and we're starting right now with a Mark and Jen's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours. Thank you so much, James, and it's a pleasure to be here. My name is Mark Reid. I want to thank Jen for being my partner in this debate tonight today. I also want to thank my opponents being here, but I'll quickly go through and just introduce who I am. I'm actually just an average internet denizen. I'm a student. I study computer systems and networks, so data transmission basically. I don't do this for any money or any profit. I actually do it for fun. I really enjoy debating. I really enjoy talking to people, and I've decided to come here and debate a topic that I usually don't, which is Flat Earth. Now, Flat Earth is not a debate outside of the internet and these sort of fringe debate field sort of places. All scientific disciplines agree that the Earth is round. We have photos. We have video. We have calculations. We have experiments. We have so much data that basically there is no professional that believes that the Earth is flat. It's just a certain segment of the population that believes that. Now, the weirdest thing about Flat Earth nonsense is this conspiracy theory that all of these people are lying to us about the shape of the Earth. There's about 130,000 people employed in the space industry in the U.S. And that's not the only space agency.  There's 72 different countries have space agencies. 72 different countries. 14 of them have launch capacity. They can launch satellites and regularly do so. Then there's private companies like SpaceX and Virgin, all in all between all across the world. There's easily over a million people employed directly, not indirectly, not making parts employed directly by the space agencies and private organizations. Not one person, not one from any of these organizations has ever come forward and said that it's all a conspiracy. It's all a con, not even one. So while we're talking about conspiracies, let's float an alternative conspiracy, perhaps, and maybe it's a conspiracy that some of these flat earthers are doing this for money. They know that the Earth is round. They know it's not flat. And all they're doing is making money from people to give it to them from subscribers and from other people. Now, keep in mind, I don't make any money from what I do. But they are, and they take donations only if they keep saying that the Earth is flat. Is it a more believable conspiracy? Yes, there's less people involved. There's less work to be done. It's a more believable conspiracy that a million people are all lying with not one detractor. Now, I do have a slight demonstration for you and I'll just share my screen very, very, very briefly. Screen two. So just tell me when I'm good to go. We're ready for you. Yep. Okay. So am I appearing? Not yet. There's usually a green button in the bottom middle that'll say share. Yeah, I did share share. Oh, yeah, I see it. I see it. Sorry. My apologies. No worries. Am I sharing? Yes. Okay. So this is looking to the north and the circle policy. I know this is in northern hemisphere. And do you notice the, do you notice the rotation of these stars? It's going counterclockwise round this way. Now what we compare it to is the stars going in the opposite, oops, going in the opposite direction. Sorry. I just, it's looking south. Okay. Now they're going in a clockwise direction. They're going opposites. And, you know, I can sort of hear them saying, so that's clockwise. That's anti-clockwise north and south. So why did, why is this important? Why is this a problem? Well, I've got a little ball here. We've got north. We've got south. And we've got the direction of rotation here. So what happens if we put our frame on the northern side. That's north. And we rotate it with the direction of the arrows clockwise. So we take it off. We reverse it. Put it on the southern side and rotate. Anti-clockwise. This demonstrates exactly why we see the two different rotations on the north and of the south. And as of yet, no flat earth that has been able to explain how that works on their fantasy pizza. So if put it anywhere on here and rotate it, it's always going in the same direction. They cannot explain this away. And I've yet to see any flat earth that even addressed this. It absolutely sinks their argument and they've got no way to challenge it. So that's my best demonstration for what I think is a flat earth. I mean, I could show more. I basically have to cut it off because I don't want to go over time. And I'll leave it up to Jen to present her point of view. So go for it, Jen. Thanks. Would I be able to share my screen? A hundred percent ready for you. Here we go. Thanks so much for having me. James and modern day debate channel. And mark and. Withs it and Kai. Apologies if I pronounced that wrong. Awesome to be here.  