YouTube Transcript:
DEBATE: Which Is Best for Society, Christianity Or Islam? | Andrew Wilson Vs Daniel Haqiqatjou

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

This content is a transcript of a debate between Daniel Hikushu (representing Islam) and Andrew Wilson (representing Christianity) on which religion is better for society. The core of their arguments revolves around traditional values, societal outcomes, and the impact of cousin marriage on intelligence and societal development.

Mind Map

Click to expand

Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate

The reason Islam makes worse societies

is because they have a doctrine for

cousin marriage. Now notice Daniel

didn't say no no no no. You can't [ __ ]

your first cousin and marry her. No, no,

no, no. He didn't say that because they

he he probably believes that you should.

He probably believes it's fine. He

probably believes something about like

it protects inheritance or something

like this, right? Christians are also at

the mercy of the same kind of IQ

fetishists who want to transform the

human race. Wake up, Andrew. Wake up.

Stop this stupid argument. 30 more

minutes of Andrew saying that Muslims

are dumb. Okay, that's great.

>> Um, I'll try I'll try I'll try to be

more substant I'll try to be more

substantive than than that. So, just

Thank you so much for your kindness.

Thank you guys for being here. If you

guys aren't excited for this one, I

don't know what's going to do it. I am

thrilled for this debate. It's going to

blow your minds. It's going to melt

faces off. So, thank you for being here.

Buckle up. We are getting started.

So, as you know, the debate is

Christianity or Islam. Which is best for

society? Before we jump into that

though, what I want to do is introduce

our sponsor who helps make this possible

as these events are very difficult to

pull off. But we are proud to have as

our sponsor Maine first project as they

similar to modern day debate care about

free speech and fair debates. We're

thrilled to have Zach. It's been a great

time spending time with you today. I can

tell you if you if you guys folks reach

out to Zach very cool guy, very fun to

talk to. Zach, I want to say thank you

for being our sponsor. Main First

Project works on fighting for

conservativism in New England and

beyond. Thank you very much, Zach, for

being with us tonight. I want you to

>> Here we go, Crucible Crew. WHO'S READY

There we go. I'm loving this energy.

loving this energy. Now you have to

listen to me for a second here.

>> So Main First Project, we're taking the

fight to these leftists

>> in a state where they're originating.

They're the incubator for all these

leftist policies throughout this country.

country.

>> If you want to fight back and stem the

tide, you need to support Mainfirst Project.

Project.

>> Go to mainfirstpro.org

and please support us. Let's get on with

Thank you very much, Zach, for that.

We're going to jump into this. Indeed,

I'm going to introduce our speakers.

First, Daniel Hikushu.

He is an he is an American an American

Muslim commentator and Harvard grad who

debates religion and politics. He is

best known for his YouTube channel, The

Muslim Skeptic, where he critiques

modernity from a traditionalist Islamic

perspective. Please welcome Daniel Hookiku.

Also defending Christianity tonight,

Andrew Wilson runs the popular YouTube

channel The Crucible, which focuses on

politics, news, debates, and and

interviews, and also runs verbal combat,

a comprehensive debate course found at debateuniversity.com.

debateuniversity.com.

>> We're going to step

>> We're going to jump

We're going to jump right back. We're

going to jump right into it with Andrew

or with Daniel's opening statement.

Daniel, the floor is all yours for your

15minute opener. Thanks for being with

us. Can you hear me? >> Yes.

Just a quick quick note. I want this to

be a civil debate because right now

there's a massive Zionist campaign to

generate as much hostility between

Muslims and Christians as possible. If I

can say something nice about Andrew, I

respect him for not being a shill for

Israel. I think we can be civil, but

also very critical of each other's

religions without it turning vicious.

The only ones who benefit from a Muslim

Christian civil war right now is Israel,

which is stoking hate so that they can

continue to their genocide of both

Muslim and Christian Palestinians while

they bleed America dry. Let's keep that

larger context in mind. So the first

slide, which is best for society, Islam

or Christianity? Next slide. The answer

depends on which standard we use to

judge traditional or secular liberal

values. Traditional values include

belief in God, prayer, marriage and

gender roles, opposition to degeneracy,

and commitment to nation and shared

culture. Secular liberal values include

individual freedom, gender equality,

sexual autonomy, scientific progress,

and economic advancement. If we judge by

traditional values, Islam beats

Christianity hands down. If we judge by

secular liberal values, Christianity

comes out on top. The reason for this is

that Christianity since the

Enlightenment has been reformed and

adopted liberal values while eroding

traditional ones. This is because

Christianity is more open to evolving in

a way that Islam isn't. My opponent,

Andrew Wilson, claims to be a

traditional Christian, but we'll see if

he'll debate like a traditional

If he debates as a traditional

Christian, he should defend Christianity.

Christianity.

He should defend Christianity as

understood before modern liberal

reforms. For example, even though he's

Orthodox, I doubt he'll defend Byzantine

Orthodox norms such as theocratic

monarchy, monarch, the monarch's

authority to define church doctrine,

slavery, book bans, and speech

restrictions, death penalties for

blasphemy, apostasy, and pagan worship,

restrictions and bans on loaning money

with interest, minimum marriage age of

12, bans on divorce, mandatory veiling

of women with unveiled women labeled as

prostitutes, lashes for fornicators,

punishing married adulterers by cutting

ripping off noses or sewing them into

sacks and burning them alive. Execution

for homosexual acts. Limits on Jews

through bans on Jewish proitizing and

building new synagogues. If we look at a

timeline of Christianity for 1700 years,

Christianity upheld its preodern norms

of slavery, female subordination,

monarchy, punishments for blasphemy,

executions for adultery. After the

Enlightenment, Christians began

reforming their religion to match

secular values. And that liberalizing

process continues today with the

acceptance of homosexuality, LGBT

rights, and modern feminism. Even though

he's a conservative, Andrew already

accepts huge chunks of this liberal

reform. He's fine with abolishing

slavery, rejecting monarchy, ending

blasphemy, and adultery punishments. His

conservatism simply draws an arbitrary

line at a later stage, roughly 1950s

America. But liptard progressives follow

that same reform trajectory just a few

stages or steps further. Andrew isn't

defending traditional Christianity. He's

defending his preferred arbitrary

stopping point on a progressive path he

already agrees with. In other words, the

difference between him and the lipards

is quantitative, not qualitative. Just a

dispute over where to halt the same

ongoing cucking to secular liberalism.

