71 thoughts on “Andy Warski Live Debate

  1. In response to Andy’s point about vegan hypocrisy, child labour, etc.:

    The principle is to reduce suffering as much as possible, in ALL situations. So we SHOULD try to reduce the suffering in child labour. But it’s quite ambiguous in that situation as to what course of action will reduce suffering the most. Abandoning technology itself will cause a lot of suffering because technology has created a lot of good and reduction of suffering. And boycotting those products will not necessarily help, as those people need whatever little money they’re getting from that labour. So we SHOULD try to reduce suffering regarding child labour; vegans would agree with that. But the course of action isn’t clear cut.

    On the other hand, when it comes to eating meat, the course of action to reduce suffering is totally UNAMBIGUOUS. Eating animals unambiguously causes suffering, and stopping animal agriculture will unambiguously reduce suffering. So there is no excuse not to be vegan if you believe in the principle of reducing suffering as much as possible.

    Either way, the principle is reducing suffering as much as possible. So vegans are not inconsistent in advocating against exploiting animals.

    1. +elwoodzmake show me a quote when I said child slave labour is insignificant.
      If you actually had an iota of intelligence you would have been able to read my comment which was referring to the damaged done in purchasing a single electronic device compared to the daily consumption of animals. You’re totally fucked in the head to not be able to realise that.

    1. +Gameplay Don’t bother arguing with someone as low as him, he understands he’s lost. Thats why he keeps bringing up random points with no context.

    1. +The Horny Vegan Please consider enabling the message option for your you tube account. I want to send you a message.

  2. VG and Ask Yourself won, hands down. What exactly did Andy and Chris bring to the table? Higher intelligence, living in the woods, humans tho, social conSTRUCT??? But I’ll give both of them credit, they were definitely better than Roaming Millennial and Bearing.

    1. If that’s a vegan issue, than why does 40% of america have a B12 deficiency? Why are the animals (the herbivorous ones) supplemented with B12? B12 comes from soil, bacteria, and untreated water. Our bodies make B12, if you eat a clean diet and eat some unwashed organic produce you can live off what your body makes with out any absorption issues. Also, B12 is destroyed by heat, so you’re not getting any substantial amount of B12 from cooked meat. If you’re that worried about it, drink a glass of fortified plant milk.
      Try again

    2. af dadE loool, B12 was literally in water back in the day, water is not meat, sorry to break it to you. Industrial animals are fed to the brim with B12 because exactly that industrialization you are touting destroyed B12 in nature, Hell three guys in 1934 got a noble price for discovering it, learn history, don´t spout bullshit.
      ´Not meant to be vegan naturally´ Mate, you dont know the first thing about nature…
      Next vitamin.

  3. *Carnists use the same reasoning to justify animal slavery that some humans did for human slavery.*

    1. +Mauling​​​​ Sorry buddy. But even if you were to cut all direct use of technology and electricity in your life (good luck with that in the modern world btw) by simply maintaining your habit of consumming animal flesh and secretions..you would still have an environmental impact that is a thousandfolds worse than me.

      Producing one smartphone with a 2 year life cycle —everything from mining metals to polishing the glass screens to making microchips—requires 240 gallons of water, while making two pounds of beef requires 4068 gallons of water, multiplied by the average amount of beef consumption (63 pound/year/per person) adds up 244 080 gallons to your meat eater water footprint. There is simply no comparing when producing 1kg of beef results in more CO2 emissions than going for a three-hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home.

      Granted manufacturing an ordinary mobile phone is estimated to cause 16 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions, added the power it consumes over two years (average phone use length) and the footprint of the energy used to transmit calls across the network, all this put together only takes us to 94 kg CO2 equivalent over the life of the phone. While eating beef over the same period would cause 3 TONS of Co2 emissions. #realitycheck
      Quitting animal products is the first best thing you can do individually to help the environment. Not having a cellphone number or an e-mail adress will prevent most of us to get any jobs or keep in touch with our friends and relatives, contrary to simply eating consciously.

