Skip to content

RattlesnakeTV Politics Culture Philosophy

Reparation & Systemic Racism Debate | Andrew Wilson vs Austin Offscript

A two hour RattlesnakeTV debate on reparations and systemic racism between Austin Offscript, arguing for reparations, and Andrew Wilson, arguing against. Austin builds a three premise case: the government caused measurable harm, justice requires restitution, therefore restitution is owed. Andrew concedes the historical harm but attacks the argument from inside, contesting definitions and calling the logic self contradictory. Both men argue heavily from Christian scripture and clash over welfare, taxes, the wealth gap, and whether the Exodus story models reparations or punishment. This page reconstructs the full debate in order and attributes every claim to the speaker who made it.

Published Jun 19, 2026 2:09:30 video 30 min read Added Jul 4, 2026 Open on YouTube →

At a glance

This is a full length RattlesnakeTV debate night, hosted by Jake Rattlesnake, in which Austin Offscript argues the affirmative case for reparations and Andrew Wilson argues against it. The format is a five minute opening statement from each side, then roughly ninety minutes of open dialogue, then viewer super chats. Austin builds his whole case as a three part logical argument: the United States government caused measurable harm to black Americans, justice requires restitution for measurable harm, therefore the government owes restitution. Andrew responds that black outcomes today have little to do with institutions and much to do with culture, then spends the bulk of the debate trying to break Austin's argument from the inside, contesting the definitions of harm, justice, and restitution and arguing that the argument contradicts itself.

Both men identify as Christian and both anchor much of the exchange in scripture, arguing over whether the Old Testament story of Israel leaving Egypt with the wealth of the Egyptians is a model of reparations or a model of divine punishment. The conversation ranges across the racial wealth gap, redlining and Jim Crow, DEI and welfare participation, who pays the most in federal taxes, the gold standard and inflation, and whether black Americans in the present are net beneficiaries or net contributors to the system. It is a heated, frequently interrupted debate. This page reconstructs it in order, attributes every claim to the speaker who made it, and represents both cases in full so a reader can weigh them without watching.

Sub-question	Austin Offscript (for reparations)	Andrew Wilson (against)
Root cause of black disparities today	Past government injustice whose effects persist, now expressed through culture	Self-imposed cultural preferences, not institutions
Does systemic racism still exist	Largely cultural now, but rooted in decades of systemic injustice	On its deathbed, vestiges too small to block mobility
Did the US government cause measurable harm	Yes, this is premise one	Concedes discriminatory policy occurred
Does justice require restitution	Yes, justice is giving what is due	No, forgiveness requires none; the syllogism is unsound
Biblical reading	Exodus, Israel spoiled Egypt; Zacchaeus restored fourfold	That was punishment, not restitution; Sermon on the Mount
Who bears responsibility	The US government as a continuing institution	Living individuals cannot owe for a past they did not cause
The remedy	Targeted home ownership and education for provable descendants, with a sunset date	Nothing owed; any transfer creates a new injustice and inflation

Figure 1. The two cases side by side across the questions the debate actually turned on. Green marks the points both men conceded (the government did enact discriminatory policy). Amber marks the load bearing disagreements. Austin argued the whole thing collapses to one syllogism; Andrew argued that same syllogism defeats itself.

The room and the format

Host Jake Rattlesnake, who calls himself Lord Rattlesnake and runs the channel, opens near 1:30 in the morning his time and lays out the rules: five minute openings, sixty to ninety minutes of open dialogue, then super chats read from the largest down. He introduces Austin Offscript, also billed as Austin Julio Broton, known from appearances on Jubilee and from an earlier reparations debate, and Andrew Wilson, a frequent guest on the channel. Austin has the affirmative, so he opens first and, by agreement at the end, gets the last word. The house rule Jake stresses is to appeal to the moderator if you feel talked over, and to keep insults off the personal.

Austin's opening: the government caused harm, so restitution is owed

Austin begins with a single proposition: a society that believes in justice cannot celebrate restitution when it benefits us and reject it when it challenges us. He is careful to say what his position is not. It is not that America is an irredeemably racist nation. It is not that every racial disparity is evidence of discrimination. It is not that any living American is personally guilty for the sins of the past. His position, he says, is simpler: government caused harm, government can measure that harm, therefore government has an obligation to repair it.

He lays out three premises.

Premise one. Systemic racism existed because government institutions deliberately enacted policies that directly disadvantaged black Americans. He calls this a matter of historical record rather than opinion: federal, state, and local governments enforced slavery, enforced segregation, enforced exclusion from housing markets, and enforced policies that prevented millions of black Americans from accumulating wealth that could have been passed to their children.

Premise two. The racial wealth gap did not emerge from thin air. Wealth, he argues, is not created in a single generation but transferred across generations: homes, businesses, investments, and land are inherited. If one group was systematically prevented from acquiring and passing down assets for centuries, it should not surprise anyone that the descendants of those families hold less wealth today. His image: if a father is robbed before he can leave an inheritance, the injury does not disappear when he dies; his children inherit the consequences.

Premise three. Justice requires restitution when a wrong has been committed. He says the principle is recognized everywhere else: if the government wrongfully takes your property, wrongfully imprisons you, or destroys your land through eminent domain, compensation is owed. Why, he asks, should government inflicted racial injury be the one category of harm for which compensation is considered unthinkable?

He closes on Christian ethics. Restitution, he says, is not merely an American principle but a biblical one. When Zacchaeus encountered Christ he did not simply apologize, he made restitution, because justice was not completed by words alone. Austin ties it to "faith without works is dead." He states plainly what he is not defending: not perpetual black victimhood, not racial resentment, not the idea that black Americans cannot succeed without government help. Restitution, he says, is not socialism, Marxism, communism, charity, or collective guilt. It is justice.

Andrew's opening: preference theory and culture

Andrew says he predicted Austin's position exactly, summarizing it as the standard left wing case: the United States held slavery for most of its early history, freed slaves were never compensated for centuries of labor, and so the government must take corrective action to create equity between black and other Americans.

His counter argument is what he calls preference theory. Black regression in the United States, he argues, has very little to do with institutions, and instead comes down to three factors he says predict success for any human in any place at any time: social skills, delayed gratification, and long term goals. He calls these a variation on the three C's of success and on stoic philosophy. How they are applied varies by culture, he says, but the successful people within any culture almost always have all three. Cultures that frown on these traits, he claims, tend to be low in technology, language, arts, and agriculture, while cultures with large white populations tend to maximize them and produce many successful individuals.

Andrew then argues that many black Americans have "otherized" themselves from what they perceive as white culture, building a subculture that rejects what he calls white tenets, which he says are mostly the application of Christian ethics and virtue. Through that self otherization, he says, the three traits get rejected, and he walks through each one:

Social skills. He claims many black Americans use a form of what he calls inferior English, dress impractically in clothing too large for them with undergarments showing, and treat violence as more socially acceptable, all of which he says erodes social skills. He notes that expensive clothing today undercuts the old poverty explanation.
Delayed gratification. He points to what he calls bling culture and "get that bag," money sought through fast, high risk, non repeatable methods such as drug dealing, theft, and mugging, rather than slow and methodical accumulation.
Long term goals. He says these are traded for instant gratification.

He then makes a controversial argument about pattern recognition. Mental illness, he says, is identified by deviation from social norms; humans are pattern recognition machines, and when they see too many deviations they categorize the behavior as a threat and avoid it for safety. His analogy is a man hunched over, mumbling, and stabbing himself with a thumbtack, whom anyone would avoid. Modern race relations, he argues, work the same way: skin color is less the trigger than what he calls the irregularity of behavior, which people categorize and avoid. When the moderator calls time, Andrew asks for two more minutes; Austin objects that he kept to five, and Andrew yields the floor.

Did black culture develop in a vacuum

Austin opens the dialogue by pressing Andrew with a question: did black culture develop in a vacuum, or did centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, fatherlessness driven by incarceration, and exclusion from asset building have a serious cultural effect? Andrew concedes that no culture develops in a vacuum. Austin drives the wedge: if a government locks people out of land, housing, capital, education, and legal protection, and then points to the dysfunction those conditions created, that is not an argument against systemic racism, it is evidence of its consequences. He adds that crime is not caused by melanin but correlates with poverty. Andrew agrees there is a correlation with poverty but says it has no bearing on his argument.

The syllogism, confined to Jim Crow

Austin formalizes his case and, importantly, narrows it. He restates the three premises and says he will set slavery aside entirely and confine the argument to Jim Crow and its era:

The United States federal government caused measurable harm.
Justice requires restitution for measurable, documented harm.
Therefore the United States government owes restitution.

ANDREW'S COUNTERS

Concedes it, but only as "discriminatory policy." Says it does not carry premise 2 Forgiveness needs no restitution, so justice as giving what is due is un-Christian If government decides what is due AND is the debtor, it can rule it owes nothing

Austin: premise 1 was conceded, so the rest is downstream of an admitted fact Andrew: break any one premise and the whole conclusion falls

Figure 2. The debate in one picture. Austin's case is a chain: two premises forcing a conclusion. Andrew never disputes the history in premise one; his entire strategy is to attack the links, arguing that premise two is unsound on Christian grounds and that premises two and three contradict each other. Austin's reply is that conceding premise one already grants the historical harm, and everything after is an attempt to escape it.

Defining the terms: harm, justice, restitution

Much of the first hour is a fight over definitions. Andrew repeatedly asks Austin to define harm, justice, restitution, and "what is due," saying he cannot evaluate a formal argument without knowing what the words mean. Austin grows frustrated, accusing Andrew of a word game meant to avoid the substance, and insists that since it is Andrew's job to attack the argument, Andrew does not need Austin's private definitions to do so.

They do settle some definitions. Harm, in this context, Austin accepts as any government backed policy that was discriminatory toward black people and excluded them from equal treatment under the law. He grounds this in the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and in Martin Luther King Jr.'s final speech, "I've Been to the Mountaintop": "all we are saying to America is be true to what you said on paper." Andrew, pressed with the plain question of whether the United States always treated black Americans as equal to white Americans, answers "of course not," and Austin marks this as the concession of premise one.

For justice, Austin eventually offers a definition: justice is giving what is due, and within this debate it means that when a person or institution causes measurable harm there is a moral obligation to repair it as far as it reasonably can be repaired. He stresses it is not equal outcome and not racial revenge. Andrew says the definition gives him little clarity and asks who determines what is due. Restitution, Austin says, would be anything that compensates black Americans or mitigates the existing wealth gap, and he names a concrete preference: undoing the effects of redlining and strengthening black home ownership, because home ownership is one of the largest sources of wealth for the American middle class.

Who determines what is due, and the contradiction charge

Andrew's central logical attack lands here. He argues that premises two and three contradict each other. If the government is the party that determines what is due (Austin points to H.R. 40, the bill to study reparations, as the mechanism), and the government is also the party that supposedly owes the debt, then if the government determines it does not owe restitution, then by Austin's own logic nothing is due. "Are you getting restitution right now?" Andrew asks. "Then I guess they've decided you don't need it, and they're the determiners." He labels this a "P and not P" contradiction, a proposition that asserts and denies the same thing.

Austin answers that the government has already acknowledged the harm. He cites a House resolution apologizing for slavery and Jim Crow, and a statement from the United Nations that slavery was among the greatest crimes in human history, arguing that acknowledgment of harm is not the same as a completed investigation of what is owed. No full investigation has happened, he says, which is exactly what H.R. 40 would provide, so the government has not decided it owes nothing; it has simply never finished the accounting.

The biblical exchange: Exodus, punishment or reparations

Andrew asks whether, under Christian ethics, restitution is required for forgiveness. Austin says restoration is not required for forgiveness of sin in that sense, and Andrew presses the point later. But the sharpest scriptural fight is over Egypt.

Austin argues that when the children of Israel were slaves in Egypt, God did not merely liberate them, he brought them out with wealth as restitution. He cites Genesis 15:13-14, where God tells Abraham his descendants will be afflicted in a foreign land but will come out with great substance; Exodus 3:21-22, where God says Israel will leave Egypt with silver, gold, and clothing; and Exodus 12:35-36, where Israel asks the Egyptians for those goods and, in the King James phrasing, "spoiled the Egyptians." His conclusion: liberation without restoration still leaves the victim carrying the cost of the oppressor's sin.

Andrew counters that this was punishment on Egypt for defying God, not reparations to Israel. When Austin reads Genesis 15, Andrew points out that the passage says God will "punish that nation," a word Andrew says Austin skipped, and he makes the omission a centerpiece of his closing. Austin's rebuttal is that the distinction does not defeat him: even if the wealth transfer is framed as a just punishment on Egypt for an unjust crime, that is exactly the model he is proposing, reparations as a just corrective for a wrong the government committed. Andrew maintains that punishment for defying God is a different thing than owed restitution, and that Austin is citing the Old Testament rather than the ethics of Christ.

Continuity of the law, Zacchaeus, and forgiveness

The two then argue about how the Old and New Testaments relate. Andrew argues the law is a continuity fulfilled by Christ: Christians no longer require circumcision, and no longer apply Levitical punishments, because Jesus fulfilled the law and gave a new ethical framework. He cites Matthew 5:17, "think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfill," and the Sermon on the Mount's teaching to turn the other cheek, which he reads as defiance in the face of injustice rather than a call for restitution.

Austin agrees the moral principles of the law, justice, mercy, restitution, truth, and righteousness, are not abolished, and returns to Zacchaeus in the Gospel of Luke: Zacchaeus, encountering Christ, said that if he had taken anything from any man by false accusation he would restore it fourfold, and Christ replied, "this day is salvation come to this house." Restitution, Austin argues, carries into the New Testament. Andrew's forgiveness argument runs the other way: he asks what a person must give to be forgiven, Austin says nothing, and Andrew concludes that Christian ethics require no restitution for forgiveness, so Austin's justice-as-giving-what-is-due is inconsistent with the faith Austin claims. Austin answers that forgiveness of sin through Christ is a separate matter from a government owing a documented debt, and that the two are being conflated. After a long back and forth over whether Austin must supply his own definition of justice, the moderator moves the debate on.

Does systemic racism still exist today

Asked directly, Andrew says he does not believe systemic racism is much of a force in modern America. He calls racism "largely on its deathbed" and says the lasting vestiges are too small to negate real upward mobility for black Americans, a claim he says he made in his opening. Austin partly agrees on the present tense: he grants that many of today's problems in black communities are culturally imposed and self imposed. But he insists the root of those cultural issues traces back to decade after decade of systemic injustice, and he ties it to the long standing correlation between poverty and criminality. Andrew presses: if there is no systemic racism now but still disproportionate criminality, what explains the disproportion? Austin's answer is that the culture, now self perpetuating, was set in motion by the earlier injustice, and that poverty compounded with government exclusion, not poverty alone, accounts for it.

Is the government subsidizing black culture: DEI and welfare

Andrew opens a new front: he argues the same government Austin wants to hold liable is currently subsidizing black culture, through DEI and welfare. This produces the debate's most tangled numbers fight, which turns almost entirely on the difference between totals and per capita rates.

On DEI, Austin says black people made up only about 3 percent of DEI hires and that the largest beneficiary of DEI has been white women, with white farmers also named. Andrew pushes on per capita figures. On welfare, Austin says that on a per capita basis black Americans participate in means tested programs such as SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid at higher rates than white Americans, while white Americans receive the largest total dollar amount because they are a larger share of the population and of the elderly on Social Security and Medicare. Andrew reads the per capita participation as proof of a race based subsidy; Austin reads the totals as proof that white Americans are the largest recipients overall. Each accuses the other of not understanding what per capita means.

Figure 3. Why the welfare exchange went in circles. Andrew argues from total dollars paid in, where white and Asian Americans lead, to conclude any transfer is a discriminatory taking. Austin argues from per capita participation rates, where black Americans are higher, to conclude those rates reflect poverty that past exclusion produced. The numbers each cites are broadly compatible; the disagreement is over which lens defines fairness.

The inversion: do black Americans owe whites and Asians

Andrew builds his own counter syllogism from Austin's premises. The federal government, he says, has no money of its own; it can only take from one group and give to another. He orders per capita federal income tax payments as Asian Americans first, then white Americans, then Hispanic Americans, and black Americans last. If black Americans receive disproportionately more from the system than they pay in, Andrew argues, then a policy that redistributes toward them is itself a government backed policy that discriminates against the groups paying in. Under Austin's own definition, that is harm; under Austin's own justice, restitution would then be owed by black Americans to whites and Asians. He presses that Austin cannot use premise two while ignoring premise one, and Andrew's inversion is meant to show the logic runs both ways.

Austin rejects the symmetry. Premise one does not invert, he says, because black Americans never created a legal barrier to white economic participation and never dominated the political, economic, and social structure of the country the way white Americans did. He notes the tax code was written by elected officials who were not black (Andrew, pressed on who wrote it, says "probably Jewish," then agrees "non-black"), so black Americans cannot be the authors of the system Andrew is complaining about. Andrew's response is that current taxpayers, whatever their color, are the ones who would fund reparations, so the burden still falls on people who caused no harm.

