Episode 979: MASTERDEBATION—Debating Debating
Air Date: August 26, 2026 | Host: Bob Metz
Just Right — broadcasting on WBCQ and Channel 292 shortwave
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this program are those of the participants.
Clip (Castle S02E03):
Demi.
Castle.
You guys use boards down in robbery?
Sure, yeah.
Well come back tomorrow. It'll be full of all sorts of murdery stuff.
Bob Metz:
Welcome everyone. It is Wednesday, August 26, 2026. I'm Bob Metz, and this is Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that's not right wing. It's just right.
Overwhelming evidence. That was the term used and justification for master debater Andrew Wilson's conclusion that Tyler Robinson was the lone and only shooter in the murder of Charlie Kirk. Having paid $300,000 to Candace Owens to debate her on this point, rest assured that this was a great investment on his part, given the hundreds of millions of views generated online, along with the advertising revenue taken in. That is at least what Patrick Bet-David explained in a follow-up podcast to his having chaired the debate on August 14. So on the financial front, fear not for Andrew Wilson because he was as much a winner as were all participants in the debate. But on the debating front, well, let me put it this way. How Andrew Wilson ever earned his reputation as being a master debater was totally lost on me.
But even more eye-opening for me was how articulate, well-informed, and critically astute Candace Owens proved herself to be, particularly in light of all the talk writing her off as some kind of total wacko. But more interesting than the purported topic of the debate, whether Tyler Robinson was the lone shooter or just a patsy in the Charlie Kirk assassination, were the obvious differing standards of debating that were held and being used by each side. It wasn't a debate about the merits of opposing sides of an argument, it became a debate about how to debate. And most entertainingly about what constitutes evidence and the process of investigation and discernment. Themes that are very familiar to the nature of this show and to our audience.
By the end of today's broadcast, I think you might understand why we have named this episode Masterdebation, Debating Debating. So get ready for our own epistemological investigation into which of the two, Owens or Wilson, is the real master debater as we examine the evidence they themselves have offered right after our reminder that you can write us at feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on Channel 292 Shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform, and visit us at justrightmedia.org where you can access all of our social media links, archive broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show. Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.
Now we last discussed the Charlie Kirk assassination on October 8th, 2025. And I confess we haven't paid much more attention to the issue since then. In our blog post of that day's broadcast entitled Eyewitness to a Bloodless Assassination, with a question mark at the end of it, we touched upon some of the points raised in the current debate, accompanied by our own assessment that also addresses the key foundations of this entire controversy, and I quote,
"Don't believe your own lying eyes" has been a common response to visual quote-unquote evidence used to create a narrative that simply doesn't make sense. If ever there was a test of this bromide, it is the growing number of speculative accounts and conspiracy theories surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination.
Currently, and again, this is back in October 25, the most alarming observation to surface is the reported lack of blood at the crime scene, something quite inconsistent with the visuals of blood seen streaming profusely from the neck of Charlie Kirk at the moment of his being shot. This has been observed and commented on by a variety of very different bloggers and podcasters, each with his or her own unique perspective and interpretation of what is being witnessed. And in this age of eyewitness accounts, one must be extraordinarily cautious about what is accepted as the truth.
Discernment is the rule. Given that revelations of past assassinations in American history continue to be released decades following the events themselves, it shouldn't be surprising that the Kirk assassination has been viewed with a skepticism drawn from a deep distrust of those providing the official narratives. Perhaps the most frustrating conclusion to draw from all of this is that when it comes to establishing an assassination narrative about Charlie Kirk that is just right, we might have to wait another six or more decades before something resembling the quote-unquote truth surfaces.
End quote.
And to be honest with you, I don't think anything has changed in my mind since then, even after having heard the arguments made in the Owens-Wilson debate. And yet, I do think there was a clear winner and loser in the debate itself. A debate that we cannot possibly cover in its entirety, given that it was a live debate that ran nearly four hours in length, equivalent to four complete broadcasts of Just Right. I actually watched the entire debate twice, believe it or not, and then effectively heard it a third time during the editing process of choosing what to focus our spotlight on today. And given our time constraints and focus, we'll be jumping back and forth from and to different parts of the debate, and not necessarily in chronological order. Now, of course, this debate took place in light of the Utah preliminary hearings investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination. And so our first two audio selections pertain to the nature and purpose of those hearings.
Something that I think is widely misunderstood. And to kick off today's discussion with an introductory overview and her own reactions to the debate is Redacted's Natali Morris as heard August 19, and which we will hear on this side of our upcoming bumper. While on the return side, directly from the PBD original podcast, Owens and Wilson debate whether the testimonies heard at the hearings constitute evidence or hearsay, and the significance between those two categories of testimony.
Clip (Redacted, August 19, 2026):
Natali Morris: Conservative influencers who are arguing that absolutely Tyler Robinson did shoot Charlie Kirk, he was the dude. Well, they showed their cards on Friday when Andrew Wilson, a supposed libertarian, debated Candace Owens. Candace Owens is not the only person that's been questioning the government case, but she is now the archetype. If you can pin it all on her as a crazy person, you don't have to follow her line of questioning. Well, I very much appreciate her line of questioning, so we're gonna follow this.
Well, my opinion is that we are in a strange world right now where conservative influencers are offended by questioning government narratives. They are unbothered by inconsistencies and they are defending the government. Now, a little background. Andrew Wilson offered $300,000 to have this debate with Candace Owens. And he said he did it because he found her line of questioning offensive. He thought he needed to defend the widow, Erica Kirk, and TPUSA. Now, watch his opener because he specifically says, I am here and I'm happy to defend the state's case. He says that. I'm here to defend the state's case. And he wants to protect the right, he says, the conservative right. It's an odd flex for someone who's a self-professed libertarian to defend the government. But watch.
Clip (PBD Podcast, August 14, 2026):
Andrew Wilson: Regardless, we're both defending the claim. There's overwhelming evidence on our side, so it's worth defining that term. When I say the evidence against Robinson is overwhelming, all I'm saying is that I mean that as of right now, I find it very convincing. I see almost no evidence at all, only speculation on verified claims and suggestions of things that could merely be hypothetically possible.
Dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this. Almost done, by the way. I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candace bringing up any challenges she would like, but if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the $300,000 was this for this debate was to finally have a chance for someone to demand Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making. Candace's investigation is indistinguishable from a leftist operation. She couldn't be doing more damage to the right if she were trying.