  4. “I admit that I am a POS for beating up/stealing/raping/murdering, but it’s still fine if I keep doing it because I admit it to be wrong myself. Words are louder than actions”
    …. this is ridiculous.

    I really *REALLY* want to see a vlog of them visiting a slaughterhouse and doing “the job” themselves. Let’s see if they can still “remove themselves from the situation” and keep supporting this insanity.

    1. + C t g s l a y e r A Tiger would also be considered insane if he suddenly decided to become vegan. Tigers are Carnivores, we are Herbivores. When we see a small chubby furry cute animal, we want to pet it and cuddle it, when a Tiger sees a cute little furry chubby animal, he rips its throat and eats it.

      Meat eaters are called retards because they are herbivores in denial. They claim to love the taste of meat but most of them will vomit if they were given Raw uncleaned blood soaked meat. Where as even the thought of Fresh Raw Vegetables and Fruits can make anyone hungry.

      Also you dumbfuck, the strongest animals of animal kingdom are those who are strict Herbivores like Elephants, Hippos, Rhinos, Gorillas etc. Even during the time of Dinosaurs, the largest Dinosaurs were herbivores not Carnivores.

      Plants contain much more protein than meat products.

    2. Feel free to post where in the video they said that. I would be interested to see that he actually said that and that it wasn’t part of your imagination. (no, I didn’t watch the whole video, I don’t have 2 hr. 20 min to waste)

  5. AskYourself is a debating GOD. Andy and Chris lost the moment they decided to debate AskYourself on veganism.

    1. A debate God, by definition, would be converting the other person to his own views very rapidly. Did this happen here?

    2. He’s not an actual supernatural deity, it’s a figure of speech. Plenty of people are impervious to superior logic and reasoning…I think I’m talking to one…

    3. +Etienne-Emile Antikatastaseis Sometimes converting drooling idiots to your side is a monumental exercise in futility.

  6. Remember kids, according to meateaters like andycuntski, if you cant stop *EVERY* evil in the world from ever happening, you should never bother trying to stop any. So if you can’t end child slavery, don’t bother helping animals – it’s either you save the entire world from everything or abandon morality altogether according to these cunting *CUNTS*

    1. +Brenden Nichols LOL nutritionally adequate. Like I said earlier if it is not possible to obtain every necessary nutrient naturally it is not adequate.

      B12. You lose. Not to mention deficiencies in others.

    2. af dadE – Never mind. I guess I was stupid to think that a discussion over the health benefits of veganism was possible, especially considering that you haven’t attested any of the claims you’ve made. First off, everyone is deficient in B12. Even meat-eaters have to take supplements. The only reason they aren’t as deficient in the nutrient as those who are vegan is because the animals they consume are injected with B12 as well. Man, a little research could have saved you from making such an asinine claim. Vegans receive all other nutrients naturally through a variety of uncooked and cooked fruits and vegetables.

    3. +Brenden Nichols lol yes of course I know you’re so embarrassed you have to run away whenever anyone doesn’t acknowledge your feelings as an argument I’m well aware of vegan mentalities.

      And no silly vegan, everyone is not deficient in b12. The majority of people aren’t injecting themselves to suppliment their stupid diet.

      So cute. Continue to run away from facts it’s about all vegans can do whenever someone says the don’t care about their wittle fee fees. Even vegan gains admits to injecting b12 because it’s not in a vegan diet. Sorry but facts don’t care about your little feelings child.

      Now run back to your echo chamber I’m sure there is warm milk and cookies for the children of the church of veganism

    4. af dadE – You seem to have a difficult time reading my comments. I said that everyone is deficient in B12, and this is actually true. You can’t get it from any particular diet. It is also not a nutrient unique to meat because it doesn’t even come directly from animal products. It is derived from microorganisms. You can find B12 in fortified soy products, such as fortified soy milk. Adequate research and credible studies are hard to argue against. First, you deny the ethical concerns of eating meat and now the health consequences of the practice. What is next? Are you going to deny that eating meat damages the environment? You’re definitely not hurting my feelings.