Incalculable labor and From Here to Equality

The exchange peaks on the value of the labor taken. Andrew calls the amount of free labor extracted from black Americans "incalculable." Austin seizes on it: it is not incalculable, he says, because economist William Sandy Darity Jr. quantified it in his book From Here to Equality, and even rough estimates are extremely high. Austin's point: if the labor taken was that large, there is no coherent way to say black Americans owe white America anything.

Andrew's reply is the argument he returns to in closing. Even granting that the federal government extracted billions or trillions in unpaid labor, which he says is true especially under slavery, asking the government to pay reparations means asking current taxpayers to pay, because the government's only revenue is what it collects. That, he argues, is a second injustice visited on people who did not commit the first, and you cannot cure one injustice by committing another. Austin holds that the debtor is the institution, not the individual, and that the institution still exists.

Andrew's closing statement

Andrew frames the whole debate as the destruction of a formal syllogism, saying it is a mistake to bring one to a debate unless it is airtight. He lists what he counts as contradictions:

On forgiveness: if forgiveness requires no restitution, then justice as giving what is due contradicts Christian forgiveness, a P and not P.
On the government: premise two makes the government the determiner of what is due, premise three makes it the debtor, so if it determines it owes nothing the premises conflict.
On the inversion: since whites, Asians, and Hispanics pay more per capita, redistributing toward black Americans creates the very lasting economic harm Austin condemns.
On per capita: Andrew says Austin misused the term and that per capita whites pay the most and black Americans participate most in need based programs.
On Genesis: Andrew says Austin first denied the Egypt wealth transfer happened, then conceded it, and read the passage while skipping the word "punishment."

He says Austin kept demanding that Andrew define terms for Austin's own affirmative argument, which Andrew calls backwards, and he yields the floor saying he appreciated the debate.

Austin's closing statement

Austin says Andrew turned the exchange into a sophist's debate rather than a discussion, applying tactics Austin says he has seen him use elsewhere, and selectively invoking Christianity only when useful. He says the debate was won the moment Andrew conceded premise one, that the US government committed harm lasting generations. Andrew then spent the rest of the debate, Austin argues, trying to hold two things a Christian cannot hold together: that harm was done and that no restitution is owed. If harm is done, restitution is owed.

He closes on precedent. Black Americans, he says, still have not received a legitimate form of restitution the way Japanese Americans were paid after wartime internment (Austin cites $80,000 per person; the enacted Civil Liberties Act of 1988 set the figure at $20,000), and the way the federal government spends roughly $32 billion a year on Native Americans. Black Americans, who Andrew agreed generated an incalculable amount of wealth for the nation, have received nothing as recompense. He says he came to tell the truth and despises perpetual victimhood, wanting reparations in part so the conversation about racism can finally end.

The super chats

The viewer questions widen the debate and pin down Austin's actual proposal:

Eligibility. Austin says his plan would apply only to provable descendants of American slaves or of people alive during Jim Crow, excluding those who arrived after slavery and segregation, black or white.
Would whites be owed for other government failures? Asked about the Civil War or the Great Depression, Austin says no, because white Americans were never treated as property for two centuries.
Compared to Africa. Austin declines to compare black Americans to Africans, quoting King's 1967 book Where Do We Go from Here that the American Negro is "a true and authentic hybrid," but agrees that black Americans today are better off than they would be in Africa.
Sins of the father. A viewer cites Ezekiel 18 that the son shall not suffer for the father's iniquity. Austin says no individual should suffer, but the government must acknowledge that economic policy has effects lasting generations.
Inflation and money. Andrew and Austin argue over whether reparations would inflate the currency. Austin says his plan would first re-examine the dollar and reattach it to the gold standard, noting the dollar has lost 97.6 percent of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve began and that the US left the gold standard in 1933 under Executive Order 6102. Andrew argues inflation comes from money printing, not from fiat currency itself, and that a gold standard caps nothing because gold can be fractionally revalued.
Anthony Johnson. Told the first legal slave owner in the colonies was a black man, Anthony Johnson, Austin says slavery is a moral evil regardless of who practiced it.
Western abolition. Andrew argues Western Christian nations abolished slavery first and are the most punished for having done so, contrasting the Atlantic slave trade with the Arab slave trade, which he says castrated its captives. Austin agrees the West led abolition but cites Dred Scott, in which Justice Taney wrote the black man had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect," and Abraham Lincoln's statement that he would have kept the Union together without freeing a slave, to argue the whole federal government was culpable, north and south.
Defending King. Answering a claim that King was a heretic and a communist, Austin says King rejected the faith only in college and returned to it, recounting the Montgomery bus boycott and a 1958 stabbing, and a conversation with Andrew Young about King praying at the Lorraine Motel. He says King disparaged communism, quoting: "Capitalism forgets that life is social. Communism forgets that life is also individual," and that the answer lies in a higher synthesis treating all men as made in the image of God.
Direct payments. Asked why not give the money straight to corporations since it returns to the economy, Austin refuses the framing and says people should choose where their own money goes, and that his own preference is targeted programs for home ownership and education rather than a check.
What else besides money. Austin lists land, money, and education as the three reparations models he has seen discussed, citing Darity, and says his own preference would be free college for provable descendants for thirty years, with a sunset provision, because he rejects perpetual victimhood.
Division. On whether descendant only reparations would divide the black community, Austin says the community is already divided, noting he was among the roughly 13 percent of black voters who voted for Trump.

1600s Colonial slavery. Both cite the institution's origins; Andrew notes the first legal slave owner in the colonies, Anthony Johnson, was black, and Austin calls the institution evil regardless.
1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford. Austin cites Justice Taney's line that the black man had no rights the white man was bound to respect, as evidence the whole federal government was culpable.
1863 Emancipation and Lincoln. Austin quotes Lincoln that he would have preserved the Union without freeing a slave, arguing north and south share the guilt.
1877 to 1960s Jim Crow and redlining. Austin confines his whole argument to this era, the government backed exclusion from housing, capital, and equal protection.
1933 Executive Order 6102. Austin dates the move off the gold standard here, tying later inflation to money printing rather than to reparations.
1967 Where Do We Go from Here. King's last book, Austin's source for the "authentic hybrid" line and King's critique of both capitalism and communism.
1988 Civil Liberties Act. Austin's precedent for restitution: payments to interned Japanese Americans, which he cites at $80,000 (the act set $20,000).
Today H.R. 40 and the wealth gap. Austin's proposed mechanism, a study of harm, and his preferred remedy of targeted home ownership and education with a sunset date.

Figure 4. The historical spine of Austin's case, in the order the debate raised it. His argument deliberately stands on the Jim Crow era forward rather than on slavery, and leans on the 1988 Japanese American precedent as proof the government already accepts the principle of restitution.

Key takeaways

The debate reduces to one question: if the US government caused documented harm, does justice require it to repair that harm? Austin says yes and calls it restitution; Andrew says the obligation does not follow.
Both men conceded that the government enacted discriminatory policy against black Americans. The fight was never over whether that happened, but over what follows from it.
Austin's case is a formal syllogism confined to Jim Crow forward. Andrew's strategy was to break the syllogism from inside rather than deny the history.
Andrew's strongest logical move was the claim that the government cannot be both the judge of what is owed and the debtor without contradiction. Austin's reply was that acknowledgment of harm has happened but a full accounting has not.
The welfare and tax dispute turned on totals versus per capita rates, where both cited compatible numbers and disagreed on which denominator defines fairness.
Both invoked Christianity heavily and reached opposite conclusions, disagreeing over whether the Exodus wealth transfer models reparations (Austin) or divine punishment (Andrew), and over whether forgiveness cancels the claim to restitution.
Austin's actual proposal is narrow: provable descendants, targeted at home ownership and education, with a sunset provision, and explicitly not a blanket check.
Andrew's deepest objection is generational: current taxpayers who committed no harm would bear the cost, which he calls a new injustice.

Where the claims stand

In the spirit of attribution rather than judgment, a few of the empirical claims made in the heat of the debate are worth flagging so a reader can check them. Austin cited the Japanese American internment payment at $80,000 per person; the enacted Civil Liberties Act of 1988 provided $20,000 per surviving internee. The per capita tax and welfare figures both men traded were stated from memory without a shared source, and the debate never resolved them against a single dataset. Andrew's "preference theory" and his account of black culture are his own framing, not an established model, and Austin contested them as attacking symptoms rather than causes. The Dred Scott quotation, Lincoln's Union statement, King's Where Do We Go from Here, and the 1933 gold standard references are real and roughly as cited. None of this settles the moral question at the center; it only marks where the factual load bearing points can be verified.

Chapters

Timestamps are clickable. Click one and the player jumps there and keeps playing while you read. This video has no creator set chapters, so these are estimated from position in the debate.

0:00 Cold open and host introductions
2:00 Austin's opening: government caused harm, so restitution is owed
6:30 Andrew's opening: preference theory and the three factors of success
12:00 Did black culture develop in a vacuum?
14:30 The three premise syllogism, confined to Jim Crow
20:00 Defining harm, justice, restitution, and what is due
28:00 Who determines what is due? The contradiction charge
32:00 Exodus and the wealth of Egypt: reparations or punishment?
40:00 Continuity of the law, Zacchaeus, and forgiveness
53:00 Does systemic racism still exist today?
57:00 Is the government subsidizing black culture? DEI and welfare
66:00 Per capita versus total: taxes paid and benefits received
75:00 The inversion: do black Americans owe whites and Asians?
87:00 Incalculable labor and Darity's From Here to Equality
92:00 Andrew's closing statement
98:00 Austin's closing statement
1:42:00 Super chats: eligibility, Africa, and the sins of the father
1:48:00 Inflation, fiat currency, and the gold standard
1:55:00 Western abolition, Dred Scott, and the Arab slave trade
1:58:00 Defending King against heretic and communist charges
2:00:00 Direct payments, land, and education
2:08:00 Wrap up

Notable quotes

A society that believes in justice cannot celebrate restitution when it benefits us and then reject it when it challenges us. Austin Offscript, 2:10

Government caused harm. The government can measure that harm. Therefore the government has an obligation to repair that harm. Austin Offscript, 2:40

If a father is robbed before he can leave an inheritance to his children, the injury does not disappear when he dies. His children inherit those consequences. Austin Offscript, 3:40

Black regression in the United States has very little to do with institutions at all. It has to do with what I call preference theory. Andrew Wilson, 7:00

Are you saying that black culture developed in a vacuum? Austin Offscript, 12:10

All I have to do is have one of these premises fall and the entire argument collapses. Andrew Wilson, 24:20

Liberation without restoration still leaves the victim carrying the cost of the oppressor's sin. Austin Offscript, 35:20

That was a form of punishment, not restitution, for violating God's law. Andrew Wilson, 38:00

If the government determines what is due, and they decide they do not owe you, then by your own logic it is not due to you. Andrew Wilson, 40:30

No true Christian can hold those two things in conjunction. If harm is done, restitution is owed. Austin Offscript, 1:38:00

Resources mentioned

The debate channel: RattlesnakeTV, hosted by Jake Rattlesnake.
Austin Offscript, and his news show The Split with Jubilee.
H.R. 40, the bill to study reparations proposals, cited by Austin as the mechanism for determining what is owed.
William Sandy Darity Jr. and From Here to Equality, his book estimating the value of extracted labor.
Martin Luther King Jr., his final speech "I've Been to the Mountaintop", and his book Where Do We Go from Here (1967).
Scripture cited: Genesis 15:13-14, Exodus 3:21-22, Exodus 12:35-36, Matthew 5:17, the Sermon on the Mount, Luke 19 (Zacchaeus), Ezekiel 18:20, and the Book of Leviticus.
Historical and legal references: slavery in the United States, Jim Crow laws, redlining, Dred Scott v. Sandford and Justice Roger Taney, Anthony Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, the Atlantic slave trade and the Arab slave trade.
Precedents for restitution: the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and Japanese American internment; federal spending via the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Economics and policy: DEI, SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, Executive Order 6102, and Keynesian economics.
Philosophy and people referenced: stoic philosophy, utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham, Karl Marx and Hegel, Andrew Young, the Lorraine Motel, and Jesse Lee Peterson.