Patrick Bet-David: Just out of curiosity, are you between zero and a hundred, what is the likelihood that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him?
Andrew Wilson: Based on the evidence right now, I don't know, I'd say 75-85%.
Patrick Bet-David: Candace?
Candace Owens: Zero percent.
Patrick Bet-David: Zero percent.
Candace Owens: I'm at zero. So with what we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at zero percent.
Natali Morris: Okay. He must know that twenty-five percent doubt is a massive shadow of the doubt. You cannot convict someone on that. And yet he's here to defend the state's case. And again, he said himself, I'm happy to defend the state's case, but when pushed on it, he doesn't know the state's case.
Now, here is a clip that's gone viral. We're gonna watch it in its entirety. It's a little over three minutes. Where he's asked, okay, but what are the claims that the state's making that are strong? And he can't name them. Watch.
Candace Owens: Just so I also have clarity. Since your basis has been evidentiary, you keep saying that you have evidence or like you are following evidence. Which one of the charges against, or all of them, do you think Tyler Robinson is guilty of?
Andrew Wilson: The specific charge.
Candace Owens: Yeah.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah. So I think what I think is that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.
Candace Owens: Yeah, but of the seven charges that he's being charged.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, can we list them real quick? I'll tell you exactly which ones. We'll pull them up.
Candace Owens: Well, do you know any of the charges these he's up for right now?
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, of course. But I want to make sure that we have them listed.
Candace Owens: Yeah, but like that's—can you name one? Because my general perspective is that you don't actually care about this case. You're not following the case.
Andrew Wilson: That's the question?
Candace Owens: I mean, it seems pretty like if you're gonna engage and you're gonna say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty. I just think that you should—can you tell me one.
Andrew Wilson: Then let's do the—this is a great gotcha.
Candace Owens: No, no, no, you just got to ask me, play clips out of context, put me in the hot seat. So please just answer the question.
Andrew Wilson: Name all seven since you've been following the case.
Candace Owens: Okay, sure. You name one.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, you named all seven.
Candace Owens: I'm happy to do that, but can you name one?
Andrew Wilson: I think he's been charged with murder.
Candace Owens: That's actually incorrect.
Andrew Wilson: Okay, great. Now name all seven.
Candace Owens: He doesn't even—this is like—
Andrew Wilson: Name all seven.
Candace Owens: And I—
Andrew Wilson: Can you name all seven.
Candace Owens: I can.
Andrew Wilson: Then do it.
Candace Owens: Sure. You don't have to—
Andrew Wilson: No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead.
Candace Owens: You don't have to put your fingers up.
Andrew Wilson: Okay, hang on, name them.
Candace Owens: Yeah, sure.
Andrew Wilson: Name them.
Candace Owens: The first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries a death sentence in the state of Utah.
Andrew Wilson: So murder.
Candace Owens: No, that's not, that is literally not murder.
Andrew Wilson: Okay.
Candace Owens: And so just for people, no, don't—I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all, is because aggravated murder, it's narrowly defined.
Andrew Wilson: That's not even the question.
Candace Owens: And because it carries a death sentence. I'm not—I'm gonna answer the question. Okay. You're just gonna recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint, doesn't work. And you'll be better the next time you debate.
Andrew Wilson: I got it. I got it. Can you give me the other ones?
Candace Owens: If the more you cut me off, the longer I'll take. Do you want to just wait for me to finish of why that's a big difference so that people don't watch it?
Andrew Wilson: No. I just want you to list the charges.
Candace Owens: Yeah, I'm gonna do that. You just don't get to pretend that there's a time constraint for me to do that.
Andrew Wilson: Well, how long does it take you to list seven charges?
Candace Owens: I'm because I'm speaking.
Andrew Wilson: It sounds like you're just delaying it because you don't know things.
Candace Owens: I know all seven of them.
Andrew Wilson: Then tell me them.
Candace Owens: And I'm gonna say again, because you're gonna get embarrassed. You don't have to rush this. I'm also showing an example of a very flawed debate strategy. I actually am under no time constraint.
Andrew Wilson: I got one.
Candace Owens: Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. The next two charges are for obstruction of justice.
Andrew Wilson: Okay.
Candace Owens: The next two charges are for witness tampering. And the final—
Andrew Wilson: So that's the specific charges, though?
Candace Owens: That is them. Obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, witness tampering.
Andrew Wilson: Okay, witness, and there's no other specifics to 'em.
Candace Owens: Well, I can tell you why he's being charged.
Andrew Wilson: No, no, just the charges and then seven.
Candace Owens: Yeah. See, it's a bad thing is when you try to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.
Andrew Wilson: What's the seventh?
Candace Owens: The last charge is violence in front of a minor.
Andrew Wilson: Okay, got it. So then he's being charged with murder. You just say aggravated murder. That's the distinction. You just want to—
Candace Owens: It's a massive—you can't even—you cannot say murder versus aggravated murder. This gets to the entire crux of why him being up for the death sentence, and I actually find the defense's filing about why this is not aggravated to be very compelling.
Natali Morris: Okay. You can tell he's embarrassed, and his tactic to handle the embarrassment is to become a dick, which is understandable, if not odious. And yet, his conclusion at the end of all of this was this.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, she had nothing. Just nothing. Any for all of her claims of patsy, nothing.
Natali Morris: Okay. It was him that had nothing. He didn't know the case. He didn't know the material he was using. So, okay. And yet over the weekend, Wilson and his wife Rachel, who has been on this show before, I quite liked her book. You may have seen that clip. They were victory lapping this on X by sharing these AI assessments. AI says that we won. AI news desk. I didn't even know that's a thing. He says every AI source. Okay, that feels like gaslighting. Don't believe what you saw. Believe what AI says.
Andrew Wilson: Based on the evidence presented so far by the state.
Candace Owens: The state has presented evidence under Utah's 1102 rule.
Andrew Wilson: But this doesn't demonstrate any patsy behaviour.
Candace Owens: No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. The entire hearing was hearsay. It means none of that information that was presented is going to be allowed. The majority of it, the overwhelming majority of it is not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's just a probative hearing.
Andrew Wilson: I don't think all the evidence that was that was put in was hearsay.
Candace Owens: Okay, you didn't watch this case.
Andrew Wilson: But not only that—
Candace Owens: No. No, no, no. That's this is a huge point. This is crazy that you don't know this.
