" their body is. It's not about the body anymore. It's about the mental and emotional maturity.
A child can't transition because they can't consent since they are under 18 and not mature yet. This is mainly because of the same reason of the marriage debate.
However, I will give props to Charlie for admitting wrong. In his new video, speaking about the debate, he told his side of the situation, why he said what he said and that he shouldn't have said what he did. He admitted that he doesn't know a lot about transitioning and admitted wrong.
Sneako however...sticks by what he said. He even made an argument about the movie "Cuties" about a year ago. If you've watched "Cuties", you know why it's wrong. Sneako isn't sorry about what he's said and he does think that minors can marry adults WHICH IS PEDOPHILIA and A CRIME. And the fact that he didn't tell Charlie it was going to be a debate or streamed is shady.
Glad someone else is siding with Charlie on this.
I swear other people’s comments were driving me crazy. Thank you for your well written and amazing comment.
Charlie didn't admit to anything big. He gaslighted everyone about what happened. Sneako is a pdf, Charlie is a liar and manipulator hiding behind a nice guy mask.
Why would he even have a conversation with sneako though? He is verifiably crazy and yet he still wants to have a conversation? At what point do you just stop giving this guy the time of day to spout his crazy beliefs.
@@cagejones7757 I have to ask. Where’s your proof behind Charlie being a manipulative liar? Where are you getting these ideas?
influence is one hell of a thing guys. remember to make your own thoughts come to your own conclusion.
This is weird !!!!!! The better question is what age is a child? a 16 year old is a child.Adults and children shouldn’t be mingling. The societal number is based on societal activities & lifestyles. A 16 year old doesn’t have the same lifestyle or activities as an adult such as any sort of contribution to society or choices ability to have children be stable. WHY MUST THIS BE DEBATED
Horrifically bad stance for charlie
No it is not. Transitioning saves lives. When was the last time child marriage saved a life?
@@ppleberryndSaves lives how?
Yes
@@ppleberrynd How
@@oyasumiiii Reduces the rates of taking one's own life (phrased oddly in case yt tries to ban this)
After Destiny I think a lot of people are starting to realize that people's standards for "debaters" on streaming and video platforms are WAY too low. Moist is doing the cringe edgy-adult thing of claiming to have no traditional values but then morally grandstanding on how immoral some of Sneako's opinions are.
Hot take: Citing "common sense" or "common morality" but rejecting any existence of traditional morality is cringe. We all could use a little more culture and civility. I don't care how traumatized you are by rude religious people.
"What if the child consents tho" kind of energy.
doesn't he literally say this tho lmao
@@highdefinition450 pretty much yeah
@@highdefinition450"What if a child is an adult tho" was one of his literal points, which OP equates to child consent, which is still more fair than you d-riding a pedo prophet.
how is it hard for people to see sneakos argument? he claims an adult is someone who has reached maturity, and a child is someone who has not matured. these are textbook definitions. moist even agreed with him on the definitions. now when it came to marriage sneako isn't arguing that 12 is the age which people mature. everyone matures at different ages in their own lives. based on that a person would then be identified as an adult when they have matured enough that they could be seen as well an adult. when i was 16 turning 17 people couldn't tell if I was a teacher or a student at my school because I had a beard and was physically developed enough that they couldn't tell me apart from a 16 year old and a 25 year old. this is my own experience because well maturity is based on the individual not the government. even now I am 20 years old and people who don't know me think I'm 25-29 years old depending on how long I grow my beard. there were girls who were younger than me in highschool who I believed to be older than I was based on how mature they looked and acted. perfect example. all it takes is for people to not look at things from a biased view and just take in how people look as is without asking them. you would be shocked to see how young many people who you would assume is over 18 just by looking at them really are. there are plenty of videos on UA-cam where streamers are talking to underaged girls who look 18 or older skip over them after finding out they are younger than 18-16. I don't know how this comes as a surprise to people. this isn't a new thing... also what's the point of the definition of the word if people don't use it?
