People of the internet. Welcome to modern day debate tonight. We're debating is the great reset reel and we are starting right now So I am Kaz host of the ace this edge and I'm gonna be guest subbing for a James tonight. We have t-jump versus James Hake each person is gonna have 10 minutes for their opening statement 50 minutes to the open discussion and then we're gonna do 25 minutes of Q&A and going first is James Hake So Hake at your first word. I will start the timer. The floor is all yours All right. Well, thank you very much Kaz shout out to modern-day debate and James Koons We wish him well and thank you to t-jump. Nice to see you again, man um, I say that the great reset is indeed very real But what exactly is it and who is behind it and is it a conspiracy? conspiracy means secret and It also means illegal and I suppose it's not necessarily that secret in many ways And it's not necessarily that illegal in many ways, but I don't think that it's overall a good thing we've seen the great reset come into the fore with um, at least talk about it with the China what I call the china virus. I hopefully that's not hate speech. I disavow all hate speech the COVID-19 as the global homo people call it and they they being the people of power of worldly power licked their chops and Fed into fear once they realized that this thing has some seriousness to it this pandemic as they call it and they used fear and exploitation of a crisis never let a crisis go to waste People have said obama's one of obama's right-hand man has has said that in the past and he's of the same ilk as these people are to shut down economies shut down businesses put fear in in women and female-minded people and people who are at health risk, honestly and make an excuse to take control and so we've seen that at the local level as well as the state and national and international level and we've seen um efforts over the years decades Maybe even century more than a century really maybe even more than that with the communists to exert control and centralized power in order to bring about some ideology or other I think that it's innate in human nature to want to control and especially the the uh what I call the female-minded type of thing that's like a control freakish thing and that's what we see it we see these liberal false values being pushed by all the um The commie capitalist corporations that are involved with the world economic forum And they all support black lives matter anti racism uh be We have to celebrate the lgbt stuff and we have to um push this world health thing And so we have this world health organization Which is part of the un which was part of a Oh, let's bring peace They hide behind nice Uh nice things like oh economic economic security friendliness between the nations But really it's it's not for what's right. I don't think And some of them some of the people who are for this stuff like claus schwaab He may be a well-meaning person, right? He seems like a well-meaning guy But good intentions are not Good it's always best I say to Want local control because then you have local authorities whom you can confront and You can't face somebody who's at the state or the national much less the international level So I don't think that this great reset thing of centralizing power and making things um efficient Is really a a good thing, but it's definitely a real thing what they're trying to do Okay, thank you so much james, and we'll go ahead and kick it over to t jump for his opening statement T jump at your first word the floor is all yours There were so many trigger words in that statement. I don't know if anybody could have survived the triggering um, but I don't I didn't hear anything about what exactly The great reset is in hake's worldview or what they're doing I mean like I know that there was a paper published by the world economic forum Saying there's a bunch of problems and they titled it the great reset, but So What what exactly is the conspiracy? I'll just end it there All right, thank you so much to jump for your opening statement And we're going to kick it into the open discussion in just one second But before we do that I just want to let you guys know Especially if it's your first time joining us here at modern day debate that we are a neutral platform Hosting debates on science religion and politics, and we want you to feel welcome No matter what walk of life you're from and if you have a question or comment for when it's nice debaters Fire into the old live chat and be sure to tag me at modern day debate Superchats will go to the top of the list and all we ask is that you keep it civil attack the argument And not the person as insults will not be read Our guests are linked in the description below whether you're listening on youtube or via the podcast So if you like what you're hearing, please click those links below Also, we will be having after show on my channel So that leaves also linked in the description below as well Hit the subscribe button because we have plenty more live debates coming your way that you don't want to miss including Get this up there, uh, daniel hakikachu versus mike jones and alex sign versus uh Hunter avalon those are both uh coming forth with so please Like and subscribe and with that we will kick it into the open discussion gentlemen at your first word the floor is all yours commuted um I would say that The great reset which I although I don't know much about what it is it is about Centralizing control which I did mention in the name of or in the guise of listening to experts on the on the basis of health or the climate scare or Uh human rights fake things like that and it's about it's about uh You know just uh kind of a centralizing centralizing power and um Directing how things should be With regard to like daily life and businesses and stuff like that So it's the republican party. That's that's the great reset partly. Yeah, there's a lot of republican There's a lot of the republicans Nowadays who are not for local control that is for sure They would be included in that. It's like it for me. It's not a conspiracy. It's a culture you know how these how everybody's all of a sudden all pro so-called same-sex marriage and all that stuff similar with the um kissing up to women and stuff like that and They've bullied now many of the republicans into believing, you know, the the climate hysteria So now more and more people are falling Towards this nagging type of push for Caving to the demand of the green people and all that stuff. That makes sense follow our actions the green people green people Hopefully, you know what I mean the environmentalist type stuff That's the next push in after the china virus was the climate shutdowns they wanted climate shutdowns to help the earth heal And many of the republicans are falling for that type of thing Why do you say republicans are about? uh centralizing control I agree with you on on some level. They're becoming like the democrats, but Why do you say that all people are like that? That's how power has worked throughout history I don't understand Why you're calling this the great reset all of a sudden like all human beings have been about centralizing power since, you know Conquering and world domination has always been a thing. You know how is any of the great gangist con till the hunt the version of What what what is the great reset supposedly because all all you've said so far is that People wants control like yes, I agree And they're and they're taking control in different ways. I mean they used the set the What I call the communist shutdowns in the name of the china virus was an example of the culture doing it for itself without much without much action at the central level without With just prodding and recommendations a little bit of prodding and recommendations people hopped right to it and became very obedient to to Shooting themselves in the foot economically So you sit you agree that the the great reset Although it's a new term perhaps new for the last 10 20 years, whatever it's Real and it's nothing new is what you're saying Well, I Well, I haven't heard what exactly it's supposed to be right now. It's like all you've said is that um people are trying to centralize power which has always been the case Right. Um china shutdowns. I don't think I don't think that Chinese political decisions had anything to do with like Western economic policy or the world economic form No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying in the name of the china virus Different all the practically all the countries around the world shut down their Uh local businesses on on some level or another. I'm not talking about the china shutdowns I'm talking about the shutdowns that we experienced in 2020 Yeah, yeah, like many countries did that and it wasn't like a centralized authority They were all like let's work together to try to centralize power like nobody said that they're like Let's try to save lives. That was that was the motivation and they didn't really do anything after that it's not like and after the covid shutdowns They centralized power by opening everything up again They didn't exactly open everything up again They once they crossed that line to be able to shut down stuff like that they can do it again and like I said, it's it's a culture The culture has been primed for This type of degeneracy that we shut down stuff and hurt ourselves And the economy is still reeling to this day As a result of that people are wondering why we have all this inflation and uh messed up Supply chain issues and things like that. Well, it's because we have people who've Hamstrung our economy in a lot of different ways But what does any of that have to do with the great reset like yes people make decisions some of them are bad and therefore What and we've done shutdowns before they already had the power to do the shutdowns That's how they did them in the first place. They didn't add any new powers and they haven't done it since because They haven't done anything since the kova shutdowns to to enact some kind of global reset They just kind of went on as as normal.  I have to wait for more evidence comparing like whichever country it was that didn't do the shutdown Sweden or something um and compared their outcomes to other countries outcomes to make uh assessment of which is better depending on like the rate at which Natural biological functions can build up an immunity and whether herd immunity is formed that way I'd have to know more data on that. I don't know. Well, I leave it up to the experts Okay, well, I'm not asserting that it's a conspiracy as much as a a culture that's been um that's been primed for Destroying that's what the reset is destroying or taking advantage of destruction to rebuild their way which is I argue worse because it's take it's centralizing power Rather than keeping it to the local control, which is where it's Where the people have more say so on their own lives and communities Wow Okay, but I don't see any of that like I don't see anything of like COVID shutdowns therefore take away Powers from the municipalities. It doesn't doesn't seem to be a thing like it's not like Oh, the government now has rights to decide your state road laws. No, it doesn't do that municipalities It's from individuals people businesses They had they had very little say as to whether they were allowed to stay open And you act like this was not a new thing. It was I think those shutdowns correct me if i'm wrong Those were unprecedented that level of shutting down the country turning it into a ghost town I'd never seen that before in my life It may have happened in the past. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it not a A for a great reset Well for it to be a great reset there has to be like a reset action where it resets something if it's literally the things that we've already been doing and then We did something and then went back to the things we already went doing I mean, I guess I guess that's a reset. We turn the computer on turn the computer off. Yeah That's our reset But we didn't go back to what we were doing because a lot of businesses were destroyed now Amazon's doing better than ever I hear and all these corporations That are in bed with the government are all the more powerful and we and they successfully used this uh These this client the not the climate scare the health scare to bring in the mail-in voting and Make make it so that every idiot could vote very very conveniently and we have to vote trump out So they reset the whole presidency in america And I'm saying that with a conspiracy. I'm not saying it was it was like violation of laws necessarily, but I'm saying that this was Although it's great reset people, you know the world economic forum people the world health organization people un types The establishment in our government the joe biden types and people who supported him and the people who don't like trump that was Oh They reset trump right out of office. We didn't go back to where we were I get i'm not saying this is a conspiracy I'm not saying I never said it was a conspiracy. You're well I don't understand what exactly you're saying the great reset is other than people disagree And they do new things occasionally and they do new laws occasionally therefore great reset. I don't I don't get it They call it the great reset. It's not my word for it Well, who calls what the great reset like The world health the the world whatever the world health forum has like a paper. They call the great reset Which is a nothing. There's there's no policies related to that whatsoever Um, I don't see anything that anybody in the actual world is calling the great reset with any kind of plan or intentionality Or set of demonstrable values that they're trying to implement. It seems like it's a made-up thing by republicans that has no basis in reality Uh, it's it's just doing things republicans don't like Therefore it's bad So it's the racism of the republicans is like we're just gonna call it the great reset because we don't like it kind of a thing But there's no actual policy there like for it to be a thing There has to be some kind of centralized policy there for it to be around not just no everything we don't like I I disagree with you in that it's funny that you said it's the racism of the republicans You're saying that the democrats cry racism and that's not overall a real thing And so the republicans cry great reset and overall it's Normal life The way things work. I can agree with you a little bit on that um And i'm not one of these harp on the great reset type of people but I do see And I think that you do too the um The un types the who types the um cdc types they love to be Feeling like self important and and pushing their uh their control freakness on So the people and it's and you see it bear out in the local populations too Women screaming at at people who are unmasked and male is doing it too And so it's like a mindset That is in the infected and it's probably infected ever since the beginning of time really But the great reset is the latest episode of what you see Of what you see throughout history. You're right about the centralizing power and People being doing what I argue counterproductive things So why call it the great reset? Why don't just call it human nature? I'm with I'm with you a bit it's but it is I'm not I'm not so quick to poo poo the people who call it the great reset because They are right. I mean look at claus swab was art was bragging that he has People it doesn't isn't true. No part of that. Wasn't he part of the world's economic war? I don't know there's they have people involved in all that stuff involved in what Involved in different governments around the world. Sorry. I'm talking I'm talking like you guys know what I'm talking about You know the thing like Joe Biden But one thing that they agree on certain things They're in a club of people who agree like so are the republicans the republicans agree with saudi arabia on many things That doesn't mean they're like some kind of global cabal of republicans of saudi arabians that have this like Super great reset plans to do republican things. They're just they just agree A guest who go agrees with the world health Forum and they agree with some of the climate activists Because there are facts and and they agree with those facts and they think that we should do something about those facts Doesn't mean they're a part of some global cabal what? cabal uh Well, they're not part of the good guys. I'll tell you that much. I don't know about cabal. I don't know exactly what cabal means but group an inter-organized group of people trying to like A secret organization behind the scenes trying to run things and implement policies to do something to various like No, they're just they're just doing politics and you agree on some stuff Well, we all know that there's some secret things that that may go on and we don't know what it is But you're right. They are doing a lot of this stuff openly And they use intellectual arguments to fool the intellectuals and the emotional people Which is the same thing They use resin to fool reasonable people. That doesn't seem it seems terrible. Why would anyone do that? That's how satan works. That's that's how That's how they trick the the popular Support in the same so-called same-sex marriage like 20 years ago It wasn't The support for that wasn't to the level that it is and that wasn't just by innocent means Didn't just by reason makes it makes sense We should we should give more rights to people that lgbt community. It makes perfect sense. It makes society better It's rational. It's moral. Yes. There are reasons to do that. It's not just hey see you're you're an example of Of rationalizing wrong But I don't want to like get Steered off into this same sex marriage thing But I take that as an example that how stuff has changed that you guys suddenly think that you're more Why you're wiser than the than the simple men who ran society with logic and morality What? Yeah, I think I think typically most people today are wiser than the goat herders of two to four thousand years ago I think they are not they weren't using logic when they wrote those books And we can see that very clearly in in many different cases like, you know Happy is he who will dash babies against rocks doesn't seem logical It was different times back then and I don't know that I don't know that verse specifically I'm not defending that verse, but I'm just saying that you know, they they talk about Just to not to get too far off topic, but they talk about lynchings for alleged theft for example And nowadays you get something stolen. It's not the end of your life or family But back then theft was like perhaps a life threatening situation. You can't just let that continue so they had quick so-called street justice if you will in the form of lynching and Now it seems so barbaric and horrific today to us, but back then they had It was totally different times just giving you an example of It wasn't so a lot The world getting better It seems like an example of improvement in the world getting better. There's there's less lynchings today. Yeah improvement. Yes I don't know if maybe what do you mean maybe? No, I'm saying I don't know that there's less that there's our fewer lynchings today because we have uh I think that the murder rates are higher perhaps than they were back then and you can argue with that but the Murders or street justice if you will with the drugs and all that stuff I don't think that that's any less than the lynchings So we have we have data on the lynchings back to like 1882. You can just check the The faculty pages for a free university that says the current number of lynchings Since 1965 has been about zero as the average Back in the in the 19 to 1800s. It was in the hundreds was the average So it's been going down pretty consistently. Also murder rates have been going down pretty consistently too, but I know but murder after spiking like crazy since the uh 60s Yes Yeah, they're going down after spiking like Unprecedented levels in the 80s and 90s. So you can say oh, they're going down, but they're still way higher than they were in the Perhaps 50s 40s. I would think depending on where you are and who you're around but by by lynchings, I mean that um, so-called street justice with the Murders and all that stuff So I don't think that we're better or smarter than the goat herders of Thousands of years ago. We're just in different times and you could say we are doing better in that we have Time of we have a time of plenty at least in America practically nobody probably perhaps nobody is starving in America and in many of these other countries and so we have a society that can People can get away with a lot more And live longer longer. We have medical advances and things like that where people can live In ways that are detrimental to their health and then get these western medicine to survive or and stuff like that. So that's It's it's cushy. It's nice. I I wouldn't necessarily want to trade it, but it's not It's not necessarily morally better So so we have new medicines that can save people lives and give people more freedom to live the way they want and that's not better I'm saying that the I'm saying that the way it enables it enables people to live and in freedom long ways Is it seems like you're the one advocating advocating for centralized authority and trying to force people to live a certain way You know what? I am not entirely against that. Um, but But I do so hake is doing the greek reset The greek reset is done by hake. It is really I would if I were smart if I were smart I would be in with like claus schwab is with all these Corporations, but I would have a tougher time Convincing them because I don't have that verbal IQ or whatever And uh, I don't have the culture on my side But the the waves of the culture if you will are for What these people are about they just I don't know if they just Don't have any morals and they're just jumping on the trends or if they're Part of driving the trends because they see them as valuable to them because the more immoral people are the more controllable people are The more people are on pot or on pornography the less they're paying attention to themselves in their lives and um The immoral things that they're pushing Well, that seems directly contradictory to you know, like every genocide ever The the it's easier to control people the more immoral people are like Hitler You know, they're controlling people to kill lots of jews because they're immoral not more the more moral people are It might be harder to but right this has absolutely nothing to do with Economic policy to try to fix the world like Hey, there is carbon dioxide that's seen of the planet and causing lots of disastrous economic impacts that killing people Maybe we should do something about that Is it's a global conspiracy that's just looking at data and trying to fix problems. It's pretty pretty basic stuff I don't call it a conspiracy necessarily, but there's been a lot of shenanigans and uh shutting down of of differing opinions in the scientific world I hear around the climate stuff so there's there is this Anti free speech if you will Even at the scientific level which is doesn't sound to me very scientific to Try to shut down dissent scientific dissent Have you tried to publish a scientific paper? No You should do that because you might learn a bit about the process So there's this process called double blind peer review And the way it works is is your name isn't on the paper Where you're from isn't on the paper It just shows the content of the paper And it's shown to somebody and neither of you know anything about one another and all you do is read the content of the paper and They they they will let anybody submit these this is it's not like you need a phd because again, it's double blind They have no idea what you're backgroundizing you you can submit a paper Right now and get it peer reviewed. It's very easy. Nobody is like Conspiring in the scientific community to hide any of these papers. They're just bad. That's that's why they reject it Is because they're bad Okay, well, I'm not talking about that necessarily. I'm talking about um At the ipcc for example Um, that's the un international panel on climate mess And they're they're trying to do the great reset stuff in the name of the climate hype, right? And you're acting like it's just a Just an innocent economic policy to fix things But it's on policy.  They don't actually You're acting like it's an innocent efforts to just fix things based on data Yeah, but no, it's that's that's not really the case.  There's a whole lot of tall tales going in with this Climate scare climate hype. There is undeniable hype that is pushing towards Bad solutions to what I call misdiagnosed problems What was the question there something about the 97 percent? Like that that's from a comparison of papers That's not an opinion poll of scientists that was comparing the published papers and the evidence of those published papers So it was like and many of those scientists came back and said what you claim that I believe I don't actually believe it was what I heard based on the story Yeah, that was the ones that was supporting that was climate change was a fake Those were the ones because there was three percent of papers There's I think 10,000 papers that were that were studied in this and the ones that gave some evidence For the rejection of climate change was actually published by scientists to Affirm climate change and so assuming that the paper was not conclusive or indicating that there was no climate change so the three percent was actually People who you're talking about who didn't actually agree with the anti anti climate change So like the papers were correct. There is climate change and it is a scientific fact Well, whatever, but that but you didn't address what I said like this the 97 percent of scientists who agreed Did not actually agree with what the The media was saying that they were agreeing with or the person who made that who put to compile that list of papers He was being either dishonest or jumping to false conclusions either The years and it's been repeated over and over falsely So that's why the first thing I said was the 97 isn't of scientists. It's of papers published academic papers Whatever, yeah, which which is in science if you're a scientist that matters more than the opinions of the scientists We want to know what does the evidence which is the published papers indicate and the evidence 97 percent of it indicates climate change is real. So whatever that person Well, so the person who writing who was writing this did a very good job of representing the scientific body of data um, and so yes 97 of the scientific body of data indicates Climate change is real The media misquoted that it said it was like a poll of scientists, which it wasn't it was more more rigorous than that It was a poll of papers Um, but the media makes lots of stupid mistakes. I mean, have you seen Tucker Carlson? It's an innocent mistake Yes, like when an average person reads 97 percent of papers Represents the this particular scientific conclusions. They don't understand the scientific process Like you said you haven't tried to publish a scientific paper. You don't understand the scientific process The media is reading this they're gonna say think it's like oh 97 percent of scientists It's completely an honest mistake because they just don't understand how science works.  I say that the neither are the media They're fear they have fear and they push fear And they have anger and they push anger And same too with the blind brainwashed teachers who are are traumatizing the children with this fear They're going way past what the science science actually says Okay, so in order to push. Oh, we need the green new deal or whatever the flavor of the day Fake solution to this imaginary problem is So so the paper actually showed that 97 percent of the science indicates climate change is real and you're complaining That they said 97 percent of the scientists, which is less less compelling than the science They said that the scientists think it's 97 percent And you're thinking they're misrepresenting the data So there's a stronger thing the scientific body of evidence Which indicates climate change is real to 97 percent And the weaker thing the opinions of the scientists doesn't but they said the weaker thing Um, and they're manipulating people like that seems kind of backwards They're they're using the weaker thing to manipulate people rather than the stronger thing Which is the body of the science Which should indicate even more seems like they're doing the opposite of what you're saying They're presenting a bunch of people's opinions as if it's evidence and not presenting the evidence which Actually indicates the thing they're saying Right, but the evidence doesn't say the You're making a claim and i'm i'm not convinced that the claim that you're making is Is making it is saying that it's man-made and it's catastrophic and all that stuff saying climate change is real It's kind of a Meaningless statement to me. That's why I kept on saying whatever that means Anthropocentric climate change is real man Okay, all right. That's what that's what all the evidence in the case.  Uh, maybe the media and the government and the academia world Even if this scientists are saying one thing They're being they're over hyping and pushing fear and pushing their what I say are false solutions Besides just really boring people they just present the data. Um, I don't know If kids were experiencing anxiety from this, I wouldn't see it as any different from republicans experiencing trans anxiety or anxiety from Gay nightclubs and then thinking that hurricanes are a result of god's wrath because we're being evil Yeah, there's a bunch of very silly people with silly beliefs and think that those Impact society. That's just how ideologies work in order to push power Well, I don't think that's the case. I don't they're arguing for power. Come on, you know that Well, well, they're trying to promote their ideology which is Buying for power. It's not working. Um, most scientists most academics aren't compelled by Um propaganda, um propaganda has meant some fool people on twitter But anyway, uh, but I wasn't talking about the sciences. I'm talking about the uh policy The green new deal type stuff. They're they're trying to shut down. Um gas powered cars here in california by 2035 There's all kinds of Policy stuff that's going on but that's based on the science. None of the media matters based on fear fear mongering And the the politicians don't know or care about the science. They're just exploiting Uh convenience for for power Well, no, like the green new deal was specifically written with scientists to try to fight the scientific problem of climate change It's not about like people's opinions. It's literally just about the science And this is what the great reset is about is is about pushing the so-called experts As though they're gonna make good decisions For the rest of the people That's what the great reset is about Typically if they're experts that means they know more about something and so if you're trying to say well, there's a global economic or global Uh climate crisis the the ones who would probably know how to solve it would be the experts that seems to make sense And so yeah, so that's a yes rule by experts or rule in the name of experts Well, I would prefer that as opposed to like asking the bible or Asking a Ouija board. Maybe we should ask the science because science works. It's the only one that works. Yeah so so you're saying that the great reset as I call as I describe it rule by experts is real and desirable or is what you would want If what you're saying is should we make decisions based off of the best data we have that is testable and repeatable and verifiable And can be shown to to be correct in reality. Yes. Yes. I do think we should do that I don't think we should Use the bible or Ouija boards or people's intuitions or twitter polls. I think we should do science And you and yet you acknowledge that it may well have been overboard stupid People put people having fear science No, no, no, I'm talking about no. I'm not talking about the science.  There's lots of overbearing policies. Yes in the name of experts Well, those weren't done in the name of experts like I know they say in the name of the science the science Yeah, so like the science says that in order to stop the spread of a virus we limit exposure That's very rational. It's a very rational thing to do. Did it work? Well in america, most people didn't a lot a very large portion of population didn't Isolate if they did then yes that that would have ended the virus like if all human beings isolated for two weeks The virus would be dead. It would be gone permanently from the history of the world. It would be gone But we didn't do it. So the scientists were like, hey Here's how we can literally eliminate the virus in two weeks if everybody just isolates People didn't do that So the scientists were correct. The scientists were like, hey, we can solve this problem We can get this over with because everybody can go back to normal and it will cost less and save more lives And they were 100 correct if everybody in the world spent two weeks and didn't And isolated it would have been better for everybody So you would and they didn't do it. So you agree with trump's 15 days to slow the spread No, no, and the science says that if we isolated completely it would end COVID COVID would die the entire Days 15 days it sounds like two weeks Well, that's the science is saying that it's not to slow the spread if we literally all human beings isolated it would die Well, trump is a practical man. He knows that all people are not going to stop life They they can't function like that. They can't afford to do that And so reality says no matter what the scientific ideal idealist say Is we know that it's only going to be able to slow it Because you're not ever going to get people to all people, especially the ones who the low information voters whom they love to Comply nor the people who think for themselves and stuff like that. You're not going to get 100 compliance So you agree with trump's 15 days then Um I don't have any idea what i'm you're asking exactly right there. So my claim was that the scientists said Here's how we end the virus and the scientists are correct. They're understanding of how the virus works Understanding of how to stop it is correct. They said here's how do we stop it? This is the best way to save the most lives Um, they didn't say it was practical. That's that's on the political side, right? And so whether or not we can practically implement these policies and get them to work That's more like what we would expect politicians to try to Understand more about not the scientists the scientists are correct. They were right This is this is the correct the facts of how the data of How the virus works of how we can stop it and what the the way to save the most lives and to save the economy the scientists were right about all of them The problem is is politicians Whether or not they can implement it and people whether or not they listen But none of that has to do with the science the science was right about all of it Right, but the the name in the name of science Is a misnomer Because they're not They don't really care about the science. They were over protective mama spirit type of Uh control freak, um Where 15 days to slow the spread is what trump Uh adhered to at the beginning march 2020 when this thing became declared a state of emergency or a pandemic or whatever the un called it and that turned into shutting down and killing businesses And arresting people for paddle boarding Off the beach here in Santa Monica or wherever And doing all kinds of silly um Silly control freak measures Yes, there are lots of stupid policies in addition to that, but I don't so That's not like a great reset.  They they've always done it. There's no reset. It's just human nature You're not denying the reset. You're saying that that it's the reset is an example of what what we all see all around us all the time Yeah, if I'm saying that another human nature is the same It's always been and calling it a the great reset to make it sound all spooky and scary and Great is kind of silly Yeah, I mean, I I don't even think that the great reset necessarily sounds spooky and silly What's spookier to me is when you have all these organizations The biden campaign and whoever else saying build back better You will own nothing and you will be happy And we need to just get rid of the these gas powered cars and We need to all all these different silly things and put on a mask and get the vaccine The vaccine is going to stop this and that there's it's all kind of it's all a power grab No, like what part of that is a part what part of biden's promotional slogan is a power grab like No, it was trumps. So it was trumps again. We'll forget what it was the Make America great again. Like is that a power grab because he made us America great again is inspiring the build back better is saying we're gonna let this thing be deployed and build it back in our image Which is taking's image This is the ultimate ploy of the great reset.  That should be the new title I don't see where you actually disagree with me about anything other than Whether some of these things are real or fake or good or bad to do Like you would rule by experts.  I don't know I don't know about crisis, but yes, it is a thing that's real Uh catastrophic I don't know because it's More long term than that. So I would just say it's real the scientific evidence is the yes anthropocentric climate change is a real thing Is it irreversible and I what what is it six years? Or eight years. No, it's not No, like the goal of science is to to reverse it through using means to suck carbon dioxide out of the air Like we're working on means to do that right now. It's of course, it's reversible interesting, man Like one of the means is we're trying to use synthetic algae which algae is very good at pulling carbon dioxide out of the air and if we can generate enough efficient means of Algae like that we can potentially reverse it. So it's definitely reversal. It's literally just physics Everything in physics is reversible A lot of these a lot of these green people, you know, the green new deal types If you will are not for like nuclear energy Yeah, they're dumb Right So nuclear energy is great. We should always do nuclear energy It just needs to be managed by capable people who can prevent Or who can maintain stuff properly so we don't have a meltdown or whatever Yeah, like the vast majority of See your power plants You're reasonable. You're you're one expert that I would let have limited say Except for same-sex marriage and stuff like that Let me see if there's anything else You do you see the the UN as a as a positive force NATO NATO is similar in my mind to these others because NATO forces what I heard all these people All these member nations to support the LGBT mess and this human rights Madness thing And that's like very uncritical Unchristian and I think you appreciate some level of christian civilization Whereas they're kind of subverting it and taking it away from decency So I'm I'm for organization supporting human rights. Um, I think that's a good thing. I think human rights are a good thing I think that christianity is a very immoral religion in many aspects. It has done good things in the past It was very beneficial to societies in the past and helps societies to grow It got the lgbt thing wrong. It's it's wrong about that We should definitely be more accepting of people who have different biologically determined sexual drives that aren't heterosexual because it's a thing and there's it's not immoral to allow them to marry in any way So yes, we should give them human rights and treat them like humans because they're humans But that's not that's kind of a That's almost a scarecrow or whatever the argument. Um, because strawman christians. Yeah, the christians treat the lgbt people at least the decent ones like human beings It's just that we don't agree with them that type of madness where you Call wrong right and pretend along with the with the delusions of different people You don't you don't enable people or or pretend wrong is right so I think that these organizations my bigger point is world health organization kissing up to women like that um The communist roots of like dr. Tedros and all that stuff all these all these uh one world types and we are the world types Are not trustworthy or decent people and they're not for a Normal common sense They can they can push I can see that they can push a level of stability or whatever but it's kind of like cherry picked and dishonest and um pick and choose who You want to enforce your rules against Nepotism. Yes. There is nepotism in power. That's a thing. Um, I think that they're Perfectly rational to think that we should treat people in the lgbt community with Respect and let them marry. They should totally do that. I do think that there's a lot of people on the left to go overboard and just Call anybody who disagrees racist sexist transphobic etc etc for no reason But in general the morality of christianity got this one wrong and society is going ahead moving ahead correctly Against christianity. I think that that's a good thing And as we make the world a better place more people are going to be accepting of that Which is also a good thing and it's not going to deteriorate society at all. It's going to make it better do you when you look at the un in the world health organization and organizations like that do you see Decency is either a net plus or a net neutral or Do you cringe? Maybe it's both them well, I like to use that quote that democracy is Is the worst form of government it just happens to be better than all the other ones we've tried So I see like most political figures and people Trying to make a difference in the world as They have their flaws. They're not great, but they're at least they're trying they're they're better than hitler so I think that the world health organization and Um, the un are doing things to try to make the world better with the best that they can there There are they are a bunch of idiots. I would agree you're there, but they're far better than they republican run World health organization would be so I think that yes the democrats are making progress They're doing it slowly and they're idiots, but they're better than the republicans Huh interesting Um, no man Yeah, go ahead. Let everybody know that we have four minutes left until q&a. So get your super chats in while you still can I'm ready for q&a You're ready for q&a now. I suppose I I might be I'm about ready. Yeah, if I if I think of anything I imagine we might have like a closing statement type thing Uh, not usually but if you want we can do that right now. Okay Okay, great. All right. Let me just reset the clock then and we will go into the q&a So Ladies and gentlemen just want to remind you that our guests are linked in the description below So if you like what you heard don't forget to click on those links below Whether you're listening on youtube or via the podcast and we're going to have an after show tonight That's also linked in description below as well. So, uh timer is set 25 minutes of q&a and the first question comes from irish rose for five pounds They say bill gates owns the largest amount of private farmland in the usa Anybody want to respond to that? That's that's creepy. He's not he's he's kind of run by his ex-wife. I think ex-wife, right? that that guy I don't know. I don't trust him Thank you for bringing that up and and he's All in with these people who are for pushing different things and meddling their Their fingers into the affairs of people's lives Vaccines and all that stuff Which I don't entirely trust All right, but the amount of privately owned land isn't even that great. So it's it's not It's like if I have the most of the pie But there's a billion different people who have a piece of the pie and the most is 0.0001 It's it's it's not a significant fact. It doesn't matter. Okay, but did you notice that? With the shutdowns for example a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs went under and and the bigger businesses thrived I don't see that as a positive thing. I think that these things were Unnecessary and you know like minimum wage and all that stuff is unnecessary and it hampers The self-sufficiency Oh, this is what my question was going to be Although it's kind of deviating from the thing local control or centralized control, which would you prefer? Uh depends on the particular policy There's benefits of both but like obviously I think that If there is something like what the speed limit should be on a road that should be local Um, what the amount of pollution should be into a river that spans Six different states that should be federal So I think that depending on the policy that there should be a different constituency that determines Its effects depending on the scope of the implications Okay, nice. Thank you Okay, next question comes in from kent woods for ten dollars They say members of the world economic forum and the world health organization typically fund political parties globally So why is it conspiracy to suggest these people have a shared interest in concentrating power? Watch the last american vagabond Because again, they're just they're just doing the things they're already doing It's not a conspiracy like if you agree with a political party you give money to that political party Uh, this isn't a global conspiracy any more than a person donating to the republican party because they agree with it is Yes, large organizations tend to donate and give money to political candidates who are helping them That's just humans being humans. It's not a conspiracy Yeah, I don't necessarily think it's a conspiracy although. I know that there's a lot of shenanigans done behind closed doors a lot, but um I'm not going to like assert something that I don't know actually um Please not knowingly But I would say that it doesn't make them They are Indecent people and they're doing it in front of our faces and enough useful idiots are on board with what they're about It's a shame Okay, and the next super jet comes in from uh in the pocket for two dollars canadian They risk they say all due respect to you hake, but they would like another debater to take up this Uh I understand I understand And then from I'm sorry go ahead No, no, I didn't have any follow-up Okay, uh from Gavin Luckart for five dollars. They say, um, does tom jump have any opinions that don't serve the establishment All right.  So yeah, they have lots of opinions that don't serve the establishment Got it. And then from uh, you to have Hello, I'm not sure how to sponsor that. Sorry For five dollars. They say hake. What is more moral to? um Homosexual people getting married or two homosexual people living in a secret life Uh with each other while criticizing other homosexuals on the radio um I don't know It's not for me to say what what's more immoral or less immoral Sounds like he's listening to gossip Which is also immoral Got it. And then from mr. Monster for five dollars. They say climate change is a very real global warming Has is very real global warming has happened before it caused extinctions such as the great dying fact Yeah, this one's anthropocentric Global warming so it's caused by humans this time But yes, it has happened many times in the past and it has been bad in the past So we have reason to be concerned that we should probably try to not make it as bad as the ones in the past I assume you've heard about the solar flare stuff the solar yeah solar flares from the sun. Yeah, what about them? They have Do they have more impact or less impact on uh than the anthropocentric Well, if a solar flare directly hit the planet it would fry everything so they would have more if they directly hit the planet But like what's been going on with the sun has that been influencing Yeah, the sun's temperature has been increasing. Um, which does increase the the temperature on earth. Yes Okay, interesting Okay, and then from anomic anomic from 199. They say welcome back. Hey, we missed you Thank you, man. I've been out for several months. I had Like three surgeries and so it's nice to be back nice to see The chat as well as the whole the host and my opponent Very cool Glad to hear that you're doing better. Uh 199 from anomic economic again. They say at best science can give us um Numbers not what to do In your face t-jump So like if I can give you numbers and say that, you know, you should probably gamble on the one that's the most likely That would be giving you numbers and what to do. So some numbers numbers are very good at telling you what to do okay um From kent woods for two dollars. They say t-jump. Have you read the great reset by kswap Schwab his book. No, I have no interest in it whatsoever. Why? Yeah, let me copy these questions. I don't blame you and we're just up in I don't either Other viewer read it neither have us neither of us have I don't know. Okay Next question Anyway, but sorry ignorant people arguing about this thing Got it From kentwood. No from in the pocket for two dollars. Canadian. They say hake is a great steel man for the negative position Steel man means I won't move I know so so a steel man is the opposite of a straw man a steel man is a representation of an argument that is like the strongest possible form So he's saying that you're doing a good job for my side of the debates Oh, yeah interesting Okay from uh k max mcdonald They say for ten dollars What best educated guests do the two guests think caused covet in the first place? Was it probably a wet market or a lab leak any theories? Evolution goes the month random mutation through dna to cause new viruses which happens literally all the time The viruses happen very very often new viruses happen super super often The fact that there was one really bad one is really common. There would be no need for like a lab leak New viruses happen all the time. It's just evolution I I couldn't say whether it was the wet market or the lab leak But I wouldn't put it past china to Make an error They're sloppier from what I understand. They've leaked viruses before including the um The SARS the original SARS that was that killed such such in such a number of hundreds of Chinese so it's Unsurprising that it came out of china. Let's just put it that way According to the reports Okay, and then the next question from nick stream for 999 they say I get the impression that there are large groups of people in this so-called democratic country Who's whose wishes are being ignored by a larger more powerful group that could speak to a reset?  