Andrew Wilson: The summary of the examinations that he was shot.
Candace Owens: Okay.
Andrew Wilson: That was what they were pulling that up for.
Candace Owens: Okay. And I don't, I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. I'm—we're not disputing that. So I don't know why this is brought up as a fact check. This is an unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence.
Andrew Wilson: You can infer. I'm trying to follow the inference.
Candace Owens: But no, but your entire reason. Like you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw on the preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay.
Andrew Wilson: But not all of it, like I said.
Candace Owens: The overwhelming majority.
Andrew Wilson: And again, no disputes.
Candace Owens: Outside of the one that you gonna cut me off?
Outside of no, that is what's in dispute. It means that your entire brand of saying you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence, falls apart when the entire preliminary hearing is based off a hearsay. The entire substance of your argument is that people can't infer off of evidence. That's what you're saying to me.
Andrew Wilson: No. It's not.
Candace Owens: I'm looking at a piece of evidence, and I am saying—
Andrew Wilson: But you're not showing me how you get there.
Patrick Bet-David: Can you describe to the audience what rule 1102 is?
Candace Owens: So this what Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to extrapolate from a fact like that's—
Andrew Wilson: She's making it up. Just purely making it up. I'm asking based on your inference.
Candace Owens: Andrew, can I show my evidence, you just showed yours. Reliable hearsay.
Patrick Bet-David: You'll get a chance.
Candace Owens: Reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations. The entire preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay. And what that means essentially is the people who are making the statements can just say, Patrick told me that he did this on Monday. Patrick's not here. And that is they can allow that into the hearing. That's just it because it's just meant to be probative. And so it's the state saying, here's what we have inferred. So you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence.
Okay. Case in point, that's a demonstration of—to give you that's a demonstration of what I just did. I said the prints were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson. And from that, what I am inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up.
Andrew Wilson: That doesn't—that's the point in contention.
Candace Owens: That's not a point in contention.
Andrew Wilson: That's the point in contention.
Candace Owens: It's not a point of contention. If you're saying it's a point.
Andrew Wilson: When is the point in contention?
Candace Owens: It's not the point in contention. I'm telling you, that is what the entire hearing allowed for. So the evidence that he is describing that he is using to argue his case is all based on inference, not fact.
Andrew Wilson: Great.
Candace Owens: Not facts. So what they are inferring off of the facts.
Andrew Wilson: Again, we're so again, we're gonna take this, and I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means patsy. I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference. Walk me through the inference that the fingerprints, even if they're degraded, equals patsy. How do you get that inference?
Candace Owens: I didn't say it equals patsy. I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse.
Andrew Wilson: That's not what in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said I'm using this as evidence that he could have been a patsy. I'm asking, how do you get the inference to patsy from that?
Candace Owens: Because what I am saying is that it shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on that gun than Tyler Robinson did. So it is plausible, which is all they're doing. They're presenting plausibility based off of the facts. Okay. It is plausible that somebody just took his gun and put it there. That's it.
Andrew Wilson: There's a equally.
Candace Owens: That's how it works.
Andrew Wilson: And is there equally a hundred other plausible explanations?
Candace Owens: I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense.
Andrew Wilson: Got it.
Candace Owens: So yes, at the beginning of that, this is how this is how the court process works.
Andrew Wilson: Just so we're clear. If there's a hundred other plausible explanations in Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a patsy?
Candace Owens: I'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a patsy. I am saying that there is—
Andrew Wilson: Oh, I thought that was the whole defense. Your whole claim.
Candace Owens: No, my whole claim was that there is more evidence that he is set up that he is set up as a patsy.
Andrew Wilson: How does that equal evidence of patsy?
Candace Owens: I don't know how many times I can say this. Like I am saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah.
Candace Owens: Right to say, I'm gonna look at the evidence and I am going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the states and you're accepting it.
Andrew Wilson: When whenever we're dealing with logic and we're dealing with making a logical inference, we're gonna take the entire collaboration of evidence, and then we're gonna make inferences from that. You would do that with any type of logical proposition. Otherwise, you could never have a true or false claim.
Candace Owens: But you just told me I couldn't do that.
Andrew Wilson: So when we're—I never that never happened, you're just making stuff up. So anyway, when we're talking about logical inferences, what I'm looking for is the logical inferences that you have that Tyler Robinson's a patsy based on the totality of evidence that you have.
Candace Owens: We can keep going through your other evidence. You wrote the car pulling in, that's a totally blurry image. Robinson getting out of it. You have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he is seen four other times on camera, the fact being just a standard white boy with brown hair was seen getting walking up staircase, the DNA on the roof, we should discuss that. And on the screwdriver that he left behind, it's overwhelming, man.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive list.
Candace Owens: Well, just so we're clear, you did tweet it.
Andrew Wilson: But it's not an exhaustive—
Candace Owens: Yeah, but just five seconds ago, you should concede.
Andrew Wilson: You said I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming, actually.
Candace Owens: That's not what I said.
Andrew Wilson: It is. You could even pull your own clip.
Candace Owens: Patrick, did I say that?
Patrick Bet-David: I did not hear her say.
Andrew Wilson: So the thing is funny here is like we still aren't getting to any of these inferences.
Candace Owens: So these are—why are you pivoting? But just say you're wrong. It's cool to just say I was wrong.
Andrew Wilson: I wasn't. I'm not wrong. So back to the tweet, the tweet aspect here. It was really funny. That's not an exhaustive list of why I find it right.
Candace Owens: I didn't say it was exhaustive, I just said you said it.
Andrew Wilson: And on top of well, nope, you didn't. You said that I only said this one thing, and then said based on that it's over. Well, I didn't. You didn't mention that I mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all these other things. You never mentioned any of that. So, no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence you've got to do.
Candace Owens: Are you a—
Andrew Wilson: Yes, I'm okay.
Anyway, back to the evidence itself.
Candace Owens: Yes, actually, I'm glad you're asserting that you're okay. I wasn't worried about your health. I'm just saying that I just said you tweeted this, you said no, I didn't. We got a fact check, and now you're like just gonna gaslight me and pretend that I said—
Andrew Wilson: There's no gaslighting.
Candace Owens: It wasn't exhaustive. I never said that. I just said you did say this.
Andrew Wilson: Zero gaslighting.
Candace Owens: I didn't say you couldn't have said more, but I would like to address the what he said in that.
