opponents of the Pleasure Machines now claim that the product not only destroys marriage, family and culture but also community and religion. How do we counter that in our marketing? Well, it's hard to deny the accusation so let's embrace it. Let's tell people that the Pleasure Machine is actually liberating people from the shackles. Marriage, family, community and religion are all sources of so much toil and headache. Why bother with that when you can enjoy limitless pleasure? Pleasure Machine is the great liberator. Furthermore, marriage, family and religion are the source of so much pain and suffering. Who doesn't have conflict with parents? Who doesn't have an insensitive spouse? Who doesn't feel judged when going to church or the mosque? To make matters worse, these institutions are also rife with abuse. There's domestic abuse, child abuse, abuse in the church and the mosque. Also these institutions are rife with unjust hierarchies and inequality and lack of consent. The Pleasure Machine on the other hand is the great equalizer. When you're strapped in, you can enjoy yourself as much as the elites. Everyone is equal in the Pleasure Machine. This is the marketing we need to push through TV, movies, music, books, social media. And if anyone opposes our product, we simply accuse them of being backwards, irrational and filled with hate. How can you reject liberation and equality? Are you a fan of domestic abuse?  What are you, some kind of terrorist? Pleasure Inc realizes that the older generations are going to be wiser and won't be the biggest advocates of their product because they have more life experience and know the value of life unplugged. So Pleasure Inc focuses on the younger generations of targeted ads on TikTok and elsewhere. Pleasure Inc also wants its message of equality and liberation to reach youth in schools. Let's make sure that all schools raise awareness about the benefits of using the Pleasure Machine and how not using it can cause pain and suffering in life. Adoption of the Pleasure Machine continues to spread at rapid pace and Pleasure Inc decides to break into new markets internationally. The only problem is many countries are banning the Pleasure Machine. They don't want their societies being disrupted, their cultures and religions being wiped out with the introduction of this technology. But due to heavy lobbying, Pleasure Inc has infiltrated every level of Western government and they leverage their connections to pass new international law. The new law is that every nation must allow their citizens to buy a Pleasure Machine. Not only that, but every nation must subsidize the Pleasure Machine to make it available to every citizen. This is a moral imperative. Why? Because the Pleasure Machine, as we know, is the great liberator and the great equalizer. If nations don't facilitate access to the Pleasure Machine, that's a violation of human rights. Every human must have access to the Pleasure Machine and only the most evil totalitarian regimes would keep their people under the boot by not letting them entertain every single desire. Despite the new international law, some rogue nations continue to resist. These nations are portrayed as terrorists and human rights violators in the media.  Look at these poor suffering children. What kind of evil monsters would prevent these precious darlings from using the Pleasure Machine? We need to impose sanctions on these countries. Even if half the population dies off due to starvation, that's a price we're willing to pay to make sure the other half of the population gets access to the Pleasure Machine. And if these terrorists still refuse, we'll just have to use military intervention. We don't want to use bombs and tanks, but that's the price for spreading freedom. Once we've liberated the nations with a gift of the Pleasure Machine, we have to make sure terror groups don't revolt so we can install puppet dictators who brutally stifle any dissent and make sure access to Pleasure Machines remain uninterrupted. It's also critical that we enforce anti-extremism laws. The opponents of the Pleasure Machine advocate traditional institutions of marriage, family, gender, community, religion. We have to silence these agitators by labeling them as extremist hate-mongers that inspire violence. We can put them on watch lists, ban them from travel, maybe even indefinitely detain them on spurious charges. Now, we don't want to stifle all debate about the Pleasure Machine, of course. That might make us look too obviously totalitarian. So let's allow people to debate the Pleasure Machine but in a controlled fashion. We'll set up two sides of the debate. The progressives will argue that people need to use the Pleasure Machine 24 hours a day. The closed-minded old-fashioned conservatives will argue, no, no, no, 24 hours a day is degeneracy. People should only plug themselves into the Pleasure Machine for 18 hours a day, like the good old days. The Pleasure Machine continues to proliferate until every person is plugged in nonstop. The technology also advances so that a bulky machine is not needed. The tech can actually be implanted into the body. The last remaining resisters say that this is the end of the human race. Human life as it was known for millennia is over and even the human body has been transformed into a transhumanist abomination. All humans are now subjugated by this all-controlling totalitarian system but Pleasure Inc. scoffs at all this and says, how could we be totalitarian when we give people everything they desire? Sure people can't change the overall system and we impose it on them by brute force but that's okay because it's all for the greater good. So that's the metaphor. The Pleasure Machine is the secular humanist ideal. Human life should be structured around the individual pursuit of happiness and pleasure. This requires liberating people from all social norms and obligations because our obligations to others hinder our individual happiness. Technology can be used to free us from these obligations and facilitate our individual happiness. The Pleasure Machine represents this taken to its logical conclusion. Every time humanists tell people to throw off their obligations to others in favor of pursuing individual happiness they're essentially pushing the Pleasure Machine. What is also a part of the metaphor is that the Pleasure Machine is not pushed onto people by telling them they must obey. Rather it's pushed by saying, enjoy yourself. Gee-free! The people who want to control you they are the ones who say obey but we say enjoy yourself, aren't we so much better? This is exactly what secular humanists say to Islam but the reality is secular humanism is a totalitarian system of liberation and equality that has been imposed on the entire world. It's a system that gradually, and I emphasize this, gradually destroys basic human institutions like marriage, family, community, religion and ultimately the human race itself and whoever resists it is considered a fundamental extremist who must be brought to heel. Islam also cares about individual human happiness but Islam sets limits because there are other institutions and norms worth preserving institutions of marriage, family, community, religion and the human race itself. This is why it is far better than secular humanism. Thank you very much for that opening, Daniel. Folks, if you're watching, I want to remind you DebateCon4 is coming up this November 4th in Dallas, Texas. You don't want to miss it. Check out the description box for the link for that conference and if you're from far away, across the globe, hit subscribe as we'll be streaming all of those debates live for the public. With that, we're gonna jump into open dialogue. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. I didn't know Secretary Kim Il-sung was a totalitarian. What? Oh, that's somebody said some totalitarian regime. I need to call my, well, I don't actually have stocks but if I had somebody who's managing my stocks, I'd want to call and put in an order on straw and oil because we are currently out of straw after that straw man and oil after it got pushed down that slippery slope.  Cancel culture, by the way, is the real wine here but it's not about canceling, it's about accountability and it seems strange to call secular humanism as, oh, it's just about pleasure and everything else.   It's okay, it's okay. We don't need to cancel anything. We don't need to ban the pleasure machine.  