Full transcript

Joining us tonight is Jake Rattlesnake. >> I like to go by Lord Rattlesnake or Lord Jake most chat of all the lands. >> You don't have an argument. Present your paper or shut up. >> Everyone's view is definitely inherently [music] biased. So this is when debate becomes very interesting. I can hear what you're saying and I can see that you're dressed as a cat. >> I'm a dog. >> You said you like to go play fetch. >> I wolf. Yes. >> So how does that tie into your relationship? Like what are you looking for if you're a dog? >> I think that John Junior will be president one day. If I if I was a gambling man, I'd put money on that. >> Founder of Rattlesnake TV, Jake. >> I [music] really appreciate it, dude. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to another phenomenal Rattlesnake TV debate night. We've got an interesting one for you today. We've got Austin offscript aka Austin Julio Broton. Did I say that right, Austin? >> Yes, sir, you did. >> And we've got Andrew Wilson debating reparations and systemic racism in the United States of America. You may recognize Austin from his appearances on Jubilee. He also did a debate on reparations uh a few weeks ago against white privilege which was an interesting one. Enjoyed that. Also did a modernday debate against Rob No. So been getting around a fair bit lately which is good. And you guys will will recognize Andrew Wilson from his many appearances on the channel. So going to be a great one today guys. We're going to have uh 5minute opening statements followed by 60 to 90 minutes of open dialogue and then super chats. Just a fair warning guys, when it comes to super chats, we will read uh from the most and down. And if we get time, we'll read them all, but we probably won't get time to read anything under 20. Just as a heads up to all of you guys. In terms of the house rules here, guys, it's going to be uh if you guys ever feel like you're being overtalked and you're not getting uh enough of a say, then you can appeal to the moderator and you can ask me if you would like to get more speaking time. try not to get personal with the insults. We have like like to have a nice clean debate without getting any into into any of that personal stuff. And I'm sure I had other rules, but I can't really remember them right now because it's like 1:30 a.m. But anyways, Austin, you'll be starting off with your 5minute opening statement. So with that, five minutes on the clock, my friend. Uh ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I want to thank everybody that's watching this for being here. And tonight, I just want to begin with a very simple proposition. A society that believes in justice cannot celebrate restitution when it benefits us and then reject it when it challenges us. So my position is very simple. It's not that America is an irredeemably racist nation. That is not my position. My position is not that every racial disparity is evidence of discrimination. My position is not that any living American should be held personally guilty for the sins of the past. My position is much simpler. Government caused harm. The government can measure that harm. Therefore, the government has an obligation to repair that harm. The first premise of my argument is simply this. systemic racism existed because government institutions deliberately enacted policies that directly disadvantaged black Americans. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of historical record. Federal, state, and local governments enforced slavery, enforced segregation. They enforced exclusion from housing markets, and enforced policies that prevented millions of black Americans from accumulating wealth that could have been passed to their children. The question is not whether these policies existed. The question is whether we are willing to acknowledge the consequences that they produced, and they are longasting. The second premise is that the racial wealth gap did not emerge from thin air. Wealth is not created in a single generation. It is transferred across them. Homes are inherited. Businesses are inherited. Investments are inherited. Land is inherited. If one group was systematically prevented from acquiring and passing down assets for centuries, then it should not surprise us that the descendants of those families possess less wealth than anyone else today. If a father is robbed before he can leave an inheritance to his children, the jury does not the injury does not disappear when he dies. the the his children inherit those consequences. The third premise is simple. Justice requires restitution when a wrong has been committed. We recognize this principle everywhere else. If the government wrongfully takes your property, compensation is owed. If the government wrongfully imprisons you, compensation is owed. If the government destroys your land through imminent domain, compensation is owed. Why should government inflicted racial injury be the one category of harm for which compensation is considered unthinkable? And finally, as a Christian, I would argue that restitution is not merely an American principle. It is a it is a biblical one. Scripture teaches forgiveness, but it also teaches restoration. When Zakchius encountered Christ, he did not simply apologize. He made restitution. Justice was not completed by words alone. It required action. You know, the whole faith without works is dead kind of thing. So, let me be clear about what I'm defending tonight. I am not here to defend black people having perpetual victimhood. I am not defending racial resentment. I am not defending the idea that black Americans are incapable of succeeding without government assistance. I am defending a principle older than the Constitution and older than the republic itself. When a wrong is committed, the obligation to repair that wrong does not disappear simply because time has passed. And if government policy helped create the injury, then government bears responsibility for helping repair it. That is not socialism, that is not Marxism, that is not communism, that is not charity, that is not collective guilt. That is restitution. And restitution, simply put, is justice. >> All right, Andrew, five minutes. All right, [clears throat] thank you for that. Um, let me get into my opening here. Sorry, I was just taking some notes as we were going through yours. So, I'm going to take a few minutes to lay out both my argument and my opponent's general position. As it turns out, I got this exactly right. He made the exact argument that I thought he would. My opponent here has a fairly standard left-wing position on reparations and institutional racism. It just goes something like this. The United States endorsed slavery and held slavery as an institution for most of its early history. Due to this, even postfreedom for said slaves, they didn't have the same advantages as other Americans, especially white Americans, due to the fact that they were not compensated for hundreds of years of slave labor starting even before the founding. By the way, to offset this, the United States government needs to take corrective action to create equity between black Americans and other Americans. To offset this injustice, which has kept black Americans perpetually behind due to wealth inequality, racism, and other sub factors which are fundamentally unfair, like I said, predicted it perfectly. Now to my argument. Um, black regression in the United States has very little to do with institutions at all. Uh, let alone institutional slavery, uh, or the institution of slavery. And instead, it has to do with what I call preference theory. In order to be successful in life, there are many factors, but there are essentially three factors which all factors relate to. These factors are true of humans regardless of demographic, location, tribe, city, nation, and are historically true at all times in all places. And it doesn't matter if it's Jesus Christ or Gang is Khan. Those are social skills, delayed gratification, and long-term goals. These are often referred to in a variety of ways. The three C's of success, which is just a variation, or stoic philosophy, which gives another variation. There are many variations of these ideas, but they come down essentially to these three factors. Now, how these are deployed will depend greatly on culture for application. But regardless of culture, the people in it who are successful will almost always without exception have these three traits. Now, some cultures frown on these traits. And as you can imagine, the success rate for such cultures tends to be low in almost all aspects of technology, language, arts, culture, and agriculture. To nobody's shock, cultures with large white populations tend to prioritize these attributes and maximize them, leading to high amounts of individuals who are successful. Many black Americans, on the other hand, have otherized themselves from what they perceive as white culture, determined to make a subculture which rejects quote white tenants, which is mostly just the application of Christian ethics, uh, which pushes virtue. And if you follow virtue, these attributes tend to come along with it. It's pretty simple, right? Uh through self- otherization, meaning not part of the dominant cultural value set, these attributes are rejected. So, how's that done? Let's look at social skills. American black uh or so many American black people purposely utilize a form of inferior English as language, which makes it difficult to understand and have common parliament with them. They dress in ways that are normally impractical with clothing many times too big for them creating an actual functional clothing issue where their undergarments are purposely showing, not to mention being unfit for work. Once upon a time, this could possibly have been attributed to poverty, but in modernity, these clothes are often more expensive than their more functional counterparts. Violence is much more acceptable socially and publicly, leading to social disputes being ended in a violent manner in comparison to other population demographics, further eroding social skills. Next, delayed gratification. Bling culture. Get that bag. But money is often sought after using fast and non-re repeatable methods which carry high risk rather than slow and methodical which is the cultural norm. This manifests often as drug dealing, petty theft, breaking and entering, mugging, etc. These things can bring in cash quickly but carry high risk and long-term aren't repeatable due to imprisonment or death. These intersect with long-term goals which aren't sought after but rather instant gratification. Now the way in which mental illness is identified is only one way and that is deviation away from societal and social norms when it comes to behavior. If x amount of norms are violated, we categorize that as a form of mental illness. Example of this, a serial killer. If a serial killer engages in behavior which is so abnormal, which they do, we put it in the mental illness category. However, if in a culture everybody was a serial killer as the norm, they would likely believe that non-s serial killer was mentally ill. It isn't that in the 21st century racism is a problem. It's quite the contrary. It is simply that humans are pattern recognition machines and if we see too many pattern deviations from the norm, we categorize that as mental illness for the purpose of our safety, regardless of culture and regardless of creed. If my opponent was walking down the street and a man was mumbling to himself, hunched over naked and routinely stabbing himself with a thumbtack, he would immediately categorize the behavior is irregular and therefore mental illness. He would likely seek to avoid this person. And this is what happens with modern race relations. The color of the skin is seemingly less of a factor than the irregularity of behavior which people identify immediately as otherized mental illness and avoid this set categorized group for the purpose of personal safety. >> That's five >> instit I'm almost done. You mind giving me just a minute or two and I'll plenty of time to respond. Is that fair >> with that Austin? >> Well, I mean he's he's I I confined mine to one or five minutes. I don't know what he needs an extra two minutes. He's doing exactly what I anticipated him doing anyway. That's fine. If you don't want to, you know, I'll confine I'll uh I'll stick to the rules bait if you want to. >> Yep. If you guys want to uh just leave it at that then then open open dialogue. Go for it. [clears throat] >> So are you saying Andrew that black culture developed in a vacuum or are you saying that centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, redlinining, fatherlessness induced by incarceration, school segregation, and exclusion from asset building had no serious cultural effect? Because what you're doing is attacking the symptoms of an of a of a problem that has a root in what I said in my opening statement which you didn't address. >> Uh I did address it. >> No, you didn't. >> I did. I'm saying that >> So, I'm going to repeat the question. Are you saying that black culture developed in a vacuum? Let's start there. >> Uh no culture develops in a vacuum. >> Okay, then. So, what created the conditions that you're citing, such as the baggy clothing, the tendency towards criminality? What created those conditions, Andrew? Well, I'm even willing to see that there could be disparity or an inequity or things like this which could have contributed to creating conditionals which people move towards. Um, but that really would have no bearing on the argument at all. >> No, not willing to seed. Are you saying if you admit that black culture did not develop in a vacuum? Okay. So if a government locks people out of land, housing, capital, education, and legal protection, and then later points to the dysfunction created in those conditions, what that's not an argument against the existence at one point in this in the in this in the history of this nation of systemic racism. That's in fact evidence of its consequences. And in fact, crime is not caused by melanin. There are multiple studies conducted that crime correlates with >> Hang on real quick. When Well, kind of. You're kind of right there. There is a correlation with poverty. There's no doubt that that's true, but that really has no bearing on the argument that I'm making. Can you steal man the argument that I'm making? >> You, Andrew, you made an argument that black culture is toxic. What I'm asking you do, what I'm asking you, that's not the argument. >> Can you steal man? My three the three premises that I laid out in my opening statement. Let's can you steal man? Yeah, I'll steal man. I'll steal man your the entirety of your position that due to systemic oppression, it created conditions and those particular conditionals kept black people behind uh other specific groups like uh white people for instance, possibly others. And what you're trying to do is create some form of equity and and catch black people up essentially due to this >> disparity. That's not a steam out of my position because you >> Okay. Well, then let's make sure let's make sure I got it right. >> Well, right. So, let's So, I'm going to restate my three premises. One, the United States federal government caused measurable harm. Two, >> justice requires restitution for measurable harm. Three, therefore the government of the United States owes restitution. >> Okay, let's make sure I got them right. Uh, USA caused measurable harm. Premise two, >> premise two, justice requires restitution for documentable measured harm. And premise, >> justice requires restitution. Okay, >> therefore, premise three, the US government owes restitution. And by the way, I'm not even dealing with slavery. I'm confining this specifically to Jim Crow. I'm going to leave slavery alone for this conversation. >> Okay. So, does the government always require is the government always required to pay restitution as a moral obligation? Uh because that's what you consider justice to be. Let's make sure we got that clear. >> Always required to do it. I'm not speaking that that's that's not a that's not a properly phrased question. I'm not going to say they're always required to do I'm saying that if >> are they required to do it as part of justice? >> If you're going to say part as a part of justice in within the confines of what we're speaking about within the measurable harm that the US government caused black Americans through Jim Crow and redlinining and exclusionary policies, yes, that would be part of justice. >> And do you consider the modern government to be an extension of the same exact government that we had in the 1780s and 1790s? If by an extension you mean the fact that the government has continued to exist, then by that definition, yes. >> Okay. So even if the constitution has changed many many many times, including the ideas of universal suffrage and other things like this, you still consider the modern government to be the same exact type of government as we have. >> No, that is not what I said, Andrew. That's not what I said. Okay. >> It our government exists as an extension of of our constitution, which is a living document. So you just you you're willing you've seated already that the government >> what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not it is the case that even if I seed to the argument that justice requires restitution it seems to me that in this context the restitution would be required by the people who actually caused it not the people who are dealing with it. Seems like the people who are dealing with it would also deserve >> Andrew that doesn't make any sense because the people we're dealing with I'll tell you why. Because what I'm I'm dealing with an institution. The United States federal government is the institution in question here. The United States federal government. >> But is it the same government? >> Let me respond in full, Andrew. I know you don't want to hear it this way. And by the way, I'm not This is not a leftist argument. I'm arguing from a from a conservative actually from a conservative position and from >> conservative about it or Christian. >> What? Well, uh, let's start with biblically. Go. I'm going to quote the same thing that I said to white privilege in the debate that we did on reparations. Show me anywhere in the Bible where where the um where when a party is wronged, the Bible does not advocate for restitution. In fact, when the example that I provided with Zakayas when >> the sermon on the mound, >> what about the sermon on the mount? >> Sermon on the mound is uh literally tell me what part. >> Yeah. If you're slapped in in one cheek to offer up the other cheek to be slapped. That's not the restitution be the opposite. Oh, that's a mis that's a mislication of what Jesus was talking about because in Jewish culture what he was doing he said if one if a man slaps you turn to >> when Jesus when Jesus is quoting that if you're going to quote the Lord let's let's quote him in context when he's talking about that he's saying if a man slaps you on the cheek turn the other also he's speaking about being defiant in especially in his case in the case of in the in the face of injustice. So let's start and you're you're dragging the conversation away from what we need to focus on. So I'm going to restate this. But we're focusing right now on premise two- >> which is that the government So you so you're seating premise one did cause measurable harm. >> So hold on before we go back. You are seeding premise one that the government did cause measurable harm to black. >> I'm not seating it right now. I'm just attacking premise two because it seems like it's an obvious premise. >> I'm asking you a question Andrew. Are you seating? >> No I'm not seating it. No. >> Okay. Why are you not seating it? Because >> because right now because all I have to do is have one of these premises fall and the entire argument collapses. You can't make premise two fall if premise one if you can't deal with premise one. So I'm going to start back at premise one. Did the United States federal government cause measurable harm to black Americans? >> What do you call what do you consider harm to be? >> Andrew, answer the question. >> I can't unless you qualify what harm is. >> Well, let's start with the fact that black Americans were not treated as citizens. They were prohibited from owning homes. They were prohibited from being treated as full human beings. I mean, are you just going to be this deliberately intellectually obtuse this entire debate and ignore history? >> If you bring me a formal argument, don't get mad that I make you explain the words in it. Andrew, I'm bringing you a formal argument. The argument is redlinining. The argument is Jim Crow. >> Hang on. Stop. You brought me a three premised formal argument and you're getting mad that I'm making you define mad. I'm holding you to task on something for me what harm is. >> Anything that in anything that did not allow black Americans to gain and have full equal protection under the law, which is what the Constitution guaranteed us. The same thing that Martin Luther King said to us in in the last speech that he gave in um I've been to the mountaintop. All we're saying to America is be true to what you're saying on paper. So, I'm going to ask you one more time. Did the United States federal government always, and let me rephrase the question. Did the United States always treat black Americans as if they were equivalent to white Americans in this country? >> Of course not. No. >> Okay, then. So, now you've seated premise one. Thank you, Andrew, for being somewhat intellectually honest. >> If you're if you're if you're asking me about what harm is, well, I'm asking you what harm is, and you just say harm is anything which um leads to bad outcomes for black people, basically. Is that right? From the governmental level. So if it was a bad outcome, >> any any governmentbacked policy or any government initiated policy that that that excluded black people from being treated as equal citizens under the law, that is harm, Andrew. >> Okay. So any governmentbacked policy which would you say like discriminatory perhaps which was discriminatory is >> I think you're smart enough to understand that. >> Yeah. Again, you don't uh there's there's no actual reason for you to be combative on me. making sure that >> you're running from you're running from addressing the core of my point. >> Bro, just just calm down. Listen to what I'm call Andrew. >> I just want to make sure that we understand the actual argument and its clarity so that we can make sure that it's consistent with what the >> understand the argument quite well. You're the one struggling with it. >> Yes, of course I'm struggling with I don't know what you mean by the words and I'm making sure that I do. >> So when you say the word harm, governmentbacked policy which was discriminatory towards black people. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Got it. So now I understand what that means. So we can move from premise one and I'll say yes, the government has definitely backed policy which was >> So you see the premise one. Thank you. >> Sure. Well, now that I understand what harm means. So when we get to justice, it requires restitution. What are we defining justice as? >> What I would define just so now are you essentially asking let me let me re let me make sure that I understand what you're asking. What would you define as justice? That way I can properly answer the question. That have would have no bearing on anything. >> That would have no bearing on anything. Well, in my in my world, >> you don't need to know my position to know your position, dude. >> No, I'm asking. No, no, no. I didn't say I need to know your position. I asked. >> Great. Then just tell me what justice means. >> So, so, so this the word game. I'm going to play it with you. What would you define? Let's What How do you define >> It's not relevant. It's not my argument. It's yours. So, what does justice mean? >> So, okay. So, Andrew, we're going to try this one more time. In this case, justice would be policies done to remove any lasting economic barriers or any lasting racial barriers that may be preventing African-Americans in this particular case from wealth generation or the or the ability to maintain wealth once accumulated. >> So justice is so justice in this context is only towards uh black Americans. >> No, that's not the case at all. And within the confines within the confines of what we're talking about, we're talking about black Americans. >> Okay. Yeah. So, what is when you say the word justice, what does that mean, dude? >> What it means? I just defi I just defined what it means. >> Well, no, you said specifically it means >> justice is giving. Okay. All right. Let's try this one more time. >> Dude, just just let me actually answer the question. I'll let you answer it. Okay. Let me ask it here. You say justice requires restitution. That's a formal premised argument. That's premise two. All I'm asking you here is what does justice mean? So, I can make sure that I'm following the argument. You brought the formal argument. is giving. Okay, so I'm going to respond to you now. I'm going to try this one more time. >> Justice is giving what is due. Within the context of this debate, I'm going to say that justice means that when a person or an institution causes measurable harm, there is a moral obligation to repair that harm to the degree that it can be reasonably repaired. Now, I'm not defining justice as equal outcome. I am not defining justice as racial revenge. I'm defining it as restitution for wrongful harm. >> Okay? So, justice is giving what is due. Is that is that the correct is that correctly how you're defining justice here? Justice is giving what is due? >> Defined it. I'm not going to define it any further. Andrew, >> well, the problem is is that that doesn't give me very much cle clarity because I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by the word. Justice is giving what is due and who makes the determination of what is due? >> That's where the United States, again, in this case, the United States government caused the harm. The United States government I morally should investigate the harm caused by slavery and determine what these are different claims. These are totally different. >> These are not different. These are not different. >> Yes, those are different claims. The United States should do ought do a thing >> has nothing to do with >> you're going to ask me a question and then not give me the space to answer. >> Well, it has no it has no relevancy or >> it has a lot of relevance. You're asking me a question now you want to run from the answer. >> They're different claims, dude. You're making different claims. So, when we're talking about justice is giving what is due? Answer the question. Who determines what is due? >> So, you're saying who determines what is due? But in this case, the US government would be the one determining what is due via HR40. >> So the US government, they're going to be the ones who determines what is due. The government determines this. All right. So when we're talking about justice, justice is giving what is due and the US government is who's doing the determining. And then by restitution, I assume you just mean like stuff or balancing or something like that. any any things that by not just stuff Andrew that's extremely general by justice I would say compensate anything that could compensate black Americans or serve to mitigate the existing economic gap particularly the wealth gap between black Americans and white Americans that let's focus I would focus specifically in the terms of Jim Crow I would focus on things like redlinining undoing redlinining policies and strengthening home ownership among black Americans specifically because home ownership especially for the for is one of the largest keys to wealth for the American middle class. >> Gotcha. And then your last premise is the US government owes this restitution which is anything that could compensate black Americans for the various injustices that you just laid out. Right. >> Okay. So then obviously I don't agree with the argument at all because premise 2 and premise three are contradictions. If it is the case that the US government is deter determining factor as to uh what is due to you and then you say that the US government owes this because it is due to you. If the US government determines that it does not owe this due to you then it's not due to you >> that doesn't make any sense. >> Well I'll walk you through it. >> No >> the US government determines determines what >> if it doesn't make any sense it's important to walk through it. Tell us what [clears throat] >> the US government determines what is due to you. That is your admission of premise 2. We went through it. You said in premise three, the US government owes the restitution. But if the US government is the determiner of what is due and they decide that they don't owe you restitution, then they don't. By your own logic, your own argument, bro. >> Okay. Well, Andrew, the US government has acknowledged that harm was done. There was a house resolution passed a couple. They're the determinition because because the US rep the US House of Representatives acknowledged that slavery was a grave crime. In fact, the United Nations just acknowledged that slavery was one of the greatest crimes that that occurred in human history. So that is a that is the that is the government that is two forms of a government recognizing the harm done by slavery. So they've already the one who makes who gets to make the determination about what is due by your admission of premise two. If that is the case and you say the government owes you restitution, that would be P and not P. If the government decides it does not, >> they didn't decide that it does not. Andrew, there has been no invest. There has been no for fully for there has been no full >> I'm sorry. Are you getting restitution right now? >> I'm not getting it right now. >> Then I guess they've decided you don't need it. And they're the determiners. >> There's no investigation. Well, Andrew, that doesn't make any sense. How could they get How could Wait a minute. Stop. Stop. Cuz what you're doing this this little syllogism [ __ ] that you want to that you want to try to play is not >> syllogism. >> So So here what do you mean? You're going to come to me with a syllogism and then say, "How dare you attack my syllogism?" >> Andrew, calm down. >> How dare you attack my syllogism, Andrew? >> Relax. Relax, Andrew. Calm down. Calm down. >> What are you talking about? >> Let's start from the beginning. Let's start from the beginning. Okay. So, calm down. Relax. You already seated premise one that the US government did cause measurable harm. That is an objective reality. Okay. >> Well, what I seated is that >> No, no, no, no. [ __ ] >> Government back policy which is That's how you define harm. fellas, we got to stop talking over each other. Um, hold on a second, Austin. So, uh, Austin, first of all, lay it out. What do you think he seeded? And then Andrew, you can respond. >> I'll tell you when I asked him plainly, did the US government cause measurable harm? I restated premise one twice. I said, premise one, the government of the United States caused measurable harm. You seated premise one. I know you did because I asked you twice. >> Yeah. So, >> okay. But what did I seed? >> I wasn't done speaking. Calm down. Relax. I know you just you just screwed yourself. I know. relaxes. All right. So, the rest of the crap that you're saying is now downstream of the fact you have acknowledged that premise one did happen. So, now the rest of what you're doing is attempting to create this this this fog of word play that I'm just not going for. >> You've that that's what it was uh Jake to answer that he did see premise one. >> Now you can respond. >> Yeah. So, what I seated was this is your syllogism. It's your argument. So when I asked for a definition of what you consider harm to be, you said in this context, uh, harm is governmentbacked policy, which was discriminatory towards black people. Follow-up question, Andrew, is it true that there was discriminatory practice towards black people, therefore validating what you're considering harm in this aspect, I say yes. So sure, under those terms, I'm I'll grant premise one as being true on based on your definition of harm. However, uh granting premise one is true based on your definition of harm does nothing for the following two premises. Your conclusion would be unound if each premise is not true and each premise is not true. >> Each premise is true. Andrew, are you >> from Hold on. Hold on. So if now so now let's let let's assume for a second that I buy the line of logic that you're using. >> If if there's only one logic >> I'm sorry, what? >> There's only one logic. No. Okay. Well, I'm I'm I'm I hear what you're saying. Let's assume that what you're saying is fully accurate, which it is is not. Did premise one happen? You agree that premise one took place? Govern the government caused measurable harm. You agreed there. >> So, if premise one occurred, now I'm going to ask you plainly. >> Mhm. >> Are you saying that justice does not require the government to do anything to recompense black Americans for objectively provable harm that was caused? >> It would be irrelevant. Whatever I would consider justice to be, >> it's not irrelevant. I'm asking you a reason why because it would force you to answer a question that you're answering. >> So I'm going to say this again. >> You have an argument here. Are you going? Will you calm down and let me ask a question? >> Are you saying that the United States government does not owe black Americans anything for the harm that it caused during Jim Crow? >> No. I consider justice to be eating grass. That's that's what justice means to me. So that's my definition of just >> going to be this intellectually full of [ __ ] There's no there was really no point in me accepting this. >> Listen, what's intellectually what's intellectually full of [ __ ] is that you need me to define your words. >> I don't need Andrew. I asked >> Deal with the actual argument [ __ ] >> Then deal with the argument. >> I I'm I'm asking you a question. Are you unc Are you uncomfortable with this? >> I'm uncomfortable with you not uh actually dealing with >> I asked you a question. You acknowledge that the government of the United States committed acts of harm via discriminatory policies to black Americans. Yeah. I then I am now asking you a follow-up question which is based on your acknowledgement of the truth of the first premise. Are you saying that black Americans are not owed any form of reparative justice by the United States federal government? >> Yeah. I don't consider >> question directly >> for me for Christian ethics. No restoration is not required in materialism >> for Christian ethics. Are you a Christian? Mhm. >> What in what world does that when when the children of Israel were slaves in Egypt, did God not give them the gold and the wealth of the Egyptians as restitution? >> No. >> That's a lie. >> Show it to me. >> Sure. So, when we go to the Old Testament, wait. Oh, damn it. The [ __ ] froze. Hold on a second. Great time to remind everybody that we've got the stream elements link pinned if anybody wants to send their questions in. They'll also be read super chat and stream elements. So in the book of Exodus in Genesis 15:13-4, God tells Abraham his descendants will be afflicted in a foreign land, but afterwards they will come out with great substance. In Exodus 3 21-22, God says Israel will leave Egypt with silver, gold, and clothing from the Egyptians. And in Exodus 12, Israel asked the Egyptians for silver, gold, and clothing. And the Lord gives Israel favor in their sight. It says they spoiled the Egyptians, stripping them of their wealth, fulfilling the promise. So biblically, God did not merely liberate Israel from the from oppression and tell them to move on. He brought them out with substance. So there >> So what happened? So what happened to the Egyptians? >> No, no, no, no. No, no, no, no. Deal with that first. Okay. You said it didn't happen. >> I've proven to you that it did. >> Yeah. So So what happened here was a punishment which was dealt over to Egypt because they had defied the will of God. >> Okay. And were they That's not what I asked you. What I asked you was when the when the children of Israel were slaves in Egypt, were they not promised reparations? No, that wasn't reparations. They defied the world was Andrew. >> No, they defied God didn't tell Israel, "You're free now. Stop complaining. He brought them out with wealth because liberation without restoration still leaves the victim carrying the cost of the oppressor's sin." >> Where does it say that? >> I just read it to you. >> Wait, say it again. >> In Genesis 15:13-4, God establishes the promise. And in in the book of Exodus, God says Israel is going to leave Egypt with silver, gold, and clothing from the Egyptians. And if you're going to say that reparations would be a form of punishment on white America for inflicting a crime upon black Americans, then so be it. It's a just punishment for an unjust crime. Unless you're gonna say that now the Bible is wrong. >> Abraham said, "Uh, sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?" And the Lord said to him, "Bring to me a hepher and a goat and a ram." Where are we at here in Genesis 15 that we're reading? >> I'm sorry. What? Say that again. >> Where are we at in Genesis here? >> I I I quoted Genesis and I quoted Exodus as well. >> Genesis what, though? I just gave it to you, Andrew. You're obviously not paying attention. Exodus chapter 3. We're just pulling it up. Exodus I'm giving it to you. Calm down. Exodus 3:es 21-22 where God says, "Israel will leave Egypt with silver, gold, and >> Genesis is the reference that I'm looking for that you >> I didn't I gave you three references. Stop doing that. Stop sticking at one when I gave you three." >> I'm just want to follow one at a time. Can you give me the Genesis reference again? >> Genesis 15 13 and 14. Andrew, let's start there. >> Okay. 13 and 14. The Lord said to him, "Know for certain that for 400 years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated there. But I will not enslaved and mistreated in America. >> I will punish the nation." >> Stop. Stop. Stop. Were black Americans not enslaved and mistreated in America? Yes or no? >> Yeah, they were. >> Okay, then >> what is it? Can Can I finish reading? >> Continue. Yeah, >> these are things that aren't in dispute. >> Uh, we know in dispute. We know >> your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own that they will be will punish that nation. Punish that nation. They serve as slaves and afterwards they will come out with great possession. So it was a [ __ ] punishment, bro. Like I said, anything else? >> What are you talking the [ __ ] are you talking about? >> You are worse than both. You are literally worse than both. >> The word punishment. [laughter] What's What's the word we're looking for here? Punishment. >> Andrew. Andrew. Andrew. >> You said you're a Christian earlier. I gave you a perfect example of punishment. So in this case, >> yeah, punishment, not reparations, punishment. >> Andrew, you're what? God punished Pharaoh and the Egyptians because they didn't do what? They didn't live up. They didn't honor the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Correct. >> Not just that, they were also honoring demons. >> They did not honor the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Didn't Doesn't the Bible say you should have no other gods before me? Yes or no? That's true. But they also were idolizing demons. >> It doesn't matter what else you're idolizing. Anything that replaces God is wrong. Yes or no, Andrew? >> Yeah. Generally speaking, yes. >> Okay, then. So, it doesn't matter what false gods the Egyptians were worshiping, they were not honoring the one God that actually created the universe. Okay. >> Uhhuh. >> All right. Great. >> So, now moving along. [snorts] When in the book of Exodus 3:es 21 and 22, God says a uh Israel will leave from the Egyptians. >> In Exodus 12:es 35 and 36, Israel then asked the Egyptians for silver, gold, and clothing. And the Lord gives Israel favor in their sight. And the King James Bible actually says they spoiled the Egyptians, meaning that they did strip them of their wealth. The reason the Israelites got the wealth was because the Egyptians did something morally wrong >> and God was punishing them. >> Correct? So in the confines of what we're talking about, you could argue if you wish that reparations of governmental corrective action is a punishment on white America for a sin that they committed against blacks. >> Great. I'm glad that we finally got >> Okay. So you're saying that that's not But you said that's not in line with Christian ethics. >> That's correct. It would not be in line in Christianity. >> How is an example that proves what I'm saying is correct not in line with Christian essence? >> Because you're citing you're citing the Old Testament, sir. >> Is is the New Testament Are you telling me the New Testament and the Old Testament conflict? >> Well, it's not conflict. >> That's biblical contradiction. >> It's on No, it's on a continuity. But in the New Testament, >> wait a minute. The New Testament is not a continuity of the Old >> Austin. Austin, we you have to let him get the point out before you interrupt. All right. Make sure there's speaking time. You do you are interrupting a lot. So Andrew, get the point out. >> So just one last question. >> Are you saying >> where where were we? Where were we? He he wasn't finished. >> You're just you're just gish galloping because you're getting blown out on each point like you just did on the one. >> No, you haven't blown out. You a blown out, >> bro. You just you got done telling me no. It wasn't a form of punishment. Now you've conceded it's a form of punishment. It's hilarious. But now back to this on continuity. This is even funnier to me. If you look at the book of Acts, you'll find in the book of Acts that how they determine who is a Christian is by three criteria, right? You no longer have to get circumcised, for instance. Is that contradictory? Because the Old Testament does say that you need to be circumcised. No, of course not. It's on a continuity. And so the New Testament has a new covenant with it. And with that is the fulfillment of the law. Jesus Christ came and fulfilled the law. Part of how he fulfilled the law is by conquering death. He conquered death and in his testament to his apostles he taught us through Christian ethics how we are to treat each other going forward on a con. That's why for instance in Leviticus how do you deal with homosexuals in Leviticus? You wrap a millstone around their neck and you throw them into the water and then they've sink to the bottom and drowned. However, we don't deal with homosexuals like that in Christianity, do we? Why? Because in the continuity, you'll find in the New Testament, Christ came and fulfilled the law and gave us what the law is supposed to be. >> So, you're saying that the Old Testament no longer applies at any >> It does apply the and the law applies. However, the law is a continuum. It's on a continuity. Jesus Christ came and fulfilled the law by conquering death and he gave Christians the methodology for which to have their ethical system. >> So we know restitution carries into the New Testament because when Zakayas encountered Christ, he did not say, "Well, Jesus fulfilled the law, so therefore I owe no one anything." He says, "If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him four-fold." And Christ responds to him when he says, "This day is salvation come to this house." So, this restitution thing carries over into the New Testament. Unless you're not going to deny that. >> Read the rest of the context. >> Uh, what do you mean the rest? I just read it. >> Read >> Matthew 5:17. Let's start with my So, and this is the thing, Andrew. Hold on. >> We can do that. We can do this all. >> Stop. You want me to shut up? Let respond. Calm down. Relax. >> Christ fulfilling the law does not mean justice died at the cross. It means that Christ fulfilled the law's ultimate redemptive purpose. But the moral principles revealed in the law, which is just, justice, mercy, restitution, truth, and righteousness are not abolished. Which is why I go to Matthew 5:17. Jesus says, "Think not that I'm come to destroy the law of the prophets. I'm not come to destroy or to fulfill." So if this idea of continuity somehow changing the principle of the matter, which is what we're discussing, that's that's a logically inconsistent argument. The declaration counters the misconception that Jesus intended to discard Jewish law. He that was not the Jewish law. You're not >> when we're talking about when we're talking about the distinction here between reparations and punishment. We demonstrated in Genesis under Christian ethics. We we found that God was punishing the Egyptians for how they were mistreating his servants. Not that he was giving them restitution or reparations, but he was punishing those who had misgivings towards him. And he had prophesied that he would do so as a punishment, which is exactly what you want to do right now. You want to offer up a punishment for things I never did, things that you never experienced. >> Andrew, what you did, see, now you're now you did exactly what I was where I was trying to lead you because you think this is about what you did. No, you already, again, going back to the start of this argument, you seated premise one, which is that, which is that the United States government, which is still an currently existing institution, caused measurable, documentable economic harm to black Americans. That is a fact. >> So therefore, the institution, which is still currently existing, the US government is still around. The Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. This is not about blaming white people. This is about blaming >> I didn't say it's about blaming white people. >> I didn't, Andrew, I didn't say what you said. I'm simply making a point. And it's called rhetorical. You know, the [snorts] point that I'm making is that the US government, which still exists, caused documented, measurable harm to black Americans because the government caused this harm. That's the premise that we're Well, that's where we get the problem with the premise. >> Can you allow me to finish? >> Yeah, but that's where the premise goes wrong is in premise two. >> It doesn't go wrong in premise 2. If you you're you have given no definition of