So Andrew's conservatism is not

principled. It's arbitrary. Given this,

I predict Andrew will debate like a

blue-haired lipar today and use a

pro-liberal strategy against Islam

because again, Christianity can't beat

Islam on traditional values for the

simple reason that Islam isn't amanable

to reform the way Christianity is. So,

he'll likely attack Islam exactly like a

blue-haired alphabet person would by

calling Islam backwards on marriage,

gender roles, and scientific and

economic progress. But if Andrew attacks

Islam using secular liberal values, he

faces a dilemma because tomorrow he's

debating an atheist on whether

Christianity or secular liberalism is

better for society. So any pro-l Andrew

uses to judge Islam today, tomorrow that

same liberal standard can be used by his

atheist opponent to judge Christianity.

For example, if he says Christianity is

better than Islam because it gives women

more rights and promotes more scientific

progress and health, the atheist can

argue that secular liberalism does even

more of those things. Andrew knows this.

So against the atheist tomorrow he'll

likely revert back to a traditional

Christian stance, highlighting issues

like LGBT, incest, and low birth rates.

I'm not singling out Andrew. All

Christian debaters code switch. They

know Christianity isn't as based as

Islam on traditional values, nor as

progressive as secularism on liberal

values. Christianity is stuck in the

middle between traditionalism and

secularism. So to win against either

Islam or secularism, Christians have no

choice but to code switch depending on

who they're debating.

Putting aside this conceptual problem

with Christian apologetics, how do we

know that Islam is better for society

than Christianity? Again, it depends on

what values we adopt. Muslim and

Christians generally subscribe to

traditional values. In fact, all humans

due to biology inherently value things

like belief in a creator, marriage,

family, and community. So, let's see

whether Islam or Christianity is better

at promoting these things in society

using the abundance of empirical data

available. Let's start with a bird's eye

view using the World Value Survey, a

global project measuring beliefs,

values, and cultural changes in over a

100 countries. Their world cultural map

from 2023 groups countries by religion.

Protestant European countries are

yellow, Orthodox is red, European

Catholics are green, Latin America in

light blue, and Islamic countries in

gray. On the x-axis, countries that

value individual self-expression and

autonomy are further right on the graph.

On the y-axis, countries that are more

secular are higher up. The ones that

have more traditional values are lower.

So you can see in the bottom left there

are the Islamic countries that are more

traditional whereas the Christian

countries are more secular and value

individual autonomy. How about belief in

God? Muslim countries show higher

religiosity and belief in God than

Christians than Christian ones. For

example, Pew Research asked people in

different countries if they believe in

God. For nearly all the Muslim

countries, the number was 100% to such

an extent that Pew concluded that nearly

all Muslims surveyed believe in God.

Another Pew data set shows Muslim

countries Bangladesh, Indonesia,

Malaysia at the top of global belief

rankings, while Christian countries are

split with Kenya, Ghana, and the

Philippines high, but the US, Spain, and

France low. What about religiosity? On

this map, all Muslim countries are dark

purple showing the largest share of

religious followers. Christian countries

except Latin America are much lower,

like the US, Europe, and Russia. Pew

studied how important religion is to

people's lives. And for Muslim

countries, they're dark yellow,

indicating 80 to 100% of people saying

religion is very important to them.

While most Christian countries are much

lower in gray and blue, the 2024

integrated values survey confirms this.

In majority Muslim countries like

Indonesia and Egypt, over 97% say

religion is very important, whereas in

Christian countries like Mexico, the US,

Russia, and Germany, religion matters

far less. Another key metric is

religious switching. Pew shows

Christianity in red has the largest net

loss of followers, while Islam in green

has the highest net gain from

conversions. I think you're uh pretty

behind on the slides.

Yeah, there it is. All right. Now, let's

look at family and gender roles. Muslim

societies have higher rates of marriage

than Christian societies. Notice how the

percentage of marriage married

individuals of both Muslim women and men

indicated by the red and blue arrows is

higher than Christians since Christians

are more likely to delay or forego

marriage. We can also look at divorce

laws. Christian countries mostly allow

no fault divorce while Muslim countries

other often have fault-based divorce or

other limitations on women. When it

comes to fertility, Pew research shows

that Muslims are at 2.9 globally whereas

Christians are at 2.6. And even when you

break it down by region, Muslims in

Europe, the Asia Pacific, and subsaharan

Africa have more children than their

Christian counterparts. Muslims also

have the largest families by household

size. At 6.4 members per household

compared to 4.5 for Christians due to

both higher birth rate and higher net

conversions, Islam is the fastest

growing religion projected to meet and

exceed the Christian population in 25 to

50 years. How about sexual behaviors?

Research in American Sociological Review

show Muslims due to religious conviction

are less likely to have premarital or

extrammarital sex than Christians. Some

Christians might claim this is only due

to self-reporting bias because Muslims

are less likely to admit to engaging in

these behaviors. But we can account for

this by benchmarking against other

variables like medical abortions and

death rate from HIV AIDS which directly

correlate with extrammarital sex. Data

shows abortion rates are highest in

Christian regions and death from AIDS

are highest in Christian countries in

Africa, Russia, and Latin America, but

lowest in North Africa, the Middle East,

and other Muslim regions. Regarding

acceptance of homosexuality, Pew shows

Christian countries are far more

accepting even after controlling for

economic factors. Regarding attitudes

towards gender equality, word world

value survey asked whether men make

better leaders than women, do men have

more of a right to a job than women,

etc. They took the answers to these

questions to create a grading system

which shows that Muslims are far below

Christians. Now, if we were a bunch of

liberal simps, we would count this in

favor of the Christians. But since we're

all redpilled, we recognize that the

Muslim countries are based and the

Christians are sing. Same way when it

comes to other gender equality metrics.

