Music on the shots as you bow your heads. Good evening, everybody. Bada bing, bada boom. We are here, we are live. We're ready to go. We're gonna be debating whether Andrew Tate is innocent and to start us off, Destiny has 10 minutes to the floor. So Destiny, it is all yours. Thank you for being here. Yeah, this will take like 45 seconds. I believe in Romanian criminal law, you've got three core elements that you need to prove the crime of sex trafficking. The person needs to do an act, meaning they need to be either involved in like recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, or receiving a victim. They need to have the means, so they have to utilize a method such as threat, coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of power, et cetera. And then the purpose of these two acts and means together needs to be for sexual exploitation, meaning I'm profiting or I'm making money off of you, basically doing sex work. I believe that now I'm always wanting to say that we should wait until a criminal trial is convened and then we watch where the trial plays out, but based on what Andrew Tate himself has said and based on the information contained in the criminal indictments against Andrew Tristan and the two other ladies, I believe it seems to be pretty clear that unless the remaining trial or the remaining court system is literally just making stuff up and Andrew Tate has just made stuff up in the past, he's probably gonna be convicted because I think he's met all of the elements to say that he has been involved in sex trafficking. All righty, with that intro there, we will kick it over to Lalo and Lalo, thank you for being here. I'd message a few people and I will be honest, Grace and Ben Thorpe were the ones that got back to me and let me know that Lalo was here to defend this proposition tonight. So we do appreciate you being here. I wanna remind everybody that we are a neutral platform here at Modern Day Debate where we're posting topics on science, religion, politics, and we do wanna remind you that we're having a live event September 16th in Texas. So check out the link in the description and if you have a moment to look into our crowd fund as well, if you donate to our crowd fund, you can get all kinds of exclusive perks. So check out the link in the description and over to Lalo for your up to 10 minutes. Thank you for being here. Of course, we're not gonna need the full 10 minutes but what we know today is that Andrew Tate has been a pariah for many of reasons and now they're looking through, to really find the lice in his hair, which is ironic because he's bald, but the point is that the guy clearly is someone who has been under scrutiny and that scrutiny has been unfairly imposed upon him but also his associates. Now he has to pay for the sense of the people around. The people around him that I will concede are definitely weird people.  And so that is to say that I would analogize his situation to Donald Trump. You know, are they both innocent? Yeah, largely actually given all the temptation around they are pretty innocent. Now I will say, are there some technicalities that you could really nitpick? Yes, of course, but the fact is that the guy is evidently innocent. And moreover, a lot of these sort of procedures that you see in Romania would not fly in New York. They would not fly in a liberal precinct or anything like that in the United States. And again, I clarify. This would not happen in Miami. This would not happen in Baltimore where it's all liberal where they would all hate Andrew Tate. We're talking about Romania being extra judiciously and also very maliciously trying to prosecute a guy maybe for instance, because he owed the government bribe money and he didn't pay them back. Probably something like that. And so largely I would honestly say that with everything that I just mentioned before that if you look at all the evidence it seems to me as if yeah, there's a lot of scummy stuff but nothing that other people wouldn't do. And so instead you ought to look at what the motivating factor is as to why the guy is getting persecuted. And the fact is that he is revitalizing the masculine energy in the world in a large part. And again, these are like a baby's first red pills. I get that, you know, I'm past that but I could see how a 16 year old could see this and see his idol so to speak, which is a very flawed one. I can see that. I could see how somebody could see his prosecution as demotivating. So as someone who is also young, I would say, you know what? I don't want this guy to be thrown in prison along with this brother that nobody cares about because it also seems to me as if, you know, clearly these people are needed in masculine circles. And so to nitpick their lifestyle when we know, damn well that there's some third rate Eastern European that is doing the exact same sort of pimping or lover boy method than they are, seems to me as if it's unfairly maligning the tates to prosecute them over sex trafficking, which is something that white people say, like human trafficking, meanwhile, they consent to go to Bucharest in the first place. Now we can talk about other details in respect to how, in respect to how they agreed and whether or not there was coercion or they fell in love with a bald guy, I don't know.   Anyway, the point is, is that clearly Android Tate is more or less innocent. All right, well thank you Lalo for your opening statement. Everybody, we are going to kick it into an open discussion so these fellas can really expound on their back and forth and get to the nitty gritty of what they really believe. But in the meantime, for you, all you have to do is hit that like button and hit that subscribe. And remember to hit into our crowd fund and all of our links in the description as our guests are gonna be linked there in our podcast as well. Let's kick it over to Destiny to respond to some of what he just heard there to get into our open discussion. Thank you for being here everybody.  So I've never understood the defense of like while they're 25 or it's okay that he lied.  If you don't like that or if you don't want it to be sex trafficking, that's fine. But that's an entirely different argument.  So do I get a rebuttal? Yeah, just a back and forth, right? Yeah, of course. Okay, first time. Anyway, the point is, is that in this rodeo I can really point out to Destiny that when we're talking about Andrew Tate we're talking about somebody who if I were to paint the picture for you is definitely again, the defense again.  But honestly, that's not a compelling argument. You know, it's not a charismatic thing. I can see why Destiny didn't go to law school because it seems to me as if he's not making an emotional plea. He's just doing facts. And the facts are that, yeah, there's some scummy stuff. But realistically speaking, the reason why the Andrew Tate defenders are not taking the nitpicks seriously and not really cowering in fear over their idol getting torn apart over sex trafficking nitpicks is because these sort of technicalities are not really rhetorically effective. Is it, you know, that's clearly what's going on here. It's just that I don't see a passionate reason. If I cared about these women like I assume Destiny does as a moral person, I would assume that there'd be a more vivacious sort of passionate defense of these women's integrity. But instead, I just hear a dispassion sort of like de-associative.  It's like, well, I mean, it doesn't seem so. I just don't really sense the energy here is what I'm talking about.   True. And so that's why I think in the court of public opinion, at least I'm not a lawyer, I'll say that upfront, somebody is going to be talking about how, yeah, they're guilty in this respect, but in regards to the women's culpability, I think that is a very important thing to note, not that they're stupid, but that they did consent. And now your, my question is that they didn't consent, though, that's the whole point is they were misled. They consented to a maritable cohabitation relationship with the Tates, and that was a lie. And they use that to lure them to Romania in order to essentially trap them into doing sex work. So that's the whole point. That's why it's sex trafficking. No, but in respect to the cohabitation, I seriously doubt that they promised to marry or settle down with otherwise, like in a common law marriage, I doubt that they actually promised. Between the end of, so account one is between the end of 2016 and July 27th. Oh yeah. I can't breathe. Okay. So the point is, is that with what Destiny was pointing out, clearly I don't, I really seriously doubt, and I think this is just common sense that they didn't promise every girl that they were going to marry them. So clearly there was some gray area. And so for him to not really be nuanced, even though I know he spends hours a day like reading the cases, it seems pretty obvious to me that there's some gray area here that actually he might have fell in love with some chicks and he actually tricked them out. And so clearly there's some reciprocity between the Tates and the women. So the whole argument is whether or not he cohabited or promised cohabitation with all of them, which I don't think Destiny would assume is the case. Okay. So four quick counts. Between the end of 2016 and July, 2017, while in Romania, the defendant Tate recruited a victim through the Facebook application, introducing her into believing false intentions of establishing a family slash marital relationship and false feelings. That's victim one, number two, between the end of January, 2022 and February, 2022, using the Instagram application and following meetings in London, UK, the defendant Tate Emery Andrew recruited another victim by misleading her regarding the intentions to establish a marital slash cohabitation relationship in the existence of false feelings. The third count here is February, 2021, the defendant Tate Emery Andrew recruited the victim, I'm not reading their names, kind of like these are public, by misleading her regarding the intention to establish a marital slash cohabitation relationship in the existence of false feelings. And then the fourth one is the defendant Tate Emery Andrew recruited the victim, by misleading her regarding the intention to establish a marital slash cohabitation in the existence of false feelings. So it seems like the victims that they are accused of trafficking were all done under the pretext of saying, I will marry you. Okay. So you have three or four anecdotes and I like that you actually pulled them up. Now I do appreciate that, but what I will say here is that clearly, I mean, I've heard this sort of conjecture before that he threw away the passports of the women that were stranded in Romania and his mansions. I'm sorry, excuse me, I never brought up, I never brought up throwing away passports. I don't, you just addressed that. Okay, okay, I've heard that before. Okay, maybe it was not you. Listen, the point is here is that I really don't think it's that much to ask that if these women were lied to about the pretenses of marriage or whatever, that they could have sussed it out as grown women and to say, can't I leave? Like if you're already conceding that he didn't immediately throw away the passport, then can you establish a sort of chain of custody about these women's capability of escaping if the guy clearly just lied to them and locked them up somewhere with other women and like some sort of a pseudo like playboy house? Like what's up with that? Yeah, you're not responding to anything I'm saying. Do you can see that he lied to them? He misled them about his feelings? According to those three or four anecdotes, it seemed to me as if he promised them more commitment which a lot of guys do to get laid or something like that. Okay, so we say that, do you agree that he transported them to Romania thereafter? Well, I mean, if you were to sleep with them, that would be transporting them to Romania. So I don't know why you pointed out this is like some poignant thing.  Do you agree that he profited off of them doing sex work afterwards? That he made money after all the accounts? Which they also made a profit. It's actually, I remember these early podcasts where he dry snitched on himself two years ago where he said that, oh, I would scan them out of the taxes, but this is not something that people are like that technically could be a, like I don't know what their IRS is called in Romania, but that could be a technicality to hit them on. Nobody brings it up. It's a more of an emotional appeal about the women and how people hate and irritate. But again, that's something you haven't brought up yet.  But how do you screw an employee out of taxes if you're not paying them some bit of the profit of the camp girl industry to begin with? Which would also explain why they stayed in Romania despite being able to leave because they were profiting off of their own bodies. Which is okay, because sex work is okay, right? Yeah, so then we agree on everything. So they're trafficking. Whether or not the women profited at all is irrelevant. You agree that they deceived them? You agree that they transported them to Romania and you agree that he made money off of them doing sex work afterwards? That's all three conditions are met in the country of Romania. That's all you need. That's the standard you have to meet for proving sex trafficking. That's it, so.  So sex trafficking, okay, but where is the illegality in lying to somebody about marrying them if they come over to a country? The illegality is if you lie to them for the purposes of bringing them over and making money off of them doing sex work. That's called sex trafficking in the Romanian criminal code. So even if they make tens of thousands of dollars a year. Yep, even if they make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Yes. Even if they made millions of, why? Because you're bringing somebody over through the use of deception in order to profit off of them doing sex work. That's sex trafficking. Well, my contention with what you're saying is with the transportation thing as well. How does paying for somebody to come over illustrate any sort of point in your argument at all? Like for instance, if they were already in Romania, is that not sex trafficking at that point? What would it be? Exploitation? Well, that's, you're talking about the first condition, which is the act, which is one of the three core elements. The fifth part of that act could be receiving the person or harboring the person, that's four and five. So recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring or receiving the person, it's all part of the act part of the three core elements. So it could just be you're already in Romania and you just house the person and then you lie to them. That's the means part, deceiving them about marrying them and you do it in order to make money off of them on Onlyfans. Even if they make a ton of money and even if they genuinely love you as long as you're deceiving them and then harboring them for the purpose of making money off of Onlyfans, that's sex trafficking. I feel like the issue, I think you guys all should just be debating like you don't think that the Romanian criminal code is defining sex trafficking.  