Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not the police are systematically racist and we're starting right now. With Destiny's opening statement, thanks for being with us, Destiny. The floor is all yours. Hi, my name's Destiny. I think I have a pretty easy affirmative argument, but basically I believe that there probably exists some level of systemic racism in the policing forces. It seems that when we look at how police interact with suspects or people that they're detaining, there seems to be disproportionate outcomes that impact white, black or Hispanic people, even irrespective of their criminal history or the reasons for the stops. So I just have like three pretty simple points that I want to go over today. One has to do with how Stop and Frisk worked in New York. The other has to do with the, there's a 2011 U.S. DOJ special report on the police use of non-fatal force. And then the third one is the big nature study with the 100 million traffic stops where they try to analyze the difference between how suspects are treated before the sun goes down and after the sun goes down to see if police are making decisions and whether or not to stop people based on the color of their skin, which you can obviously tell easier the daytime versus the nighttime. Yeah. Okay. So I'm Lisa and I'm here to say that there isn't systemic racism amongst the police force. And the reason that I say that is disparate outcomes or doesn't, is not evidence of racism A and B that, that A, that's what's happened and B that the definition and depends on how we're defining systemic or institutional racism that matters. And the actual definition of systemic or institutional racism is that there are you know, laws or regulations on the books that are racist in nature. And in fact, in America, we have the opposite, we have laws and regulations that prevent organizations, government, anything else from being racist. So feel free to say what you need to destiny. You've got it. Thank you very much for your opening statements, both of you and want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at modern day debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from and don't forget to hit that subscribe button for more juicy debates, just like this one coming up in the future with that will jump into open conversation. Thanks so much. The floor is all yours. Sure. So probably before we get into this, I guess it's probably important to arrive at what do we consider to be systemic racism? We probably need to agree on the definition of this before we have a back and forth. I can positive definition and you can attack it or you can tell me your definition and I can attack it either way works for me. I mean, it's just racism that's embedded the actual definitions racism that's embedded through laws and regulations of either government or organizations. True. So one of the important things about systemic racism, though, is that none of the laws or regulations that are embedded have to be explicitly racist. They might just produce what would be considered racist outcomes. So, for instance, like I said earlier, though, racist outcomes does not indicate racism to begin with. Not necessarily, but it could. Right. Yeah, but the proof would be on you to prove that it does because I mean, there's no actual evidence of that. True, I agree. So a systemically racist law might be one that seems to target black people in an unfair way for a reason that doesn't really make sense. The outcome isn't really justified for anything good in society. And I agree that the onus would be probably on me to try to point out like, what are some areas that I feel are exemplary of systemic racism? I mean, I can tell you, I'll give you an example. So right now, hey, on the books, right? Right now, like more white people use cocaine, more black people statistically use crack. And so for every 500 milligrams of cocaine, you get five years in prison. For every one milligram of crack, you get five years in prison. And so those outcomes would have raised that they would if more people would be in prison for a smaller amount of crack than they would cocaine, right? But what reasons for those put? What reasons for those laws put on the books? Was it to stop the crack epidemic? Was it to help black people? So it wasn't necessarily a racist in nature sentencing that was put on there. It just happens that that was the outcome that could be the case. But if that is the outcome, we'd probably seek to change that, right? Well, I'm not saying that we don't want to make everybody's lives better. I'm just saying that systemically, and that is the topic of this conversation that on the books, you have to prove. And I think that's what's wrong. That's what society is doing wrong right now. Is they're blaming white people or they're blaming the system rather than treating the solution, which is only exacerbating the issue. So I think carefully.  I don't care about that. And I'm here to blame the system. Basically, what we're trying to say is like, are there things that exist in the system that maybe put undue pressure on one race over another? So in the instance of like crack versus powder cocaine, you know, is there a good reason why there is such a disparate charge? Why is why is there such a disparate rate in charging one versus the other? It seems to be that it massively impacts one race over the other because black people are more likely to use crack, white people are more likely to have the money to buy powder cocaine. Is there a good reason why the sentencing is so different from one to the other? Yes. Why would you say reason for that is OK. So because because of the the difference in price and things like that, it was negatively affecting more impoverished communities, specifically in the cities. And so you are having these big, like these larger crime and and drug epidemics and they were focused there. And so they say, OK, this is a problem. They weren't thinking about the difference between cocaine and crack. They were saying, let's make these penalties stronger for crack cocaine possession so that we can stop this men. Now, to every policy comes a negative externality.  Sometimes you have good intentions on making communities better and they have negative policy outcomes, which disproportionately affect black black communities. That doesn't mean that the policy is indeed racist. There are not. Yeah. So I agree with that. So well, so I want to focus on the first part. I don't know if we're going to keep coming back to this.  But if I look at the state of Black America today and I look at it from a conservative angle, there are a couple of really easy attacks that I can live against it. So one, the culture is relatively toxic when we look at what is mainstream or popular for a lot of like black culture. And two, arguably downstream from that, the black family is in a pretty sad state compared to what we consider like most white families. I think both of us agree that these are like pretty bad things, right? Well, yeah. But when people always do that, they compare like black and white first. But if you look at like median household income and you look at it for Pakistanis, if you look at for Indians, right? It is extra, extra ordinarily higher than it is for both white and black. Actually, both white and black are in the bottom, too. And that is because like in the bottom range there. And that's because if you look at all these other groups, these Indian groups, these Chinese groups, all these other ethnicities, their rep, their levels of, you know, children out of wedlock are much lower than both of us than the white community and the black community. Sure.  It's it is. And I understand that this is a slightly different argument. So when we talk about like Pakistani communities, Indian communities, especially Chinese communities, the primary reason why these communities are going to be doing so much better than black and white communities where at large is going to is going to be because these are immigrants, largely, these are if you have the money to emigrate from China, India, Pakistan, you're already selecting from a pretty elite class of people there in terms of who's going to come over. So, for instance, it really is not necessarily true just real quick. That is absolutely true. It's absolutely true. So for a really good example, just I promise from right back to you, Lisa, I appreciate your spirit. Yeah, I'm just saying it is it's absolutely true. So, for instance, if I look at black families in the United States, I can get one median income and one like picture of what a black house it looks like. But if I were to look at just Kenyan families or Nigerian families, now I'm getting some of the wealthiest Americans or the most for Nigerians. Nigerians hold more postgraduate degrees than any other group of ethnicity of ethnic but that doesn't mean it's a product of what they came over with. It's a product of their culture and their values and what they what they prioritize, which is if that was the case, family units. But if that was the case, then everybody in Nigeria would be ultra well educated. That's not the case, right? The country coming here to get themselves educated because they want a better life. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be wealthier when they get here. And I know immigration case work for like ever. That's OK. That's great. But like, let's just think statistically, it says you're not correct. Statistically, I promise you I'm correct. Let's just think for one moment. What type of family could immigrate could either move themselves, their entire family from Africa to the United States. People claiming asylum that have nothing. I don't think that the people that come from Nigeria and like attain postdoctoral degrees in the U.S. higher rates than any other ethnic group in the entire United States are all coming via asylum, right? The reason why there's not, but a lot of them are. OK. OK, hold on. All right. We'll keep going. Yeah. We'll debate that later. Well, OK, hold on. This is just absolutely not true. So for anybody that has, I don't know what kind of immigration case you worked on, but if you're familiar with Chinese people, I live in LA, I've been to San Francisco. I know a lot of Chinese American people here. A lot of these people, their families came over from a lot of these countries because they were pretty wealthy, because they were driven to get an education, because they were driven to have their children like get educated in the United States. You're not selecting for an average citizen, you're selecting from the upper tier. You're talking about student visas and people that come over here who have money with student visas and then they get like. I'm not just talking about student visa. Here's a question for you. Who do you think is going to be wealthier on average? The average American family or the average American family that's immigrated to another country? The average American family. I'll tell you this. This is a better question. Well, no, no, no, no, I want to answer that. I want to answer that question specifically. I need I want to answer that question specifically. No, no, wait. There's been Chinese people in America for how long, right? They're not all immigrants from China, yet they prioritize education and they prioritize the family and they have been here for decades. And the reason is it's their priorities, not because they were already born into wealth. I'm just curious who you think is going to be more wealthy, like the families that come, like the average American family or the average American family living abroad or that immigrates to another country? Yeah, but that's a completely different story. They're coming here for a better opportunity and they're going over there for jobs and other things. People are not fleeing America for a better life. Who do you think is wealthier, the average Chinese person or the average Chinese person that moves their whole family to the United States of America? Just to eventually circle back to the topic for tonight. Yeah, sorry. Well, I understand, but like, I mean, we have to come from a similar epistemic kind of day. I guess I'll do one quick spiel on this when we're done. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely the case that the people that immigrate to this country that are looking for better opportunities, better whatever, are oftentimes people that are coming from the higher quintile of income or wealth from the countries that they're coming from. That's why they can afford to do it. You're like, I'm sorry, but a poor Chinese farmer is not moving his whole family to the United States or somebody that works on rice paddies in East India is not moving his whole family to the United States or somebody in Kenya that is starving is not moving their whole family to the United States. That's just your assumption. You have no evidence to back that up because it's not necessarily true.  They don't. They have like three cows. Like, that's not how it works. I mean, just maybe do a Google search. I'm not in front of my computer, but like average income of an immigrant when they get here. It's not a high. So I'm just curious. So if I were to show you like the, what number are you looking for? I mean, I've dealt with so many families coming here on like spouse visas and other types of visas that are, there's not many people that just come right away and move their whole family here. It's like one person comes and then they bring over their spouse or they get married and they come here and like it's not like, oh, hey, let's just move my whole family. There's lots of immigration laws that are cumbersome and it's usually like one person at a time. Yeah, but who has the money to make it through those cumbersome processes? It's really not that expensive. You can get waivers all the time before your income. You fill out one form and you get all of your immigration forms and the cost to it wait. That is, that's not, it might be. Yes, it is absolutely true. Okay, so I have a Swedish fiance who's in the process of doing this. So we have a lawyer. We've been filling out all the K1 visa stuff. So I understand you have some person that's right. I'd be happy to write you a letter of a happy congressman and write a letter of recommendation. So the fact that you're even offering me that kind of shows you that wealthier people probably have an easier time with the system than like a random rice farmer in India, right? No, because I helped Pakistani people come here that had no anything connection based on somebody told them to call their congressman and we helped them out. That's what happens. If we're able to remind the audience in terms of how this brings us back. Yeah, sorry, okay. So real quick, the household median income for Asian Americans is $75,000, which is 39% greater than the national median income of $54,000. But I imagine those just say it's because they work on it or something. But the Indians is 126,000 Filipinos are 100,000. The majority of Asian Americans are 7,000. The majority of Asian Americans are immigrants with 66% of them being foreign born. Most Asian Americans are of Chinese origin. They prioritize what's important, education and family values is what it is. Okay, let's come back around to this. We agreed originally, I think we agreed on this, that we can point to maybe black culture or black family structures as being things that are detrimental at large to the black community. If we were to say, for instance, that having a single parent in the household is a high predictor for your child committing a crime, I hope we agree on that. If we agree on that, it might be the case that we could follow that back and look at disparate sentencing rates for different types of drugs and say, hey, when we enacted these three strike policies from the 93 crime bill, when we cracked down on certain types of drugs this way, we noticed that it produces this outcome that's leading to a whole bunch of bad downstream effects. So I agree with you that we can take a law originally that isn't racist. It doesn't have any bad racial intent. It might even be to help a certain race of people.  