Andrew Wilson: If this is how you want to spend it interrogating my position, you can do it that way.
Candace Owens: I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you it was overwhelming. That's literally a debate claim.
Andrew Wilson: That's not what you said. That's not actually in fact what happened in that exchange. I was here for it.
Bob Metz:
Funny he should say that. I was about to remark that anyone who thinks that Andrew Wilson won this debate wasn't there for it. And now I can infer that this includes Wilson himself. You know what else wasn't there for the debate? Wilson's AI creations declaring that he won it, as we heard reported by Natali.
Remember our own broadcast on AI and how we got Grok to analyze a past episode of Just Right in four different ways, from being rudely critical to being glowingly complimentary about the exact same episode. It was a demonstration that what AI puts out depends on what some human puts in, both in terms of content and given instructions. Check it out on our own archived broadcast of January 28th.
Andrew Wilson was either outright lying or just too stupid to see how grossly he was continually contradicting himself and openly denying any evidence that wasn't cited in the hearings. It was embarrassingly cringeworthy.
And again, as Natali commented earlier, you can tell he's embarrassed. To handle it, he becomes a dick. And yet his conclusion was this. "Yeah, she had nothing, just nothing. All of her claims of patsy, nothing."
Well, what Wilson's conclusion revealed to me was the same consistency I observed throughout the entire debate and discussion. The simple denial of any evidence or narrative inconsistent with his own. So how can you possibly lose a debate on those grounds? You have to say that Robinson's a patsy based on the totality of evidence that you have, Wilson insisted earlier. And Candace did base her argument on a totality of evidence, including firsthand evidence, by the way, and having directly spoken to various players in this drama, but only to conclude that Robinson did not shoot the weapon used, and that on the totality of her accumulated evidence, it was plausible that Tyler Robinson was a patsy in a much larger plot.
But I guess Wilson just wasn't there for it. And he wasn't really planning to show up for his own debate when he admitted in his opening statement that "the reason I was willing to pay 300k for this debate was to finally have a chance for someone to demand that Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making." So given his conclusion, he's telling us that he still regards Candace's theories and claims as being unbelievable, and that because he doesn't believe them, she should be held accountable. To whom I may ask?
Out of the blue, he says to Candace, if there are a hundred other plausible explanations, why go with this idea that he was a patsy? Talk about a BS question. What he is declaring by asking that question is that his is the only narrative acceptable, and all others are invalid. And how have I inferred this conclusion from that question? Well, consider this. First, if there were a hundred other plausible explanations, then maybe one of them might have been considered with more weight. But there aren't a hundred other plausible explanations, and just as with Wilson's inability to name even one of the charges against Tyler Robinson correctly, had he been asked, he would not have been able to cite one single other plausible explanation. Nor would he want to or ever dare to.
You have to understand this. Because by definition and by logic, any other plausible explanation, not just Candace's, would have refuted his conclusions to which he was wedded, no matter what anybody else had to say on the issue.
And then there was Wilson's ridiculous arguments and responses to the fact that the preliminary hearings were operating under the principle of hearsay permissibility. When Candace made it abundantly clear that the entire preliminary hearing was hearsay, Andrew replied, "Oh, but not all of it."
Clip (Hogan's Heroes S06E19, "Klink for the Defense"):
Colonel Klink: I'm afraid that the Gestapo arrested the wrong man.
Major Hochstetter: Impossible. It's against the rules. We have absolute proof in those recorded telephone calls.
Colonel Klink: Hearsay evidence.
Major Hochstetter: What do you mean hearsay?
Colonel Klink: Well, that depends on what you hear him say.
Bob Metz:
And he's exactly right when he says it depends on what you hear him say. And while Candace fully acknowledged that some of the hearsay would eventually be treated as evidence, it is nevertheless still hearsay until treated otherwise.
Which brings me to the critical distinctions between evidence, narratives, and truth. I've certainly watched enough detective police and court dramas to understand that evidence alone is never the narrative or the story. And what Andrew Wilson kept referring to as positive evidence was evidence officially accepted within some court or government hearing. When Candace cited her own sources and her own personal investigation and conversations with witnesses and others regarding the case, Wilson just dismissed her accounts as irrelevant, and she's just making it up because he doesn't have a copy of some restaurant receipt or the name of a given source. Everything Candace reported was evidence. Whether it will be proven to be relevant to a court case is another matter entirely.
And remember, the purpose of court decisions is to arrive at verdicts of guilt or innocence based on pieces of evidence, sometimes even called circumstantial evidence, not to compose some greater narrative of some truth. Evidence is not the narrative or the story. Evidence can be valid on both sides of a given argument, and often the same evidence can be used by both sides to argue their case. And lest I forget, even truth itself may be irrelevant to what is accepted as evidence in a given court case.
So in creating any plausible narratives without knowing all of the possible evidence that may surface or be rejected, one must infer or theorize some kind of narrative against which to test the validity of both the evidence and the narrative. In the meantime, you can put anything on your timeline until it no longer fits a given theory.
Which brings us to the next absurd contradiction to which Andrew Wilson insisted Candace comply with. In rebuttal to Candace's criticism of his so-called overwhelming evidence, he responded, "Well, this is your time. If you want to spend it on interrogating my position, you can do it that way."
And I'm thinking, what? I mean, what made that such a bizarre response is that he was continually insisting that Candace should be limited to challenging his position and not to infer or theorize any other positions. Hear it for yourself in the following exchange that begins with his objection to Candace using intuition as a tool of investigation.
Clip (PBD Podcast, August 14, 2026):
Andrew Wilson: Nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from Robinson to date, except perhaps you and other people who are kind of in that camp. Well, why should I question these exactly? I'm not sure.
Candace Owens: It's a general sense of why people had a reaction to these messages that seemed like they were written by Jane Austen rather than like a kid who games and writes—
Andrew Wilson: Do you see how that's intuition?
Candace Owens: That is, I am. I just said that. I said just put it parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here, which you should follow your intuition. You should actually do that.
If you say the COVID vaccine is running out, feels like it's coming out too fast and there's too many celebrities songs to do it, I'd like to take a pause, that's good. That is you are allowed to do that. I believe in intuition.
Andrew Wilson: But hang on, hang on. Let me respond a little bit here, because you've been going for a minute. Let me at least respond to a little bit of this. So the first thing is is like with when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID vaccine in mass was the science. That wasn't just intuition. That was the science. There was tons of competing science. Now they tried to suppress it, that's true, but there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take a risky mRNA vaccine.
