Hey everybody, today we're debating whether or not the moon landing was a hoax and we are starting right now. With Kyle's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us Kyle, the floor is all yours. Fantastic, good to be here. Let's get this going. Yeah, you're crazy.  Okay, natural physical science is the only thing relevant to this conversation because you're making physical claims. We haven't agreed upon parameters. We have a verification method. It's called scientific method in natural physical science and I've explained objectively what it is and you've argued about the interpretation saying that you can never, ever prove a cause. And I'm sure you're under the philosophy that you can never prove anything. Science doesn't prove things and that's just a scapegoat, right? It's a scapegoat. What? So then by deduction, there is no scientific proof of the global model. There's no scientific proof of anything. Can you just answer directly though? So that would mean by deduction, there's no scientific proof of the global model. There's no scientific proof of anything. Science doesn't prove anything. Okay, yeah, we get it. That's the talking point nowadays because y'all don't have any proof. Why do you think that's a scapegoat? Could we not be in a brain in the vat? Is that physically? Can we get something relevant to the topic, please? It's very relevant to the topic. So everything we're seeing is just a delusion of some kind. That's possible, right? Yeah, science doesn't prove anything. That's a fact. Which is really essential when it comes to the global model. The word theory does not mean hypothetical. So I don't want to get clips of our old videos. Can we actually get something related to the topic, Jamie? Just like germs can be proven. But not all theories can be heard. The rest from Tom. The only point we can make in here is that, saying that because it's... I don't want to hear clips from my old video. But to be fair, if he is theoretically burning up his own time by doing things that are relevant, it's not for me the model to stop him from setting himself on fire. Theoretically, if he is currently setting himself on fire, I don't want to take your side, Tom, by stopping him from stepping in it. No, I want him to. I don't want to have to address a whole bunch of things. I do have to give him... Tom, I have to give him the rest of it for his opening. Because this is just straw manning my position. I don't want to have to address other things I've said out of context. Tom, I have to give it to him. Even if you want to point out later how he just lit himself on fire by wasting his opening. This is a... Alright, go ahead, Kyle. Okay. The theory it is therefore unproven is wrong. Many theories are proven. So you're confused about the word theory. It doesn't mean unproven. And many theories can't be proven. That doesn't mean all theories are provable. Do you see what I'm saying? You're trying to err on the side that I'm saying all theories are provable. I'm saying it's 50-50. Because it's a theory, it's not provable. You know what I mean? That doesn't mean some theories aren't accurate. I'm saying that doesn't mean that all theories are inaccurate. No, the part I'm objecting to is you define the word theory to mean uncertain. That's not what the word theory means. Here's a peer-reviewed journal article written by a teacher of the teachers in the Journal of College Science Teaching. And it says a gentle reminder that a hypothesis is never proven correct nor is a theory ever proven to be true. In other words it is saying science never proves anything. And it goes so far as to say words like prove, correct, and true should be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately. And it isn't just an isolated statement, but Forbes magazine over there calls scientific proof a myth. And Scientific American says if you say science is right, you're wrong. It is very much a mainstream belief these days. So, if you choose to agree with mainstream doctrine you are going to have to admit that there is no scientific proof that we landed on the moon whatsoever. You have evidence for the moon landing but you have to acknowledge that it is non-convicting evidence. In all you're going to have to acknowledge that your belief in the moon landing is nothing more than faith as in a confidence or trust in NASA and those who partner with them and that it is a belief that is not based on proof. Yeah, you could say that you have evidence but that kind of evidence is not the same thing as proof which is why I referred to it as non-convicting evidence. You could say that this picture is evidence that the moon landing might have happened but you have to acknowledge that it, along with the other moon footage might have been staged using practical effects. So long as you claim science never proves anything all of your arguments will boil down to we should trust NASA because of X, Y and Z. And if I wanted to play that game I could represent the opposing view we should not trust NASA because of X, Y and Z. For example, I could point to Cindy Holland, who is a former NASA employee who testifies that we did not go to the moon. I could also point to Mike Helmick who is another former NASA employee who says the same thing. I could also point to Gus Grissom who I know Alec Stein mentioned to you before. Gus Grissom was the Apollo 1 astronaut who famously hung the lemon on the command module by which he was killed by being locked inside and burned alive. After deep investigation on the matter Grissom survived.  I can address all these. If you muted your computer like on the YouTube video there and then spoke through as we want our guests to be doing their opening speeches live just like the open dialogue. I could essentially what I'm saying here is when it comes to evidence evidence that the moon landing did not happen I could point to Gus Grissom I can point to Cindy Holland and the other NASA whistleblowers and then I can also point to I can point to Kathy O'Brien Kathy O'Brien who was M.K. Ultra survivor and Kathy O'Brien said that the M.K. Ultra experiment both took place at the NASA headquarters and they were conducted by NASA themselves so that was really convicting evidence for me but I'm not here to just say okay well you've got all this evidence that says that the moon landing didn't happen and I've got all this evidence saying that the moon landing didn't happen I'd rather focus on proof scientific proof and the question here with T-Jump is whether or not he believes scientific proof actually exists or not and if he does have scientific proof I would love to see what kind of scientific proof he has that the moon landing actually happened now when it comes to scientific proof I would like to point out the vacuum chamber one of my favorite instances is what happens to a balloon in a vacuum chamber that balloon expands and if in this instance it's filling up the entire thing but when we put it into a tin can like a soda can that soda can is going to expand as well until it explodes as you can see there so when it comes to soda cans vacuums I have to point out I have to point out the lunar lander and what that's made out of and just how thick the lunar lander was which is comparable to a soda can the lunar lander has got a very thin wall and so that lunar lander is going to pop up like this it should explode in the vacuum of space under that kind of pressure and we also have the astronaut suits themselves which would expand until they explode why are the lunar landers why are the astronauts suits themselves so thick when the lunar lander has such a thin skin there's a huge difference right there so here we have them moving their hands up and down and so when you put a vacuum just put like 7 pounds of pressure in a if you put 7 pounds of pressure just in a basketball that thing is pretty firm right so this is quite a bit more than 7 pounds of pressure on an astronaut suit you shouldn't even be able to put your arms down in that so here I have an instance of the astronaut in the vacuum chamber am I okay to let this guy speak for himself here sure okay his experience being one as I stumble backwards I could feel the saliva on my tongue starting to bubble just before I went unconscious and that's kind of the last thing I remember essentially he had no pressure on the outside of his body and that's a very unusual case to get and there's very little in the medical literature as to what happens when you have that there's a lot of conjecture that you're fluid to boil within 25 seconds a co-worker sitting in a partially pressurized anti-chamber and wearing an oxygen mask was able to dash in just the speed at which they were able to get some okay so just the speed at which they were able to get someone in there was really fast like yeah really really fast and that tells you that it wasn't even that strong of a vacuum yet I've gone and talked to actual people who professionally work with vacuum chambers and it takes them hours like 12 hours to get a vacuum chamber all the way up to pressure and then decompress it it takes quite a while much faster than you would ever come down in an airplane it would really hurt your ears if you did that not so you also have to worry about things like the bends when you do scuba diving that's decompression sickness that is that definitely can kill people and so when his suit suddenly loses pressure because it popped under the kind of pressure yeah when they bump in when they jump in there it goes really fast yeah that person could die from oxidization of the blood to mention you have to which can miraculously Leblanc had already regained consciousness when I stood up in the chamber I felt fine my ears ached a little bit from the course of rapid repressurization and basically the only effect I had was one of the few instances where anybody was ever exposed to that low of a pressure and lived to tell about it with no obvious damage which was only possible because it wasn't as extreme as lunar conditions yeah it wasn't as extreme as lunar conditions and now I'm just going to point out the different layers of that astronaut suit coming up on 12 minutes just so you know some parts of okay sorry there's interruptions there that kind of took my time away but okay I'm all good the astronaut suit had a whole bunch of layers to it and the lunar lander itself did not it was really really thin as thin as a few sheets of aluminum foil that's my point you got it thank you very much for that opening statement Kyle and we're going to kick it over to T-Jump for his opening as well but before we do I want to say folks if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate want to let you know we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics I'm your host James we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from whether you think the moon landing is the real deal or a hoax we're glad that you're here and if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up for example at the bottom right of your screen we're absolutely thrilled about this one Daniel Hakikachu and Mike Jones from inspiring philosophy have agreed to debate you don't want to miss it it's going to be a great one so like I said if you haven't already hit that subscribe button for juicy debates like that one at the bottom right of your screen with that thanks very much Tom the floor is all yours it's the I don't want to share screen I miss share screen in the meantime want to remind you folks couple of quick housekeeping things our guests are both linked in the description box as well as this is a big one folks we're excited about it at the bottom right of your screen we showed you that upcoming debate between Daniel and Mike Jones inspiring philosophy but also want to let you know got it all loaded up you got it floor is all yours can you hear it no we can't hear the video alright share screen share sound try it now can you hear it now yep alright 1,2,3,4,3,4 Earth, Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the lunar surface the world discovered this monochrome landscape left by Armstrong and Aldrin beyond the technical and political success represented by Apollo 11's mission it was an opportunity for the astronauts to gather samples and install devices for scientific measurements in particular they deployed a reflective panel no larger than a suitcase 50 years later it's among the instruments that continue to supply the scientific community with data return to Earth and more precisely to the south of France this plateau is home to the Kellyanne Observatory among the instruments directed towards space one telescope in particular is studying the lunar surface and has been for nearly half a century with a 1.5 meter diameter mirror this telescope is equipped with a laser which enables it to measure the distance between the Earth and the moon with great precision every day scientists from the observatory calculate the trajectories needed to find the reflectors left on the surface by the various Apollo missions over the years the study has benefited greatly from technological advancements 50 years ago measurements of this distance taken by laser were accurate to within about a meter thanks to the evolution of the ecology that followed our measurements today are precise to within a few millimeters with an exactitude on the order of a centimeter this exactitude is a little less than we'd like due to misreadings caused by atmospheric interference we have a lot of studies currently centered on the impact of the atmosphere on our lasers in order to compensate for these perturbations on this June evening moonrise is predicted at around 11 p.m after calibrating the various instruments that ensure the stability of this extremely powerful laser the operating team will need to reorient it towards the moon to begin collecting data this laser visible to the naked eye at night produces 10 pulses per second with thousands of photons bombarding the moon few will return to Earth and be captured by the telescope around trip journey of roughly 800,000 kilometers that takes 2.4 seconds to complete the observer on Earth must continually and manually correct the telescope's aim in this way they'll obtain an echo a sign that the laser has succeeded in striking one of the reflectors left on the lunar surface we use 5 reflectors on the surface of the moon 3 of which were deployed by the Americans on Apollo missions the first being Apollo 11 it's a panel which is 50 centimeters squared and which was equipped with 100 corner cube reflectors corner cube reflectors are devices which unlike regular mirrors can reflect light back in the direction it came from when one looks at this kind of object one