I mean, all these theories and I just thought I'd be asked to maybe come on and debate something less, maybe more controversial. I'm not sure. I'm hoping we can have a reconciliation of sorts. Perhaps my heart's in the right place, but my expectations are unrealistic. But what can you do? Perhaps we have more in common than we realized. How do we justify a sphere? It's actually not that easy. So I've got a bunch of demonstrations. What have we got here? A glass ball. Now, why did I select this example? Because it's something intuitive we can grab on to. Why is it a sphere and not some other shape? Well, very easy. In the name of my YouTube channel, church of entropy. It is a, oh, I guess you can't see me on the screen right now. I don't realize that. All right. I'll unshare myself. Back to, I'm sorry, James. I'm still getting the hang of this. All right. So it's full screen when I'm, when I'm doing that. Okay. Yeah. That was my model for something else. Super countries won't go into that right now. Let's leave it on the back burner. But anyway, sphere, why do we expect the earth to be a sphere? I agree. The arguments have been somewhat. Uncompelling, which is why perhaps we're still having these conversations or maybe it's some big conspiracy as was ledged earlier by Mark. But I look at this fear that I've generally, most of the time have this hanging in my kitchen. I enjoyed looking at it. We can ask ourselves, why is it a sphere and not some other shape? I mean, is there a reason? Why do we, when we blow bubbles, why does that eventually look somewhat spherical? Well, there's a simple answer that I think sadly, most people are unaware of, which is that something is being optimized in this shape. In the sense that in the absence of other things that would justify a deviation from a sphere, we pretty much expect the sphere under most circumstances. Now you could point to other things. Oh, we got snowflakes. Those aren't spheres. Those are kind of disc like and then all these other deviations from sphere. But basically a sphere is a highly preferred shape due to chemistry. So if you don't mind just putting me back on screen share James, how much time do I have left? You have seven minutes left. I've only been going for one minute. About. That was the longest minute of my life. All right. Quantum periodic table. It has not one, not two. Can they see this? Oh yeah. I was going to say. Yeah. Okay. Green share button. So I think you have to, on your end in the middle in the, on the bottom of the screen, there's a green share button. There should be if you wave your cursor around there. Thank you. Oh my God. I thought it was just, I'm so sorry. No worries. There's the quantum periodic table. So I see Mark's having a good time there. Yeah. Excuse me. All right. Yeah. This is real compelling. I'm sure a lot of the flat earthers are just rallying to my side right now. Thank you. What is this? Not one. Okay. Can they see it? Yes. Yes. Not one. Not two, but 59 spheres. What is it? Why it's the thing that we can establish as being more real than anything else. I'm not saying we can establish it as absolutely real because that's it's not a matter of, it's not a matter of, it's not a matter of, it's not a matter of definition. Right. So I'm not trying to say that you don't experience the earth has feeling flat any more than the ant thinks that the earth consists of a ant hill. Does that make the ant right? No. That's what I try to appeal to when I. someone did you a disservice at some point didn't frame this right for you that just made more sense to go with what was 100% intuitive, which I agree is a flat concept. Perception, perhaps, but at the end of the day, we have to rely on more than just our direct senses. And in some sense, I want to take responsibility for the failure of education. It's led to so many people that think this fallacy. And so I won't attempt to demean anyone. Just say when you can get it to the direction of thinking spherically, you can see lots of things. For example, very important in discovery, which predicts yes, that is the correct term. Like some people say it's not predicted was actually literally predicting like late interfering genetic modifier array, which totally predicts by the definition of math, which is supposed to derive shapes from a priori axioms, right? That's the whole I mean, where do you think those ideas come from?  And I understand the fear of going past what is familiar, especially when it seems like people are always lying and just wanting to tell you things, maybe sell you something so that eventually you become a customer long term. But I really hope I can at least convince a few people that there is something of value. And that's ultimately why all these bullshit movements can flourish, but not in the comparison with a light truth. So I guess I don't know how much more time I have, I don't know how much more I can say, because I just would rather know where the people that I'm supposed to be debating against or at. You got a three minutes left. Oh, wow. This is what I get from trying to try to improvise it. Well, you know, I was insisting on it in the beginning, but I mean, I just don't know where to go from here. I feel bad. How can you think it's flat? You know, I'm thinking it's a pancake, but under gravity, you know, gravity has been demonstrated for very large boats. So if you doubt gravity, you got to account for these boats that are just like, okay, how are we going to separate these major problem in shipping? You can't even trigger the gravity effects. When I think of a flat earth, if that's actually what you're saying, that is a flat disk, the way I understand gravity is that it's always attracting towards the center of mass. So what ought to happen for a disk? And since it's not symmetrical, it should start to compress into a sphere, because the sphere like I was alluding to before minimizes the torsion about the center of mass, which always exists. So I guess, thanks for listening. You got it. Thank you very much. Awesome feedback in the chat. I guess I will see you through the rest of my time because I've just somewhat baffled. But thanks for driving me and hopefully the rest of this goes as wonderfully as the opening. Juicy. Well, thank you very much for those openings on behalf of the globe side. 