So since we're supposed to be having a discussion and I have to ask a question to start with, I'll start with my first question, one of the first questions I thought of which I thought of before we ever got here. Is Islam encouraging terrorism or is it just really inept at stopping it from its adherence? Okay, let me respond to certain things. Like if we wanna talk about terrorism, okay, the values of secular humanism, like the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of individual happiness, that was the basis of the French Revolution. That was the basis of the American Revolution. That was the basis of the Communist Revolution, the Decemberist Revolution. All of these revolutions that were explicitly on the basis of reason and improving human happiness on the basis of reason and overthrowing religion, that is the ideological basis of all of those movements that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people. Obviously, you are not going to consider them to be terrorists. That's very convenient for you. But the people who are being killed by these groups did consider them to be terrorists. The regimes that were displaced by these groups did consider them to be terrorists, but the winners are able to write history. You keep bringing up like this point about four-year-olds. This is like a straw man that was put forth in a previous debate. Nowhere did I say that a four-year-old should be in a sexual relationship. It was a hypothetical that was presented to me and I answered that on the basis of the hypothetical that was presented. Nowhere did I say that four-year-olds go through puberty and therefore they should be sexually active. So you're saying a hypothetical four-year-old who went through precocious purity would be okay to have sex with them because that's what you said in the debate. So we can go through what I said in that debate from the beginning, but I thought you wanna stick on the topic of the debate. I'm just saying you're now denying that you said what we all heard you say, which got popularized over the internet because Mike specifically asked if a four-year-old goes through precocious puberty under your version of what a law permits, is it permissible to marry and have sex with her? And your answer was yes. No, the point that I put to that person in that debate was that if we accept that someone is going through puberty, that means that the person is going to desire sexual relations. They're going to desire to be sexually active. And that is a biological fact. It just doesn't happen at four years old. It happens at nine, 10, 11, 12 years old. And that's why when we look at American culture and Western culture, the children at that age are highly sexually active. That's the reality in the world today. So you, or I won't say you because I don't know what your views are, but the person that I was debating has no problem in there being this laissez-faire attitude towards children nine, 10, 11, or even younger, being active with sexual dating, going to prom, going to these kinds of dances, boyfriend, girlfriend, fornicating, that is all allowed. So you don't have a problem or people who are scoffing and laughing. They don't have a problem with nine-year-olds having sex. They just have a problem with the idea of a nine-year-old getting married. That was the point of that debate and we don't have to rehash it.  And I want to verify that because if that is true, if that's true, Mike, you're as repugnant as Daniel is, but I don't think that's true. So do you think we should have a ban on nine-year-olds dating? What counts as dating?  Do we have laws? Should we have laws that prevent that? This isn't about, should we? Oh, now it's not about nine-year-olds. I'm sorry, do I get to answer your question? Yes, please answer it. Are you in favor of laws that would ban a nine-year-old girl from sleeping with a nine-year-old boy? Yes or no? We don't have a law. Yes or no? Okay, one more time, since you're gonna do the yes or no thing, one more time with the question, am I in favor of laws that would ban that? No. So you don't have a problem with nine-year-olds having sex? That's a lie.  You just forced me to answer yes or no to a question about whether or not I would advocate for a law. And then when I said that I would not advocate for the law, you suggested I don't have a problem with it. You have massive problems with it. You're the one that doesn't have a problem with it. Which is why this is the only debate we are ever going to do.  So tell the people in this country that are following secular humanism, tell them they need to hear it more than anyone.  And maybe they need to follow him. Maybe they need to follow him. Maybe they need to follow him. Why would we do that? Maybe they need to follow him. Nobody's ever done that. Maybe they need to follow him. It's you that have done that on stage for modern-day debates. The sexual revolution that had from a secular revolution was not about nine-year-old. Yes, it was. No, it wasn't. You don't know about the sexual liberation front? You don't know about NAMBLA? You don't know about all of these- I know about NAMBLA. And we've worked against NAMBLA. Yes.  You got it. You got it out.  You're on grandstand, okay? You're not some hero here. I'm on grandstand. You're not some hero here. Wow, oh, amazing. I'm the guy that's here debating and fighting. Oh, amazing. You're so heroic, man.  No, see, look at this guy, man. Look at her verse.   How about we talk about your- My sick mind.  No, no, no. Look at this, man.  Come on, okay. That word is not an argument. Just shout it out. And neither is saying we should let nine-year-olds marry. Matter of fact, the argument. Yeah, so we don't need to talk about personal life, okay? You don't need to make any accusations against me. I'll talk about your boyfriend, so don't talk about me. So the thing about this whole argument is that the whole point of this debate on secular humanism is individual happiness, the end-all, be-all of human morality. Your whole argument has been that we need to do what's best for humanity. The question is what is actually the best for humanity? Is unhindered pursuit of personal individual happiness going to cause the best for humanity overall? And I'm saying no, because there are other values and institutions that are worth preserving. To be a married person, you have to sacrifice. You cannot be selfish and only care about your own desires or your own happiness. You have to look at a couple, a marriage. Same for a family, to preserve a family with parents and children. You have to be concerned about a collective. Same with a community, same for society. There is a conflict between the pursuit of individual happiness and what will make me personally happy versus the needs of these other institutions. I have to sacrifice. And sometimes I have to do things that I don't actually consent to. Yet, it is for the greater good of humanity. That's the main problem with secular humanism is that it prioritizes individual happiness. So I don't know why you're thinking about my girlfriend during the debate, but she says thanks. Now, back to secular humanism. See, one of us- Oh, sorry. I thought you had a boyfriend. I didn't realize. Keep going. I didn't realize. You didn't realize?     I'm not, I'm not gay, but if I was gay, I would be happy to say I was gay. Okay. Anybody here that would have a problem saying if I was gay, if I was gay? He's accusing me of committing- No. Because it doesn't matter. This is one of the things that I- If you're gonna let him hurl the F word at me.  Fucker. Look at this. He's not personal, Bob. He's not a magic word. He was going to respond to you the annual which depends on who- No, he's saying highly offensive things to me right now. Oh! You just referred to my girlfriend as my boyfriend, but I'm the one hurling highly offensive things. You know what? I'm just learning something right now.  I'm just, let's just get back to this. So one of us showed up today for to debate three topics and I'm the only one that addressed the first one. The second one, don't care that much about it because what's compelling doesn't have any impact on what's true, but the third one's important because is the world better under secular humanism or under Islam? And did I present a hedonistic view of secular humanism that is just about nope. That's the straw man that Daniel constructed in his science fiction, Star Trek fantasy of what's gonna actually happen if we do this. It's his metaphor for what secular humanism has done to the world. Not because there's anything demonstrably wrong about it but because he disagrees with it and in particular, his particular view of Islam disagrees with it. He doesn't give you no reason why secular humanism is a problem. And under secular humanism, he can practice his version of Islam.  Yeah, that's all you got. All you have is the f-word and this personal attack. Yeah, ignore the whole argument. So this is an interruption that we're talking about. I'm still talking. Look, we're not talking about your homosexuality or whatever. Ignore the argument and focus on the upward is the dishonest liar's way of avoiding the re-responding. We're not talking about homosexuality here. Let me get back to you the debate. We were. So a thought experiment, you're not familiar with a thought experiment but it's where you go through an idea and work out the implicate. Yeah, you're not familiar with a lot of things apparently. I've only taught about thought experiments many, many times but I'm not familiar with it. Some moderation. I let him talk. I'm going to interrupt everything he says from now on. He's just going to lie and say, I don't know stuff I know. I'm going to interrupt everything he says from now on. That's good. I'm going to interrupt everything you say from now on.  We can do that.  Let's go to a new topic from your opening. Sweet. Yeah, so let's focus on the violent history of liberalism. Let's look at the reign of terror. Let's look at the invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, the spread of democracy and human rights. Oh, that has nothing to do with secularism. It was people like you and Christopher Hitchens, for example, or Sam Harris that said, we need to bring democracy to Iraq, democracy to Afghanistan. They don't have women's rights. So let's bomb them. And even if we have to nuke Mecca, I believe that's what Sam Harris said. That's the price we're willing to pay for the spread of liberal human rights. Those people all claim to be humanists. They all claim to be fighting for the benefit of humanity. They all claim to be fighting for liberation and equality and consent and women's rights and gay rights and transgender rights. All of these things that claim to be part of your value system, they were also advocating. But you conveniently, like all of these atheists, want to wipe your hands of that. That's a complete cop-out response.  And I mentioned many historical examples. Up until today, it's still happening. It's still happening with an international human rights law, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's all based on secular humanism. But you don't want to take ownership of that. That law is imposed. If you violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, the UN will place sanctions on you. You have a security council that will punish you as a nation and starve you to death because you do not uphold those specific values. The analogy or metaphor with the pleasure machine is exactly correct. This is exactly what happens.  We just want the best for humanity. That's why we have these laws. We are creating an international order of rules and it's a rules-based order. So obey or you will die. That's the history of secular humanism. You don't want to acknowledge that history. Because it's a lie and here's why. First of all, I'm not Sam Harrison. I disagree with Sam on a number of things. I'm also not Christopher Hitchens and I think he was monumentally wrong about war. And while I served in the military for eight years, I have massive objections to what our Christian-led country did to try to democracy everywhere.  And what they did was they helped create more people who hate this country and more people who are now compelled to become jihadis than to become secularists. Because the United States is not secular humanism in action. And in just the same way that he represented the United States revolution as if it was a principle of secular humanism, secular humanism didn't exist until 1963 with the first humanist manifesto. You don't get to saddle everything that isn't Islam under secular humanism and as secular humanists are here in the United States fighting for equality and freedom that allows you to be a Muslim and Mike to be a Christian and me to be an atheist. It wasn't secular humanism that sent people out and tried to conquer Iraq.  Let's address what I actually think and say like I've done with you. Yeah, very convenient. You can mention 9-11, you can mention all kinds of terrorists to attack my position and attack Islam. Islam condemns terrorism, it attacks killing civilians for the purposes of war. So you can saddle me with that, no problem. You can just have a cute little hashtag. I didn't. Boomer joke about it. But when I point out all of these, you don't age well, my friend. But when I talk about all of the tens of millions killed, tens of millions that are killed by your ideology, secular humanism is a- No, secular humanism is secular humanism. Nobody's been killed by my ideology. Nobody's been killed by my- Yeah, deny it. Say it. We heard it, we heard it.  Okay, fine.   My hands are not bloody. And there are. You literally went to war like you're the last person. Come on, man. Look at this. I'm sorry, you have to live up to your words. Jay, any whines about being classy? Look at that. I call him a boomer. It is classy. Is defending kids classy? I think so. Chill, man, chill. Chill. Chill. What's that? You have no real argument. You have no real argument. I have no real argument. Other than the guy who presented no real argument.  You want to F that. That's all your argumentation is about. All I've done is curse, James. That's amazing. All you've done is, oh, that's not the debate topic. Oh, where's the scientific evidence? Sorry, you didn't say on the debate topic. I don't want to F kids. That's the whole debate. Not my fault.   It's okay. Yeah. So you have a vow. Yeah, so secular humanism is a variant of liberalism. All of the values that you claim as a secular humanist that you cited in your opening statement were also the values that were cited as the justification for the invasion of Iraq, sanctions of many Muslim countries around the world, the invasion of Afghanistan, those secular values were cited as the justification. That's why they call it Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's not a coincidence. Now you want to wash your hands of that very conveniently. That's fine. I'm not saying you personally supported those wars. My argument is that your ideology was the basis as a justification for those wars and that invasion. I'll ask you a very simple question. Do you believe in international law based on secular humanism? Not the manifesto that no one knows about and no one has read, but the secular humanism, the idea of separation of church and state, individual happiness, equality, et cetera, those values that I focused on in my opening, do you think that should be the basis of international law and should there be consequences for violating international law? Didn't I make a very express thing in my opening about the separation of church and state and how I would be fine, and I'm a secular humanist, and I would be fine with a secular state, but not a secular humanist state. Didn't I make that clear? Yeah, I thought so. Yeah, so secular, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's exactly why I'm attacking. So you're equating secular with secular humanism, and so anything that's secular is bad, right? No, I said that secular humanism is a sub ideology of liberalism. The values in liberalism include value for freedom, value for equality, maximizing freedom and equality. No, I say that should be balanced by other concerns like marriage, family, community. I don't know that marriage and community are necessarily the parts, but I'm not opposed to either one of them. But that's the conflict. Sometimes marriage will conflict with freedom. But if you're gonna, we both want freedom, and you can't just cite, well, freedom is the problem. That's not why I said freedom. I said freedom is a value, freedom is a value, but it should not be the only value that we maximized. I didn't say it was. Okay, so what other value? How are you gonna straw man me? So what other value? So for example, in marriage, you have certain obligations.  If a person just wants to opt out of that because they're just not happy with a marriage anymore, should they be able to do that? Should divorce be allowed? Yes, I'm in favor of divorce. I'm actually divorced. No fault divorce. Well, no fault divorce gets more into politics and financing. But, so I don't know necessarily which version of divorce is better, but since I'm still really good friends with my ex-wife, I should probably message her and see if she's okay with the way we got divorced. We don't seem to have a problem with it. Or for example, like within marriage, you're not allowed to sleep with whoever you want, right? My wife was allowed to sleep with whoever she wanted while we were together. But is that good? Is that a good thing? Yeah. Did that help preserve your marriage? Yeah, for most people it doesn't because when a spouse cheats- I wouldn't think so. It's not cheating. Yes, for, okay, call it whatever you want. But when a spouse is involved with other people, that will biologically reduce the attraction that the male feels for his spouse. And that is part of the reason why marriage customs throughout the world involve fidelity. You have to be faithful to your spouse. That's part of being in a marriage.  If you say, no, no, no, freedom is most important. They should be able to sleep with whoever they want. That undermines the institution of marriage. Why? Because there's this biological attachment that's destroyed when your spouse sleeps with other people. Yeah, so this notion that I have no problem with marriage. I have no problem with people being in monogamous committed relationships. I've been one now, but I've been in one before. The notion that your marriage is right for everybody else is problematic. There are plenty of people who have marriages that are different. There are sometimes two men who get married and it works out. Two women get married and it works out. Evidently, there's some polygamous that do it and it works out. I don't get it, because it's not me. It's not anything that I want to participate in. But the whole premise was do you value marriage? Not you're okay with marriage. Because if you value something, then what kind of policies would you put in place to preserve that institution? I think that an institution that has to be preserved through policy probably isn't nearly as valuable as you think it is. Okay, then what about the policies for scientific education? What if there are countries that are like, we don't need any scientific education. There's only religious education and actually we're not gonna educate most of the population. Would you have a problem with that? Should there be a policy in place that no, every country has to implement this type of educational model? I don't think I get to decide what model another country does, but I can certainly speak out about how they may be harming or depriving their citizens of a robust education by denying it. I would prefer that they permit it and then allow freedom. That's the thing. That's the thing with freedom. If you want to say, oh, we should deny this type of education because we want to preserve this particular society, that's a problem. That's the problem that you built your entire metaphor around is there are freedoms that you don't want to allow because you're terrified of what will happen in the world if you allow them. You don't get to decide for the world and that's why secular humanism is better than your version of Islam. Because you get to keep thinking this and living the life that you and whoever you convinced to actually be with you want to live within reason until they come in conflict and then somebody's gotta step in. So is there any obligation for children to go to school? I am a fan of providing required public education. So it's required. So you're a fan of imposing without a child's consent that they be placed into schooling. So where they learn, where they learn. Yeah, so you don't believe in consent, yeah. Yeah.  Here's the thing that Daniel doesn't seem to understand. So yeah, here's the thing that Daniel doesn't see.   Every time I have a good point that he knows you're coming, he tries to talk over me.  I have an answer.  Big man, come and say that right here. Trying to say it right where? Here. All right. All right. Here's the thing I'm not buying. Go ahead. What's up? You're in trouble. I do it. All right. I'm saying, I have an answer. Sit down. Sit down. You said sit down. Come over there and say it. I'm not violent. I would never do anything violent. You can't respond to any point. You just make a joke.  So you do believe in schooling rape. So you believe in educational rape. Do you want an answer or do you want to keep pretending that I don't have an answer? Do you want an answer? You don't want an answer. You don't want an answer, okay? You don't want an answer.  He doesn't want an answer. He doesn't want an answer. He'd rather pretend I don't have an answer.  Do you want an answer or are you going to pre-pretend that I don't have one?  You said you made a joke, but that's the reality. You're a fan of forcing children without consent to go into schools where they will be subjected to a scientific worldview that will affect their entire lives at the deepest level. You have no problem with the lack of consent in that situation. How terrified he is of my answer. And he wants to prop up his straw man again about what I'm actually saying. Here's the thing that Dan doesn't understand about consent and about parenthood. Parents don't own their children. You don't.  You are instilled with a responsibility to raise responsible members of society and to teach them the minimal things that they will need to carry on a productive life when you're not around. One of the ways that we do that is through a tax supported public school system because parents are not equipped to work multiple jobs and teach their kids quite often. Some of them are qualified to teach their kids at all. And so we come up with a standardized curriculum that we put in public schools which represents in some cases at least the bare minimum of reading, writing, arithmetic, things like civics and stuff like that because those are the things that kids are gonna need to know when they come to be responsible adults, when it's time for them to vote, when it's time for them to decide if they're gonna join the military, when it's time for them to choose for themselves as an act of freedom, what religion, if any, they wish to follow. That is why I'm not only a fan of public education, I'm not only a fan of compelled public education, I think that raising the next generation of kids to understand how the world around them works so that they can function well within it is a moral duty. There's your answer.  Basically, you believe that you should compel children to go into these school systems where they're taught. Your atheistic standards of scientific evidence, the only things that are true, that can be scientifically proven. That is justifying atheism.  There is no choice that parents should have in that. There's no choice on the part of parents. That system is imposed. You have no choice as a parent in certain countries. In the US, we still have homeschooling options, but they're fighting to, liberal secular humus are fighting to actually destroy that option.  Bastions of secular humanism, they also have banned homeschooling. You have to put your children into these secular schools where atheism is the ground assumption. Not Islam, not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Hinduism. Atheism. So this is non-consensual.  And this is what has been happening to Christians and Muslims in Sweden. It's quite a heart-wrenching sight to see the police bust down the door of Muslims and take children in the name of secular humanism. You are not putting your children in schools. Therefore, we are going to take your children away. This is the reality of secular humanism. Yeah, go ahead and wipe your hands. Oh, that's not literally me, but you said you're a fan of compelled education. So you're a fan of these types of policies. Yep. Yeah, there you go. This might be an opportunity to go into the Q and A. Let's do it, because I'm ready to go home. You got it. Folks, if you want to come up on this right side of the room, that's where we'll take questions. And Chris is going to be our MC for the Q and A, so we'll be holding the mic. The time your analyst said, you can't do it. You don't know the next. You don't know who they are. I've been told to find you, you can't say that.  I don't know about that. But I'm going to take your time, and thank you for your talk around the Q and A. You're against the influence. I don't know, but I'm not saying that. I first watched the show, and said, where is the Q and A? That was the Q and A. Okay, so one of these speeches was about populism and how a lot of people believe in God, but how does people people believing in it make something true? Yeah, so the do I have to repeat it or people hear it? If you could repeat it, because I was distracted and did not hear. Yeah. So how just because a lot of people believe something, why does that make it true? So I agree that just because something is popular does not in and of itself make it true. The belief in God or the belief that harming others for no reason is wrong. The belief in law of contradiction, those are not just common. They're common because they're biological. And that tells us something important about the way the human mind works. It tells us something important about how we understand reality. Belief in God is also one of these things that is not only extremely common and widespread throughout history and even in our current times, it is something that also develops biologically. So that tells us something about the structure of the human mind and how we understand reality. So I'm not making a simplistic argument that, oh, if a lot of people believe it, that means that it's true. Or that's evidence that is true, even though it could be evidence, but that wasn't my actual argument. Good night. Before we get to the next question, thanks so much for asking your question. Do you mind if I ask you something real quick? Like, first of all, how old are you? Twelve?  OK, thanks. Great, great parenting. I was in the Navy for eight years and it's just a habit, but also words aren't magic and people who spend more time focusing on whether or not I uttered a specific phonium than the actual concept of what I'm conveying. That's all I need to know. Next question. Yeah, my question is to Dania. Said she's going to say good or he might say and promote freedoms on that said. Himalright and you are against himalright, right? No, I'm not against human rights. I just want a balanced understanding of what is actually a human right. OK, so are you against your right that is going to be protected on secular humanism or just other people that you disagree with? No, my rights are not protected as a Muslim under secular humanism. As a Muslim, my countries are being bombed because they lack secular humanism. My people are being killed because they are not following secular in this country. I'm being monitored. I'm put on watch lists. Muslims are put on travel, travel bans, Muslim views. If you express your Muslim views and universities, you'll be kicked out of departments because you're not abiding by liberal secular principles. Yeah, personally, privately, you can be a Muslim and be, you know, in a science department or a history department.  So no, as a Muslim, I don't feel like I have this religious freedom within a secular society. Secular humanism imposes atheism on the population. That's why atheism increases. It's not because of the inherent rationality or compellingness of atheism. It's because atheism has to strip people of their natural intuitions and brutalize them into making them into atheists. And that's what the French Revolution was about. That's what the Communist Revolution in Russia, where they annihilated tens of thousands of churches, tens of thousands. They murdered Orthodox preachers and priests. Look at the enlightened totalitarianism from Napoleon and how many churches he abolished and destroyed. This is the history of secular humanism. And it's all on the basis of maximizing liberty, maximizing equality, secularism, secular humanism. This is the actual bloody brutal history of it. So first of all, that's not the history of secular humanism. It is a history of some aspects of atheistic regimes. The problem with Soviet Russia and others were that essentially the state became the authoritarian church, not secular humanism, but a state-run body that was unquestionable the way a church would be. That's not secular humanism at all. Daniel has to invent a fiction about secular humanism trying to impose atheism. And for the record, I would object to any Muslim anywhere being on any watch list merely because they're Muslims. I would be interested in having somebody go through your browser history considering what you've actually advocated for, but. Yes, you're joking about it, but you do you do advocate restrictions. People who have you just don't want to hear what comes after the but, do you? All right, never mind.  Let's go through his browser history.  So you are stop me from actually going to the end of it. You are actually making a point for me. That's as I said, I'm opposed to it. And while it might be interesting to find out what's in Daniel's browser history, I don't think that I have enough information to warrant actually doing that or allowing anybody else to do it.  Next question. What are my my question for you is in Islam's version of freedom, does that include the liberty to not believe in Islam anymore? And how much disagreement is there amongst scholars? Yeah, there's no disagreement on scholars. So I've discussed this, have many videos on apostasy, apostasy punishment in Islam. And the idea is that every community in every culture has rules that punish or stigmatize defection, like leaving the group, even social media, like social media, you express certain views. You're going to be banned from the community. You can't be a part of the community because you violated community guidelines in order to maintain a community and a society. You have to have certain rules to prohibit certain types of speech, certain types of ideas. Every religion has these kinds of restrictions. Every culture has these types of restrictions where they punish defection. And Islam is no differently than this. So yeah, so Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism in Buddhist society, you can find stigmatization of defection from the religion. Because how are you going to maintain that society if you allow people to just go and mock the underlying belief system? And this is exactly what we find within secular society as well. Muslims like me, I can't say certain things that I believe online. I can't say certain things that I believe publicly. Why? Because I'm seen as an extremist or I'm inciting violence and therefore I have to be put in jail. If I burn a certain type of flag, if I make a certain type of joke in any of these secular societies on the basis of inciting hate or inciting extremism, I will be put in prison or find heavily or potentially even worse. So this is found in every single legal, cultural and moral system. What should the penalty be for saying that the Prophet Muhammad sexually assaulted a nine year old? Insulting the Prophet, according to Islamic law within Islamic jurisdiction would result in death, death penalty. For me as well, even though I'm not Muslim. If you were in an Islamic society with Islamic jurisdiction, according to Islamic law, if you insulted the Prophet Muhammad, you would be executed after due process in front of a judge who would look at the evidence and make sure that you have actually violated the law after full due process. If you are convicted of that crime of blasphemy, then according to Islamic law, you would be put to death. Good thing I'm not in an Islamic country. OK, so my question is to you. Liberals have executed plenty of people for their beliefs.  Muslim world is not run by theocracies. Right now, the Muslim world has many individuals who are dictators on the basis of secularism. They establish secularism and they're trying to wipe out Islamism or the idea of Islam as governing their societies. They will execute people who violate liberal speech. And this was a colonial policy. The European Enlightenment thinkers, people like the Tocqueville, people like John Stuart Mill, they advocated the death penalty within Muslim colonies for anyone, for example, who insulted the French flag. Anyone who insulted democracy. Why? Because they're trying to establish this secular humanist regime. And if the majority of people start speaking out against it and critiquing it, that threatens the establishment of secular humanism. So according to these liberal thinkers, it is worth executing these individuals who are speaking out. They're just expressing themselves against secularism. We need to execute them for the greater good of liberalizing these colonies. That was their explicit colonial policy. And I've mentioned this in many of my debates.  I'm a liberal secular humanist and I oppose the things that he just talked about as does the first, second and third secular humanist manifesto. And he has to reach back way into history before secular humanism had even existed and commit an equivocation fallacy to suggest that that was secular humanism in action before it even existed. People like Sam Harris, Sam Harris didn't exist back with the Tocqueville. Sam Harris, OK, he has just as much a claim to secular humanism as you do. Sam Harris does think you can execute people on the basis of their ideas. He thinks that Muslims can be nuked.  Fine, that's not your understanding of secular humanism. Other secular humanists have just as much of a right to claim secular humanism as you do. You don't have a monopoly on it. You don't have a monopoly on it as the only person in the stage who could call Sam Harris having done multiple events with him. That's not true. That's some good jokes for us. Chuckles, this guy's been laughing at every boomer joke. I get I get my shots in too. Well, I knew a joke don't make me older and I. Well, first of all, it's not just me laughing. Well, yeah, it's pretty much just you. Well, you guys look a lot like.  If, for example, I have the intuition, this kind of goes back to like the first version of it. If I have the intuition, say like that, I feel like I'm sick, you know, that there's something wrong with me, you know, I have that distinct feeling that something is not right. I go to a hospital, the hospital runs all sorts of tests and everything. You know, they check me for everything. I see all sorts of physicians, specialists and everything.  My question to you is if that actually happens, then how is intuition evidence like you stated before? No, I didn't say again, this is not my position that we just rely on intuitions and then there's nothing else to consider. We have to have a holistic, organic epistemology in order to understand what is real and what is not real. So if you, as an individual, are personally suffering from some kind of delusion or hallucination, yeah, you'd go to a psychologist and there would be experiments or there would be some kind of scans that are done on your brain to see if you have some kind of personal issue. But those are not the types of intuitions that we're talking about when we talk about morality, aesthetics, religious belief, logic, mathematics, et cetera. OK, next question. My question is for Matt, I was wondering, do you believe that our right to individual consent is always above our response like our responsibility to our family, community and state? And if you do, I was just wondering how a state could exist like that. You said you were in the military by that logic, wouldn't you be against a draft? Imagine if in World War Two, the Lushans were, you know, consent was their number one priority, you know, they wouldn't allow retreat, they wouldn't allow for a draft and the Nazis might have won World War Two. So, yeah. So no, I don't think that consent, Trump, Sabbaths, everything, I think there's foundational principles that exist kind of in cooperation, the same with my view on morality, where health is generally preferable to life. There are certain circumstances. By the way, we have a volunteer military and I volunteered for it. So that was consent. I'm not completely sure how I feel about a draft, but I do recognize the arguments for it and where it may be viewed properly as a civic duty, as a member of society, a member of a particular society benefiting from that society in the same way that people say taxes are theft, but taxes are what you pay to. There's roads. I drove on roads here. Our taxes contributed to that. I can whine all day long about how my taxes don't go to or go to things that I wouldn't want, but there are some things that you sacrifice, in part, with your social construct, with whatever country you're living in. And if I wanted to, I could pack up and I could go move to a Muslim country. And I would then consent to whatever their laws, including them killing me over mocking the profit. And that would be me doing it. The biggest problem in agreeing to it, consenting to it, the biggest problem in this is that we have people who are born into a contract that they didn't consent to. And there's another reason why I'm in favor of making sure that we educate people so that they know what their rights and their responsibilities are. So as much as I'm not a free speech absolutist, but I value free speech. I'm not a consent absolutist because otherwise, how could you lock somebody up in prison? You can argue they consented to being locked up in prison by virtue of them violating the law and getting caught if you didn't get. There are people who go to prison innocent. And I think those people have a cause of action to oppose those things. So no, I don't think that free speech is absolute. I don't think that consent is absolute. They are foundational principles and in much the same way that I value a right to death with dignity. My friend, my friend, Dave Warnock is dying of ALS. He does a show in Tuesday nights. And if Dave wants to end his life, I think he should be allowed to. And I think anybody who wants to end their life when when their suffering has exceeded what they're willing to bear should be able to do that. But I also think that we as a society have a responsibility to make sure that people aren't running around willy-nilly killing themselves for taking a permanent action for something that's temporary. So there's there's a balancing act in there. Secular humanism is not about asserting here's the position and we've got it right. All secular humanism is doing is saying we want to get better at getting better. And so we're going to use the best tools that we can find for doing that. So secular humanism advocates for individual happiness and maximizing freedom and equality. You can't consent or you can't opt out of being born on earth and you have international human rights law that imposes that secular humanism on every single person on the globe. You can't opt out of it unless you're going to get on a rocket and go and go to Mars. This is a non consensual system that is imposed on everyone by force. Next question. So a question for Matt.  If like they both consent if they both want it and they what are happy with it? Or would you be a law or would you be a favor of a law of banning this? So in the science fiction realm. Where we can determine whether or not another animal has consented to an action, I would favor their consent as long as. So if they're happy with something and if they want something like you like a monkey wants a banana. So so I'm trying to try and answer this. Happiness alone is. Wow. Got from the same cloth. Happiness, happiness alone is not enough. The fact that you do something that makes someone happy or the fact that they derive pleasure from it isn't enough. It's not it is a component of whether or not they're going to enjoy it. But it's not a component of consent. Consent needs to be an informed, enthusiastic consent. There needs to be a demonstration that you understand the consequence is why kids can't consent and you understand the consequences of this and that you are consenting to the responsibility of that act. If we had a science fiction device that showed that any other nonhuman animal was able to cognitively comprehend and consent, then I would have. Well, I don't know of any grounds under which I could object. But in that scenario, if somebody came up with grounds to object, then we'd have to consider that as well. But generally speaking, it's about consent. Now, the grounds are that it's an animal. Yeah, that's that's a good grounds. Maybe we should just kill it. Well, that's that's why there are food supplies based on. OK, let's next question.  So for Daniel, George W. Bush was famously a right wing conservative, not a liberal. He was a Christian who advocated teaching creationist pseudoscience in public schools. So what did Bush ever do or say that gives you the idea that he ever expressed support for either secularism, humanism or liberalism? Yeah, so this is the issue that we had in our debate actually last year. I'm defining liberalism as the maximization of freedom and equality, the pursuit of individual happiness. That's why I'm defining as liberalism, not left wing, right wing. If you look at George W. Bush and even his father and their justification for sanctions against different countries, invasion of different countries, which I know that you oppose, they didn't cite the Bible. They didn't cite Christian principles or we they didn't cite the crusades, actually, the justification on the basis of the government taking action. The executive branch taking action and Congress approving that military action was on the basis of spreading freedom and democracy. And that was what was sold to the American people. Not over just trying to convert them to Christianity. So I'm judging that action on the basis of the ideals that were expressed. And that's why I'm saying that this is a perfect example of secular humanism leading to the deaths of millions, the displacement of tens of millions. And this is only the most recent example. History is littered with examples of these ideals, these values being explicitly cited by proponents of secular humanism for the purpose of war and invasion. That's the only way that liberal secularism has spread in history. It's only spread through violence and imposition and death and sanctions. That is the historical record. We also have to note that you did not answer the question moving on to Herbert Walker Bush, who said that atheists could not be citizens because this is one country under God. Where did he ever advocate anything? Did he implement any policies, did he implement any policies or legislation that put teeth to that? Like he just he just expressed. So they're anti secular and they're anti humanist. But according to you, because you've got to redefine things. However, the book, no, you just don't understand the problem as we saw in your previous debate, you have comprehension problems.   Sixty year old who dyes his hair and looks like a hipster. OK, I'm trying to. So first of all, I get asked the question. Oh, my God, the question was directed to me. No one asked for your comment. All right, James, if a question is not directed to me and nobody asked for my comment, do I still get to do it or does this guy get to shut me down? Sometimes we do it and that's depending on the time, though. Sure. This one I want to just to get. I'm not for maximal freedom. That's a cartoonish misrepresentation that he's using like that. But if you want to think that the bushes were secret secularists. Cool. All right, thanks question. Cheers from the Bay Area. This question is for Daniel. You mentioned you referred to to Matt's partner as his boyfriend.  Because that's not a good look. When it's sanctioned by the profit. Yeah, I don't know. I just thought he had a boyfriend. I thought he was gay. I didn't know. So he corrected me. He says he has a girlfriend.  I'm sorry that triggered all of you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that triggered all of you. Trigger anybody. We're sorry that you're so angry at me. You were lying. I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to offend you. You were lying. We're upset that you were lying and bigoted and tried to take that. It means to trigger you. I'm not triggered. Don't be triggered. I have a correction and it's an important correction. I was reminded I'm not a millennial. I'm Gen X. That's what Gen X people do. I see I'm not a boomer. I'm Gen X, but I'm not so young to be millennial. So I'm Gen X. Thank you. Next question. Thank you. Yeah, this one for Daniel. So Islam goal is to make every individual a slave to that, right? Am I right? Say that again. Islam goal is to make every individual a slave to God. A slave to God. Islam's goal. Goal. Yeah. That's your question? No. That's a follow up question. Yeah, continue the whole. OK, how is it from a human perspective standpoint? How is it good, a good thing for a human being a slave? How is it a good thing for a human to be a slave? Yes. Yeah, so it's an acknowledgement of the reality that we are all created by God and he's all powerful. So we are to acknowledge that as the purpose of our creation. That is what is beneficial for us in this life and in the next life. That's the Islamic theology. So the idea of slavery, it's slavery to the Almighty, to the Creator, as opposed to your ideology, as opposed to other people, as opposed to it's a higher metaphysical level of recognizing what is actually real and the reality of our world, which is that God is almighty and he controls everything that exists. And he has power over everything that exists. He has knowledge of everything that exists and he is the sublime and almighty. The recognition of that is the slavery to God, the submission to God. And that's what Islam means. OK, next question about compelling factors of religions. I was competing, compelling, compelling factors of religions. I was wondering whether if anyone of you agree that the Hindu concept of hell would be the most compelling because there is no eternal punishment. And you have the possibility of reincarnation, which you don't agree with. I don't know whether he agrees. So it can come back, the soul can come back and live on until it succeeds to get to heaven. So is that no more compelling than other else? Thank you. I find that I find compelling may not be the right word. I find it more appealing than some other potential hells, for sure. The problem, though, with the Odyssey, is which should you be striving to avoid a particular hell or to seek a particular heaven, because that's where they like, you know, yeah, yeah, was that that wasn't for me, or does yeah, I thought it was directed at me. OK, so yeah, so the idea of reincarnation, the idea that people were themselves, but they could also be like frogs or insects or other animals, that is not a very compelling belief. And yeah, so that's the answer to that. Your next question. Thank you. Is there a file question of rape? Currently right now, Christianity is being mandated onto children of all religions in public schools across the state. There are educators and legislators that have the opinion that children who practice Islam should not be allowed to pray throughout the day or have religious rights, secular activism and education promotes having safe spaces for children to pray for all children to wear religious clothes if they choose to practice what they believe, taking into account that it's not realistic that we will have an Islamic school system in Texas anytime soon. Is it more compelling to have Christianity forced onto your children and their rights to practices on removed or to have secular policies within public education to protect their rights? Yeah, so my position has been very consistent on this. I'm in favor of Christian schooling. I'm in favor of Christian standards. I'm in favor of Christian inspired government. I wish that the United States was a Christian theocracy. That would be a much better situation for Muslims like me. It would be a much better situation for families who are Muslim or non-Muslim Christian. It's just an overall better system to have a Christian inspired country or a Jewish inspired Judaic country or other traditional religions than a secular humanist nation based on secular humanist or atheistic laws. So I've been very consistent on this. Now, if it were the case that they would force me and my children to believe in Christianity, then we would just leave. We would leave the US, but still would that Christian theocracy that we couldn't live in objectively, would that be a better place for the people in it, for the population in it, than an equivalent secularist country? Definitely, definitely the Christian theocracy or the Jewish theocracy or the Hindu theocracy, whatever that would be better than the alternative of an atheistic secularist society. That's because of the nature of traditional religion. Traditional religion doesn't sacrifice everything on the altar of individual happiness and freedom. That's what makes them superior, because they actually can at least make an attempt to preserve institutions like marriage, family, community, things that people care about and find valuable. Secular humanism destroys all of that. We're at the 1030 mark. I do want to keep our promise for our speakers and let them go. I want to give a huge round of applause. Thank you very much, gentlemen. It's been a true pleasure. Thanks. Thanks for coming tonight, folks. We really appreciate it. I just want to say thanks for that question. I have nothing to add. We'll let his answer stand. Thank you very much for coming tonight, folks. Have a great drive, a safe drive home. And we hope to see a debate con in Dallas November 4th. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Thank you. And folks, if you're watching at home via the live stream, Debate Con4 by Modern Day Debate is going to be on November 4th in Dallas, Texas. You don't want to miss it. So check out the link in the description box below where you can get tickets on sale now and not only that, but there's a crowdfund there in case you can't make it if you'd like to get perks while backing the project. We have signed photos of your favorite debater as well as signed emblem pages. And if you are watching from across the planet and you can't make it in person for Debate Con4 on November 4th in Dallas, Texas, want to encourage you. Hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. You don't want to miss them. So please subscribe right now. Thanks so much for all your support, folks. Our goal is keep these debates free for the public, including our live streams from our conferences. So if you are excited about Modern Day Debate and our vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can have their chance to make their case on a level playing field, consider becoming a member. You've got memberships for the channel and the description box. You can find the link to that or you can click that join button. Down below near the subscribe button. We also have a Patreon in case you aren't into YouTube channel memberships. And last but not least, thanks so much for your support. If you haven't yet, hit that like button. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care, everybody.


Hi, I'm Prabhu. I'm a master's in fine art students at Proxedy University and I'm the president of Lumiere Photography Society. So Lumiere is a collaborative group of student initiative in Proxedy University. We are photography enthusiasts who love to explore the city, take photographs, explore the visuals of the life and capture stories to tell the people the way we see the world. It's a fraternity, we believe in each other, we collaborate, we understand each other, we go on photo walks, we try to study and improve our art of photography and looking at things. So it's a group where everyone gets to come and enjoy themselves and create some photographs in the meantime. I decided to start the Lumiere Photography Society because when I came to Prague I was captivated by the natural beauty and the magnificent architecture of the city. I felt like it would be a waste to not form a group or a collective and take photographs of this beautiful city. So Lumiere was an initiative attempt to bring people closer through the medium of photography so that they can come out of their shell and explore the city and explore and meet new people while studying and being focused on photography as a visual language. In order to join the Lumiere Photography Society, you need to just have a desire to capture the world and just a little interest in learning how to work with cameras, photography, visuals and narratives in general. As long as you qualify those requirements you are free to join. The university does provide us with support and logistics and facilities to explore and create and organize events for the students of Prague City University. We are working on a workshop. University will be providing us with space and cameras and lights to work with it. So the university does help you towards the extent in terms of logistics and administrative support so that you can have space and be free and be creative and take and do some things that won't be possible without the infrastructural support of the university. For the students of upcoming semester, I would just say it's a lot of fun. You get to be wild and free. So if you have that adventurous spirit, that desire to tell stories and create photographs that matter, join Lumiere. Together we can chase the light.


Hey guys my name is Caleb Walsman, I am a senior airman in the Arkansas Air National Guard United States Air Force. So the main reason I joined the Air Force, not gonna lie, I mean it was partially like yeah I wanna serve my country and all this, but most of the reason I joined the Air National Guard was for the benefits. I was like, heck only working one week in a month, two weeks in a year, and I get all these different benefits. I get to pretty much go to college almost for free, man that sounds like a really good gig. So that was one of the initial reasons I first joined. It over time changed, but that was the initial reason I joined was honestly mostly just for the benefits. My current rank is senior airman and I've been in for about three and a half years. The title of my job is fire protection and AFSC is three Echo 7 X1. So with the guards it's actually kind of a little different. I was initially going in and I was actually kind of wanting to do security forces at first, but then kind of talking to my dad because both my dad and my uncle are firefighter paramedics for city department.  And I've loved it ever since. So I always, when I was a kid, like I said, my dad's a firefighter paramedic. When I was a kid, I wanted to grow up and be a firefighter, but then towards high school it was kind of like, I don't know really what I'm going to do with my life, you know. But then I always had an act that, or I always had a feeling like I wanted to help people. And so it was this in a way kind of did sort of line up with what I was wanting to do because it's just after I saw it and talked with my dad and my uncle. I was like, you know, I think I will actually really like this shot. I'm going to go ahead and give it a shot. Like I said, I've loved it ever since. Like I said, at first I thought about being security because I thought maybe on the civilian side of things for my civilian job while I'm in the guard, I would be a cop. But, you know, that sort of changed after I decided to go fire instead. I signed a six year contract. To my knowledge, the guard only signs a six year contract for your first enlistment. I think for the ones going forward, you can sign a four or six. Maybe you don't hold me to it, but I know for guards starting out, it's pretty much you have to sign a six year contract. The tech school for my job was in San Angelo, Texas at Goodfellow Air Force Base. Tech school was approximately four months. I believe my set of orders was like 120 or 130 something days. Honestly, I loved tech school. The absolute worst thing about tech school was getting up so early because whenever I was going through with the first phase, I pretty much had to get up at like 415 to 430 ish in the morning. So be prepared for that if you do sign up for this job or you're signing up for this job. But besides that, honestly, I loved tech school. San Angelo isn't a very big town in Texas, but it's a small enough town where you actually you start to actually like learn where everything is. And so it's easier when you go off base to go to places because a lot of times you can just walk to places or get an Uber real quick. And then, yeah, actually just going through the academy and doing practical stuff was awesome. The power the death by PowerPoint stuff that you have to do, you know, to actually learn the fundamentals of firefighting and your medical procedures and all this. That was honestly the worst part was having to go through the death by PowerPoints, but actually going outside and putting on all your gear, doing search and rescue, doing, you know, above and below great fires, attacking them and all that was the most fun. I've probably almost ever had it was it was a blast. So pretty much with the job, fire protection, you can be stationed pretty much about anywhere because I don't remember what reg it is. I don't know if it's an FPA. I don't know if it's an FAA thing or whatever. But if your base especially has aircraft, it is required to have a full time fire department, whether that be a civilian kind of like what I do on the full time side or military. So you can be stationed at almost about any base. And a lot of bases, I think, actually have both. They have both state and military. So you can pretty much be stationed about anywhere. The basis of your job is you were there to protect the people, the property and the environment. That's going from everything from aircraft, structural buildings, like I said, the people. So you were there to protect them and be the firefighter and first responder for any emergency. So a lot of your job will be training over stuff like that. You'll be you'll have to check out your trucks, make sure your equipment and everything's good to go for the shift or for the day for on drill status or whatever, you know, that's the basics of it. You you don't actually get in certain hours of week. How much you work? Most active duty bases to my knowledge, there's kind of two shifts they go off of. It's either a 24 24, meaning you work one full 24 hours on and then have one full 24 hours off or 48 48, which is just two days, two days. Now, I know a lot of times active duty also does this thing called the Kelly day or rotating Kelly day. And to my knowledge, pretty much all that means is every couple of weeks, two or three weeks, you'll actually have like three to four days off in a row instead of just your normal one or two days off.  It gets you a little bit more extra time off pretty much is what that does. About every single certification you will get in this job will instantly be able to transfer to a civilian department and they will love it because they won't have to send you to an academy to get all your initial search done while you're doing like you're on the job training and stuff, you'll be getting your driver operators, which is pretty much just your certification stating you can drive this truck and you know how to operate this truck. And that'll also transfer instantly to a civilian department. They're obviously most likely when you get on to an apartment, they're going to want to test your knowledge first, but you'll already have the search and they won't have to send you through the academy. So pretty much about any sort transfer over to a civilian department. I say this is definitely a highly deployable job because like I said, you pretty much any base or airport that is running aircraft, they are required to have fire protection. So I already know I came out of the academy about a year and a half ago and I already know about four of my classmates that have deployed and I'm actually getting ready to deploy this next year. So I don't fully know what the tempo is. I know I know my base every four years as of right now we deploy. But like I said, this is a very highly deployable job. And I think there's a lot of volunteer opportunities too, especially for guard for deployments. I really don't know if I'm going to do this for 20 years or not. The main reason being if I stay kind of at my base full time like I am, I might as well stay in the guard too, you know what I mean? Because I'm already working there. But if I plan to go to a civilian department, city department here in about a couple of years or so, then I don't know if I'm going to stay in just because that's kind of going to hinder and put more weight on my shoulders of having to go to drill and then get deployed and missing out on my city department stuff. So I don't really know if I'm going to make this a full on career in the military or not. I know I'm going to make it a career in the fire service. I just don't know if the military is going to be involved the whole time or not. I would definitely stay in this career field, like I said, ever since the Academy I've loved this job and especially on the volunteer department. I used to be on the calls I'd go with them and stuff. It's it's awesome. And even the little calls we've had at our base and the airport. It's it's awesome. Nothing, in my opinion, can beat that adrenaline rush and actually getting to go and kind of help and make a difference in people's lives. So specifically talking to someone before they go to basic and tech school, I would highly recommend if you have one nearby, get on a volunteer department because then you could already start to bump up and get some knowledge before you even go to the Academy. You'll already kind of learn how the gear works and how to use it. And you may even be able to go or already go on some structure, fires or medical calls before you even go. So that's something I would recommend. And I also recommend this to a lot of our newer airmen coming in at our base. Like I said, we're we're guards. So it's a lot easier to get on a volunteer department, but I know active duty. It's kind of up to your supervisors, I think, on if you can get on a volunteer department. The volunteer department is awesome because, like I said, you get more training. And another thing is, honestly, you're going to most likely get more calls than you are on your actual base, because the worst thing about this job in this career field in the Air Force is your run volume. You don't get a whole, whole lot of calls, but go into a volunteer department or city department, you're going to get a lot more calls most of the time. So that's one of my biggest things I'd recommend them getting on a volunteer department. So guys, if you want to feel free to message me on Instagram, my Instagram is Caleb Wassman, the Caleb's with a K. So it's K-A-L-E-B-W-A-S-S-M-A-N. Feel free to message me on there if you have any more questions. I know even just a short video like this, it's hard to get all the information out. But if you have any more specific questions, feel free to go on Instagram. You can follow me or not. I really don't care. But if you want to feel free to message me there and I will try to get back to you as quick as I can. Thank you so much for having me.


The Elite Dangerous Halloween Paper Chase that Frontier started a couple of days ago just got notched up a gear. If you enjoyed this video remember to subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications and if you'd like to support our work you'll also find us on Patreon. Links to everything you need are in the description below. If you saw our video from a couple of days ago you'll know that Frontier are running an Elite Dangerous Halloween event at the moment. In case you missed our original piece it's linked on screen now. In typical Elite Dangerous style the player base is being sent cryptic clues this time via Instagram and Twitter. It started with binary code on Instagram that has now been all but fully decoded and it spells out Colesack Nebula, the Stones. He keeps watching the Stones. So whatever we're after it's in the Colesack Nebula and nothing to do with Lord's 26 as we originally thought. I did say we often see Father Christmas in pizza toppings. With multiple carriers and numerous commanders headed to the Nebula. Not really knowing what they're looking for the Elite Dangerous Twitter feed lit up again with this video. So, hmm, that's all we have for now. Something is happening in the Colesack region or is about to happen in the Colesack region.  Give us your thoughts below.