justice. You're you have given you my definition of justice either by the way. >> It's not my argument. You're it's your argument. You're the one argue. You're on the pro side here. The pro side is saying that the US government makes a determination of what restitution is due. And then your third premise negates that by saying that the government itself owes restitution. That can't be the case. If the government the government's not paying it would be the case because if the government's not paying out restitution then the government has determined it doesn't owe any. >> So biblically so going again to this example of Zakayas. Zaya said if he harmed any person he restored them four-fold. In this case the US government is Zakayas. The US government caused measurable documented harm to black Americans. Therefore they would be the one to owe restitution to the harmed class. Well, I don't then I'm not sure that you're talking we're talking about the same thing here. So from your government the government is the determining factor of what they owe by your own premise. >> Andrew, what you're doing is so damn exhausting it's ridiculous because your inability to be intellectual. >> I know using your own words to against you is >> you're not using my own words against me, Andrew. You're not even addressing my words. You already constitution premise too. Those are your words. Andrew, you started this debate by acknowledging that the US government caused harm. >> You're attempting to now skirt around the definition of and create some sort of pseudo definition of justice, or rather not provide one. >> I'm using your It's your It's your argument. Why do I have to provide you your argument, dude? I don't get it. >> Andrew. Andrew. >> Andrew, I need you to define justice for me for my argument. >> I already did. It wasn't good enough for you. So, I'm going to ask you again. >> Not good enough. I'm just telling you your argument is unsound. ask you let me ask you then let me ask you then let me ask you then what would you define justice as if you have an issue with my definition now I'm trying to expand the conversation as best as possible what would you define justice as Andrew >> why do I need to give you a different >> your inability to stop being like destiny and directly answer the question if you're if it's if if you can do that we can continue >> I'll tell you what I'll she the entire debate right now if you can tell me why it's required that I give you a definition for justice when you gave me the syllogism. >> I gave you a definition for justice that you claimed was not in line with Christian ethics. That's why I'm now asking you syllogism is unound. >> Andrew, you asked me to answer the question. I answered it. >> You haven't answered it. >> I gave you the >> Why is there a requirement that I define the word justice for your syllogism? >> Andrew, if you're going to sit here and play this word tap dance and [ __ ] there is no point in me continuing this conversation. I'm asking you if you're going to cry about it. If you're going to cry about your I'm not crying about it. I'm holding you to task. >> All right, fellas. Just quickly, let me let me try and let me try and get this back on track. So, uh, it's gone a little it's flip-flopped a little bit from the Christian ethical argument to the more constitutional argument that we're going from like a constitutional government argument to is this ethically uh Christian. Um, Austin, because you do have the affirmative claim, it's uh that's why your your position is getting investigated a little bit more here. But do you want to make the argument from the constitutional lens or from the Christian lens? >> I'm making the argument from the Christian lens. I'm making from lenses. I'm making the argument because the the point is you can't separate America from Christianity because the in the declaration of America was founded under the principle that all men are created equal and that all men are made in the image of God. That is as I mean that's objectively provable. That's objectively verifiable. So you can't there's an intersectionality that exists between uh the constitution and Christianity. That's >> well you have you have a problem. >> I wasn't done speaking Andrew. >> Okay. >> So based around going to be done speaking. >> What I'm asking you to do is because again we are you're playing the word game and I know what you're doing. So I'm asking you I gave you >> engaging with the argument. >> Go ahead. >> I gave you the definition of justice. >> Yes you did. You are saying you stated when when I provided the definition, you stated that that does not line up with Christian ethics. I am now asking you because you're when you say that what you're implying is that you have a superior definition that is more in line with with objective Christianity. I'm now asking you to define it. If you can't define it, then >> because Yeah. So understand you said justice is giving what is due. That's your definition. I can say that that does not line up with Christian with Christian ethics based on the fact that it's giving what is due. An example of this uh you're a Christian. >> Yeah. Okay. Do you believe in the concept of forgiveness? >> Yes. >> What does a person have to give you to be forgiven? >> They don't have to give me anything. >> Okay. Okay. Well, then your idea your idea your idea here then of restitution for the idea of a harm has befallen you by somebody else for you to forgive them requires no restitution. You're pointing out that Christian ethics requires no restitution for forgiveness. >> The reason that that that I'm able to forgive, we're talking about two different things. You talked about forgiveness of sin, which is not what we're discussing. So what you're saying doesn't line up. So again, how do you define harm? You're running from answering a core question because look, look, I'm going to show I'll show you when you say the word harm here, the reason that you're saying that these are unjust governmentbacked policies which are discriminatory towards black people. I'm assuming that that means that you consider these things unjust under a Christian ethical purview, which is what you just argued. If that's the case, then you're saying, look, uh, harm here is some violation of Christian ethics, right? If that's the case, if it's a violation of Christian ethics, but the core of your ethical principles, the idea of forgiveness, and forgiveness requires no rest, uh, no restitution, nor are you allowed to seek vengeance, then I don't see how you have an argument here for restitution at all for this. This is amazing because you call yourself a Christian and yet I gave you an example in the book of Acts where Zakchayas says or excuse me in the Gospel of Matthew where Zakayas uh says and even in the book of Acts as well where it was stated that if if they harm if someone harmmed someone they would restore them seven restore them four-fold. So and then also also a Christian wait a minute it is also a it is also in line with Christian ethics that faith without works is dead. So if you I it when you look at and again you're trying to muddy the waters and I know what you're doing. This I'm not naima. This is not [ __ ] this is not the whatever podcast. Uh >> yeah they make way better arguments. >> You're not you're not going to well that's up for debate. You're not going to run from this. You have not you have given no definition of justice while calling yourself a Christian while contesting my definition. So your inability to answer the question really exposes the flaw or the deliberate flaw in the logic that you're attempting to skirt away from and use. So I'm going to ask you one more time. If you're willing to acknowledge that government that the government of the United States caused measurable harm to black >> I'm sorry real quick. Um how can you >> Well, hang on. Hang on. My internet dropped for just a second. So can you go back about 15 seconds? Sorry. If you already seated at the very start of this debate that the government of the United States caused measurable economic harm, you're in agreeance with my worldview of Christian ethics already. You're seeding that you you already you're acknowledging right there that you're seeing the world through the same lens that I am from a Christian-based lens. No, that's not then you're ch So, okay. So, now now no, you're not. So, what do you define as now harm, Andrew? Cuz now now you're changing your state cuz you first grant it premise >> when you create. Well, no, no, no. I didn't say don't grant premise one. I said that the granting the granting of premise one would have no bearing on whether or not we're now looking at it through a a lens of Christian ethics. For instance, it could be utilitarian ethic that we're looking at um utility. If you if you understand Bentham and his philosophies as a utilitarian, you would be looking at a harm principle is under the form of utils, which just means uh negative versus positive outcomes. ethics. Andrew, now you're giving me some other [ __ ] that doesn't matter. >> No, what I'm No, I'm explaining to you that this would not premise one would not establish that this is now Christian ethics. Uh, what would establish? >> How do you view the world, Andrew? >> Well, I I do from my worldview through Christian. >> Okay, then. So, that means we're discussing the same world view. So, stop the intellectual. >> It doesn't mean Hang on. Just because I view the world through Christian ethics, >> both of the debaters view the world. does not mean that premise one establishes that we're talking about Christian ethics yet. This is why I'm very very clear on language so I can make sure that we're talking about Christian ethics because we seem to have a hang on we seem to have a hang on hang on hang on we seem to have a contradiction here >> the contradiction P and not P if forgiveness from your view and my view requires no restitution even if we both point out that there's demonstrable harm which had occurred why would that demonstraable harm which had occurred require restitution for forgiveness well it wouldn't that's the contradiction I'm not speaking, Andrew. You're you're speaking about forgiveness as if that within the Christian lens, forgiveness is given to us if we accept Christ as a savior. We're not talking about forgiving the United States of America right now. We're talking about whether or not the US government caused documented harm to black Americans, which >> Yeah, but that's been established. Well, hold on. You admitted that they did. you. >> Yeah, that's established. Nobody. >> So, so if that's now you're sitting here arguing about what is justice, which all you're doing, all you're doing is muddying the waters without with by trying to avoid answering the question. You still right now at this at the 51 minute mark of this debate. You have not answered the question of what are you trying to define as justice? >> I don't need to define justice. It's irrelevant. I'm not the one who's I'm not the one. Listen, so that saying that my definition is not in line with Christian ethics. That would mean that by definition yours somehow is. But you refuse to define that. >> Andrew, yes. Why Why is it irrelevant? Let's let's >> let me let me explain this so that you understand, right? I'm going to I'm going to speak real slow and real soft. So, if you make an argument based on your worldview, that's your position. Your position is the one of change. You're the one who's proposing that we do something about X. That's your position, not mine. I'm not proposing that we do anything about X. Still not answer. >> I'm asking you why ought we do something about St. Answer my question. >> Yes, I am. I'm asking you why ought >> I asked you what is your definition of >> I'm asking you why why is that a requirement? Tell me why it's required that I I've restated this [ __ ] four times. You said that my definition of justice is not in line with Christian ethics. I am now asking you based on what you're saying. I'm saying that Andrew stop the answer or not. >> What you are saying is that if my def is that my definition your premise is now Austin's definition of Christian ethic or definition of justice is not in line with Christian ethics while claiming yourself to be a Christian. I am now simply asking you to define within your lens of what you call Christian ethics. What are you defining as justice? You claiming that it is irrelevant does not let's let him answer the question. Andrew, do you answering the question? >> Andrew, do you do you deny that? Do do you deny that you are saying that his definition of justice is not in line with Christian? >> All I need to do to negate the claim is justice is giving what is due as a Christian principle. I would never have to give a counter claim of what I consider justice to be. So it would be irrelevant to your proposition and your premise. You want me to defend your premise or come up with some Hey, stop. Stop my turn. or come up with with some sort of counter syllogism for you. >> I don't give a damn about Hang on, dude. Just let me finish. What you're refusing to define? >> Can I finish the point? Right. >> Can you answer the question? >> Yeah. I don't have to ever give you a definition of justice for your syllogism. Bro, what do you want me to say? Do you know logic? Can you tell me the three laws of logic? Dude, just tell me the three laws of logic. Andrew, I am going to restate this one final time because what you are doing is muddying the waters and I'm going to recenter this debate for the last time. And if you simply refuse to do this, if you simply refuse to answer the question, >> then you're going to run away and not defend your syllogism. >> I'm not going to run away. Andrew, you are nobody to run away from, son. What I'm telling you is what I'm telling you is >> you are calling yourself a Christian. We have established that we both based on what we've stated view the world through a Christian-based lens. Yeah. You are now claiming so we've set a baseline. We've set a a conversational foundation. >> Yeah. >> You are claiming that the definition of justice that I provided is not in line with biblical Christian ethics while yourself holding the same foundational worldview. >> So I'm simply asking you to define in your worldview what are you saying is justice. That way we can have a clear operating we can determine if we have a clear operating baseline of what justice is. >> The problem with this is that when you say justice, you gave me a principle. The principle is giving what is due. That's your definition of justice. I can deny and denote that the principle does not align with Christian ethics without ever needing to give you some definition of justice. It's irrelevant. >> That that doesn't make any sense. Tell me if you were not claiming yourself to be a Christian because what you're claiming is a what you're doing is claiming a sort of >> mental not even mental you're claiming a form of definitional superiority by saying that my definition is not in line with Christian ethics while refusing at the very same time a better definition. >> Yeah, I'm just I'm talking about the principle. You assigned a principle to justice as the entirety of the word justice. I'm willing to see that that is your principle. Justice is giving what is due. But what I'm doing is applying justice is giving what is due to Christian ethics. And I'm finding that I don't see that principle anywhere. >> And you have you're refusing to identify how you don't see the principle. >> I think we probably we probably should we probably should move the debate on, guys. What do you want? >> Let's let's move let's move the debate on guys. Let's just move the debate on. Um there's a few different angles that we could take it. We could take it from the uh how did these systemic injustices occur? Is it culture? Um what what plays more of a part in that? Andrew, you made those those claims in the in your opening statement. Um we can go down that line. We can go down what is systemic racism? Does systemic racism still exist today? Where would you guys like to take it? Because this this definition stuff's getting a bit long. >> Uh what was it? What you said that systemic rac systemic racism still exists today? No, I don't think um I don't believe and I said that in my opening statement. System all things are not due to systemic racism and today racism in America is largely I would argue on its deathbed. There are the the lasting vestages of systemic racism are too small. Uh the ones that do exist, they're too small to negate any sort of legitimate up mobile mobile upward uh movement for black Americans. So I wouldn't have I wouldn't have a a a line of thought there, a line of disagreement. No, it's not. There's no So, currently in modernity, you're saying you don't believe that systemic racism is much of a thing. >> I don't believe that it that it is as much of a upward mobile deterrent as it was in the 60s and prior dur under the Jim Crow era. No. >> Okay. So then would you agree with me when I'm expressing the cultural deficiencies and the cultural deficiencies being primarily the result for why many black Americans currently find themselves unsuccessful? >> You could due to not due to systemic racism but due to cultural filters which are self-imposed. You could argue that yes, today largely a lot of those issues are culturally imposed. But the the origin of those which we discussed in the opening of this debate is the root issue of that. There's a there's a high there's a a always been a high net positive correlation between poverty and criminality which is what we discussed earlier. But today, black culture has become >> that doesn't account for the disproportionality. >> I'm sorry. >> It doesn't account for the >> What doesn't account for the disproportionality? poverty. >> No, it doesn't. It not individ not individually but poverty compounded with the exclusionary practices le uh practiced by the government put into place by the government. We have I've said quite often that >> then what would explain the disproportionality absent the systemic racism? Now >> Then what would explain the disproportionality? If there's no systemic racism now, but you still see disproportional amounts of criminality >> because kept them going. I mean, that's that's I mean, that's the answer. That's this is where I become this is where I I lean heavily into conservatism. I mean, into my conservative selfosed. >> Yeah. Now, it's self-imposed. Yeah. I've said that plenty of times. >> Okay. So, if it's self-imposed due to culture, not due to systemic racism, there's a disproportionality. Um, was is that justice to the culture which is subsidizing the culture which refuses to be successful? >> Who is subsidizing black culture? Are you saying that white America is subsidizing black culture? >> No, I'm saying that the American government, which you're holding to these sins, is subsidizing black culture. >> The American government is subsidi is subsidi You're Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. You're saying that today the American government is currently subsidizing black culture. Through what metrics? >> Uh through well we could look at multiple metrics. The first would be DEI. That would be a good metric to look at for subsidization. Another one is that the government was black. Wait a minute. Hold on. Black people wait. >> Let me give you the list real quick so that you have >> Well, hold on. But let's start with DI for a second because only 3% of black people made up black people only made up 3% of all DEI hires. Andrew, >> uh, >> the largest benefactor of DEI has been proven to be white women. So that's a lie. >> So let's, uh, let's back up real quick. >> No, address that point first. Yeah, let's start with per capita. Do you agree with me that there's way more white women than there are black women? >> Uh, yes, but that does not again. >> So why don't we tell the numbers? Let me answer that in full. Let me answer that in full. >> Okay. Based on multiple studies that have been released by the US Department of Labor and multiple studies that have been conducted for DEI, the largest benefactor of all DEI platforms or programs was white women >> and per capita, >> which is the number that actually matters. >> Are you saying that per capita and white farmers too? Yes. As well, white women and white farmers. Yeah. Um per capita. I don't have those numbers right in front of me, but I mean that's a simple that's simply a that's a simple Google search. I mean, it's not like we're not sitting right in front of our computers. >> Yeah. So, then look it up. >> So, you're saying is per capita, who's the largest benefactor of DEI? Okay. So, per capita, who's the largest benefactor of DEI programs? >> Per capita. Yeah. uh white women, veterans, people with disabilities, and various racial and ethnic minority groups depending on the program >> and what programs >> it I mean they they they it's varied. It it varies. There there's no universally accepted national ranking across all DEI programs, but the evidence from employment and educational affirmative action suggests that white women have often been among the largest beneficiaries of diversity and affirmative action policies per capita. And now what about black women versus black men? >> What? That doesn't that's race internal. That doesn't matter. >> Why does that not matter? >> Because we're looking at what what we're looking at. You said that the government subsidized black people. >> But but the what we just looked up proved that the largest benefactor even per capita is still white women. So now what you're asking is another is another question. >> I actually am not I'm actually not sure on the per capita. I'm not finding the actual per capita answer. What you gave me seems to line up specifically with the proportionality or uh specifically when you say the most amount of DEI hires are white women. I can concede that that's true, but I actually can't find the per capita >> There's no universally accepted number, Andrew. I just quoted that. I didn't make that up. I just read it. >> So that's the that's the problem, right? Is like black women are only 6% of the population, 7% of the population. So, you would expect that white women would be the ones who would get the most amount of DEI hires, >> terrible view >> because you you're literally you're literally now running from acknowledging that what you said was not logically consistent. >> How is it not logically consistent? >> You said the US government subsidizes black folks when if that's true nationally speaking, they should still they should still outperform white people in DEI programs. And they don't. >> They do. Okay. Under what source, Andrew? Provide the source because now you're making the positive claim. So, where's your >> Yeah. So, it's not just DEI. When you're talking about subsidies, which is why you cut me off before I could give you my list. So, when we're talking about subsidization for black people, we'd also be taking into account school. We would be taking into account uh direct payments when it came to uh welfare, when it came to all the largest people. Let's do per capita. Let's do per capita. Let's do Let's do per capita. Per capita, who is the largest recipient of welfare payments between black Americans and white Americans or black Americans and all Americans? Which