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're from. We are thrilled to have you here. And with that, very excited. We're going to kick it over to Austin and Kai. Thanks for being with us. Hey, guys. Thank you to our opponents for their statements. There's some clarification, though, that needs to happen. And both of them mentioned so we don't think that the earth is a pancake or a disc floating through the vacuum space. So we are not going to be arguing for that. That is not what we are here to debate. We know that the earth is a topographical plane, and it is a contained system. And we will get into that later. But we also can prove that the vacuum of space cannot exist through physics. So we'll get into that as well. But yeah, just want to make sure we're on the same page. We don't think that the earth is a pancake floating through space. Yeah. And so before I share the screen, just a couple of things that they said in their opener, everyone must have a question about everyone must be in on this conspiracy. 131,000 people work in space. And that's impossible, basically. Well, no, it's called compartmentalization. It's very simple. The Manhattan project proves it. Literally, the military literally couldn't even exist, as if that wasn't how it operated. So it's actually quite insane to claim the government couldn't keep secrets. No, we don't think everyone's lying. People believe the lie and they apply their intellect to trying to figure out theoretical explanations of the lie or explain away the discrepancies. So there's that.  You brought up that there were numerous space agencies all across the world. Yeah, and they all work with NASA. I guess, I guess they don't say that on Google, but literally all of them work with NASA and most of them have to concede all their technologies to them or use them to go anywhere. You said no one in the history of any of these space agencies ever came out and said that there was a lie that's patently false as well. Polish cosmonauts said the earth is flat as some expect, but I didn't expect this question. I sure you it's flat. Now, this is an astronaut, okay, from Poland. Here's another guy, a Soviet cosmonaut, Igor Volk. He said we haven't been to space. If someone claims that we have been, it's not true. It is not the truth. Now, these are two prominent figures that claim to have gone to space and being in space and she's coming out publicly saying no one's ever been to space and the earth is flat. So yeah, people actually have come out, numerous people, ex-NASA employees, etc. So anyway, there's that and all stars go east to west, bro. So when you talk about them going clockwise or counterclockwise, every single star in the sky goes east to west. And if you stand on the one side of the road and you look at the road and you stand on the other side and look the other direction, it looks like the cars are going the opposite way, don't they? So it's perception that every single star in the sky goes east to west. So there's a quick little rebuttal, but we're going to share the screen. Hopefully this works, bang, bang. We good? Ready. Sweet. All right, so we we didn't actually have time to make a brand new one. If you guys saw Elastivate, this is pretty much this one with a few little additions, but we'll just get into it. Hopefully this works. Don't know how it works. Play. All right, excuse my boomer syndrome. All right, so like we discussed last time, these are all different shots with different cameras and different altitudes, right? So we have 100 feet, 70,000 feet, 10,000 feet, 33,000 feet, 128,000 feet. The grabbers love the bottom left picture. So of course, this can't all be an accurate representation of the curvature of a globe, can it? Because these are different convexity rates, right? Because the rate of curvature is different based on the altitude. So which one is the real curvature here?  