Okay, so how would, and you know, as an American, how would this go down in the United States where I think the law is probably better established and has a better track record than the Romanian law? How would he be prosecuted in your great opinion here? Because it seems to me as if there's a lot of stuff about how he specifically brought them over when they had false impressions or delusions of like sexual relations. So how does that compute in the American legal context? It would probably be handled the exact same way. The statute makes it a federal offense to knowingly recruit and ties harbor transport, provide, obtain, or maintain a, this has to do with a minor, but knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the victim is a minor or this for minor sex trafficking. I can try to look up the sex trafficking for the United States, but I imagine the law's probably gonna be about the same. I think sex trafficking is defined pretty similarly in most countries around the world. Okay, so the thing is, you brought up a good point actually that the injutate people will concede that he actually was guilty, whereas with the injutate he just kind of denies it, which is fair enough because who wouldn't deny it at that point? But I think my larger understanding is that people that support injutate are basically sweeping it up for him because they feel as if the sort of prosecution is not really something that you ought to defend because it is something that is natural to Romania for them to be so malicious against him. And so what I'm trying to say here is that I think that basically, this sort of sex trafficking, what is the huge immorality?  I don't see that happening. So it seems to me as if this is targeted prosecution over somebody who's famous. I don't know that does anything to what I'm saying. So I don't know what I'm supposed to say to any of that. Well, no, no, no, what the point was there is that clearly there is a group of a lot of people that do what Andrew Tate does, but all the scrutiny is on Andrew, whereas you don't hear, like I've never heard of this sex trafficking of this specific, very niche culture until just now, which is to say, and I've known about sex trafficking like in other contexts, but it's precisely this sort of cam girl thing that is screwing over Andrew. How come that is the case? Romania is one of the most hotly investigated countries in the world for sex trafficking. There have literally been, there was a ring of sex traffickers that were caught using literally the exact same lover boy method. Like sex trafficking in Romania is known to be a huge problem. It's probably one of the reasons why Romania and Dicott are so aggressive and prosecuting it, especially when a man is openly bragging about it. But if you happen to have any information regarding sex traffickers that you believe aren't being dealt with, I mean, you're welcome to submit that information to Dicott yourself. Do you have any of that information? Or are you just assuming there's a time that's... I'm just kidding. Yeah, no. And again, it seems like we're conceding the fact that he has a trafficker and now we're pivoting to his only fans in moral or I don't know any of the other weird points, but... No, I mean, I'm just trying to draw a comparison in my logic, for instance, with Donald Trump, right? Where they nitpick him on stuff where I guess he is technically guilty. I'm just saying that there really, really isn't a relative amount of immorality as compared to everybody else in the sector, is what I'm saying. So for instance, with Andrew, again, how does... Okay, for instance, since you read more about this than I have, do you think that Andrew is any more or less guilty than Tristan since they're twin brothers? How does the communications work? Because I've seen subpoenas and screenshots from other WhatsApp group chats where they do say some pretty gross stuff about the women. But how do you compare the culpability of the brothers given that Andrew's the older one? Doesn't... It's not relevant. I don't think them being brothers has anything to do with their culpability. I don't know what you mean. They've got individual charges. They have evidence that is showing both of them are being charged with different things. I can read down the indictments for Tristan if you'd like, but I mean, them being brothers is not relevant. Well, what I'm saying is that they both, according at least following the logic of the prosecution, would be that they're both doing the lover boy method, which is to say that they both are doing something illegal in lying about the relationships sexually. But if they lied about anything else, would that also be considered illegal in the same context? Well, it would be a different context because then it probably wouldn't be sex trafficking. It might be some other sort of fraud. So for instance, when Andrew Tate openly talks about scamming them with their taxes, that might be some sort of like payment or employee fraud or that might be some sort of tax fraud. Okay. But I mean, it's kind of odd to me that you would, okay, so for instance, let's say Andrew legitimately did want to marry them and then he changed his mind and they decided to stay doing cam girling. How would that not be illegal? That probably wouldn't be illegal, but you'd have to have a clear train of evidence that shows that and not him explicitly talking about scamming these girls or explicitly talking about defrauding these girls or explicitly talking about seducing these girls for the purpose of sex trafficking, which it seems there's a rich history of text messages of them doing exactly that. Okay. So the presumption of innocence, I guess, was lost in what you were saying from what I heard because it seems to me as if you had claimed that had, because they had this huge chain of custody, as I mentioned before about the subpoenas with the chat where basically the Tate's were saying that, oh, we're going to lie about having them over here as lovers as we're getting married. But had that not existed, you would have been okay with what they did insofar as they didn't technically lie and they just changed their mind about the situation. Yeah, that's correct. The lying in the fraud part is a pretty important part of proving deceit. Yeah. So if they reached out to a girl in London and they're like, hey, you seem really cool. Maybe we should date.  Like, do you want to like do only fans that'll manage you? That'd be A, okay. Because that would no longer be sex trafficking because you'd be missing the means there, which is deception or coercion or fraud. Yes. That's a pretty important part of that. Okay. So you don't actually have a moral quandary what they did other than that they lied about some of it. Is that basically your point? If you want to do only fans or manage only fans, girls that do any of that, that's totally fine. But when you lie about it, that's when it becomes a scam. Okay. So, okay. I think I understand your point then. So your problem is that they lied about certain issues. You didn't bring up that they did technically like defraud the government of taxes or their employee. So I don't know how much of this really care about that. But again, you're literally about that up. That was one of the parts I said they might catch an extra charge for that. That's funny you did, but we're not talking about whether or not they committed tax fraud. That's a separate conversation.  That's the big thing that they're probably going to get in trouble for. The tax fraud is also bad too, but yeah. Now another point I wanted to make here is what is your take on the responsibility of these grown women to say, wow, this guy's not marrying me. There's literally like 20 other 25 year old chicks in this like dorm thing with me. How come I don't leave? Like how come they didn't leave right away? Like, it's not pretty obvious that he's not going to literally marry all 30 of these chicks at the same time. Well, possibly, yeah. So possibly, Destin, are you kidding me? Come on, you're saying that they didn't notice that it was clearly a lie?    I hate most women, so I'd probably agree with that. But that's not what they're on trial for. Most people fall for scams when people call them on the phone and ask them for Microsoft payment cards or whatever are also generally pretty dumb.  So I'm not really concerned with that. Okay, we're going to upgrade the IQ from seeing an old person, i.e. Joe Biden, to sentient, 100 IQ, Romanian, 25-year-old chick.  And that's okay. You're saying that these girls are not boneheaded. I think you were conceding that they are, right? Well, now you're alleging conspiracy on their part. Do you have any evidence of that? That they were knowingly entering an illegal deal with the attempts to frame them later or to make money off of them attempting to traffic them? No, what I am saying is that, yeah, if they were lied to at the beginning, that is a moral on Andrew's part. What I am saying though is that they could have left at any point the raptor in any reasonable person would have, I would have.  So how come they didn't want to do that? What is your point here? I don't know, I'm not sure. I really thought much about the victim state of mind. I don't really care. It's not really relevant to the charges. There's a million questions we could ask about their behavior. Why did you go to another country? Why did you let somebody do only fans with you? I don't know, there's a million things you could theoretically ask them. But again, they're not on trial. So I'm not really as interested in that. I haven't seen any evidence one way or another about their state of mind. All right, I'm gonna inject to your guys just to remind you that the charges here that have been laid before Andrew Tate because we have been really going down the human trafficking route. The other charges are organizing a criminal group to sexually exploit women. And the other charge is, well, straight up, Andrew Tate is guilty of the R word. So let's let you guys wrap up. So we've been talking for about 20 minutes an open discussion. Let's let you wrap up that point and let's move into after that the idea of organizing a group to sexually exploit women. Yeah, okay. So my final point in relation to this would be that basically that destiny is making a point that he's morally okay with literally everything that Andrew has done in the context of this discussion specifically. But his only problem is that he lied about it. Frankly, if I as a Christian had a problem with it is that literally everything, including the line, the line wouldn't even be the most of it. So I guess that's just a different of worldview.  And so I guess it's two major criticisms of Tate is that he was facetious about marrying these women but he also concedes the fact that obviously these women knew right away the jig was up that he wasn't gonna marry them at least for the most part when they walked in on like 20 different chicks of the same age not marrying Andrew and we're over this other point. Again, he might have screwed them over on like tax stipends or whatever. Okay, yeah, sure. So that is my final point. All right, just to remind everybody we are gonna do a Q&A at the end of this discussion. So we're gonna try to move it into I know that the first part of this discussion is going to remain irrelevant for the rest of our debate here. So don't mind that but we're going to move into the idea of organizing a crime group to sexually exploit women. So not just, you know, beyond Andrew Tate but also just the idea of anybody doing that. So let's move into that hypothetical. So let's pass it back to Steven and thanks for being here everybody. Wait, so what is the, I mean, you shouldn't do that. I think that's bad. What is the question here? So the second charge that he's been charged with so we're gonna be discussing whether this is justified in terms of Andrew Tate and also whether this is justified under any means is forming and organizing a crime group to sexually exploit women or a group. I shouldn't put crime in there but I mean like that's how it's been described on Google. So that's what I said. All right, yeah.  If they were trafficking and they've organized a group to facilitate sex trafficking and manage the finances of business thereof then it seems like it would logically follow. Of course. Right. Okay, so from my understanding there is this whole dynamic of the rape situation. Now, okay, listen. There's a whole grape fruit incident here and what I wanted to point out is that, you know, how much proof is there really that he forces himself on anybody? Now, it seems to me as if this is a way bigger deal than the sex trafficking. So what are the charges in respect to that? I don't know what they would be necessarily. So it seems to me as if, but actually, actually. I don't know if they want it, yeah. Wait, can I get the question repeated? Yes, so we're talking about the idea of, you know, we already went over the idea of the, you know, whether he was guilty of the sex trafficking and what we think of that. I mean, like I said, it's gonna be tied into everything we talk about here. But the other part of his charges is that he's been charged with organizing a crime group to sexually exploit women. So before we get into the our word charge, let's talk about the organizing a group to sexually exploit women. Is Andrew Tate guilty of that? Oh, okay, great. So basically, I honestly think that with Andrew Tate, it's very clear to point out that when you're looking at the face of this whole narrative I'm spinning here, I think that there's ostensibly nobody more prosecuted than Andrew, but even more than that. That when we're conspiring this whole image and this web of like, oh my God, they're conspiring to do rape things to women. I just think that that's bald face, not even true. And we're over when we're talking about Andrew. You know, why does he need to do these things to women, frankly? Like I'm pretty sure there's enough horse to go around that he could do BDSM or whatever it can, like sort of queer stuff he wants to do there. So it seems pretty obvious to me that it doesn't seem like a good motivation to take over these women sexually and to abuse them in that sense, or even the people around him that we don't know their names of. Moreover, again, what does it say about these women that don't freaking leave? Like, assuming he didn't take their passport in all these cases, why aren't they going? If he's taking abuse of them, then they can leave. And you could say, well, that's technically illegal, but it's also a morality issue. Like, hey, you know, you're getting abused, leave. If he's punching you, move away, right?   