will see the center of their own eye exactly the kind of passive system used on the moon there are 3 American reflective panels from Apollo 11, 14 and 15 as well as 2 Russian rovers Lunacod 1 and 2 which were also equipped with this type of system measurements collected by this observatory in conjunction with an international network of observation stations have improved the database which feeds the research of scientists around that's all I really need so that proves for a fact anybody can go just go rinse one of those observatories there's particularly one I found it's the Mount Williams Observatory you can rinse it for nights, you can use the laser you can balance it off of these 5 reflectors and you can find for a fact that there are human devices on the moon that can be provably there that anybody can go find that debunks literally everything he said in 5 seconds with that, I want to say thank you very much to our guests for those openings we're going to jump into the open conversation but first, want to let you know as you can see at the bottom right of your screen we are currently working toward meeting a thousand followers on TikTok the reason is that unlocks us being able to live stream these debates just like this one on TikTok so if you haven't yet, I just threw that link to our TikTok in the live chat and Surgeon General has also put it in the live chat Surgeon General that TikTok link for Modern Day Debate is also in our description box, if you want to follow us there that helps us expand our neutral platform as we want to give everybody their fair shot to make their case on a level playing field here at Modern Day Debate so thank you very much gentlemen, the floor is all yours for that open dialogue okay, so we've got common ground that science can prove things and that Jacqueline McLaughlin was wrong no, science cannot prove things, science you just said that was proof though sure, it's proof you're wrong science doesn't prove things, I can prove you're wrong okay, so you can prove I'm wrong but that's not scientific claim? no, that's just, you're an idiot that's all that is, yes that's not, okay, now that's just that's not science proving things, that's me proving you're an idiot, that's all that is okay, yeah, that's all you've got it's just thousands, okay, whatever no, I proved you're wrong, I literally provided a scientific experiment anybody can do, you can go rinse an observatory to prove that there are reflectors on the moon and you can do all the bunks, everything you said and then I called you an idiot, so an ad hominom is when you just say you're an idiot there for your wrong that's not the same thing that's still, yeah no, it's not, do you have any evidence? no, it's not, do you want to respond to the thing that just proved all your worldview wrong? yeah, it's really it's really simple like, they were able to bounce lasers off the moon before they ever claimed to do that how does that compare? you claimed that never happened no, they could not bounce lasers off of five reflectors on the moon in particular directions they could bounce lasers off the moon before they ever claimed to have reflectors on a moon no, they could not bounce lasers off of reflectors that reflect back where you point it from you haven't really provided anything other than NASA says so no, this is something you can do you can go rinse this and prove it yourself and people have done this, so that's like corroboration from multiple sources that people do in college all the time so this is you've been debunked, not just NASA says so this is everybody that says so because you've been debunked and the point here is that those reflectors they reflect light back from where they are sent from which means you can confirm this from multiple different observatories if you just flash a laser at the moon it won't reflect back directly at you it's going to reflect exactly what happened back before stop talking, stop talking and listen to my words so you know why you're wrong so when you reflect a laser off of the moon for it to go directly back towards the sensor you need a device that sends the photons directly back to the sensor it doesn't just naturally do that to do that you need a device like the one shown in the video which is a man-made device there's five of them and there's only five locations on the moon where this happens magically for some magical spooky reason guess what, that proves we've been to the moon, debunked no yes, debunked no, just because you say so doesn't make it so no, this is proven you can again, I've gave you the resources to check this yourself you're just saying so yes, that you can rinse an observatory and do the experiment yourself yeah, anybody can do this okay, when you go to the observatory do you see any laser actually coming back like with your eyes, do you see it coming back or does an observatory just say you don't need to see things with your eyes you can see it with the computer really, a computer can do it yes, you can bring your own computer that you make yourself and say does it read back sensory data of lasers coming back to the sensor yes, you're debunked okay, so it's kind of like one of those little pop-up toys if I push a button all of a sudden I've got Big Bird popping up out of the toy and because that Big Bird is popping up, oh look well, if you're so dumb and don't know how to make computers that's the best you can do I guess but if you learn how to do computers they just give you whatever information they want to no, you can bring your own equipment bro bring your own computer bro yeah they don't give you any equipment they don't just make things like hack your computer to give you data bro where does the data come from they give it to you no, they have a sensor you can rinse the sensor and you can hook it up to your computer to give it data they don't control the sensor sounds like you're making stuff up right now like have you ever done this before yes, yes I have you've got video footage of you doing this you've been debunked bro I don't think so you can't do it you can rent the laser, you can rent the device and you can show the results because the laser, because the device just gives you numbers and says hey look at this so I can draw a stick figure well your ignorance of not knowing how devices work isn't evidence that it doesn't work that's another red card there buddy no, no that's just a fact if you are too ignorant to know how devices work because they're not, they don't work moderator, do we have any kind of penalties for this stuff that's not an insult that's just the truth, if you don't know if you're ignorant of how a device works that is not evidence the device does not work that's just a fact what about that sentence did not make sense to you if you were ignorant of how a device works that does not show the device does not work which part of that are you objecting to if you don't know how a device works that doesn't mean it doesn't work correct, there you go that wasn't hard we got you there, pause okay so that was your argument so you debunked your own argument there, thank you what was my argument the fact that you don't know how a device works because they're being controlled by the NASA conspiracy that's called the straw man because I never made that argument that was literally your argument you're saying they're giving you the data you're saying the NASA shields are controlling the device and giving you the data even though it's your computer, yeah no you don't know how the device works the device gives you data right, do you agree on that yes, the device receives data and puts it on a screen for you and gives it to your computer and so if it says okay well you do these things just right and then this is going to happen so it's one of those pop-up toys that's how science works, you do an experiment you have a result and then it gives you a consistent result yes, that's science, science is good, yes okay so how does any of that destroy my argument about the vacuum blowing a hole in the lunar lander it wouldn't, you just don't understand how space works like the pressure in the lunar lander is less than the pressure in your tire like does the tire explode no, your car tire is doing just fine with much greater pressure than that of the lunar lander problem solved all right, that right there proves to me if it's really that little of pressure inside the lunar lander that is proof that it's impossible it didn't happen, you put that much pressure in a balloon and the balloon expands yes, because a balloon is made of rubber yeah and guess what, when you put a tin can in a vacuum chamber like a soda can that's going to expand too not nearly as much, no metal is going to expand very little it's enough to blow a hole in the thing yeah no, you can design it so it can expand and not blow a hole in it, that's not hard it's not hard at all, I don't even know what you're talking about right now it's gibberish there's no law of physics that aluminum with pressure on it will explode there's no law of physics that says that you can make composites that don't explode, they can hold stronger weights, they don't really need to because it's not really that much pressure and it's not the same kind of aluminum as used in a space station so obviously they're not going to have the same tensile strength like, do you not know any of those words? okay, so yeah, you're just saying oh well it's strong enough that we just kind of a wizard did it no, I'm saying that there are multiple kinds of metal, not all metal is a pop can so putting pressure on a pop can and seeing a pop can explode is not evidence that any metal in space would explode, that is a stupid argument it's going to expand expansion does not mean explode, things can expand when it not to explode when it expands and can't contain when there's more outward pressure than there is the tensile strength as you described it, then it's going to explode right, which is why we have more tensile strength in the space station than the amount of pressure inside of it, so it doesn't explode problem solved, ta-da! science magic so why did the astronaut suits have to be so thick and yet the walls of the lunar lander why were they allowed to be so thin for lots of reasons, why is this relevant? because that right there is kind of a contradictory statement no, the spacesuits aren't made of metal bro, they're made of cloth bro uh-huh cloth is not as strong as metal, and so if you want to have the same tensile strength of a piece of cloth as you do a piece of metal you're probably going to need more cloth how is this hard? this is not hard it should be expanding it's got a lot more flexibility should be a lot more like that balloon so we use again, I think it covered this, the part where you have objects with tensile strength and you put enough tensile strength so it doesn't explode that's the whole solution to the problem here and then you get the problem with being able to move your arms up and down no, that's not a problem your arms are going to get really stiff a basketball you put like 5 pounds of pressure in a basketball and you lose flexibility of the basketball it's because a basketball has no joints if you have a joint that can swivel, then you don't have that problem you can move your hands like your elbows you're able to move your elbows to swing a hammer none of that is a problem because you said so no, because it's not a basketball a basketball is a single piece of object that doesn't have any joints if you put a joint on a basketball, like suppose you cut a basketball in half you like put a little rollers on it and then glued it back together and then re-punched it up you could twist it, it wouldn't be hard you just twist it, problem solved so if you have twisty points, you can have twisty points on the sides and then twist those like their arms twisty points on the fingers and those can twist too it's not hard they've got twisty points and every joint on the astronaut suit right and that's how they did it is kind of Mr. Roboto's style on swinging that hammer yes, that's how Kevlar works it's flexible, flexible things can flex yes if it's flexible though, then you've got the flexible basketball sure, you could have a flexible basketball too like those are easy just don't make them out of solid leather problem solved, like there are flexible basketball they're very squishy yes, you can squish them Kevlar is a lot less flexible than leather is no yeah no your ignorance of how these materials work is not actually evidence here so yes, Kevlar is actually extremely flexible that's why it's so good against bullets Kevlar the way it works is that it flexes to catch the bullet it is meant to be extremely flexible that's how it stops bullets your ignorance of the topic is not evidence the Kevlar under pressure things that you don't really bend into in half or anything like that yes, you can bend Kevlar exactly like that have you ever held Kevlar, it's very flexible I've had bullet proof vests before I was in the guard for eight years good for you, then you should know it's flexible it's not that flexible before we go, I want to say we do have a poll, as we do appreciate you folks having responded to that poll in the live chat we did want to bring up a couple of topics as these are topics we ask the audience what do you most want to hear discussed next? one is are the moon landing photos forgeries or fakes? no the vacuum just proves that they are fake and you've got the testimonials that these things affect that's all evidence right, do you agree that a testimony is evidence? sure, like the testimony of the thousands of people who worked on these and the testimony of the dozens of astronauts who said they were there so if you want to count testimony, I win because I have more of it that's called the appeal if you want to count testimony I have more testimony that's just your own standard I'm just saying if you want to define testimony as evidence I have more astronauts who give testimony I'm not disagreeing with that there's no argument there but that doesn't make it true okay you're not counting testimony as evidence it is evidence that's why I didn't really lead with that you have two options either we accept testimony as evidence in which case I have a whole bunch of experts who have testimony and you have a couple deluded people and I win or we don't accept testimony as evidence and I have actual things that we can verify today like lasers on the moon there's a difference between convicting evidence and non-convicting evidence do you agree? sufficient evidence and bull crap? yes, I agree so there is convicting evidence and non-convicting evidence if sufficient evidence and bull crap yes, I have the sufficient evidence if I were to put my hand on someone's forehead and it's warm their head is warm therefore that's evidence that they might have a fever but it's not convicting evidence because my hand just could be cold so that's the difference between convicting do you know what the word sufficient means? sufficient it's enough to convict congratulations, you're just repeating the same point we've already agreed upon yes, there is a sufficient evidence and there is bull crap insufficient evidence yes, we agree, these are two things I have the sufficient evidence sufficient because you have more of it personal testimony as evidence towards some kind of sufficient basis than yes I have more of that you have more of it in terms of the actual photos though Kyle, I think people would love to hear are the photos forgeries more detail on that because I think we skipped over to different kind of indirect arguments for them being forgeries in terms of addressing the photos more specifically alright, well there are a lot of people like to point out the high level of detail in the photos and I just look at the high level of details and say hey, that can't happen in a vacuum, the vacuum chamber would affect the gelatin inside the layers of the film what? have you not looked at what the film is made out of you can actually still buy the film today there's gelatin in the film that gelatin is going to get affected by the vacuum, not to mention you have to worry about cold welding which is going to affect every part of the camera and every time those astronauts are falling down directly on that camera and smashing that camera lens right into the ground that right there is going to damage the kind of quality you can make and so you can point out all these really good detailed photos those are evidence that the moon landing did not happen because you can't take that good of photos under those kind of conditions yes you can, none of that is hard there are many ways to do that in fact, the gelatin was specifically designed to be in space so saying that space would affect it just means you're again ignorant of how it works so yes, it works fine in space, no problem totally fine I'm not done speaking yet secondly, the way space works is that there's less interference and so because there's less interference between the photons of light being bounced off the object and the camera lens would actually be more detailed than a photo in the atmosphere what gibberish are you talking about, of course there's high detailed photos of space, this doesn't mean that they're fake because you don't understand how the mechanics works again, you don't understand how the machine works therefore it's fake those are just again your argument for ignorance your understanding is ad hominem no, it's a fact it's not an ad hominem because you say so it's not going to be affected by space it works so obviously you must be ignorant of how it works therefore you're ignorant of how it works that's assuming things you don't know what I know I know what you just said you can actually buy the ectochrome film today and you can actually put that ectochrome film into a vacuum chamber and see that it actually gets damaged by the vacuum chamber, it's testable you can do it yourself, right you can do it yourself it's provable and it works, and we do it today and it works the picture still works yeah, and you can't take high quality photos yes you can in a vacuum chamber, no you can't yes you can, they literally do this all the time, we have vacuum chambers we do this it gets damaged no, it doesn't I've never seen a photo of a vacuum chamber be damaged because of the vacuum I haven't looked into this yet I've looked into this a lot they take lots of photos in vacuum chambers that's one of the things they're commonly used for they are not degraded by the vacuum they are they are not I can show your pictures photos from vacuum chamber right, let's see here this one's from a nuclear reactor this one's from a large hydrant collider I'm not seeing any degradation yeah, I don't think those are taken with ectochrome film though okay right, if you take a digital camera and take it in a vacuum chamber yeah, it's going to be a little different than putting ectochrome films ectochrome films in a vacuum University of Pittsburgh oh, these are pretty clear photos I don't know what gibberish you're talking about I don't think they're quite as clear as the visor photo they look perfectly clear I see no degradation in the photo whatsoever yeah, there's no degradation of the photo whatsoever I can't see what you're talking about I guess we're just trusting you it's all fake you can do the experiment yourself this is one that's been commonly repeated again by many universities all the time this is not a hard thing to do do the machines of the camera that were built for the Apollo mission working in a vacuum yes, yes they do can you build them have you ever heard of cold welding before? have you ever heard of cold welding? cold welding so cold welding is going to affect the joints of that camera no? you don't think it's going to affect it? no, I said how? how? question mark how? well, there's no oxygen in between the two and so you got two layers right next to each other they end up getting stuck together because of the cold welding what cold welding? it's space cold welding affects plastics and it also affects metals what cold welding? if I put two objects in space they don't magically cold weld together because they're in space they don't cold weld together in their space so metal or metal? seems like your argument is any object in space that's metal, that's next to another metal object will cold weld together because they're in space that seems to be what you're saying that can happen in space, yeah because there's no oxidation layer between the two because when there's no oxidation layer between the two, they end up sticking together and that was a big huge thing with one of the satellite claims that they have is, oh, they're trying to pull out this umbrella on this satellite and all of a sudden the umbrella is getting stuck because of the cold welding and so if it can happen to the satellite then why couldn't it happen on the moon with the camera and like the shutter and so many other things and you just look at the camera itself and there's no insulation on that thing to protect it from the heat and so you got all this radiation, they're already joined together what is your point here? so like if you take two pieces of metal there's moving parts in the camera that are not the same material so like you understand cold welding only works if they're the same material, right so if you use a different material, problem solved yeah, I get it, yeah but there's still joints that are in there of the same material the joints are already connected if they're already connected they can't reconnect it's like, do you think like it's just if you have a screw that's of a single material it's all just going to turn into a blob in space? no, cold welding doesn't mean melting I never claimed that the screw would melt okay so an object that is connected by a joint that's been welded together already isn't going to cold fuse into a different shape because it's already connected like a screw is already connected, right? the screw is already connected yeah so it's not going to cold weld if they're already connected yeah already connected if the screw is going into something of the same material then it's going to cold weld to that material I don't understand it so a screw is going to maintain its shape in space yeah, that's not an argument so if you have two objects that are welded together before you go into space and you bring them into space they're already welded together they're not going to cold weld into a different shape they're going to maintain their shape, aren't they? yeah, they're already together the shape of a camera okay so there's moving parts within that camera which are not the same material so problem solved yeah you'd have to have the visuals for that cold welding only works when you have two metals of the same material so if you have a different material problem solved, right? so all of the metal in the camera was they used a different kind of metal with each piece in the camera is that your claim? sure, that would be really easy actually you could just like offset use aluminum titanium I'll be really easy to do and you're claiming that they made this special custom camera well they did make a special custom camera specifically for space yes, duh and they tested that out and put that in the vacuum and said okay literally what they did with all of their equipment they built a specially customized thing this is why it cost so much money tested it out in the vacuum chamber to make sure it worked this is space, that's the order of scientific they did it, they tested it out on a vacuum chamber, do you have any evidence that shows that a report saying okay the vacuum chamber test for the camera was done on this day before Apollo 11 and this is it or you're just making stuff up vacuum chamber test Neil Armstrong practices in vacuum chamber before Apollo 11, yes I do have sources for this are you looking for the camera? you've got footage of Neil Armstrong in a vacuum chamber maybe that would be interesting do you want me to find that one too? that sounds fun because that's kind of right there with my argument is that the astronaut space suits themselves don't work in a vacuum chamber so I'd be very interested this looks like footage from Neil Armstrong practicing in a vacuum chamber yes, I believe so this is a space power facility a vacuum chamber built NASA 1969 and yeah, I think that's it on screen, let's see it share screen share that's a vacuum chamber? yes, this is a vacuum chamber looking for Neil Armstrong in the vacuum chamber Neil Armstrong shows up over here this is him putting on the suit put it on the suit Neil Armstrong this is the suit so we're kind of waiting for him in the vacuum chamber there's the vacuum chamber that's the big door for the vacuum chamber yeah, it's not going to work you didn't have his helmet on the whole time? well if the door is open then it's not pressurized you do know how a vacuum chamber works, right? you have to close the door first yeah, that's what I'm waiting for there's the pressure I can't even see that there he is he's in the vacuum chamber right there and there's a little camera where? right there, you see the TV screen that's a picture of inside the vacuum chamber with Neil Armstrong in the vacuum chamber is it? yes, it is there it is, there you go Neil Armstrong in the vacuum chamber that's showing him on the TV that's not a TV this is a camera looking down from above in the vacuum chamber that's the vacuum chamber that's from inside the vacuum chamber it might be or it could just be like a screen above the vacuum chamber and a camera looking through it I'd like to see him actually do some moving around a bit he is moving, what are you talking about? he's holding things how do you even know that that vacuum chamber is pressurized? well they showed the pressure oh, because they had a meter that chose that you can't even see but you couldn't see any numbers on it you can see the numbers on it what numbers? 60, 55, 54, maybe it's going through zoom, I can see the numbers 60 in the bottom right 0 in the bottom left it goes in increments of 5 around the edge I just see white that's probably just because of zoom but I can see the numbers it's on 35, it's 35 whatever I think it's PSI and how does that compare with the vacuum of space? which one is greater PSI? greater PSI? clearly PSI is in spaces like 0 or something there's no pressure comparable this goes to 0 so yes, we did do tests down to close to space so what you're showing me right here is not comparable to space this is getting to the level where they get him into it so it has to go down so the hot number goes to a low number and gets to space conditions we're not seeing him in space conditions we're just kind of watching him go here we are seeing him in space conditions this is the beginning of the video where it's going down where do we see the space conditions? when we saw him moving around again, you can replicate this we can rent a vacuum chamber you can use them you can walk in? Mark Sargent's big game changer if you want to prove it to me I want to be in a vacuum chamber you can rent a vacuum chamber you can walk into with two astronauts suits astronauts suits are going to be a little more expensive to rent but they are rentable that would be interesting that's Mark Sargent's number one thing right there saying if you can go in with a vacuum chamber with me, we experience this and I don't die it was a positive cool industrial vacuum systems for sale and rent yes space suit for rent I know that SpaceX has them but yeah, you can rent pretty much all these things easier just to do what I said because you can bounce lasers off the moon it's cheaper too bounce lasers off the moon that you don't ever see coming back from the moon and you still don't claim that again, you don't understand how science works you don't need to directly observe something for it to be a thing like indirect observation is a thing just novel predictions, that's how they work yes that's kind of trusting things would you agree that's faith you don't think that's faith based? no indirect observations is a novel testable prediction, it's the opposite of faith okay so if Mr. Sensible walks up to me and says my cat does not eat food that's that's not an indirect observation that's not an indirect observation an indirect observation is making a prediction of consequences of some object without seeing the object directly itself if I prayed to magic sky daddy for a gold brick and a gold brick appeared in front of me that would be an indirect observation of God okay so indirect is watching a consequence but not seeing what caused the consequence it's making a prediction, a novel testable prediction about a consequence of some expected result if something is true and if you get that result it is an indirect observation of the hypothesis do you consider it to be proof? there's no proof in science it is evidence, it is extremely strong evidence there was proof in science there is no proof in science there is no proof in science okay so that's not it's not a scientific claim could be a philosophical claim you can prove things in philosophy okay that is legit science is not proof things evidence is fallible science that's where Dr. McLaughlin said we should eliminate words like prove, correct and true and immediately correct and true are fine proof is not fine but it's not a controversial point this literally does not do anything to help your position whether you call it proof if we're 99.99% sure or not is irrelevant okay so you just by your own admittance then we have no proof that we landed on the moon whatsoever we have sufficient evidence evidence but not proof convictable evidence how is it different? because convicting evidence is fallible you can be wrong, you can convict people and be wrong this is such a stupid fluff argument proof is 100% certainty the only things you can prove are math, logic and the cogito those are the only things you can prove everything else has a degree of probability so we could be in the matrix we could literally all be in a big delusion right now so we can only be 99.9% certain that this reality exists and we weren't created 5 minutes ago by leprechaun do we have proof that we were not created 5 minutes ago by leprechauns? no we cannot prove that with 100% certainty do we have evidence? yes we have evidence do we have sufficient evidence? yes so the stupid fluff argument that we can't prove things in science is like saying well we can't prove we're not in the matrix that's how dumb that argument is I don't we have equal evidence for the moon landing as we do that we were not created by leprechauns 5 minutes ago so what we can do is that science definitely can prove things I can prove that my cat eats food that's a big statement right there so if you want to use that definition you're interrupting me let me finish talking I want to grant your definition so like if we're using that definition then yes if we're using that definition of proof if we're using that definition of proof then yes we can prove we landed on the moon yes what's the one you used about whatever criteria you're using to establish that your cat eats food okay so you can't even quote my definition of proof and you're saying that you didn't give a definition you gave an example so you're just strawman no you gave an example so if you have an example of your cat you can prove your cat eats food whatever criteria on you use of proof for an observable empirical fact can be replicated for another observable empirical fact so if I have a different observable empirical fact that would also be proof by whatever definition you're using to say that this observable empirical fact X was also proof okay makes sense how does that make sense so if you say something observable and empirical is proof and I say okay we can observe and empirically prove the moon landing then by your definition they're both proved so you're saying that science can prove things but it can't prove things and I'm no I'm saying you have a dumb definition of proof because you're ignorant of science mine comes directly from the dictionary so you're just calling the dictionary dumb here well yes the dictionary isn't a scientific paper so it uses a different definition of proof so yes it's got multiple definitions of proof but sure which one would you like to use because if we're going to use the scientific definition there is no proof and we want to use the colloquial definition sure there's proof so you're saying that there is proof that we landed on the moon if you want to use the colloquial definition sure yeah okay and so that's directly okay no that's not a contradiction because when I use proof I use it in the academic definition so you just walked into a debate saying your team is unable to prove anything like whatsoever and yet the scientific definition which everyone agrees upon which you don't need okay so you're just declaring that your team is unable to score any goals and therefore you forfeit no no see again I can have evidence and evidence can justify a belief and so I can have knowledge we landed on the moon do I need proof to have knowledge no I do not need proof to have knowledge again this is your definition I tried to explain this earlier your fluff definition of proof is absolute certainty that is a fluff definition that's another how wait wait wait so if we want to use your fluff definition of proof what's that's not a foul you made up this new fluff definition that's a foul if you want to use this fluff definition the word fluff is a foul how is the word fluff a foul it's insulting it's a short for flat earth or like that's just a shorter way to say flat earth or fluff it's it's a derogatory language I don't care you're a fluff that's a derogatory language fluff definition of proof just to move us forward on the topic wait fluff definition of proof I have the actual poll results the next question that people most wanted to hear discussed was why would the U.S. government lie about having landed on the moon oh I can just grant of course they would that's something we would obviously lie for the question is why would the union lie to admit the Americans have landed on the moon that would be that's a more interesting question they were working with us they were not working with us international space station and by the time they came around and there's another thing here with the soviet scale this was before the ISM just imagine for a second that they did we were at the cold war there was a cold war do you remember the cold war we were not working together okay so during the cold war just imagine for a second that they said oh you guys are faking it right and then what would they do they just say oh well you guys are just being sore losers and that's just how it would go you guys are just being sore losers I don't understand the gibberish you just said why would the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union said they cried oh you guys are making up you guys are lying you guys never went there if they did that then the U.S. would just say oh you guys are just being sore losers grow up what is that is this supposed to be some kind of a counter argument that oh no the Russians would be so insulted if we said they were just being sore losers they're gonna be like no our whole regime is gonna fall because the Americans said we're sore losers oh no oh no so it's just that's it rather than say we're sore losers we're just gonna not care we're gonna whatever we don't even care and that's why no that's dumb literally not they never cared it was never like front page news or anything like oh the Americans look at them they went and got to the moon no that never happened they banned the footage they banned the footage so people could not watch it because it was real no one cared no they did care they specifically banned the footage because they cared so much and then they decided oh well let's go and work on the International Space Station years later and yes after the Cold War the Cold War was over yes yes they do science together congratulations I don't care about Nixon go back go back this is a this is Apollo 11 Apollo 11 was in the Nixon era was that during the Cold War yes President Nixon was all worried about those Commies and there was no kind of PAC saying okay well we're gonna work together from now on at that time there was no idea what you're talking about right now like what does this have to do with what we were just talking about you're asking why the Soviets didn't go out and say never happened and there were no Soviet whistleblowers saying you guys are liars this happened during the Nixon era okay and during the Nixon era there was a lot of kind of working together they're trying to overcome their differences during that time and they were actually and they were doing much more of the opposite thing they were doing more of the opposite thing what's the opposite thing here trying to degrade each other and show each other than one another during the Nixon era there was a space race there was this thing space race where they were competing it takes two people to run a race and there's only one person running it's not much of a race right right so Soviet Union running America running two poo poo people Soviets don't like the fact that America went there first Soviet sent the dog in first they sent Sputnik first they were first in space there was this competition that showed the Soviets were never trying to go to the moon that wasn't a race space race is not moon race those are two different words space moon different words you understand different words they have different numbers you're saying that the Americans won the race right yes because they landed on the moon yes they did something so impressive that outclass the other one yes they won the race they won the race and so the Soviets were never trying to go to the moon the Soviets were very upset that the Americans outdid them which is why they banned the footage in their country so other people could not watch as the Americans outclassed them yeah that's true that's the facts that's why they did it that's literally why it's written they did it yes and where who said where's your evidence for that you're just making the papers of Soviet bans footage of Apollo 11 is that the United States saying that is that more trust in NASA the Soviets saying that the Soviets over there said that moon landing stuff is banned and so they're telling you that we are banning this and so no one's allowed to watch it and they're just openly telling that to the public yes so it was punishable by death it's punishable by death if you guys show any kind of moon landing footage then it's dead yes that's what the Soviets did they'd kill people who did anything that was against their policy yeah sounds like you're making stuff up no just google it did the Soviets ban footage of the Apollo missions okay so the burden of proof is on you right now now you're trying to shift it to me it's up to me to go into that and if science never proves anything then you're unable to meet the burden of proof google searches are not science again you're releasing the colloquial definition oh sure you're telling me that google it wait wait wait wait yes google searches aren't science how is this hard to understand colloquial definition of proof google search it can we prove that the Soviets blocked things from the public just like every authoritarian government ever in the history of the world has yes saying that didn't happen just means you're a moron of course they did yes you're unable to meet the burden of proof yeah you're unable to meet the burden of proof the sky is blue do I need to prove that no because it's common knowledge if you're so ignorant of how the Soviet Union works that you don't know this you're a fool yes I can find evidence of this for you give me a minute I'm working on it okay evidence okay but it's just yeah but not proof again your fluff ignorance of the two different definitions I've already covered this I've already debunked you on this colloquial definition of proof and an academic definition of proof they're used in different contexts the fact that the fluff don't understand this is a fluff problem not a me problem because we it's the burden of proof is on you and because what does that have to do with anything I just said you're trying to lay the burden of proof on us and saying it's our problem no if it's common knowledge there is no burden of proof the burden of proof has already been met it's common knowledge they did this is not okay so my blue I don't need to give you scientific photos of it it's just if you don't know this you're just kind of dumb that's that's the thing so if you don't know the Soviets did this you're kind of dumb go back to high school so that's yeah just more more fouls from you but no fact the last question was have any astronauts ever recanted on their testimony that they did land on the moon that was the Polish astronaut who said I guess we got he's our number one moon lander that likes to blow the whistle the most so are there any astronauts that recanted on the moon that recanted that was the question right yeah and what was your answer Buzz Aldrin Buzz Aldrin what yeah yeah I've got a ton of statements from him that yeah well that's because he does not you mean like statements of like not to you personally but that he's like interviews or things lots of interviews he's done a lot of interviews saying yeah we didn't go to the moon it never happened you didn't watch me on the moon you watched an animation that was and with an interview with fact check Buzz Aldrin interview is not evidence that the it was fake it's not proof they use proof in this one so it was not proof it was fake they go through every one of the examples here it's not any way it's evidence it's evidence it's evidence yeah it's evidence Buzz Aldrin admits he did go to the moon it's facts none of this is in any way corroborative that it was fake he did not recant it goes through this pretty clearly in every single statement you didn't watch me on the moon you watched an animation yeah that's why those were his words to Conan yeah which is not the correct statement so again we look at the data here it's not evidence that the moon landing was fakes no okay you're just that's a subject of verdict false subject of opinion Buzz Aldrin explaining the broadcast used animations during their coverage of the moon landing does not prove that it was fakes yeah it said it was evidence it's not evidence that's a subjective opinion no it's facts we can prove there are things up there that we can reflect light up also yeah you don't see any light coming back at you you don't need to directly see things you can see the light going there and then you don't see any light coming back and so all you get is a computer screen so again Flurff's not understanding indirect observation is not evidence Flurff's not understanding direct evidence is not an objection moderator do we have to hold the red card up for me to I've done that but I'm kind of I'm not seeing any moderation here it is as you know it's we usually let it go it's kind of like the wild west here we let a lot fly if it is too much interrupting that's in other words like there's too much speaking over each other that's where I jump in but otherwise you know people might call you names and you're welcome to call Tom names or even me but I'm above that I'm not going to do that I just kind of wonder how this moderation goes if there's any penalty or anything like that well think of it this way because sometimes I mean I get people who tell me all the time how to moderate and there's a billion different things that they don't like but theoretically if an opponent we're calling you names I don't know if you think that most people in the audience would find that like wow like I really agree that guy's name calling is persuasive I think I'm siding with him like I don't know if it really you know I don't know if they're really getting away with anything that really helps their case as much as they're just you know it's a little blood sporty you know okay so he just wants to demean me and persuade people through fully tactics and it's totally okay are you asking if I'm like morally okay with it or are you asking you're saying that you're okay with it no I'm just kind of looking at this and kind of I guess maybe that's a statement to the audience this guy's using bully tactics name calling and yeah that's his efforts to try and persuade or the audience there's no point in trying to persuade a fluff that's like out of it my point is destroy you in a debate yeah so you're trying to persuade the audience through using I don't think any of them are first either for the most part you don't think there's any first yeah none of the rational ones no okay well I think audience if we've got any flat earthers in here which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the moon landing that yeah although I can actually say that the proof the proof that the earth is flat is evidence and proof that the moon landing never happened the whole vacuum chamber okay yeah the Mark Sargent was just talking about how if you put a vacuum chamber like above your the second floor of your ceiling right you got a vacuum chamber on the second floor of your ceiling you open the valve and all the air comes up in the vacuum chamber overcomes the power of it overcomes gravity then that just totally debunks space itself and so if there is no space there is no moon landing so you want to go from moon landing to flat earth like it seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot on this one by taking a really dumb claim well you're the one bringing up flat earth there you kept saying oh flat earth there's flat earth oh there's no flat earth there's watches and so if you're flat earth there say so in the comment section and so yeah flat earth is unite I was making a claim they're bringing up the flat earth as evidence is like bringing up magical pixie leprechauns who are up my butt as evidence that there is no god doesn't quite work out you're just degrading yourself right now so well that was it was a parody yes that was a parody argument so the point was to show how it was self-deprecating yes that was the point yeah so the world is not flat the world is not flat in many different ways I don't if there is no space if there's if space is an impossibility and so is the possibility we've created vacuum chambers clearly it's not an impossibility but it's literally there we've been there we have satellite there we have things that we put into space and they fall from space then it's the whole vacuum of space compared to the atmosphere we can't have an atmosphere we've got a vacuum that's open right up over our head yeah we can because that vacuum is not pulling things gravity is pulling things gravity pulls things together out of the vacuum not the other way around yeah and so if you had a vacuum right above your head and you open the valve and all of a sudden the air rushes into that vacuum yeah that kind of just beats the whole it overcomes the force of gravity right no you don't think it would overcome the force of gravity no if I put the vacuum chamber far enough up and the air pressure outside wasn't enough to push the air into the vacuum then no it wouldn't notice the air pressure as you go up goes down right yeah just like a peanut butter jar just like a what peanut butter jar does not have that problem no okay you have the different layers in the peanut butter jar you've got the density gradient you have a density gradient in the peanut butter jar my peanut butter is the same consistency all the way through I don't know what you're talking about oh that's because you don't have the gotta get the atoms peanut butter that has the oil that comes up to the top you have to stir and so yeah whenever that happens that shows you that you can have the density gradient in a contained system okay but so if we have a gas and if we go up the density of the gas decreases as we go up and it's going to continue to decrease the farther we go up until it reaches zero you have no that's just you saying so that's how numbers work so if that's a restart at the bottom it's the most and up it's little less and up it's a little less and up it's a little less this is called a pattern and if you infer from the pattern a continuation then you can infer guess what it's going to approach zero it's going to continue to go down until it gets near to that is zero that's a big assumption that you've made there no it's how numbers work numbers if they go into pattern going down they're going to get closer to zero they approach zero that's how numbers work so when you have five, four, three and all of a sudden it says blank, blank and you just say they're probably going to continue to approach zero yes probably going to keep going down so I'm seeing the numbers go down but I don't see a blank blank so I'm assuming that those numbers are going to go to one zero okay when you don't see that and you just say to one zero that's called an assumption okay a reification so it's like I don't think you quite understand so if suppose we were in a container if we were in a container and the numbers were going down as they went up that means there is some theoretical maximum that means that if we had a bigger container that kept going up and up and up and up and up the numbers would still continue to go down as we went up it wouldn't just continue it wouldn't spread out equally because we see any gradient at all any separation that there's more pressure at the bottom less pressure at the top that means that the pressure of the system alone has a maximum density of what it can support and so if we keep going up even if there's a container there it will eventually reach zero necessarily because there is a gradient if we know there's a gradient there is a necessary maximum to the gradients where it will reach zero even if there's no even if we're in a container it's still going to reach zero if it's a high enough container this is not hard zero you realize that they claim that there's a higher extent all the way up to the moon right yes so that's not zero were you listening to what I said here if you go high enough it will reach zero sure I'm kind of wondering exactly how high high enough is go back to what I actually said so what I was saying there's a gradient right so if there's a gradient that means even if we're in a container there's something pulling stuff down more pressure at the bottom means something is pulling things down there's less at the top right and there's a little less that means that if you go high enough you have a high enough container it doesn't matter what the distance is eventually you will reach zero even in a container okay which means there's going to be a vacuum a little bit of gas a little bit more a little bit more lots of gas what examples do you have of anyone ever reaching zero in a container vacuum chambers get close which is all we need now you're kind of moving the goalpost here you said specifically zero yes we've been to space and you said we can get zero right no that's not relevant to the allowance here I don't know what you're not understanding here so the point is that we see a gradient there's going to be a vacuum whatever you define a vacuum as vacuums are not defined as zero pressure you're just ignorant of that or what you're the one making a big deal no kiddo kiddo kiddo you made the claim you could not have a vacuum chamber and then atmosphere that was your claim that was your dumb floor of claim now a vacuum is not zero pressure right you understand vacuum you're the one adjusting I never claimed the vacuum as zero kiddo you said zero can happen in a vacuum do you understand a vacuum is not zero pressure I understand that we if we have a container if we have a container more pressure in the bottom less pressure vacuum then we could keep going to zero it would be further up past the vacuum there would be a zero pressure way up at the top somewhere but that doesn't matter to the point here because the point once we reach the vacuum we've proven you wrong because we have a vacuum we have gas they are right next to each other there is no barrier between them the only thing you need to show that's possible more pressure in the bottom less less less less vacuum okay so vacuum is a certain level that we have to get to so we have less less there's a certain level and as soon as you hit the certain level that's a vacuum sure what is that level okay here google the vacuum of space vacuum a vacuum is anything that is less pressure than another pressure and so when you open the door and the wind rushes in that's due to a vacuum a difference in pressure well then you're just debunking your own silly argument because then everything is a vacuum you're right everything is a vacuum you said your fluff argument was you can't have a vacuum without a container you can't have a vacuum and then a system of air without a container that was your claim that was your dumb claim but if you're claiming that a vacuum is any lesser amount of pressure then kid there's a vacuum everywhere in the world next to something else with no container because anywhere you go up is going to be a vacuum to the thing below it I agree I agree that everything you can't have a vacuum without a container you can't have a vacuum without a container so when I open the door to my house and wind rushes in or out that's due to a vacuum and the house is a container okay so when I'm on a mountain and I'm standing at the bottom of the mountain above me is lower pressure is that a vacuum yeah you can say that okay so you can have a vacuum without a container because there's lower pressure okay congratulations okay okay so I think we've both had kind of adjusted wonderful thing about debates is we've both kind of adjusted you before had a standard of saying you know pressure, pressure, pressure, pressure and all of a sudden vacuum and that was your thing and now you've agreed with me that that's not the case that's still the case because when I'm saying vacuum I mean the vacuum of space I'm not talking about any lower amount of pressure but about the vacuum of space so you're saying you haven't moved and you've got a vacuum of zero at a distance of I never said a vacuum of zero broke eggs I never said that a vacuum, okay you did say that no I said that if we have a container that goes high enough you will eventually get to zero vacuums don't start at zero vacuum of space when it's prior pressure the vacuum of space begins at 2.7 times 10's the negative 3 bar that's the vacuum of space that's pretty intense there and that would sure and we will reach that point if we go high enough because there is a decreasing amount of pressure the higher we go up so if we go up high enough eventually it's going to reach that number and we're going to be in a vacuum with no barrier between that vacuum that's a big reification fallacy just a big assumption how is that a reification fallacy it's literally math what do you think a reification fallacy is it's when you when you presuppose a thing and treat it like it's a proven fact it's a good position a reification is using an abstract thing and treating it as if it's physical it's literally nothing what you said nothing what I said was abstract it's physical so it can't be a reification fallacy because what you said is gibberish okay you're putting assumptions in there and you're treating these assumptions as if they are proven facts when you yourself if we see a gradients a pressure like we literally feel it we see bottom of the mountain more pressure do you think it's going to magically stop decreasing at some point for no reason that it's going to stop decreasing for no reason it's going to stop decreasing because if we continue to go up is the number of the pressure going to stop going down magically no it's not going to stop going down right it's not going to stop going down which means eventually you're going to get to a very small number like 2.7 times 10 to the negative 3 bar that number that's an assumption it's going to be reached okay 5 4 if we don't know the last 2k and 5 5 4 3 and all of a sudden you don't have the rest of the pattern and you just assume the next numbers would follow in the pattern that's an assumption no no no so again you would have to assume that it stops magically it has to stop for some reason that's what you're assuming you're assuming it magically stops the pattern goes away for no reason because magic I didn't say it stops for no reason that's what I asked you before do you think it's going to stop magically if we continue to go up is the number going to stop going down that's the question keep going up will the numbers stop going down do I think it will reach 0 no I don't think it will reach 0 so it's going to stop so it's going to stop the pressure decrease is going to stop at a particular number and just stay at that number forever it's going to stop that's what happens we're not seeing an updraft we're not seeing the whole world constantly I don't know what you don't understand so if we see layers pressure, higher pressure at the bottom and the more we go up there's lower pressure lower pressure, lower pressure, lower pressure eventually what you're claiming is it's not lower pressure it's the same so it's lower pressure not lower pressure not lower pressure, the same if there is, yeah if it was that way then everything would be continually equalizing but it's not, we literally see it not doing that if we go up a mountain exactly it's not continually equalizing that's because it's contained no again there's no container between the bottom of a mountain and the top of a mountain but there's still a gradient that's because there's a lot of other things so it's just like the peanut butter because something's pulling it down because something's pulling it down if you're saying it's down pressure at the bottom then there is at the top something must be pulling it down yes that's an argument so if something is pulling it down that means that the higher you go it seems like it's pulling a little less because it's this less force pulling it down the higher you go the less pulley downy I thought gravity was supposed to get weaker the farther and farther away you go so yes the farther away you go the less pulley downy less pulley downy means weaker yes so if we go further away there is less pressure less pulley downy less force to hold it in right and so therefore the vacuum would have more overpower no the vacuum does not pull vacuum has no pulley power vacuum is a nothing