Christian countries, whether in the West

or Latin America, Russia or Russia,

value gender equality more than Muslims.

That's a bad thing for many reasons.

Looking at other societal health

metrics, re research shows Christian

countries have much higher rates of

alcohol and drug abuse. Controlling for

economic differences, Muslim countries

have lower homicide rates than Christian

countries. Steven Fish's book, Are

Muslims Distinctive? Shows per capita

murder rates are significantly lower in

Muslim countries. Female homicide rates

are also lower. Rates of rape and sexual

violence are likewise lower in Muslim

countries and highest in Christian

countries. Multiple studies show that

the suicide rate for Muslims, it's much

lower than Christians. These stats show

Islam Islam outperforms Christianity and

upholding religion, marriage, family,

and community, making Islam better for

society. We can examine why Islam

consistently excels in these areas.

First, Muslims are much more attached to

religion than Christians because Islam

is more compelling and intuitive than

Christianity. For example, monotheism is

easier to grasp than the Trinity. Islam

is also more historically preserved.

Carbon dating confirms that the Quran

Muslims read today traces to the prophet

Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam. By

contrast, the Bible has evolved through

layers of editing and reflects the

theology of Paul for far far more than

the teachings of Jesus. Islam also has

better has also better preserves

traditional life and family through a

clear comprehensive

system of Sharia. Christianity, by

contrast, offers only broad, highly

malleable principles that different

Christian groups interpret in con

conflicting and often contradictory

ways. A Christian rebuttal could be that

even if Islam excels at traditional

values, it falls short on secular ones

like individual freedom, self-exression,

and scientific or economic progress.

Christianity, they could argue, wins

overall because it blends the best of

both worlds, preserving core morals

while still enabling the modern

achievements of the Christian West. more

freedom, science, technology, and higher

GDP. This argument has fundamental

problems, however. First, is western

prosperity due to is western prosperity

due to Christianity or secularism? For

example, how much of Western greatness

comes from pre-Christian traditions like

Greece and Rome? Furthermore, if

Christianity drives prosperity, why

haven't the oldest Christian nations

like Ethiopia and Armenia match the

West's success? Likewise, recently

Christianized societies like El Salvador

and the Philippines have no comparable

prosperity. Finally, why do more

devoutly Christian societies have higher

poverty and violent crime than more

secularized Christian ones? Therefore,

it's far from clear that Christianity is

the secret sauce to scientific and

economic progress. But there's a deeper

problem. Mixing traditional and secular

values never works. It's like mixing

paint and paint thinner. Whenever

societies try to combine traditional and

secular values, traditional values get

abandoned. This is actually what has

happened in the west which was deeply

Christian 200 years ago but now has

become the center of atheism and secular

decay. This didn't happen overnight.

This happened because Christians 150

years ago tried to mix traditional

Christianity with the secular idea of

progress. This happens because

traditional values are based on duties.

Preserving religion requires imposing

duties on people to worship. Preserving

family requires imposing duties limiting

sexual freedom and providing care for

children and the elderly. Preserving a

nation requires duties to uphold shared

norms, honor national symbols, or limit

immigration. So preserving traditional

values necessitates all these duties.

The problem is duties are hard work

requiring personal sacrifice. Because of

this, duties necessarily restrict

individual liberties while also

generating inequality and

discrimination. This is a problem for

secular liberalism, which strives to

free people burdened by duties. So the

secular liberal system gradually

eliminates duties to maximize individual

freedom. This is done through two means,

moral progress and scientific progress.

Moral progress means, for example,

liberating women by telling them they

don't have a moral duty to serve their

husbands. Scientific progress means

inventing AI companies for the elderly

so that little Bobby doesn't have to

spend time talking to grandpa. Usually,

we think of progress as a good thing,

but clearly progress can seriously

damage society because if you get rid of

duties, this will weaken institutions of

religion, family, and nation. The decay

has been ongoing in the West since the

18th century when liberal ideology

kickstarted moral and scientific

progress. Consequently, yes, the West

has the highest GDP, but religion,

family, and nation are weak, and people

live as atomized individuals pursuing

endless endless pleasure through

techdriven consumption. If you watch

tech elites shaping Western society,

you'll notice their transhumanist

vision, neuralink, AI, etc. This is the

logical endpoint of unchecked moral and

scientific progress. The question is,

which religion can stop this?

Christianity has already adopted liberal

sec sec secularism

sorry um

>> and reformed itself by those standards.

Even the most conservative Christians

like Andrew won't take the radical steps

needed to turn back the clock 200 years

and stop the inevitable transhumanist

future. The most radical thing that

Andrew calls for is banning Only Fans.

Maybe putting Christians in charge of

America's government so that they can

ban abortion, trans kids, and introduce

public prayer. This won't stop, let

alone this won't slow down, let alone

stop the freight train uh speeding

humanity toward destruction. Islam, by

contrast, offers the Sharia

comprehensive moral and legal sure a

comprehensive moral and legal framework

that governs every dimension of life,

individual conduct, family structure,

community obligations, and social order.

It does not merely tweak the secular

liberal system. It represents a

fundamentally different paradigm. And

because Islam preserves a duty-based

morality rather than dissolving it, it

retains the internal resources to resist

the liberal atomization and technical

technological dehumanization. Thank you

I've got the timer set for you, Andrew,

on your first word.

>> Good job, man.

The fun thing about debate is you get to

actually get in the mind of your opponent.

What? What happened? Oh,

Oh,

the fun thing about debate is you get to

actually get in the mind of your

opponent. You get to study and dissect

the things that they say and believe.

After watching Daniel for hours, a few

things became obvious. The first, he's a

far better Muslim apologist than I am a

Christian apologist. That's for sure.

but he's far weaker on politics than

myself and the nature of the world. The

second is that he's an above average

debater, but he ain't quite god tier.

