I'll listen to the rest of this later, but based on the first thirty minutes, I think this guy's "moral nihilism" could be defeated in about five minutes.

If I have a logically valid syllogism proving a moral statement-- any moral statement, like "it's objectively wrong to steal"-- then this guy either has to accept that "moral nihilism" is an incorrect worldview, or he has to argue that logic itself is invalid, which he would of course try to do using logical statements.

In other words, I think this guy could be painted into a corner very easily with a well crafted series of arguments.

On that note, I wonder how extreme materialists like this guy seemingly is, acknowledge that logic is in fact valid-- because logic is, after all, an abstract concept, not some kind of object we can hand back and forth.

Saying that logic is just "electricity and chemicals in the brain" doesn't seem to align with how certain and universally and objectively true they present their arguments. Maybe aliens orbiting Alpha Centauri have different chemicals in their brains, and so "1 + 1 = 2" is purely subjective-- which is a very non-materialist argument.