Well, there's a systemic injustice here because in an attempt to, say, help black neighborhoods by getting rid of crack cocaine, we've actually put a lot of black neighborhoods even worse on a path to a destruction by putting a lot of black African-American men into jails and then impeding their ability to ever get a job or to reform themselves or to contribute to their families. I actually agree with you. I think that there were laws on the books quite like not that long ago. I mean, there were redlining, which happened to other communities too. There was stop and frisk and the things that you were naming in your opening sentence. And while I do think that those things at a time, we did have racist laws on the books, we do not now. And to continue to say that the America is systemically racist or that the police force is systemically racist now in its current form is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it's actually detrimental to the African-American community because what's happening is the more you mentally beat people down and say, you're never going to make it because of A, B, C, D, they begin to believe it. And then the cycle only continues on and on and on. So I think that the best thing to do is say, yes, there were these problems. We'd like there are certain ways that we would like to fix them. There are certain things that we can do, but to sit there and say that the police force right now, because that's what we're talking about. We're talking about police, not the laws that Congress put on and not the laws, you know, or not what businesses are doing. We're saying, is this police force racist right now on the books as per our definition we agreed to in the beginning? Is it racist? And the answer is clearly no. Now, are there effects from previous systemic racism? Sure, is it enough? I don't disagree with you. I'm not here to say America is systemically racist. To be very clear, there were three different pieces of information I wanted to go over. We're going to the police. The only reason we're talking about crack cocaine and drugs is because you brought that up as your initial topic. You offered that to me. So I just wanted to follow that down to where it's going. So in terms of like, it might be the case that there are black people today that are messed up in life because liberals on Twitter are telling them that the system is beating them up. That could be the case. I haven't looked into that much. I do know that it is indeed the case that once people are put into the incarceration system, the recidivism rates in the United States are among the highest in the world. And once you get registered in that system, you are more likely to recommit. You have a harder time finding a job. That these are the types of systemic issues that will affect people that have been processed by that system. And there are laws on the books today that seem to disproportionately impact certain races. So we talked about crack versus powder cocaine earlier. We could talk about marijuana laws as well. And it seems to be that if those laws and the ways that we classify drugs exist today and they're being used to sentence black people in harsher manners or unfair manners today versus white people, that it would seem to be the case that until they're repealed, there is an argument to be made as long as these continue to produce bad outcomes for black families that there is a form of systemic injustice here. Now I'm aware though that we're talking more about the courts and the laws that exist in the books and not necessarily police officers themselves. So we can move off to the police officer conversation but I don't think that the example you've given me right now is necessarily free of the systemic racism. But I think that you're missing a key point, right? And is that that you keep saying that there's systemic injustice but that's not, injustice is not the same as racism. And I think that this is contributing to a narrative in our culture that's like dividing us down the middle that America is a racist place or the police force or the laws, it's racist. Now, do they have disparate impact? Sure, right? I'm not saying that. Are there problems in the policing community that negatively affect one more than the other? Fine, but you have to look, when you're talking about something being racist, you're talking about the intention of the law being racist. You can take your head, no, but that's how everybody takes it. For these laws, racist, racist. Yeah, so I want to circle back to the systemic racism. Let's go over our definition of racism then. What's your definition of racism? I want to circle back to the, I can give you a definition of racism. So in my opinion, being racist is usually when you attack somebody in a way that maligns their race, like as that character. No, that's actually not the definition of racism. Hold on, just to hear the rest of Stevens. Chill, yeah, okay. So typically attacking somebody on the basis of race is usually seen as like racist.  But when we talk about systemic racism, systemic racism as a system doesn't really require any racist actors. That's why it's systemic racism and not racism. So for instance, we could argue that there exists a systemically racist police force where none of the police officers themselves are actually racist, because a system that perpetuates racially disparate outcomes doesn't need individual racist actors. That's why we call it systemic racism and not just racism. The actual definition of racism is when you believe that one race is superior to another race and that the rest are inferior. That's the definition of racism, right? So to say that- Hold on. If I want to say that- Can I ask a question on that?  No, but you know that that's not the actual definition. The definition you gave is just not true. No, superior in that- Now that is the definition, like Miriam Webster, like that's the definition. Now if you're gonna say that- Now I lost my train of thought, but if you're gonna say that people are racist, it has to have a negative intention. You cannot say that a whole system is racist and that it's at the hands of this white superior group that's purposely targeting people. That's what is coming out of all that conversation. You don't think it is, but it is.  And they're doing- They're saying it because they think that it's purposeful. It's not purposeful. Nobody- I don't think any cop or any lawmaker wants to intentionally mess up the African-American community. This is not realistic. So there are multiple discussions happening here.  So if it would make you more comfortable or prevent you from getting triggered in the conversation, I can use a different phrase besides systemic, you're very triggered right now. No, I'm just, I'm a very- To be very, very, very clear in this conversation and we can go back or I'll tell you if you don't believe me, I have never claimed a single actor is racist in this entire thing. I'm not telling you that the laws were racist. In fact, I think there are a lot of well-intentioned laws that end up having bad outcomes that weren't racist.  That's the topic of this conversation. First of all, the topic of our conversation was about racism in the police force, not in our actual legislation or laws. You brought up the crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. Okay, so let's go back to the police force. Okay. Because you were talking about stop and frisk and things like that. So here we go. They're lost. Sure. So, well, stop and frisk where activities of police did, but it was about the police force and the way they engaged with stop and frisk. So, so we can back. Okay, so let's, I don't think we agree with what systemic racism is, but we'll see what we get there. Although this particular thing doesn't actually require any understanding of systemic racism. So there's a really popular study that is published by nature that they talk about. And I'm sure you've heard this one before. So there's an idea that basically there were over 100 million traffic stops that were analyzed from 21 different state patrol agencies and 35 different municipal police. And what they found was that when they tried to control for whether or not it was light outside or dark outside, you actually find out that police officers are more likely to pull over black people when they can see the race versus at night when it's harder to see into the car. This is something that's been demonstrated with like a high competence interval over like the study was over 100 million traffic stops. It seems like when you start to see stuff like that, that might be evidence that maybe police are working from some biases that are unjustified. Okay. But there's been other studies that have been contradictory to that. Like when the DOJ did their investigation of the Philadelphia police force and found 91 recommendations on how they could do better, but that there was no racial bias there at all. For which police force? Philadelphia. I don't know about Philadelphia.  It was the Department of Justice that did a study. I mean, they went in and they went over all crime logs because there was an uptick in violent interactions with police and perpetrators. And so they went and did a study. I mean, so there's plenty of studies that have been done that will like contradict and affirm and deny both sides here. Like you can pick one out, that's fine. But like, you know, so I'm trying to pick out like a study that catalogs over 100 million traffic stops. Well, I mean, for the most part, no, no, no, no, because I because I've picked out a study that includes over 100 million traffic stops. And you're setting me something about one investigation into the Philadelphia police department. I didn't come here to argue about the Philadelphia police department. I came here to talk about like. And what year was that study done? I just had a curiosity. I've heard about it, but I don't remember what year it was done. What year was that done? I because I believe that it was over at least 10 years ago. Right. Well, it collects it was published in 2020, but the data set that it collects is over a wide period of time. I don't know. I don't know like how many years they collected the data through, but the study itself was published in 2020. Yeah, I think the data was collected earlier if I remember correctly. It may have been, but. I mean, but like the normal, the thing is that what what the big topics have been is that it have been like, you know, the reason that we're even having this conversation is because of BLM and George Floyd and Brown scale. Hold on, hold on, hold on.  I don't want to get roped into larger BLM, blah, blah, blah. I'm only the only question that I'm curious about because I have plenty of criticisms for all of those organizations. No, I'm not. All of these really good. But so I'm not here to defend BLM. I'm just asking very simply the question of is there like systemic racism potentially? Or are there maybe a lot of like cops that think they're well meaning, but they do things that contribute to bad racist outcomes that we don't want in the police force. That's very specific. But that's the support. We have to, we have to make sure that we distinct, that we identify like people that have good intentions that are not racist intentions there may be some disparate outcomes but that's not proof of racism. And that's important. I'm not trying to prove racism. So for the fourth time. But you are, because it's, that's what we're doing. For the fourth time, I don't know how many more times I'm going to say this. For the fourth time. I don't know how many more times you're going to say it because you clearly don't get it. Okay.  That's not what I'm looking at. That's not what I care about. Well, I would care if that was the case. I don't generally think that's the case of most United States. What we're looking at is the police as an institution. Do they act in ways that we could call systemically racist? Do they contribute to racialized outcomes for no good reason? That's what I'm looking for. I'm not trying to figure out of all things. But it's not for no good reason. It's for reasons I got explained where they're trying to actually they're, it's not, listen, if you look at the people that are being arrested or whatever by cops, they're still committing the crimes. Let's talk about violent crimes. Yeah, so we can talk about, okay, it's not, okay, they are, but there are still bad outcomes that are disproportionately impacting black people over white people or Hispanic people. So the DOJ released, we want to move on from the nature thing, because I don't know we have a response to that. But the DOJ released a big special report on the police use of non-fatal violence covered the years from 2002 to 2011. And when you dug into this, even when people were being pulled over the crimes. So like the headline fact is like 4.9% of Blacks experienced a use of force during stops compared to 1.8% of whites and 2.5% of Hispanics. But even when you look at things like when suspected of a crime, even when suspected of a crime, 11% of Blacks experienced violence versus 5% of whites. If you had three or more contacts with police officers, so they've pulled you over three times and you're in the system. The chance of violence if you're white is 5.7%, Hispanic 9.3%, Black 11.7%. Okay, but look at the dates again of your thing. And as you know, for sure you've done your homework that violent interactions with police officers as a whole for white and Black people have been on the decline. So you just set up so what, 2011? Right, was your date? Yeah, 10 years ago, yeah. Okay, but 10 years ago. So that's not today. And they're like legit if you look at violent interactions with police officers from now from the last like since 2017, it's steadily on the decline number one.  Three Black people will get and that's from FBI statistics three Black people will die at the hands of cops. So the Black people are committing more of the crimes. White people are actually being killed more than Black people. And then you're gonna say that the police force is more racist and leads to disparities in police. I don't know how to contextualize the numbers of for every 10,000 white crimes through what it is that you just look at the FBI statistics. Hold on, I love this too. Well, so FBI statistics are not a study. If I'm trying to like put together information where I'm trying to get an understanding of how something is working. I don't just open the FBI statistics.  Like I don't think that's a good way to look at data. I don't think that's a good way to figure out what's going on. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked like well, you know, are why are people being stopped? You know, are there people that are committing more crime than other group? Like where are the people being stopped at? I mean, well, what would you rely on for your methodology because surveys are notoriously inconsistent? What would your methodology be for collecting data information other than looking at raw data? Well, I mean, it depends. So the US so the DOJ special report on the police use of non-fatal force relies on the fact that every time a police officer pulls over somebody there's a report that's written. The nature study relating to traffic stops goes off of the reports that are filed by different not every police force has to submit their data. You know that? So I understand that if you want, we can play the ultimately skeptical position. You're free to do that. Epistemically, it's fun. And we want to like argue nihilism or something. But in terms of like going by what's in front of us, right? Like, like, which is raw data. What? Which is raw data. Raw data, it does not a study make, you know? Like we can be infinitely skeptical of things.  