one you want? >> Either. Both. Sure. If you're asking total dollars received per capita, white Americans receive the largest amount of welfare benefits because >> I'm not talking about total total dollars. Talk about total people. >> I'm answering the question, Andrew. I'm answering it in full. Relax. >> Historically, black Americans have had higher white have had higher participation than white Americans in programs such as SNAP, TANP, SNAP, which is food assistance, TA TANF, which is cash assistance, Medicaid. White Americans, because of the larger population, uh, often receive the largest total amount of benefits still across many programs. When you include pro programs also heavily used by the elderly such as social security and Medicare, white Americans per capita receive the largest share of total benefits because they still do make up a larger share of the older population. So >> So black people per capita receive more SNAP benefits. >> Are you are you listening? >> It's still white people. >> No, it's not. >> Read it again because you don't understand what you just read. Read it again. >> I I'm not reading it again. You And you obviously didn't listen. Obviously, your ears ain't working. So, >> yeah. So, here. >> All right. Let's get from uh the other side. Now, [clears throat] >> on a per capita basis, black Americans participate in means tested welfare programs such as SNAP, food assistance, TAMP, Medicaid at higher rates than white Americans. Now, let me read that for you again, sir. On a per capita basis, black Americans participate in means-ested welfare programs such as SNAP, food stamps, tf, and Medicaid at higher rates than white Americans. What are you confused about? Anything? >> Not confused about anythingused, sir? >> Well, I'm not confused about anything, brother. What I'm trying to get you to see is that even what what you're wait a minute still. So, wait a minute. So you're saying that welfare is a form of a government sub is a is a government subsidy and is that is that a form of reparations to you? >> It's a subsidization. >> That's not what I asked you. >> Yeah. So if we're tying it back to my earlier argument, I'm saying that if it's the case that the government is subsidizing black people at a higher rate, then what's happening is the government has no money. They're taking money from one group and giving it to another. So how this works in real >> taking money from you act like black people don't pay taxes. So what are you talking about? I'm I'm trying to explain to you how this works in real time. So, if it's the case you're going to vote for somebody, you only vote on based on generally two criteria. It's either I'm going to take less from you or I'm going to give something to you from somebody else because a government has no resources. You're the resource. You are born with a social security number and your social security number is what the government bets against before it begins to incur debt, things like this because they're betting that you're going to pay X amount of taxation. So that's that's literally how the system works in so you're saying a system that black people pay into because black people are taxpayers just like everyone else and fund the large funding for welfare comes from the American taxpayer. You're saying that the essentially black people subsidize themselves when you break it down. That's what >> No, they're not subsidizing themselves. They're being subsidized by a different group of the population because the government itself can't offer any subsidies. They're only offering money from one group to another. So, when you think about it, the government's not the one providing reparations uh or even the subsidization. It's white Americans and other work uh general working-class Americans who are providing that subsidization for blacks. So, I feel like based on your argument, if that's the case, and justice requires giving what is due, then black America should give back to the group which is being taken from, which subsidizes. >> So, you're telling me that black Americans should give back to white Americans? >> Mhm. If we want to follow your ideals of justice. Yes. >> That's not my ideal justice. So my ideal of justice is that black Americans shouldn't have to based on what you're saying for at least the next 60 years, black Americans should have to give white Americans [ __ ] because black Americans were systematically subjugated from wealth creation by white by a white government that was in power that kept us from owning homes or wealth generation. >> But I thought you just said that I'm not responsible for that and you're not responsible. >> I said the government I didn't say you son. >> Yeah. Great. But right now there is a responsibility for the people who are alive for injustices which are happening. And if justice is giving to a person what is due them then what is due to whites? >> What definition from the black community yours? >> Well now I'm going to ask you I'm using yours your definition is justice requires. >> How is anything due to white Americans when they've had an economic advantage? >> I'm trying to explain it much longer than I mean to explain it to you. Right. Whether whether or not >> black >> I can't explain it to you. No. Okay. No, no. The the h who has had an economic advantage in this country for a longer period of time, white or black >> Uh, white Americans. >> All right, then. So, what what you're saying literally makes no [ __ ] sense. >> It does. It makes perfect sense. If it's the case that there is no current systemic racism by your own admission which is keeping down the black man but rather social habits which are uh imperfect when it comes to society and so society doesn't want to deal with them based on those social habits then it would be the case that right now I'm simply being punished for the bad social habits of other people and you're disproportionately taking wealth from me to give it to those people which would confine with your idea stop let me make the argument let me hear the argument Let's say the argument. >> You won't even respond to the argument. You won't even let me say it. >> So again, your argument of justice, right? Justice requires restitution. That's your exact premise. Okay? And then when we talk about what that is, what is justice? It's giving what is due. So here's what is due. What is due? If it's the case that it's not systemic racism or biases which are causing blacks to have this situation in modernity, but rather bad social habits, which you agree to, then it would have to be the case necessarily that they're disproportionately taking from me, which means I'm justice. I'm due justice, bro. >> The bad social habits that black people have more directly impact us race internally than they impact white Americans. So, what are black people taking from white America, Andrew? They're disproportionately taking money from the taxpayer in order to give it to their social group. >> What are you talking about? People pay taxes the same as white Americately. They're receiving disproportionately. So give me what is not because that is what's just. >> That's not what's just literally just here's what's true. >> The single stupidest thing. >> Black Americans participate in means welfare programs. Let him make the >> paid everything at disproportional rates in comparison to white people. White people are also paying more into those systems than black people are. It's disproportional that way as well. Therefore, if it's the case that we're following your code of justice, which is to give what is due, right, and justice demands reparations, then >> you're forgetting the first premise of >> Stop, bro. Then black people would have to >> correct this injustice by giving to whites what is their due. Andrew, you can't use premise two of my argument while neglecting premise one, which is did were which is in this case, did black Americans cause any lasting economic harm for 200 plus years to white Americans? >> Well, the time the >> No, no, no. But >> okay, then so what you're saying it doesn't make any sense. >> But why would it matter if it was 30 years? Why would it matter if it was 200 or 30 years? Andrew, you already answered the question that that followup does nothing. >> Why would it matter if it was 200 or 30 years? >> Even if we confine it, even if we go back and confine it to the era of Jim Crow, did black Americans cause any create any legal barrier for full economic participation for white Americans at any point in American history? >> What legal barrier did black Americans create that prevented white Americans from >> receiving disproportionate benefit that was created? Let me restate the question. You might have missed it. >> Yeah, but I'm talking about the idea of black Americans. What legal barrier did black Americans face? >> It has no bearing on the argument. >> It has a lot of bearing on the argument. My initial premise was that the US government lasting economic harm to black Americans does have a legal you choose to try to conveniently ignore, but I won't allow you to do it. >> Okay, great. Am I allowed to respond now or no? >> Okay, great. >> Oh, please. I'm waiting for an actual >> Great. So when we're looking at premise one, premise one, USA caused measurable harm. Now you say that means discriminatory towards black people. How do I know? Because I wrote it down to make sure that we had it clear. If that's the case, then all we have to do for the USA to cause measurable harm to white people is say that the government has backed policy which was discriminatory towards white people. If it's the case that they're taking more from white people to to disproportionately compensate black people, I consider that said policy discriminatory. And then under your views of justice, which require restitution uh and justice is giving what is due, it would now be black priority to give reparations to white people to correct this injustice by your own logic, sir. >> No, it would not be. >> Yes, it would. I just walked you through your own logical solution. What you're saying [laughter] this is I mean this is just [ __ ] hilarious. you the reason that black people even have a conversation around reparations doesn't ex the reparations conversation would not exist if the US federal government had not committed acts of measurable economic harm to black Americans that's let's start with that especially if we confine it because at the start of this debate I said I wouldn't even address slavery because of the length of time that has elapsed black Americans did not dominate the socioeconomic and political structure of the country for the same length of time that white Americans did especially especially if we're just confining it to the last 60 years or the Jim Crow era, excuse me. And so there's no way that you could make that argument logically consistent because white Americans are the ones I can voted for these pro >> white Americans are the ones that voted for the very programs that you're talking about. So they should what you're saying is that now they should owe that to themselves, which is again is not logically consistent, but that's the end net end of the logic you're >> No, it's not. And I'll explain again. So if we look at federal income taxes specifically, Asian-Americans pay the most in federal income taxes per capita. Next is white Americans. They pay them the most in per capita. Then Hispanics and last is black. Which means that blacks are disproportionately taking more than their fair share of benefits out of the system. If that is the case, then that's a discriminatory policy because you're taking from one group to give to another group, which violates the foundation of the very same principles of the nation you're talking about. So if we follow your syllogism, one. And before that we have the requirement of what justice even is. Uh the US government is the one who determines this. Right? The USA caused measurable harm against government and and what measurable harm is is governmentbacked policy which is Okay, I'll just invert it. Discriminatory towards white people. Andrew, white people deserve whites and Asians deserve reparations. >> The government is discriminatory towards white Americans when white Americans dominate the political power structure of this country. Unless you're going to make the argument that white people are somehow discriminatory against themselves, which would be stupid to say. That doesn't make any logical sense. >> How does that not make logical sense? I don't understand. >> Because why would what you're saying imply against itself? >> Yeah. Why would the key of justice here be a requirement that even if whites proposed an injustice and blacks were the beneficiary of said injustice? Say similar to how Andrew must now pay for the injustice of people that he was not responsible for. Why would the racial demographic of that matter in order to promote justice? Justice here being your silly. >> What you're talking about does that's not justice, Andrew. You're just what >> justice is giving what's due. What is you haven't identified what is owed except to say that because white people spend more money on entitlement programs for black Americans which again is not that's not historically the it's not historically provable now unless you're now trying to say unless you're now trying to avoid the per capita argument and now focus on national which is a very slick way of trying to make yourself correct that does nothing to >> you mean the thing that matters the most which is per capita that's how we break down everything >> so now it's so now you're saying that per capita black Americans receive the most. But because white Americans pay the most, white Americans are owed something >> per capita. >> That's not logically consistent. That's just that doesn't make >> per white Americans pay not the most, the second most. Asians pay the most. So if it's >> So then by your logic, Asians Americans should get reparations from somebody >> after we get them from black people. Yes. Then we could pay pay up whatever the disproportionality was to the poor Asians. This that line of logic has to be the stupidest [ __ ] I have ever heard. >> Well, that's a nice assertion but not a reputation. >> Andrew, I already refuted it. The fact of the matter is you you are literally saying something that falls on its face. There was no point There is no point in American history where any economic harm was caused to white Americans by black Americans. >> I'm giving it a Yes. For the last >> No, you're not giving anything. You're talking about the amount of money spent on entitlement programs when black Americans have not even had fully equivalent rights in this country nor fully equivalent economic participation [clears throat] but since around 1973. >> So we haven't even had full economic participation for the same. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense. [clears throat] We can measure at least since for 42 years since I was born in ' 84 that for 42 years it has at least since then been disproportionate that black Americans have disproportionately taken >> 42 years4 more out of the system. Well, hang on. I'm just talking about Wait, wait. For 42 years, see what you're see now you're confining history. Black Americans have been at an economic disadvantage for 244 years. >> Yes. But >> now you're talking about No. So yes, what you're saying doesn't mean anything, Andrew. >> It does because the problem with your logic is you say in modernity and probably at least since the 80s as well. >> This is I mean this is >> that blacks have self-imposed limitations. It's not due to anything systemic. So if it's self-imposed limitations, it's >> within the confines of culture. Yes. >> Do you want me to make the argument or not? >> No. Within the No, because you're not going to change what I'm saying. I'm saying that within the confines of culture, black Americans have a cultural issue, but the root of the cultural issue can be traced back to decade after decade of systemic injustice visited upon black Americans by a by the United >> And you want to confine 42 years within where within the last 244, black Americans have not had full equivalent economic participation. >> Yeah. But they do now and they have for at least 42 years. 42 years does not negate lasting net negative desperate impact that lasted for 244. Andrew, you should know that as well as I do. >> But this is all under governments that I didn't participate in. Therefore, I couldn't be responsible for the justice aspect of this >> that you Okay. Again, you just because I'm not talking about whether or not you participated in it as an individual. The government of the United States conducted acts of measurable harm against a specific class of people. So the lasting effect of of negative policy can be felt generations after the fact. >> The problem is though is that if it's >> do you agree with the statement that the last that a that a economic action can have lasting generational effects? Yes >> Okay then. So you're literally agreeing with your argument. It doesn't actually help your argument. I'll I'll explain why. >> No it >> when you're talking about when you're talking about I'll even use your very same argument when you're saying that there's economic impacts which can be felt generationally. This would be the exact same case of the economic impact which is felt generationally from the disproportionate amount of money which is given to black Americans from me personally. >> How much money have you personally you would cry if you saw how much I paid in taxes. So anyway, >> I didn't say pay taxes. You said you gave black you just implied that you gave black Americans money personally. So how much money have you personally contributed to black Americans? >> Well, I'm talking about through the tax system. >> Uh that's how much I'm quoting the words you just used. How much money have you personally given black Americans? >> Um I I don't I don't know. Like through charity, you mean? Or >> you said it. Don't know. I'm not defining or saving you from the [ __ ] that just came out of your mouth. How much money have you directly given black >> I'm talking in context of taxation. >> Now you're talking in context of taxation. >> That's I always was. That's the whole context of this is that's my first it was entitlement taxation. Okay. >> Yeah. My whole argument >> when I said that black Americans pay taxes the same as white folks. That wasn't but the same. They don't they don't that's just not true though because they don't. So the thing that's funny here is like when we're talking about the idea of justice somehow it's injust for there to be economic impacts which black people had to deal with uh for 200 years but somehow it's okay and just that I will have to deal with the economic impacts of this for 50. It's like how how are these things to acknowledge >> all you do all you do is filibuster before I can even make the argument. Remember how I'm letting you make your arguments? Just let me do the same thing. So what I'm saying to you is pretty easy. If it's the case that there's lasting economic impacts and that is an unjust, then right now I'm experiencing something which is an injustice by your own metric. And that is that the economic impact. That's not true. >> Yeah, it is. And I'm going to demonstrate it. >> Right now it is the case that disproportionately I'm part of a group which pays way more in taxes and subsidies than it's receiving as opposed to the group that's taking. So if that's the case and injustice is being perpetrated against me and by your own syllogism justice is due me. Therefore, what should be happening here is justice be which is me getting what's my due should be blacks not disproportionately taking out of that registar that's coming in from whites simple that is not the case because when you look at the length of time that black Americans and white Americans have held equivalent political and economic and social economic power Americans have held larger sums of power for longer spans of So your issue for the last 42 years could not be with black Americans because black Americans by comparison are historically underrepresented in our government as opposed to white Americans. So your issue would never could never be with black people. Black people did not create let Yep. You wanted me to finish? >> Who wrote the tax code in this country? >> Uh politicians and and NOS's. >> The color of the the color of the skin of the most dominant class happens to be who? uh NOS's uh probably >> no no of elected officials that wrote the tax code that we possess who wrote it wasn't wasn't written by politicians though >> majority whites or majority blacks wrote the tax code of this country answer that >> they're majority probably Jewish I would say >> were they were they black or non-black >> non-black >> okay then so what you're saying you have no argument with black Americans the tax code that you're that you're fussing about was not written by the by black Americans Period. >> And the and the tax code that you're fussing about that that held black people down was >> I'm not No, I didn't say the tax code. I said the United States federal governments of measurable documented harm that those different had lasting perpetuate. Hang on. Now you want I just I just answered your question in good faith. So now answer mine. >> No, you didn't answer in good faith. You ran from answering it directly. I literally had to narrow it down for you so you whites. Yes, that's that's me answering whites. Sure. Yeah. Thank you. But how would it be >> finally being intellectually honest in the >> but I was I answered it. So now answer my question with the same yes or no like I've been doing for you. You ready for this? When we're talking about injustice, would it be okay for an injustice to be perpetrated on me in order to solve an injustice that you believe was perpetrated on a different group? >> No. So then if that's the case, I just demonstrated to you how there's right now an injustice being perpetrated against my group, but yet you don't care about that. Even though the only way for your group to get justice would be to penalize my group demonstrate. >> It would be to penalize the United States federal government. And where do they get their money? >> The House of Representatives released released a house resolution in I believe it was December of 201. >> Where does the government get its money? >> The government gets its money from the taxpayers. But the government would have the second largest. >> The problem is the problem is Andrew, what you're what you're doing is you're running from acknowledging the fact that regardless of the fact that you were born in ' 84 and the night I was born in '95, you're you're refusing to acknowledge that the US federal government does would owe if if we wanted to be just and if we wanted to call ourselves a Christian nation, they would owe some form of restitution to black Americans. Your brand of Christianity is absolutely amazing because it's not in line with biblical ethics at all. objectively. It's just I mean it's it's frankly not. That's what I've found from this debate. And I'm quite frankly disgusted by the way you attempt to represent. >> Oh yeah. Oh my Oh my pearls. Oh my pearls. Oh my pearls. >> I don't I don't wear pearls. I I don't wear pearls. I prefer 18 karat gold. But