Now, when you're talking about intuition, though, when you say trust your intuition, I'm actually giving a different message. You actually should be very wary about trusting just your intuition. It is true that intuition can be useful, but it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power, and evidence, not just intuition.
Candace Owens: That's why we're parking it aside. Intuition is the first step. Something feels off, right?
Andrew Wilson: Okay. Your argument to me is that hey, wait a second, Andrew, there's not enough here that convinces me, right?
Candace Owens: Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you is that you are saying, why are people engaging in what you term to be conspiracy theories? I term it to be thinking. They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and that this is not strong evidence, right? This is the reason they're doing it. I'm explaining to you. This is the reason that they're doing it. I'm addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence. And by the way, I want to be clear.
Andrew Wilson: That which convinces me. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just what I find convincing, is what I find overwhelming.
Candace Owens: So why are you so upset when people say they don't find it convincing?
Andrew Wilson: That was the limitation of the claims that you made. If it was just, wait a second, there's a little bit of problems. There's some problems in this case that I have questions for that I want answers to. Nobody'd have a problem, actually. At least of all me, my position's always been clear. Of course, conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better evidence than others. It's when you make claims outside of that, where you claim that there's good evidence or good standards you should believe because, and then it turns out that it's all nonsense or it's wackadoo stuff, or it makes no sense. A lot of this conjecture that's based on literally nothing that leads from no inferences whatsoever. Like you couldn't even infer it logically. That's the problem.
The problem has never been whether or not you just said, you know, there's not enough in this case so far until we get to the trial. I remain unconvinced. That's never been my problem. My problem is the claims which are external to that.
Candace Owens: Okay. I'm not sure I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my own spare time. I don't understand this lecture that you just gave. I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly that what you claim that you have a problem with is exactly what the state is engaged in at this stage. So it doesn't make it just doesn't make sense.
Andrew Wilson: That's not the case. In fact.
Candace Owens: So if people look and they say, I'm looking at the gun and I see and I'm inferring this, and someone else says I'm looking at the gun evidence and I'm inferring that, they're both doing the exact same thing.
Andrew Wilson: They're not.
Candace Owens: You're just saying I want to do it for the state.
Andrew Wilson: That's propositionally false.
Candace Owens: That is not propositionally false.
Andrew Wilson: Explain exactly how it is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false conclusion, period. That's just logic, right? It's the law of excluded middle. All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. When we get into when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on on propositions. We can make, we can actually come to true conclusions with false premises inside of a proposition. In fact, what we're talking about here is not whether or not you feel that you're convinced by this evidence.
Candace Owens: But you felt like you were convinced. Right?
Andrew Wilson: Sure. But here's the thing when you ask me my reason, Andrew, why are you convinced by this? I can give you my reasons why I'm convinced by it, why it seems reasonable and rational to me to be convinced.
You could even say, but Andrew, I'm just not convinced by it. If that was the limitation of your claims, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You have stated on the record, which transcend elements of reason.
Candace Owens: Why are we having a transcendental conversation now? Because I mean—
Andrew Wilson: Because they're all related to the case.
Candace Owens: Your entire thing was about looking at the evidence, which never made sense to me again, because all of the evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was hearsay. That was bizarre to me.
Andrew Wilson: When you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions because the state's evidence is not convincing, I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. You're saying I have a claim, it is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about, not just the case of Charlie Kirk, is assassination. You should have to answer for the claims that you've made in regards to the assassination itself.
Candace Owens: Quote-unquote evidence that you feel that you have, which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson, I mean that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.
Andrew Wilson: You don't find convincing, again.
Candace Owens: It's well, it's been invalidated by the testimony that we saw. And in your answer for when I explained to you that he had the most degraded prints was I don't know. Okay, well, there then there lies my ability to process that.
Andrew Wilson: It's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point. All of your viewers, everybody watching, nobody's saying.
Candace Owens: So you're just your conceding on that.
Andrew Wilson: Nobody's giving a dispute that if all your claims ever were just up to now, the evidence that the state's given, I'm just kind of not convinced. That is not what's been happening. What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims in regards to this case, and in regards to the Kirk assassination, which are far above and beyond, I just doubt the state's theory.
Candace Owens: We're not the only people that believe there's a conspiracy here. The police officers that were involved, the many police sheriffs' offices, that were departments that were involved that day all believed there was a conspiracy, down to the U.S. Marshals believe there's a conspiracy. They were—my sources at the U.S. Marshals were saying they were basically set in a wild goose chase that day.
Andrew Wilson: But do you see how you say my sources?
Candace Owens: Am I not allowed to have sources?
Andrew Wilson: Well, the thing is funny. If I said I have sources that claim none of that's true. In fact, my sources claim that her sources are lying. My sources claim that there is none of them believe that there's a conspiracy. My sources claim all of them really think that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman. If I just said that as hypothetical, wouldn't you say, what?
Candace Owens: Yeah, I think what probably adds weight is like then when I drop photos of the car that no one was supposed to see, people go, okay, her sources are legit. So, and then when what I say is then proven in court and nobody knew those things, people are recognizing that my sources are legit. When I say Charlie was scared in the last days, and then I dropped the text message, which you've just learned about a couple of weeks ago, of him saying he was leaving the pro-Israel cause when everyone was lying about that, then they say I think Candace's sources are legit. So I've proven myself in the market.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, I'm not sure that that would legitimize your sources as being legitimate when it comes to the idea that, oh, they all believe that there's a conspiracy going on, which is actually what your claim is now. How would that actually—hang on, hang on, I'm almost done.
Candace Owens: Not clearly talking to PBD.
Andrew Wilson: How would that legitimize? Well, it's not his debate. How would it legitimize these sources?
Candace Owens: I have, because people trust me, compiled a lot of information and presented it to the public, and this information has been proven true. We've presented photos, we have presented videos, never before seen stuff. The public has never seen it. And so what that does is your audience goes, okay, when she says that she has these sources, clearly she's telling the truth.
Bob Metz:
You were listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online.
Now, one of the first principles I learned in the art of debating is to never deny or try to refute your opponent's direct experiences without overwhelming evidence to do so. But do you see how Wilson's repeated and repeated insistence that Candace only limit her arguments to not being convinced by the official narrative was in complete contradiction with his own earlier criticism when after she did so, well, this is your time, if you want to spend it on interrogating my position, you can do it that way.