Like that might, there might, it might be the case that that's true. And you could legitimately argue like, well, you don't know if I have a secret twin or not, but that doesn't really make an argument, right? So right now, when I look through the data on, hold on real quick, when I look, I'm not going to the extreme because when I look through like a hyperbolic example there. No, that was an example of how absurd it is to be skeptical when all the data points in one direction and say, well, it's not perfect. It doesn't all point to one direction. I just gave you data as it doesn't. And you're saying it's not from a study that hasn't been done by some peer reviewed people that have some, you know, bias inherently in them in general, right? If a bias exists, if you look at raw data, that's what it says. So raw data is what we use to invade Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. So I don't know that is absolutely true. That's what, that's what, that's what raw data does for us. So I don't, if you want to use raw data, I mean like, I'm sure that we I've also studied lots of studies and that's what I did as well. There is a lot of interrupting, Lisa. I do, I do have to jump in really quick.  Yeah. We can, we can do raw data numbers all you want.  We get somebody to contextualize stuff. And I think that that's an important part of what we do for, and even for the conservative argument, that's an important part of what we do, right?  Sometimes it's valuable for a conservative to be able to say, well, hold on. If we contextualize this, and we say, well, maybe in this city, black people committed 20 times more crime. So it makes the number not actually that insane. This is why we have studies. It helps guide the conversation. But that's still looking at just raw data. No. That's still, guess it is, you're looking at your raw data. So who, who was arrested more there? That would just be in that scenario that you just gave. It would be black people. It's not like we're not surveying people to city. It's through the raw data. You just made my point. Okay. I'm just curious. So in your mind, like what do you think would be the difference between like raw data and a study? Well, I, so because I studied behavioral economics, that's all I did was make up studies and experiments all the time. There's difference. There's different ways. Can you say that again? You studied what? Behavioral economics. You studied behavioral economics. Okay. Does that mean that you took two classes as part of an underground? No, I, no, I went to the University of Pennsylvania for my master's in behavioral economics. Okay. But master's in behavioral economics, and you're telling me with a straight face that just numbers, raw data is the same as a study. I will tell you without a doubt, okay, that you, you do need to define terms and things like that when you're looking at, when you're looking at raw data, fine. But you're talking about studies that we, that are done from surveys, which are, which are notoriously not reliable, right? And from multiple different forms of experimental data and things like that, the way, the methodology used, I don't know exactly what that methodology is in that study, but the best thing you can do is define your, your terms of what's, like quantities that you are looking at when you're doing analysis. You define the terms and the raw data tells you the real deal. It does. Have you ever heard of econometrics? You're so funny. I mean, like, my point is, is that the raw data I'm just, I'm just, all the degrees you have.  I'm just curious.  I'm sorry.   Go ahead. Right. Thank you. So if we're looking at raw data, right, and more black people commit more of the crimes than white people do, and, but yet still, more white people are dying at the hands of cops, than, than how, than how is the system inherently racist? Now, are there some things that, that have disparate outcomes, but there's a whole lot of things to do?  Are they, are they anti-sexist because more men are being put in prison than women? No, right? More men are committing more of the crime than women are. That's just, that's statistics. That's just playing an old-raw data, right? That doesn't mean, just because more men are being put in prison than women, doesn't mean that they favor men or they're just trying to lock up men. And that's the argument that you're making for white and black. And that's not, that's not accurate. So, let's go by the male-female thing. If I look at the data, it seems to be way more men are put into prison than women are, whether we're talking per capita or anything. Seems like way more men are put into prison than women. So, Women do actually get lower sentence rates too for the same crimes. So, how, how can I, so if I'm looking at the raw numbers there, wouldn't it lead me to believe that like, maybe that everybody is sexist against men? I mean, I'm asking you, that's because that's the argument you're making on the other side. No, my, it is. I'm truly at the bottom of a pit of despair here. What was there? I'm, I'm just, I'm actually just So, here, here's the case, here's the case.  Here's something because more black men are incarcerated. No, no, no, no, no, no, hold on. I, I, well now we, now we have like this epistemic divide of is there a difference between raw data and, and a study? No, no, just get to the point. Listen to me, let me finish. We can't, we can't, we're at an impasse right now. I will explain it so that you can respond. Let me finish. Okay. It's simple this way. You are saying that, that more black people are incarcerated because of our police system would be systemically racist, yet men are more incarcerated than women. Are you saying that the, the policing state is, you know, anti misogynist? Like, are they misandrous? You're making, you're saying- I mean, I, well, this is a bad example because I would argue that. I do think that men get unfair sentencing compared to women and there are a whole bunch of issues related to like domestic violence and stuff that, that aren't taken as seriously on the woman side versus the man side. So I mean, I, I would argue that but, but I'm just curious for, for, what was your master's thesis over? What, what did you study for your master's for behavioral economics? It was behavioral economics. Like, what did you defend for a thesis? We didn't have a thesis. We had capstones. What does that- University of Pennsylvania, you can look it up. So like, what was like, what was an example of like a final project that you did? We did, I did a, a cheating in high, cheating in school. If you give them like certain cues, would they be more or likely let less cheat, less, less likely to cheat on college exams or something like that. So like, what are some of the things that you would have done for that, for that- So like, it's more about like, behavioral economics has to do with like, more social norms and framing and nudging and, you know, that type of thing. So what you do is you study, you know, social norms and, you know, social experiments and then you set up social experiments. Like one, we'll talk about it later, I guess, but like, look at like a perfect example is the World Bank's 2013-2015 mind behavior report that they put out. Excellent. That's pretty much all we do. Gotcha. Okay, I don't think I disagree with you there. So when you talk about like social norms, framing, nudging, right? So I think that one of the reasons why the field of behavioral economics kind of spawned is my totally uneducated guess, so you stop me if I'm wrong, is that sometimes in this like, neoclassical econ world, we make assumptions about how individual actors will function in an economy and sometimes when we look in the real world and we see well, you know, people make these purchasing decisions, people do these types of things. Well, it seems like people don't always act as these hyper rational actors. In their best interest. Yeah, there are sometimes they do things that literally contrary to their interest, right? Correct. So behavioral economics feels to me like spawned off of that where it's like, well, what are these other kind of harder to quantify factors that lead people into making decisions on its face? It seems irrational, right? Correct. So I feel like from that framing, it seems to be that if we were to ask a question, so let's say I was to ask a question. What's the best way to sell a product? Right? Like if we were looking at like the raw data, we might just say that like, oh, a cheaper product will always sell better or like the raw data of like, well, this sold more on this store. So it should sell more in this store. These will be ways of looking at raw data, but we would actually we would want somebody that knows like behavioral economy is like, well, hold on, this sold better in this market because of this reason or it might be a lower price here, but people actually will buy things over here if it's a higher price because it if you're still getting that from data, you're still getting that data. We are, but it's not but at that point, the when you start to make interpretations of the data, it's no longer raw data. Now it's been like filtered by somebody that knows what they're looking at. It's been filtered by somebody that is now like giving you an interpretation. We're like, okay, listen, I understand that it looks like this thing here. It looks like if we sell this for this price over here that it'll do really well over here, but actually we can sell it for way more because the people that live here are way more wealthy. So it's kind of raw data, but you're taking all of that raw data and you're like filtering it through an econ, especially in econometrics, we're filtering it through like all these complicated algorithms and formulas to try to determine like, okay, well, if we do this, it'll change this variable or this will change that variable in order to figure out like how things will turn out, right? Right, but they're still looking at raw data, right? I mean, that's still that's still taking data and interpreting it. Now, there are many factors out of this raw data that will that will contribute to more black people being incarcerated. Some of that would be childless, like, I mean, fatherless homes, or, I mean, not fatherless, but not children on a wedlock. Some of it would be, you know, old crime laws. Some of it would be poverty. Some of it would be personal decision-making. I mean, we're still quantifying all those things, but when you look at the base and that's what I'm talking about, I'm taking that data and when you look at it and you break it down and you say, okay, well, the bare numbers tell you that per every 10,000 crimes, more white people that are committed by white people or vice versa, committed by black people, more of those people are dying, white people are dying and that's just one metric. If you look at all these other things, it's not necessarily do some, do some like old policies or old things from laws and policing. Do they contribute? Do they contribute?  You look at other data, like marriage, marriage, just being married, you know, decreases family wealth by like 98% or something ridiculous, right? So when you're looking at the numbers, I'm talking about numbers, like we're all data. I'm not talking about how you feel or what you think the police think or anything like that. Okay, so just to, it's not about how we feel. It's just about like, it's, it's not about how we feel. It's the idea that taking one number might not give us the complete story for what's going on. Correct. I, I'm on me. For instance, well, you don't hear me because you're throwing this 10,000 white crimes. I also threw at you, I also threw at you, you know, I don't, I don't, how the wedlock, your marriage rates. I don't, yeah. So these two things, they all contribute. I'm sure they do, but these types of discrete things don't give us a good picture of a particular thing. So for instance, even out of wedlock childbirth, that's probably not as big of a problem as people think it is. That's probably like a bigger proxy for your socioeconomic status. For instance, a lot of children that are born out of wedlock are probably born to like poor mothers whose father is no longer around. Right. I'm sure that if you're born to a decently wealthy family and the parents just didn't get married. Yeah, it's probably not ideal, but you're not living in the ghetto selling crack cocaine. Right. But who, who's the most impoverished people in our country? It's poor white people that are. As a, as a per capita class, I don't think that's.  Yeah, there's still more of them. And they're not committing as many crimes. Okay, but. So you can't just say lower socioeconomic status is the reason that they're committing these crimes. Yeah, but like we would, if we were going to meaningfully analyze these numbers, we would look at this as like a per capita, not an absolute number of people. Right. I mean, it's, there's an absolute number of people.  There are certain amount of people that don't, right? And if we break that down into demographics, more African American people commit crimes than white people. True. And so, and so now we're talking about more white people are in the lower socioeconomic state. That's true. So now you're saying that it's socioeconomics that's contributing. It's not necessarily birth rates that matter, but no, it's a combination of all these factors and the policing. And that's my point. The policing is not, the police system or the laws on the books are not responsible at all. Maybe some, in part, from generations past, but not currently. There are no systemically racist laws on the books now as it stands. And so that's not the case. So for the fifth time, there isn't, there's no such thing as a systemically racist law.  It's okay, fine. There's nothing, but there's, there's nothing that makes the, makes our system right now systemically racism because it means that racism is embedded in the laws and regulations. That's what, that's what it means. So when we look at like stop and frisk as a policy for New York, we saw, for instance, that Blacks and Hispanics were three times more likely to be stopped by police than white people. But there was like a similar rate of recovery of contraband and weapons. So why so many more stops if you're not actually like recovering or getting any successful. All right. Well, let's, let's think about, let's think about the areas that you're in. Right.  And I know this is mean, but I wanted to tell you that this is my frustration with this debate is that earlier, you were very happy to throw out two, 10,000 numbers at me. And I just threw out one number at you. Now you're very interested in a more qualitative approach. Now you really want to context your life. Nope. Well, I gave you the wrong numbers and now you want to talk about the neighborhood. So if you want to talk about them, that's fine. I welcome that conversation, but, but I just don't point out what you've done here. We're going back to wrong numbers again in that more crimes happen in a certain jurisdiction. And as more crimes happen, statistically more crimes happen, what happens there? They send more police. So who's going to get stopped in Friskmore? But where they concentrate the police force? I mean, that's just basic numbers again. That's an example of systemic racism though. If we're, but it doesn't even make, it doesn't even make sense to send police to these areas to do stop and frisk because they're not recovering weapons any more likely than they would be off of white people. Where do you think that the majority of the police, if you have a, an area, I don't care if it's black, white, whatever, if you have an area that's higher crime, where are you going to send majority of your police force to the nice neighborhood where things aren't bad happening? Or are you going to send to the, the, the neighborhood where all the crimes happen? And then that will, that will, you know, divert your statistics. You know that. It doesn't matter. We're talking about it. It does matter.  