Conservative Trump Voter Dismantles Smug Leftist Pundit’s Entire Worldview in a Matter of Minutes

On the question of morality, secular humanism always leads its staunchest advocates into the most absurd and circuitous arguments.

Sunday on YouTube, the Jubilee Media channel posted a video called “20 Trump Supporters Take on 1 Progressive,” the latest iteration of the channel’s popular debating series in which a lone ideological stalwart, in this case progressive podcaster Sam Seder, takes on a host of rotating challengers.

More than 25 minutes into the 90-minute video, a conservative Christian social media figure named Eleazar Perez, who regularly films himself engaging in street debates over politics and religion, had the generally insufferable (though in this instance admittedly polite) Seder chasing his own rhetorical tail.

Perez began by asking if Seder considered himself an atheist. The progressive replied that he lacked a “strong belief” in God but also did not consider religion altogether “bad.”

What exactly “bad” means apart from the existence of a Creator who has moral purposes Seder did not say. No secular humanist can answer that question without illogical and circuitous absurdity, as Perez soon proved.

“Morality without a foundation is gonna reduce you to a preference,” the conservative challenger observed.

Indeed it will. Thus, Seder attempted to ground his own “morality” in something other than preference.

The secular-humanist progressive began by adopting the centuries-old Utilitarian position, though for some reason he chafed at the label “Utilitarian.”

Then, when Perez correctly pointed out — albeit without making the explicit connection — that the Utilitarian “least amount of suffering for the greatest number of people possible” argument presents no theoretical objection to murdering one person, Seder moved away from the Utilitarian position and adopted the meaningless, catch-all view that “society” determines right and wrong.

“We have a civil society. We have laws that we have decided as a society in a democratic way,” Seder said.

“So if tomorrow society comes together,” Perez replied, “and we say ‘Hey, trans folks don’t deserve rights,’ you would be OK with that?”

Seder answered that he would not find that morally right. Again, however, he did not explain what he meant by “moral.”

To this point, the progressive had adopted Utilitarianism and democratic processes — “society” — as the foundations of his morality.

But he had not yet finished leaping from one untenable foundation to the next.

Moments later, Seder asked if Perez had a problem with gay marriage.

“It’s not that I have a problem. I just don’t see a justification for why they ought to be gay outside of ‘it just feels good,’” the conservative replied.

“Can you give me another justification for it?” Perez asked after a revealing two-second pause.

“Well, I think maybe that’s the way they were born,” Seder answered.

In other words, the progressive had leapt from Utilitarianism to society and now to biology.

Perez made quick work of that argument, too.

“OK, what about pedophiles? Are they born that way?” the conservative asked.

Seder thought it possible, at which point Perez asked if that fact should excuse pedophiles’ behavior.

From there, Seder abandoned biology and embraced his fourth different foundation of morality: consent.

“Well, I think between consenting adults it’s a different thing,” the progressive said.

Perez then asked about incest between a 45-year-old father and 19-year-old daughter who technically consented.

Having exhausted his supply of moral foundations, Seder retreated once again to society.

“No, I think society has also determined that it’s like, it’s not beneficial for — ” the progressive said, though he did not — perhaps could not — finish his thought before Perez effectively let him off the hook by interrupting.

All told, it was remarkable to watch Perez chase Seder from one purported foundation of morality to the next. Like a frog in a pot of boiling water, Seder leapt from Utilitarianism to society to biology to consent and back to society before Perez finally turned down the rhetorical temperature, though not without one concluding flourish.

“Your leftist view, the liberal view, doesn’t provide anything besides ‘it just makes me feel good,’” the conservative said.

Readers may view the entire video below. The Seder-Perez exchange began around the 25:30 mark.

As every Christian should know, one cannot even claim legitimacy for one’s own thoughts without presuming God’s existence. If atomic and sub-atomic particles without moral purposes created the Universe and everything in it at random, then it must follow that all human thoughts, which in that case would flow from nothing besides the random movements of those particles, would themselves qualify as random, including — ironically — the very thought that all thoughts qualify as random.

In sum, secular humanism leads inexorably to this and other such nonsense, as evidenced by the mental gymnastics Seder performed in his debate with Perez.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.