um you know I I I'm disgusted by the way you >> grab your gold chain and tug it. I don't know. It's like >> no no 18 karat gold. I don't know. But here's what's funny is like none of these are negations to the argument. Where does the federal government get its money from, dude? >> From multiple various sources. >> What's the primary source? >> Taxation and revenue. >> Taxation and revenue. And the second largest group of people who are being taxed and pay the most in to those taxes is white people. So all you're really asking is for redistribution of wealth from uh Hispanics, whites, and Asians to blacks. That's what you're asking for. And so what you're doing is you're creating you're creating an injustice which is the very same bro just let me make the [ __ ] argument. So what you're doing is you're creating injustice by your own metric because what you're doing is you're taking from one group to give to the other. Therefore that group says well you have to give me what is due me which is the money that you stole from me. >> How did we Andrew you're how much money was stolen from okay see if you say that when you say that my question now boils down to this. How much labor how much free labor was extracted from black Americans during uh during Jim Crow and during slavery? >> Uh I mean it's incalculable. >> Oh, okay. Well, no, it's not incalculable because Dr. Sandy Darity um wrote a book on this called From here to Equality and he >> Those are just rough estimates though. >> I mean, obvious Okay. I mean, rough estimates, but >> it's really really high. >> It's really really [ __ ] high. So, how the hell can you say that black Americans owe white America anything when the amount of free labor that was extracted you just said was incalculable? What you just >> because you just said that in to in order to have justice, you cannot do an unjust thing to a group in order to compensate for an injustice done against another group. It would be an injustice by it be hang on. It would be an injustice by your metric to take from my group in order to thus compensate your group for an injustice done you simple >> Andrew you literally just said >> that it is incalculable the amount of money the amount of free labor that was extracted from black >> incalculable >> so what you're saying probably way there is no way in hell there is no way in hell that black Americans would owe white America any form of reparations extracted is incalculable. You just prove you just proved my point and refuted yourself in the hour. >> It doesn't follow, dude. Because if it even if it is, you don't want to acknowledge that because now you realize how stupid you sound. >> I'll explain it in an argument form again, even if it were the case that the federal government extracted billions or trillions of dollars unjustly in unpaid labor from black Americans, which I would agree is true, especially during the slavery days. Um, I I can't even tell you how much, right? I've seen estimates that are extremely high and I think that all estimates are likely wrong because the amount of labor was actually incredible in human capital. There's no ifands or buts about it. But even if I grant this as being true, if it is the case under Christian ethics and your form of justice that it would be unjust to take from one group in order to compensate for another, when you're actually asking the federal government to make these compensations, but the federal government only gets its revenue from taxpayers, then what you're actually asking is that we pay the price for the sins of people who who, you know, we didn't even exist at the time. You're asking for a separate injustice. So you can't ask for injustice. You can't ask for injustice because what you're doing what you're doing of other people who pay interest in order I didn't expect you to be this intellectually because we you you cannot deny and this oh this is going to be my closing statement because I have to I do have a >> oh now you got to go [laughter] >> before you have no we're going to get I'm going to stay for the I'm going to stay for the super chats but for for a >> if you guys do want to do that then uh Austin because you started then you'll Then you'll get the last word. So if you want to move into super chats now, then Andrew will go first and you'll go second. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> If you want to move into closing statements, that is >> Andrew. >> Oh, you want me to go first? Oh, yeah. That way he gets the last word. >> Um, so this was bizarre because my debate opponent actually came with a formal syllogism, which is crazy because unless you have those really thought out, like those are really easy to destroy in a debate. I wouldn't do that in the future unless you, you know, like start studying philosophy or something. But essentially, here's how his syllogism went. His syllogism was uh did the US government cause measurable harm uh towards black people? That was under premise one [clears throat] uh discriminatory towards black people. Did it happen? I can see that this happened. Uh that was never an issue for the concession. Only what we considered harm to be. So that you know we had that fleshed out. Uh he said that justice required restitution but that was contrary actually to him claiming that he was a Christian ethicist because we got to the root core of what Christianity is which was forgiveness. I asked him if restitution is due forgiveness. He says no. Well then that's P and not P. So if forgiveness is the ultimate form of justice uh then that would be a P and not P proposition. He said justice is giving what is due. that was the main form there. Well, if that's the case, if justice is just giving what is due, then that means that any wrong which is perceived towards me is injust and therefore I deserve to have what's due me. So, he also says in premise three, the US government owes restitution, but also negated that claim with premise two when he said the government actually determines what restitution is. So if that's the case and the government has determined it owes no restitution, then his own premises conflict as P and not P again. So that's that's three contradictions so far. Uh the fourth contradiction that we get into is when we're talking about again his idea of justice when we're trying to measure these ideas of can you do something unjust to me in order to compensate for an injustice which was done you in the past. My opponent's answer is no. Of course not. that would be against the violation of the very ethics that he follows. Fair enough. Uh so we dive into uh who pays the most in taxes as the federal government themselves has no revenue. They only collect revenue. Turns out that it's Asian-Americans, white Americans, Hispanic Americans, and only lastly black Americans, which means that disproportionately they would be taking wealth from other groups in order to give it to themselves or have it dispersed to them, which would create this new form of injustice. In fact, by his own words, he says, "Can the government make policy which has lasting economic impacts on a single group?" My concession is, "Of course they can." But that's exactly what he's proposing here. And then uh to make matters worse, he didn't seem to understand what per capita meant. He lied outright and said that per capita it is the case that white people paid more in social programs. that was completely not or uh I'm sorry that blacks and whites uh paid about the same roughly and that whites were actually the ones who were getting the most out of these social programs. That was a complete lie. We broke it down per capita. Same thing with taxpayers per capita. Of course, it's whites who pay the most in. So over and over and over again, it's contradiction after contradiction after contradiction. And he also bizarrely demanded that I continuously give him definitions for his own argument. And yet he has the positive position. He's the one who's the architect of change. I want to see this thing change. Now, if I came in with a proposition of Christian nationalism, I would fully expect my opponent to say, "Define your terms and what is it that you're proposing so that we can at least check the consistency." His own proposition negates itself immediately. He also lied to you when it came to, and this was the uh early on in the debate, just outright lied and said, "No, this is restitution." I said, 'No, that was a form of punishment actually against the Egyptians. No, it wasn't. He pulls up a bunch of Bible verses and when he read Genesis, he purposely left out the word punishment, which is just amazing. Purposely left it out until I had to point it out. No, this was a form of punishment, not restitution, for violating God's law. So, it's like it's it's just wild to me. Um, I think we could have maybe had a productive conversation back and forth on these, but he brought a formal argument. What do you want me to do? If you bring a formal argument to a debate, I'm going to engage in it. So, with that, I'll yield the floor. And I did appreciate the debate. All right, Austin, up to you now, man. Uh, we're going to read out super chats after this, guys. Just a heads up, we'll be going from most to least. So, we'll start with the highest ones and then get down. We'll be reading out all the 20s, but we'll see how we go with the others. >> On to you. >> I mean, Andrew did exactly what I anticipated he would do. he turned this into a softest debate instead of an actual discussion. I think that he um exercised a lot of the same nonsensical tactics that I've seen him do in other debates. He claims to be a Christian uh and yet wants to selectively apply when Christianity is useful and when it is not. Um even citing to him the the example of that yes it is punishment but it was also reparations which was my chief argument when God gave the gold of the Egyptians and the silver of the Egyptians and the wealth of the Egyptians to the children of Israel. There is no Andrew gave no reputation or no additional definition to the term justice yet wanted to spend about 45 minutes of my time that I will never get back trying to play word games and debate about what justice means yet not provide a definition for one himself because in order for him to do that he would actually have to have a legitimate conversation but that was not Andrew's intent his intent was to avoid losing and so he engaged in a in in debating like a sophist instead of actually having a discussion um he could not refute at all the idea idea he granted we won the if if I wanted to I I'll say this in closing. The debate was won the second that he acknowledged that that the US government committed acts of harm that lasted for generations with premise one. He then spent the rest of the debate trying to say well well yes the government did harm black Americans but just because harm took place doesn't mean that we owe restitution. No true Christian can hold those two things in conjunction. And so my argument still stands. If harm is done, restitution is owed. Black people still have not gotten a legitimate form of restitution in the same way that Japanese Americans got when they were paid by the US government $80,000 after they were illegally interned at interment camps. The US government still spends about $32 billion a year on Native Americans. And black Americans who generated the most, as Andrew said, an incalculable amount of wealth for this nation have gotten nothing back as a form of recompense. Andrew cannot refute that. And so the net net of it is I came in this debate to do what I did uh or which is to tell the truth. And Andrew ran from the truth while I tried to tell it. And that's about it. All right, guys. The first one coming in from Brandalorian saying, "Austin, would your plan include reparations to blacks who came to America posts slavery and postsegregation? And would your plan make whites who came to America posts slavery and postsegregation? If not, how would you stop it from being abused?" Uh very simple. You make people prove that they're descendant of slaves or that you or that they were alive and had family members in the United States during the Jim Crow era. Um my plan would not extend to anybody that did not live or in America posts slaver or that you know people that came to America posts slavery or whites that came posts slavery. I mean that's just that's a simp that's a very simple one. My reparations plan would be confined to um the actual descendants the provable descendants of American slaves and the provable descendants of those that were alive during the Jim Crow era. All right. Red Fox says, "Did your syllogism apply to white people? If so, are whites owed reparations for the Civil War, Great Depression, or any other government failed policies?" Repar white Americans were not treated as property in this nation for 200 plus years. So, no. Red Fox says, "Austin, why do you compare harm between whites and blacks in the USA, but not between blacks in the USA and Africans where they came from? Who is better off today?" wait, not between blacks in the USA and Africans where they came because one has nothing to do with the other. Martin Luther King Jr. himself said in his last book, Where do we go from here? Which was published in 1967, that the American Negro is not an African. He is a true and authentic hybrid. He is a combination of multiple cultures. That's why I wouldn't compare it. Who's better off today? I would absolutely say that in spite of America's horrendous history, African-Americans that are alive on this continent and in this country today are better off than Africans overseas. Blink for 20 says, "Austin, you'd be more effective at this if you weren't getting so emotional when having your position challenged. You can't handle push back. Now, observe what happens within yourself when you heard this read to you." >> Nothing happened within myself. I don't mind push back. I'm a professional debater. Relian says for 20 Christianity doesn't promote punishing the son for the sins of the father father. Please tell me Austin why should the government of today and its citizens suffer for the sins of our forefathers. >> No one should no one no individuals should suffer but the government has to acknowledge that the lasting effects of um economic policy can have impacts that last generations. >> But the [snorts] government cannot give to one group without taking from another. It's not even possible. Well, if the US government had never taken free labor from black Americans, we wouldn't be having this conversation. >> But that doesn't negate the principle which is applied. >> It well it may okay I'm not saying it negates the principle that the US government and would be simply paying a debt that's owed whomever they have to take from. We're all Americans. Well, it's not like it's not like this is the thing about reparations. Um it's not like that money wouldn't go right back into the US economy. That's the part that always makes me laugh. The one thing that black black Americans are the number one consumer in this country. um particularly black women. So if black people were cut any degree of a check, which I'm not a fan of, by the way. I'm not a fan of a reparations check. My plan would be more specifically targeted towards home ownership and things of that nature. Um that money would simply go right back into the US economy. Look at how quickly black Americans spent their stimulus checks. >> Yeah. And then what happens with the co co 19? It leads to massive inflation due to the fact that they printed huge amounts of money and gave it to people and were still paying uh for that inflation to this day. And that's why I don't think so much. Like I just said, >> all your plan would do would would well both plans would inflate the economy. There's no I don't disagree. That's why I'm not a fan of I'm not a fan of um I'm not a fan of cutting a large check. That would create any plan that you have >> if you measured it out. if you measured it, if you created a plan where you gave measured um I'll say measured econ economic injections and measured steps to lower inflation. Uh but my plan would also Andrew necessarily going to increase. >> My plan would also involve re-examining the US dollar to try to reattach it to the gold standard before we try to do any of this because the dollar's lost 97.6% of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve has been in existence. So I would before I >> It's not because of gold, dude. >> What do you mean it's not because of gold? It's not because of gold. It's just >> No, I didn't say No, no, no. I'm not saying it's because of I'm saying we were taken off the gold standard in 1933 with when when FDR signed Executive Order 6102. And since that time, the US Federal Reserve has drastically rapidly increased the money supply. And I mean, >> but your plan's going to increase the money supply no matter what. >> Not necessarily. >> There's not then there's >> I haven't even crafted the plan in full. Any plan which either offers subsidies or direct payments is going to create inflation because if you add any any market value to something and you begin to pump into that value, it's going to increase the supply. There's no ifands or buts. That >> which is why I would want to reexamine the entire US money supply before doing anything of the sort to mitigate that problem that you just described. >> Yeah, that wouldn't mitigate it. No matter what, you're going to inflate. >> It would slow the rate of inflation, >> But it's still going to cause inflation. Inflation is inevitable at this point. We have a fiat currency. It's inflation is built into the system. That's not inevitable because you have a fiat currency. That's ridiculous. >> Okay, Andrew. Then explain to me why the dollar has lost 97% of its person power since the Fed's been here. >> Uh well, because of money printing, but that's not a it's not a necessary cause of it being fiat. Because you don't have to print the money because you can, dude. It's not it's not necessary. >> You can have a fiat currency. You can pay. Hang on. You can pay your entire Bro, just listen to me. >> You can have money printing capabilities and not print a ton of money. It's not necessary. It depends on what your payouts are, your GDP, and your entitlements. Entitlement spending is the largest spending that we do in the United States. And secondarily is military spending. You don't have to inflate the money supply just because it's fiat. You don't have to. disagreeing but the but historically what you're say okay what you're saying is valid you don't have to but historically this is what has happened and inflation skyrocketed the minute we were taken off of the gold standard >> inflation was skyrocketing even before that even on the gold standard there's inflation infl the problem with all you're talking about with a money supply is a contraction or an addition to and the more you add to it the more it inflates and the more you contract from it the more valuable it becomes like every other resource >> if we had a gold standard. There's a limited amount of gold in the in the world period. So, if we had a gold standard that places a cap, a definitive cap on how much money we could print to begin with. >> It doesn't. >> What you're saying is okay. All right. I mean, that's not historically true, but Okay, Andrew. >> No, no, no, it doesn't. It would just it would just up values and then you would take fractions of the gold. That's it. That's what has always traditionally been done. >> Print but so much money, Andrew. >> No, you could still print. >> Why are we taking off the gold standard? >> If you were to like here, I'll demonstrate it to you. >> Wait, answer that first. If if if if that doesn't if if if gold if the gold standard doesn't >> because of Kenzian economics and the idea that you need to bail out certain industries if they get too far behind or it'll collapse your GDP. That's why. But the point is here is that >> all right. >> The point is here is that if you have a gold standard and you attach a green back to it or a dollar to it, let's say uh the dollar is worth this amount of gold, you could still fraction off the gold as infinitely in order to create more dollars against those fractions. Do you understand that? >> I I get that. But what I said, what are you talking about? >> There's still a net there's still a net limit of the amount of money that could be produced based around the amount of gold in the >> No, there's not that that Andrew, >> bro. You just negated your own point. If you can make infinite fractions, >> you're talking about All right. >> If you can make infinite fractions for for a gold coin, right? This is worth point. 