So is the 33,000 feet in the airplane, is that real curvature or is it the 10,000 feet or the 100 feet or is it 128,000? That's what we want to know, right? These can't these mathematically cannot all be the curvature of the earth. And in fact, none of them can mathematically, but anyway, that's what we want to figure out. So where is the curvature, right? Up here we have a fish island at 96,000 feet. Look at that curvature, isn't that beautiful? We'll look at what reality is that 121,000 feet, we send a high altitude balloon up and it definitely doesn't look like it's curving like that, does it? Of course, New Mexico would have to be the size of a continent for this first picture to be real anyway. So don't believe me, believe your priests. And I actually will say I appreciate that she said that the school system as fell as it's just objective and it's driven by monetary incentive and powers that shouldn't be that control the way that you think, so you believe the narratives that they crafted for you. But here is Neil deGrasse Tyson. He jumped out of a perfectly good balloon. What's his name? Felix, Felix the bomb gardener. He would have been about two millimeters above the surface of this globe. That's his edge of space jump. I don't have a problem if he does it, but the honesty of it would greatly diminish what I think people thought he was actually doing. And not only that, they made shorted photographs of him standing there with a really wide angle lens, which curves horizontal lines. So in the photo, you see this curvature of Earth's surface and he's like, wow, he's in space, look at that. No, he's not. At that height, you don't see the curvature of the Earth. If you are two millimeters above this beach ball, he just don't. That stuff is flat. Wow, because I could assure I was dumb when I talked to people at SAI that they see curvature in a plane at 35,000 feet at commercial height. This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, a world renowned scientific communicator. So anyway, that's the point. Felix Baumgartner, even Neil deGrasse Tyson debunked their own footage. The question is, why do they show us those pictures though? If there's nothing to hide and we're dumb and archaic and there's provably a globe, why show us fake pictures of the globe? That seems so ridiculous. It seems like that doesn't make a lot of sense, but here's the inside of the jump from Felix Baumgartner. You see the horizon is flat. And then here we showed you the picture prior to this as it looks from outside the capsule. These are two pictures from these recent private companies, which SpaceX isn't a private company, gets over 500 million every single year from the government. But anyway, is it convex or concave? Which one is the earth? Because there's a convex and a concave. I took these screenshots myself from the live stream. They obviously can't both be true, can they? Is the sphere not spherical or is it change? Is it breathing in and out? So to claim the top one is accurate, but the bottom one is not, would be just dishonest, right? So they're using a fisheye lens to create this look of curvature. Admittedly so. Admittedly so. Right. Just like Neil said, it turns a horizontal line into a curved line. Horizontal is flat, so. Oh, by the way, you didn't ask, but I'm going to tell you. Do you know how high up above the earth he was? No, 63 miles. Oh, yeah. So take a schoolroom globe and it's how high above it is he? So he's about two millimeters above the surface of a schoolroom globe. Nobody's seen the curvature of the earth from that height. I just want to make that clear. Why do you feel the need to make it clear? So anyway, yeah, there you go. So that's, uh, oh, Mr. Jeff Bezos, space, private space exploration. Last time we were here, someone brought this up because we're looking for for proof theorists at globe. Apparently they measure the earth in a sphere as the claim. This is spherical access, right? Well, actually you have to use spherical geometry to do that. So you're redefining the very thing in contention or in question. That's called a begging the question vowsy. You're reifying a physical curvature that isn't fair, right?  And of course, look at look at this image right here. Now, this is the supposed proof at the earth of all. Well, it doesn't look a lot like the pictures they show us. Maybe you could explain to them what's going on here. Yeah, so this is from NASA. And this is Robert Simon. He is their lead data visualizer. And he created that iPhone picture that you have of the blue marble on your phone. And this is a quote that he said, then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface clouds and oceans to match people's expectations of how earth looks from space. That ball became the famous blue marble.  They say that the rest of the pictures are composite images, but they admit that they literally have to use CGI to create them. And then you can see just over the years how much they change. And this is because they're CGI. They're not actual pictures. The continent size has changed, like you can see in the 2012 one. It's at the bottom, the second one. North America is taking up the whole globe, like all the other countries have to fit on the other side. It's just insane. And the fact that in this day and age, where five-year-olds have TikToked, we only have one real picture of the earth, get out of here. That's science. Yeah. That's science. That's science. Admittedly, CGI, that's science. You're going to do this. Okay. So also another proof of the globe earth that the Globes like to bring up is ships disappearing over the horizon. We're actually at the beach right now sort of observing this all the time. So yeah, when boats get farther away, they appear to disappear. And they like to claim that they're disappearing behind a hump of earth curve.  So it's not actually disappearing behind anything. It's just getting further and further from your vision. So you can see in this video right here, you see the boat, but as they zoom out, you'll see that it looks like it's gone. It's disappeared. So maybe in the olden days, they could debate, oh yeah, things are disappearing, but now we have technology that can bring it back into view and prove that it's just perspective. And that's the same thing that's happening with sunset. So the sun is not getting obstructed by the earth.  And you can see again with like these picture, oh yeah, we have the laser. So it's on a flat surface and as it gets further and further away, it disappears. You can't see anymore. The laser is setting. So it's not actually disappearing behind a hump of earth curve because like a P900 can't see through a building, can't see through a physical obstruction, but it can zoom in. So that's all that's happening. And you can see with the street lamps as well. This is how perspective works. Things in the distance just merge with the horizon. Yeah, interesting. And one thing just to address real quick, where are there, okay, everyone always says, flatters didn't bring any proof. We were all taught theorists of all, that's a positive claim we live on a sphere. We're falsifying that claim. It's just objective that they lied about fear. Okay, so we'll move on to what it is, but you want to cover this one too? Sure. So you can see. Oh, let me go. Sorry. Yeah, let's play the video really quick. And then we'll just. Oh, really? Okay. I don't know that. So anyway, that was just gas. Obviously, once you remove the container, it feels available space. Second law of thermodynamics. Which is why we love your name, by the way. Entropy. We love your name. Yes. Entropy is a beautiful thing. The second law of thermodynamics debunks any notion that we are in an atmosphere adjacent to a near-perfect vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 toward impossible. Entropy will increase and seek equilibrium instantaneously, seeking equilibrium. And actually, I don't even disagree with you about the recent spheres are so reoccurring in nature is actually because of the efficiency of energy. And so it is arguable that we're in a celestial sphere, but the earth is not one. So here's a bunch of flat earth documents from the government. They probably put people's lives at risk and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on technology that wouldn't work when they have to assume the earth is flat for propagation of electromagnetic fields over a flatter for a ground weapon system where they built towers to hit targets or where they shoot over 100 miles with a rail gun or whenever they design any type of aircraft or any type of ballistic missile, they have to assume a flat, non-rotating surface in all of their models, admittedly so open information. And you can go search these on the internet. Some of these are on the FAA. Some of these are NASA. These are all easily accessible. But if it wasn't on CNN, it can't be true. It can't be true. This is just a little... This is the world's longest picture. It's like 273 miles away, 275 miles away. Impossible on a globe. Of course, there should be like three miles of earth curvature blocking that mountain. So how do I see it? That's not actually there. It's not actually exactly where it is looking exactly like it looks. It's actually not there because the earth has to be a ball. Here you go. It's known also. Tim Flass places on the earth several, or science, several US states led by Florida are flatter than a pancake. This is how you have a globe. You have tons of thousands of miles of flat surface. That's how you have a globe. All right. You can talk about this one. This is important. Oh, yes. The horizon isn't physical. It is just the apparent location where the sky meets the ground. And globers always want to bring up atmospheric refraction. But that's actually our argument. So as you can see throughout the day, the horizon seems to change because of the refraction. But it's not because the earth is a ball. It's just because of the humidity in the air. And yeah, refraction is actually our argument. Right. Using it for intents and purposes. So is the earth breathing in and out? No. So that horizon is not the physical curve of a ball or a sphere, a tangent point blocking your view. It's just atmospheric conditions changing where the sky appears to meet the ground. And on the globe, the horizon has to be the cutoff of the sphere. It has to be geometric. Exactly. It cannot be apparent. It has to be a physical geometric location. Perfect timing because that's what this next one's about, which also goes to what you're saying. Well, basically what an ant on an ant hill. The argument being that you're so big, you wouldn't be able to see it curving. Well, actually, we know exactly how big it supposedly is. It has a radius value of 3,959 miles specifically. Right. So it has a circumference of 24,901 at the equator. Supposedly. So that's a very specific dimension claim, very specific rate of convexity. To just say it's too big is the furthest thing from objective or scientific or anything like that. No, it's a certain dimension. It has a certain rate of curvature. So therefore it physically obstructs you based on that dimension claim. This is what's in contention. Is that actually true? Is the Earth's sphere with the radius of 3,959 miles? Very simple math. Very simple math. About 30 seconds left. Oh, all right.  So basically we test the idea is it actually 3,959 miles. So the equation is 1.225 times the square root of the observer's height and feet. That's where you should see the curvature of the Earth blocking your view if it's in fact a globe. Right here, one foot should be 1.2 miles over 10 miles. Right here at five feet should be 2.3 miles over 7.8 miles. These right here should be blocked by over two miles. These mountains on the bottom left. All of these debunked the globe falsify the radius value. Therefore, falsification is independent of replacement. What you have been told and I was told isn't true. Then we can move together to figure out what this place really is. And that's basically our summary. And I think we're out of time. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening. So from the flatter side, did you want to? I can give you maybe 30 more seconds if it's real quick. We're good. We're good. I didn't mean to play it. No problemo. So want to let you know folks, we are absolutely thrilled to have you here as it is going to be a juicy debate and want to let you know as well. Big, big news, my dear friends in particular. We are absolutely thrilled. If you have not heard yet, if you have been living in a cave on Mars, with your fingers and your ears, and you didn't know that modern day debate is having our very first ever modern day debate con conference with live debates two days in a row this January. Oh, baby, it's going to be big. Hit that subscribe button because you don't want to miss it as those debates will be released on YouTube. We are absolutely pumped for it. And with that, we're going to kick it into open conversation. Thanks so much. The floor is all yours, both globe and Flat Earth teams. Oh, I think you're having our videos. Oh, I think you're on mute yet, Mark. Sorry. Yeah, this is sort of a shotgun approach, like just throw every little, little thing at it. And so much of this is quote mining and just taking people out of context. This whole thing about objective, it looks too big. Well, it's a subjective too that it looks flat, but they ignore that. They ignore all of that stuff. Like, let's have a look. The different cameras and different protective changes are the reason why there's different and different lenses on the cameras are the reasons why that curvature looks different. You'll notice it's not a fisheye lens, as Kai claimed, because the people in that shot were not distorted. If it was a fisheye, that'd be distorted. Seem to miss that. They quite mind Neil Pagrass-Tyson really dishonestly. They sort of say, hey, that's flat. Why do you say it was flat? Because it looks flat from that height. And you know that. You know that he's just saying it looks flat. But you've chosen to take him out of context in order to support your own worldview, which I must admit is incredible. Because like you say, hey, it's like these priests. You have the faith-based position. It's based on faith. So, you know, but look at all this stuff they've gone through. I couldn't even address it if I tried. Like it's so much stuff. What I'd like to do is just because I'll give you a chance to keep going, Mark, but I do want to mention, Austin, in case you had a malfunction, your camera, I don't see you. Yeah, we don't. Camera's not being picked up. It says that it says you can't start your video because the host has stopped it. Is that inaccurate? Oh, you know what it is? Sorry about that. When I tried to push you out of share screen mode, it's true that I clicked stop video when I meant to put stop sharing. Sorry about that. Conspiracy. Conspiracy. They're all in on it. They're all in the world through the cameras. That's what they're doing. But Mark, just to save us some time, right? You said that we were scattergunning. Well, it was a presentation, bro, right? So that's what you do. Stick to like one or two sort of your main best point. It was actually kind of good that they were trying to like respond to some of these criticisms because they seem to have come back on it. So they're playing the volleyball. Yeah, I must admit. At least you admit that there is such a thing as refraction and it can distort what we see. So I guess that's progress of a sort. Real fast, Mark. Can we talk about what you brought up first, right? Yeah, sure, sure. Right. Okay, so like with the fisheye lens and you brought up nil-to-grass ties and you said because it looks flat from that height, well, that's our point. They showed the whole world from 128,000 feet supposed curvature and everyone can Google it and it says you can see it in a plane from 33,000 feet or even less. So that's our point. Our point is it is actually flat there, but they're showing us deceptive curvature images due to lenses. That's our point. Well, nobody's saying that lens wasn't a fisheye lens. That's the thing. You're saying, oh, it's a fisheye lens. Gotcha. No, we're all aware that it's a fisheye lens. Everybody's aware of that. What nil-to-grass tyson is actually working on is what it looks like versus what we can measure because the naked eye isn't that great of a measurement tool. The naked eye can be fooled all the time. We're prone to optical illusions. We're prone to seeing mirages where we think there's water. There's no water there.  