See, if I were Daniel and fighting from

his worldview, I'd point out

Christianity is fractured and weak. That

Christianity is totally incapable of

fighting back against the degeneracy of

our time.

Uh its impetence has led to social

categories of degeneracy at levels

nobody could have predicted, especially

with the advent of the internet. I would

point out Muslim societies don't work

that way. That Muslims have feminism and

degens under control that everything in

modern-day Christians in the West are

fighting for against degeneracy Islam

has already achieved in their lands.

That's what I would do if I were Daniel.

When talking about which is better for

society, Islam or Christianity, uh, this

becomes a powerful argument. But I'd go

a step further if I were Daniel. I'd

also say my opponent will argue like an

atheist progressive that Andrew Wilson,

the guy who promotes anti-feminist and

egalitarian doctrine, is going to sit up

here and act like an egalitarian

progressive and cry about Islam being

mean to the women and cry about Islam

not being very nice to the gays. Well,

you were [ __ ] wrong. Sadly for

Daniel, while this tactic would normally

be effective against a sewing circle

Christian, I'm not part of that cast,

sir. Now, let me get into my argument

for why Christianity makes better

societies than Islam. And it's pretty

simple. Islamic societies breed an

inbred population.

>> Muslim inbreeding has been occurring at

a high rate for about 1,400 years since

the early Islamic period, encompassing

most of the land still occupied by Islam

today. It spread from the 8th to the

15th century, moved into Persia, North

Africa, South Asia, where it remains and

has created some of the dumbest [ __ ]

human beings on planet Earth.

The most common type of inbreeding is

first cousin marriage. The rates of

first cousin marriage uh in comparison

to Christian nations is staggeringly

high even in comparison to regions

occupied by Arab Christians. When a

nation has both Christians and Muslims,

Muslims are often double or higher than

Christians. Example, India, Lebanon.

Next slide, please.

Muslim inbreeding. Oh, sorry. Sorry

about that. Uh, Pakistan at 65%. 65%

65%

meaning more likely than not, you're

having sex with your cousin. And if

Okay. For the low IQ members of MDD,

that means these people are more likely

than not having sex with their aunts or

uncles children.

Saudi Arabia 50 to 58% with an average

76 IQ. Who would have thought it? UAE

54% 82 IQ. Uh the crown jewel of the

Arab world. You are more likely than not

to be banging your first cousin. Iran 40%

40%

80 IQ. Yemen 45% 62.9 IQ. Qatar 30% 80.8 IQ.

Now uh we we're going to continue right.

Oman 36% 78. Syria 39% 74 IQ. Turkey 25%

86 IQ. Jordan 32% 80 IQ. Egypt 32% 76

IQ. It goes on and on and on and it just

never gets better. Next slide, please.

Thank you. Compared to Christian

countries, let's take a look. Uh,

usually less than 1%.

Now, I wonder why Christians build

better societies, ladies and gentlemen.

Now, let's keep going. Uh, we want to

pull up the slide here. Moving right

along. uh as countries become more

Christian inbreeding declines right we

can see this uh from church intervention

in Spain 30 uh 20 to 30% post recon

uhista Catholic church banned cousin

marriages for commoners paple dispensations

dispensations

sold for royals Italy similar high rates

in the medieval period the church

enforced bans over the century France

high medieval uh canon law prohibited

marriage within 4° degrees of relation.

Modern Western Europe, it's not just the

cultural norm, but let me tell you

exactly how much of a cultural norm it

is. Even in European nations where

marrying your first cousin is legal,

they don't do it because of the ecclesiology.

ecclesiology.

Isn't that wild?

Africa shows the more Christians and

less Muslim the societies become, the

better they do. Let's just take a look

at Nigeria. Okay, we can go down the

list here. 50% Nigeria uh 20 to 30%

first cousin marriage. Isn't that crazy?

Now let's move right on down. You can

see South Africa Muslim 1.5%

uh very low on to negligible negligible

in the national prevalence of cousin [ __ ]

[ __ ]

you can look at the list. It's pretty comprehensive.

comprehensive.

We can continue to go. Right. The uh

bottom 20 least productive subsaharan

African countries. Wouldn't you know it?

They're all Muslim. 99%

99%

Muslim in Somalia.

Very high. 60% first cousins. Anybody

ever hear a joke about Somalian IQ?

Uh let's look over at Niger. 99% Muslim.

60% cousin marriage. First cousin

marriage. Let's take a look at Muslims.

When we're taking a look at uh Mal Mal,

uh it's a 90% population, high cousin

marriage. In other words, everywhere

Islam goes, the IQ goes like this

because they all are [ __ ] their

cousins. Not joking.

Go over to the next slide, please. I

want to show you the This is a famous

case. These are called the rat people of

Pakistan. It's a condition known as

microfalix. I think I'm pronouncing that

right. I have no idea. And it's caused

by excessive inbreeding. When's the last

time you went to a European country and

saw that? You don't see it.

Now, hang on. Next slide, please.

As we continue, let's just take a look

here at the casual link between cousin

humping and low IQ. Um, basically

there's increased homozygosity.

I think that that's how it's pronounced

for delletterious recessive genes and it

is the strongest causal link for why the

IQs are so low. Genetic risk inbreeding

raises the chances of inheriting two

copies of harmful recessive genes. Brain

development impact. Harmful genes can

impair neurode development, reducing

cognitive potential. IQ reduction

evidence. First cousin offspring lose

three to four points on average and

closer inbreeding can cause larger

deficits. They've been at it for 1,400 years.

years.

Higher prevalence equals greater risk.

Populations with widespread cousin

marriage show more individuals with

lower cognitive performance.

Generational compounding over successful

generations. Harmful genes accumulate.

One of the big Muslim copes you'll hear

you'll hear from Daniel tonight. Well,

it's only 1.5% for genetic f you know

problems uh for normal people who aren't

having sex with their first cousin.