No, you see, you're looking at it wrong. We're not sending all the cops to go target black people. We're sending them to the areas where the crime is. It's a secondary issue that it's all the black people committing the crime in that neighborhood. It seems to be the case that if, if you were truly concerned with recovering firearms from people or contraband, you'd probably be trying to stop white people as much as blacks and Hispanics. And I'm sorry, but by the raw... What if they're not there? I mean, what if they're not there? Are you... Okay, so I don't know where do you live? Right now I live in Los Angeles. Okay, so you live in Los Angeles. So like pick an area, right? That, you know, not a lot of crime happens. Right? Why would you send your cops where not a lot of crime happens to stop and frisk for weapons? Because your hit rate is the same. It's not, though. But it, that's the whole point. Was it at once? That's not what the study said. The study says Just looking at race, not geographic location. The study says that blacks and Hispanics were three times more likely to be stopped than white people, but they had similar rates of contraband and weapon recovery. Why would you waste so much time stopping these people so much more if your chances of getting anything out of them were just the same as any other? Because, because you're missing the point. It's not like they're sending them, there's, there's probably less white people to stop and brisk in the areas where they were stopping and brisking. Nobody's going to like, you know, what is it like? One of the nicer neighborhoods in New York and stopping and brisking people there. No, they're going to Harlem. Okay. And there's less white people there. And so when you look at the rate of recovery, okay, it's about the same. They would stop more because there's more in that concentrated in that area. Like that's a twisting of statistics. Why are you so interested in this here that you want to focus on the per capita of a particular area? But when we talk earlier about the number of people living in poverty, you're more concerned about the absolute number of white people versus the absolute. We're just talking about, no, we're talking about raw data here. Well, no, you're no longer. I'm just talking about raw data. You're not talking about raw data anymore. You're trying to contextualize things. I gave you raw data. I'm just talking about numbers. Okay. So then what about the numbers in the DOJ special report for the police use of non-fatal violence where black people were twice as likely to encounter violence if they've had more conducts with the police. If they're suspected of a crime, if any of these things happen, they're still like twice as likely as white people to be, to have a violent interaction with the police. They're likely to have, I mean, like I'm not going to give all the reasons that, like I'm magically, I don't know why. I don't think it's, I actually don't, but it's what I believe is not that the police are racist or how, or they're racist towards them. I think that it's behavior.  That's what I think. Okay, but I need that to be demonstrated. I don't really care what you think about it. No, you don't. Because the burden is on you to prove that the reason that those outcomes are happening is that it's racist. That's not, the burden is on me. You asked me what I think. Show me that it's racist. Just because it has a racist outcome doesn't mean it has a racist intent. So for the sixth time, I will repeat, I'm not saying that you need a racist intent. If it was a racist. You do that. Hold on, let's give them a chance to respond. We would be talking about racism, not structural or systemic racism. And even if we were just talking about racism, what about related to the 100 million traffic stops? Why are police officers pulling over black people less at night than they do in the morning? I mean, I don't, I actually don't know that study, but you told me about it. It's fine. He said it was from whatever dates. I'm not totally aware of that one, like the back of my hand. I'm saying to you that when you talk about, when the title list is, is the police force is semically racist, that, that to me means that the laws on the books are racist.  That's what we're talking about. Are there things that contribute in the police force to disparate outcomes of people? Yes, but you cannot call that racist. That's what you just can't. And that's what this whole debate is about. Is it racist or is it not? And so I guess we're not agreeing on the definition of systemic racism, but if you look it up, it's what I said. It's the racism embedded in the laws. Like Jim Crow laws, that would be an example of systemic racism. Well, no, that would just be racism. Right? Like, no, no, actually. We can agree to disagree, but that's not it. Okay, I guess so. What do we go, middle guy, James? Yeah, where do you want to go from there? And because we can go into Q and A if you're ready, unless there are any other, you could say sub facets of this broader conversation that you guys wanted to explore before we do that.  I don't know what you would do to fix it. So say you say that this systemic racism exists, right? And how would you get rid of it then? Um, well, I mean, it depends on what particular type of racism we're talking about. So if it seems like we have laws on the books that are leading to highly disproportionate outcomes and we can't really justify them, then I think that easing those laws would probably be a good idea. So for instance, even though you brought this up as an example, I personally don't think there's a big deal in different charging between crack and powder cocaine. I think that they do have different impacts on people. And I don't necessarily see a huge problem with charging these slightly differently. But when we look at things like marijuana, white people and black people have the reported usage rates of marijuana, roughly the same. But I think black people would charge like five times more for it. This seems to be like a highly racialized outcome. I'm not saying the law is racist, but it seems to be a highly racialized outcome that exists for absolutely no reason. And when we agree that black men going to jail ruins black families that don't have black fathers embedded in them anymore, which causes more black people to grow up and become criminals, that's in my opinion an example of like a systemically racist or a systemically unjust thing that can be eased dramatically by getting rid of one bad law. Okay. So I wouldn't disagree with you that I think that I actually, I don't believe that we should get rid of all drug laws. I'm not, you know, as long as it's not harming anybody else, you can put in your body whatever you want. Like that's what I think. But like I said, for me, that if it's considered a racist law, then it has to have a racist intent. There are all kinds of things that, you know, cause different outcomes, but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily systemically racist. So I would agree with you on that policy change. Sure.  I can stop you.  I just think a little bit more flexibility to do it. When we poured through all of the data on stop and frisk, and we looked at how all these interactions went, it seemed like cops were way more keen to stop and frisk with no probable cause. Black people or Hispanic people, but they didn't really get guns off of them any more than they did white people. So that idea that police officers need that ability to stop and frisk you without you being suspected of committing a crime is probably not like the best idea. So that would be an example of policy. Okay. Yeah. So that would be an example of policy. But here's an example too about like racism and things like that about cops and their intuition, I guess.  At night, you're crossing the street.  You're not, you're not crossing the street, right? Like that's just it is. It's not about, and this is where I think a lot of people like misconstrue things that would necessarily be considered racist. But like there are people that look like whether they are or they're not, they're up to no good. And so a police officer would say, hey, that guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks a certain way. It may not have anything to do with the color of his skin. It may have to do with how he dressed or what's had to see as on his arm. Like that's the thing. We're not just because you have a different racial outcome doesn't mean that systemically there's a racist intent or motivation line. Sure. And I agree with that. And for the seventh time, I will say that a systemically racist thing doesn't need a racist intention behind it. And I will very carefully draw a difference between this. It might be the case that every single time I'm walking down the street, I might see a black person and I might get scared and I might cross the street. It might be the case that I do every single time. But you know what? This is the United States of America.   That's your God-given right. It's the United States of America. Knock yourself out.   They exist all over. We're not going to get rid of all racist people, whatever. But a racist police officer that's performing like a terry stop or that's like actually trying to deprive you of your rights, whether temporarily through detainment or less than temporarily through imprisonment, that's something that demands a different and more special type of attention than an individual that might cross the street because they're scared of the person on the other side. I agree with that. But I'm saying just even in your case of the stop and brisk, there's no actual indication that skin color is the only determining force of why they stopped and brisked black people more than white people. You can't prove that. Well, but the reason- You can assume you can make as many assumptions as you want. But you can't prove that it wasn't because of how the guy was dressed and not because of the skin color. Like let's say that I pulled over 10 people that had blue sweatshirts on and I found one gun. But let's say that I pulled over like a thousand people that had a thousand people that had yellow sweatshirts on and I found like a hundred guns. Right? Like if you were to look at me pulling people over and you're saying, okay, hold on, you have a limited amount of resources. You pulled over 10 blue sweatshirt people. You got a gun off of just 10. You got one gun. You had to pull over a thousand of these yellow sweatshirt people. We got a hundred guns. Why wouldn't you pull over more blue sweatshirt people? Like what the fuck? Like you could just pull over like 20 more and you'd find two more guns. But like you're not- And that's the thing.  You're not pulling out. You're not taking the full data and looking at it and examining where we're at. What's the population size there? Like how many people were committing crimes is a high crime area. But it is a high crime area. Again, to be clear, Stop and Frisk is not about like people that are like actively like committing crimes or whatever. No, they're just people that look suspicious. I understand. Yeah, but people that look suspicious. But people that look suspicious, it happens to be three times Hispanic and black people. And if you find firearms or condiments on the same amount as white people, it seems like they don't- They probably don't look at suspicious. It's not the case. Because the cops are primarily sent to high crime areas, which happened to be in New York, black and Hispanic areas. Yeah, but if we're getting- If we're getting similar- You're going to run into less white people there. You're just going to run into less white people there.  Where are we going, James? Bye-bye. Anyway, if you want to go Q&A, let's do it. We'll jump into the Q&A as there are indeed a lot of questions. Do want to remind you folks our guests are linked in the description. If you have been- I mean, folks, you've been here already for an hour. You must be enjoying at least one person making their case. So I would encourage you to click on their links below in the description box as we really do appreciate our guests. And this first question coming in from Arcade Outpost says, police are anti-white, which is how you get Rotham, idle cops during riots, and lax slash severe prosecution, depending on politics of the arrested party. Wow. Bass and red pill. I mean, I attended the loss of the BLM and Antifa and Proud Boy riots undercover. I helped film them. And I will definitely say that- I would definitely say that if you look at, I guess just January 6th compared to all the riots I went through, there were way more people arrested and are still in prison without even, you know, having due process for a very long period of time. And there were plenty of people that were let go. I don't think that that's necessarily across the board. I think that just has to do with the current political condition as far as the- like the rioting, the BLM stuff all summer long. I mean, people were bailing them out, left and right, or they would just be, you know, taken in- like John Sullivan was one for the six. He was there and they- they arrested him and let him go right away. He turned out to be one of the worst perpetrators. And so now he's facing prison time. But, you know, I don't necessarily think that's the case all the time, but I just think that right now in this hyper politicized thing, if you're looking at the BLM riots versus the Capitol, yeah, they're targeting those political ideologies. I wouldn't necessarily say it's like white versus black, but it's more political ideology there. Just as a quick raw number for that, over 14,000 people have been arrested related to George Floyd protests, but- Right, but how many more George Floyd protests were there? There was one cap- there was one- So you're saying that the- you're saying that the capita is very relevant in this case then? I'm saying it before. I'm saying that, like, you know- How many- how many of the- how many of the George Floyd protests involved breaking into like U.S. federal buildings? Oh, I love that. Actually, not- as many people that have been arrested weren't actually breaking into them. There was only about- because I was there, there was- I worked there. There was only about, like, I would say maybe at max, 20 people that actually did violence and broke into the building. If you look and you look at other surveillance at the point where the police were run over, they let a lot of people in. A lot of people that they let in didn't break into anything. As a matter of fact, it's the United States Capitol. It's our place now. Granted, I don't think I actually even saw people go in- Wait, I actually even saw people go in and they didn't know that they were breaking in. Once those perimeters had been breached and there were people that were walking in, a lot of those people that just walked in got arrested. They weren't breaking into the Capitol. They thought that they were just, you know, protesting. I mean, how many protests have we seen in Nancy Pelosi's office? God forbid, AOC led one. So, you know, how many people were looting and rioting businesses that got away with it? How many people were taking over whole cities in Portland with armed people walking around chas? I mean, it's not even comparable, the level of how many people caused violence on one side to one incident. And you're going to say that the threshold is what works because it's, you know, the federal building. Well, I would say that it's worse that, you know, they're taking it to Congress and the people that represent them, the everybody else is just slamming their neighbors and hurting businesses in their own communities and affecting people who don't really have anything to do with it. Sure, so just as a real quick of that. So, I do agree that looting businesses and destroying those places are bad. That's why over 14,000 people have been arrested relating to the George Floyd marches, which is good. People were not led into the Capitol building. People violently broke down the doors. There's so much. No, there were people that it's real quick. So people violently broke down the doors. We can, we've all seen videos of this, of all the things. Yeah, there's a small amount. All the things that Trump will try to rewrite history. And I don't know why this is the one you would choose. We've all watched the videos. A lot of us happened to watch it on a live stream. Police. I was there, right there. Oh, in that case, you know less than we do then because you didn't see all the different videos. You only saw your one perspective. So I'm glad to help you understand. No, actually, if you go back and you look at any of the comprehensive videos that have been put together on how the Capitol building was breached by rioters, which it was, you can absolutely, I've seen so much about this. Have you not seen a video of cops letting them in? Letting them in. Say, okay, I don't agree with you, but go ahead. Do you, have you not seen those videos? The ones where they like open the gates or whatever? No, the actual door to the inside of the Capitol. Yes. So there is one. I don't need to see your video because I've probably already seen it. There's one where a black officer is opening and throwing, letting them through parts of the building. But that's because he was trying to prevent them from getting to and murdering other lawmakers by leading them into other parts of the Capitol. They weren't as compromised. First of all, not everybody had had no weapons. Number two, there were people that were with handcuffs and stuff. Number three, you can shake your eyes. All you want.  