it does nothing it does nothing okay so if you have an object in a vacuum it's just going to stay there and do nothing if you have another object in a vacuum and it touches the first object they're going to stick together open the doors of my house there should be no movement of air no that has literally nothing to do with anything I said kiddo pay attention stick together because they both have gravity space being right next to those objects isn't going to pull them part space has no pulley force there's no pulley force in space to separate the two objects so if you're to open a vacuum in space that air should just stay there yes the air is not being pushed by other forces of air it will just stay together it'll just in a bubble it's called a gas cloud a gas cloud yes we do this we actually have this in vacuum chambers we have a vacuum chamber you have a fishbowl you pour some carbon dioxide into the fishbowl and it stays together in the fishbowl stays together it doesn't try to separate out not until you pour enough in like if you have water in a vacuum and you pour the water in it's going to stay at the bottom of the fishbowl until you pour enough that it overflows the fishbowl but it will all go to the bottom and stay at the bottom what about the sodium or the hexafluoride stuff deep voice gas and I've seen that happen with the deep gas stuff so with some gases I can see that I've also seen that done with helium you put helium in a balloon it has a container and it's keeping it together and then the balloon will drop in a vacuum chamber so I've seen that before too but it requires a container the hexafluoride stuff that doesn't require a container because it's so heavy oh my god so okay let's take your balloon let's say there's helium in a balloon and if we pop the balloon so helium in the balloon we put the balloon in the balloon falls if we pop the balloon where would the helium go everywhere oh my god so if it's in a balloon and it falls if it's outside of the balloon it's also going to fall right there's the weight of the the balloon itself and that's kind of part of what's holding it down and the balloon will gases on their own fall will gases on their own fall we just I just barely talked about the hexafluoride stuff about how that falls and when it falls it goes to the bottom and it sits there and there's a vacuum above it right that there's a vacuum winches just being something of less pressure yes like vacuum it goes to the vacuum of space directly above it pressure of air pressure of the hexafluoride at the bottom the hexafluoride doesn't go up there's a big vacuum here there's a space between them I've never seen the hexafluoride thing in a vacuum chamber itself and so I'm not seeing it with nothing above it it's just yeah we can do any gas any gas is going to work the exact same way it's all going to fall to the bottom of the vacuum chamber and it won't go to the top of the vacuum chamber because it has weight mass and that gas has mass and it will fall in a vacuum chamber it will go down possibly depending on the strength of the vacuum chamber exactly the excitement we can change we can excite the particles inside and when they start moving around it's going to expand and it's still going to fall it doesn't matter how much it expands it's still going to fall well it depends on whether they're excited or not even if they're excited they're still going to fall you don't think it's going to rise up to the top you're just kind of talking here saying it's going to fall for it to rise up to the top you'd have to have enough molecules to stack on top of one another to reach the top they're going to start at the bottom if you have a single molecule it will always go down it will hit the floor if you put a molecule and you drop it it's going to fall straight to the ground and then if you want more molecules to stack up to the top they're going to have to go on top of that molecule and on top because they have to layer on top of one another because they're going to start at the bottom they're always going to go to the bottom right now I'm picturing like popcorn in a vacuum chamber if you heard of popcorn in a vacuum chamber it's going to start popping it will go down gas isn't quite the same as popcorn it's exactly the same you think it's going to if you start at the bottom and you heat it up the molecules are going to go up they're going to hit the ceiling and they're going to come down you don't think you're going to keep bouncing and moving around they're going to bounce for a while and they're going to get stuck on the bottom they're not going to permanently bounce they're going to lose energy and get stuck on the bottom it depends on it depends on nothing they will necessarily lose energy and get stuck on the bottom every single time 100% of the time so if it's continually getting hotter and hotter like a pressure cooker something like that if you keep bouncing them with more energy then of course not but if you just let them go that's irrelevant so again the point here is if you let them go just pour them out and watch what happens they will fall in a vacuum chamber to the bottom and there will be a vacuum above them and there will be the gas below them and the gas will not go into the vacuum so the earth has an atmosphere and the sun ends up heating that atmosphere up and so it's going to excite the particles and the atmosphere and so they're going to act like popcorn and kind of go everywhere and that should definitely cause them to go out into said vacuum of space and so all of that is going to go everywhere out there and that's going and the vacuum space is going to overpower this whole it's going to overpower the weak force of gravity and yes this happens this is a literal thing the solar radiation does tear off parts of the atmosphere I agree this happens but that's irrelevant to the argument here so we're just trying to get the fluffer to the stage one stage one can you have a vacuum and then gas and the gas does not move into the vacuum yes we're in a vacuum chamber if we pour gas into a vacuum chamber it's going to go to the bottom it's going to stay at the bottom there's going to be some air pressure at the bottom or whatever you want to define a vacuum as and the vacuum is going to be here and the gas is going to be here and they're going to stay with nothing in between them does that make sense you're saying so I'm hearing you say it but I'm not really convinced that it's going to be that case you think the air is going to magically move to the top for no reason no I think there's a lot of excitement in that unless it's completely frozen they don't excite themselves if particles are just laying on top of one another they don't excite themselves it's not like water heats up because it's laying on top of other water so are we there's still energy going in there I don't see what's going to cause all of those particles the gas particles to suddenly stop and fall gravity they have mass you've seen the hexafluoride thing where they pour hexafluoride and the container just falls does it start going up for any reason there's still atmosphere above it there's still atmosphere above it and so it's going to be like the balloon and so the balloon expands when you do that and so I don't know if you're trying to be Simon Dan there and say ok I hit my hand against my forehead that means you're wrong it doesn't quite work that way I hit my head because of my forehead because you're like saying here is the obvious thing of hexafluoride but it's not going up because magic it's not because of magic the example of the hexafluoride is there's more pressure above it it's got air above it air is heavier and so that's holding it down air is heavier it's not heavier sorry the hexafluoride is heavier than the air the hexafluoride is heavier than the air and so it's like nothing above it you've got one thing on top of the other but if you take that other thing out the hexafluoride is going to start to expand just like the balloon until it fills up the whole vacuum chamber right so if it continues to expand eventually it's going to read a maximum expansion where it can't expand anymore right what is maximum expansion the farthest away the electrons can be from the protons and neutrons before they leave the particle ok so it can't expand infinitely ok so you're saying that's a maximum expansion rate ok so it can't expand infinitely and so it's not going to be a gas anymore at that point it's just going to dissipate the weak electromagnetic force holds the electrons to the protons it will still be a gas but it has a maximum size of an expansion so it gets to a maximum size then after that it just starts to dissipate it will just stay at the maximum size and it will fall like water does to the bottom of the room ok so there's going to be a vacuum of no pressure above it there's going to be the particle which is very big because it's expanded and it's going to be laying with the other particles at the bottom of the room with a vacuum above it a vacuum of zero a vacuum of whatever vacuum of space number you want to use ok so it's not zero anymore it can be zero I don't care even if it was zero the particles will still fall and be at the bottom of the room ok any last thoughts before we go into the Q&A potato ok excellent we're going to jump into the Q&A I want to say folks thanks so much for your questions I'm going to read through these as fast as possible we've got a lot of questions but also want to say folks as I mentioned earlier in the debate we have a tiktok, modern day debate once we get to a thousand followers on tiktok we'll be able to live stream it's just like this one so that everybody on tiktok can see these debates just like this one so I want to encourage you that link is at the top of the description box just to clarify, I don't think you can live stream I think you need to get a stream key from tiktok to do that and you don't get one a thousand so to live stream on tiktok you have to just hold your phone up and do it that way it's not going to give you a stream key automatically I'll show you the link for the article that I found later thanks so much, appreciate your question Anton Gomez says how come the old footage of the landing is missing all the stars is that not suspicious? not necessarily I can't see stars if there's other lights around me and so if there's a bunch of other lights sending information you wouldn't be able to see the stars it's not too hard to understand should be able to see them with Artemis then this one from Anton Gomez says t-jump astronauts are seen on the sunlight on the moon must have been a nice boil in their own juices in those suits Mike drop no you're saying it wasn't a nice boil? like light bends so it's not like they have to be directly exposed to the sunlight for the sunlight to actually hit them so the light bending nothing is going to prevent them from boiling in their space suits so light bending can illuminate things that are not directly in vision of the sun and so it's outside of the radiation because photons are not all radiation and so they wouldn't boil so space is bending the light to prevent them from overheating they're not directly in the sunlight you can look at the sun with your hand in front of it and the light you can see it without burning your eyes because not all of the light from the sun is hitting you so if you're not directly in the sunlight it's not going to boil you if there's some light hitting you you get warmer, you won't boil it's not like all photons of the sun will boil you if any photon hits you no so we're coming on from to appreciate your question Malavia says Kyle being called ignorant of something is not an ad hominem you need to learn your fallacies and quit the antics it's an insult this one coming in from do you appreciate it Ozzie in talks says Kyle you showed a video of NASA testing equipment for going to space and the problems they had with it which proves NASA took space seriously okay this one coming in from Nick says for both why do you think the astronauts who have landed on the moon have different stories about seeing or not seeing stars um different levels of the problems the same way like we can sometimes see stars and sometimes not see stars depending on where and what time you look so I don't see that I don't see the problem here I'm not sure juicy Kyle any thoughts you don't want to jump okay this one I think the stars right there it's like oh no we didn't see stars that's kind of when we wanted to debunk the moon landing the number one thing we do is we look for contradictions and so every contradiction is evidence that the moon landing never happened so yeah that's like saying a murder didn't happen because there's some erroneous contradictions in the story of two eyewitnesses no there's evidence so no like literally an eyewitness testimony you know they all give moderately different accounts all the time it's just a fact of eyewitness testimony for everything that's not evidence that the central event didn't happen like it's evidence that someone is lying they both can't be true if someone says that this person has bullet holes in them and the other person says no they had their throat slit that yeah both can't like no please just do some basic research on eyewitness testimony like when people 10 people see the same event they all give different accounts of the event every single time that's not evidence they're lying it's just evidence that that's how the brain works not not evidence of lying it's yeah there's one person seeing a clown in the room and the other person said there's no clown in the room whatsoever again that's not the same as saying they saw stars that's erroneous it's like a medium thing the color of the car doesn't make a difference yeah this is kind of like a really big obvious thing you know astronauts on the moon all they have to do is look up and oh look stars and 1% yeah sometimes you would see them sometimes you wouldn't see any stars this reminds me of a juicy very similar type of argument in a different context regarding the eyewitness testimony and whether or not the core of their scenario or their testimony is true this is interesting does anybody know what I'm talking about Tom you have to I think so like there's a number of studies done and eyewitness testimonies of like seeing a car crash and what color it was and what things are going around it and they all got it wrong but they got the core thing correct about the car crash it's like the central facts can be correct even if all the medial facts are not correct I'm talking that you're right that's true there's a good research like that but there's a specific debate