So you can see why we've been calling his approach to debating a form of master debation, debating about debating and always avoiding the actual substance of any given narrative. And by the way, what is particularly made this debate so interesting to me is how much of it centered around specific arguments that we've devoted entire episodes of this show to, such as the whole debate about intuition. Check it out, March 28th of this year. Intuitively speaking about the risks and power of intuition.
But in his attempt to diminish the power of intuition, Wilson brought up a completely unrelated issue to the debate at hand, namely that when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID vaccine and mask, that was the science. That wasn't just intuition.
Well, that is simply not so on either side of the COVID argument. For me, not trusting the COVID vaccine was definitely the result of intuition, which I shared with listeners to this show from the very beginning of the vaccine fraud, based on everything from changing definitions to prohibiting other COVID remedies to people saying that the science is settled. Meanwhile, people who took the shots were operating on their intuition that they could trust the vaccine because it's a certainty that they knew nothing about the lack of science behind the pretended vaccines.
The science of the vaccines was irrelevant to either side of the tragedy. But getting back to the Tyler Robinson controversy, no one has questioned that these messages came from Robinson other than you and others in that camp, Wilson asserted, with a statement that again was a contradiction. No one, other than others, of course, others in your camp, as if to imply that all the others are working together in a conspiracy united under some single banner. Well, I'm one of those others, and we questioned those messages on this show when they were first publicized. I didn't know I was now regarded by Wilson as someone in the camp of Candace Owens. Oh my goodness.
You see what he's doing again. He's trying to turn a plurality of many who have questioned the messages into a singularity of one voice that is questioning the messages, the camp of Candace Owens.
This guy is a charlatan and a con artist. But of course, I'm just inferring this based on absolutely nothing.
I've proven myself in the market, demonstrated Candace, to which Andrew retorts, yeah, but I'm not sure that would legitimize your sources. How does that even make any sense? What the hell does he possibly mean by the word legitimize? How embarrassing it was for Candace to have to explain to him how legitimacy and credibility and trust are earned over a period of time.
Again, by legitimize, Andrew always means officially accepted and approved. Official, official, official. That's all this guy's about. And by the way, overwhelming does not mean convincing. Sometimes a single piece of evidence can be convincing, and an overwhelming number of clues might be unconvincing. In another sense, you could argue that to be overwhelmed by information or evidence implies that you're incapable of assimilating or properly analyzing and discerning the value or relevance of the information.
So now on this side of our upcoming bumper, we arrive at the really stupid argument made by Andrew Wilson that inspired our show opener from the Castle TV series and the image accompanying this week's broadcast. And that is the use of a timeline on which one records and accumulates various pieces of evidence so as to reveal a narrative that is consistent and credible.
And on the return side of the bumper, Redacted's Natali Morris once again, this time in conversation with her guest, blogger and YouTuber Lionel Nation.
Clip (PBD Podcast, August 14, 2026):
Andrew Wilson: My other question is about the steakhouse receipt.
Candace Owens: You just said that you were done asking all your questions.
Andrew Wilson: Nothing there. Yeah, do you have the steakhouse receipts? My question.
Candace Owens: I have said several times that I have never said I have the receipt for the steakhouse. I have said the person who's working on that story is gonna be forthcoming with the receipt. And that was what I was responding to. And he then dropped the receipt. He redacted elements of it, and I said, Stay tuned. He's the one working on that story.
Andrew Wilson: Okay. You haven't actually confirmed that Robinson was at that steakhouse.
Candace Owens: All I did, as I said earlier in this conversation, was I spoke to the owner when I broke that story, I think it was back in January. I spoke to the owner, understood what had happened, and that there was a receipt. That's it. That's the extent of what I shared is what happened.
Andrew Wilson: Okay, so to be clear, there's no receipt.
Candace Owens: No, I just said the opposite. I said there is a receipt.
Andrew Wilson: Well you don't have a copy of the receipt.
Candace Owens: The receipt was published online.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, right, with blurred out—
Candace Owens: The person working on this story that blurred that out is what I was referring to when I said stay tuned and keep following his stuff because he went to go which do what I hadn't done, which was he interviewed the actual server.
Andrew Wilson: So there's no evidence that Tyler was at that steakhouse.
Candace Owens: I would say the receipt if with his debit card number, it would be some hard evidence if that's—
Andrew Wilson: I agree with that.
Candace Owens: Yeah. So that's it. But you're questioning me.
Andrew Wilson: But is there as of right now?
Candace Owens: He paid—if you're asking me, did he pay with a credit or debit card? The answer is yes.
Andrew Wilson: No, no, no. Is there proof that that was actually his debit card that he paid with?
Candace Owens: I think you should follow the person that is behind that story.
Andrew Wilson: Well, the reason I'm asking you is because you always include it in your timeline that he traveled to the steakhouse.
Candace Owens: Yeah. We've been building a timeline with things that we feel are 1102 approved.
Andrew Wilson: But is there actual evidence?
Candace Owens: I think speaking to the owner, knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt is good enough to put on our timeline.
Andrew Wilson: But the receipt itself, the question I always had about it is couldn't you just call the merchant? Like if I've ever had a merchant account, I just call the merchant account processor and say, What's the name on this?
Candace Owens: Yeah, I would stay tuned. I feel that the—haven't spoken to the owner—that the evidence is compelling enough to put onto my personal timeline of what took place on that day. That's where it's gonna stay. And if it gets debunked, I'm happy to take it off. If that's what you mean, that's how an investigation works.
Like I said, I did more than enough. It would definitely pass the test by the Utah 1102 rule, for sure, for certain.
Andrew Wilson: To be submitted as hearsay.
Candace Owens: Well, yeah, beyond that, because they didn't even have receipts. They were like, Bob totally.
Andrew Wilson: But the question is the receipt itself, it has not been verified to have been Tyler.
Candace Owens: Yeah, I just want to say you're holding me to a higher standard than you are.
Andrew Wilson: I'm not even holding—I'm just asking specifically.
Candace Owens: Yeah, I've been very forthcoming. I've told exactly what happened. I spoke to the owner, I got the tip.
Andrew Wilson: So should that be added in an official timeline?
Candace Owens: It's in my timeline. It's my show, and we can add and subtract what we want. And what we do—
Andrew Wilson: You can do what you want, sure, but I'm actually should you include a thing that you know hasn't actually been verified to be Tyler Robinson's.