Well, that's true. He says it's only it

only doubles to 3%. That's very low. No,

it compounds. See, if you hump your

first cousin and then those kids hump

their first cousin and their kids are,

etc., etc., etc. down the line. Guess

what happens to your IQ? Guess what?

You'll never guess. Anybody got to

guess? It goes down. The negative

consequences of a low IQ.

80 IQ versus 100 IQ uh person. Income 50

to 70% lower. Welfare dependency four to

six times higher. Literacy less than 10%

at less than 85 IQ. Obesity up uh almost

two times. Chronic disease up almost 2.5

times. Life expectancy less than 70 IQ

or 75 IQ down 5 to 10 years. Why?

Because well you might just look down

the barrel of that shotgun when you're

cleaning it. Moving over arrests and

incarcerations 3 to eight times higher.

Violent offenses four to six times

higher. Teen pregnancy three times

higher, child neglect and abuse three to

seven times higher. Intergenerational

poverty four four to six times. Almost

every study available shows that IQ

entering the low 80s Muslim countries

affects nearly every aspect of life in a

negative way. Economic pro uh prospects,

criminality, mental physical health,

happiness metrics and both at the

individual and societal level. In fact,

study shows that that when a country has

a sub 90 IQ average, they find it

difficult to have basic innovation,

infrastructure, professional class, and

other basic needs of a functional

society. Is that sounding familiar yet?

Now, here's the thing that's

interesting. Modern societies don't

require everyone to be a genius. Just

look at me. But they do rely on a

distribution of abilities. And you can

see their roles below. 70 to 85. Basic

job, practical skills, routine labor.

That's Islam. That's almost every

Islamic nation, ladies and gentlemen. 70

to 85, sometimes up to two standard

deviations lower.

85 to 100 would be skilled labor,

administrative support. 100 to 115,

professional, middle management. 115 to

130 engineers, scientists, doctors,

specialized roles, the things they

desperately need that they get from us.

130 plus innovation, leadership, high

level problem solving. Next slide,

please. inbreeding itself over

generations causes massively

um compounds that lead to negative consequences.

consequences.

And you can see the risk curve there.

You see how it I mean the the genetic

defects increase every single generation.

generation.

Moving over,

I just want to point this out on the

last slide.

Uh, Islam took an ethnic people that

were at the heart of being the top of civilization

civilization

and through generations of Islam and

inbreeding has turned them into the

lowest IQ some of the stupidest people

on planet Earth. Literally. You think

I'm being mean? I'm not. They're

literally some of the stupidest people

on planet Earth. Everywhere Islam grows,

inbreeding increases and societies

become worse. Where Christianity goes,

inbreeding decreases. So, societies do

better in almost every material way.

Let's just point out here as I wrap this up.

One second. So, it's clear here that my

argument summarized, though this isn't

its entirety, is that Islam creates huge

societies with large swaths of people

with IQ so collectively low they would

be considered developmentally

challenged, borderline [ __ ] here in

the West.

Not kidding.

Due to this side effect, force doctrine

becomes the order of the day.

Because the technological difference in

capabilities of each people group is so

vastly different, think Apollo mission

compared to Starship Enterprise. Islam

must literally bank on the benevolence

of Christians to not wipe them off the

face of planet Earth. They are basically

the feminists of the east. Totally

reliant on the goodwill and benevolence

of global Christianity not to just not

exterminate them, okay?

And take their resources, always

appealing to the mightier force for

their existence and the benevolence of

that very people group who Daniel today

is arguing doesn't make better

societies, which is a laughable

proposition. Even absent the degeneracy

of a people group, uh, a people group

must be able to competently defend

itself or bank on the benevolence of the

people group which can. And almost

everybody is going to prefer the society

that can. Imagine the irony here of

arguing against the very Christians you

find inadequate morally yet bank on

their moral benevolence to not wipe your

low IQ [ __ ] asses off the face of

planet Earth.

Thank you very much for that opening as

well. I wanted to quick take a moment to

say thank you to our friends at

Mainfirst Project for sponsoring

Debatecon 6 as they also believe in the

values of free speech and fair debate.

Mainfirst project is fighting for

conservativism in New England and

beyond. So check out their link in the

description box below. We are going to

jump into the five minute rebuttals.

Just a quick reminder folks, please be

sure your phones are on silent and also

please do refrain from recording or

streaming any footage other than if it's

a Tik Tok length that's fine. But we're

going to kick it into fiveminute

rebuttals. First with Daniel, the floor

is all yours. So this falls exactly into

what I predicted. You argued like a lipard.

lipard.

You you this falls into exactly why I

predicted you argued like a libtard. How

you're saying that success is on the

basis of IQ. Well, how are you going to

argue tomorrow when you debate with an

atheist that Christian IQ is higher than

secular atheist IQ? In fact, the atheist

IQ is much higher than Christian IQ. So

your entire standard for judging Islam

applies just as much much to

Christianity. And tomorrow when you're

debating the atheist, you'll have to

concede that your Christian religion is

associated or correlated with lower IQ.

Therefore, atheism or secularism is a is

better for society because it raises IQ.

Um this is so that's one point. Point

number two, where in the Bible does uh

it restrict cousin marriage? This as you

acknowledge is a later papal decree. It

was not a part of Jesus's teachings.

Jesus didn't come out and say, "Hey, if

you want to have a successful society in

the audience, I do want to ask you to

keep it down so we can hear the speaker."

speaker."

>> Jesus didn't say, "Oh, hey, if you want

success and you want to have a

prosperous society, you shouldn't marry

your cousin." Jesus never had this

apparently essential Christian teaching

that is the key s to success on earth.