topic I'm thinking of nobody nobody else is thinking of it the Jesus resurrection yeah this one coming in from Ozzie and Tox says Kyle please apologize for lying about Buzz Aldrin I didn't lie if you're gonna have to deal with it juicy yeah Buzz Aldrin never recanted that he was on the moon that's never a thing he said I've got lots of footage of it never said that he did say the thing about the animations but that's because during the 1960s there was no camera footage of them on the moon and so those were animations but that's not evidence it was fake yeah I'm glad that we agreed that yeah they faked it so no well they faked the animations that were broadcast at that time period that's true this one coming in from do appreciate your question Nick says for T-Jump what do you make of the Apollo 17 lunar module lift off video what do you see when you watch that video magic fixing magic fixing dust I have no idea it's the okay lunar lift off you got the module it's going up and all of a sudden you can see all these like weird colorful sparks magic pixie dust going everywhere as they rise up and then the camera just zoomed pans up there like perfectly like you haven't seen that no maybe I have I don't know I don't see the problem that's pretty classic only thing happened on the way to the moon American moon those are some great documentaries juicy this one coming in from do appreciate it fact based living says we are indirectly observing you in this stream Kyle do you not exist in a jar of water all molecules are the same density why is there a gradient okay that was a lot so why is there a gradient in the jar of water they said I can let's see they said there are two questions so they said one we are indirectly observing you in this stream Kyle do you not exist therefore okay so there's multiple questions here and so I definitely do exist even though you are indirectly say they say in a jar of water all molecules okay I don't exist in a jar of water that was a separate question he's asking so he's going back to the density question like if there's a jar of water each of the molecules has the same expansion rate we were talking about how molecules can expand but they're all there's a different gradient even though they're all expanded at the same amount yeah that's because the ones in the bottom have to bear the weight of the ones on top yes just like how gas would in a vacuum chamber this one coming in from just to be sure we got that one in a jar full we got that one okay and then cyberhex says Kyle your conspiracy claims that roll off your tongue so easily may seem harmless to you but you delegitimize the hard work like my grandfather who worked for NASA on the Apollo M's shame on you sir how do you like them apples Kyle I say abolish NASA we gotta get rid of it it's unconstitutional it's a whole other different argument but yeah yeah do away with them how is NASA unconstitutional how is it okay you want to get into that debate so it has nothing to do with the role of government whatsoever the entire organization itself is outside of the constitution the government is not allowed to spend money however they want to and so when they do things that has no authority no constitutional authority it is unconstitutional this one coming in doesn't make any sense government spend money on things in the government spend money on things that are under the constitution all the time against the constitution this one coming in too much nominal says T jump I am a fellow tube earth or earth has no walls but no top or it has walls but no top tube earth or that is correct so like we could have a tube earth and there was an open thing at the top and you still have an atmosphere gradient and so it would still work you got it best in show says don't worry Kyle you have to take it all ingest you know you just kind of let it roll off your back they say James I want to give this super chat to Kyle for tuition to go back to fourth grade you can never let them know it gets to you never let them see you sweat Kyle you're doing all right this one from Vinny says Kyle Buzz would probably hit you he's attacked people for denying bring it they said he's attacked people for denying the moon landing before you jump when that chair breaks will you hold a funeral for it it's logically impossible for it to break it predates the origin of the universe unbreakable it's made of unobtainium the clamshell chair is that the one that you've always used for like is you've had to have you had the same one since you started coming on modern day debate four years ago I think so I have this is my second one of these chairs my first one was brown and it was leather this one is suede the leather one gets too cold in winter so I use this one got this one probably probably the same one but Kyle they as I said Buzz Aldrin may hit you the next time he sees you what if he punches you in the face what are your thoughts you can shoot me in the face and I'll take it as a badge of honor take up your cross and follow me that's you stand for truth and come what may thank you for that Shane the pain says showing aloha to T jump from Hawaii love all your debates thank you actually recently posted a picture of Minnesota life and there's like a foot of snow everywhere except in like the sidewalks in the streets so jealous of the Hawaii life if you happen to know a millionaire can buy me a house down there please hook me up you guys are tough living up there in Minnesota this one fact based living says Kevlar is flexible Kevlar with epoxy is in helmets and bullet proof vests the epoxy is only there to make it rigid yes I've had I've had a Kevlar helmet before those are pretty rigid because of the epoxy wage robot says ask Kyle Adams what he thinks of space agencies other than NASA have other countries space agencies have gone to the moon they are in it together and if you haven't seen the Chinese footage of the moon and just how fake it is it's worth seeing juicy this one from nominal says T jump are you saying we're living in a tube we got that one pretty much professor Phil Bell says Kyle will you debate me on whether or not space exists whether or not space exists I'm all game for debates they're a lot of fun but space exists is a broad topic because you'll have to define the word space there because I am in us space right now and so I'm not going to argue I'm not in space right now vacuum of space vacuum of space is another argument I could take that argument let's see to say the least and want to say this next one coming in from let's see Dr. Phil's forehead I don't know if it's the same Dr. Phil I think they mean Dr. Phil like Dr. Phil this one you know the TV show says can modern day debate please come to Denver we maybe we are thinking about doing quarterly conferences that's a possibility Pat in the chat says Kyle the US we're in a space race to the moon if the US faked the moon landing then why didn't the rival superpowers say anything I mean they said nothing I think he answered this before he said because oh but America would just say well they're just unhappy that they're losing and they're being sore losers America's going to call Russia sore losers and the Russians are just so terrified of that happening let's just ignore it instead and not make a big deal about it it's just like whatever they can tell whatever lies they want and we're not even going to bother even listening to their lies change of resume change of regime regime that's for it thank you change of that and then all of a sudden no now we're going to work together with you and we want to go to space with you so oh so much for the whole cool board thing right this one from Nick for Kyle what do you think the moon is would a werewolf prove anything about the moon for you I don't know what the moon is that's just as simple as it gets juicy what's this werewolf business what a werewolf prove anything about the moon for you like if a werewolf told you it exists I don't understand where we'll just come out during the full moon it's like it's a werewolf show I see thank you if a werewolf told you okay this one coming in from do appreciate it actually that's it I think it for the for the actual questions that I have listed here so folks let me just do a one less scan otherwise I won't remind you oh okay Nick says I had a moon question for Kyle yep just got that one in thanks for your patience on that Nick I was a little bit slow on that looking for any other in the chat we have Kyle for president thanks for that okay I heard the constitution someone else also said Kyle is a 3D chat bot that's a I heard a share of your tier says ask Kyle when is your fast food chain of restaurants grand opening McAdams it's it's the outfit he's talking about the outfit looks like a red and yellow I put that one together on my own but I do have to say you have a quite the get up this one I think that is it but I want to remind you folks our guests are linked in the description if you're listening via YouTube or the podcast all of our debates are put up on the modern day debate podcast which you can find on Apple podcast you can find on Spotify every podcast app out there has modern day debate so folks if you love listening to these if you are tired of that intro music and you're like I don't want that the podcast has the intro music taken out it also has the that's pretty the biggest difference it has no ads though that's another big difference so if you're like are you too bad driving me crazy the podcast doesn't have any ads so I want to encourage you to check it out if you haven't and if you're listening via podcast as you do have a lot of people that actually do use it you can find Tom's and Kyle's link in the description box below so I want to say thank you to them let me do one last question check for questions this one from Andy Babs please explain what the moon is specifically I don't know what the moon is it's a light in the sky so exactly what it's made out of I don't know gotcha that looks like it's it but I want to say thank you so much we appreciate it folks thanks for watching I will be back in just a moment for a post credit scene so I want to say huge thank you to our guest though they make this channel possible they are what make modern day debate fun so we appreciate both Tom and Kyle their links are down below and I'll be back in just a moment so stick around for that post credit scene thanks one last time Tom and Kyle thank you peace out keep it real homies ladies and gentlemen as I mentioned as you can see at the very top of the description box we have put the tiktok link for modern day debate as I am absolutely thrilled we will be able to live stream once we get to a thousand followers it's going to be amazing so we do want to encourage you if you haven't yet do follow modern day debate on tiktok by using that link let me just fix the screen here very embarrassing it's like it's my first time my dear friends I want to say thank you guys for being here seriously you make this fun so I want to say hello to you in the old live chat but yeah like I said that link to the tiktok is in the description box and then I'm going to pin that to the top of the chat right now so I want to say thanks for your support on that seriously it's been growing fast so I'm really grateful I really do appreciate it you guys we've actually gone from having 240 followers on tiktok last time I checked it was like 760 so we've grown substantially and so we're in the words we're about 75% of the way they're almost we're almost three quarters of the way there so it's happening folks want to say thanks for coming by in the old live chat I'll put that link to our tiktok in the description box as promised our new tiktok in all caps and then pin and then I will also say hello to you in the old live chat so let's see here we have many friends in chat thanks for being with us Yeshua is king glad you came by Jeremy Nolan good to see you thanks for being a member heat shield thanks for coming by thanks for being a mod comradical glad you're here so take it easy James thanks comradical as well as an atheist thanks for coming by an atheist and amazing dick thanks for being with us KK pink factor glad you were here alpha meta mark glad to have you here I'm going to take this off this blazer it's just a little bit restrictive oh two moments two moments is alpha beta mark glad that you made it here as well as I do want to let you know folks in terms of cool upcoming stuff we have a lot of debates okay there are a couple that I have not put the event pages up for yet I should because they're going to be big debates and I'm pumped for it conspiracy cats has agreed to debate the instructor David McQueen so that's going to be a cool debate that's on the age let me double check I think it's the age of the earth whether or not the earth is 6000 years old but I've got a double check it's going to be amazing but it's for sure on young earth old earth or you could say like young earth creation type stuff so that I'm really excited for we also just I think we just booked a debate on whether or not the flood of Noah happened that's halfway booked Michael Williams good to see you there Brian Stevens thanks for coming by I see you there in the old live chat Brian Stevens is one of those folks that like T jump has been with us for like four over four years Brian Stevens thanks for all of your support of moderated bait seriously and there he is in the chat supporting he says let's hit 200 likes seriously thanks so much Brian Stevens glad that you are here thanks for being just with us it's always a pleasure and heat shield good to see a Michael Williams thanks for coming by as well as Carl Lafond thanks for coming by certain general says come join us on the new modern debate discord so yeah maybe you're like James I don't even have it I don't even have a tick talk you're like I'm I'm not so mainstream I'm more like I don't know what's the word when you're not mainstream like indie I'm like more into the indie stuff well if you have a discord that is linked in the description as well we have a new discord for modern day debate which appreciate certain general doing so much work on as well as Hannah as well as Amanda and amazing Bob so many people we're just super grateful for that so Aussies and RG thanks for coming by Pat in the chat good to have you I see you there man hope you're doing well hey there thanks for dropping in I see you there in the live chat Izzy Cup thanks for coming by we hope you're well Celtic Hammer glad you're with us Jequès Polymer it's gotta be Jequès Polymer I have to be saying that wrong let me know if I'm saying it right I'm sorry about that I know I'm saying it wrong but