Candace Owens: Yes. You should if we're trying to build a timeline, you should. Yeah.
Andrew Wilson: You don't think that that falls under—
Candace Owens: And then you should remove it if someone somehow debunks it, but I think that there is very strong evidence that that is where he was. And that's—
Andrew Wilson: What's the strong evidence? Just the two people who said that they saw him?
Candace Owens: You know, I'm actually all good with being—I feel like I've sufficiently answered your question about how I got the information, what happened next. With the next stage of this investigation being somebody accessing his knowing what his debit card wasn't confirming it, yes, and I do believe that that will happen. If it does not happen and it gets debunked, I'll remove it from my personal timeline that I share on my show.
Andrew Wilson: That officer, the first officer that was up on the roof. Do you remember his name?
Candace Owens: Officer Bagley.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, what was his first name?
Candace Owens: Christopher.
Andrew Wilson: Christopher. When Christopher got up on the roof, you talk a lot about how his camera died.
Candace Owens: Well, he talked a lot about that during the preliminary hearing. Yeah.
Andrew Wilson: Do you think that he planted that screwdriver up there?
Candace Owens: No.
Andrew Wilson: No?
Candace Owens: But like I said, you accept that stuff and then are like, did you call the merchant and get like it's just seems like you were—
Andrew Wilson: I'm not adding—
Candace Owens: Whole like I said, you hold the prosecution to a bit a higher standard than you do to people.
Andrew Wilson: I'm not adding unconfirmed evidence to an official timeline that I'm putting out either.
Candace Owens: What do you mean official timeline? This is my timeline. I made it at home.
Andrew Wilson: So then it would be official to your show?
Candace Owens: Sure.
Andrew Wilson: Yeah. Okay, great. So then your official timeline, Candace Owens' official timeline includes a steakhouse stop that has not actually been confirmed at all.
Candace Owens: Well, yeah, it hasn't even been discussed by the prosecution. So it's not like you're debunking that it happened.
Andrew Wilson: Well, there's no evidence for it. There's no good evidence for it at all. There's no camera there. And the steakhouse receipt itself has never been confirmed to be Tyler Robinson's.
Candace Owens: I'm assuming this is just like a talking point they gave you, and you gotta like keep pushing this or like—
Andrew Wilson: I've been following it very closely on X.
Candace Owens: The receipt you wouldn't, you weren't even following the charges of Tyler Robinson, but you really wanted to know I've been following it very closely afterwards. I'm calling owners of steakhouses and having a conversation? You're following Kamala on X.
Andrew Wilson: I literally followed the entire trial or the preliminary live. I was live with an attorney. We covered all of it. You think because I have a momentary lapse where I'm like, oh, it's murder? No, it's aggravated murder. Come on.
Candace Owens: You didn't know any of the charges.
Andrew Wilson: That's splitting hairs.
Candace Owens: No, that's not split. It means you didn't follow the preliminary hearing at all.
Andrew Wilson: No, it doesn't mean that at all.
Candace Owens: You don't know any of the charges that are against him when this is like getting literally to the crux aggravated murder versus murder. It's a death sentence.
Andrew Wilson: And not only that, let's point this out. One of the major things here is that this is your official timeline.
Candace Owens: It's mine.
Andrew Wilson: Yes, who else's could it be? Who else? It would be Candace Owens—
Patrick Bet-David: What's your issue with that?
Andrew Wilson: Well, so the issue is is that the entirety of the evidence revolves around two people who claim that he was there and supposedly a receipt. There's supposedly a receipt where Tyler Robinson paid for his steak and his soft drink, no alcohol, right? No alcohol, right? You know nothing about the case. But anyway, this particular receipt, they could have called the merchant account, confirmed it, this type of thing. To date, this receipt has only the blurred information on it that would actually give you the information to confirm whose receipt it is. We have to date, nobody has confirmed that this was actually Tyler Robinson's receipt. And yet, inside of Candace Owens' timeline, which she states over and over again when she says, this is of the longest 13 hours, this is 13 and a half hours.
The requirement for about what roughly five and a half or six hours of that is that he went to the steakhouse. And so, and that's not been confirmed at all. Not even a little bit.
Candace Owens: I feel like saying that I spoke to the owner of the steakhouse is me, like not just being on X looking at opinions, but actually doing the legwork. And that's why I like I said, if you think this builds up a rapport with your audience and makes you seem like a serious person, we don't have to keep belaboring the point here. I feel like I've demonstrated that I did as much as I could to confirm this when it came in. I spoke to the owner of the restaurant. You know, obviously took down everything he said, noted that there was in fact a receipt that he pulled. That receipt that was published is real. A debit card and a credit card was used. If for some reason somebody misidentified something down the line, or we find out it's a different Tyler Robinson, I'm happy to remove it from my timeline. But for right now, I think that there's enough under the Utah 1102 rule for me to keep it there. I don't really think we need to keep going into circles about this receipt. It's my timeline.
Andrew Wilson: I don't know why the 1102 rule would apply here for your two.
Candace Owens: Because you would constantly cite things that are said in that courtroom that have less evidentiary support than me contacting and speaking with the owner of the restaurant. It's not like I dreamed it as to use your expression, so it's in my timeline, and I'm gonna keep it there if that's sure.
Andrew Wilson: You can keep whatever you want there. I'm just saying that there's no evidence he was ever there.
Candace Owens: Okay, thank you.
Clip (Redacted, August 20, 2026):
Natali Morris: We were talking about this group of influencers who you probably see in your X feed who are saying, Absolutely, Tyler Kirk is the guy. Yes, don't ask questions. Candace is odious, we hate her, and we are convinced.
Lionel Nation: If you think there's no evidence, that's fine. Let's talk about this. If you want to talk about Candace being crazy, that's fine. Your opinion. But don't argue the facts of the Tyler Robinson case by telling me Candace is crazy. They have nothing to do with each other.
Natali Morris: That's a good point.
Lionel Nation: When if you don't think that if you think rather, or don't think, whatever, in the conspiracy theories regarding JFK, don't blame Oliver Stone. Oliver Stone is merely commenting on what it like Candace is. He's not this, he's not the Warren Commission.