That that's your whole argument against

Islam and is found nowhere in Jesus's

teachings. is found nowhere in the early

church fathers teachings. This is

something that came later and also when

it was decreed that cousin marriage is

considered to be um incest. It wasn't on

the basis of IQ. This is something that

you have adopted from who? From atheists

from secularists from those who are

doing secular science to discover these

uh medical problems or IQ levels. So

your your entire standard for judging

Islam is not a Christian standard. It's

not a biblical standard. It's not an

orthodox church standard. This is coming

only from atheists, from atheistic

science. Second of all, if if IQ is such

a end- all beall, Christian societies,

if you bring up a country list of

countries by IQ, many Christian

countries are on the bottom there. I

don't know if you consider them to be

true Christians because they're not

white, but they're also at 80 IQ, 70 IQ,

70 IQ. Look at subsaharan Africa. Look

at Latin America. Look at the

Philippines. It's also comparable with

Muslim countries. Do you consider them

to be Christians or not? Also go back to

the middle ages. IQ was much lower in

the middle ages in Christian societies.

Why that has changed is because of the

Flynn effect. IQ has increased globally

over the world across the world because

of the Flynn effect. So if you have a

problem again with lower IQ, look at

medieval or middle-age Christian societies.

societies.

And uh also here's another big problem.

IQ is also linked with race. So if you

want to prioritize high IQ, you should

discourage interbreeding between races.

Why should higher average IQ from Asians

or whites or Jews or whatever race that

has a higher average IQ? Christianity

encourages or allows interbreeding

between the races. That will result in a

lower IQ. So you should be against that

because that's going to over time lower

the average IQ of society. So that

should be something that you need to

oppose to be consistent. Inter

interracial marriage or interracial

breeding should be contrary to your

point or contrary to your position. Um also

also

yeah I mean I just shocked that your

entire argument about why Christianity

is better than Islam is a cousin

marriage argument. That's like shocking

because it just works so far against

you. So if IQ is the end all be all of

what makes a society good then

Christianity loses to atheism and

secularism like case closed. So like I

don't and many Christian societies are

low IQ as in the same way as certain

Muslim countries.

The thing about the difference between

me and you is I my values are based on

marriage, family, traditional values of

that nature, not atheistic values of IQ

and intelligence.

We're going to jump into Andrew's

rebuttal as well. The timer is set for

you. Five minutes, Andrew. Libtard

value. Don't [ __ ] your first cousin. Liptard.

Liptard.

Let me just point out that Daniel

Kikachu didn't actually rebut any of my

arguments. Not a single one. My argument

was simple and I'll repeat it here

again. The argument is that your society

has to rely on the benevolence of mind

to exist because of your general IQ. You

see, remember how I told you the 70 to

85 is basic jobs, practical skills,

routine labor. That's most Muslim

societies, sir. Doesn't matter if you

point out to exceptions to the rule.

Even in those societies in which

Christians have a lower IQ, guess what

you find? Their interbreeding rates are

going down. And when you compare them to

the same Arab population where they are

inbreeding, that that section of the

population, the IQ is always lower. So

what's my argument here? My argument is

that Christian societies are better

because they lower inbreeding, which

collectively takes your IQ so far down

the rabbit trail that you end up having

to beg the higher IQ individuals for

protection from them. You have to bank

on their benevolence. Imagine this guy

is banking on the benevolence of

Christians who have a high enough IQ to

basically eradicate all of the Middle

East. There's nothing they can do about

it. And they're banking on that

benevolence while telling you all that

you're immoral. You're immoral. This is

not an atheist argument far far and well

the argument here is based around what

it is that we're discussing and what are

we discussing which makes for better

societies right Christianity or Islam

how can you claim you have better

societies sir when half of your

societies are so inbred their IQs are

are like borderline [ __ ] how how

could this possibly be of benefit and

you know what they do when they go to

other countries they keep doing it. They

keep doing it. Now he says, "Ah, well,

if you if you value IQ more than all

other values, who said anything about

that?" The debate is not about that.

It's about which makes for better

societies. Now, who which society would

you rather live in? Would you rather

live in a society of donkey pull cart,

right? Donkey pull cart because we're

not smart enough to make car. We're not

smart enough to even have infrastructure

because we're at 70 IQ, 80 IQ,

borderline [ __ ] individuals. That's

a societ. Who's moving there? Who's

moving? Nobody. They're all moving here.

Why? Because they want the societies

that Christians have. By the way, let me

point a couple other things out. No,

Christians are not stupid. Yes, their

IQs are much higher. Much, much higher.

Even in non-white areas, they're much

higher, sir, because they don't inbreed.

And by it's very frowned upon. Go

figure. And interestingly enough, let me

just point this out that Christians have

a much smarter enemy. Much smarter enemy

that, you're right, they do have a high

IQ. You need high IQ people to combat

that with these values. Islam can make

no inroads. They don't have the

technology. They can't mount an

invasion. They can't even make a [ __ ]

power plant, right? How are they going

to do that? Daniel, what's your big

plan? His big plan is to bank on the

fact that there's su enough suicidal

empathy in the West to keep on importing

Muslims. That's about it. That's that

could be his only plan. These people

can't make armies. That requires massive

organization and mobilization. You think

that these people could ever attack the

West? That's a laughable prospect. He

started with Zionism. He has 10 million

Jews in his backyard. They can't do [ __ ]

about it. nothing.

1 billion versus 10 million. They can't

do anything. They launch their entire

missile payload. It does nothing because

of the IQ difference in these regions.

The IQ difference is so wide that if

they even tried to collectivize, it

would still be done and they know it.

And they can't collectivize anyway

because it requires a high enough IQ to

follow orders.

Okay. So, I don't that's my argument. My

argument basically is very simple. You

have to have a high enough IQ to have a

society to begin with. Christians make

it by lowering everywhere they go. You

[ __ ] your family members. My god.

Back to you, Daniel.

with that, we have 60 minutes of open

dialogue. though uh the open dialogue is

broken into 90 second segments just to

Daniel, we're ready for you for your

first 90 seconds. Sure. So, he said I

didn't address his argument that um

Muslims rely on Christian benevolence

because Christians have such high IQ

that they could just technologically

eliminate Muslims whenever they wanted.