Joe here and thanks for coming by as well as Loose let me am I saying it right Matissaro thanks for dropping by Mr. Alio 84 thanks for dropping in as well as iron horse glad you were here Dr. Phil by the way so we have let's see professor Phil bell if you wanted that flat earth debate with wits it let me know if you're watching or listening as well as PJC net thanks for dropping in Mr. Spock glad to have you here Carl Lafond glad you're with us Gerald Louvin glad you're with us Waterman 671 glad that you're here as well as Adio had glad you're with us Patrick Spence thanks for dropping in Zachira Bones thanks for your kind word it says thank you debaters for your time and knowledge thank you James for moderating thanks for that I appreciate that seriously that means a lot as well as David Web thanks for dropping in hope you're doing well Don Folman thanks for coming by I see you there in the live chat I hope you're doing well Don it's been a while since we chatted I enjoyed our chat so we did get to chat so I hope you're well Gerald Louvin thanks for dropping in Jack thanks for being a member appreciate your support Duncan Donuts thanks for dropping in comradical glad you're here Sleet happy to have you thanks Hannah Anderson thanks for being here I see there thanks for being a mod rdubs thanks for dropping in as well as Ozzy Gold thanks for gifting those memberships today seriously you came in clutch that was clutch man appreciated that we do appreciate all of your support folks seriously there are like a million different ways we appreciate your support you guys have given us so much support and you guys might be thinking like well what if I'm not a channel member and maybe you're like hey you know I I can't become a channel member right now maybe you're like I just don't use the feature right I don't want to you know right now it's possible recession some cutting back whatever it is want to say one thing that we want to say thank you for your help on is if you enjoy this debate and you think let's say you have friends that also enjoy topics like this which I bet you do because people who have common interests tend to just kind of gravitate toward one another consider sharing this debate that really does help seriously for us at modern day debate we I keep an eye on the stats constantly so I'm constantly looking at what are the videos that have the longest engagement in other words like the videos that people are watching the longest like enjoy it the most I'm looking at shares as well thank you guys for sharing these videos so often seriously it really does mean a lot we appreciate all of your support that means more than you know so thank you guys for sharing these videos as that helps modern day debate expand and it also is cool because you get to kind of share the enjoyment of a debate with somebody else who enjoys these topics you could put it on you could share it in a discord you could share it on a facebook page you could share it on a twitter thread like a direct message thread with friends you can share it in a text message with a friend who you know and who you text so that's kind of cool that youtube has that feature we appreciate it because it helps us grow as well Ozzie and talks thanks for gifting those 20 memberships seriously that really does mean a lot I'm pumped that's super encouraging and I want to read the ones that in particular were gifted memberships kit topper and oh as well as Darth Revan and corgasm and African communists Robert Summers Kilgore Chris L of B Adam Della Luna Green Chili Bear Bacon 1 2 3 Ryan Namara Claire Nicky Jordan with a Y Worst Viking Ever Big Cheese Congrats on those gifted memberships my dear friends we hope you enjoy them and be sure one of the coolest things about those memberships thank you Ozzie and again Ozzie and talks for gifting those to everybody in the live chat really does mean a lot you folks now that you've gotten a gifted membership I highly encourage you check out the emoticons button at the bottom of the chat you will see not only are there the standard youtube emoticons but also you can see that there are the custom modern day debate emoticons including the thinking face of me which looks a little bit like this as well as the shocked face of me and my favorites though the amazing emoticon and soyboy so that you can call your friends in chat a soyboy so Nikki I want to encourage you please use the emoticon to call somebody a soyboy in chat right now since you're a new member Nikki take advantage of it call someone a soyboy you can always use the nasty emoticon because I haven't said in a while but I used to say I used to talk about Steven Steen when he would put in super chats and it's a nasty guy but in addition to that juicy because we always have juicy debates here you can use that emoticon from modern day debate as well and it has the picture of a fruit like an orange or a grapefruit I love oranges you have no idea how many oranges I eat I really do I have so many oranges I have a lot of meat all day and then for my carbs because you know you can't just eat meat because you eventually will run low on energy so I have all these oranges they're disappearing oranges because the blue the green screen is picking up on them but none the less here they are look at this this big bag of tremendous oranges they're disappearing but nonetheless I do want to say I do love that juicy emoticon as well as the nasty with the cross swords but yeah I want to say thanks for your support I'm looking Nikki are you calling someone a soyboy Nikki I'm waiting let's see here is that curabones good to see you now Nikki might have actually fallen asleep that's one thing I wonder is the live chats here at modern day debate often times good to see a Winston's mom good to see a wax hammer glad you're with us a lot of times I think sometimes the live chats people go to sleep they fall asleep while they're watching the debate live and that's why a lot of the times like I'll say Nikki calls someone a soyboy but you don't see it in the live chat so Nikki might have fallen asleep maybe she went into the other room who knows but I've got to say I forgot what I was going to say I'm sorry what was it it was right there it was on the tip of my tongue oh yeah yeah yeah that's why for example we have 498 people watching right now which is huge and we have 197 likes so if you haven't yet hey please consider hitting that like button because to be honest really it does I appreciate it because I frankly you could say it's a favor to me and I appreciate your help is that we're like hey the more likes a video gets the more YouTube recommends it to other people because it's a form of engagement so we do appreciate that thank you guys for all of your likes it means a lot and KK Westbury says grapefruit are in season and healthier James hey I believe it they just don't taste as good come on I mean really you wouldn't agree with me would ya Nick says carbs aren't essential but James has got to grow I've got to be honest I was on a keto diet for like this is maybe 2 years ago now when I started it it was actually 2 years ago which is crazy I started it and I lost so much weight I had to stop I couldn't keep doing it because I just kept losing weight it works like a charm I can tell you from personal experience folks the keto diet really does work the real trick is cat the humanist I see you saying soyboy in the chat you've got to use the emoticon look cat all right I'll give you an example cat I'm going to put it here cat the humanist is but I've got to tell you I lost so much weight it was nuts I had to stop doing it and my workouts were also pretty weak I think that you need like workouts really workouts and so I liked keto and I frankly enjoyed the taste I love all the fattening foods they taste so good enough it is funny though you can eat eggs with cheese bacon and sausages you can eat that all day and you'll lose weight it's just nuts I think it says James had too much soy and he forgot that's funny that's one of the side effects of overdosing on soy let's see surgeon and Earl says James is a soyboy that's right and then Anton Gomez says I think Mr. Modern Day Debates dislikes me I definitely don't dislike you I appreciate you being here Anton seriously thanks for all your support James Jungle says did I miss the debate has it still to begin it already happened and it was tremendous Patrick Spenz says I make brain gains not muscle gains or vegan gains good for you Patrick I'm glad you do Over Nice I love onions and potatoes Winston's mom says doctor to be when you did keto did you use the keto sticks which turn colors as you just dispose of ketones yes I did I peed on a stick that's not a joke because you know when you're first starting the diet it's hard to know like am I finally in ketosis because you know you don't see the results of losing the weight that fast you're just for several days you're trying to get into ketosis and some people get in earlier faster but yeah so you can pee on a stick if you're getting into ketosis and yes I definitely even like at where I was barely in ketosis like maintaining that I just lost weight so fast it's the real deal folks so and I could say like the only bad thing about it is you lose weight so fast that I was like okay I'm just gonna lose all my muscle because I like trying to I like I do body like I wouldn't say bodybuilding anymore I've done a show I was 19 when I did a show I think I was 18 and I do like bodybuilding I don't do it like in any sort of formal competition anymore I do plan on no joke I do plan on doing it in about 4 years probably once I can compete at the masters level because amazingly this is like frightening to me oh my gosh I never thought this would come I when I was 18 I did it and I remember I was like thinking I saw a guy who was competing at the masters level which to be at the masters level in bodybuilding means you're 40 years older older and I thought wow that's pretty cool wait really is it actually maybe to be masters level is it how let me check how old you have to be I always thought it was I always thought it was 40 but it might actually be okay masters age classes excluding teens typically 35 or older so I could actually compete right now so this will vary and you may see 35 plus 40 plus all the way up to 60 plus wow cause yeah so anyway I could compete at the masters level now I thought you had to be 40 but I guess not and I don't think I'd look yeah I mean it's pretty tough to I don't have the same kind of mass I used to but nonetheless it was pretty cool and so I always thought well I'd go back if it was at that point you know but I want to say I do appreciate you guys thanks for being so cool thanks for being so cool here at modern day debate I can't believe you can be 35 so okay maybe I'll do it maybe I'll do it sooner than 40 but yeah I'm 36 so I was thinking I was gonna do it in four years but maybe earlier I don't know who knows Ozzy Gold says 35 plus good to know thanks for saying that and then Ozzy Gold says two tickets to the guns show James I appreciate that oh I don't know if I could say gun on YouTube but Surge General I think I'm joking I think we'll be fine let me just double check but let me check Surge General says you need to do MAA I will pay a dumb freaking amount of money to watch you put someone in an amber in an arm bar and scream tap out soy boy that's funny I like that I would enjoy that that sounds pretty fun but let me just quick I'm gonna do hold on let me just do this really quick I'm gonna look this up I'm gonna look up the stream and see if YouTube dinged us because I said I said the gun show you know you can't say that on YouTube you guys but let me know what's what's new in chat Mr. Universe says hi hi Mr. Universe we hope you're doing well I see a Leo Whitmer says any thoughts on the Chinese balloon James I have no idea what's going on out there I've heard that there's like a Chinese balloon that allegedly like someone was like the Chinese allegedly sailed it over the US I don't even know seriously so let's see I but yeah I don't know what I don't know the story to be honest I heard I'm really behind on the news but want to say I love you guys I should go it's getting late want to say thanks for all of your support I love you guys thanks for all your support you guys make this fun seriously I enjoy this and I enjoy it because you thank you guys for being cool I look forward to seeing you on the next one and want to say thanks for all of your support now I see there are five I can't even say the word because I think technically I can say the word on YouTube but I don't know for sure someone asked me about oh yeah yeah so anyway we're thrilled about the vision if you have not followed our TikTok yet it is pinned at the top of the live chat and it's at the top of the or yeah it's at the very top of the description box so I want to say if you haven't followed our TikTok yet do so as we are absolutely inspired passionately determined to bring about a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field here at modern day debate want to say thanks for all your support you guys I love you guys thanks for making this fun and I hope you have a great rest of your night Heechul says we shot it down with a raptor several hours ago Chinese balloon shot down let me google this that at least three Chinese spy balloons flew over the US during Trump's presidency and he hid them from the public and never shot them down juicy that's from Midas touch so I don't know I'm not trying to take a partisan stance on that I'm not saying that it's necessarily true it's just what a tweet that first popped up says it says US shoots down Chinese spy balloon off east coast that's from CNN suspected Chinese spy balloon shot down off South Carolina wow this is I have to see it shot down by the fighter jet this sounds pretty cool I'm pulling up a video right now I pull it up so you guys can see it too but the only reason that I'm not is because if I pull up a video on the same computer where I have OBS OBS starts to buffer so it's not good it'll look bad so I'm looking at this video right now oh okay I'm seeing the balloon I'm seeing what I think it looks like something's like headed towards it oh okay yeah it looks like there's maybe a missile or something and well that missile okay like maybe they got the balloon looks like it's smoking and falling okay so I think this must be the missile that actually hits it so let me see here wow well that's pretty neat but how neat is that thanks guys I love you guys seriously you guys are fun I hope you guys have a great rest of your night thanks for being hip keep it real homies and I'll see you next one