Like even using that phrase, like if somebody's hitting you leave, if somebody's hitting you and you don't leave, it doesn't make the relationship not abusive. So it's just not even an argument. In terms of like, why do wealthy people, you know, rape non-wealthy people? I mean, like, I'm sure Epstein could have found some 14-year-olds that ran to him.  Like, it doesn't make any sense. I don't understand what that argument is. It's not even, it's not even an argument. It's just like a random music that doesn't make any sense and doesn't map on to anything that we know that's actually happened to the real world. As for whether we know the rapes did or didn't happen, I mean, the ones listed in the indictments have witnesses literally listed. So I think we just have to see how that plays out in court, although I would be astounded that somebody could confidently assert that there's no way that happened when two witnesses are literally listed on the first rape charge for Andrew Tate. Great. So here's the thing. And you know, what's very odd to me, Destiny, is that clearly there's subpoenas showing in detail how they lied and were being facetious about their love for these women and how they were gonna marry them in Romania and how when they got there that there was all these other women at the same time. Okay, coincidence. Anyway, so you're mentioning all these WhatsApp group chats, thousands of messages, and how is it that they didn't mention, bro, I just a nearly did this, bro, I didn't, like, why would they not brag about that in the text if they're already admitting to illegal shit on the record on these WhatsApp messages? Are you confident that they didn't do that? Well, I'm pretty sure I'm confident that if you've been debating this long on the internet that you would have brought up a really good ceiling point with evidence, because clearly you would know that. Well, I'm just going by what's listed in the indictments, but I mean, are you saying that, like, you don't, I just wanna hear you say this on the record, because you're making it sound like you've read through all the texts. I haven't, it's 360 pages with this indictment.  No, I've read like five of those pages of the text, and so far I've not encountered that, and I was assuming that you would have at this point, and it seems like you haven't. And I just think that generally speaking, when they were talking about the worst stuff, and if you watch the Willie Mack video and other like documentary like sort of things, you'll notice that what they detail is something about how they got a boob job on a girl and they like ripped the stitches off or got a girl to do it. Not that they actually did it themselves. There's another point that a year ago when Andrew was viral in the first place in the summer of 22, they brought up that he like did BDSM with the girl, but then the girl later admitted that it was okay. So it seems to me as if there's really no tangible evidence of the rape. And in regards to the two witnesses, what were their accounts in your recounting that would seem to be definitive proof or at least enough to really categorize him as a assaulter of women? I don't think that their full accounts are listed in the dime of their exact statements, I'm not sure, but what about the one text message from Andrew Tate where he literally, this is a WhatsApp one, this is a while ago, where he literally WhatsApped that woman? This might have been, he said it. I think we see the audio leaks of this where he said, I loved raping you. What? Well, I mean, if he said that to a girl then clearly that is like sarcasm or something. Okay, so then initially you set the threshold as if they did this, wouldn't they have said it in a text message? And I specifically remember hearing a voice message where he did say this and now you're saying he was joking. So it sounds like there's no evidence I could provide you where it would meet your threshold. So then I don't know why you asked for evidence at all. Okay, Destiny, what guy would literally say, oh, I love raping you by the way. Well, I don't know. Initially you told me that if they had done something guilty, they would have admitted it in text messages. And now that I've shown you a message that they've done it, now you've changed it to, well, what guy would ever admit that? So which one was it? Did you not mean your original question? No, I think I meant it the way you actually meant it. And you kind of autistically said it. Can you tell me how you originally meant it? Look, I think that Andrew didn't convey that. Tell me what your original question was. How did you originally mean it? I'm curious. I don't understand. I am autistic, so explain it out to me very clearly. Initially it sounded like you said if they did something guilty, they would have admitted it in a message. Can you explain what you meant when you said that?  Take care of it or something.  They're not gonna say that. Oh, I love raping you. That is not a realistic thing to use as evidence. Clearly you would have said something like, oh Tristan, by the way, I did this to this girl and now she's seething about it. And then that would detail that he did abuse the girl in such a way to where she was traumatized after. That would actually make more sense in context. At the very least, we could say it's some sort of weird kink, but let's carry on. You saw, Andrew was saucy. I get it. I don't know. I mean, he's got a voice message where he was fighting with one girl where he literally said it. I think she was complaining about their sexual encounter. And I remember listening to this because a lot of tape handboys were saying, oh no, it's Deep Fakes. They literally said, I loved raping you. And yeah, I don't know what else to say. Okay. I was just joking, everybody. I have no idea what's going on here. I'm just listening and moderating, of course. Let's carry on, everybody. And keep the super chats coming in because we do want to get your thoughts. Let's carry it on over to Lolo. Yeah. So I wanted to bring up the point in respect to this whole thing of Andrew Tate being guilty of it. It's like, again, this whole fixation over this text message, again, is that the best that the DGG can send into the chat of like, well, he said, Lolo, what was it?  Clearly that is not something that is proving anybody guilty. If Steven said that about a girl, I would say this is just some gay kink thing. And I think it doesn't get anywhere past that.  So it's pretty obvious here that it's more so of the same thing. And so I think you're kink shaming and meat watching Andrew, frankly, if you're gonna assume that that is actual concrete evidence that he is guilty. I don't think it's concrete evidence that he's guilty, but it seemed to be strong enough evidence for at least three judges to look at it and seal or sign off on an indictment for a charge of rape. I can't be for sure because we haven't had the trial yet, but I think it's pretty foolish to say that three judges signed off on this and said it was compelling reason to believe that a rape charge was appropriate here.  I don't know why, but... So what I noticed in your intonation with your defense or whatever is that you're just like indifferent, like I don't know, I'm not sure, but here's this.  It's like, well, I mean, where is the passion destiny? Where is the specific vocalization of a point that would be kind of not concise, but also kind of deliberate where you would say something like, well, Andrew did this and he's just come back for this reason. Instead, you just kind of relate and appeal to the authority of the law, which is like, anyway, you're also saying like three judges in Romania signed off on this. Like as if I respect the country of Romania. You ought to be talking in an American context. How would a rape case be done differently in America in a way that we would both admit is a cleaner process than to throw these two brothers into a jail, which frankly, the other people that they're complicit in doing these crimes with are not in the same incarceration sequence where they've been in jail for the better part of like eight months. So explain. No, I won't. I don't care what this is in an American context. This is the Romanian case for people that are in the country of Romania. Why would I care about how they would prosecute in the United States of America at Senator US jurisdiction? I mean, but wouldn't you say that the American legal system is better than the Romanian? I don't know. This isn't a debate about which legal system is better. See, you have to appeal to all these technicalities. I would expect more from you, Steven. It's like, at this point, just say, like, okay, in an American context, he would not be in jail for this reason, but it's still, you're still probably guilty, but that's what you have, probably guilty.  I think you're just really playing by the book in regards to your defense of being guilty. Yeah, I am playing by the book. I am playing by the book because this is a legal proceeding, which means we were played by the book, which was the Romanian criminal code and Romanian criminal procedure. Okay, so if you were found guilty of something in Romania, you are just as guilty as somebody in America, even though America has more stringent evidence requirements or has a more fair judicial system overall. If I'm in the country of Romania, I have to play by Romanian rules. Yes, that's how it works when you travel the world. When you go to another country, you respect that country's laws and you can be prosecuted under that country's criminal system. Yes. Also, so what is covered in the sex trafficking laws of Romania? Can you admit that your point is ridiculous? I think I need to start pulling concessions out of you. The US criminal code has absolutely no relevancy to prosecuting a case in Romania under the Romanian criminal code for people committing crimes in Romania, correct? Yeah, of course. Okay. What I am saying is that I'm an American. I would hold somebody who's kind of American, like Andrew, under the morality here, not what's going on over there because over there, clearly, there's probably thousands of people that are thrown in jail with much less evidence than Andrew. So it seems to me as if, you know, holding up to any regard at all, the Romanian legal system is just very biased on your part. Okay, can you admit, can you tell me that we're not having a moral debate right now? We're having a legal one, right? We're not talking about that he morally sex trafficked somebody. We're talking about whether he is under the legal definition in Romania of sex trafficking. So we're not having a moral conversation. Can you acknowledge that? Yeah, I think that was the offices of the debate. But what I am saying is that I think that as somebody who has literally, like you have this huge advantage over me in respect to the evidence and whatever, and you're clearly still like, you're still not really making a passionate defense. You're just playing it safe and it's like just go for the touchdown. You're here like getting field goals.  I mean, it seems to me as if this is not really a strong argument on your end. You said play safe. I mean, in the NFL, how often do people go for two point conversions over field goals? Do you think it's that close of a debate? I'm actually honored. Yeah, okay. Good point. You were telling me that in the NFL, when teams are ahead, do they normally run the two point conversion? Yeah, if you're dabbing on somebody, if I were 15 years older than my opponent, I would be just squatting and shitting on them like an Indian. Yeah, of course I would do that. But it seems to me as if you are not really, again, a lot of what I find a quandary with you with is that you're not looking at the victim and not blaming them at all. And yeah, people will call that victim blaming, it's also just holding everybody into account.  Yes, but that is also everybody else. But who's getting all the scrutiny? It is just Andrew, not even his brother as much, which is to say that clearly this is a biased thing against him. To be fair, I will clarify that the charges that have been laid before Andrew, it does clarify that they have been laid up on his brother Tristan and two other men that are also facing the same charges. The other women, yeah. I wasn't sure what that was. I just was reading off of this blurb here.  Remind everybody that we're doing our super chats for our Q&A after this debate. And once again, thanks for everybody for being here. Let's carry on. Okay, so right now I had a point to make and it was that Destiny's whole point in the underpinning is that it's only immoral because he lied, but he lied about what? Is it fraud? Well, he lied to them. And I guess what did they get out of going to Romania other than a free plane ticket that they would have gone otherwise had they just slept with them normally? They got what to be a cam girl and got ripped off on the taxes, which means that they did make profit off of what they were doing more so than what they were getting back home because if they weren't making a lot more money, then why the hell would they stay with an abuser that is potentially taking advantage of them sexually and were over lying about them and using the lover boy method as Destiny posited before? Which is to say that again, how is this that much of an extortion when they clearly have the ability to escape and the dog still comes back?  I don't know, I don't really care.  