The only reason why people aren’t capable of seeing through sneako points (im not a fan of him but he gave really good points that made me think) is because we humans are morally superior species and anything that we perceive as bad we are against it even though deep down inside sneako has a point. There is no magic age for consent or maturity. Nature is the one that picks maturity through puberty and development. I’m 18 and im biologically the same as a 15,16,17 year old. But legally I’m seen as a “adult” because the government said so. Even though science also claims that 16,17 are also adult depending on how mature they are. I’ve meant 14 year olds who are both physically and mentally more mature than me. And I have people I know who came here from other countries who are younger than me and legally minors and get mistaken for adults because how mature they are and look. The only reason they aren’t capable of doing mature thing (even though in there home countries they can do adult things) is because here in the U.S the government said they can’t. We must understand that the age of consent laws are inherently rooted in puritan history from long ago. I’ve even meant morons who want to raise the ache of consent to 25. Stupid i know. But we people cannot question those people and there laws because people would be called “pedophiles” that’s also one of the main reasons why people disagree with sneako. Because they are Afraid of being called the P word. Even though none of sneako arguments of pedophelic by definition. A pedophile is someone who find prepubescent children attractive (children who haven’t even hit fucking puberty yet) that’s a pedophile. A man finding a hot girl with boobs and ass is not pedophelic because they are attracted to the mature looks. This is why we need to be careful because some girls truly look wayy to grown.
If I can like this comment a hundred times I would have done it
why are people actually arguing about this, one of them made a slip up and the other is a pe-do
“tHe OtHer iS a Pdo”
Either your brain is damaged or you didn’t watch the video.
Which is which
And why
closeted
moist thinks that if a child and their parents consent to transitioning its perfectly fine, then he gets asked if he was a child and he was introduced to the idea of that he responds “i wouldnt even know how to process that, im a child” ive never heard a bigger contradiction than this lmao
A child is someone who hasn't gone through puberty, someone who has but is not an adult is an adolescent. These are basic terms guys c'mon.
an adult is someone above the age of 18 and a minor is someone below 18
so according to charlie a child is smart enough to make the decision to change their gender for life but not smart enough to know if they wanna get married…? does he not see how flawed this logic is? how can u be “smart enough” to make such a drastic decision of mutilating urself, but same said person apparently can’t decipher the true feelings of love towards another human? like come on please make it make sense ur contradicting urself with ur own logic💀
if said child cant process the severity of getting married, how tf can they process the severity of cutting their meat off?
@@tylrjtrue man
Watch his newest video.
@@Elizabean1984 no
@@tylrj
So you refuse to see his point or the context of what he meant.
Sneako smashed moist...I didn't think sneako was going to make sense but he's right, we say that under 18 is wrong because the government made it that way but 200 years ago people didn't live to 30 so they were married and having kids by 15. To turn 25yrs old made u an old man back then. The government constructed this number and said it's the age u must be. If the government said "as of right now 8/7/24 you are an adult at 25yrs old" there would be a lot more pedophiles in the USA cuz then anyone 25+ that's dating a person 24- would be pedos
Charlie uses faulty logic:" If I can fit in my jacket, and my jacket fits in my bag, I would fit in my bag "
To be fair, Charlie would fit in most bags. He's 4ft3.
Those two things have fairly different versions of "fit"
How this dude lose a debate to someone who thinks it’s ok for a 21 year old to marry and 14 year old 😭
He’s literally avoiding the question and saying unrelated shit 💀
Why is it wrong if both families and both people are consenting and both physically and mentally mature, what’s the problem? The thing is you are anchored by the government and some people age laws and don’t think logically
@@XChrisClipsXthe problem is that it is LITERALLY impossible for a child to be mentally mature. You can argue your “physically” bullshit but that doesn’t matter, the point is that a child CANNOT be mentally mature. Full mental maturity is achieved at fucking 24, and maybe even later. I watched my sister make horrendous mistakes at fucking 20 which she made due to being literally unable to comprehend them. Even an 18 year old is a little young to comprehend a whole lot of shit, whatsoever a 14 year old. This take is insanity.
@@XChrisClipsX you’re disgusting
@@XChrisClipsX You know? Maybe if the child goes through a Gauntlet of elders and answers everything effectively and as maturely as possible. Sure...
When Moist’s internet started struggling he should’ve pulled the cable and call it a day
That whole morality doesn’t equal legality Sneako brought up does make sense, but he instead of advocating to raise the age of marriage, he wants to lower it is crazy
Athesits are just fanatics, even they know their guy lost the debate, still they try to defend him 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Charlie made a complete mess of this, should’ve been an easy dub
He should've been fact checking what sneako was saying. For example the whole "definition of child" isn't even true lmao
You couldn't have done any better blud.
@@GREATSLUMBER"a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."
This is literally the definitions and there are 2 and the latter one is a State depicted age. While the former definitions defines it as anyone before puberty
exactly, charlie walked into a trap when sneako mentioned transgender
an approriate response would be that has no prevalence to the argument at hand
instead he gave his opinion on an obvious red herring
@@Haze_in-bw7ff yeah, but moist didn't clarify this which gave sneako leverage
Moist got bodied
jesus they both flopped worst stances on both sides.
@@PepePig-th6sy I think Sneako (Who I really don't care for) had a very consistent moral stance, while moist's was just to go with whatever he thinks the people around him will believe (IE the worst kind of human being)
@@joshuabacker2363 both were terrible stances sneako over there defending pedo's wtf
@@PepePig-th6sy yes you are right. But if someone from 500 years ago listened to moist or Sneako, they would think that Moist is simply an evil weirdo
@@riverphenoix1023 ya but we dont bring back things from 500 yrs we evolve i dont agree with either of them but bringing the hey few hundred years ago it was fine to marry a 12 yr old is equivalent to hey few hundred years ago we had slavery lets bring that back.
Dawg I’m American and Christian and I asked both my wife’s parents for her hand in marriage
So Charlie’s argument is a child can make the life altering decision of a puberty blocker but cannot get in a relationship because they’re not mature enough to make a life changing decision? I think he’s mixed up on the age of consent like what Sneako says.
If I were Charlie I would’ve asked, “What if a mature 14 year old wanted to date an immature 15 year old? Would that make the 14 year old a pedophile?”
I mostly agree with Charlie’s take on age of consent but I don’t agree with childhood transgenderism. The issue is they are looking at it through different lenses and don’t even want to attempt to see the other point of view.
By that question since the 14 year old becomes mature then yeah. He/she is a pedophile.
Puberty blockers are reversible
@@yopomo Nah
Yea the ability to consent to sex with an adult is DIFFERENT than the ability to discern your gender identity.
I suspect you think trans identity is abnormal and wrong, which is why you disagree
difference is that blockers arent harmful
Charlie drops the ball with the transition section, and sneako makes no sense with being fine wirh being 20ish and marrying a 'mature for their age' 15yr old and then disavowing things done out of Wedlock. Pretty poor debate overal ngl
Moist: "if there is a physically capable mentally capable 12 year old.."
Sneako: "That never happens practically, It is moral if they are mentally capable the age is not the point"
Moist: "oWOWOWOo YoU BeLivE ThErE cAn Be A mEnTAllY CapAblE 12 YeaR Old??"
I don't even agree with sneako in most things but this was an obvious attempt of defamation, he actively tried to make him look bad with no actual argument.
Is this your first debate? Thats how debate works
To Sneako: Incest is wrong because the “romantic” relationship between family members aren’t actually romantic. If a parent is romantically in love with their child, and the child “seems” to be in love with the parent, it still wouldn’t be romantic because the child is taught that this is okay. When you’re taught something, that something is automatically not authentically yours to begin with. The parent has the advantage of the child because the child is impressionable and only knows how to replicate what they’re being shown. Now, in a situation with two siblings at the same age(or not), it’s still not romantic since the idea of romance is blurred between them. Growing up with someone means you’re familiar with them. So of course it’s easy for siblings to fall in love because they know each other for longer, but that shouldn’t be romantic. Their perception of romance is taught, and whoever taught them that love/romance is only okay when you know someone for your whole life is wrong because then the whole world would be filled with incest by that logic. Everyone would marry their sibling/cousin since it’s easier because theyre more familiar with them than anyone in the world. Which is obviously a problem because then no one would procreate. I don’t know why this was even a question, but I hope I explained this well.
there are a shitload of fallacy in what you said lets point out a few;
first of all you are talking about a situation where the child has grown accustomed to the way of the parents. yes the child would not take it as romance like the parent HOWEVER what would you say when the child grows up? growing up, a child is most definitely taught with different morals that comes from different people from different society hence the former child knows the difference between parental love and romance. the former child gives consent to the romance then. how do you justify that? why is that wrong?
secondly, same thing as the last point, but when you said and i quote
"So of course it’s easy for siblings to fall in love because they know each other for longer, but that shouldn’t be romantic."
my question is, why? why shouldnt it be romantic? by definition its technically the same. also your logic of the world being filled with incest doesnt make more or less much of a sense.
another thing, you're asking why this was a question. and the answer to that is the fact that he was trying to set a ground where the morality was coming from. of course incest is absolutely fucking disgusting but how and why do you justify that is what he was trying to get from charlie. he's debating from a religious standpoint where his ground is never-changing and firm. charlie's entire point is an absolute fuckin mess considering he had no consistent ground to stand upon. to debate about something controversial like that, its important that you understand where you're coming from.
@@pingupingu9614 I already explained why it wouldn’t be romantic. It’s taught behavior. The majority of the world is taught that incest is wrong as children and as adults. So, why would children end up falling in love? Where would they learn that this is okay? Who enables that behavior?: the parents. And let’s say this wasn’t the case, let’s say that they do end up falling in love and they’re not taught that incest is wrong. What do children know about love? Love is a vague description, it can mean many things. Children touching each other sexually is just another thing they’ve been taught. They probably saw sex for the first time and wanted to try the moves on each other. Which shows how bad the parents are but anyway. Once sex is brought in, the sibling dynamic is broken. You can’t confide in them with intentions that aren’t tainted by sex. The definition for family changes all the time but the one thing that stays concrete about family is the fact that it’s never sexual or romantic in most cases. The reason for that being is to maintain the family dynamic and of course because they would ruin the family tree. So, the real questions is: Does love genuinely exist or is it just taught? Do romantic relationships only exist between non-related people because it’s taught? The more I think about it the more I question life tbh. I need a professional to discuss this.
Also, I agree with your last paragraph.
@@pingupingu9614 sorry my first point got deleted for some reason. To answer your first question: Even if the child grows up and is at the legal age to consent to marrying or having sex with the parent is still wrong because there’s a power dynamic. The parent literally changed their diapers, took them to school, taught them their ABC’s, and knows their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe they could be in love (even though I genuinely don’t think so but that’s beside the point), if the child of the parent in this relationship were to ever get raped by the parent or the parent breaches their trust in any way by doing something illegal, the one that gets away with it is the parent. The power dynamic is not balanced.
How did you drop the ball this hard? Really? You lost your right to post videos ranting about people.
Bro who even are you stfu😂
Fr😂
damn dude the two of you guys uncured cancer before it was cured
Why is it bad if both families and both people are consenting and both people are physically and mentally mature, what’s the problem? The thing is you are anchored by the government and some people age laws and don’t think logically
Anyone who is physically and mentally mature is by definition an adult
@@XChrisClipsX
Woodchipper
Two regarded people "debating" lol
Regarded as what?
@@purpleey replace the g in 'regarded' with t, that's what he meant to say
@@mihirpalla8744 😰 Oh my
@@purpleey lol, yeah, this whole debate is hard to watch tbh
Charlie is disgusting for this take, so gross dude. He needs to step away from the internet as a whole
Never thought I'd see Sneako being ultra-based. What a timeline we're in, this is something else. Charlie got clapped. He's such a holder of no opinion and tenets that he folded over in this debate. The real take-away here is that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. That's Charlie's downfall. Sneako W.
15:00 we definitely need a definitive moment in a person's life for age of concent and adulthood. My cousin's 13 year old is more mature than some 30 year olds. Maturity is way to vague. Just like you can't buy alcohol until you turn 21, and cant sign up for the military or sign legally binding contracts until you turn 18, just like you cant rent a car until you turn 25.
Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
24:00 incest is wrong because its disgusting, and im from Arkansas. If you share parents with another individual, you shouldn't be sharing a bed.
32:00 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines child as, "A human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier
The age of majority, also known as legal age, is the threshold of legal adulthood as recognized or declared in law.[1] It is the moment when a person ceases to be considered a minor and assumes legal control over their person, actions, and decisions, thus terminating the control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over them. Most countries set the age of majority at 18, but some jurisdictions have a higher age and others lower
It’s fucking baffling that people can’t just leave people under 18 alone😭why is that so hard for all the pedophiles to just fw people their own age. Saying there’s no age for consent is borderline demonic
Funny how you skipped the part where charlie agreed that 9 year olds can decide to cut their dicks off… fucken brain washed
@@6KArkadehe’s already explained this. You’re not making a valid argument and are trying to defend pedos
and why gays can't just leave the same sex people alone? you are born a pedophile, it's not your choice. it was a sexual orientation not so long ago. early 2000's I think
@@PiperWheelzbut 18 is a number that is stated in law. What about other countries that do not have 18 as the age of consent? Are all of the marriages in those countries considered pedophiles?