Well, Christians are at the mercy of

atheists. Christians are at the mercy of

higher IQ atheists. Christians are at

the mercy of higher IQ Ashkanazi Jews.

Christians are at the mercy of China and

Asia. If you want to make a might makes

right argument, then we're in the same

boat, buddy. Muslims and Christians are

closer together in the same boat boat

compared to these other groups. So, this

is a self-defeating argument. Also, AI

AI is going to eliminate this so-called

advantage of IQ. AI is making it

irrelevant. I don't know why you're

laughing. AI is going to eliminate a

biological IQ difference between

different races, between different

religions, between different countries.

So that's a big problem for this kind of

IQ argument. You're talking about people

moving to the higher IQ West. Well, you

have Christians from Latin America

migrating on mass in the millions, 10

million over the past five years, coming

into the United States. They're coming

from Christian countries to the US. So

you think that they're coming because

it's a Christian country or is it

because of economic opportunity and many

people actually prefer to live in these

countries? You have people in the US

being passport pros and living in South

America because they're tired of this

[ __ ] hole United States unfortunately

what it's become despite the high IQ. 90 seconds.

seconds.

>> Why is that Andrew? Explain it.

>> We'll switch over to Andrew. I want to

remind you folks, please do uh

self-regulate so that we don't uh have

difficulty hearing the speaker. With

that, Andrew, the floor is yours.

>> Oh, sure. Yeah, you can make that

argument. There are some high IQ

Christian nations that move to even

higher IQ Christian nations, but none of

them move to Muslim nations. You're not

getting anybody to move over there,

Daniel, because you don't have

civilizations. You can't create

civilizations. He says AI is going to be

come along and solve it all. You got to

be smart enough to use the AI, Daniel.

You have to be smart enough to use the

AI. Remember, 70 to 85, that's your

societies. 70 to 85.

Basic jobs, practical skill, routine

labor. Doesn't sound like a bunch of

automation, robot building, AI, uh,

savvy individuals. To me, Daniel, he

points out the ideas of IQ. Remember, we

have to have a basic minimum for a

civilization about 98 to 100 to 115.

They don't have it. That's the

distinction in our civilizations. And

it's because of one value. Christians

outlaw screwing your own family members.

That's it. Simple. They outlaw it. It's

no good. And even in places where it's

legal, we must be adhering to the

ecclesiology here, Daniel, because where

it's legal, people still ain't banging

their cousins. That's your societies.

the ones that you build. And what you

have built is a collective of some of

the dumbest people on planet earth who

are at the mercy of Christians. And

don't don't try to cope and say, "No,

they're at the mercy of the atheists.

Give me a break." Everybody is at the

mercy right now of Western nations and

Western Christians which are in them.

And that includes Eastern Europe by the

way. So this is all cope. He hasn't

refuted any of the arguments. How can

you possibly say these low IQ societies

which Islam creates are better than the

ones Christians do on this one

principle? I want to hear it.

>> Go ahead, Daniel.

>> Yeah. So, you don't need to know how to

how I AI works to be able to operate it.

That's why it's a evening of the playing

field. I'm I don't know if anyone here

has used AI, but you don't actually need

to know how to program AI to be able to

use it. This is something that is very

obvious how AI is going to make IQ

differences really irrelevant in the

future. And this is what all of the

futurists are saying. Um, second of all,

you have Christians in more religious

Christian countries going to less

religious Christian countries. You have

again the subsaharan Africans. You have

the Latin Americans who are Christian

going into more secularized nations. So

this is again an argument for

secularism, not for Christianity. You

say that there are no Christians moving

to Muslim countries. What about all the

Christians in Africa, in the

Philippines, in Southeast Asia that go

to Dubai, that go to the UAE, that go to

Saudi? That is a counter example to your

really uh bizarre claim. Um you also

again look at what makes a society

great. I think that's the overarching

point that is so hard to believe that a

Christian would make this argument. I

value marriage. I value children. I

value having big families. I value

belief in God. I believe church

attendance or like religious uh

attendance to places of worship. These

are the things I find valuable. And I

showed you how within Muslim countries,

all of these things are higher despite

having a lower IQ, which I'll grant you.

Did you say over or 10 seconds?

>> No, you're you're good. That was 90

seconds. Go ahead, Andrew.

>> Yeah. So, this is really funny. Imagine

the irony of saying this.

>> Uh, well, Christians are moving to more

secular countries. Oh, so are Muslims.

Uh, what are you talking about? The mass

migration. No one's bitching about the

mass migration of the Christians right

now, are they? To Christian nations.

They're bitching about it the other way

around. Uh, really interesting, too. He

still hasn't refuted the argument. And

notice he does everything we get in the

air. He says, "We really value marriage

to our first cousins.

To our first cousins, we think it's

great. It's fantastic. We really value

it." It's like, "No, that's not a value

of mine, sir. And I don't think that

that's secular to say. It's not a value

of Christians to not want to have sex

with their family members. And by the

way, can you please explain even though

I've asked you many times how it could

be possible, sir, that you create better

societies than Christians where

everywhere Christians go based on their

ecclesiology, their ecclesiastic

authority, and the fact that they're

Christians, inbreeding goes down, making

sure that the IQ at least sits somewhere

around can function. Can you please for

for the love of all that is good? I

don't even care if you Google it at this

point. Just contend with the argument.

How are you making a better society with

inbin breeding and your Muslim values

which over 1400 years have produced the

dumbest societies on planet earth?

>> Wait, let me ask the audience a question

here. Sorry, let me ask the audience a

question. Are there are there electric

cars being developed in Latin America?

Are there are there AI new AI

technologies being developed in in

Brazil and Argentina? Are they being

developed in South in subsahar and

Africa? of these Christian countries cuz

they don't have cousin marriage, do they

Andrew? So why aren't they developing

all of these technologies, these amazing

technology, AI, nuclear weapons, fighter

jets? I didn't see Brazil or Honduras

producing any fighter jets, Andrew. Is

it because they don't have cousin

marriage? Why? They should be having

this brain blasting IQ in all these

Christian countries. Why is that not the

case? If Christianity is the secret

sauce, Andrew, then tell me why these

countries don't have those technologies.