Now, either because of her powerful personality, the fact that somebody wants to knock her off her perch, she has become the issue. For example, she doesn't say this. The evidence says this. That's not her saying this, making this up. That's her repeating what others have said. Were it not for her and her platform, we would have never known about this. So this is somehow transformed into her.
It's gotten to the point where she's psychotic, she's crazy, and yet she has inadvertently done more to cause more people, first of all, to look at the facts of the case and other people to change their minds and say they are hiding something. Because they keep sending these bevy of naysayers. They don't do that. It's never the facts. It's always, how dare you? What's the matter with you? You hate Erica. You've got to—
Oh, oh, here's my favorite. He decides to come up all of a sudden, and he has the unmitigated gall to tell Candace that she's making money off of the horror that is Charlie Kirk. Well, guess what he did? He supposedly gave her $300,000 to make money.
Natali Morris: I'd like to ask about this part because he's insinuating, because we're talking about the evidence, that she's collecting evidence in bad faith. So the steakhouse receipt, he cannot verify, and she's very careful to say, I'm still reporting it. It's still being verified. And he's saying, because it's not 100%, you don't put it on the timeline.
But have you ever seen a crime show? You put everything on the board to try to, and so he's saying put nothing on the board except what the government tells you to put on the board. And I'm like everything goes on the board, and he's acting like he's like, it's irresponsible for you to keep this timeline. She's like, it's mine. I can do whatever the hell I want. I can write in a notebook, all kinds of crazy things. I'm allowed. I don't understand.
Lionel Nation: But there's also there is really a receipt of some sort. She also has to realize that she is really kind of a journalist. Then she said the other day, also, I've got this part of the timeline, and he wants her to reveal this because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't understand. He doesn't grasp the essence of what this is really about.
I don't think he prepared anything. I don't think he knew the facts of the case. Every single day there was some coterie of affiliates of hers, citizen social media types, who have so much information. I don't want to be the to the point where whenever the government says something, I immediately take the default position that they're lying. But Natalie, how many times—
Natali Morris: I'm there. I'm there.
Lionel Nation: Well, how many times do you have to be fooled? I at least listen. By the way, did you hear the expert say that because he's a gunsmith or something, that some frangible bullets can break apart in midair. That's in a millisecond. They just fall apart. I mean, what could—what do you—are you making this up? But this—
Natali Morris: Yes. He does it. I think that's the answer. Right?
Lionel Nation: You hear this noise? It goes like that. No exit wound, no nothing. And somebody says, quick, get the SD cards, get them, get them. Hello? Now come this bevy, these brigades of influencers, one more preposterous than the other, who never talk about the evidence, but talk about how nuts Candace is.
Natali Morris: Yeah.
Lionel Nation: And you mean to tell me the best they can come up with after everything I've told you is that Candace is crazy. This is she make this up. No, she's reporting it.
Natali Morris: Go ahead.
Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry to chime in, but like so. So if I believe, if I believe in something, and I'm gonna come on this show and I'm gonna debate Lionel. What I'm going to do is I'm gonna prepare arguments that back up my belief. I'm not going to prepare arguments that prove Lionel wrong. If that if my entire means I'm here to win an argument, not a debate. If it's gonna if I'm just gonna embarrass Lionel. So I'm just gonna bring these clips like no evidence for my own point. Like I don't actually believe it then, do I?
Natali Morris: Right. You could tell that the debate strategy was a disdain for her unless less about the substance. The substance.
Lionel Nation: He's gonna be—his picture's gonna be on the side of a milk carton before you realize it, because TPUSA and everybody involved in this is gonna say, lose this guy. That's why—why do you think now do you know why Candace said, I'm gonna do this, but I want TPUSA to endorse or ratify his opinion. He's with you, right? What did they say? Oh no, no way. Now you know why.
And this is a guy they say, according to him, this is a guy that they hired to teach him how to debate. He's gonna get his money back from that. This who is he? I mean, this is tomorrow. I'm going—tomorrow, tomorrow I'm gonna be a neurosurgeon.
Bob Metz:
I totally agree. Denial, denial, denial. I honestly don't know how Candace kept her cool during that onslaught of denials, irrationality, double standards, and all the other BS coming out of Andrew Wilson's mouth. He certainly didn't do much for his case or his side of the argument.
However, I do have to appreciate what Andrew Wilson accomplished by paying for and having the debate. Because over the course of the entire four hours, I learned a lot of things of which I was not aware, and finally heard some context behind other narratives that I had misunderstood or that were constantly being misrepresented.
Among some of the other issues discussed were the real story behind Tyler Robinson's parents and how he was turned into authorities, and on other topics like Israel, France, and the French Foreign Legion, which I had somewhat written off as stretching the truth a bit, but turned out to have much more substance and credibility than I would have expected. Even Patrick Bet-David found some of the information quite alarming.
But that whole exchange about the receipt and Candace's timeline, which she explained clearly and concisely so many times I lost count, made Wilson look like a retard. And if you're wondering why I would use a word like that to describe him, well, maybe this has something to do with it.
Clip (PBD Podcast, August 14, 2026):
Patrick Bet-David: So the complicit part about Erica to you, is that a gut feeling? You think—
Candace Owens: It transformed when she lied.
Andrew Wilson: I actually don't under—I still don't understand what she's—you think she's complicit in.
Candace Owens: Yeah, so when I say Erica's blessing, that's my opinion, when you tweeted Erica's too retarded to kill her husband, would you like to explain how you developed your evidence, your positive evidence for the fact that Erica was retarded?
Andrew Wilson: Yeah, sure. So I just think all women are retarded.
Candace Owens: Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff. Who knew?
Bob Metz:
Well, now we all know. And even though Wilson backtracked by saying he was just joking and being tongue-in-cheek, he didn't answer Candace's question, and in the context of the given debate and his relentless pressuring Candace to abide by his standards and his definitions and his rules of how a timeline should be constructed, officially, of course, to say that all women are retarded was possibly the most inappropriate thing he could ever have said.
He's a master debater, all right. He doesn't need an opponent for his style of debating.
How all this will play out in terms of justice for Charlie Kirk is something that remains to be seen, and that is a discussion outside the context of this debate. But whatever we might infer from future evidence brought to our attention is something that can only be discovered by joining us again each and every week as we continue our journey in the right direction, and until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We'll see you then.
Clip (Stewart Francis, one-liners):
Stewart Francis: One teacher used to always say I wasn't very observant, but you know what? That was his or her opinion.
I was going to join the debating team, but someone talked me out of it.