    5. +Brenden Nichols you seem to have trouble with facts; having to INJECT b12 into your system is a strictly vegan issue. Denying that is denying reality which of course is a hallmark of the church of veganism.

      Even your Jesus vegan gains admits to it being a deficiency in the diet, he has excuses like you but he at least doesn’t lie about it for the sake of his religion.

      Listen I get it you’re a pathetic little vegan who can’t handle people who won’t take your feelings as an argument but I can’t say I’m sorry that you’re so uneducated, so intellectually deficient that the only thing you have is your fee fees and straight up lying to work with. Peek outside the church doors little child you’ll see the real world

  7. I ended up tuning out when I realized that the clear verbal IQ gap between the debaters would prevent the debate from going anywhere intellectually meaningful. And I don’t mean that as an insult, those two guys seemed really nice at heart and genuinely interested in treating their opponents arguments fairly and seeing from their point of view. However I could clearly see moments where those two were having to juggle one or two intellectual points beyond their capacity to comprehensibly respond to them. Unlike Roaming who had no excuse, these two have to be given credit for trying to be fair and balanced. And I really don’t want to come across as in any way trying to disparage people based on what their performance would suggest what they’d score on an IQ test. That being said I do think a lot of these points these points could have been have been simplified a lot more than they were, as well as giving non-inflammatory (like with rape and stuff) examples to help contextualize the points you were trying to make.

    Not gonna lie I was a little surprised at how the ethical conversation went in this debate in the beginning, in you two saying that Human lives are objectively more valuable than animals lives. Anyways I’m going to address that along with taking a crack at why we have a double standard for why we have a double standard for why we value Human lives over animals, as well as why you’ll find is that people would still say a Human life is more valuable, even when confronted with the fact that it is for no other reason than the fact that they are Human, rather than the objective qualities which make them so.

    If we cloned Brooke Greenburg (a baby with a genetic mutation that caused her to remain a baby for life, going to her grave with the intellect roughly that of a house cat), and used her for medical experiments or what have you, it should ethically be no different than doing so on a cat, if you maintain that intelligence is what grants Human life it’s worth. But we’d still object because in reality her intelligence has nothing to do with the value we place now her life, her Humanness does. And why is that? If you’d say because we are Human, you’d be getting close.

    Ask yourself this, if you were forced to make a choice, would you let die your sibling (I’m assuming you have a healthy relationship with them) or your best friend? I imagine all of you if forced to make that choice would painfully choose your sibling. Now what if you had to choose between letting your best friend die or a long lost sibling you never knew you had up until this point? I’m willing to bet you’d let your long lost sibling die, without ever shedding a tear on your decision. A double standard? Why would you let the fact that someone is your sibling give their life more value in once circumstance and not another?

    Another example; what if you had to choose between letting your child (whom you had raised for years) die, or another child die in their place? Again, all of you would spare your child’s life in an instant, and if asked why, you’d say “well their my child”. But what if you were then told that the child you had raised all these years wasn’t your biological child, but rather the child you have the option of letting die rather than your own was your actual biological child? With much existential confusion and grief, you’d choose bond before blood. Are we seeing a pattern here?

    We all have heard of the trolley question, would you kill one to save many. Most of us believing all Human lives are equal will make the utilitarian decision to kill one for the many. Well what if the one you had to kill was the one you loved most in this world? How many countless nameless lives would you sacrifice for them? I imagine there is a number, but am willing to bet that number has more to do with what life would be like for you and your loved ones living on a planet void of Human life. I mean what if we were an interplanetary species with a population in the high trillions? How many star systems of Human lives would we snuff out to save the one we love most? I’d be willing to bet that if we truly truly loved somebody, and we had to let them die anything less than a swift painless death, we would let all the sentient life in the Universe suffer untold misery to save them. I mean ask yourself, would you have your family slowly burned alive or an entire continent?