I wouldn't ask that question for any scam victim, how dumb was the victim? It's not really relevant to what's being talked about. Okay, so on one hand you're saying, okay, don't care about any of the morality aside from Andrew and those people around him. Okay, now you're also saying, don't even scrutinize him under what we would scrutinize literally everybody else under in American law but instead just only follow the purview of a less evidently, how would you say evidentially rigorous program under the Romanian judicial system. So what you're saying is again, so you're conceding that, all right, in America, Andrew wouldn't be as guilty because there'd be more procedures that would actually be more diligent about discovery and whatever else. And they wouldn't just lock him up in a prison for this long or in a jail cell. And you're also saying that- Can you give me an example? Go ahead, I'm sorry. Yeah, so as I was saying, so they lock him up all this time without getting all the evidence together what makes you think they did that? Why couldn't they just leave him in house arrest like he is right now? Clearly they're leaving the country. Yeah, you keep appealing to this idea that you keep appealing to this idea that the knowledge or the intention or something of the victims matter for this. Can you give me an example in the United States where you can scam somebody and if they act sufficiently stupid, you're okay to scam them? Well, I actually dispute the fact that he even scammed them past a certain point. So I think that in an American legal, and again, part of the reason why and you initially didn't even wanna concede whether or not America would be more stringent on prosecuting somebody like Andrew is because I think you subconsciously understand that he wouldn't be as guilty or it'd be a more difficult, longer process to put him in through prison like the Romanians are trying to do. So I think that fundamentally just disproves what you were trying to ask me. I don't even know what that meant. I'm asking in the United States, is there an example where maybe you could try to scam somebody and if they acted stupid enough, you wouldn't get in trouble for it. Can you give me an example of that? Where do you directly, again, I can test the fact that he even scammed them to the legal law, to the legal extent in an American context. That's what you're asking me, right? Did he mislead them about his feelings about them or did he truly wanna marry every single girl? But is misleading somebody over marrying them something that you would actually get sued for in America or moreover put in prison hard time for that, really? If you used that and then transported them or harbored them somewhere and then made money off of them doing sex work, yes, because it would be called sex trafficking. How do you think pimps and hookers work? Pimps and hookers. I think, isn't it prostitution that is illegal? You don't hear pimps getting in jail more so than prostitutes do, right? You don't think a pimp, you don't think it's illegal to be a pimp in the United States of America? No, I'm just saying, how come the media never covers that? Like, when has a pimp ever gone in jail in my purview? I don't know. But what I will say is that prostitutes get in trouble all the time, which is to say that maybe the American legal system is more against women than the Romanian one. Isn't that kind of odd? No, in the United States, pimping is a third degree felony conviction in a lot of states. So I don't know where you get this idea that pimping is legal or you wouldn't get in trouble for it, but it's a serious felony in the United States. Also, isn't there something distinctly different from pimping, which is mostly like, I guess, I don't know what you would do, like get some poor 15 year old girl and then try to horror out versus what Andrew did, which is like, get these grown women and like lie to them about being in love with them or something. No. There's a big difference. No, there's not. Why not? What do you mean? That's a huge differential in consent. No, it's not. Really?  Okay, come on, really. Okay, so this is just kind of ridiculous to point out in the grand scheme of things where you're saying that it's, on one hand, reasonable to say that you're getting sex traffic just because you were lied to about how you were gonna get to Romania and what was gonna happen there, but yet you don't change your mind after you know the truth. It's kind of like at that point, right? You get it. Now, my analogy is this. Imagine if, for instance, you were lied to and okay, this is gonna sound weird, but let's say somebody said, hey, I'm actually a girl and then you sleep and then you find out it's a guy and then you still go before it. Yeah, did he lie to you? Sure, but I mean, you're still kind of like, I would stop. How come these women don't stop is my question. They knew what, after a certain point, they knew what was going on. Yeah, I don't know. I don't really care. It's not part of what the question is. I don't know if all the women did or didn't get scammed. Their question is whether the tapes are scammers, so. So, okay, they're scammers because of the sex stuff, but wouldn't you hold it more against them that they've made more money scamming young men with hustlers to university than whatever couple dozen cam girls they've had? No. Isn't that a bigger deal if they made a lot more money that way? I don't care if it's a bigger deal. We're asking about what's legal or illegal. As far as I'm aware, that's totally illegal. Them selling sex, them working only fans of doing that is all completely illegal. So that's not what I'm concerned about right now because we're having a legal discussion of whether or not they're sex traffickers. We're not having a discussion on the morality of only fans. Okay, and do you agree with the potential sentencing guidelines in respect to the Romanian law if they're found guilty of the specific thing or do you disagree at all? I don't know what the particular sentencing guidelines are for these crimes. But isn't that an important detail for you to know? Because on one hand, you were making a point about how I didn't know whether or not there was like a rape reference in the WhatsApp messages which there are hundreds of. But you also don't even know the fundamental amount of time they'd be in prison for for the thing that you're debating about right now. No, I'm not here debating on whether or not their sentence would be fair or whether the conviction guidelines are fair. I'm only interested in whether or not they sex traffic because that's what the conversation is about. It's not a conversation about whether or not the particular sentencing guidelines are too much or too little. All right, so now I have a narrative here and I'm glad that you said that. So basically, I don't care if the women were basically clued in on what was happening after they were initially lied to and the fact that most of them didn't leave.  I only care about the technicality of whether or not he's a sex trafficker. Not how long he needs to be put in prison, not even for his sake, but for the sake of the women that he took advantage of. You care about the fact that they were lied to.  That's not what the topic of this conversation is. Might be interesting to have a conversation on guidelines for instance, if they had it so that it was a mandatory execution for being a sex trafficker. I don't know if I'd be okay with that but that's not what the conversation for this time debate is about. It's whether or not we think that he should be charged I guess with sex trafficking, whether or not we believe he sex trafficked those girls which it seems like you've all but conceded at this point which is why we're now talking about whether or not the conviction or the sentencing guidelines are fair or not. Okay, so again, but that underlies the whole point. The reason why we have things that are illegal is because they have consequences to them. So for me to just completely mentally divorce whether or not you have something that is illegal and how long you get in jail for it is pretty much understandably something that you ought to point out and morally reason with yourself in front of everybody because clearly if they're going to prison at least in most contexts that means that you're going to jail for upwards of a year at least which is to say that you're okay with him going to jail for a year, prison for over a year but yet you didn't even make that point. Is that a pretty obvious concession that if he is guilty of this that you would want him in jail for multiple years? No, I don't think so. Do you think that Hunter Biden was wrong to lie on his firearm ATF form when he purchased a firearm that he'd committed a felony or that he'd been doing drugs? Well, unlike most people on the right wing I would say actually I don't actually care if he lied about it that much.  So clearly the guy was way off plus the 14 year old. Do you think that was wrong Graham to do that? Throw away the guns in such a way that they were loaded in the trash can where like anybody could have just opened it. Yeah. Was that wrong? Yeah. I mean that's more of a nitpick. I actually don't even care about that. I care more about the fact that- Do you think he did anything wrong or illegal at all or do you just have no opinions whatsoever? Cause you know that my next question is going to be what's the sentencing guidelines for it? You're not going to have the answer to that and I'm going to ask you do you think it's okay to feel like that should be illegal without knowing the sentencing guidelines for it. So you're avoiding walking into the trap You read three steps two forward in the meta. I wasn't thinking that far. I was thinking more so the fact that you were pointing out something along the lines of how this guy Hunter Biden is guilty of something. Now if you were to ask me Lolo, well what's the sentencing guidelines? It's not even that I'm asking you that. I'm just asking you as a man like okay this guy clearly is derelict about his gun control or you know anything in response to that or possessing drugs and not being a responsible human being.  I'll admit that.  Why don't you have the moral courage to just say something like that? Well I don't know what the guidelines are in Romania. I'm not even sure what an appropriate sentence would be. I don't have a strong feeling on that so.  I'll be open about that.  Yeah I don't know if I believe in instantaneous execution for people that break the law. Okay well that kind of misses the whole precept here. I give you three certain things. Okay 20 years. I think the precept is very simple. Do you think that Andrew Tate under Romanian criminal law do you think he's a sex trafficker because he met the definitions and if not which one has he failed to meet for you so far? You repeat that last part right now. So so far something?  The means meaning he needs a certain method by which he uses and the purpose meaning for making money off of them doing sex work. And my argument is that he has recruited, transported and received people that is the act. For the means he has used fraud and deception. That is the means and for the purpose it is for making money off of them sex trafficking. Do you agree that he's met all three of those points which would therefore mean that he is a sex trafficker under the Romanian criminal code or is there some point that you believe he hasn't met and if not which one? Yeah, I think that overall, hmm, hmm, I think my whole disagreement with you is not over the technicalities of it. It's not whether or not he personally lied to them about the lover boy method. It is to say, you know what? How come these women didn't leave the raptor? How come you can't come up with a reasonable vague estimation even within a tenure boundary? Where is this guy gonna end up after he's guilty of such a thing? You have this detailed explanation as to how he is guilty. You don't have even the most basic of an inference as to how exactly he is supposed to be punished. I as a person who would actually care if he lied to these women, I would say, you know what? You should lose your cloud, Andrew. You should be banned off of social media if you're pipping out these hoes on the internet or something like that. But instead you won't even give that. How come? That's not what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about whether or not we believe he's a sex trafficker under the Romanian criminal code definition. And it seems to be the case that we both agree that he is indeed a sex trafficker. Because it seems to me that you can't point on any of these two things, the act or the means or the third thing, the purpose that he fails to meet the definition of.  I guess you wanna have a separate conversation over what his punishment ought to be, which I guess is fair, but I'm not as concerned about that. Yeah, well, you know what? Actually, this is the analogy. Imagine this is Destiny circa 2018 when I was watching him in high school.  That's a very stupid question because you kind of already understand that, yeah, technically it's illegal, but it's not really an immoral thing in your estimation, or at least like, you're more sympathetic to that. And so with that being said, it's like, I think Andrew's an illegal immigrant when it comes to the sussiness of whether or not he's sex trafficked women. Like, did he technically do it according to your very autistic Reddit explanation? Yeah, sure, but, but, spirit of the law wise, morality wise, is he guilty like the way that you're espousing him to be? No, and clearly you're not very passionate about the topic, which is to say that you don't actually viscerally care too much, which is to also say, because you're not a sociopath, which is also to point out that he's not this person that is really that evil because if you were, I would feel more of a reason to actually be mad, but you're not at all, you're completely calm, which is understandable because you're trying to prosecute him and condemn him over a technicality of the law and not even espousing anything in regards to sentencing the morality, immorality of it or anything because your only contention there was that he lied about one detail but is lying the biggest deal?  