@@amaanbajwa6794 yeah and some places have the age of consent as 8
Sorry 1:00:30 charlie got cooked here. People really tried to cancel him because he misgendered Kris even tho bro was talking to minors. It's actually crazy and really scary how it's ok and normal to shame and degrade people if they do a crime like wishing death or rape upon them and telling them they had it coming... but if you do something as little as misgender a trans person that commits a crime you have to still be respectful and call them by their pronouns or else you're a transphobe and you're doing it out of pure spite and hatred towards trans people. Using that 3yr old logic, that means straight people are hated on☠️? I really don't understand how it got this bad, there is literally no way in HELL that the trans community holds that much "power" if you can even call it that, and people are actually and full heartedly following along.
So if a women does something terrible, do you think saying « that person doesn’t deserve any rights cus they are a woman”is that acceptable? Or if a black person commits a crime is it ok to say “that n word had it coming”? Nobody is saying that people who do crimes shouldn’t be shamed but shaming them based on race or gender identity is just stupid and isn’t impactful.
@@akeneo1169 I never said anyone who commits a crime or anything of that sort don't deserve rights. And no it's not ok if someone used a slur against another person if that person committed crimes. I never stated anything you brought up, I said people let it slide because they committed a crime so it's automatically ok to shame them and degrade them, no one bats an eye. But you misgender a trans which isn't even that serious, and you're a monster? Again I'm not saying that stuff is ok, that's just something that's normal if someone commits a crime, they are automatically seen as less human and it's ok for people to shame them. But it's like if you do something like that to a trans you're a transphobe. How does that work? That makes it seem like trans are superior to others.
@@akeneo1169 Last I checked the word he wasn't a derogatory term, and it also accurately reflects their sex, which doesn't mean one won't be offended but it doesn't make it incorrect or morally wrong. But if you want to say its equal to calling someone the N word sure.
@@Hybredcome on obviously the word he isn’t a derogatory term by itself, but it can absolutely be used in a derogatory way. if you were walking around as a man and you’ve considered yourself a man your whole life and people just started calling you mam and miss for some reason, that’s derogatory. Maybe it’s not equivalent to saying the n word but it’s judgment based on gender identity which is entirely irrelevant.
@@akeneo1169 I see what you're saying, but none of what you said is my point. I'm not talking about rights or anything of that sort. I was saying when let's say a rapists rapes someone. when they get caught, people will shame them and say very vulgar and derogatory stuff to them. Saying "they had it coming!" And wishing they get raped to feel how it feels like. I wasnt saying it's ok, I'm saying that's usually how it goes and it's normal. I'm not saying someone should have their rights taken away, society has made stuff like that as Normal where it's ok to trash on someone that commits a crime. But it's like if you do the same thing to a trans then it's bad and you're a transphobe. Even something as little as misgendering them? My whole point is how is it ok to degrade people and shame them that aren't trans but it's bad if you do it to a trans. Me personally, I don't think either is good, but the fact that you have to still respect their pronouns while people that aren't trans get trashed is concerning. And I disagree with pronouns somehow being derogatory. There is no way possible that you can make the words "miss" or "ma'am derogatory. People will look at you crazy because it's seriously not something to take offense of. That even sounds absurd that now pronouns can be seen as vulgar words. And I wasnt talking about people shaming other people that do crimes based on their race, I was speaking in general and that's my point. Trans automatically assume it's because they're trans and they feel attacked and in some cases that's true but it's not solely the only reason.
Sneako coming in with the 16th century way of life is crazy
Which is still the age of consent in most countries of the world including America
Why is it wrong if both families and both people are consenting and both people are physically and mentally mature, what’s the problem? The thing is you are anchored by the government and some people age laws and don’t think logically
Anyone who is physically and mentally mature is by definition an adult.
What has changed from the 16th century in human bodies?
the thing is marriage is reversable, how is a kid developed and sound enough to say they want to mutlilate themselves for life, but at the same age not sound and develop enough to say they want to get married imo both are unthought out delusions of a child, but the thing is if a child said they wanted to get married n realized first hand why thats wrong, because it is. they can atleast correct the mistake and get a divorce. but with surgery once the child develops just even a little bit more the decision is permanant and now they can never have kids and they have a life full of regret.
Being groomed isn't reversible, fucking weirdo