    The truth is Human life and animal life are objectively speaking of equal value; that is to say they are of no value. Value is an intellectual concept subjective to the individual. If you believe animal lives are really less valuable, how many people do honestly think would be more willing to murder a random person over their beloved pet (haven’t y’all watched John Wick? Lol). You wanna say you’d rather have a Cattle die than people, fine, but don’t pretend it has anything to do with any objective qualities Humans poses that other animals don’t. I wouldn’t try and justify wiping out countless civilizations to spare my loved ones, I’d do it because I’m a selfish person; we all are. We value anything because of what they mean to *us*, and how much they relate to *us*, because we value *ourselves*. And the only instances where in we’d be willing to devalue ourselves for others (sacrificing yourself to save your child for example) is because we feel like *our* lives wouldn’t be worth living without them. As I’ve pointed out, our loved ones could be anyone, it doesn’t matter that their related to us, that their the same species as us, only that they are close to *us*, and make *our own lives* worth living.

    1. +Maldita Politica Y Privacidad Lolman so we should just kill them and waste their resources that they provide? Because if you don’t they’ll all die of overpopulation. You’re eating vegetation, which animals like pigs also eat. But that’s where you’re wrong. The practicality of eating meat is justification enough. Actually I’d rather eat meat and not have to get injections of protein and other vitamins and minerals.

    2. C t g s l a y e r If you believe the choice is “eat animals or let them starve”, you’re being incredibly dishonest with us and yourself.

    3. +Tim D’Egidio no I believe the choice is kill animals quickly or let them starve. We can use the animals for their resources and keep the population steady, or we can let them starve and die out. Choice is yours.

    4. C t g s l a y e r
      you know, i see you on so many vegan videos and you spew the same bullshit over and over without offering any thought provoking ideas. either your a troll or the society has you tucked in, sleeping, the way your mom used to when you were 3.

  8. I love watching all of these anti-SJW channels getting destroyed by vegans.
    Outside of refuting feminists with low IQ,
    they’re pretty much fucken useless.

    1. +Daniel Han Race mixing always lowers IQ for one group, no 2 racial groups have the same IQ, so mixing always involves lowering IQs and loss of identity.

    2. *”Likely”, Implying it happens majority of the time. Which isn’t a fact. *
      It is.
      Consistently implies it’s always the fact.

    3. Oh, Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 110, Hong Kongers average at 109. Those are pretty close.
      Whites have an average of 100, Mongolians have an average of 102; that’s not far off either.

    1. alex stewart Did you know that dairy cows are forcible fucked with a fake dong to impregnate them so that they produce milk? That’s rape. Also, the cows that are breed to be milk machines have issues with painful levels of milk production, plus the nonstop cycles of constant pregnancy take a huge toll on them. Then, when they actually give birth, the calfs are taken away from the mothers, and they have a strong instinctual attracting which leads to both of them becoming distressed.

  9. ” If I raped one cow… wait I don’t know where I’m going with this” LMAO I literally fell down laughing!

  10. I think Andy Warski brought alot of good points to the table and had a much more constructive argument than RM. It’s kinda childish people are claiming who won this debate. Just look at the points on both sides and learn something from this.

    1. Andy and Chris didn’t have a single valid argument, everything was just a double standard. We had to spend a ton of time just explaining to them what a double standard even is.

    2. +Vegan Gains I just thought they brought up some decent points, such as technology causing suffering yet that isn’t talked about as much as meat consumption causing suffering. I’m a vegan, I don’t think it’s justified to eat meat but I think they did a better job than RM at arguing their case. And I honestly came into this thinking Andy would be making horrible arguement because I find his content boring, so maybe he just exceeded my low standard set.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *