een it before. Well, your own model claims, it happens. We get it. You don't know anything about this. High enough altitude? What? From a high enough altitude? Sure. No. Yes. No, you can... No, you perceive astronautical magnification according to your model at the surface. Thanks for playing. It's okay if it's a little Dave. It's just that sometimes it's like... Sometimes it's a lot. Can I give my... Can I respectfully give my opinion like 15 seconds? Sure. It seems that this entire debate was essentially the witsicham. And when there were some legitimate questions that were asked by Planner Walk, instead of him directly answering them, he went into a monologue about debate tactics. And I found it to be very disrespectful. And I apologize for interrupting. But even in your more elaborate debates, your more elevated debates about social issues, they don't do that. You were clearly the worst-behaved person in this debate. I had to be. The challenge here... I mean, I don't want to... I really want to get to more people's questions. But I duly noted, I've taken your feedback. I did listen. I hear what you're saying. But I do want to... Instead of me like engaging you on that, like it's been heard. You've been able to say it. I want to get to more people's questions because a lot of people put into questions and we got a lot to move through. Kango44 says quick question for witsicham. What's a differentiable equation? A differential equation just uses like... Technically, I don't know if they meant... If this is like meant to be on purpose, they say a differentiable with a B. I don't know if that's something new or if that... Maybe he's making... I don't know if he's trying to act like I said it wrong or something, but like they use a differential equation for Snell's law, which uses like derivatives for different variables, blah, blah, blah, because it's actually one singular medium as opposed to two mediums. You have to use a differential equation to apply Snell's law to the Atmos. Okay. I thought you're going to say that Snell's law relies on differential equations, but like, yeah, if you're going to apply it to the atmosphere, you don't need... I'm not sure if you need differential equations. I just do a form of calculus because I never learned calculus in high school. This one coming in from... Do you appreciate your question? Magellan says witsich can add differential equations to the massive and rapidly growing things he doesn't understand but thinks that he does. Wow, good one. This is from Oliver B. Perez says, witsich, you have so much chemistry with these questioners, Austin. They say witsich, are you not using a genetic fallacy when you won't listen to evidence from NASA or other major sources because the info is from those sources or from NASA? No, because the point is that if it's not something that can be independently verified, it can't be considered like empirical, reliable evidence. We need to be able to test ourselves. The fact that they've been proven liars and they've baked a lot of stuff before certainly doesn't help. But if it's like a claim that can't be tested or verified by us and we can't just blindly believe it as if definitive proof of our entire worldview, oh, the NASA is the one federal governmental agency that doesn't lie to us. Like, okay, Ro, go take your job. I mean, I can't independently verify that witsich or duren exists. Luckily, they go terribly massive. There are some of you that weigh in on this topic. How can we expect every single person to do all of this work? That is unreasonable. This one coming in. One even knows what that means. We long. This one coming in from Magellan. Oh, we got that one. Oliver B Perez says, witsich, are you not using... We got that one. This one from down in the rabbit hole says, James, I know you know the earth is flat. Do you have to hide the ice picks in your house when these globe zealots are talking so you don't stab your eardrums asking for a friend? Well, if I moderate well, then people won't even know my position. So, Brandon Hansen, thanks for your question, says I'm a globe guy because if it's flat, then I've been lied to all my life and the materialistic viewpoint I hold would be wrong. It makes me feel bad to think about all the assumptions I would have wrong. Any thoughts from anybody? All right. I kind of zoned out. I was just reading everyone saying, Austin, get a job in the chat.  You need to work for a Taco Bell like I do. Yeah. Like, how dare you be fair? How does it mean I can enjoy your job and make content? Oh, I mean, you're so mad at that. You're always trying to get a degree in programming. You might be able to do some... I'm good, bro. Why do the glovers who seem to be miserable think that I need their life advice? That's what I don't understand. I'm good. Thank you. So, it's worthwhile getting a degree. That's what you think. I know many millionaires that disagree with you. So... This one coming in from... Oh, you know how million is? Yes. And they think college is a waste of time and a trap and that they could start a business four years earlier and make tons of money. Yeah. Multiple... It's totally a scam artist, too. This one comes... Okay. Mark says, glovers know what's up with the orbital motion argument. Hence why they are deflecting. We'll give you a chance, Planner-Walk and David. Were you deflecting? I don't think we were. Reflected from what? They said... Just admitting that... That's what Otto asked. ...or that the earth's moving. Yeah. Orbital motion argument. You were deflected. The orbital motion is clearly determined by what you are observing, this moving relative to where you're standing. Or sitting or orbiting. There's nothing to deflect from. There's space.    Could it really be? But it could be. You don't know that. That's how video games simulate motion. At least 2D video games do. Whoa, 2D video games here in the earth's a ball. Dude, if you stood in my front yard and we watched the car pass us on the road, we'd be like, oh look, we're standing still. And that car just passed us on the road. Well, that's what we see. And you guys say that the car is actually stationary and that we are moving in our yard, but we can't feel it. That's what you say. Or measure it or detect it or prove it. Well, no, what I'm saying is that we can tell that something's moving, right? And you can very easily see that there is something that's moving. What it is that is moving is you can't objectively say, oh, this is what is moving, right? But you can say, well, if this thing here is moving, everything makes a whole lot more sense. If the earth is moving around the sun rather than the sun moving around the earth, then that makes a lot more sense. Well, it makes a lot more sense when you have 860 miles wide sun, yes. It doesn't even make more sense, though. Like their math is completely off, even distribution central to the earth. Or they had to say, well, it just looks like that everywhere. And then expansion rate and the galaxy distribution. Everything is wrong because of that. You're just saying that it makes more sense, doesn't mean it. But at least you did admit, three hours in, two and a half hours in, you did admit you can't prove the earth orbits the sun. Thank you. Wilson, why did you have to have to prove the universe just to explain the motion of the earth? I didn't say that. He said it works better. I explained it actually doesn't work as well. Trying to keep up. No, you're simply pointing out where it may not work precisely. You're pointing out and correctly so that there may be some margin of error. But that margin of error is far less than whatever alternative you provide. No, it goes away with the geocentric earth. I was specifically naming the problems that come from the heliocentric model. And remember that the geocentric earth is still a glide. Okay, if that makes you feel better, we falsified that part too, man. This one from Kangol44 says, Sharon, you have proved the curvature of the earth with your light through the holes experiments. So why are you on the flat earth side? That's four of them so far.  I certainly am not going to go, you know what, these guys had to lie about me to prove the globe. Therefore, I believe in the globe. That would be- So why did- So why did the whole- I really should move forward. So why? I can do the sea of David, just because we have so many questions still. Shrik says- We got that one. Coffee Mom says, I would like to see the flat earth model, please. We had kind of the same question coming in. I got it. I got it. She's 37 weeks pregnant. This one from Shrik says, Witsit, let's see, saying you have impulse control issues.  It's really specific. Sounds like a projection. No, this dude was- When people constantly interrupt me, it gets frustrating. So I point out that the way that you describe that behavior is impulse control issues. So I mean, sorry. This one coming in from- Do appreciate your question. Chris says, Witsit, your understanding of mathematics, coordinate systems, calculus, geometry is very flawed. Take some math classes. Self-taught isn't your forte. She missed trigonometry, but that- Yeah, what's crazy, but it's funny. And I don't want- I'm not trying to brag at all because I don't do math in my current life or anything that much. But I had an aptitude for math. Like if I sat down with you guys when we were in high school and algebra two honors, I would have smoked you, dude. That's what's so funny. So stop bringing that up. It's called an ad hum, bro. I used to finish long form algebra without showing the work in the first that was done. It doesn't matter. That doesn't mean I'm better than people. That doesn't mean the earth is flat.  It makes the globe look worse. You're actually promoting and recruiting flat earth. It's okay to say, oh, this flat earth or knows math. It's okay to say that.  Anybody who doesn't believe in the globe doesn't know math. KM444 says, radar studies of the sun show the earth orbiting the sun. There are many, many papers on it. Maybe read a book Witsit. I have read. I have read about that. You actually don't get it probably. It's called relativistic Doppler effect. So I actually know exactly what it is. I don't just say, oh, radar measurement. It's called a relativistic Doppler effect. And of course, it actually assumes that the sun is moving. It shows a difference between the sidereal and solar rotation. So by the assumption that it is in fact the earth's orbit causing the difference in the rotations or the movements between the stars and the sun, they say, oh, look, that's how much it moves. Let's back that into an elliptical orbit. That's actually a geodesic. All through freefall through space that we can't tell. So it's basically a straight line in 3D space, blah, blah, blah. This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Shricks says flat earthers using pics and videos as evidence and then claiming quote, all videos and pictures of the earth are fake. And James loved the channel, by the way. Thank you. As people can go out and take the same photographs we're talking about. However, you cannot go to space and take the same photograph that Himawari does. It's a big difference. And they admit that it's like not real. This one from Shane Katz says, planar walk, there is no terrestrial or optical experiment that can be done to prove motion of the earth's rotation or orbital around the sun. None, brother. Well, there is actually, as was brought up earlier, if you take measurements of the weight of things, you can see that at the equator, things weigh less than at the poles or at different latitudes. Yeah, just to have that, and assume that that means it's a globe is an issue. There could be a number of things that would cause that. Well, it is something that is a natural consequence of a spin and glow. There's also other effects like the Itwish effect. What about barometric pressure? That wouldn't cause a one pound difference? Could, right? Why would there consistently be less barometric pressure at the equator? You can get precision scales to measure this. Which one does it weigh less at? It weighs less at the equator. Then it starts weighing more in the south. Starts weighing more in the south and more in the north at the poles. Then it goes all the way. They say that it's like a crazy small amount. They always say it. You look it up, it's just like anti-flatter earth that's on YouTube. It's not like universities. Well, why is that crazy small amount? Actually, it doesn't just people on YouTube. Obviously, if you search people up on YouTube, the people that you're going to find are going to be people talking about it in relation to flat earth. But I've actually spoken to someone that went to Antarctica, land in Nol, and he took a measurement in Japan or something, and then at the South Pole, he took another measurement, and it was heavier at the South Pole than in Japan. And it was the exact amount heavier it needed to be based on the globe dimensions? I kind of asked this question. So I'm confused. Of course not. You're telling me that the earth's spinning at the equator at 1,000 miles per hour with that centripetal force going outward, right? So you're telling me that. Yeah. So that force that's flying outward is only accounting for a one-pound difference? Is having no spin at all at the North Pole? Yes. Yeah, I have actually done the calculations for that. And yeah, this is about one-pound, I think it's about, it depends on what the weight is of the thing that you have. Right. I thought it's a 200-pound person would wear 199 or something as a pole. Would you be able to use an object? Let's not use the person, because we could say that the person their weight would fluctuate due to biological things. But you can use an object. Your guys' belief would be that we cancel out, right? The spin out is canceling the ground. Just to be sure, David, it's a chance to finish. Yeah, it's David can finish. I just wanted to make sure. The question is pretty easy. Why is it consistent? In other words, you can look at any other factor. But why is it consistently more, why is it way consistently less as you go towards the equator? I don't know if it is. Yeah, it's actually, like I'm telling you, Jaren, this is the truth. They say that, right? Actually, it's like no universities have done in-depth like latitude correlation measurements or anything. They just say it because it's a global talking point. But secondly, like also centrifugal effect translated from the sky could also explain it if it were true. So it's like it doesn't do anything for the globe, but they just say it anyway. So they actually do, it is something that is well documented that they have to account for. Have you heard of the one kilogram mass? Then you're saying that people that mine on the equator and suffer gold, they're accounting for this, right? Because that would cost, that would end up translating to millions of dollars. Well, there's this thing called the one kilogram mass, right? And that is what is used to define a kilogram or used to- Every what was used to- And they've had to, I can't remember the exact thing, but if they take it to other places of the world, it's not, it doesn't weigh exactly one kilogram. It weighs different. So what do you just mine gold and stuff at the equator and then take it north or south before you sold it because then you would make millions of dollars as a mining company because it would change weight? They don't, that's not how it works. It would also be the cost. That's not how it works, bro. You said that the weight change, that is exactly how it would work. And it'd be like a, and also you'd have to go from the equator, like you'd have to find a place on the equator, go all the way north to the North Pole where someone's selling gold or what? No, no, the globe claim, you're supposed to claim that it changes all the way up to the North Pole. Yeah, but if it's, if you go to like some place in Texas, right, that's only going to be a tiny change compared to the value that you might get. What about when you're talking about a huge amount of gold though? Gold is a sold by weight. What is gold sold by then? Carrots. Must jump to the next one. This one coming in from Qualo. Go in and ask for, can I have a 14 karat gold please? Says clarification drops of water on a flat surface. They become part of the puddle. Yeah, they fly out. They take equilibrium once they hit the floor. So, Plain Rock, one more question about that gravity thing, because I'm just not grasping it. And this is what I mean by be skeptical, because I don't understand how you're not skeptical of this. Gravity is everything pulled towards the center, correct? Okay, so everything on Earth is being pulled towards the center. But on the equator, we're flying a thousand miles per hour edge rim velocity, right? So that is a, I've done the calculations and so gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared acceleration. Right. The calculations at the equator is something like about three centimeters per second squared in the opposite direction. That's very big difference. But the spinning Earth, that's flying to the outside. If you've ever been on the gravatron at a carnival or something, you understand what it means to be spinning outwards. You have that force that's throwing you out. But there is none of that force at the North Pole, but it only changes the weight of a 200 pound person by one pound. Yeah, like, it's 15 degrees per hour or one rotation per day. A gravatron is much faster than that when it comes to RPM. And that's the main thing that you have to look at, RPM. Yeah, that's what's- You're not being pulled away at a thousand miles per hour from the surface of the Earth. That's the mistake that you're making. So if the Earth stopped moving, would you fly in the direction you were to the east at a thousand miles per hour? But you wouldn't be pulled straight up. But you wouldn't be pulled straight up. So I don't understand your- Yeah, but that's- That's what you're claiming is that it's pulled straight up. What's your implicit stop? Taryn, what I suggest you do is actually do the mathematics on it. All right. And then you'll see that the mathematics do not show that we should be- It's very little. The- Yeah, it shows that it's very little. It's very little. But then they also admit that there's a gravitational anomalies and fluctuations within the entire field all over the place. They come on here on YouTube and they just pretend it's this magic fairytale world of the globe where like as you go south to equator then keep going, it's just this perfect weight distribution latitude. Now we go. But it isn't. It literally isn't in reality. That's why you can't find universities claiming it is. You only find anti-flatter Earthers claiming it is. So that's what it is. I encourage the audience to actually look it up. That's why censorship is so damning because they're able to just lie. But no one's censoring anybody. There's no censorship right here. My Earth is suppressed. No, it's not. Admittedly, they admit they suppressed flat Earth on YouTube. No, no. In court, they admitted it. Yeah, far more different areas to probably get your nonsense. Let's do one more problem. You think that my videos are show up in people's recommended? Do you think there's still- Is the only way that you can express yourself? What? They still come up in recommended. They just aren't recommended as much to people that have never seen that kind of stuff. They suppress. This one. This one. So we choose a- Cheapok Dopra says, keep it up. Thanks for that. And Mark says, Glovers can't handle orbital motion argument. Is this true, Glovers? I mean, what do they mean? We can't handle orbital motion. They're saying, yeah. Maybe someone- You're not ready for the argument they're saying. Maybe it's because some of the arguments that flat Earth's might seem to be into all of it. Or maybe they go round and round in circles with their arguments. Maybe one day you'll learn what it means. It jokes. This one. Great. A public humor. What a great argument. This one coming in. Okay, let's start again. Do you appreciate- I remember now why I don't like debating. Questions from ChainsawCat says, Love watching NASA fanboys Spiral, LOL Earth is flat. This one coming in from- I mean, Amboy's? Yeah. I just want to say, yeah, because we're spiraling around the sun. This one from- Good one. Mark. Oh, we got that one. Just LOL says, Whitsit gets it. What are you politically? I don't buy into the whole principle-wise, morality-wise, I'm conservative. Or I would be fiscally conservative just in that sense. Morally or ethically. But I don't believe in politics. And I would guess if I had to pick something, I'd say libertarian politically. But it's just two wings to the same bird. So I don't really identify via a false binary construct. Planet Rock, can I ask you a question real quick? Do you have any beliefs that are outside of the accepted scientific beliefs? Or like if I want to know what you believe, I just need to go read a physics book or watch Professor Dave, and I'll know everything that you believe. Um, I usually base my beliefs off the science. Sometimes there might be something, like philosophically, obviously, you can't just look at a science book and go, because, you know, there's not going to be a philosophy in a science book. So obviously, I might believe something different based on philosophy, but not- But men can give birth. Uh, well, yeah, there are some men that can give birth. That is a completely different argument, though. It's a different argument, but it's just that you just- I mean, that's exactly what I- Before we go through it. And that is a philosophical thing, by the way. Okay. This one from Just LOLs. Got that one, actually. Shrik says you can bounce radio waves off the moon within capital H-A-M. M radio. That's a cool story, man. I want to see it. If you like that, verify it, yeah. You guys just say stuff and then you keep repeating it. They actually say they get like one photon back after he's trying to shoot.  Four quadrillion. And then they say they get radio waves similar to that from the sky anyway. Cosmic radio waves, but they swear this is the one that they sent. And you can also get them when you don't sit them at the moon. And this is the whole order, though. And there's ionism, which is actually just a comment. So you do actually get some background noise when it comes to these things. So if you point a thing at the sky and turn the gain right up, then you're going to get some background noise. If you point it at the moon, you're going to get a bit more background noise because that is reflecting stuff. And then when you send the signals, you have to do work out how high the signal is above the noise floor. This one from Quailo says, how many drops of water on a flat surface added together does it take until it's flat? Pretty easy experiment anyone could do, I'd say. What would your prediction be? I like it. I don't think they're asking us. How does that prove anything or just prove anything? What's the... I don't understand that. You're looking at the earth over vast distances. So how does a few drops of water do... Well, just when we say we don't see water bend, people want to come back and say water droplets or... You don't see it bend over a few hundred miles. Well, you do. You should. No, I don't. I don't claim to that and I've never heard of it. I mean, we do see the water bend over a long distance. Well, even if the earth is flat, water still bends over long distances because tides exist. Yeah, the water's in motion trying to seek its equilibrium through fluid dynamics and there is swelling within water. There isn't a bending of convexity of earth and over hundreds of miles you would see that. You would see earth curvature from one foot above the earth after one mile. So why do you say seek? I'm sorry, go ahead. Why do you say seek? Seek is the equilibrium, instead of simply... I think of water, if it's at the top of a hill, it's going to go down and find its level spot where it can rest. It's critique is... It forms around its center. It forms around, listen, water forms around the forces or forms due to the forces that influence it, whether it be gravity or agatism, if it's possible, or like electrostatic forces and things like that. There you go. There's no seeking and finding. Yeah, he's saying that you're using the word seek as if water was sent to you. No, you're trying to make it sound like there's some other philosophical nature of how water does what it does and it isn't. Well, water is very crazy, actually. It changes molecular structure when you talk to it. One of the most unrelated to our discussion. It has memory. Theros-Rex says James. No, it doesn't. That's being disproven. Oh, sure. You think that. You think men can get pregnant. Theros-Rex says James. I've seen some me. What does it take to get on this show? Paleontologists here who wants to debate the age of the earth and where it's curvature and evolution, et cetera. If you didn't get my chat in chat, I'm at moderatetubate at gmail.com. So just the name of the channel and then at gmail.com. No spaces, no hyphens. Nominal says the invisible matter that we can't detect is called quote unquote dark matter. This is said by NASA. This one from third rail. Let's say the Glober. All right. Third rail says I want to debate a Christian, a crucifixion, fact or fiction, IDM on Twitter, no response. I'm behind on our Twitter. We got a ton of Twitter requests, so it's hard to keep up. But moderatetubate at gmail.com if you want to come on. SkyScience says David, did you have a few brusquies before the debate? Oh, wow. I actually get the answer. No, I'm just annoyed with, I get annoyed with the tactics. If we're going to have a conversation and we're going to have a question and answer and rebuttal, rebut and respond to the questions. And after like third or fourth time, I just kept it up. So I apologize. I don't expect to be invited back, but that's just how it is.  I was pretty hard on you tonight, David. So I'm sorry that. That's okay. No, I don't mind. I mean in part you deserved it, probably not quite as bad as I was. I was pretty hard on you. Oh, you weren't easy on him, bro. He totally deserved it, bro. You know what it is? Is that when you're responding true enough? I don't want to hold on. I don't want to. I'm sorry. I hate to. I just want to ask so many more questions.  I got to like speed us through. Sky science says, Planner walk, your nervous energy will not make the earth a ball. Planner walk is. I mean, maybe I just need to start curling up into a ball. Zoomed more nervous energy. This one coming in from Dave Hinkle says, global evers does relativity state that you cannot detect motion of the earth going around the sun from the earth? What I'm going to try this first. My understanding of relativity is there's two forms of relativity. There's the relatively that is based upon high speed and is relatively based upon high amounts of matter in the concentrate volume. Okay. So that's it. Either it's due to a lot of stuff being in one spot or it's due to some, some object going very fast from. So when it comes to relativity, that this is why I use the car, like the car and the going past the trees analogy. Because if you look out of the car, you will see the trees going past. Now you could try and make the argument that it's the trees that are moving and not the car. And relativity is about. Relativity says that both reference frames are equally valid, right? However, you can look at the at more context, right? Like other cars going past and the other cars going past make it look as though you are the one that's moving compared to those other cars and the trees. The other cars are also moving as well. But you have to have a point of reference. That's what I think you refer to, right? There's a point of reference in his face. Yeah, these reference frames. I can't and all reference frames are valid in relativity. Okay, you guys can answer the question directly. It's okay. From Dave Hinkle says, global evers does relativity state that you cannot detect motion of the earth going around the sun from the earth? Thank you. I think you already said that. That seemed familiar. That's the one that they can't just say. Relativity says you cannot detect it. They can't say that for some reason. But why? Why does that even matter? What does that have to do with the conversation? It's just about being intellectually honest. So that people can understand the models. It's about being more about being more nuanced. You can't just say, oh, this says this and leave it at that because there is obviously more nuance to that. Otherwise, Einstein would have said that the earth is motionless. No. He assumed it was moving and then he tried to explain it. Any honest global would say, well, yeah, according to relativity, you can't detect the earth's orbit around the sun from the earth due to being in the same frame of reference as the earth moving. That's basic relativity 101, but it makes ballers nervous to say that out loud. Not my problem. I do this for the audience. But what if you're not at the earth of reference? Speak. What? You guys will get there. This one from Cheeks Our Cats says, respect all people's beliefs, even the spinning baseball religion, alphabet people's wild and crazy beliefs. Alphabet people's. James, I want to respond to the chat because speaking of more nuance, a lot of people seem to misunderstand my take on men getting pregnant. Because when I say men getting pregnant, what I'm meaning is I'm not meaning that all biological males can get pregnant. That is not my stance. Hope not. There is some biological males that might be able to through medical intervention. I have heard it's like they try to insert a uterus and all that kind of stuff. No one's done that. No one's ever done that, bro. I think that's something that's being attempted or being tried. But like when it comes to biological, obviously biological males can't. That's what men say. Well, when I say men, I have, I'm talking about gender rather than sex. All right. You had to say men could. You said because you're politically pregnant, she had to say it. This one from Sky Sciences. David, have you seen Jesse Lee Peterson? He helps heal overly emotional men. Please look into this.  I don't like it, dude. I don't like it, dude. I don't like it, dude. He's a Canadian guy. This is where we're going to go to the next one. No, he says, he's a people. We're going to go to the next one. No, he says, babe. I need the next one coming in from Brandon Peterson. Brandon Hanson says, globe ease seem to not do, seem to do, seems to, Oh, look at it. I'm sorry. These are, globe ease seem to not need to know anything about the globe model to be the biggest proponents. Nice win, Austin and Jaren. Why not? I don't know. That's the thing about this. It's not a win or lose. It's more refining your arguments. People in the audience, hopefully you're waking up to the deceptions, right there in front of them. That's why I hate that this conversation was so like, like the debate was all like in the weeds about perspective and all that stuff, because we could talk about it, but it's like the overarching idea of the concept. You know, it always gets lost. The only way that someone can really learn is to hear two people have like an honest conversation back and forth, not interrupt each other. And a lot of times, still need to count with more calculations. Well, we need to keep points that are conceded and concession-worthy. And you still need to answer and you still need to answer questions that are asked. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? Kevin Doble says, Jaren and Austin, thank you. We know the game they play. This one from nominal says planner walk. What percentage of the universe do you believe consists of quote, the invisible matter that we can't detect, which is called dark matter? I think when it comes to matter, I think it's something like 95%. In fact, one of the interesting things about dark matter is we actually found some of the dark matter because of hydrogen. It was cold hydrogen. And so we found some of that, but there was still a lot more that we couldn't see, which we need to count for. But you found it, what was it? Cold hydrogen. I can't remember the exact way that it was found, and that was like a decent amount that they... Put a lot of gas. Cold hydrogen. Cold hydrogen is what dark matter is. Some of it was. The rest of it is still unaccounted for at this current point in time. There are some ideas as to what it might be. And then there are some theories that have been worked on to try and explain things without the need for dark matter. The dark matter is very useful because it's a placeholder until we work out, okay, what exactly is going on here? That's what I mean about when it comes to using what is the best thing to explain what we see. Which is undefined nothingness. No, it's something that affects the motion of galaxies. And we don't know what it is because the matter that we know of doesn't explain those motions. Because your models predictions were wrong. So one of the options is that your model's wrong, but you guys don't even consider that option because it's a religion. So then you just, oh, there must be something else there. We don't know what it is. Because it was originally for planner. I want to give them the last word and then we got to go to the next question. So it doesn't mean that the model is completely wrong. Like as I said earlier, the when it comes to the earth being flat and the earth being a sphere, both of those are wrong because of the existence of mountains. But one is more wrong than the other. I heard that. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Sky Sciences, James, how can you let David talk over your show like that?  Thank you for that. Thank you for that feedback. Radcraft says, what is the flat earth explanation for stars in the nice sky? Did someone just poke a bunch of holes in the dome or something? Dude, imagine being so deluded. You'd think that's a good question. When you think that, when you look at the stars, you're looking back in time and some of them aren't even there anymore and they're balls of gas, giants in a vacuum or that they're basically neutron reactors in a vacuum chamber. Like what? They could be sun, luminescence in a fluid like medium. There are some type of energy moving around us. Well, I don't know. You know that light does take time to travel from a source to you, right? What does that have to do with anything? You said about looking back in time. Yeah, do you think that we're supposed to just believe there's a vacuum of space out there with lights trillions of miles away? Just blindly believe that. I'm sorry. We don't believe. Not blindly. And I don't think light even travels, actually. It's instantaneous. So what if it's not blindly? What is the evidence of it? Well, the evidence is all of the scientific studies and all the experiments that we're done. That's all you have to say. For me to recite them in this debate right now would be ridiculous. What's that? You could have named one for money. You couldn't have named one for money. There is one thing that disproves light being instantaneous. And that is the fact that radio waves do take time. Like if you were to have a radio wave, send it somewhere. And as soon as you receive that signal, send another radio wave back, that would take time. There would be time in between. And that proves that it's not instantaneous. No, it doesn't. Actually, what we call the speed of light is nothing more than the rate of perception of illumination because it's a perturbation of the background medium. So when the background medium is excited, it becomes perceivable and illuminates due to that vibration. We quantify that perception rate and then assume it's traveling when in fact it's already there. We have transmission over 300 meters going three times the speed of light through 200 meter coaxial cables.  I know that most people can't think for themselves. So they just believe whatever people say. I'm not like that though. So like I disagree with you. We can move on. Must move to the next one. This one, thank you very much for your question. Coming in from Brandon Hansen says, Dave is kind of a whiner. Who let him in? Okay, well, take that, Dave. All right, this one coming in from question.  Earth isn't a spheroid. Drop the ridicule and look deeper. Reach. This one from Kwani Upstate says, I'm a Saudi prince and I will pay millions of dollars to send the Flat Earthers to space on an orbital mission. Would they accept? Would they accept is, is round? It is round if they saw it. I think me and Jaren both agreed that we would go. Yeah, put us on the plate. Go ahead.  No, what you would say is while you're in there, is that the portals are CGI screens? Well, we'd be able to check that. We'd be able to check all that. We'd have our own. You know that planes are, you know, planes have that now, right? There you go. May as well hold to the next question, guys. Did you answer the question? You know they do have that now, right? Yep. Yep. Next question. Yeah. So you blindly believe anything the authority tells you it's really weird, man. If they tell you it's really with poison in it, you shouldn't do it, man. Yeah, next question. The government started wars all over the place. I don't know if you knew they lie a lot.  Dude, this is, this is ridiculous. Can I at least respond? Yes, you can. Okay, great. So, so here's the thing, guys. After the third and fourth time, they, um, I forget the, I wits it. You know, he couldn't seem to just respond to planer walks question. I just, this, this is more like a, I don't know how to put it like a, a comedy show for wits it to show off more. That's how it feels to me. And I just, I'm just, no offense to the, to the moderator. Just dude, this is just made for you. This is made for you to promote yourself. That's all. Why are you so triggered, bro? I'm observing what is pretty clear. This is a opportunity for you for self-promotion. That's all it is. All right. All four people get to talk about themselves. I mean, it's whatever to each their own. We did try to give everybody equal time. I got to be honest, Dave, to give you a little friendly pushback, sometimes it almost felt like planer walk wasn't getting to talk enough because you were talking so much. So I was so frustrated. I will admit it. That was so frustrated. In other words, like we try to give everybody equal time. But it's true. I think most of the questions tonight have undoubtedly been for wits it. I mean, I think it's because people of, it's almost like the questions of compounded because they've heard them say things in past debates. Then they say, oh, I've been thinking about this. I want to ask him about that when I see him next time. So I don't know. Whatever reason is, it's true. But long story short, we try to give the last word to the person who received the question just because otherwise theoretically, like let's say Austin gets a question, he answers it, and then I give planer walk the last word. It's kind of like boom, he got hit with the question.  And it almost feels like we're gaining up on him. So I try to give the last person, or I should say the last word, to the person the question is originally addressed to. It's not easy. Quailo says, how many drops? We got that one. Melodome says, yo, David, is the earth a ball? We got this is one for you, David. They say, yo, David, is the earth a ball because the oceans are flat? You humiliate yourself. Okay, I'm sorry. So actually, I wanted to kind of clarify what you said earlier. I wasn't really talking about the questions after the debate. I was talking about actually during the debate, during the debate, planer walk, it made three or four really good eloquent points. And with it, you would jump in and you would make these strange replies that didn't really answer to what he was presenting. And so I would jump in to try to summarize it in a way that was more down to earth because he was using a lot of math and science. So I figured you didn't understand it. But instead of you addressing the content, you would go into these tirades about logical fallacies. I just took offense to that. As far as the earth and the shape of the oceans, the surface of the water is viewed as flat. From our perspective, let's say we're standing six feet tall or maybe on top of the building. But the circumference of the earth being 26,000 miles, you're not going to really notice curvature looking out. So you'd have to be very high up. You have to be at least a couple of hundred thousand miles. I'm sorry, a couple hundred miles. I think we're talking about entrepreneur. It's a speedy approach. No, that's the bridge. You're seeing the curvature of the bridge, but not the water. You're not seeing the water. Yeah, there's a difference. So yeah. This one coming in from, do you appreciate it? FE4Life says, can the globies side explain axial precession? I can't remember exactly what that is at this point in time. I think if I'm correct, it's how, over time, the tilt of the earth changes. Is that closest? That the wobble of the earth is at a 23 degree tilt from the plane of the solar system. But that tilt allows us to be on one side, like I guess summer was on one side of the sun, but after maybe a few thousand years, that tilt is such that the position of the earth relative to the sun at a specific point in time is like, let's say the earth is 93 million miles in the summer, but maybe 83 million miles in the winter. And I believe that the timing of the tilt in the summer, after a few hundred or a few thousand years, it wobbles so that instead of it being summer at 93 million miles, it'll be winter at 93 million miles. And then it kind of wobbles. And you can see that when you see the north star. So the star that is not rotating changes. That point of least rotation changes over that time. Yeah, we, at the moment, it's currently Polaris, but in a few thousand years, I think it will change to be another star. That's a cool story.  There you guys go. I've been there and actually looked at it. This one coming in from Question the Answers, whose avatar looks strangely like Flat Earth Aussie. Says Qualo.  Truly man. Then Anthony Chaconte. That was a super chat from earlier. Anthony Chaconte says would love to see Professor Dave. Let's see. Basically they say self-destruct against these legends. Great job, Austin and Jiren. You got a couple fans out there, Austin and Jirenism.  Yep. Yo, you know what's funny? Is they, like this James, I know you hear it every time I'm here, they say I use word salad. But dude, I end up going in the comments and I'm like, because they just spam it. I'm like, can you name one specific thing I said during the debate that was word salad? Just one specific thing I said that was word salad and they never have an answer. Word salad is something that is incoherent. It doesn't coherently make sense. The words are just jumbled together and it doesn't make sense. They can never say it. They just say it all the time. And of course, in my actual thing, I showed numerous pieces of positive evidence that the Earth is flat. 10,000 mile radio transmission with line of sight, lasers, mirror flashes, all kinds of things. So it's just a script. They're going to, if I come, if I came with 400 pieces of evidence next time, they would say Austin brought no evidence and Austin used word salad. Like it doesn't matter what happens, they have to say their script. It's a cult. It is literally a cult. You did use some word salad. Name one time. When you were explaining the speed of, when you were trying to explain instantaneous light. So if you don't understand it, you think it's word salad? You mean to repeat that? No, it's word salad. So I understand what you're trying to say, but you did use word salad when trying to explain it. No, I didn't. No, I didn't. I said that it's actually called the speed of light is the rate of perception of illumination. That's not where it's out. Rate of perception of illumination due to the perturbation of the background. There's the salad. Is that you guys don't understand it? No, sorry. You got to go to the next one. Jeffrey Holenbake says, Jaren, redo that experiment without someone quote unquote misrepresenting you. I dare you to you grifter. All right. Gryft is going well for me. Yeah, I would hope to. I hope to do it again. I think that a better experiment is with the laser going through the holes, but we can't find it too expensive. This one coming in. Why is the laser better? Do appreciate it. Qualo, we got that one. Tunz says, Austin, these two aren't even on your level. Davey interrupted the entire time, but managed to say absolutely nothing. Go flat. Yeah. So who's the answer? I think that's something about the idea of hearing me or Jaren coherently lay out our position. Like when we start to get through it, people get like lovers get uncomfortable. They're like, they're making sense. Stop them. So that's my theory. This one coming in from GWJ says, I feel David's frustration. This has been a strange quote unquote debate.  Thank you. And KO44 says, that's why gold is weighted on a balance beam, not a scale. That's you. I do want to say, like we hear it and carrots. Like I do have to say one of the issues about this show is that the debaters get too much attention. We need to give James more attention. Bro, if you got a crush on him, just say it, bro. I appreciate your words. Get him pregnant. KO44 says, we got to go to the next one. KO44 says that. Oh, we got that one for MM4D. I saw your super chat. Thanks for that. I just didn't see a question attached. Let me know if it just meant to be a gift or if it was if you meant to put a question. Question of the answer says your globe crusade is fruitless. Wake up. It was all caps. This one from? Who was that address? Just I guess both you and planner walk. This one, I mean, if you want to respond, you can. But yeah, wait, repeat it. It's not very, I mean, it's not a substantive argument. It's just your globe capital globe crusade lowercase is fruitless. Wake up.  And I just come up with science, technology, physics. None of that. None of that occurred. You got not you actually journalism. You seem to be more respectful, but the whole idea of simply using any type of observation or any type of historical information as a placeholder, you know, and then say, oh, well, yeah, we address that with this experiment back in 1886. It's like, well, how does that even relate to it? And you can't make that relationship. But then you insist, I'm talking about which you insist. And then when you're held to account for that, then you go into this whole thing about how globalers don't want to tell the truth and live a life like that. I explained that it's been done hundreds of times since then with more precise measurements. And not not with the interpretations that you are trying to make from it. Of course, it's been done a thousand times. So what? See, I got you there. That's it. That's why when the audience says I interroved before saying this about me, and I'm looking at that reaction of, no, I got. No, you're just you're exhaustive and reiterative. I'm bored. Yeah. This one coming. That's just this one coming in front of me to appreciate your question. Adam A.O. says, versus Witzit and Jaren, no chance, globes. This one also from, we got this one. The salty spatula says the question is for dollar store, Neil deGrasse. Tyson, they say, well, I mean, that's flattering. He's an astrophysicist. So they say, were you ever told no as a child? Who's that for? One of them that I don't know. I mean, I don't know. It was actually me for interrupting. Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't interrupt as much as you do, but it's not coming from. No, I'm kidding. This one coming in from pseudo nim says, when three things falling fall following force equals mass, do they fall in different places or one point concluding a heavy iron core caused by gravity? I think that's yeah. Can you put that because I'm trying to at first, I thought it was going in one direction, but then it took a turn. Yep, I can say it again. They said, when three things fall following force equals mass, do they fall in different places or one point concluding a heavy iron core caused by gravity? I don't know if that makes sense. I think they're trying to say that thing should sink to the center of the earth or something, which is just not how when things fall on the ground, you have an opposite force. This is just basic physics. You have an opposite force and the net force ends up being zero. So therefore, you know, no movement. Well, that is when it hits the ground. I think there's another element. There's another aspect to that is that I think, I think they're making a comment that why doesn't why don't I just go through the ground to the core? And I think they have to remember is that objects are repelled by electrostatic forces and can't just expect stuff to go through something just because it's denser, you know, but the electrons prevent the protons and neutrons from passing each other in compounds. In free space. Oh, wow, electrostatics is the strongest force that prevents certain things from happening. I didn't say strongest. I didn't imply strongest. Just stronger than gravity. I didn't I didn't imply that either. It depends on the circumstances and how we're we're looking at the defense. End of the 39 hour stronger than gravity. No, it depends on the circumstances. This one coming in from appreciate your question. K.O. Champ FTT says with said for once, quote, we have a magnetic model. Let's see it. I'm with him on most things except flat earth. I want to see the magnetic model. Yeah, you said, quote, unquote, because you really want me to say magnetic model. Oh, maybe when it comes to the sun, I said we have a we've modeled out as in like this theoretical representation of how the sun could work based on like a magnetic tourists using the data from the sun. And it can't be refuted. So, yeah, I'll end up making a video about it. It explains exactly where the sun is based on magnetic calligraphy within a tourist and is from actual data taken on the earth over the course of a year. As a myth and declination readings, and it just so happened to make a perfect tourist on a plane. So, yeah, I'll make a video and explain this. When I was saying about earth being, if earth isn't flat nor is it a sphere, that means that it's a, that was a joke when I said we're not, it would be ridiculous to assume it's a donut. I was trying to make a joke there. I wasn't expecting you to take that seriously. The earth isn't what is the tourist for us. Like everything you guys say, I don't know what I don't want to be mean. That's what- The magnetic, there's the field as the tourist. The earth is in the inertial plane, which is called the block domain wall through the middle of it. Yeah, it's the block domain wall through the tourist field. It's not the earth is a tourist. Oh my gosh. Okay, anyway. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Craig Montgomery says, let's see Austin's model. I think that kind of came in earlier. Thunderstorm says, there are a lot of people that ask that, Craig Montgomery. So I'm like, that's the third one. So I just went like, but Thunderstorm says, hi, no malice, basic question for the flat earth. Is the earth tilted and is it spinning? No, no, easy enough. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Thunderstorm says, huh, oh we got that one. Justin says, flats, thousands of ordinary people visit Antarctica every year. It costs less than eight grand to go there. When are you going to go and document it? So can you document that it's $8,000 to go there? There's no way. 20 grand at least is like running minimal. This one coming in from, do appreciate- It only lets you go where they let you go. So that doesn't count. We want to freely explore it or it doesn't prove anything to us. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Shane Taft says, they call it word salad because they don't understand words. This is a comment that I get quite a lot on my videos, especially when I accuse people like Ken Wheeler of using word salad. A lot of people use word salad for different reasons, but essentially it's often used to try and baffle people into thinking that they're brilliant. If someone is using word salad, or if you think that someone who's being accused of word salad isn't using word salad, then try to explain their point by using different language. That's what I'd say. Yeah. And you guys were just proven wrong about saying that I was using word salad about light. So just because something has a bigger vocabulary, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in its word salad. Okay. We'll give David- Open up at the source and read the words before calling it word salad. We'll give David the last word on this one and then we'll go to the next question. So it's not about the length of the complexity of the words. What's it? It's about the idea of you bringing up concepts that are not, it's not clear that everyone's familiar with what you're talking about. No one knows everything and what you know or pretend to know, you bring up in here and then you are in a way ridiculing others for not already being familiar with it as if they are not as intelligent to you. So I see right through that. And that's the word salad. Ayes. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Brandon Hansen says, David, it feels like Witzitz show because he's a competent debater and you don't have the debate skill set to counter him. Well, I just, I think I just made a good point. I could come in here and talk about a dozen things that no one else in here knows about or is familiar with. And I could mention a dozen people that did experiments that many of you are not familiar with. And you could say that, hey, I'm just playing games. I'm just trying to manipulate the debate. The debate was about whether or not the earth is flat or whether or not the earth is a sphere. And we spent so much time with you guys trying to derail it, talking about relativity. Come on. This one coming in from Jeffrey Holumbake says, 6,000 years ago, that whole didn't look at Polaris. This one from nominal says dark matter is unicorn farts change my mind. So there is some evidence for dark matter. It's not, obviously we don't know what it is and that is the big question. But it is useful. If we plug dark matter into the equation, everything works. Right. And it's trying to work out. Okay, are we just using a quick patch over the whole? And that later, as we figure more things out, we're going to have to get rid of dark matter. Or is it something where there is dark matter there? We just don't know what it is. That's the big question. That's what is trying to be figured out. Or your model's wrong. Hey, planar walk, here's a question for you. You said there was a lot of hydrogen found in space. Isn't methane and water also found in large quantities as gaseous, nebulous in space? I'm not too sure. I don't think it was. I think it was just lone hydrogen. And it was dark hydrogen, meaning it didn't emit. It doesn't emit light. It doesn't have any infrared. But if you have hydrogen, water, and methane, that would be like unicorn farts, wouldn't it? Actually, the fact there's so much hydrogen or in helium in there, when against the model's predictions also, there's yet to come up with an agreed upon explanation why there's so much there. Well, it's one of them things where we managed to find some hydrogen. And the thing is, it's not just all hydrogen, right? It would have been nice if it was all hydrogen, but it turns out that there's still stuff there that we don't know. There's more hydrogen there than the model predicted, and there's not an agreed upon explanation why there's that much hydrogen in space. So again, the model could just be wrong, but you guys don't even consider that as possible. So don't claim signs. But the model is incomplete with the best thing you're doing. Could it be wrong? Yeah, but there is a difference between it being incomplete and it being wrong. Could it be right? It could be wrong, but it's very unlikely that it's wrong. It doesn't have the predictive power that it has. It doesn't have the predictive power. What would be the wrong part? It's off by 96%. What's off by 96%? The prediction of the distribution of space. There is no other model that is accurate as a stand model. That's not true. Even Evan Hubbell will tell you that if it's a more fluid like more dense medium, everything's more local. It's a closed system, and we don't have the problem with galaxy formations. There are being too many of them than being too formed. The redshift distribution not being equal at the edges. The galaxy distribution of a mass. We don't have any of those problems if the Earth is geocentric. Actually, the geocentric model has way better predictive capability and is way more viable. And this is just objective. We don't have the dark matter, dark energy problem with the geocentric Earth. You'll get there. You'll figure it out. You'll review paper, page, paragraph, citation, please. If the Earth is geocentric, what are galaxies? What are nebulas? What are stars? What are all these things? There's much more close than in a dense medium. That's the first step. How can you see so far away in a dense medium? That's interesting. How can you get it far away? They're not as far away. That's your point. Then why would you make those comparisons about how they function? You're saying both those galaxies are very close. All of those things that are going on throughout the universe are just very close to the dome. That's why I just said, Edward Hubble said that they would be much more local and more dense and younger in a closed universe. Yeah. And then you wouldn't have the problem with the inner light circle, which is dark matter. Hubble knew about that. And the light shifts wouldn't make any sense. No, you'll get there. The light is shifted towards a red shift, and that is measured by distance and time. So you can't dismiss that by saying, well, if everything was closer, that would explain the distribution of matter, but it wouldn't explain how light is shifted. Yeah, you have elements that admit their own light signatures. If those signatures are offset, and that offset is calculated and accurately calculated to be based upon distance and time, you cannot dismiss that. You can have red shift with magnetism. Red shift and blue shift. And just like Hubble said, if it's not primarily velocity shifts, then we're wrong about the entire model. And you would see a magnetic signature that corresponds to that. And you don't. Yeah, you can literally prove. All mainstream physicists are saying that now, too. So start looking it up. It's going to come out. Yeah, that red shift predictions are wrong. Hey, please. I'll give you a 10. Yeah, you just look it up. Just give one. I did. There's nothing there. What did you search? Red shift anomalies in space. Red shift, red shift, close proximity. You have a better search? Let me know. OK, I'll find it for you. This one coming in. Actually send it to him, bro. Because I mean, no, he won't read it. D.L. Hill says, David, gold is sold by the Troy ounce, which is 31.1 grams, not by the carrot. Carrotage is a measure of the purity. Stop just saying things. OK, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But my understanding is the argument was based upon if you were going up to the North Pole and you weighed the gold and there was a different weight in that equator, you could make a profit. My response to that was that I thought, and I still believe it, that it's measured by the carrot to denote purity and it's compared to like you would weigh it against another object. So if the gold has a certain number of carrots in it or a certain number of a certain level of purity in it, it's weighed against another object. It's probably weighed on a balance or on some type of scale. And that doesn't change.  D.L. Hill says, please provide open source code and or 3D scene files to prove your model with it. We actually have 3D files. Many terabytes of data was rendered and that's what gave us the tourist filter. So like I said, I'll make a video explaining it and drop in the data. And then once we do it and all the math explains that it can't be refuted, you guys will just run around crying claiming it wasn't there and then coming up with another question, you guys don't actually want to know the answer. So that's why, you know, I don't really care. D.L. Hill says, maybe there's a published paper here I'll send it to you right now that's talking about the redshift blunder that has been obstructing cosmology for over a century. D.L. Hill says, is it helping your argument all of the matter is close and dense and that the space is not space because it's dense matter? Or is it addressing an entirely unrelated topic? D.L. Hill says here, no theory can be valid if it's based on a false assumption. Thus all theories that depend on the Doppler redshift misconception are necessarily invalid. These include the Big Bang Theory, Expansion Theory, Humboldt's Law, Dark Energy, You're reading the paper all day. D.L. Hill, he's trying to censor you because he doesn't want the audience to hear. D.L. Hill, I'm not trying to say that. D.L. Hill, you don't want to hear that. D.L. Hill, you can have the discussion with me later and then republish it on your website. D.L. Hill, the audience heard it already. D.L. Hill, nominal says David, let's hear one. I don't know what they wanted in terms of let's hear one. D.L. Hill, the orbital measurement because they couldn't have one. D.L. Hill, the biggest thing that I was trying to have a conversation with my only point that I wanted to discuss was why is the sun the same size and shape? Why is the moon the same size and shape all over the world until you get to the horizon you start to have these effects that you wanted to... I don't think we understand celestial items. I don't think we understand giant celestial items. No, we have enough of an understanding that when we see an object and it's the same size and it corresponds to a distance that we've measured that that is relevant. That is sufficient. So let's say we don't understand, we don't understand. The sun is supposed to be, if you go by robot, I'm 32 miles wide. What else do we have that's 32 miles wide to compare? I don't know about it, but you said robot and that doesn't mean anything to me. Okay, you don't understand. You don't listen to the conversation. You go by this or you go by that. You don't listen to his point in good faith. You're so on the defensive.  It's like, what about this? No, he was directly rebutting you, and then you just whistled right past the image of this mist. You did not directly rebut me. The sun, the sun's size and shape is the same for everyone all over the world. Okay, yeah, you're so good at this. That's all right, let's give David 30 seconds and then we've got to move forward, David. Okay, so the shape of the sun and the size of the sun and the moon are the same size for everyone at any point in time. The moon eclipses, I'm sorry, the moon, you have lunar eclipses. So the sun and the moon obviously are not very close to each other. How do we know that? What's obvious about that? Because there's an eclipse, so there has to be some distance from one to the other for the eclipse to be. Okay, are you there, David? David? He died. I heard the ether blocked it out. Thank you, internet guys. They got him. It was the ether, actually. Portional relations with these guys are different. We lost like the last five or so. We're a salad to you, right? Huh? Okay, next question. We lost like the last five seconds of what you're saying, but if you can last time. You didn't hear anything? Give a super... Oh, I'm sorry, is this a moderator? I lost my phone as a malfunction. Okay, so what I was saying is that if the earth and the sun appear the same size in the sky, and you're seeing one eclipse the other, you're seeing the moon eclipse the sun, then the sun and the moon's size and distance have to be proportional. There has to be some... There has to be a relationship to... Because they appear the same size in the sky, the disk of the sun and the disk of the moon. They can't be right next to each other. That doesn't make any sense. All right, so let's use translation then. Wow, this is going to go too long. You can use triangle, you can use whatever you want, but you're going to have a relationship over distance aside. We've got to go to the next question. We've got so many questions. Shrik says, I sympathize with Dave. He explains what Witsit is doing accurately. I get why he would be frustrated, but nevertheless, all debaters did a good job.  It's just completely unacceptable in a bit. You constantly disrespected player walking, sorry, I'm going to speak up. Maybe we shouldn't debate again. No, it's not about virtue. See, that's what I'm talking about. You're trying to ignore the fact that you are disrespectful, so you want to make it about me, virtue signal. Make responsibility for what you did. I wasn't. I was respectfully responding to him when he was done and explaining that he's using Euclidean geometry when in fact the eyes use spherical geometry, so we can move on. You got emotional, you're an emotional guy. He still doesn't know what snail is more. And then he brings up snail's law when we're talking about perspective. Yeah, because the eye, like when it comes to lenses, it's all to do with snail's law. Oh, so you're using snail's law for perspective measurements when you look at the observations? He said the eye, he just did it again. You're being disrespectful, and it's all interruption. This is from Valerie St. Marie says, pair-shaped believers, why do official NASA and military documents referring to a flat, non-rotating plane to calculate missile launches and flight manuals? I believe it's just for like some things where a flat, where the Earth being flat would be simpler in calculations than trying to calculate everywhere, right? Spherical stuff. This one probably. It's not everywhere. Not your sister, 28, says, I want to know, did Jaren bet Jake the A-hole $10,000 on member size and give him three inches? That doesn't sound good. They say, what is his need? They say, if so, can we see? Urs's name is not your sister? That's their name is not your sister, 28. I think we just need to solve it with all, you know, this is the utmost importance. Never mind Flatter, if we need to solve these. Amen. Keep it. You can solve it. Jake the A-hole, is that your enemy, Jaren? No. Wait, is there a story behind this? Is this nonsense? Okay, well, whatever. We'll go to the next one. This one says, Shrik says, I sympathize with Dave. He explains what Witsit is doing accurately. I get. Oh, sorry. Okay, we'll bear with me. 4MM4D says, no one is going to point a gun at you from going off route at Antarctica. If you really wanted to see the wall, you'd be able to go towards it and see that it doesn't exist.  It's easily verifiable. You guys just don't want to know the truth. And it's the edge. It's the shoreline of Antarctica. It's not ice wall and nobody said you can't get over it. That's you're talking about movies. Here's the problem though. Whenever you're going northward, I'm sorry, whenever you're going, you know, around the coast of Antarctica, as you're going, I think west, you have to go to the port. But on your flat earth model, you would have to go to starboard. And that's how that's another debunk of the flat earth. We don't have a model. I don't know how. It's another debunk of the flat earth, bro. I don't care if you say you don't have a model or not. No, it's not. Yeah, it is. You can't go starboard.  This one coming in from, do you appreciate your question? Nominal says, have you been darted more than once, David? What does it mean to be darted? Tell me this is not dirty. No, that's not. That's just not here. Is this something sexual in nature, David? Okay, this is actually, I'll use this as an opportunity. It's kind of. Oh, it's Jaren's question, man. Calm down, man. Oh, it's Jaren's question. I thought you said David. No, it was about whether David had been darted. No, it's David. It's my name. It's the name that I gave to people who believe in the dark mission. They're mentally darted. So obviously, if you believe in it twice, then you're... Well, let me go ahead and respond. Yeah, let me respond. So, to the moderator, you know what? I looked at the Flat Earth Debates as like an intro to other types of debates. I thought that this was kind of like, I guess a weeding out. That's kind of how I looked at it. Like, I can't debate about religion, race, and politics if I can't deal with this nonsense. She needed to call it quits. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Jeffrey Holmbeke says, wits it, do you have a model? James, wait for an answer from Austin. If no, every time you referred to a model can be ignored, Austin. Yeah, she's 37 weeks pregnant. This one coming in from... I think that's the last of them. Let me just double check. Want to say, it has been lively tonight. I know David has taken a lot of abuse tonight, and some of it was deserved. But at the same time, we want to say, no, of course you wouldn't ban you, David. And I've got to say, I know it's lively sometimes here, folks. Like, you know, it's blood sporty sometimes. But I've got to say, at least it's real, at least it's authentic. And I've got to say, we appreciate our guests. We really do click on their links, because even if you disagree with them, even if you're like, oh, that Austin, he makes me sick. Well, at least understand his position. At least understand Jaren's and David's and Planner Walk's positions. If you can... There's one thing to be knowledgeable, but wisdom is being able to strong man to be able to put someone else's argument in the strongest form and way possible. There's something really valuable to that. This one, this last one from Delco says, geocentric is not flat. That is just a lie. No one ever... Yeah. Like, you guys always have to strong man. It's weird. If we're so dumb, you wouldn't have to constantly misrepresent our position. That's just about the motion part, because most people don't know that actually relativity says you can't prove it. And it's a philosophy. They taught it to us like it was definitive fact in science. So you should know your belief before you believe it. We're just trying to raise awareness. And most ballers can't even admit what the model says. It's lame. It's weird. Don't make it weird, bro. This one coming in from Tim Pryor strikes again. So when is the flat earth are ever going to get a forensic photo analyst to prove all pictures of global fake? You can watch my show tonight or the show I did yesterday and I showed how Artemis is fake. So you can take that to a forensic scientist and see how they or whatever you call it and see how they can explain what's going on in space. You don't even have to most of the time. They admit it, right? Like they admit a lot of them are composite. They admit they use a blue marble data set which is composite. I'm like, topography, planes. I mean, you're the only ones up there, right? So like if we do call out something that is fake, they can just quickly repair it and say it was this, then they're the only authority. So they'll always win. And the people will just believe it. They believe NASA's the one federal government that doesn't lie to us, bro. Like that's so weird. So if I gave you $80 million today and I said, go better humanity with this $80 million. Think of what I would expect from you. If I gave you $80 million one time, NASA gets that every single day. $80 million. How can you stand behind a company that's getting $80 million? Look what they're providing. The Republican Party gets far more than that. Okay, great. Republican Party. Oh, why was? Yeah, they're getting most assistance. Why don't we find a way to use that money to better use that? I agree with you. Yeah, I did. I'm not arguing about that. I'm not protecting. I'm not standing on behalf of the government and arguing against you. Your priorities are not set. You're looking at something that has a very good... You're looking at an organization that has a very good track record and because they're not perfect and because they've made mistakes, because there have been bad actors from time to time, you're preparing that to what? What? To Republican Party that's more... I didn't compare anybody to... That's more integrity. You brought that up. Then find something else. No, find something else. The federal government always lies and they can't be trusted. That's our point. You can't just rely on your entire world view over to the government telling you stories. Your attitude is if someone lies once they always lie. Look, if you can't verify it, then you don't just blame them to believe it, especially when it comes to your entire world view. The government lying is something... Obviously, the government has lied. I don't think anyone has denied that, but then to go, therefore, everything that has ever been taught is false, is just ridiculous. Strong man. Of course, there are some things that they'll say that will be true. It's working out okay. I thought they had to hide about things right here on Earth that we can go and test and verify. Yes, right? So they say we breathe oxygen and you think that's a lie, so we're going to hold your breath? That's just strong man. Never said that. But that's the same logic you're using for some of the other things. It's not the same logic. I'm asking you, have they ever lied to something that we can touch here on Earth and we can go and verify? The answer is yes. They lie about those things all the time. So why would you then think the place? Why do you say all the time? They don't. You got to always interrupt. Especially it's because it's like really frustrating, bro. It makes it like makes it impossible to talk. I have no respect for you with it. So you have to. We'll have some respect for yourself. This one coming in. I am. Do appreciate your effort. I feel good about it. Tim Pryor says, so when they corrected it, they said, so when is any flat Earth are going to get a photo? Forensic analyst to prove millions of photos of Earth are fake. So what would they be comparing it to? This forensic scientist, wouldn't they need a photo that's real in order to compare it and see if it's real? Or does this guy? Does this guy think that the forensic guy will just be able to determine by looking at some things that are computer processed, whether it's real or not? Anyway, do you think that you can't make an image? You think that in 2022, someone couldn't make an image that you couldn't tell was fake? All right. There are ways to go ahead and verify the Himawari stuff. All right. One of the one of my favorite things was start of 2020. Over where I lived, there was huge orange, orange skies. You look at that in Himawari, but you get the same thing. It's because of the because of the wildfires. That is something and you can go and do that in different places. Check what the skies are like. Check what Himawari says that the skies should be like. The graphic from Australia that NASA showed all the fires and then Australians pointed out that none of those places could be on fire.  Did you see that all that? No. Does that mean that it was fake? Does that mean that maybe there was some some issue with how the work was done? I just clicked it. It had nothing to do with fraud. Yeah, you guys just made a defense attorney. There was a war for them. There was a whole bunch of possibilities.  What's wrong with you, bro?  I'm a logical person. From Shrik, who says, I think it would also be helpful for future debates if both sides define what the definition of religion is seems it's being used incorrectly. It's not strictly defined by theism. It doesn't mean that you have to believe in a deity. It's a belief system built upon the doctrine of men, void of empirical verifiable evidence that requires blind faith. Here we go. Why don't you just say the globe earth? This one coming in. Because it doesn't fit the bill. Nominal says, thank you all parties for the debate. Thanks to that positivity nominal. Isn't that nice? There's okay. This one coming in from. That's a flat earth, of course. I think this is the last one. I think you got that one. He's just, Tim Brier just talking about the picks again. It's really big on this one. Oh yeah. We got just a couple of last quick ones that came in. And then folks, we can't take any more questions. This one from Tim Brier says, a composite is not fake. If that's the case, photos on your phone are fake. I don't care about your opinion. Show me a photo analyst that proves your point. Stop running away from that question. But understand that a composite photo, you could have a flat earth, take composite photos, and stitch them over a ball. And that would be a problem, because it's a lie. That's what we're saying. Nobody said that every composite image is a fake, but if somebody takes a strip data, and wraps it on a ball, and then tells you here, you live on this ball in space, there is a problem with that. But when they don't get it, why don't you respect that?  Literally every single thing, you think every composite image is fake. I think there have been flat, there have been flat earthers that have said that because they take a picture on the red, blue, then green channels, right, they take those pictures individually, then they put them together. I think this is discover that does something like that. They also want to do computer software to render those images that will plan your walk.  No, he's talking about something else. He diverted to discover images. I'm saying that they don't do that. Well, of course, NASA says that would be a very good deception. They never just go back ever. NASA says they do. NASA says they stitch it together and then have an artist come in and make a picture. They don't stitch it from a flat plane to make it look like a globe. That's what they say they do. No, they don't. That's not stop-line. Oh, when it comes to... Everyone on the aisle is going to go look up Robert SimmonsNASA.gov. No, no, no, no, no. Don't try to rattle off some more. Hold on, we've got a year. Let's hear from Planner Walk. That is one... So the Robert Simmons guy, that is one photo. There are other photos. Like you can look at Discover, Himawari, that are just photos from space. I think Discover has taken on like multiple channels and then they put those channels, they squash those channels down because a green image wouldn't look very well for most humans. So they do do some stuff like that. But in the same way, your camera, when it takes a photo, it does things like light correction and all that kind of stuff that are just done in the background to make things look nice. Oh, they stitch it together, dude. You can zoom in on Himawari. That was... No, on Himawari. Himawari. You can zoom in and see the stitch-together lines today right now. But it's not stitching together at flat plane. It's not taking a flat plane. It's just talking about it's stitching together small sections that it zoomed in and took the photographs out. That's it. That's different than you take your photos from the Earth. To understand what it means, though, do you understand that it means that when we talk about a deception, do you get what deception means? Yeah, this isn't it. You're misrepresenting what they do as a deception and that's what I'm calling you, I will. Okay. No, we know more about it than you do. We're coming in from. I can't do this. We've got to go to the next one. This one from Tim Pryor says, then throw away all the technology that NASA came up with that you are using for your case, Austin. Name one. Name one. We know we don't have to. Anyway, if they made the ballpoint pin, I can still use the ballpoint pin without giving my whole worldview over to people lying about a vacuum. He would still be using rocks on the ground on sidewalks to write if it wasn't for NASA. This is the most. Everything they say is so fallacious. It's like impressive how everything they say is so fallacious.  When it comes to, I think the point is that when it comes to these things, things like ballpoint pens were developed to be able to work in space. When it comes to otherwise, we would still be using pencils. It wouldn't have been a need to innovate to ballpoint pens. Oh my goodness. All right, bro. See, that's that disrespect. That's why I would disrespect.  You're reacting just to laugh. It's a very valid point that we would be using pencils today if it wasn't for NASA. I don't care. He said we'd still be using pencils if we didn't have NASA making the ballpoint pen for space. Bro, come on. This one from Karzan says, why would they quote unquote lie about Earth not being flat? Many reasons. If there's more land, that's one. If there's other civilizations out there that we are being. Why would they lie if there's more land? Why would more land being out there be a motivation for them to lie? Because the people in control of us here are very much psychopaths who like control. No, that doesn't. Well, they're not. That doesn't even fit psychopathic behavior. Let's just hear more from them. It doesn't. Psychopathic behavior. Why don't we go deeper? I do want to hear. I think, Jaren, you said, both more land that they might want to hold on to, namely, people in power. And the second thing I think you said. Go ahead. What was the second thing you said? Something I just want to be sure that we heard all this. Just control. I mean, if you had other ones that you wanted to mention. Oh, control. If you wanted to keep people locked into an area where they don't go looking further, they you tell everybody that everything's been discovered. The globe has been surfaced and it's been measured and it's perfect. And then you just keep people trapped here. Now, there could be other civilizations outside of here. We wouldn't know that. Why would they? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Let's hear a plan or walk once. Why would they lie about the shape of the earth when they didn't even know at a time when they didn't know that Antarctica existed? What? So they why would they lie about the shape of the earth at a time when they didn't know that there was more land beyond Antarctica? Who? We because they didn't know that Antarctica existed. Who did that? What do you mean? Like 500 years ago. 500 years ago, they didn't know that Antarctica existed. The period of time. Part of the maps have land down there on the edge. They called it. Not 500 years ago. Yeah, from like 1400 again. No, they don't. Yes, they do. This one from. We don't. We don't. This one from. You guys don't know. I don't. Yeah, I don't know. It says Jaren has proved curvature. Bob proved rotation. No wonder why you guys don't do experiments anymore. Aspiration is just thick. This. This one from Qualo. It says two flat earthers.  Well, that's a reaction within. That's an electric reaction within the atmosphere. And we don't even know if it could be just the focus point of light, right?   That dot actually lifts up with it and it is suspended in the air. That could be what we see and call the sun. Right. There could be a sun. If you would see the light, you would see the light focusing from a particular direction. And we don't. That doesn't. So that doesn't make any sense. Yes, we do. If it's a hologram, you would have to, you would have to pretend that the hologram is being emitted from beyond your so-called dome, which case you could see, you could see from a different vantage point where it's holographically being emitted from. You're going to say this is being emitted from the earth and you can certainly find the emitter somewhere around this great earth. Never seen it. They could do both. You've never seen video footage of what looks like. Then you would find it. Okay. You would have found it by now. You would have seen all of the light beams that are converging to make the sun look like a sun. They're coming from that direction. Did you not hear Jaren in the middle of a sentence? Sorry. Yeah, whatever. This is from rad crabs. So as if there's more land beyond the wall, that we're not being told that we are not being told about by NASA, why have nations spent so much time fighting over existing land? But not over Antarctica. That seems to contradict your own point. They're not fighting over Antarctica. And they don't fight over land. We literally beat Germany in a war and gave the land back to Germany. When it came to Antarctica, one of the big reasons why Antarctica hasn't really been fought over is because the air isn't it is very difficult to be able to get any value out of Antarctica, except for scientific reasons. But there's a lot of cold air. There's a lot of resource hole. Yeah, there are. There may be some resources, but going to Antarctica to get resources when you're in America, it's much easier to go. OK, well, America had some resources, so we'll just get the resources here. That's why we get all of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. They're more countries fighting over. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. So we'll go. So we'll go to Saudi. Saudi Arabia. You know, rather than going to a place where it's really cold, you'd have to develop new technology just to be able to get the oil there. Much easier to go to another. There's so much cold air, dude, but whatever. The point is if there's land outside of there, they may not want you to know about it. They keep you inside of it. Inside of the circle. Why doesn't it make a logical sense if you don't want to know about it? Flatter doesn't make a logical sense.  We're just trying to wake up. But again, that doesn't make any logical sense. Did you know like 500 years ago when they were more blood thirsty, they found land. The Europeans found this land and they brought more people to colonize it to make more money for them. So it would make more logical sense for them to do that. People were already here. Yeah. And they killed them. And so I don't see why us with our nuclear technology wouldn't go and do it again. And you're trying to make it seem like they don't want us to know about it.  What if the people outside there are 100 years, 100 years, 200 years more advanced? We would have known about it. They would have arrived. It would be here by now. James, I'm sorry. You look James, I'm sorry. You look like you're regretting your life decisions right now. No, it's okay. We've got a few more questions. We've got to do this where it's just rapid fire without a rebuttal to the question. I'm not going to even talk. And so we're going to just go really fast. Tim Prager says, thanks for proving my point. I'll log off YouTube now and you guys will no longer exist. Flatter means nothing in the real world. Isn't that the guy that backed out of the debate with me last minute? This one from Jeffrey Hollenbake says, Flat Earth with an F. It could be. It could be. Wow. I don't know what they did with that. Man, this is not for everybody. Some people like the matrix, bro. Take your jab. Chris G says, stop saying they who let's have names. I think they mean like what people in power, like people from the U.S. in particular or people who are like a global secret elite or like what level are we talking and who are they? So if we came home and found a bunch of people murdered in our house and we wanted to start talking about the they, we'd not be allowed to talk about them unless we name them. What if we don't know who they are? You have to call them something. All right.  But what he just said is a perfect answer. If anyone that's honest, here's his answer and thinks it's not a good answer. And they're being dishonest. This is what relax spring bandicoots as Tim Pryor clearly a genius. Allel well. I don't know if that's sincere or sarcastic. Quailo says, hope no one unplugs the holographic projector. Hope nobody unplugs the magic expansion energy that no one can find that keeps everything compressed together. Is it okay if we need to perform repairs? This is the very last to appear the holographic projector. Good one, bro. Did you or I say that at all? This whole debate? No, they just want to say whatever they think can make them stupid. Tim Pryor says, yeah, panoramic pictures on your phone. Stitch things together. It's not fake. And you cannot CGI live feeds you ding dong. But where's our live feed? Go look it up. There's at least two satellites that have lies feeds at this point. They're only they're only behind by like a minute or two minutes or something like that. I tried to look for a 25. You say the computer is taking it a little bit of time to render. Well, this guy just said that live streams that you did. The commenter said life. You just said a live stream is yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, let's go. The very last one. Tim, we I'm sorry. We can't take any more questions folks. Tim says really name one. This is why we laugh at you. Two seconds of research would tell you what technology you're using for NASA. What? There's not a bunch. That's his answer. It doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter. All the stupidest argument. It's one of the stupidest arguments I've heard on 9. That's saying a lot. They say many tools like the cordless drill by Black and Decker is because of NASA because they needed cordless drills in space. Dude, I'm glad that they turned everyone into atheist nihilistic psychopaths, bro, because it is pretty convenient to have a wireless drill. Or are you Christian? I don't I don't believe in mainstream Christianity, but I believe in a creator because I'm not a psychopath. Yes or no question, bro. Just saying no. I gave you my answer. Were you raised? Were you raised religious at all? Because I have a theory that all you guys were raised religious and then you became really jaded with God and then you found science and science said, hey, we're here with just truth and facts and evidence and you guys just fell in love. Yeah. And it's been alive. Well, your theory is debunked on my existence. So there's that. Yeah, I wasn't raised religious at all. So both of your parents are atheists? Um, my mom's no longer an atheist. She's now religious, but she raised me very secular. She was a religious person of no. No, she wasn't a religious person when I was growing up. She's recently become more religious. But you look around and you see a world that you think is accidental that's here by happenstance. No creator, no thought behind it, nothing. Trees, seeds, plants, animals, birds, everything's just as some star exploded. The earth doesn't have to be flat for me to understand that there's a God. He didn't say that. It's called a strawman.  I don't care about that. I just I'm just making my point. But do you think that there why was there no atheists 300 years ago? 400 or 300 years ago? No, there was like there's a lot of things that we couldn't explain. There were atheists very few. They're having atheists throughout history. Not really very few. But you know, there's just things that couldn't be explained and God was a convenient way to explain these things. Still can't be explained. Step in, right? Signed, stepped in and said we can explain it all and gave you guys some. No, that's not what happened. Oh, we are going to say. Forget it. We appreciate our guests so much. If you're listening via YouTube. Don't forget our links are linked or our guests are linked in the description box below. And not only that, but at the podcast, all of our debates end up on the podcast within about 24 hours of them being live. There are thousands of downloads there. There's zero ads on the podcast. Highly encourage you folks. Check it out. And if you're listening via the podcast, you can find Austin with it gets it and journalism and also David's and planner walks. Links in the description box there too. So I want to say thank you guys. It's been a true pleasure to have you tonight. James. Thank you. It was amazing. That was crazy. This is something else, man. I'm going to go to the post. I'll be back in a moment, folks. Stick around. We'd love to get to say hello. So stick around. Buzzing. My dear friends, want to say thanks for all of your support. Thrilled to have you here. Oh, baby. Don't worry. My camera is coming back in just a moment. In the meantime, want to say hello to you in the old live chat. Javi Gonzalez. Thanks for coming by. Did I say it right? Let me know if I pronounce the right as well as coffee mom. Good to see you again as well as nanology. Glad you are with us. And also, first last, thanks for dropping in. Glad you are with us. My dear friends, it has been a wild debate to be sure. Highly encouraged. You check out our links of our guests in the description box below. And not only that, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up on modern day debate. My dear friends, we are excited about the future. Modern day debate has been growing insanely. And we want to say thank you for making it grow as it has. Thank you for subscribing. Thank you for hitting like.  Also, when you hit subscribe, that also shows YouTube that we're a channel that's attracting new people. And so, YouTube is promoting us big time. And it's thanks to you guys. Another way that you guys have helped, for real, I check the stats on our videos. I see a lot of people have shared our videos. So if you're like, man, oh man, I totally thought that, this side got destroyed in this debate. And I've got to like, I've got to get the world to see this side being exposed. And then people share the link. That helps us a ton. So people shared, I see that in the, we're basically where we see like, where new people are coming from in the analytics page. It's like Twitter threads or people are sharing it in Discord, even Reddit. All over the place. So we want to say thank you guys for helping us grow as it has. And join us while we are young, while we are small. Because modern day debate has a big bright future. And it's thanks to, like I said, thank you to you guys for making modern day debate great. It's also thanks to the guests, the speakers that we have had on. They make this channel great. They're the lifeblood of the channel. If it was just me debating myself every night, it'd be very sad. Amanda, thanks for being with us. So share with your friends. I agree. If you thought this was a fun debate or if you're like, man, this is a great debate where people can see this side being exposed and where it's, you know, exposed that it's wrong. Hey, it's a great opportunity. Share the link and let the world see it then. Because it's a neutral platform. If you thought that one side was more persuasive than the other, it's meaningful. The reason is if one side wins, it's not, and by wins, I mean is more persuasive. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to be more persuasive. And I think that's usually what we'd refer to in terms of winning in a debate. I think people are like, oh, I'm like anti-competitive. I'm very passive. And like, is, and they're like, you know, it's bad to say win or lose and like, I don't think it's bad. And like, it's not bad. It's not morally bad or in any way low character to want to win in boxing or basketball or anything like that. And I don't think it's wrong to want to win in debate in terms of just being more persuasive. I think that's fine. Like morally, I don't see why that's like, a lot of times people say, well, that seems like morally lower. And I'm like, okay, it seems like a, just a naked assertion rather than our argument. But I want to say if you thought that one side was more persuasive than another. I highly encourage you. Hey, share this debate as it's meaningful if one side was more persuasive than the other because it's not because the moderators jumped in and took a side of like, hey, you know, globe Earth is true or hey, Flat Earth is true because here at modernity debate, we don't do that. It's a fully neutral platform. We moderate fairly and we also only put out debates.  We don't do that. We let you decide in the comment section because our vision ultimately is to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can have their chance to hear these debates on a level playing field. That's important to us. And what are our values because for us, it's important to us that we stick to our values. And one is we want things to be fair. We want it to be a fair platform where you don't have moderators jumping in and taking sides, which is just gross on some channels. I see this as like, wow, it's like you didn't really want a fair debate on your channel.   They know they're like, huh, well, it looked like one side might be more true, but mostly because the moderator just jumped in and took a side and helped the one side. That's gross. Isn't it nasty? It's so cowardly. It's so like, and the fact that some people would even let the moderator help them like debaters. I would think, wouldn't the debater be embarrassed that they would feel like they need the moderator to help them? If it's genuinely the debater that's skilled, they're going to be able to point out the fallacies or the lies or the gish gallop or whatever it is on the other side. And again, they're not going to need saving from the moderator. Now, Surgeon General, thanks so much. It is true. We have a new discord. If you have not seen this, I'm going to pin this at the top of the live chat right now. Surgeon General, thanks so much for all your hard work along with Hannah and Amanda and others. It's amazing. So I highly encourage you to check that out. Tim Pryor, thanks for your super chest tonight. We really do appreciate it. It really doesn't mean a lot. Thanks for your support that way as well. Nanology says James Wink at the camera. And question. The answer is glad to have you here. Mr. Plant, thank you for coming by. Iron Horse, good to see you says. Let's see. Andre Balas, thanks for coming by, as well as Sean Hawkins. Good to see you. And Regis Terzlober. Glad to have you with us. Sean Hawkins, did I see you recently in an email? Is that you who we were talking? But anyway, Javi Gonzalez, thanks for coming by. We want, we want to welcome you with open arms. Glober Mom, thanks for coming by. Says good night, everyone. Glober Mom, sleep well. We hope it's a great night as well as Mr. White, thanks for being here. Twelyn, thanks for coming by. And I know that if you're in the live chat, you've subscribed because we have live. What is the word I'm looking for? We have subscribers only chat mode on right now. And so I want to say thank you for having subscribed in our tech. Thanks for being a subscriber. Roman Conan, as well as thanks J.J. Hemcrete Bear. Thanks so much for your subscription to modern day debate. Thanks for your support of us. Big pine sailing. Thanks for your support as well. You guys have got 511 people. We've got 359 likes. We can easily get to 400 likes. It just jumped up to 360. So we're only 40 likes away. We can easily get 40 more likes to get to 400. So seriously, we appreciate it when you do hit like. That means a lot. Dylan Mote, thanks for being with us. Thanks for helping our channel. Thanks for being a subscriber. Glowbusters, thanks for being subscribed. We appreciate your support. It means a lot. Ryan, thanks for dropping in. Thanks for your support. And thanks for being a subscriber. Iron Horse, thanks for being here. Kanye Twitty, thanks for coming by. Appreciate your kind words. Andrew Kroll, good to see you there. Thanks for dropping in, as well as one Neil. Glad you are here.  Nice job. Thanks for that. That means a lot. Ms. Sweet, thanks for coming by. Thanks for being a subscriber. It means a lot, as well as Nierka13. Thanks for being a sub.  It really does mean a lot. Seriously, that really does. You guys, your support, it means more than you know. And like I said, this channel, it can't grow without you. Like, you guys have helped this channel so much. Like, I'm just a guy sending out a few emails, and then I host. But, this channel is truly a community effort. Seriously. This is not like a, like, oh, that's like James's channel. No, like, I tell people all the time, it's like, no, no, no, modern day debate is not like my channel. I always say like, at modern day debate, we care about X, Y, and Z. Here are our values, fairness, competition, all these things. Those are important to us. And it's not an I thing. It's a community thing, because for real, you guys support this channel in so many ways. Thanks for your support. Troubling Tribune, good to see you there. Thanks for, thanks for having been a debater in the past as well. Troubling Tribune. I hope you're doing well. And thanks for your support of modern day debate. Seriously, it means a lot. As well as Angel, let me see, and let me know if I'm seeing this right. Ngu, Nguyen. Thanks for coming by. Did I say it right? Let me know. Tuellen. Thanks for being a subscriber. That means a lot. Big pine sailing. Thanks for your support of the channel. As well as Randolph says, thanks, James, your contribution to the free exchange of ideas is greatly appreciated. These debates are always well run and cover interesting topics. Thanks, Randolph. Seriously, that really does mean a lot. I appreciate that. Thanks for being a subscriber and a debater, Randolph. And Kanye Twitty says, when are you going to debate again, James? Someday I do plan on it. It's just going to be a while. I have to at least finish the PhD. I've only got about 11 months of the PhD left, though. But I love being a moderator. Like, I really do enjoy it. I love moderating. I love building modern-day debate. I love learning about the marketing kind of stuff. And I know people are like, oh, like marketing is like, makes it sound like fake. You know, it's, I think some people think like, that's not as genuine because YouTube's supposed to be like authentic and genuine.  But we're not ashamed of the fact that we're trying to grow. We think that we offer something of value to YouTube. We really do. Namely, fair debates. It's a very rare type of channel where not only is the moderation fair, which is rare, frankly. It's out there. I will admit, there are some channels that do that. Big credit to them. However, they're few and far between. And not only that, even more rare. In fact, I think that modern-day debate is the only channel period that only hosts debates. That's it. No position videos. No lectures where I gave a lecture on X, Y, or Z. If there's an argument to be made on modern-day debate, there's always an argument opposing it as well. That's what we value. It's a fully neutral platform. And not only that, but it's fully fair because that's the thing. Sometimes people are like, hey, let's say I'm a flat earther. And I'm like, wow, I want to go on this channel and debate. But I realize a lot of this channel's videos are calling flat earthers the R word.  But they're calling them flat turds. We'll say that. And so a lot of them are like, well, why would I want to, as a flat earther, why would I want to go do a debate on that channel? Because they put my group down all the time. Which is understandable. It's like, why would you want to go help them promote their channel when they treat you like that? Now, if they're treating you kindly, then I think that's different. I can see why you'd be more open to it. But when it is, sometimes it's abusive. It's like, well, yeah, I agree. Why would you want to go on there when they have content that is so, you know, or if they, like wise, if they said globers are globe turds. That's one way to put it. If they said that, why would a glober want to go debate on that channel when they've got these other videos that are trashing them? It's like, why would you want to help them promote their channel by being a debater for them when they're doing that? Really, I would think that. I think it's a fair thought. Not only that, but a lot of channels I notice, a lot of debate channels, they don't even link their guests. I'm like, what really? You're not even willing to link your guests. Like you don't even have that basic fairness. So we always link our guests. No matter how controversial, like, we're willing to do that. And so I'm just amazed. Like we are providing, so in other words, we're not ashamed of the fact that we want to grow. We're thankful that you have helped us grow because we believe that YouTube deserves a better class of debate channel. And we're going to give it to them. Some people, they want to ban certain ideas or certain people. You could say that they want a prohibition on ideas. Very sad, nasty guys. We though will be what you might call your idea barons. We are going to produce ideas. We are going to produce debates. And we are going to make it big. And I've got to say it's all thanks to, like I said, the debaters. Thanks to all of you as listeners. Thanks for your support. Thanks for being a subscriber for MM4D.  Thanks for being a subscriber. So I love you, James. Love you too. Thanks MsSweet. Appreciate that. As well as Truthers, Out of Comedy. Thanks for coming by. Thanks for being a subscriber. That means a lot. CBZC says, James, your channel rocks. Keep it up. Thanks so much. Thanks for being a subscriber here. It means a lot, seriously. And not only that, C Montreal says, good job. Good show. Thanks for that. Appreciate your encouragement. Gen8208, thanks for your kind words. That means a lot. Appreciate it. Thanks for being a subscriber here. As well as Big Pine Sailing. Thank you so much. So seriously, do appreciate the neutral platform, James. That means a lot, for real. I really do. I really do appreciate that. And thanks for being a supporter and a subscriber. Pure Aussie Gold. Seriously, we really do appreciate you. And Javi Gonzales says, you deserve it, James. Thank you so much for that. And Javi Gonzales says, good luck with your last mark on your PhD. I've got about maybe 11 months left, and then I'm done with the PhD, which is going to be, it's crazy thinking that. I'm like, I can't believe it. Because it's like, I felt like I was going to be the PhD forever. It's, I'm on my fifth year right now. So what is it? It's fall? So I've got another, yeah. So I've got, it's going to be less than a year, about 11 months, and I'll be out of here. So I'm excited for that. Thank you guys for your support. As well as Claire, thanks for your kind words, says it wouldn't be here without you, James. Thanks for that, Claire. Thanks for being a subscriber too. And JJ Hemcrete bears as James the best moderator on YouTube. Thanks, JJ, seriously. And thanks for being a subscriber. Appreciate that. And, well, that always finds its level. Thanks for your support. Thanks for being a subscriber. Surgeon General, thanks for giving out those gifted subscriptions or gifted channel memberships earlier. Mark Reed, thanks for coming by. Says, good to see you, James. Thanks, Mark. We appreciate you. Thanks for being both a subscriber and a debater. And Surgeon General, thanks for coming by. Says, yeah, congrats, buddy. You've earned it. Thanks so much for your support. Jen8208 says, I love free speech. Amen to that. We want to give everybody a fair shot, no matter how controversial. So thank you guys for all of your support. I should go. It's getting really late. This has been four hours and 20 minutes. That I've been in this chair and haven't gotten up. So I want to say thank you guys for all your support. We're excited about the future. Seriously, modern day debate has big things planned. As you can see in the bottom right of your screen, Matt Delhonte will be debating Nadir. That's next weekend. And it's next Saturday in particular. No, I got that one wrong. That one's on Friday, actually. And then this one that you're seeing on screen, that one's on Saturday. That's Arun Ra versus Perfect Dawa. And whether or not there is evidence for Islam. So we're excited for those debates. It's going to be really fun. You guys seriously appreciate all your support. Thanks for your kind words, Amanda. Thanks guys. I love you. Thanks for making this channel amazing. It really does mean a lot. And I am excited about the future. We at modern day debates are excited about the future. And I've got to tell you, there's so many volunteers that have made this channel. One last group of people I want to thank. Amanda helped us find a location down there in Dallas. We appreciated that very much. As well as, thanks for it in the chat, reminding people, Amanda helped us find a spot for our last conference, which we had an in-person conference if you didn't know about that. It was awesome. And thanks for doing that, Amanda. And then people like Sweet Pea and Hannah and Randolph and others who, in the live chat, thank you for reminding people to subscribe or hit like. That helps us too. We appreciate that. Not only that, but we've got so many volunteers like Chris and Bob and Brian and Kaz and Amy. And we have just got so many people that have put so much time into helping modern day debate. So seriously, it is truly a community effort in making this channel what it is. So we appreciate all your love and support. We're excited about the future as big things are coming. And we will see you at the next debate, which is, as of now, next Friday, you don't want to miss it. So we'll see you then.