01 of a gold coin. Whatever value you attach to that, you can continue fractionally into infinity. >> All right. All right. Well, Blaine Paricit came in and said, "Question for Austin. Have you forgiven your mother or your father?" [snorts] >> Forgiven them for what? >> It's a Jesse Lee. You never seen Jesse Lee Peterson's interviews where he asked them if they've forgiven their mother? >> No, I don't watch Jesse Lee Peterson. >> Oh, it's pretty funny. Um, Jacob says, "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son." Ezekiel 8 18 and 20. Seamer 98 for 20 says, "I blame Jake for this man getting a beatd down from Andrew." W A W L Jake. That wasn't very nice. >> Blink. >> Yeah, I know. I'm getting L's. >> Blink says for 20. The ancient Jewish and therefore Christian understanding of justice has to do with things being made into the way they're supposed to be. Austin's understanding of justice would mean that God would have to kill everyone >> essentially. Essentially that is true. If it's what's due you, if you believe that we're in a fallen state, then what's due us is death. But Jesus came to conquer that fallen state. Conquer death, right? That's the whole point. So I I've the whole negation here for Christian ethics has been bizarre to me. But maybe we just have a foundational distinction how we view Christian ethics. We clearly have a foundational distinction on how we view Christian >> What denomination are you? >> Non-denominational. >> Then I don't think I then I think I do understand your position. Well, >> what denomination? >> I'm an Orthodox Christian. >> Nicole Michelle sent a donation as well supporting the stream over on stream elements there which is pinned in the chat if you guys wanted to send something over there. Uh, the great Andrew Thrasher came in and said, "Good evening, Mr. Rattlesnake. Former senior airman Andrew Thrasher here and other ignorant leftist trying to rewrite historical facts. WT people have been enslaved all over the world for thousands of years. Stop crying. Not one step back." >> Yeah, I'm not sure, Mr. Thrasher, that that would negate his argument. the the the his argument it makes sense until you get into the actual argument itself. I didn't want to muddy the argument up by bringing up white slavery or this type of thing, but just engage with the argument as presented. >> Matty Fresh says for 20, at its peak, only 1.4% of US population owns slaves and only concentrated in half of the states. How in the world is this idea of reparations fair when those who didn't even own slaves owe money to those that never were slaves? >> It's not about people, it's about the government institution >> that has no money and has to take necessarily from one group to give to another. You're just creating a different cast system immediately of of people who have injustice who are being >> human should have never created a cast system to begin with in the United States of America. Well, but I can grant this with with you granting my position as well. It it wouldn't matter if it's the case that we both agree that that system is unjust for you to say that we should do injustice now in order to compensate for the >> injustice. Be restoration in my view of in my and using my brand of Christian >> It can't be restoration if you're if you're taking it from unwilling participants to give it to willing participants. That's not >> black Americans weren't willing to come over here on the Nenina and the Penton the Santa Maria. That doesn't what you're saying makes it has no value to me. >> It has complete value. I'm agreeing with you that that's unjust. And so you would agree with me that the same thing applied in modernity would be unjust. That's the point. >> No, I would not agree with you there, >> Well, then you have a P not P position. It's a contradiction. >> Chaw says, "Your entire argument reduces to it doesn't violate Christian ethics to give reparations because we'll just launder it through a third party." That is the most bizarre argument I've ever heard. >> That's not my argument. Who the hell said laundering money? Who the [ __ ] who who who the hell said that? >> Well, you're using the government as an institution of force to take money from one group to give it to another group. You're using force to do this as a >> force was used to extract free labor. So, I see that as an eye for an eye. Well, eye for an eye is not a Christian principle. >> You sure about that? >> I'm 100% positive. Well, >> I think the Old Testament would disagree with you there. >> The Old Testament and eye for an eye and the renewal of the law is negated by Jesus Christ. He renewed. He gave us renewal. We don't deal with >> He gave us renewal, Andrew. But that still doesn't mean that doesn't mean that that an eye for an eye is still not a >> Oh, really? So, if if you come in and you grape my wife, can I go grape your wife? Eye for eye person that raped your wife though. >> That's Well, okay, but wait a second. That's not eye for an eye. Then you're looking at a different form of justice than eye for an eye. Eye for an eye justice was actually you pluck out my eye, I pluck out yours. Any injustice you do to me, I'm now justified in doing back to you. That's what eye for an eye >> We have a fundamental disagreement there that is not worth getting into, Andrew. >> FB says, "By that logic, the institutions and leftist activists pushing racial division over reparations, too. They helped create this toxic culture, spent hundreds of millions promoting it, and contributed to negative societal decay. [laughter] >> That's actually kind of funny. [snorts] >> The uh J Kitchen says the first official slave owner in the US was a black man named Anthony Johnson. You going to tell him his descendants to pay up? >> Uh yeah. Slavery is a moral evil. The [ __ ] >> And his descendants who had nothing to do with his moral evil should pay for it. not his descent. Okay, that was a bit of a bit of a sarcasm, but but but I don't care who own I don't care if that the first person who owned a slave was a black man. This the institution of slavery, especially slavery based on skin color in this country, was just pure evil. Period. Bill James says for 20, acting like slavery wasn't the norm for all of time until the 1700s and ended by white men around the world. Then acting like they owe you something is the most ridiculous [ __ ] It is true that it was the Western European nations which first moved abolition and they're the most punished for it. Western Christian nations who shrugged off slavery before all other nations are the most punished for having done it though they were the least culpable for doing it. >> Yeah. Yeah, but they're also but but you also said these are the western Christians also claimed Judge Tanner also said that the black man has a right has no rights that he is a white man is bound to respect while being so yeah so Dread Scott was free but was still seen as property a thing to be used not a person to be respected so that's still bullit >> oh well hang on I agree with this in principle but still the the reforms which came out of Christian ethics and enlightenment principles for the specific term of slavery and I've mentioned this before the western nations did it before all other eastern nations did. >> I don't disagree with that. >> And they are the most punished group for having done that, for admitting wrongdoing. Whereas in the rest of the world, slavery is still an SOP, a standard operating procedure. And if you look at the transatlantic between the Pacific slave trade, it I mean, it's not even close. What the Arabs, you ever wonder why there's not very many black Arabs, even though they took way more black slaves, it's because they castrated them. That's what they did. They castrated them. They killed them off. That's why there's very few black Arabs and there's lots of black Americans. And that's because >> the fact of the matter is one one form of one form of tyranny in America was substituted for a new form of tyranny. >> Yeah. But that's what your proposal does. It gives us the same exact gives us the same thing. >> It seeks to mitigate it seeks to mitigate a currently a a currently existing gap in wealth. >> Yeah. But that's >> largely due largely due to governmentbacked policies that disenfranchise black Americans. Right. But those are those are equity policies and they're never ending. Then you could say the same thing about soldiers for instance. >> What's that? >> Mines would have an end date. I would not I don't believe in perpetual victimhood provision for everything that I'm proposing. >> Why can't Native Americans make the same claims or why can't this group then make the same claim? The US government is paying $32 billion Native Americans. >> That's the leftist that's the leftist trap. The leftist trap is the second you make the employment of equity based especially on intersectionalism which is what that would become it becomes never ending. It's a never- ending cycle. Every group can come for >> grievance. I don't want this misstated. I am not a leftist. I am vastly far from that. My >> I'm not saying that you are >> everyone a lot of the left would have a problem with the fact that I don't believe that my every program that I would work to institute would have a sunset provision that would not last for more than 30 or 40 years. >> Yeah. Listen, I understand this, but if if the second you introduce an idea of reparations, meaning the grievances from the past which disproportionately affect one group over another, every group could then come to make those claims. And it's an infinite amount of grievances. That's the whole idea behind equity and and intersectionality to begin with. And it is left-wing thinking, not conservative thinking that is factual. >> All right, fellas. We got a lot to get through here, so I'll try and blast through them as quick as possible. Uh, Tiffany says, "You don't want to punish current citizens for the sins of the past, yet the current government is funded by the current citizens. This makes no sense." Big W for Andrew. Johnny says, "Both considering what we know through h history, American history and the current state for black Americans, uh, was bringing slaves from America on ships a net positive or net negative for the black societ uh, society comparatively all around the world." >> so let's see, let me think about the What we know through American history in the current state for black Americans was bringing slaves from Africa. And there so black Americans are definitely in a better position than they would be if they had stayed in Africa and absent colonization in Africa. Blacks are in a better position due to the colonization in modernity as well. So there there I I don't I don't even know how that's argued, but that's not what the my opponent's arguing. He's not arguing whether or not the conditionals for black Americans are vastly improved in comparison to Africa. He literally said that he believes that that's the case. And then I'm assuming the same thing with colonization. So >> anything on that, Austin? >> Was bringing slaves from Africa on ships a net positive or net negative comparatively? I mean, when you look at the broad swoop of the I would have to actually agree with Andrew here [laughter] that if you're going to make the claim that throughout the broad swoop of history, it was the Protestant Christians that led that fought for the end of slavery, then I would say that unfortunately, while it's a horrendous way to come to the country, it was a net positive. Uh, Alpha Genesis for 20 says, "Austin needs to stop quoting MLK. He was a heretic and a commie. MLK believed that the only way to free the black man is to pay him personally. I am free uh through my faith in Jesus whom MLK rejected was God. Foolishness. >> That's a lie. Martin Luther King only rejected the gospel when he was in college. He recounts an experience when he was in the there's two experiences he recounts where he became a Christian. One of them was during the Montgomery bus boycott and the other was when he was stabbed with a letter opener in the 1950s. He did deny the Christian faith very early in his life. That is a that's indisputable. You can read his college papers for that. But prior to Dr. King's death, he was a he was in fact a Christian. And I actually had a conversation with Andrew uh Young uh about uh when King was in fact at the Larra Motel. He said that that was he vividly recalled Dr. King on his knees praying just before he went out to the balcony. So that's a lie. And King was also not a communist. King in fact disparaged communism in many of his speeches uh in fact the most prominent one where he did it was where do we go from here? Which was a talk he gave in November of 1967. He stated that he read Karl Marx and studied him but that Markx missed a lot. He said Markx didn't borrow from Hegel. He didn't he didn't borrow from Hegel enough. He didn't he didn't um he did not look at the core of the problem which is that communism forgets that life is uh he said capitalism forgets that life is social and communism forgets and the quote is escaping me. The quote is escaping me. Capitalism forgets that life is social. Communism forgets that life is also individual. Uh and so the solution to mankind's problem is is found neither in the thesis of communism nor its antithesis of capitalism, but it is found in a higher synthesis that seeks to treat all men as made in the image of God. Okay. Uh Vansen for 20 said, "If the money goes back to the economy, why not just cut the middleman and give it directly to McDonald's, Walmart, KFC, etc." I'm not responding to that. >> That's but I mean I think that's a fair question. The question >> that's not that's well well okay. Well I I think it is and I I think that the negation should be should be discussed. So the idea is if you give these restitutions in check form to black Americans that's cool because uh after all it's just going to go right back into the economy. So if we look at the things that black Americans spend a lot of their money on, why wouldn't you just do direct corporate welfare then? Because a good thing >> when let's because in my and because black Americans had free labor extracted from them without payment and when you work 40 hours a week in this country, your employer cannot tell you where to spend your money and they can't assume where you'll spend your money. So give the people that cut the check or give them the programs that allow them to choose where to spend the money. Don't just automatically give it to KFC. Don't just automatically give it to McDonald's if they're going to give it to them. allow them to give it to them of their own valition. >> But isn't the principle that it would be a good thing to do that? Because after all, blacks are spending it in the principle would be to give the check to whom it was owed. >> Okay. But if blacks if but in addition to that, you said black people are going to just put it right back into the economy. So wouldn't that just mean direct payments into the economy are also good things? >> No. Not within the confines of what we're talking about. >> Why not? >> I just explained why. >> I Well, I actually it doesn't negate the principle. You say no because if you work for 40 hours a week, >> if you work for 40 hours a week, >> your employer does not have the right to assume, no one has the right to assume where you'll spend your money. >> What they what you are owed is money. So that's it. >> Yeah. But I understand that part. So, >> and there's nothing else to add. >> It's the second part that I don't get, which is when you say, "But who cares uh even if we did do that because they're going to put it back into the economy." If that's the case and putting that putting it quote back in the economy is good, then why not actually just do a bunch of social welfare or direct payments into the econom because it doesn't directly benefit black Americans. Giving money to McDonald's or KFC doesn't directly benefit black Americans, >> but it is beneficial if they spend the money on those things. >> I'm not responding to that any further, >> All right. Oh, we'll go to the next one which is from Dell Phil which says, "Why does Austin put on the fake voice? Is it sounds arrogant and deceptive? Is there a fake voice, Austin?" >> There's no There's no fake voice. People I've been told I sound like a southern preacher from the time I was 5 years old. >> Uh, black Americans are not the number one consumer in American uh uh are not the number one consumer in America. Black $1.6 trillion. White Americans 16 to$18 trillion. Austin can't be honest >> per capita. That's where I'll That's where I'll say Andrew. Per capita we are. >> Is that even true? >> Uh in terms of consumption spending. Yes. Red Fox says for 20. Austin, if blacks are better off today in the USA than uh they would have been in Africa, do they owe money to cover the cost of the voyages to the US? >> What? Well, if blacks are better off today, no. >> Darth Mass sends 50 and says, "Austin, you stated at the beginning that you would only defend your syllogism using the historical period starting with redlinining to present day and would leave anything related to the era of slavery out of it." What happened? >> Conversation happened. Black Americans are not the largest consumer demographic on a per capita basis. Research on consumer expenditures consistently show that black consumers hold significant overall buying power. Their total per capita in household spending is lower than that of their white counterpart households. So that was actually not factual either, sir. Jotty says for 20 since Austin said reparations for Jim Crow, my grandparents came in the early 1900s but supported MLK. Why do I have to pay for no racism for your inherently racist idea? We supported civil rights but still need to be punished. >> I'm not talking about an individual again. I'm talking about the US government. We're going to disagree about what that means. That's something I've already asked and answered 100,000 times. If it was about reimbursing slavery, shouldn't it make more sense that only the slaves states pay? Not necessarily, because there was just there was overt racism. As King put it, there was overt racism in the south. There was covert racism in the north. So the entire US government is culpable. And it was the entire US government when the Supreme when a Supreme Court justice had the ability to say that a black man bound to respect. That implicates the entire government, not just the southern states. as well as the fact that Abraham Lincoln said he he would kept the Union together if he could do it without freeing a slave. The entire US government is guilty of the way that it treated black Americans, not just a slave. >> Rachel Wilson says Austin's argument is basically the same thing as saying that if George Washington stole from someone that Donald Trump stealing from some other random person today would somehow be restorative justice. >> That's not my argument. You obviously didn't follow the logic. Andrew, >> I followed the logic. [laughter] >> Not that well. >> Andrew, isn't the welfare analogy flawed? DEI considers race and gender. Welfare is based on poverty. So higher black per capita use use proves poverty over representation, not a race-based benefit. Good job, Dr. Julio. >> Ah, using my nickname. Good to see you, brother. >> Yeah. So, um, how how would this be a negation? Even if it was the case that, um, that it's just because, well, black people are more poor. Uh, that does that, how would that in any way form justice? If the idea for justice is to give what is due, is it my fiscal responsibility to take care of poor people uh against my own will? I think that that would negate the very principle of justice that has put down. >> But that goes back to the problem, Andrew. Black people had a higher chance of being in poverty because of the fact that they were systematically excluded from wealth creation for a longer period of time than white Americans. So this person's uh >> but even granting that doesn't help the argument. >> Granting it's just trading one injustice for another injustice. >> Yeah, if you say so at this point. >> Jotty says, "Now let's see some consistency. Austin, if it's true slavery bad and the descendants of slavers need to be punished, then we should see you lobby for reparations from West African countries that enslaved them before selling them. >> Except the fact I wasn't born in West Africa. I was born in the United States of America. >> LT Jr. says, Andrew, do current US citizens have a responsibility to use their tax dollars to pay for our federal debt? And can citizens uh and can citizens only inherit assets and not debt? >> Uh well, no. I mean, according to the the Constitution, there's going to be some kind of levy assessment. As to what your duty is for the federal debt, I think that that's highly debatable. So, um, I think that the United States government and its addiction to having a debt-based economy, using your social security number as its guarant. Uh, I think that that needs to be re-evaluated immediately. Uh, Jack I like the Jackson model much better. And I also think that you can uh when it comes to debt, the US government can do other things too. That's what we used to pay. That's what tariffs used to be for. direct income taxes. That's a a brand new system and it's flawed because it's tiered. It punishes people who do well because it gives them different tiers in taxation. That's basically what happens with universal suffrage. The underclass votes themselves a raise from people who are doing better than they are. And that's one of the biggest one of the biggest [ __ ] problems in the nation. And there's all sorts of ways that the government can assess and pay its debt by not using direct to uh person taxation especially at other count's expenses if you use the terror system correct. Ailios said for 50 thank you for the generous donation says we tried the EBT section 8 reparations for the last 30 years and your dream has become the rest of our nightmare. Why should we tolerate 13% constantly playing on the victim card? Why should veterans put up with you? We earned our place. >> Well, first of all, my daddy and my uncle are veterans, so I don't know what the [ __ ] you're talking about. Secondly, um the we're I'm not for black people playing the victim card. I despise perpetual victimhood. I think that's one of the greatest problems that that exists in the black community. You obviously didn't listen to my opening statement. I'm not here to defend perpetual victimhood. One of the primary reasons I would love to see black people get some form of reparative justice, whatever it may be, whether it's a check, whether it's targeted programs for home ownership, is so that black people can finally shut the hell up about racism. I'm sick of my people having this as an excuse and a crutch to lean on. I want to see an America where this is no longer a conversation. It's one of the only reasons I even engaged in this debate to begin with. Uh Chaw says, "I'm pretty sure it's fairly well established that as a monolith, how you're talking about restitution, it's fairly well established that black Americans are currently a net tax negative. Isn't this already reparations?" Uh Joel says, "When it comes to reparations, is there anything else black people want instead of money?" >> Land or educ? In my case, education. I would say education. You can keep the money. Just Just pay just pay for pay for free college for black Americans for the next 30 years if they can prove they're descended of American slaves because not everybody would go to college anyway. >> But what if they want to study something you really like? >> Where would they get where would the federal government get the land? >> Well, I mean, they just they just said what what else? I'm saying I've heard I've seen reparations arguments for land. I've seen reparations arguments for education. I didn't do an investigation on to where as to where they would get the land or how any of that would work. But I'm saying that's another that is another um form of reparations that I've seen discussed by Darity. Um and who else was it was another name. It escapes me. But that that that was the other plan. I've seen I've seen land, I've seen money, and I've seen education is usually the top three. And Taiper says, "Give me free stuff, master shit." Unbelievable typer. Mr. North umberland says for 20. If there'd be a risk of creating more division amongst the black community if reparations, whether it be money or land, were only given to black people who could prove their ancestors were slaves, would it be worth it? >> At the risk of division. >> Yeah. Black people are already divided amongst [laughter] half the black there's a there's a 80 what was it? 86% of people voted for common in the last election. I think only 13% of black people voted for Trump. I was one of the 13% that voted for Trump. Black the black community is already divided. I don't care about ex internal division. Jesus himself said he didn't come to unite. He came to divide. I don't care about excessive division. All right, gentlemen. Well, that uh wraps it up for now, unless something else comes in. Uh before we head off, Austin, give us uh any uh places that anybody can find you and what you've got coming up in the future. Uh >> I've got a news show that I've started with Jubilee. It's called The Split. You can find me there on their YouTube channel. You can find me on YouTube at Austin Offscript. Tik Tok at real Austin offscript and Instagram at Austin Offscript. Any last words, Andrew? >> No. Appreciate the debate. You guys have a good day. >> Fantastic. All right, fellas. Great to uh great to have you both and I'll see you see see you next time. All right, chat. I am absolutely knackered. Nearly 3:30 a.m. over here. So, I'm going to head off and go to bed. I've got to be up for a flight in 5 hours. So, I'm going to go rest. Peace out, guys. Have a great morning, afternoon, evening, whatever it is. See you next time.