You'd be out there on the street screaming that these people should have been arrested, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  Have to move on.  Wait, let me just respond to this. She said a couple other like fake things. I'm sorry, I just have to count these points because it's so wrong. She's lying about so many things. Number one, it's not our place. It's not our place to just have any random insurrection or riot or walk into a Capitol building when there is an incredibly important political process going on. Not anybody to stroll through the Capitol building while there are actual lawmakers that are voting on this. I don't know if you think that every single publicly, technically the federal gold reserves are our money. That doesn't mean that anybody can just stroll in and take whatever they want. Slow down. Okay, number one. No, I can't slow down. You just said like 30 false things. Nancy Pelosi's office. There were any when you're comparable to people walking with handcuffs, scrolling through the federal building. I understand that they were going to find and kill Mike Pence. And then people that are looting businesses aren't getting away with it. A lot of them are being charged. If you think that there are individuals that are being charged in an unfair manner, then number one, you must be really upset with Trump because a lot of those federal judiciary picks are literally his. And two, you're welcome to go through any of the charges that you want to say. It's totally not even understanding my argument. This guy, I understand everything you're saying. We should probably move on. We really should. You can go through any of the charges you want to say, hey, this charge is unfair. This charge is unfair. If it's not, then I hope that they beat it in court. All right. I still don't. But I just want to make it clear for the record that if she's going to go, I'm going to go again, Jayne. Excuse me. But anybody that violated anything, that anybody that broke any property or actually physically barged into the Capitol should absolutely 1,000% be arrested. They were my coworkers and my friends in there. Okay. My boss was in there. My friends were inside at the time, actually in the Capitol. And so no, I think that that was horrendous. Do I think that there were a lot of people after the break-in happened that just filtered in, thought they were like sightseeing or something? You should see there was like an 82-year-old grandma. I do not think that people like that 82-year-old grandma should be in jail for six months without a trial. I'm sorry. If two people broke into your house and me and some friends wandered in afterwards, you just kind of look around in your living room. Would you be cool with that? I'm telling you the fact is that they did not know that they were breaking in. There were so many people there. All the people around, they had no idea what was going on. I'm telling you they did. It's amazing. They're quite easy to know. Let's move on to the next one. Okay, we're going to the next one. Thank you guys very much. Also, Bubblegum Gunn says, despite cops not being racist, quote, law enforcement has to be racist because they enforce based on stats and the stats show despite making up 13%, et cetera, et cetera. Do you guys get that? That's my argument. So I guess that's up to him. Yeah. There's going to be some disproportionate enforcement based on the crime stats. I think that's totally fair. If 40% of 20% of the population is committing, you know, like a large number of crime is going to be more enforcement there. But just because somebody's committing more crime than another group doesn't mean that you can infinitely like enforce hard and less people. That's why you just have to try to look at the data and contextualize everything. Like is the is the level of enforcement fair based on the percentage of these people you'd expect to be committing the crimes? I'm not going to say here and argue that it should be exactly the same across the board for every race, for every age. Like that would be ridiculous to do that. I would never make that argument. You got a Bubblegum Gunn says, police are to keep the classes in check, not safety.  I don't know what this guy's talking about. Next, Will Stewart says, Destiny, can you provide a study or evidence that says Asian immigrants are wealthy when they arrive? I didn't come with that number off hand. If you want to go and read on that, like immigration is something I've debated a ton of the past. Like that's like a, like nobody would contest that. Nobody that spent any amount of time in California or any place in the United States where Asian people immigrate to would ever contest that. It's like such an obvious no-brainer. But if you're welcome to go and look up the stats of like the wealth that immigrants have entering this country, you can do that on your own time.  Like this is just something that I never even would imagine I would need to provide evidence for. This is like me saying off hand that like men are more likely to do serious damage to women in a domestic violence situation versus women to men. And somebody would be like, can you source for that? Can you source for that?   I thought that would be obvious, but maybe it's not. So next time I'll come with those numbers prepared. Next up, Will Stewart says, he's coming after you, Dustin. He says, as someone who lived in Asia for 13 years, wealthy classes in Asia do not immigrate. They stay because they are wealthy. The lower middle class immigrates as they can't move classes easily in Asia. Wow, base. Well, if he's lived there for 13 years, I mean, he must be correct. And Jonathan Kelso says, actually, holy shit, if wealthy Asian people moved over to the United States, why wouldn't just all of their leaders move over? Maybe every single wealthy Asian person should move to the United States. I didn't actually even think of that. My bad.  That guy got me hard. Jonathan, I love your comment says, James, great job. Thanks for your kind words. It says, great job on keeping a neutral. Appreciate that. And then says, a reminder to your guests and fans of them or their position that the real winner of any debate is the audience who leaves having learned something new. So we appreciate that, Jonathan. Positivity, tremendous. And want to remind you that our guests are linked in the description. Raw Nakedness says, if surveys were unreliable and companies wouldn't or if surveys were unreliable, then ad companies wouldn't pay millions of dollars for them. Lisa, they're definitely helpful. But they are the least out of all of the, because the way people self-report, people aren't always truthful in the way they self-report. They report kind of what they want to say or what they think is the right answer. And so because that's the type of data you're collecting, yes, it can be useful for trends by and large, but it is not. It is absolutely the least solid method of collecting data. You got it. Quick add on to that, self-report victimization surveys are literally one of the most important ways that we gather data about crime. I don't know if anybody understands it or not, but that's just the fact of how we gather information related to crime. LTD, thanks for your question, says the word racism itself is the most loosely defined and subjective concept in history. Any brand of activism leveled against it as a concept will inevitably lead to a witch hunt that will never end. Yeah, I agree with that.  White privilege is one of those. Systemic racism is one of those.   You know what?   So you know what? I'm actually in favor of retiring most of these words because they don't do the job anymore.  And it just leads to a lot of problems. High five to that. I'll group you on that. There you go. Juicy and factionalist network says, have the debaters touched on the history of the quote, the war on drugs, unquote, laws that are currently on the books regarding racist intent? Um, Lisa brought this up earlier.  But I personally don't believe that the major driving force behind a lot of the war on drugs stuff was just people hating black people.   Nowadays, we look at a lot of the sentencing laws and we look at the three strike policies and we look at the 93 crime bill and we just see a bunch of racism, racism, racism. But at the time in the 90s, that's not how people saw it, especially people in the black community.   That's how I do it, at least in terms of the 93 crime bill and the war on drugs is like part of this. You got it. And then sunflower says, Destiny, if the quote hit rate in stop and frisk was heavily skewed towards the black and Hispanic people, would it still be systemic racism? Good question. Was that to me or? Yeah, yeah. Was that the question was if the crime rates are skewed towards them? I can read verbatim. They said, quote, if the hit rate, quote unquote, in stop and frisk was heavily skewed towards the black and Hispanic people, would it still be systemic racism? No, if the hit rate was higher than it makes sense. So this is a complicated math to explain, but if you have a 10% hit rate between three different groups of people, then you'd expect to try to hit these groups of people in equal numbers. So if I think I've got a 10% chance of finding some legal shit, I'm probably going to go after these groups roughly evenly. If there's like a 50% hit rate on certain groups of people, I would expect to hit them more. When you enact something like stop and frisk, you're expecting that there's going to be a higher hit rate. That's why your police officers need to be able to make these Terry stops if they have a reasonable suspicion. Not probable cause is a reasonable suspicion. They should be able to stop people and you would expect that they get higher hit rates if you're relying on their intuition. But when we look at the data behind stop and frisk, it seems like that's not what happened.  That's how it ended up playing out. You got an NM. Thanks for your says. Get AJW will ask him and Harley Quinn says, Lisa, which peer review studies relating to the topic are biased, quote unquote, as you said earlier.  I don't, there's no one on the top of my head that I'm like picking out. I can't think of like, you know, there's been a lots of studies that have been done. I mean, with all kinds of, with all kinds of, all kinds of like drug companies and look at the sugar studies they've done. And, you know, it was influenced by lobbyists and things like that. I mean, there's all kinds of studies that have been influenced by external factors where they manipulate data. And the best thing, then that's why I think the best thing to do is look at raw data. I mean, just look at sugar consumption and how the tobacco industry or any other of these other industries. I mean, it happens across the board where people, you know, take data and they manipulate it in a study to what they want. And then they peer review it and it's like, Hey, it's fine. Like that's not really how it works. So it's better to take raw data and all. Like there's also like line bio mission and commission. And so sometimes they will take the data and they'll leave out a part that they found or they'll, you know, leave out a couple parts and then they'll write the study, not listing all the information that you have. So when I see it, like when I'm talking about looking at studies, I want to know what all the data was. I want to see the raw data and see which ones they cherry picked to write the analysis of the data. You got it. And then thanks for this question from Stacy Flores. This is great job, girl. You're crowned the winner. Thanks, Destiny. Hope you learned something. Enjoy the debate. Okay, gosh. I'm learning, don't worry. The raw nakedness says, does Lisa still think that political affiliation correlates with physical attractiveness? Oh, that's, I didn't say that. I just retreated somebody who is being nice. That's all. So that's not funny, but no, I actually don't. I don't think so. Next up, Chris Avalone. Good to see you. It says Destiny. Oh, he hates me. Says Destiny, Cambridge, and the top in parentheses. Definition of systemic racism only requires racist results, not intent. Okay, no. Am I supposed to respond to that? But I mean, that's clearly his position is clearly not mine, so. Next up, JC93013 says, Destiny opinion on upcoming God of War. I didn't even play the last one, so I have no idea. They want to know what your thoughts are. How optimistic you are about the new God of War? I'm somewhat optimistic. Having not played the last one and having not even heard of this one. I'll go with that one, okay? You got it. Peabards. Peabards, appreciate your question. It says question for Destiny with the current scare campaigns against CRT. Do you see any other solutions to reform? Seems like education would be the best starting point. I want to answer this one. Would education be the best starting point to counter the systemic injustices? Is that what you're saying? I guess.  Oh, I think they mean with everybody trying to, with some people trying to, they're saying scare people about CRT to try to say that CRT is dangerous and look out. They're saying, do you see any solutions?  Real quick though, if anybody does want to look at a study that was successful from Libya, Innovation for Poverty Action did a CBT and cash donations one in Libya. That was very interesting. It would be a really good, I think, way to start tackling this problem. So there's that. You got it. Thank you very much. And Tyler Cates says, have Lisa explained the difference between raw data, studies and her opinions of raw data? All right. So all I'm saying is if you, a lot of times these studies, like I said before, they admit or they omit or they hyper focus in on some forms of the data. And that's why I'm just saying that with the studies, you have with any study that you read, the best thing to do is to ask for, which they usually should provide all of the raw data to make sure that when you're looking at the studies, that some portion wasn't omitted or were not skewed to mean something else. And so all I'm saying is that, like, look at the raw data and then make sure that you're putting all the pieces in. And so that's why I was telling you before earlier, like when you're looking at the stop and frisk, like what neighborhood did they happen? What is the data on how many people were in a certain area? What was the demographics of that area? That's all numbers that should be taken into account and just can't say that, like, okay, well, that's the hip rate. You have to get all of the raw data and make sure that it's being interpreted correctly. You got it. Ann, thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Rumpley DePew says, destiny saying that whites and blacks smoke, pot and use drugs at similar rate, but that more blacks are in prison is a bad argument. And they say people are rarely in prison for smoking pot and incarceration is from selling and Rico charges. That's a really cool start. I don't, well, if he says it's a bad point, then I guess I'm just defeated. Congratulations. This one jumping, or this one coming in from Long Nights YouTube and says, there are factions in many police departments whose sole purpose is to stop and kill black and Hispanic people. Gangs, in fact, in LA, they are called banditos. I see that, right? Like Doritos. All right, so what that person is saying, like, these gangs are, you know, black or Hispanic and the police target them. Well, they don't target them because of the color of their skin. They target them because they're in a gang and they're doing criminal activity.  They're doing it because they're in these gangs. Since you live in Los Angeles, Stephen, is banditos a word that people use there?    So less people are being stopped in prison than your neighborhood then? Yeah, probably, yeah. Probably, okay. Tyler Kate says, my question from before, please. I must have missed that. Oh, well, let's see. Oh, okay, we got that one. Next up, thanks for your question. Rumpley Depew says, destiny went full vosh. Never go full vosh. Then Stephen Michael says, racism has to be excluded from federal laws for decades. Obviously, how can you lower police presence in these cities and raise people of color, quality of life with criminality, rapidly inclining without them? Are you asking like, what do you do when there's like a disproportionate, like race of people committing crimes or something? Oh, I think they're saying, if you remove police presence, if you start to reduce it in communities of people.  And every city that tried to reduce, nobody wants the police to be gone.   Most of the ideas that people argue for in relation to the police require an increase of funding. So if you want more training, if you want body cams, if you want whatever mental health, you need more funding for that. Yeah, I don't, people that argue that should have brain dead or they're not brain dead. Actually, they just, they don't have to live in places where they ever need police to be called to. So, correct. I agree, Destiny. You got it. Juicy, several here, several more here. Let me just catch up and find this last one. Monolithic ethos says blacks and Latinos are more likely to smoke cannabis outside or in public than whites. Also, great job, Lisa. Thank you. I think that's maybe why, I think they're trying to imply, maybe you already understood it, Steven, what they're getting at. Yeah, the idea is that there are these like other types of causative factors for white, so like maybe black people and white people smoke it at the same rate, but black people smoke it more. Found the opener in the car. I don't know if that's true, but even if I were to say that was the case, that it was true, that's still an argument for getting rid of those crimes because I think anything related to weed is bullshit.  I just don't see weed as being a thing that needs to be made illegal in the United States. Gotcha, and a long story short says, how does this guy, I assume they mean you, Steven, define the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? How do I define the Kavanaugh hearings? Yeah, maybe they're just, what's your take on them? Those happened a long time ago. They were people that, was it the Elizabeth woman that came forward with the accusations relating to the impropriety in high school or college? That was a long time.  I don't know what he's asking me.  Maybe, I don't know. I don't think we got all the hearings out of that that maybe we would have otherwise because I think there were a lot of blocks put in place to keep that from happening, but I don't really think about it or care about it much anymore. Gotcha, and they also said, I think it's for you Lisa said, people forced themselves, got into the Capitol and got into the chambers during in session. Well, correct. And I think that those people should be arrested. There were those who did, but you have to understand that there was like a mass crowd of lots of people. And when they saw, after people had broken into these certain doors, like there's lots of doors, like there was one on the Senate side, there was one on the South side, the North side. And certain doors, there was a lot of unrest. Other places, there were the cops who did not, to their defense, like they didn't have enough manpower and they didn't want to get trampled. So instead of trying to push them and lock them out, they opened the doors and you get like the first hundred people in there and they're like, oh, they're letting us in. We're allowed to protest. And there's been also like, like tapes and things like that. Like I don't agree with what you're doing, but come on in. Like there, you can see that there's been some evidence that not all the people understood that it was a legit by the time that they got there, because he wasn't even done speaking when the break-in started. But by the time he was done speaking, which is 20 minute walk from the ellipse, those people didn't know that that happened originally. And so, the first barrier was a fence. And then that was down. And then they went up and then they went up again. So there was lots of people that didn't understand that it was an actual break-in. And there's only so many people that could physically do damage anyway. So the people that did damage should absolutely be arrested. I mean, there was no reason for that. No, I never condoned violence. I think it's terrible, 100% against that. I mean, like I said, it was my friends and coworkers in that building. I think it was horrendous. But there's also some people who, you know, got caught up in things. Now, do I think that they should probably have a misdemeanor charge? Sure. Do I think that they should be held in prison for months? Probably not. There's a skit where Dave Chappelle is talking about his white friend Chip. And his friend is drunk. He's high. They're driving down the street. And they get pulled over by the cops. And Chip is like, watch this.  And Dave is scared shitless. Like, oh, fuck, what are you going to do? So then the cop comes to the window and Chip goes, I didn't know I couldn't do that. And he gets off scot-free. That was like the, that version of that story is what I just heard in terms of, well, they walked into the broken and capital building. They had no idea they couldn't be there.  And people were crazy, but they didn't know. That's just very funny to me. I'm sorry. I'm not saying that ignorance for laws is an excuse because clearly I'm just saying that the amount of time that people have been held that have been arrested for the level of what they have done is completely astronomically different compared to what happened with the BLM rights and how they have been turned out and how politicians have been saying they're going to bail the mountain. And there was funds set up for them. You can't say that that's the same as what's happening. You just can't. They're, it is, if they brought it to a higher level for political optics than anything else.  But if what happened on January 6th would have been Antifa, I legitimately think we would be in civil war right now. I think that assuming Republicans could get to their gun safes and carry their rifles outside without dropping dead from heart attacks because of diabetes or whatever, I legitimately think we would be in civil war. That's how upset all the people on the right would be over Antifa breaking into the capital building.  I would bet my life on it. And I know. You don't think that white Trump supporters didn't care that, that BLM and Antifa were like, trashing their cities over and over again all summer long? They did care. That's why there were 14,000 arrests related to it. Okay, but you're, but I think that people would be like, MAGA people would be more up in arms about your neighborhood, your own city, you know, Walnut Street in Philadelphia, getting burned down. Then they would care about the capital. A lot of them didn't have to worry about it because a lot of the people that went to those riots probably didn't live in cities with any black people in any way. So they didn't have to worry about any riots or marches. I mean, that's not even remotely true. My brother and his sister were, my brother and my sister-in-law were hiding their house because they were bombing ATMs on Walnut Street.  I mean, that's not true at all. Not even remotely true. Do you don't even, I guess you don't understand the demographics of center city, but where they were writing- I understand the demographics of the United States very well. And rural communities tend to go far more red than metropolitan communities. You don't even disagree with this. I don't know why you're arguing with me on this point. There are way more Republicans- I'm talking about Santa City, Philadelphia. Philadelphia is very large and sprawling. We're talking about this. You're saying no white people live there. That's absolute, where they ride into Philadelphia, absolutely 100% white people live there. Let me amend my statement.   That's all I was saying. If you really want to disagree with that, we can look at the- You know, I'm willing- Yeah, okay. Because I'm sure that even you retweeted a map of, this is Trump's America, where 95% of the area is red, and that's because in rural areas there are far more Republicans than Democrats. Correct, I agree with that. I didn't think that would be there. Okay, I don't- That's not an issue. I'm saying- You said white people don't live there. That's not true. You should have said white Republicans, maybe. And then that would have been true. Well, my guess is white, based on what I've seen of white Democrats, they probably welcome the violence because they bow down and worship everything Bieland does anyway. So I'm guessing that people that are more likely to complain probably weren't generally in those communities. But I'm speaking in generalities. It might be the case. I don't know about your brother and sister. Maybe they're Republicans, and they lived in a cosmopolitan area, or a non-cosmopolitan area that had Bieland marches. I'm sorry for not being able to speak to those lived experiences, okay? I'm just saying. They're still- They're still there. Next up, Harley Quinn says, Destiny, what about the link between early marijuana laws and Mexican immigration that you forgot to mention? What about- Can you repeat that? You said, Destiny, what about the link between early marijuana laws and Mexican immigration that you forgot to mention? I didn't forget to mention. I just don't know anything about it. I didn't come here to argue about early marijuana laws. Is the implication that they were pasted because of Mexican people? Or am I- Related to that. I think that might be- So Factionalist Network also says, Why assess the intent of the war on drugs based on the 93 crime bill? Why not the earlier legislation from the 70s? For the eighth time, when I talk about systemic racism, I'm not looking at the intentionality of any legislation being crafted. And I focus on the 93 crime bill because that's like the most familiar piece of legislation that I know about and I'm more familiar with the time period on that. Starting the war on drugs back in the 70s and all that, I'm not as familiar about all the conditions of the time there. It's not something I prepared for. I could go and read more on it, but I don't know- I'm not confident enough about anything that error to tell you why people passed the laws that they did then. You got it. And Tabor Snapping says, DGG wants to know how tall are you, Lisa? Who is DGG? Who that is, but I'm 5'11". I didn't hear the first part. I don't know who that person is, but I'm 5'11". Gotcha. Do you even know who DGG is? Is that one of your friends? I think it's something that gets spammed a lot on Twitch. It might come from XQC's community. I don't know what it means. Amazing. Tyler Kates, thanks for your question. And Stacy Flores, thanks for your great points on the War on Drugs Destiny.  And Anamorphic Mind, poor Destiny. Anamorphic Mind says, sorry, Destiny. Vosch won this debate. And John Leakes thinks your question says, Destiny, why do you go so hard against lefties, but hold back against righties, especially when they're conservative women like Lauren Southern and Lisa? I think that I go hard enough on the people that I need to go hard on. I think I've been nice to plenty of people on the left. I don't know why people think I'm only mean to people on the left, but that guy sounds like an asthmatic on me. Next up, Long Nights YouTube and says, what I am saying is that Banditos are the police. This is a huge investigation right now. They're brutalizing Black and Hispanic people. It's a police gang.  We need to look into that immediately. Man, he doubled. It sounds like he cares a lot. I don't know. I don't think either of us know anything about the Banditos or whatever. I don't.  Sounds like a horrible thing. I hope they address that particular issue that you care a lot about, young sir or ma'am. Manny, 004 says, sorry, Destiny, but Sid from Ice Age won this debate. And then Will Stewart says, Destiny, I'd love to talk to you about the misnomer of Asian immigrants being quote unquote wealthy. I think the concept is based in Western superiority that assumes wealthy Asians find value in Western life. Wow. I'll make sure to head over to the Habba forums afterwards and find that guy. Okay. Juicy and let me see if we've got any last ones. You've got Tyler Kate. Thanks for your question says, can Lisa count the stars on that flag without turning her head? I don't know. Is there a flag? I don't even see it. It's the Betsy Ross flag. Wow. Next, bubblegum gun says Lisa. Let's see. Pretty and Destiny not. Lisa, let me slide into your DMs. Nasty guy. Long night, YouTube and says they blasted tear gas at BLM in front of what church for Trump? BLM and Antifa would have gotten murdered if they stormed the Capitol. This is a fact. They had tear gas at the Capitol. Plenty of it. They explicitly did not. That's why they had to wait like five hours for it to be brought in. If you didn't notice like Richie McGinnis had, who was a reporter had tear gas all in his face. The people that I actually got some of their footage from was this elderly couple who were walking downstairs because he was so heavily tear gas. I said, were you inside? He said, yes. And I got my footage from them. I mean, there were plenty of people that were extraordinarily tear gas over and over again. Maybe tear gas by the rioters themselves. But I mean like. No, not through. You can listen to the recordings of the police calling for backup. You can go and watch all the footage. I don't know what you watched, but initially the police were not prepared to deal. I was watching them spray it on my friend James who was wearing a face mask. Police were not prepared for that. Pepper spray maybe, but not tear gas. That that that riot gear wasn't brought in until well after that, well after the invasion. Initial break was at like around one o'clock, I believe. And then it was brought in later, but it was absolutely deployed when they had it. And afterwards, yes. Afterwards pepper spray and tear gas guys, there was constant protest with antifa over and over and over again for multiple days at a time in Washington, D.C. So that they got to be prepared when it was finally was deployed after they burnt the church down. The tear gas was deployed the next day. So let's not let's not get into semantics here. It's not about some answers. It's about making sure we know what happened and antifa didn't break into the Capitol. This one from Stacy Flores. Down the church across on the White House. Stacy Flores says, Destiny, don't you remember lefties storming the building chasing down lawmakers, even stopping Kavanaugh hearings? No one shot or arrested. Correct. I don't remember watching. I'm sure there probably were some protesters, but I don't remember seeing riots of massive amounts of lefties storming the building saying they were going to kill lawmakers. There might have been a few. Well, they actually secured up, they glued up or something on building and at least building, I think it was, in Portland tried to set it on fire and none of them got it stormed or there was no whatever you're calling for destiny. Like it doesn't happen. And that was BLM and Antifa. If they set a police building on fire, they should probably be held accountable for it. With police in it, they tried to set them on fire with them in it. Yeah. Well, they should probably held accountable for it. You didn't hear about that because it's not mainstream media news, but that's okay. Probably did hear about that. I've covered a lot related to the riots. I'm not in favor of any of them. I'm not either. Well, except for the January 6th ones. No, I just said that there are certain people that shouldn't be imprisoned for the amount of time that they have and without even having a hearing yet. The January 6th, like breaching of the Capitol, that was a bad... I believe it was a riot and I believe it was wrong. Absolutely. And I never, I never disputed that. Ever. That's good. Okay. That's my question. Juicy, this one coming in from Ariel Fernandez says, Lisa, who is the president of the USA? Oh my God. Biden.  He's making decisions. He's in the office. He got sworn in. I watched it. Next. I think it's like, isn't it like 50% of Republicans think that Trump won the election actually? Well, there's a difference between thinking that there is election interference and then denying that President Biden is President Biden at this moment in time.  Do you think that more Americans voted for Trump or for Biden? We're not getting into this because this is just going to go down a rabbit hole. Can we just skip to the next one? Well, so the answer is Trump, but okay. This one coming in from Demian Sims says, Destiny, please address Lisa's argument or quote unquote per capita argument she made about whites getting arrested more often. It was the 10,000. I don't know the context for those numbers. 10,000 white crimes and four white people are killed versus 10,000 crimes and basic commerce. Yeah, but I don't, I can't, I don't so intelligent people don't just take one number like that and try to draw any conclusions. I don't know if the types of crimes are similar. I don't know if this is one study or a meta analysis or it's a study review. Yeah, I have no idea. Like I need way more context for the types of crimes and the types of interactions we're talking about. I'll send you some FBI stats and I'll send them over to you. I don't care about FBI stats. I ignore things that when people send me FBI stats, I want to see the context for these numbers so that I understand what they mean. I'm not going to pour through millions of different data points to try to draw my own conclusion. I'm not getting paid to do that. I'm not a professional researcher. Okay. Gotcha. Ann, let me just check for any last questions. Do you want to remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description and we certainly do appreciate them, folks. And so we do want to encourage you to show them some love. You can click on those links down below. And with that, we are going to let them go. As their time is valuable, I want to say thanks so much, Lisa and Stephen. It has been a true pleasure to have you on for a very juicy debate tonight. Thanks, guys. Thanks for having me. Yeah, thanks for the conversation. 100%. I will be back in just a moment, folks, with updates on upcoming debates. Stick around for that. Grilled about another juicy debate. That was absolutely amazing. We really do appreciate our guest's phenomenal debate. It really was tremendous. So I want to say our guests are linked in the description and we really do appreciate them for real. So I want to remind you folks, as always, to be your regular friendly selves, attacking the arguments instead of the person. And I want to let you know, folks, we're glad you were here.  We are glad you were here. Very fun stuff coming up in particular. You guys, we are pumped. This is tomorrow. It is going to be a juicy one. But I have to say, I can't help but express. Part of the enjoyment of something in life, folks, is the expression of that enjoyment. You know, for example, people when they write poems or songs about their lover, they're like, oh, it's like so marvelous and beautiful and they tell the world about the person they love. It's like that with these debates. I am so excited about how fun that debate was. We hope both Steven and Lisa had a great time here. And we hope you in the chat had a great time here. I do want to greet you and say hello before I talk about upcoming debates. Nugget Man, good to see you, as well as Matthew Samard. And Stettler, thanks for being with us, as well as AA and Davos. Holdos, thanks for dropping in. And Domo, glad you're here, as well as Office Computer 888, pumped you were with us. Will Stewart, good to see you.  Says, very amazing. I couldn't agree more. OA also says, amazing. Nugget Man, good to see you. And General Balzac were pumped. You made it. As well as Phant Horing, thanks for dropping in. Lexington, we are glad you were here. And LTD 9392, thanks for dropping in. And Bob Sadler, we are glad you're with us. NMA 811, pumped you, dropped in. And Mark Reed, good to see you. Thanks for saving the day with that debate with Nephilim Free the other night. Long Nights, YouTube, been good to see you. Says, I had a $10 question that wasn't asked, my friend. Whoa, I'm so sorry for real. I believe you, though. And so what I'd like you to do is, if you can email me at moderndaydebate at gmail.com, I am serious about if somebody sends in a super chat and I miss it, I actually just want to send you the money back. So like, whether it be Venmo or PayPal, we'll figure something else out. Or we can also, if you prefer, we can do a, like, pay your super chat forward. We're in a future debate. We'll read your question in the chat, as if it were a super chat in that future debate. And so I do, I really do apologize. I do try to make sure I get every question and sometimes my eyes just jump in the list. Master QT1, thanks for dropping in, as well as Will Matto, thanks for dropping in. Shoo, DGG, you guys have to tell me what DGG means. I'm, I mean, come on, fellow teenagers. Remind me, I just can't remember it. I've learned at some point, at some point in the past, I'm teasing, I've never learned it. Ron, it's good to see you. And Duncan, donuts, thanks for dropping in. Says Nephilim Free, won this one. G-Man, won this one as well. You guys, we haven't seen G-Man in so long. I can't wait to, we gotta get G-Man back on. Andrew Steinmetz, thanks for coming here. We're glad that you are here. And Michael Sandel, thanks for dropping in. As well as Steve and Michael, we're glad you're here. Eric W, good to see you. Says Juicy, couldn't agree more. Very Juicy, the most Juicy. Demian Sims, we're glad you're here as well. And Nicky, thanks for dropping in. As well as La Tornado and Sideshow Nav, thanks for coming by. Mouthfeel, we're glad you are with us. Glad you dropped in. And then Chris Videra, thanks for coming by. As well as, let's see. Hi, says Amazing. I couldn't agree more. And OA, glad you came by. Chrome Wizard, so sorry I missed your question. I think we wrapped up just as you asked it was, you said, for Lisa, what does she think about the ramifications of slavery, abolishment in the U.S. and how it displaced tons of Africans into an oppressive country? So sorry that I think we wrapped up just as you sent it in as we wrapped up kind of quick as we do want to respect our time, the time of the debaters. And so yeah, really fun though tonight. You guys, honestly, really enjoyable debate. And John, Leox, thanks for dropping in. Mouthfeel, we're glad you're here. And Demian Sims, MasterQT1 and Lexington Pumpter. Pardon me, Pumpter with us. I had such a big dinner. It was a tremendous dinner. But 2-0-5-0-0, thanks for coming by. And Hacks, good to see you there. And Ceasefolder, I'm sorry, Creasefold. We are glad you were with us. Super K-Pill, amazing. Glad you were with us. Folks, if you haven't already, hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up in the future that I'm about to tell you about. We are working on a big panel, which is going to consist of, this is the initial plans. We are indeed asking actual socialist justice warrior, actual justice warrior, Sean Fitzgerald. We are going to ask, long day, forgive me. Long day, we are going to have Sean and we're going to have him hopefully come back as a part of this four-person panel. It's going to be a lot of fun. And is DGG, DGG is Destiny's website slash chat slash community. Oh, I didn't know that. How embarrassing. But chat, Ingram, we're glad you are with us. And chats move fast on me. Long Nights, YouTube says, pay it forward. I am always here. Thanks, Long Nights, YouTube. For real, let me know. Just say, hey, James, remember the other night you forgot my super chat. And tomorrow may be a great day to ask your question. Taking the shades off, the sweet blue rays. So my friends, very exciting tomorrow. This is going to be a big one. Let me show you. You might be thinking, James, what do you mean? What do you mean that there's going to be something big tomorrow?  In the English-speaking world, Graham Oppie, so in terms of like academia, a lot of people are, you know, you probably know this in a way. There are some academics that it's like, you don't know them unless you're involved in the, like that academic field. I can tell you that Graham Oppie is big time. So Graham Oppie is an atheist philosopher pictured right here. And he is going to be debating Dr. Liz Jackson. They're both, I don't know where, I've got to figure out where Graham Oppie got his doctorate, but he is a world-class philosopher and Liz is a very strong philosopher. She got her PhD in philosophy at Notre Dame. They're going to be debating Pascal's wager tomorrow night. That is like, honestly, I am, I told Liz I said, I was like, I bet this will be our, maybe like most liked in terms of the like to dislike ratio. I was like, this might be the most liked debate we've had in quite a while. And the reason being, so you know, I am, by the way, folks hit that like if you haven't already, we have 307 people watching and we have 218 likes. That's good. Don't get me wrong. I am excited about that. However, believe me, we can get to 250 easily, my dear friends. So hit that like button to support the channel. And you might be wondering really, James, I'm bothered. There's 12 dislikes. That is just because we have 12 Australian viewers who hit the like button and who are watching us live. So thanks so much for that support from our friends in Australia. We appreciate that. But let's where Nato says, let's see. Rumpley to Pew, thanks for your questions or super chat says, thanks for what you do and what you provide, James. Tomorrow should be awesome. Thanks so much, Rumpley to Pew. That seriously means a lot. It's super encouraging. I really do appreciate that. And I completely agree. Tomorrow will be amazing. Seriously, we're pumped. German V says the four person panel includes actual Justice Warrior and who are the other three? It's still being decided. I am mulling over potential people. I suspect because I don't think we've had a panel in which simultaneously you had Sean and Vosh. Now I know that Sean and Vosh have crossed swords before, but I don't think we've gotten to have them crossed swords here on Moderator Bait in any way, shape, or form. And so we're excited. That's going to be awesome. Sea Bears Life, thanks for dropping in. And then Kill-A-Doggy won. Good to see you again, Bob Sadler. Glad to see you. And then My Name, My Last Name. Thanks for dropping in. I see you there in chat. Chronic Tim, thanks so much for coming by. Also, Hannah Anderson, thanks for your support in the old chat there. As it is true, folks, we are excited about the future and your support means so much. Even giving the video a like gives us a ton of support. Frankly, even being here, we want to thank you because it does. It actually really does. No joke. Just by being here, it actually does help the channel. It's true. One example. I mean, one, it makes it more fun. The more the merrier. We enjoy it when it's a big show, when it's a big audience like tonight. That was a good one. But also, the algorithm. No joke. I mean, that's the funny thing is, because sometimes we have haters here, and people say, James, you think that there is a hater under every rock? And I say, no, no, no, no. I think there are two haters under every rock. We have haters here sometimes, and don't get me wrong. Don't worry, folks. The haters never get me down. They motivate me. They get me excited. There are some people in life, believe me, friends, and you've learned this yourselves. There are some people in life when you tell them, like, you can't do this, or you're doing a bad job, or whatever. Most people probably do get discouraged. I think that's actually true. But there are some people that actually get more motivated, and they become more determined. I actually am pleased when we have haters, because for me, I'm like, I'm going to prove you wrong, and it's going to feel so good. As we are determined to fulfill the vision, to strive to carry out our goal, which is in accordance with our values of giving everybody their fair shot to make their case on a level playing field, no matter what walk of life they are from. And beyond a shadow of a doubt, we are going to fulfill that, folks. We have big plans for the future. We're excited. I am honestly overwhelmed with thankfulness that we just recently hit 50,000 subscribers. Super encouraging. We are pumped about that. And this is just us getting warmed up. Believe me, folks, we have big plans. I have actually reached out to somebody and gotten a response, so I'm excited that we may have them back on. Because it's been a while. That's going to be a juicy one. But we've also got big plans for big debates this winter. You might be thinking like, James, why the winter? Like, why not now? Well, don't worry. We do have big debates coming up in the near future. However, we are planning on waiting just a little bit longer for purposes of planning for one thing. But also, because some of these things that we're wanting to put together, they're going to be big. Like, no joke. I think you're going to be like, okay, like we're taking it to the next level, huh, James? I'm talking in-person debates and I'm talking high-profile in-person debates. No joke. We really are. We've been looking at it. We've been kind of, we're looking at like, okay, how are we going to make this work? Where are we going to do it? How are we going to do it? We're going to make it work. We are absolutely determined. We plan on throwing some gigantic Hail Marys this winter. I'm serious.  It's so hot. That's forever. Believe me, it'll be here before you know it. And it's going to be absolutely epic. So do want to encourage you though. It's absolutely true. If you haven't noticed yet, we are pumped that we have memberships now. So if you see those dank emoticons in chat, such as nasty and juicy, those are from Topazul who, I'm sorry Topazul. I know that you don't like me calling you out like this, but I can't help it. Topazul, we appreciate it so much for all the work you do. Want to give a huge thank you as well to Amy, who's been doing a fantastic job moderating lately. Right now it's been a little bit hard for me to moderate as often as usual. And I'm so thankful for Amy stepping in to help out because I have a comprehensive exam this fall. This is like the big one. This is the one that is like, are you an expert in your field? It's usually in our program, you prepare for it for six months and then you take the exam. And if you don't get it, guess what? You take another six months or so to prepare and try to take it again and that's your last shot. I mean, so this is a, it is frankly a little bit of high pressure situation as this is for me to become a candidate. And so very exciting stuff, folks. It's, you could say, frankly, like maybe, I mean, the dissertation is the classic greatest landmark, you know, milestone of the doctorate. However, the comprehensive exam is like a big part of it as well. So this is really important for me to basically you guys, I am studying so much. I have like, oh my gosh, it's amazing how many papers I've gone through in the last like eight weeks. It seriously, it's crazy. And so, but yes, oh, that's right. That's why you guys are putting the nasty in the chat. You guys are funny. Oh, that's right. So in Hacks says, I'm like a seagull. You fed me once, you'll never get rid of me now. That's funny. We're glad to see you in Hacks. And we also want to say in addition, folks, we are so thankful for our moderators in chat, both because they're doing a great job of sifting out anything. You guys, you know the rules. As usual, we don't want any hate speech here. Anything that's where you're trying to like put a person's group down and stuff like that is not what we want. And the other thing too is, I'm like, you know what? Some people are like, oh, it's about free speech. And it's like, well, you know, it's also about being practical in the sense that this is YouTube's platform. We follow the rules or we're not on YouTube anymore. And I can tell you from seeing it happen, namely seeing channels get booted from the platform. It is way harder to grow when you're off of YouTube. There's just no doubt about it. Now people can find you again. I don't deny that. But we are remaining on YouTube and we are going to grow significantly. And so if people are like wanting to use hate speech in the chat, I would say for one, I don't have time to argue with people who are like, oh, use free speech. Don't get me wrong. I'm actually very, like I'm a pretty strong free speech type of person. But in terms of YouTube, like we've got to play by the rules if we want to be practical. And you could say shrewd in terms of reaching our goals of growing. And so don't get me wrong. I'm all for free speech. But the ones who are like, they like want us to, I just wonder is like, how do I say this nicely? I worry that there's something there's just no other way to say it. But when I see people in chat who are like, oh, it's about free speech, James.  You should let people say that in chat. And then I'm like, how do I say this? Is there a way to say it nicely? I just wonder about their reasoning skills. That's a nice way to put it. And such that I think I'm like, like you want me to, yes, you want me to break the terms of service with YouTube because you a stranger are like trying to push me into it where it's like, where it could plausibly get us booted from the platform that's helped us get to 50,000 in less than three years. Like that just doesn't make sense. So anyway, when I see some of the people who are like, and that's the funny thing too, is like, they think we'll come back to that. The idea is moderators. Thank you. Perpetually annoyed would be an example as well as Brian Stevens. Thanks so much. Hannah Anderson, Riley S. Sadie Marie Jones as well as let's see Hannah Anderson and General Balzac Sideshow Nav who's done a tremendous amount of work getting all the moderators, you could say standardized and on the same page. We appreciate that so much. And so thank you so much to all of our moderators who do a fantastic job. And also thanks so much for helping out with Amy in terms of the questions when Amy has been moderating and you guys are like super helpful I just have to say thank you. You guys are always super helpful getting all the questions for Amy into that Google doc. And I appreciate that so much. You guys, it takes so much like weight off of my shoulders where I'm like, oh, or is everything going to go okay without me? Like it's like so helpful. So thank you moderators. I seriously appreciate you. And then let's see. Farron Salas, Salas, good to see you. Guzzlers of hatred. I know it's true. There are some out there, but don't worry folks. The funny thing is all the people who sometimes we see on Twitter, you know, because Twitter is like, you guys, I hate to say it, but Twitter, like there's some problems on Twitter. There are some problems on other places. I don't deny that, but Twitter has, I think frankly, got a lot more. And so, but here's the ironic thing. Seppo 8383 thanks for coming by. We're glad you dropped in. And just want to mention you there in the old chat. I see you there. But also sometimes on Twitter when people are like, oh, modern day debate, how dare you host this topic or host this person? You're platforming this person. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And you notice, I don't know if you guys, if you ever watch or you probably don't watch our Twitter because we get nobody's, nobody seems to engage with our Twitter. But nonetheless, I never hit back. And you're like, well, that's kind of weird. James, are you kind of just lying down for them? Not exactly. And what I mean by that is I've seen it. Like I've actually like looked in the YouTube Creator Studio, you can see like where the influx of views and things like that are coming from, as well as like certain videos. And I see when people throw a tantrum on Twitter about us and they're like, oh, how dare you? You know, blah, blah, blah. I will actually see an influx of people coming to modern day debate, the YouTube channel from Twitter. As the reason it's like, it's like ironically, the people who are trying to throw us in the mud, trying to trash us on Twitter, they're helping us. They can't help themselves because, you know, they just, a lot of them are so negative. I mean, it's just like they're, they're like robots, just that's the way they're programmed.  I mean, I never say a word because when I see it, I'm like, is it going to get more people going to our channel? Thanks for blogging us, basically, for some reason. I think it maybe it makes people curious where they're kind of like, what are they doing? Are they breaking the rules? Or like, what is going on? Is it like Jerry Springer over there? Like they can't help it, which by the way, it's not. It might be a little bit passionate. No doubt about that. However, not like Jerry Springer. Come on, folks. The idea here is, I think that people have this kind of curiosity where I don't know, whatever it is, we'll see like an influx of people coming into a modern day debate. And so we're excited about that. But Tabasso has lots of emotes on the Discord now too. Oh, that's, thank you, Tabasso, seriously. Appreciate that. YouTube's original general says you're going to crush that exam. Thank you for your kind words. And then Stetler, we are pumped. You were here. I've got so many burps.  I'm not trying to brag. And Hacks says, we know you'll ace it, James. Thanks for your kind words, seriously. I appreciate that. Because I got to be honest. There's not a lot that gets me like, kind of like nervous where I'm like, ooh, I was like feeling a little pressure. This is when I'm like, hey, you know, don't get me wrong. I'm thankful for it. I signed up for this. I wanted the doctorate because I wanted a challenge. I wanted this. I wanted it to be hard. I didn't want it to be easy. And so I, you know, I'm taking it. I think I'm taking it well, like in terms of the pressure, like I sleep well, but it's that it is at the same time. It's like, hey, I got to be serious about this. Like it's about an average of three hours a day I study every single day. So that's like reading through peer reviewed papers. That's what I'm, what I mean by studying. So like this is technical stuff. It's taking me to the next level. I'm leveling up folks. It's giving me, it's expanding the parts of my brain that help my verbal comprehension or reading comprehension verbal ability. So I'm thankful for it. And it's at the same time though, like I said, I've got a time management. I'm thankful that Amy's been able to step in and moderate as well as CAS. Nine or 3000. Thanks for coming by. We see you there in the old chat and then general boss X says just smashed beers and crammed the night beforehand. That's funny. And then raw nakedness says frozen peaches. I don't know what that means. Nasty, but let's see here. Got to catch up with the old chat as let's see here. Sadie Marie Jones. Good to see you and Nikki. Thanks so much. Nikki says love the mods. I appreciate your positivity, Nikki. That's awesome. Chronic Tim says getting a mod of respect is the best thing in these debates. Full of fanboys on one side. Juicy. And let's see. Oh, let's see. Not pulling any punches. Then raw nakedness says, if you say thank you one more time, you are officially obeyed. Hey, I got a lot of people to thank this. Seriously, it's become. Modern day debate is special because of you folks. I really do appreciate you. I'm excited. We're going to do big things. This is just the beginning, folks, for real. And so sometimes I'm just like, well, how are we going to do that? If we can do that, we can pull this off. We have plans. Chris Angel, thanks for coming by. I love your performances. I'm a huge magician fan. And then TJS, thanks for coming by. TJ not pulling any punches either. It says this is cringe. I can't tell if you're listening to this, me or if you're talking about the debate. But I thought it was a really fun one. It acts as if James fails on his exam. He can always start on only fans. There have been requests. I think the only requests have been from Earl, the postman from Alabama who is always asking and flattered. But let's see. Sunday worship, good to see you. Thanks for coming by. And then, oh, that's interesting. Sepo83 says, there is a video of Destiny getting his gun himself when someone broke into his house. Was Destiny streaming one time when somebody broke into his house? That is so crazy. Because that must happen. I forget about the fact that live streamers must sometimes actually have somebody break into their house while they're live streaming. That's crazy. But we are excited. And we are working on updating the logo because we do appreciate your guys' vote. Seriously. Sheamus Crawford, glad you made it. Good to see you there. As well as Ron Neckadness says, I would love to see a conservative break into my house. Why would a conservative break into your house? Says, thinking I am, quote, against guns. Well, you probably are afraid of guns.  Look out. I'm Sarah. I'm dangerous. Come on. So we are excited though. There's nothing that gives you more pleasure than harassing the occasional person in chat. But let's see. Thank you, Nicky, for your kind words of your support. As well as, let's see here. I love watching chat. I don't know. It's like it's very voyeuristic. I just, I'm like a peeping Tom just watching the chat. It's nasty, I admit. Am I able to do one of those sweet emoticons? Where, let's see, Chronic Tim says, I wonder if the, even the mods can see my comments now. I don't know. Did you block all of them? And then, let's see. Oh man, am I able to do the juicy? I forgot how to do the emoticons in the YouTube chat. By the way, Twitch chat, so sorry I'm behind. My dear friends in the old Twitch chat, good to see you, Lily Aja, as well as RichieTab99. He says, hi, hi. Thanks for coming by, Richie. We're glad you're here. And then, NovaSun, we are glad you came by. As well as, let's see, NovaSun00 says the neat thing about free speech is that the TOS is actually YouTube expressing their rules. And, Lawson's good to see you. Ozzie in good to see you. The old Twitch chat, pardon my delay. We have another first-time person in the Twitch chat, MylesSaintPizza. Thanks for coming by. We're glad you're here. Seriously. And, my dear friends, if you didn't know, we do have a Twitch. I'm going to put that in the old chat right now. I'm going to put prefer Twitch. We're live there too, right now. I put it in the chat. And now I'm going to pin it. And then anybody who wants to go there, you can. Naked Beekeeper, we're glad you're here. As well as, Veggie, we're glad you came by. Says, wait, when did this start? It started at 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. 7 p.m. Mountain Time for moi. And, I don't know where you are, but I hope that you know that we're obviously at the end of the debate. The speakers are gone. Empty boxes up there. You see those empty boxes? They're gone. However, they were here. It was tremendous. It was amazing. It was amazing. Isn't that amazing? So really, really fun. You guys, I enjoyed it. And I should go, you guys. I got to get to work. But this has been so fun. Seriously, this is like a true blast. I love you guys. Thanks so much for all of your support. You guys for making the channel a blast. We're excited this debate tomorrow is going to be epic. You guys, for real, epic. It's going to be so awesome. And so my dear friends, I want to say thank you so much for all of your support. Thank you for making this channel. As awesome as it is. As it is truly a melting pot. It is fun. And I've got to tell you, it is absolutely fun. That people from different walks of life, politically left, politically right, Christian, atheists, people from all walks of life are here as we fulfill the vision of providing a level playing field for everybody to make their case at a neutral platform. And so we're excited about that.  That's funny. And then Azhar, soft, soft Jan, thanks for coming by. I think the funny thing is sometimes people think when we talk about soy or betas in the chat usually, but sometimes I mentioned soy and betas like Sarah, she loves soy, really big on soy. Is we're using it ironically, but some people get like really upset and they're like, there's a combination of things. One, they think we're serious and they're like, that's so outdated. Then the other people, the other variety of people who misunderstand, they get like really offended and they're like calling me a soy boy. It's like, it's like a joke. It's all right. So we do appreciate you guys seriously.  I know I say goodbye eight billion times, but I just enjoy this. And so thanks so much.