Could that speak to a reset? I'm sorry Well, I'd say no because that's just again Normal like americans on the majority I think it like 70 to 80 percent are for legalization in marijuana But we haven't done that yet Because politicians are stupid and aren't interested in benefiting people So I think there's lots and lots of policies that the majority of people would agree on Uh reproductive rights for women the majority of americans would agree that we should have those Abortion should be illegal, but politicians don't agree. So yes, there's lots of political decisions that don't represent the views of the majority which is dumb Which is why we should have no electoral college and just do a vote by majority No, i'm not for at all democracy or majority mob rule.  That's I mean, that's just a silly statement a silly uh phrase that i'm surprised that you would repeat but uh Yeah, we don't want a democracy and we also don't want uh the the wrong kind of powerful groups To control everything for sure Okay from mr. Monster who's been a member for 11 months. Thank you so much mr. Monster They say what can be done about climate change Well, as I mentioned before there's many different mechanisms. We're working on to try to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere like the algae one There's many ways to make artificial greenhouse kinds of things in deserts by Decellinating the water and using the water to fertilize the land to create more plants and the plants can then pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere By making more electric vehicles more nuclear power plants as hake pointed out nuclear power plants are phenomenal They only release like water vapor. There's no pollution there They would be great if we just started replacing most coal powered plants with nuclear power plants that would be a definitely a way to do it. There's many ways that we can realistically fight the added amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere In ways that are very Not like just damaging to the economy like nuclear power plants are great for the economy. We should build lots of them Yeah, I'm not for the government these phony corrupt the work of the politicians are the ones making the decisions on what should be done about Whatever is going on I've deferred to the so-called experts on that I guess But it should but these people are bringing in false solutions And they're over hyping the problem and putting fear in the kids, which is I'm surprised that uh tjom hasn't heard about that uh Just found a copy of the great reset. I believe this is the right copy Which is for free on the internet. So if anybody else wants to read it, I'm going to read it That's for sure. Anyways the next question come from Humanist reformation for 1999. They say let's teach the bible in schools again So everyone knows the failed promises of jesus to his disciples like in matthew chapter 10 16 and 24 Let's teach everyone the truth of the bible and give everyone religious rights I don't know that passage by by heart. So I can't comment on that but it sounds like that person is being A smarty pants I didn't want to say the smart a word because Excuse me be watching You know what? I think you're right All right. Mina for two dollars. Um, they say tjump. Why does every jew have the same opinion? They don't there's many jews who disagree like have you met ben Shapiro? All right, and that concludes our list of Superchats at the moment So if you do have a question for once nice debaters and you want to make sure that it gets read now's a great time to send it So oh got another one from an economic for 9 9 99 they say If quote unquote the science new 100 that lockdowns masks forced backs would save 5 million lives Is the decision whether that is worth the trade-off a scientific one or something else? Yes, it's a scientific one. Um So yes, if we can scientifically know that we could save most lives And we can scientifically calculate the effects on the economy and how many lives that's going to cost We can do a scientific analysis of which will have the best cost benefit analysis of what we should do Yes, that is a scientific decision Okay and Okay, no more super chats yet. So send them in guys from uh g g they say question for hank Why not try to get informed about the subjects you're debating or talking about? uh, you know what I I feel that I'm not the most informed on on this topic, but I do I stand by what I said. I don't think that he disproves One statement that I said really He just got he agrees with most of what I said. He just disagrees that it's a bad thing Perhaps that one from knowledge could be more complete for sure. I accept that criticism Okay, go ahead. Okay From uh late tonight h veck Uh t jump. Are you aware of james lindsey and how he got fake feminist research papers peer reviewed and published in prominent science publications? Everything isn't what it seems No, they were not prominent scientific publications They were feminist journals which are garbage and no one takes seriously and he showed that you can publish gibberish in feminist journals because they don't do peer review in the same way that scientific journals do and his point was to try to get the feminist garbage journals to hold up to the same scientific rigorous standards as um the hard science journals the biology chemistry physics geology because their peer review Is is real and the feminist journals are garbage and so you can publish anything in feminist journals So yeah, james lindsey just made up a bunch of random stuff about uh, like looking at dog butts and published it in the feminist journal To show that you can get any junk you want published in feminist journals because they're garbage From k max mcdonald for 499 they say tom Do you feel wokeness from media hurts perceptions of science just the idea of politics over facts? Yes, uh, both Extremism on the left and extremism on the right both damage the perceptions of science because they try to force Their political interpretations onto the data, which is always counterproductive to understanding reality for the exact same reasons that Hoisting a religious perspective onto the data is counterproductive to understanding reality But I say that even the so-called centrist because you consider yourself a centrist and yet you're for the lgbt Madness including the t stuff transgender like I don't know how how young you'd go But we had a debate about that and you were arguing that that stuff is good because it's it's shown that it Makes their brain's sense of well-being improve to go along with the their delusions So you're not so centrist that you think you are you're you're just as swayed by the I don't know if it's the broader culture or the broader scientific consensus as The so-called extremists you're pretty extreme And and the and the mainstream is quite extreme. I say well, so like if allowing a consenting adults to get a Surgery to change the way they physically look can help improve their well-being and quality of life It's pretty centrist to be like. Yeah, we should do that but that's but the reality is That that's a silly notion that that can improve their true well-being Well, it improves their well-being in all of the measurable scientific ways based on that We can show in reality based off of things that are like real Okay Speaking of real. All right Okay, and we got another super chat from Anom economic for 199. Thank you so much They say if science can answer that question. Why do we vote? Oh, well, so science Like if we the question was is if we can use science to give a definitive answer on what the best solution is Then yeah, we wouldn't need to vote. We just say, okay, science gives the best answer to everything It doesn't though. There's a lot of gray areas on like Economic policy science doesn't solve economic