That's a bigger discussion, but like I said, yeah, is he sassy on the legality? Yeah, but the same way that an illegal alien is not an evil person and it's not really that immoral just because they crossed the border illegally. I don't think it's a big deal. That must mean also that, I think Andrew Tate in summation is an illegal alien. Okay, I mean, that's fine, you think that, but I think you conceded the entire argument to me, so I don't know what else to say. Seems like by you call it a technicality, but that's fine, it's the law. The law is by definition technical and by the technical definition of the law, seems as though he's a sex trafficker. If you wanna have a separate conversation about what he thought to be sentenced to or sex trafficking is morally wrong, I guess that's another conversation to be had, but. Well, then let's move on to the last charge that he has been put forth with, which is that he has been charged with the big R word. So kick it back to you, Steven, for thoughts on that specific charge. So there are three charges specifically against Andrew Tate and then there is his brother Tristan and then as Steven said, there's two other women. Like I said, I'm reading from a blurb here, so don't mind me, everybody, but the very first thing that is here that he's been charged with is the big R word. Let's kick it over to Steven. Let's try not to get demonetized. Yeah, I don't know what I'm supposed to say. I mean, it's he's been charged for at least one of them, there are two witnesses, but I don't know, I mean, he did it, he did it, but I don't know what else we could possibly argue about. My response to that, I actually agree with Steven, you know, what am I gonna say here? You know what, I'll come up with something because that's what I'm good at. Basically, I think that any sort of R word accusations are not founded in reality. We have the best mind in the sector talking about how he said, loved raping you by the way, as if that's supposed to mean something, as if that weren't sarcastic, as if he's not somebody who's perverted, like obviously intertated somebody with these kings. And I just about that completely, that is really weird. But you know what, it's not illegal. So if we're going, er, I'm actually, I'm a lawyer on the internet, okay, fine. You know what, that is not illegal from to say that I loved raping you because clearly that in the proper context would probably be more normal. He was probably talking about some weird like choke play, but girls are into that nowadays. So I guess that's okay. So I'm just saying, let's not king shame Andrew and clearly just using that sort of like main evidential piece is not enough, doesn't fly. Thoughts over there, Steven? I mean, there's witnesses saying that there was physical verbal and psychological coercion for rape. So we just have to wait and see what it looks like in court. But I mean, obviously I don't think either of us agree that would be okay. Yeah, if he actually did it, I'll go on the record and say if Andrew actually violently did something to these women, he ought to get the worst of it. But I guess destiny won't say that, which is odd. And again, I'm not somebody who argues like I don't even debate. This is just more like me arguing with you. I don't need like this whole thing about concessions or if Steven wants to say, you know what? Actually agree with your preset follow. Actually, yeah, he should go to jail if he did that, but he won't even say that. I don't know why he's being so close guarded about his opinions about injure tape. I think he's had plenty of hours and many moons have gone by where he's considered the morality of this thing. And for him to not even give a little iota of like a scintilla of emotion or even more than that, more importantly, any sort of restitution to these women that have been trafficked clearly, it would seem to me as if like anybody with a brain cell over the age of 30 would actually say, you know what? This guy should go to jail and for X amount of time or even something approximating a time, but instead he doesn't even do that. Okay, I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are. I don't really care. It's not really relevant to the question. Okay. All right. Well, if you guys had any other thoughts about this before we move into the Q and A, we got around what 10 minutes that we usually have of open discussion. So if you guys wanted to move into the Q and A, that's fine, but if there was anything else that you kind of wanted to push. All right, let's go for it. I got one little thing, a little blurb that came up to me right now. And it has to do with, you know, this whole grape situation, right? So now that we're talking about the act and the fruit of the grape, we need to be speaking about how, you know, is there an accusation in that, that Destiny has read, where he held a knife to a woman's throat or he physically did something to a girl that would insinuate that he had actual lethal force over a girl to abuse them. It seems to me as if the accusation, if being reasonable would say, you know, he just did it and he kind of alluded to it, but not really, he was a joke. So again, are you seeing there was a gun to their head? What was it? A gun or weapon? No, but it doesn't he brag about being a multi-world champion kickboxer? Why would he need a gun to intimidate a woman with violence? Yeah, but I mean, you could say that about any man that they have a power advantage. Now him, whether or not he was a kickboxer- The allegation is that he used physical and verbal coercion to force a woman to have sex with him. Physical, great. So do you think he violently did anything to these women at any point that was unconsensual? That's what's being alleged in the indictment. And I guess that's what we'll find out in court. I have no reason to doubt the indictment, but I mean, obviously we should wait and see what happens in court. Shouldn't, wait, wait, wait, wait. I have no reason to doubt the indictment. Isn't it the whole precept that the American dream is to say, you know what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt? Not like I have no reason to doubt the accuser.  I mean, what, so he like said, oh, get over here. And then what he just physically just stood there and they were imposed and there's no proof of that. What do you mean? I don't know what all the proof the prosecution is going to show. I don't think you do either. So I don't know how you can so confidently say there's no proof, but okay, we'll see, I guess. No, I'm saying I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to the accuser. And I think that we should see what happens in court. I mean, I'm not going to say he's guilty right now, but there's information in these indictments. I don't have any reason to believe they're just lying in the indictments, but I guess we'll see what happens, huh? I think they're sus. Okay. All right, everybody. I think we may have hit the wall. And if you know what I mean by the wall, I think that's the point of which we, we may have reached the point where we no longer are going to move forward. Let's try to move into our Q&A. Let's keep our chats kind of related to the topic or loosely related to the topic, whether they're chats about masculinity or and entertain himself or traditional roles, or as I put it earlier, the big R word, get them into our Q&A, and we're going to start asking those now so that we can stir the pot on some grieve discussion. All right, coming in, askers for $10. Where's the real modern day debate host? Who's this upsurge server? Well, yeah, I was, I kind of fill in every once in a while. I don't know if you've been around for the last six months, but I've been hanging out. And yes, I'm a nobody. And I like it that way. Nobody knows where I'm from. Do you even have a subway tattoo? No, I don't, I don't get free subway. I get free, I get free drinks every once in a while when I play my Led Zeppelin cover, yeah, that's what it is. But I will be coming down to Dallas for the debate con. So check, you know, keep an eye out for that because we're going to be giving some announcements slowly and surely for that. But in the meantime, mainly get your tickets to the September 16th event. If you're hanging out, by the way, in that live chat, I just want to let you know that that like button has been begging me to take it home. All night. And I want to do everything I can to smash it, but I can't, so I'm going to have to hand it to you guys. Do what you can. What else are you smashing out there? Nothing? That's what I thought. I'm a married man. There's only so much I can do. Help me out here. Let's get to the next super chat. Ride for $10. Destiny is making assumptions about Tate's state of mind. Oh, sorry. Let's rephrase that. I'm putting the wrong emphasis on the syllable there. So Destiny is making assumption about Tate's state of mind. No one can honestly say if he loved them when he brought them over. If you remove that element, it is exactly what Destiny did with Melina. Oh, I didn't read that last part. I'm sorry about that. It's fine. I mean, like if there was text evidence messages of me saying I'm bringing this girl over and I'm lying about our relationships so that I can make money selling her only fans that would also be sex trafficking. But yes, I don't know why you're saying there's no evidence of a state of mind. There are plenty of crimes in the United States where we have to prove a criminal state of mind in order to show that they've committed a certain type of criminal behavior, right? We do this with like say, for instance, murder. You have to prove a certain state, a criminal state of mind, a mens rea in order to actually get a conviction there. We do this all sorts of crimes. I'm sure they do the same in Romania. Awesome. Any thoughts over there, Lalo, before we move on? The Wood Ride said, I actually, I thought that was pretty funny. You actually said that you couldn't get personal in the debate, so I kind of left it on the table and I didn't touch it, which is hard. It was like chocolate cake, like, should I do the Molina thing? I didn't touch it. But now that you bring it up, I think there was a chat that I actually copied and pasted it into my notepad that relates just to what you read in the Super Chat. Just one second, Lalo, just before we continue. Are you okay with this, Steven? I'm gonna go for it, not because I'm out. All right, thank you. Go for it, Lalo. See, I go for consent, unlike allegedly Andrew, okay, cool. So Destiny brought Molina over, comma, had her stream for him and being a poly, what do you call it, polyamorous relationship, which she broke down in tears on Dr. Kay about how emotionally distant Destiny is, also while defrauding the Swedish government on taxes. So the Swedish government has not been defrauded on taxes. I know because we've paid those. And as to whether or not my relationship with Molina constitutes sex trafficking, this is something that is quasi-investigated by the US State Department when you apply for a green card. You have to tell them all the details of your relationship. You have to tell them how you met. You've got to tell them how the person came over. We went through that entire process and apparently the US State Department feels like there was no sex trafficking or illegitimate behavior involved. They were aware of our poly relationship and of her age and of her coming over. So if it's good enough for them, I feel like it should probably be good enough for the internet. Yeah, yeah. I just thought it was funny because if you compare Destiny and Andrew, they're like very opposite, but like if you also word it in a very facetious way, it is kind of very commonplace like what they did. I actually think they're both innocent in this case, right? So you know what? W, Steven, whatever, okay, it's fine.  We're gonna continue on from there. And as somebody who when I was dating my wife and sneaking into our house to take her out on dates because I was a young man, I was 18 and she was 16. At one point, she had to finish the dishes and her Jehovah's Witness mother-in-law showed up and I ended up having to hide in the shower and it was the longest 30 minutes of my life. And I plan on telling that story eventually, but it does tie into this idea of the idea of how people feel about letting go in that sense because we're talking about, yeah, let me try not to get into any more of that, but I did feel like that's one of those funny points is that you never know what side of the coin you're gonna be on. Never let me show my bias though, they're a lot low. LJ, more flat moon, more flat earth, moon landing host debates please. Well, LJ, we have tons of them coming up, just stay tuned. One of our old classics, classics, Howard Stirrup has gotten ahold of me and we have a NASA hoax debate coming up. So if that's something that you're interested in, LJ, make sure that you hit the notification bar because you will get a notification for that and for the rest of you, same deal, ride $5. Destiny seems low energy today. Is it because the women, he's sex trafficked or were deported? What? That's true. Wait, who got deported though? Is that more I don't know of? Me, I got deported, I'm home again. Sorry, I'm sorry, Destiny. I didn't want to leave Destiny's throats there, but I'm home again, everybody. Keep those Q and A's coming in, try to keep them serious because we could only answer so much here as far as that goes if you're gonna be serious. Grace Thorpe, aka Joan. And thank you, Grace, for sending me an email back and letting me know about Lolo. Thank you once again for being here last minute. Everybody who is in the Super Chat, you know, or in the live chat, give a huge round of applause for Lolo for stepping in last minute to defend this point. We really appreciate you being here. We were scared this wasn't gonna happen, so once again, hit the like button and once again, our speakers are going to be linked in our description. So, Grace, thank you for your Super Chat, asks Destiny, do human trafficking laws exist to protect women who freely consent to do cam work?  But, oh, you saw.  Sex trafficking probably prevents people from recruiting women in order through means of deceit or coercion or violence to prevent them from recruiting those types of women to do sex work. Sorry, I wrote that wrong. I thought that might have been internet slang.  But I think you answered that. So, Lalo, over to you, any thoughts on that? On what Grace said? Yes. Yeah, okay, I don't know. I'm kind of curious, okay, Steven, did you think my debate was, like, my reasoning was better or the Grace Coke? Like, what do you think was actually more, like, what would have actually been more difficult for you to tackle there, because it's interesting? Oh, I don't know. I feel like neither of you are very serious on this topic, so. True, all right, so basically, in my opinion, from what Grace said, I think that is somewhat valid and I think she echoed a lot of what I said recently, which is that, you know what, these women should be held accountable for being hoarse, frankly. And, yeah, they were lied to, and you know what, L Andrew for lying, that's L Riz, actually. So, yeah, I think we agree. Any thoughts over there, Steven? Do you guys agree? Is that true? I'm doing camera, it's not illegal, so I'm not here to play moral condemnation for any of these people. That's not what this conversation is about. All right, well, you heard it here, guys. Let's continue on with our super chats. Thank you, Grace, for that. And keep those super chats coming in because as soon as we're done, and we only have a few more left to go, we will close it out with some super, sorry, with some closing statements from our speakers. No more super chats after that. So, let's keep the super chats coming in till we get to our closing statements. Cara Ramrod for 90, sorry, for $5. Lalo has to be an incel, right? See, I was reading that the whole time and I was like, I don't know if I want to ask that. I didn't know that was possible to go this hard on the victims. Oh, my response? I don't know if you want to respond to that. It seems like- No, that's fair game. I like this, I like this. Okay. It's up to you. Okay, look, not an incel, but I understand what they're coming from. You know, any person that watches Destiny for as long as I have would come out that way. So, I get it. I do talk very autistic, but you know what, it's more fun that way. They say, oh, you talk like Ben Shapiro, I'm just trying to not talk all slow. The pregnant pause is like on Mr. Girl. Thank you. And in respect to this whole thing about, you said something about that I'm an incel, I guess I got rid of that accusation, but what was the second thing in the super chat? Oh, just one second because my fancy fingers, if you haven't heard my, yes, I'm a metal god. I see you there in the super chat, Sabrik Dabra. My super fingers managed to move me out of it. Just one second here. The question was Lalo has to be an incel, right? I didn't know that was possible to go this hard on the victims. Oh yeah, that's great. I like that you said that because I want to be a lawyer. So, if I'm like completely facetiously just attacking the character of the victim in exchange for helping up the defendant, that means I'm going to get paid well. So, you know what? I did my job. So, it's good. Victim blaming is good. This like whole like PC, like white people culture of like, don't look at any sort of blame on the women. No, I think they're actually accountable for them doing since, and you know what? It's probably the man's fault more so than the women's, but it could still be a 60-40. And we could actually assess the smaller piece of the pie for what it is. And it's still pie, all right? It's still guilt. It is still sin. Any thoughts over there, Steven? No. All right, let's carry on everybody. Yeah, lots of super chats pouring in now. So, let me scroll on up. Destiny. What is your favorite manga? Don't have one. He doesn't have a favorite manga. Where have you been?  