Explain it. Because the reason I'll I'll

give you a spoiler alert because it's

not Christianity. It's not Christianity

and cousin marriage that causes this

discrepancy. AND IF YOU'RE SO HIGH IQ IN

THE UNITED STATES, how are you not able

to figure out birth rate, fertility

rate? Why are these countries going

extinct? Why is Europe going extinct?

Why is Christianity, these Christian

countries in Europe going, the

population is on a nose dive despite the

high IQ? They can't even figure out how

to reproduce at replacement levels. Gee,

I guess IQ leads to extinction because

it's correlated, right? The higher IQ

you have, the lower the fertility rate.

So, it seems like the more Christianity

you have, the more chances you have of

going extinct. Andrew, explain that for us.

us.

Well, if that were the case, you're in

big trouble because if it's the case

that your IQ stays the same and then

collectively secularist IQ goes up,

what's to stop them from wiping all of

you out and you can't do anything about

it? Your I your argument unfortunately

destroys you when you say, "Well, wait a

second. What about these South American

nations, right? Do are they?" Yes,

they're way more advanced than your

nations. Way more. Not even in the same

universe more advanced than your

nations. Yes. The truth of the matter is

is that the reason Islam creates worse

societies. We can bicker about theology,

right? Hey, I'm sure Daniel could

probably get me on some points there,

but you can't bicker on the facts. And

he hasn't contended with the argument

still. He's asked me a bunch of

questions. Did you actually hear an

argument, anybody? Because there isn't

an argument. The reason Islam makes

worse societies is because they have a

doctrine for cousin marriage. Now,

notice Daniel didn't say, "No, no, no,

no, no. you can't [ __ ] your first cousin

and marry her. No, no, no, no. He didn't

say that because they act he he probably

believes that you should. He probably

believes it's fine. He probably believes

something about like it protects

inheritance or something like this,

right? The thing is though is like can

we please get an argument for how a

society that doesn't at least have a 100

IQ so we can have middle management

isn't better than well donkey pull cart.

That's what I want to know. And please,

for the love of God, sir, when you say

it's not because of Christianity, the

entire historical record disagrees with

you. When pagans were at 20 to 30%.

Guess what? It was Christians who

brought that down.

>> And by the way, in all of the Muslim

shared nations with Christians and

Muslims, they're always lower IQ than

the Christians because they [ __ ] their cousins.

cousins.

>> Then time, we'll go over to Daniel. 90

seconds as well.

>> Again, throughout Christian history, you

had sub 100 IQ. throughout Christian

history. It's only because of the Flynn

effect in recent centuries that you have

this change. So all of the criticisms

that you're applying to Islam apply to

your past civilization. How were how did

you have a Christian civilization with

subund IQ? Andrew, was the Byzantine

Empire ashole?

They had sub 100 IQ. How did they have a

civilization without having positive 100

IQ? You can't explain that. You can have

a a a beautiful expansive civilization

and empire with sub 100 IQ because

there's other values that are

significant to human existence. Values

like marriage, family, God, worshiping

God. You don't need to be a positive 100

IQ genius to be able to love and be

devoted to God. I think that is actually

more of the Christian message than this

kind of IQ chauvinism that you're

presenting. This doesn't seem Christian

at all. This really doesn't seem

Christian. You keep talking about like

donkeys pulling carts. Uh, go to the

Philippines, bro. They're Christians. Go

to the Philippines. Go to some of these

African countries. Go to Batswana

Christian country. They have donkeys

pulling. So, they're apparently their

their Christianity and their lack of

cousin marriage is not helping them. So,

this is a really bizarre argument. And

all of you can laugh and chuckle it and

laugh it up, but it doesn't change how

stupid this argument is. If if if you

have okay if IQ is the audience end all

beall of civilization and the end all

beall of progress then why is the west

going in a nose dive all the things

Andrew that you brilliantly beautifully

criticized about the west the LGBTQ the

lack of marriage that's happening in

these non-cousin marriage countries so

clearly having the highest IQ so clearly

IQ is not the end all beall

>> switch it over let's take a look at the

first draw And did I ever say IQ is the

end all be all? No, of course not. Straw

man still hasn't told us how Muslims

build better civilizations when they

produce uh 70 to 85 IQ individuals who

are basically only suited for basic

jobs. Okay? He still hasn't told us

that. He can't he can't tell you he

can't tell you that these are better

civilizations. The reason that he can't

is because they're not. They're clearly

not. And the thing that's really funny

about this is like, let's just grant it.

Let's just grant that just for a second.

We'll just grant Daniel's argument.

We'll just pretend, well, you know, it's

okay to have a bunch of 80 IQ people who

can't seem to get past primitive

technology and are just day laborers.

But you know what? We don't do anything

degenerate. [ __ ] your cousin's

degenerate, Daniel.

That's degenerate. Yeah, baby. They

don't baby don't have hookers and only

fans girls, but [ __ ] your first

cousin is degenerate.

>> So So, by the way, and let me just point

this out and this is really really

important to point out. He has not made

an argument about how they produce a

better civilization. Only I have. My

argument is simple and still stands

unopposed. Where Christianity goes,

incest decreases based on canon law.

Where Islam goes, incest increases based

on their canon law. Therefore, where

Christians go, society gets better.

Where Islam goes, it gets worse. An

argument would sure be swell.

>> 90 seconds. We'll switch it to Daniel. I

I gave a argument that you failed to

respond to. I said that Islam when we

look at the statistics when we look at

all these countries on these metrics of

marriage, birth rate, household size,

reli belief in God, conviction in God, I

thought we were believers. Conviction in

God is higher in Muslim countries. Uh

holding on to your religious practice is

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:DEBATE: Which Is Best for Society, Christianity Or Islam? | Andrew Wilson Vs Daniel Haqiqatjou