policy and what will affect Or encourage people to spend money more wisely and not be in debts and to get an education like We don't know how to motivate people. That's not a scientific question. That's an economic and socio-economic question But yes, if science could answer socio-economic questions to know what would Best benefit everybody then yeah, we wouldn't need to vote. We just let science do it Yeah, but but as you as we all know like science gets scientists get in bed with the uh politicians And a whole lot of stuff gets corrupted scientists are not perfect people either nor are nor is their work so it's it's a silly notion to think that that That leading by the experts is going to be this um It's going to be this uh The best solution, you know the uh the most logical solution the most um Even the scientifically rigorous solution because it's always going to be corrupted by The phoning politics of both the scientists and the people who are controlling them and paying them Well, that's why I mentioned that double-bind peer review thing the scientists work Um is tested and repeated and verified by many different sources to make sure it works independent of all the political garbage That's why we can trust the papers. That's why that poll you mentioned of the 97 consensus Is based on the papers because the papers are double-blind peer viewed and they're true independent of what any of the scientists think That's why it's more important to go with the papers Yeah, but the people lie about what's in the papers and the uh papers aren't the ones that are defining the policy The policy is always going to be corrupted No matter how you you don't double-blind policy You fool the people and you put fear in the people and they cave to your fake solutions I don't know how you would double-blind policy that would be Exactly Okay, uh from an economic once again they say teach up what is the replication crisis Now the replication crisis is a problem in scientific papers that when Of we look at many of the scientific papers specifically in the social sciences We don't have the ability to replicate them and get the same results which shows that they're not Um, particularly reliable because many scientific journals prioritize positive results to negative results and so they disincentivize Repeating older papers to find out if they are correct And so for many of the minor Minor kinds of progress in science. They aren't repeated and falsified to the degree enough to make them rational And so the replication crisis is a fact that many of the minor progresses are not tested in peer review and verified to be rigorous Um From tanky for two pounds. They say sorry for my edgy jokes. Please take away my shadow ban Um, I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not gonna do that because I'll send me ten dollars I'll do it or the information There you go sending ten dollars super change All right, the angry canok says the scientists also said the vaccine upon release would stop the spread of covid Yet it did not t jump. How could they have known immediately that 15 days would end a novel virus? Because of the life cycle of the virus so the vaccine Is separate from stopping the virus you can know that a virus would stop If there was no transmission because your immune system will fight the virus and kill the virus in your body And the way it survives is by moving to someone else who isn't immunized and it can then grow in that host if literally all humans Stayed away from one another For two weeks then the virus would not be able to spread to another host Which means the only remaining virus would be the ones in your body, which would then be fought by the immune system and killed So when you're no longer sick and no longer transmissible for the virus At about the two-week period, which is what how long it takes your body to build up an immunization and to fight and kill the virus Then it would have no ability to spread to another person Which means the remaining ones in your body would die and then there would be literally no more anywhere in the planet And that's how we solved polio Because you can solve diseases if you just cure them from everyone And so if you take the life cycle of the virus and keep everyone isolated so it doesn't spread the virus will die So is it true that scientists did? lie And say say say something false and making their claims about the vacs Well, no, they never said the vaccine was going to cure it because vaccines don't do that They literally all they do is they build up immunization. They can't cure a virus But like a vaccine is literally just a miniature version of the virus to get your body prepared for it.  It doesn't kill the virus a vaccine I thought the super chat said not that it would cure but that it would stop the spread Stop the spread. Well, like and that's what That's what I heard that some scientists were saying or some so-called health experts Well, he's he had two parts of the question one was about the virus and spread it So yes, if most people are immunized then it will slow the spread of the virus. That's true um, but the second party The second party asked was about the ending it completely and but vaccines don't do that Okay, uh got another one from tanky. They said should social Should social sciences even be called science? No Depends which ones some of them are okay.  No Those i'm with hake on that one I'm on the i'm a hate hate train to get rid of the gender studies But we love even we cherish Uh, so chris g. Thanks for the chat. Really appreciate it. Um next question Well, how much time we got left 34 seconds last thing last question guys, uh from palm 316, please ask hake to provide a coherent definition of the great reset um Rule in the name of experts after destroying What was perfectly fine not perfectly fine, but what was doing better than what their rebuilding is I guess that's not coherent. I did my best. Sorry Got it from 499 for 499 from atomic economic economic economic They say hake t-jump admitted peer review is not rigorous and a lot of the papers are wrong And then uh from roscoe jones for five dollars canadian They say who appoints the experts and what are the requirements to be appointed as the so-called experts? Yeah, that's the end of the q&a All right. Well, so the first thing as I admitted that the replication crisis is that many of the peer review papers Aren't able to be reproduced big in the minor results major results. They always test them So physics. They always test the results in large hydrogen colliders. So there's no problem there It's on the minor papers and the minor results that don't get tested. It's not a problem with peer review It's a problem with not having enough sciences to do the tests for all the different kinds of research is for minor issues um and secondly, what was the second thing something about um Um, who appoints the experts and what are the requirements to be appointed as a so-called expert? Someone who can make progress in the academic field So if you can make discoveries in the field, that's what makes you an expert You have to have a large body of knowledge of all the other progress Things that happened in the field to know what's going on in the field And then use those to infer new things about the field that we don't know yet And then make testable predictions about what we're going to see do experiments to confirm those testable predictions and the entire time being consistent with all of the other knowledge in the field Okey-dokey, all of that ends the q&a ladies and gentlemen So before we go, I'd just like to thank the moderators in the chat for keeping everything civil James for creating this platform the audience everybody who sent in chats and watched the the debate everyone Who sent in super chats especially and lastly the debaters who are the lifeblood of the show? Thank you both so much for joining us tonight. Thank you. Like it if you loved it No, thank you Like it if you loved it share it if you want to spread it and subscribe We have many more debates coming your way that you don't want to miss So hit the subscribe button and check them out do it now So uh, and don't forget we have a after show on my channel link in the description below So come on and continue the conversation there and thank you everybody Have a great night and remember keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Have a great night