Oh no, don't look at my background. I was gonna say, I'm talking on my own spit, everybody. This is not good. This has happened only once before. All right, let's carry on. Before I have another heart attack. Aiden. Lalo is the worst debater on modern day debate. That's a feat. Well, in fair faith, Lalo came here 10 minutes before the debate was supposed to begin. So if you thought he was the worst, well, I thought that Lalo was a fair chat for coming in here last minute. What do you guys think? So for me personally, my level of research now that it's done, I can be honest. I saw one of the Willie Mack videos exposing Andrew Tate one time. I saw Sneeko try to cope. And even in person, he'll defend Andrew Tate. Like he actually believes that Andrew is innocent. Like in person, he'll be like, nah, he's a great guy. It's like, bro, really? So Sneeko was sweeping it up, right? But over dinner, people are different. Look, the point is that with respect to this whole idea of Andrew, I only saw that one Willie Mack video and I saw Destiny. I remember being in the library like six months ago, watching him like go over the reports. It's like, damn, seems kind of, seems like they're guilty. That was six months ago. So I did see one of those streams back in the day from Destiny and I did see that one Willie Mack video and I did see and hear Sneeko cope about it, but that's the amount of research I did. Plus I Googled it for five minutes before I went on because I wanted to actually have a fighter's chance. And so I think given the lack of preparedness I had, I held up really well. All right. Awesome. Destiny, your assessment? Any thoughts about it? Okay. All right. It's really hard.  As I show off my nerd memorabilia because my wife is a huge comic fan. So, and you know, I grew up on manga. That's good stuff.  Austin Pickens, 999. Why does Lolo get mad at corruption in Romania when Tate went to Romania specifically to take part in that corruption? It seems he was perfectly fine with it when he thought he could benefit. True. And that's why I cast blame on everybody, including the women that were camhoring for him too. That's immoral. And you know what, Tate? If you're going to Romania to avoid the law, that's kind of cool. Avoid taxes is cool. But then you're doing this like pornography thing. I disavow that. But at the same time, again, bigger picture. Was he a benign thing for the world? Yes.  So you know what? For those kids, you know what?  So that's my whole point. And with respect to him going to Romania, I think that's gay. And you know what? Would I go to Mexico to avoid certain laws? Sure, but I don't have to do that. Any thoughts over there, Steven? Nope. All right. Let's carry on with our super chats and no green bicycles. I will not stop interjecting when I think things have come to a close. All right. Let's carry on. Mesh asks for $10. If there was a magical portal, say in the wall like Hogwarts, that took these girls to Romania rather than Tate paying for flights and all else was equal, is it still sex trafficking? There was a what? Magic portal. Bringing them through. Women. If there was a magic portal, I mean, if you still lied to them and everything, then yeah, but... That's a bit of a strange super chat. Any thoughts there, Lolo? If you went to Hogwarts. Yeah, so if you remember the first Harry Potter movie, it's Harry living like in his aunts, like not even the basement, but like the room underneath the staircase. Now, if Andrew had the women over there camhoring, I think it'd be even worse because at least he hooked them up with this mansion. So I think that he actually get in more trouble and justifiably so because why would you have a girl camgirling underneath the staircase? That'd be awful. And so with that being said, I think that if you were in Hogwarts, it'd be way worse for Andrew and rightfully so because then again, another point I wanted to make was that, I just think that with respect to how the jurisdictions work, that Andrew would have an easier time living and breathing in a jurisdiction such as Florida than he would in some place like, let's say Romania. No thoughts there, Steven? Nope. All right, let's carry on. Skeptical ninja for $10.  This is clearly a troll. You should feel bad for falling and for trusting them. Well, yeah, you know, we're happy that we got Lalo here. I read the super chat because guess what? Everybody here is bigger than you. All right, let's carry on. No, I was gonna respond to that. You want to? Go for it. Yeah, sure. Look, it was not a troll. Now, did I know that I was getting into like a very difficult position because I know like what the truth is? Yeah, but at the same time, it's like, you know what, I had to try it out.  Yeah, as the evidence really fucked up, sure. But if I'm gonna be Robert Kardashian, if I'm gonna be Johnny Cochran of the future, circa 2060, I ought to be competent at defending intertable people and defending whatever hero follicles he has left until his last breath because that is my goal in this debate. And it's not a troll. Like I was being pretty, I was being mostly genuine with what I was saying. So yeah, I'm not a troll. All right, and I do appreciate you a lot, though, answering a lot of these really kind of spicy super chats, everybody, you know, some of them are all right, but a couple of them are being a little... No, I like it because it shows hierarchy. It shows like, you know what, like I get to be debating destiny.    I kind of like that. Oh yeah. You know what, out of everybody here, I am the least cut tonight. Like our, our debaters are so well shaved tonight. I feel ashamed. I should have done better here to make sure I was well cut. Askers for $10. And does it feel good knowing you performed a home of gold troll at a zero energy debate? Is that towards me? Yeah, they're hating on you. They're a locking you right now. Oh my God, I'm so sorry. I've been so tired. I've been getting ready for a show tomorrow and I've been screaming metal. Is that who you were coming at that with? Because I feel like I'm the most tired here because I also came in last minute after finding out that we had a cancellation and, you know, sent some messages and found Lolo. So yeah, I was planning on going to bed and then I got, I got sidetracked. You know how it goes, everybody. Thanks for being here, of course. Big thang, flying Wayne. I always have to say it that way. Is it Sigma, Alpha or Beta to trick a woman? Well, I mean, I would say it's probably pretty Beta. It's a lion traffic people, but, you know, that's just me, I guess. Yeah. Well, I think it's a bell curve of Beta or Alpha where on one hand, somebody might be too Beta to even gaslight a girl because he's too scared to do it. But at the same time, a true Alpha would just say, he would basically be attractive and smart enough to just say, you know what? Come camhore for me. And she would be like, okay, bald man, I'll do it. And then that would be the Alpha thing.  So yeah. All right, any thoughts there, Stephen? Oh, okay. We'll move on from there, everybody. Great. Well, do you agree, Stephen? I don't want to. I agree, 100 million percent. Thank you. 100 million percent. Those are statistics in economics. That's fine. J.K. Forte, Lolo doesn't like it equals Gary. And he can justify it. Yeah. I think people, just because I use it as an insult doesn't mean I viscerally care if you're a homosexual, right?  Do I viscerally care if Andrew does so and so and so and so? No, because it's not me. So it's like whatever, OK? And also, it's important that we kind of, like, have this culture of, like, talking in a way that is somewhat dismissive of people, not this idea of, like, oh, I need to be on pins and needles. That's how white people talk. We need, like, certain things. White people do. It's great, most of it.  Why not? As long as it's TOS, I'm cool with it. So whatever. That's why I say things weird. Any thoughts, Stephen? I totally agree. Yes. Let's go.  What's going on? What's going on? I agree. I think I am a little bit. A little bit. I don't know if I've seen such things before in my life. You know, I've only been married for seven years. I've never seen sarcasm before. Grace Thorpe. Oh, stop that, Stephen. You're going to make. No, I'm not kidding. You're going to make a video about it. Yeah. What time is it for you, Stephen? It's already 10 o'clock p.m. Oh, oh, sweetheart. It's 10, it's 11 o'clock here. I'm in Nova Scotia, so. Oh, Lord. I'm always a little bit further out than most people. You're way about there. OK, crazy. We about everybody. So, yeah, it's going to be a big deal for me to come out to Dallas, Texas. So I hope to see you there. Check out the tickets in the link in the description. Grace Thorpe asks for $10. If I tell a guy I'll marry him if he flies over to me and I'm lying, pay for his ticket, then he flies over. I don't marry him and convince him to do camera with me. Is that sex trafficking? Sounds like it would probably be. Yeah. Yes. As long as you're making money off it. Yeah. OK, I mean, this is just kind of like blatantly obvious that like if a guy goes and he simps and he says, oh, well, I'm going to do this with this girl. And then I immediately realize that she's not going to marry me. And then I still continue to count myself out like a like a guy. Like, really? I mean, it's pretty obvious that at that point, you know what? You're just a sucker and they're born every minute. So I guess there's plenty of cases of this. But, you know, I think it's a very different thing. I think Andrew Tate would be way more guilty than Grace, in this case. Do you want to listen, James, if you want to drag? Oh, no, you're not James.  She wants to run down her dialo tour real quick. We can do it. You hear that, Grace?  I think I give 10 minutes to Grace if she wanted to pop in here. She said, ain't no way in the chat. Well, you know what? I'll send you the Zoom link. And if you want to pop in here, I'll give you 10 minutes because you were so charitable to find us low and get back to me so fast. I wouldn't mind. So let's continue on. Askers for five dollars. You are not the middle guy. Here's five dollars. Damn, hurdle. Oh, yeah, you're not the other guy, the Subway guy. The Subway guy. Subway is now in full gold and you're not him. Great, you're innocent. Now I got a copy of the Zoom link here on. All right, let's ask that next super chat. Dr. Ako, did you legit skip my super chat? Worst debate platform of all time. Let's scroll up and I miss a super chat. No, it doesn't look like it. Hey, Dr. Ako, do you want to maybe tag me in the live chat and ask your question because that would probably help a lot more than just kind of moaning about it. Damn savage. I'm sorry, I'm Canadian. You know how everybody has this association of Canadians saying sorry all the time?  Hey, why do you think we say a all the time? Just a question. I'm just asking. Oh, I didn't want to. I didn't want to be that brutal. I I'm just being me. I'm sorry. So let's move on to our last super chat. I sent you the link to our Zoom chat, Grace, if you wanted to pop in here and have some fun for 10 minutes, maybe stir the pot for a few because we're going to close this out a little bit earlier than I usually do. Thunderstorm for four ninety nine. I hope Tate's victims can heal and move forward. Well, all right. I have gone through the Super Chat. Askers asks, wow, how we out for five dollars. Why did you do that? Askers, was that a typo? What's going on here? Well, either way, I sent Grace the good old link here if she wanted to ask any questions since, like I said, you donated to the Super Chat twice and you sent me a lot low tonight and we're happy. That's the most important part. Yeah, I want Grace on here. Apparently she has this hay boner for destiny. She needs to work this out because I actually followed the sort of lore where she was a logging destiny about like LSD use. And I was like, bitch, who cares? Right. So I'm being morally consistent. Like, OK, intertate, yours, come back. Who cares? OK, so Hunter Biden did this thing. I don't care. Oh, LSD, who cares? Right. Oh, playing it even. Best base. Well, as for our discussion, will we wait for that possibility? And if we don't get to that possibility, well, then I'll just play some music and, you know, scream in your ear to close us out. Let's move into some closing statements as for the discussion we've had here. And as per usual fashion, we'll click it over to Lalo to give first thoughts on the discussion. So my general take was that, you know, the way I envisioned this, because again, I had no notification.  It's too late now, everybody. Grace has arrived and has questions and we're at the end of our debate. And thank you, Grace, for finding Lalo and messaging me back. Oh, you're very welcome. All right. I said I give 10 minutes, maybe we'll give it a little bit more your thoughts on this discussion.  I think our my good friend, Stephen, is confusing two different things.   But I don't think Stephen understands what fraud is. An example of fraud would be like lying about your age to get a driver's license, right?  OK, now you could say he committed fraud on these women by saying I'll marry you if you come to Romania.  But once they're in Romania, OK, it is not fraud for him to then say, I'm not marrying you. Clearly he doesn't marry them. There's no wedding. And instead he convinces them to do can work with him as their manager. That is not fraud.  You're human trafficking. That doesn't hold up at all. Well, I agree that wouldn't be fraud, but that's not what is being alleged. It's not being alleged that they came to Romania. And then he said, you know what, I changed my mind. I don't think I want to get married.  If that was the case, then that wouldn't be trafficking. OK, so what he did was he continually misled them about whether or not he would be in a relationship with them. And while he was misleading them, that they were more special to him than they actually were, or while he was misleading them, that he did intend to finally settle down and marry them or have a family with them or or be faithful to them. During that process, he was getting his other women to integrate them into a sex work business. So he was continually deceitful. OK, but so what? So lying to somebody isn't a crime. Fraud fraud would say you get something from the other person.  That's not fraud. That's not committing fraud. That doesn't hold up. If I that it is and it is Romania, if you disagree, that's fine. But then your argument should be, I don't believe that Romania has established sex trafficking correctly. But if you lie about something in some case, it absolutely is fraud.   And that is fraud. It depends on what the underlying crime is. So I tell you that I'll marry you if you come here and we can be together forever and be great. And then when you do that, I'm like, well, also do this extra or like work on only fans, give me some money. Like I'll marry you eventually, but I have no intention of marrying you. And I'm talking to other people about how I have no intention of marrying you. That is also fraud.   That isn't fraud. That isn't fraud. If I if a guy says he'll marry me, if I do something for him, that is not him committing fraud.  That's not illegal. Those two things are not. It is illegal. And those two things, if somebody tells me they'll give me something if I do this and then they don't. That's not necessarily illegal. That's an incredibly, I didn't say it wasn't necessarily definition. It is fraud, but we're not using a broad definition of fraud.   Those two things are not only not mutually exclusive, they literally have nothing to do with one another. Yes, but fraud is an activity that relies on deception in order to achieve a gain. OK, it's a knowing misrepresentation of the truth. I agree he lied to them. But how did his fraud induce these girls to act to their detriment and his gain? He said he'd marry them. They came over to them. Because it sounds like and one of the things he's bragged about frequently is that none of these girls or only half of these girls or maybe none were even in the sex business before. So it sounds to me like the only way. Hold on. You asked me a question of why he was being fraudulent. And the answer sounds like it's because these women weren't working in this industry and probably wouldn't have worked for him otherwise. The fraud part was a necessary part to get them to work for him as only fans girls. That's why he was fraudulent. Yes, but it's not. You don't understand. It may be you may call it fraud for you to lie to somebody that if they come over to the country you're in, that you'll marry them. Fraud, yes. That's a very, very broad definition of fraud. Wait, I don't know what you're saying. Broad, it's very clear.  Because you don't get anything out of that. You don't get anything out of that. He gets something from them. Not from them just coming over to Romania. He gets nothing out of that. Once they're in Romania, if they were actually like if they had a crumb of common sense, if he doesn't literally get married to them, which would involve a marriage ceremony, then they should leave. Right. But instead, he doesn't get married to them. So clearly they're not. That's true. So then at that point, I don't know if there's a crime. That's true. That's true. But I don't know if they're no, no, no, if there might be a crime for attempted sex trafficking, in which case that would be a different conversation if he hadn't. But the problem was once they got to Romania, he continued to deceive them and he continued to try to convince them that they were going to be married while getting them to do sex work. And the only reason they were agreeing to do that sex work is because they were in love and thought that they were helping build a future with their future husband. OK, so I have two things to say that. First of all, I do not think that you can put somebody in jail for manipulating somebody. OK, manipulation. That happened. OK, so if somebody, if McDonald's promises me a burger that looks a certain way in an advertisement and then it doesn't look that way when I go to get it, did I just did was fraud just committed upon me? Not only not only not only is fraud committed, I'm almost positive that literally within the past month, isn't a fast food chain actually being sued for misleading advertisements? I believe it was Burger King is actually facing a false advertisement. Even news flashed even every fast food chain has misleading advertisements. OK, it never looks like it does. And that's a number of them. And depending on how you actually did, you would see that it never holds up to reality. That's the whole point of advertisement. Somebody advertises something. They're not all accused of fraud. OK, you have this ridiculously wide definition of fraud.  Is your I knew your definition. What counts? I will say your definition of under your definition. Yeah, under your definition, what constitutes fraud? Fraud is an activity that relies. It's not my definition. It's the legal definition. Fraud is an activity that relies on deception in order to achieve a game. OK, but we've already met all of that in the Romanian case. Yes, but it becomes a crime when there's a knowing rep a knowing misrepresentation of the truth like a relationship material fact like a relationship to act to his or her detriment like doing only fans. Yes. OK, well, first of all, how is that acting to their detriment if they freely consented to do that? Well, well, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It doesn't have to act to their detriment. It has to act to the benefit of the exploiter. You can exploit somebody and still have them make money like, no. No. Hold on. Do you think that do you think that prostitutes that work on our pimps? Do you think they don't make any money being prostitutes? No, but I don't think do you think pimps are sex traffickers. Yes. Well, I mean, but hold on, but we're ignoring that. hold on, ignoring that, do you think that prostitutes on streets, do you think that they don't make any money? They do make money. Sometimes they make more money than they could with conventional work. I don't think they're being sex trafficked. I do not, they say they're being sex trafficked. No, no, no, no, no, no, when I ask them they're being sex trafficked. Somebody, somebody is forcing somebody else to do something. That is the point of sex trafficking. No, that's not, no, no, no, force. Yes, it is. No, it's, that's fine, but this is Grace's individual definition.  You could also do it by means of deceit. Okay, but so what if a, what if a, what if a porn producer says to a girl, look, you're going to be famous and make a lot of money, right?  And then she doesn't do that well and she's depressed or whatever and kills herself. Okay.  Is he committing fraud? Like you can't just say women don't have brains.  That's the problem. It depends on sexist. These women freely took plane tickets over to him.  Sorry, Grace talking about it. Just get him work. Women are humans. They made the mistake. Grace, where you just came in here, we'll have to be fair. So I'm gonna put you on the mute and the mute and let Stephen respond. Yeah. So the question is the state of the mind of the person making the live a porn producer looks at a young girl and she's like, man, I think you make a lot of money doing porn. Let's go shoot scenes. Let's do it. Blah, blah, and she doesn't, she doesn't make that much money. It seems hard to prosecute him for a crime because for fraud to be there, he has to be intentionally misrepresenting that. Now let's say that a porn, let's say that a, let's say that a porn director sees a girl and he's like, this girl's not going to make any money.  And let's say he's talking to his friends.  Let's say a person is like, listen, if you do this, I bet you can sell like $50,000 deals. Like let's do this.  And they do some work. And then afterward, she's like, I'm not getting any work. What's going on.   Seems to me that that would be fraud. You're showing a state of mind where the guy is intentionally deceiving the woman in order to get her to, yeah, do something. No, I don't think so.  It's not fraud.  Do you understand that? Because, because, because the whole reason I don't think can you acknowledge that be charged with this? Can you acknowledge that? Grace Stevens asking you a question.   Yes, I'm making a point that somebody who can you acknowledge that relation is different than somebody who is willfully deceived in a way where they say like, if you willfully deceived, what does that mean? What does willfully deceived mean? That Andrew will, like, I mean, willingly, like Andrew knew that he was deceiving them. Andrew Tate knew that he, that's okay. Well, you know what? If you really want to do this argument, you can, that's fine. But another aspect of the Romanian criminal code is that testimony from a victim actually doesn't matter. So even if you admit that you lost, not only did I not only did I not lose, there is an explicit carve out in the Romanian criminal code that says that testimony from victims can't save you. Even if the victim says, oh, no, no, no. In the end, I think everything worked perfectly fine. If they can prove that you were being deceitful in the beginning part of your trafficking when you originally got them down, then that's all they really need to prove. Even if the victim ends up becoming a billionaire. I understand what you're saying, but there is no crime in saying to a girl, I'll marry you if you come over to Romania and then you don't marry them once they come to Romania. That's the end of that relationship. If after that you say, hey, do you want to do cam work for me and I'll be your manager and you'll get this much money. That has nothing to do with the previous thing. It has nothing to do with it. You keep saying he the transported girl. I agree with you. I agree with you that that wouldn't be a crime, but that's not what happened. He continued to misrepresent his relationship with these girls in order to get them to do cam work. He continued to lie to them. It doesn't matter. If they move to Romania, like you said, it absolutely, it's not only does it matter, it's probably the most important single most important factor the case. If they move down there and then afterwards they're like, you know what, I'm not really feeling this. I don't think I really like you that much. But hey, do you want to do web cam work or whatever? And they were like, yeah, sure. That's not sex trafficking at all. That's just them, the status of the relationship changing them, them choosing to do sex work. Look, fraud is just one point. It says sex trafficking is anyone who recruits, transfers, transports, transfers, harbors or receives a person by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion. We agree that's not involved. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Why did you? Why did you only read part of that or other forms of coercion? Deceit can be one of those other forms. I'm not reading. It says of fraud. That's the last one that I'm going to read. Oh, okay. Well, yes. Of that person's inability to defend him or herself, that's not involved. Or giving, offering or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over the other person. That's not involved for the purpose of exploitation. It's tricky whether this was even exploitation because then you'd have to say that. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, exploitation just means making money off of in this sense in the legal definition. That's all that means. So if he was making money off of her doing sex work, that meets the qualification of exploitation in this sense. It's not like are you exploiting them?  If a porn producer is lying or being deceitful when approaching the girl, he would be, especially if he was transferred to another country. If you're exploiting someone sexually, right? That is, you're saying that that qualifies you for trafficking. No, that's the third part. There are three parts. There's the act, there's the means, and then there's the exploitation. That's all three of those need to be met. Okay, so you're saying it has to hit all three of those? Yes. Okay. So the act is what? The girl performing sex work? No, the act is transferring or harboring or receiving a person, a victim. So come to my country, let me transport you, let me receive this person being delivered by another person. That's the act. Yeah, but it says recruits, transport, transfers, harbors or receives a person. You think that's intended to mean if somebody offers you a plane ticket and you freely consent to take that money and take a plane to Romania, you think that's what this law is. And I do not think this would hold up. Wait, hello. No, no, no. First of all, that's fine if you don't think that the Romanian court system disagrees with you. So I don't know why you keep saying I don't think your opinion is not only irrelevant here. Has he actually been charged with this? Has he been incriminated? An indictment means that there is a formal charge. That's what an indictment is. So, yes, there is a 360 page indictment detailing at least six charges for Andrew Tate. So not only has he been charged. I don't know. I don't know. Last question, they're looking at the legal thing. Has he actually been charged with this? He's been found guilty. Yes, I just know he hasn't been found guilty. We're at the dieting exchange. But for an indictment to be filled up for an indictment for an indictment in a debate mode. Okay, you can do this. For you keep saying that like, I don't think this is going to hold up in court. That's fine. But multiple judges, I believe it's a three judge panel where views these indictments before they go out and they've been stalled for six months. So more than three judges have had their eyes on it and they seem to disagree with you. So I don't know why you keep offering your personal opinion like it matters. Number one, number two, no, I'm not offering my I'm not offering a personal opinion. I'm just giving the opinion of the judges. Okay. That's why I'm quoting the indictment. Hasn't been found guilty. So there is no say he's been found guilty. I'm not saying he is guilty. I'm saying that if everything in the indictments are true, he's guilty. That's the point of an indictment is to prove what's in the indictments in court. Well, I thought we were just saying that if what could comparing what's done to the law. Yeah, what he's done, according to what has been found guilty. According to what he's done in the indictments, he is a sex trafficker. Now it's going to be up to the Romanian court to prove to a panel of judges that what's happened in the indictment is indeed true. All right. Well, I'm going to eject here, fellas. I do appreciate you stepping in here, Grace, to clarify some of your questions and also your reasons for being, you know, so passionate to get me back to Lalo here and have somebody to defend this point. I love you, Ryan. Well, thank you so much. We love you, too, on Modern Day Debate here, and we will. Thank you, Daddy Steven. Thank you very much. I'm right. You're wrong. Bye. Thanks for being here, Grace. All right. It's not on usual Modern Day Debate format that we have two people in our chat here, and I'm going to get our screens relocated here, but we're Grace, had found Lalo and, you know, had a lot of passion about the subject I saw her in the live chat. I thought that would be a lot of fun since Steven, that's not the first time you met Grace, is it?   Let's carry on. Falkwood for $20 and no question there. Ryan Rockwell, $5, very kind of Grace to come in and volunteer to say even more moronic things to make Lalo's performance seem competent in comparison. So sorry, Grace. Ryan, another Ryan, fellow Ryan, is not too impressed with you. That happens. Five, six, one lifestyle for $10. What's Destiny doing here? I thought Nick retired him like when Tim Pool retired Hunter Avalon about the Joe Biden quid pro quo involving Burisma and a certain Ukraine prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden. Faced. I agree. All right. We can continue on from there. Falkwood, $10. The American education system is failing or maybe TikTok is just running brains. I would love to get on this panel. At least Lalo has chatted looks. Zero preparedness is not a word, just an example. Wait, who was the one that commented that? I was Falkwood. Thank you, Falkwood.   Anyway, I appreciate that. True. Well, thanks, Falkwood. Falkwood coming in again. Is this Lord Falkwood? What is this? You trying to bring us right back to Shrek childhood here? $20. This woman is just wet by Andrew. This is delusional. Women in poor countries don't have the financial need to fly back. And it's also strange why he chose poor women. Specifically, there is clear and tech intention of exploitation. If you go for poor chicks only, yeah, that seems to be something that is kind of illustrative of like trying to get the pick of the litter in a way that like, okay, she's hot, but she can't escape from me. She has nothing better, no better prospects, but to be a cam girl, which is to say, maybe she could have actually gone back to, let's say England to her family, if you're the average tape prisoner sex slave. But maybe she said, you know what, I have nothing over there. I could just be working at McDonald's in England. So I'll just instead of cam whore for Andrew. And that's a conscious decision. A lot of them, I presume, made, which I guess makes sense because like if there were a bunch of rich girls and they didn't like what Andrew was doing, they would have left. So I assume if any of them did leave, they were probably better off financially. And there is a Drake lyric actually that applies called from 2016.  So yeah, it does seem like a power leverage move to only get hot chicks that are poor so they can't leave. Any thoughts over there, Stephen? Yeah, I mean, I agree. All right. All right, excellent. And thank you so much, Stephen, for entertaining the extra there. Where I let Grace in here to ask you a couple questions there. I super appreciate you entertaining that. So a super round of applause there for a destiny in the live chat. Thank you so much. Yeah. And a virtual applause. Thank you, Stephen, for entertaining that fun. Let's carry on. Max McDonald's. If found guilty, what sentence would you give Tate? Would it be a multi-year sentence or would probation or community service suffice? If guilty, the problem is I think it would depend on like the level of exploitation involved.  I don't know, probably a year or two or something, maybe even deferred. I don't know, it depends.  He's becoming like a multi-millionaire.  They're like all getting like kind of like scammed on their tax everything. I think at that point, it's probably a much more serious thing. He should probably be in jail for quite a bit longer because this guy's literally made tens of millions of dollars off of the exploitation of women. It's probably not good at that point. Wow. Any thoughts over there, Lolo? Yeah, you know what? If he did get several dozens, if not hundreds of girls to come over there to cam girl for him, I disavowed that. And I think it's cringe. And moreover, I think that he should probably, I don't think jail is the right solution. If you're rich, you should just pay back the money like threefold. Like, you know what? If you made $10 million off of these horse, then how about you pay back 30 million, Andrew? And then just call it, just call it a day. And moreover, he should be on some sort of like prohibition of any sort of pornography ever. Like you should not be able to cam girl. Like that first of all, that shouldn't be legal. But second of all, like specifically him, like, hey, how about we cut that out and you keep it pretty clean and narrow because he can grip some other way, right? So yeah, you should definitely, I'm not very much a proponent of jail. If assuming he didn't actually abuse these women, like hit them or anything, he just made them cam girl. Just say, you know what, pay back the money that you exploited them out of threefold. Like that says in the Bible and just call it a day. Hey, one. All right. Let's move on from there, everybody. I think we've got both sides of those thoughts there. Julia Hart for $2 says, will destiny escape Tate's being not guilty of verdict? Will destiny escape Tate's not being guilty of verdict? I mean, if he's not guilty, he's not. They don't find him guilty. I'm always sad that he should have his day in court. Oh, yeah. I mean, it's whatever that I accept over the courts. I'm too ADHD for that. Sorry. So yeah, will destiny accept Tate's being not guilty of verdict? Yeah, he's not guilty. He's not guilty. Yeah. I think we got that. But yeah, my reading it wrong, just I was like, oh, ADHD was wrong with you, Ryan. All right, Ryan Rockwell, very kind of grace to come in and volunteer to say, yeah, you already said that. Well, yeah, well, we do appreciate grace popping in right quick and also grace for getting back to me about Lalo and Lalo. Thanks for being here. It's been a real pleasure being able to get this debate out there. I think our fans are very happy that we were able to have a discussion tonight. So Falkwood, this woman is just wet by Andrew. This is delusional. Women in poor countries don't have the financial needs to fly back. And also, didn't we already read this one? Did we? I feel like we already read this one. Maybe. Yeah, it feels like it feels like either that's the same question. Kathy, yeah, just say it feels very similar to another one. Max McDonald, Kathy, two doors, sorry, five dollars. Grace, if you get in an Uber, this was for Grace, but I'll get over to you, Lalo. If you get an Uber and the driver takes you to Compound and puts you to work, does your willingness to get in the car and make it legal? No. Sorry, he's asking. Yeah. I agree with the premise that, you know what, it is bad to lie, okay? All right. Sorry about that, everybody. Ben Katz, Super Chat just came in and it popped the whole thing up like that and threw me right off. All right, so Falkwood, Lord Falkwood, asks again, Lalo, I would cry if you were my lawyer, you can't convince a judge for not very kind. Let alone form a sentence that is concise and makes sense. This word limit is making it hard for me to make good chats plus keep, plus my card keeps declining. I'm sorry, Falkwood, this is all just ad hominin. Just just thanks for your substantive addition to our conversation tonight. Ben Katz, his text claims he's drained a chick's money before getting her to Cam. By the way, Grace, I would say a kid willfully approached a van for candy. My goodness. Wow. I don't know what to say, fellas. Ben Katz, what were you hoping to start with that? Anglo Lover, $10. Destiny, how many spankings? Oh my God. The things you guys make me say. Why are you paying money for this? $10 for this? How many spankings would you recommend to Tate if he was found guilty? Would you say 10 spanking? 69 spankings, you know? What is going on with our live chat? Thanks, Anglo Lover. You're trying to break me or something. I've done so well, even though I'm so exhausted after all this jamming that I did today and now coming in last minute. Pie week, tell Lalo his mic shouldn't be pointed at him. He should be speaking into the front of it, assuming it's a blue yeti. Hey guys, how's it going? Now it sounds different because I have the pattern as the middle one. So who knows, frankly. So let's stop Mike watching, okay? Who cares? I sound fine. I heard you all night. Did you hear him, Stephen? Yeah, there's Mike said I've been correctly, but it's okay.  He's not that autistic. How's my microphone? I'm not running all my usual stuff. Is it okay? Is that an SM58 or? This one is, what is this? This is a Beta 87A. This is the one I usually use when I go out playing music. Oh, I have no idea then. Yeah, it's a vocalist's mic. So I usually get away with a lot of high pitch screaming through this, but I have to have all my, you know, proper preamp gear. So that's the end of our super chats, everybody. What we're going to do is we're going to move it into a one minute closing statement per each side. And as we were trying to go into our one minute closings and then Grace gracefully stepped in to add to our conversation. Thank you so much, Grace. Let's kick it over to Lalo to give us one. Okay. So it's okay. One minute on the intertate thing and then I can do the whole like, oh, this is me, right? Sure. Yeah. I was gonna say, well, yeah, yeah, let us know where we can find you, of course. Okay. So personally, I would say, and I'll send you my channel so you can link it, Ryan. So here it is. So I'm going to be kind of crouching over just to make it more entertaining. Look, personally, I think that intertate is by the letter of the law. You'll see, yeah, like in a white man society. And again, I'm like Mexican. I don't really care about the law as much, but, you know, it's like half of my relatives came here hopping over a fence. The point is, is that intertate is evidently kind of guilty by Destiny's estimation. He made it great. Basically, he really spilled it out how exactly he, as a technicality, kind of fulfilled all the check marks. I personally don't even care, though. Plus, I actually outlined a sentencing outline in my own morality where, you know what, he would actually have to pay a big debt towards the women in restitution about the camhoring and whatever else. And he didn't do that for the longest time. So I think I went on that thing. We're over. Again, I appreciate Destiny for talking to me. It's pretty surreal. So I appreciate it. The other thing I wanted to say is that with Andrew, is he guilty? Yeah. But is it that big of a deal? And also, let's look at the people that do hate him.  Okay. So that is my little statement. All right. You really need to stand up for that. Before we give... No, I was... Yeah, don't worry. That's all right. Before we give Stephen his closing statement, we have one last question from Bonservin for $2. Can Destiny... And we'll just keep this to Destiny. Can Destiny tell us what an FT is? Isn't that like a negligible fun time or something?  But it's like you don't cause a ton of damage. Don't tell people about that time we linked up. That's... We promise we keep that a secret. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding, everybody. That's fine. Let's close it out here and give Stephen his one minute closing thoughts on the overall discussion, jokes aside. Yeah.   And I think that when most people want to argue against him being a trafficker, I think that what people are really arguing is they don't agree with what sex trafficking is under the way that Romania defines it as such. All right. You heard it, everybody here. This has been a lot of fun. Hopefully you've had a good time. Hit the like button and just remember if you haven't hit the like button because you're not a person with fingers or a nose or somebody with a phone that has skin that is heat sensitive and you can't do that. We have a live event coming up on September 16th and we have a crowd fund and we have all kinds of perks that you can get involved with. So check that out in our link in the description along with both of our speakers. They will be linked in our description. If they're not linked now, they will be before the end of the posting here. So keep a lookout for that. Thank you, everybody, for coming out. And once again, we'll see you next time. Cheers, everybody. Bye. To bring you the satisfaction you're looking for if that's what you're looking to get is a signed picture from your favorite debater. I would want that partial up just for that. So other than that, we also have tickets for the live event. If you're in the area and you can make it, that's awesome. We do appreciate people showing up live. James will, as you've heard, pull out seats, pull out seats. Literally, he will get the pull out seats just to make sure that you can have a place to sit when you watch the live event that's coming up here. So I hope you can make it to Houston for that, but I can't unfortunately, but I might make it for some other events. So stay tuned for that. In the meantime, I have some other live music I can close you out on if you didn't enjoy the old guitar solo from the last one. Most of the stuff that I do is live music, just like modern day debate. It's risky. So enjoy that. Good night, everybody, and stay curious. Good night. Bone. It's a symbol of skin occasion, but it's