A brief conversation I had with DD which was full of smears, strawmanning, overtalking, and threats of abuse of moderation. I will write out a bit on how I think the flow of conversation went. I do think I could've done better, but I am confident with the outcome of how the conversation went. The show starts around 6 minutes in
Timeline of events:
5:40: DD says that the attitude of valuing being nice to the poor is simply due to how their 'neurological states have evolved'. But this account is overly reductive in my opinion, so I speak up.
7:15: DD has shifted the topic from biology and genetics to "how do you know that laws exist?"
8:25: I try to clarify whether DD is doing an internal critique of my worldview with respect to 'the existence of genetics'. He refuses to answer, and ironically, says that asking a clarifying question is being 'semi-evasive'
9:15: DD tries to smear me, but agrees that I was giving him answers to his questions
9:40: 'In virtue of what do you presuppose it?' He is either asking me to justify my presuppositions, or he is asking a question which has already been answered(due to necessity).
10:00: More smears, disagreeing that it's a loaded question, disagreeing on the definition of 'loaded question', but he actually agrees
12:00: More smears
13:00: DD melts down
13:37: DD mutes me to keep me from finishing my statement because I didn't stop to address his interruption that I WAS answering his question.
14:00:"Speak basic english" is his justification why I'm being 'evasive', but I didn't use any difficult language AT ALL, he even admits to being able to understand exactly what I'm saying.
16:17: DD asks me how presuppositions are "arrived at". There is no "arriving to" presuppositions. They are presupposed. This is him again asking me to justify, validate, or otherwise give an account for my presuppositions. Immediately after I'm strawmanned when he says "In other words, you imagine it". But again, this begins with assuming that there comes something before my presuppositions, namely, my imagination.
Immediately after: "Necessary means 'it cannot be otherwise', not that 'there's no alternative'". But what would it mean to agree that 'there's no alternative' but disagree that 'it cannot be otherwise'? That's another incoherent notion. It seems like he just isn't listening to me, or that he doesn't understand that.
17:15: "You're saying 'I don't KNOW another alternative'". That's correct, and since I know myself, I know I don't have access to an alternative. "But that doesn't make your starting point the case[true]" No it doesn't make it true, but it makes it necessary. I assume that it is correct, and as I said before, I don't believe there can be justification provided for my presuppositions, otherwise they wouldn't be presuppositions.
17:35: DD cuts me off from giving my definition for necessary, so i'll put it here from Merriam Webster: Necessary: logically unavoidable,(2) that which cannot be denied without contradiction
17:47: I've disproved the christian god!