Scientists are relying on what they measure and that's the difference. What they measure. Is that what you said, sir? Okay, so who measured the curvature of the earth? And how was it done? Well, we calculated it back in ancient times. No, calculation is different than measurement, right? So who measured the curvature of the earth? We can measure with calculations. Sorry, you just can. I'm sorry, you can. Okay, so where do you get the data to do the calculations without the measurements? Okay, so how did we measure the size of a mountain? We calculated. That's what we do. We calculate it. No, well actually for mountains you use sea level to calculate elevation. Okay, so that also assumes that water is flat. So that's kind of works against you. But it doesn't really matter. You have to measure. So they say, sorry, sorry. They say that the radius of the earth is 3,959 miles. So who came up with that measurement? And how did they do it?  They then, we've known since ancient Greek times that the earth is curved, it's got curvature. Aristophanes? Yeah, yeah. So Aristophanes assumed the earth was a sphere. And by the way, there's no primary. He didn't assume. He didn't assume. No, he did experiments. So he basically was the first one to find out the shape of the earth. And I mean, I'm sorry it like sort of impacts on your face, but you know, there's not much I can do about that. Don't self-project, man. But if you know you're right, you wouldn't have to, you'd be able to hear the other side, right? So I'm gonna sign it. Yeah. Just because I don't believe you, doesn't mean I'm not listening to you. That's where you're wrong. No, you can't listen while you're interrupting me though. So like my point is that you probably don't know this, but actually there's no primary documentation for that ever happening. But we're gonna rock with it as if it existed. There's literally not any primary documentation in existence that that happened. So fact check that, because if you want to know the truth, you look into everything, right? So anyway, but pretend it did happen, okay? So he looked at the sticks and their shadows, right? And then he assumed a distant sun, right? With parallel rays. Literally, he had to assume a distance, an infinitely distant sun with parallel rays, although we observed the exact opposite, it'd be a crepuscular rays, et cetera, divergent rays. He had to assume parallel rays, right? And then he had to work it out, assuming a sphere, the math is different if it's not a sphere. So when you say he didn't assume it, he had to, to even do calculations in the first place, a local light source with convergent rays works out the same. So we don't really need the 1,500. Just before you cash cal upon there, because you've made a number of points. Just because we don't have primary documentation doesn't mean a thing, because people replicate that experiment all the time, as well as, you know, the Kamedish experiment and various other experiments that you're sort of like, oh, well, nobody saw them do it yet, but we do them, we replicate them. That's the whole idea. The whole thing of he assumed the sun's weight, it still doesn't show that the earth is flat in your guy's estimation. So you've still got nothing. Actually, it's non sequitur, because that doesn't prove one way or the other. I explained that, that actually, if it's a local light source with a household. Well, you're wrong. We know that the distance to the sun, we've got things like spectrometers. We know how light works. We're talking. Can I take a crack at this part? Yeah, go for it. Sorry, Jen, I'm kind of monopolizing outside. I know you're very excited. I am. I'm a god to be here. Absolutely. I wanted you to address some of the points that I managed to jot down about the curvature. You don't see the curvature, blah, blah, blah. It's always down to the strength of the evidence, right? I used to work in evidence processing, right? So any break in the chain of evidence, it's not anymore reliable than the crack or jack box. But that aside, let's say, well, we can do wide-scale meta-analysis. And that actually tells us something. You wouldn't see curvature at any level. Of the Earth. So if I have a balloon, how can you tell it's a sphere? Can you ever see the full sphere all at once? What's the most surface area you can see of a balloon? I can only see one side. 50% maybe slightly more if I zoom in real quick. Maybe I can somehow do some kind of trick where I see more than half. But when you get far away from a sphere, what does it look like even now? Like a circle. Exactly. So there's an illusion, Michael. But anyway, the point is that you wouldn't expect to see anything other than flatness. And even that wouldn't actually say that the Earth is flat. That would say that our perception, our eyes, our lenses, and they are distorting the field, the base field. So we're having a conversation about what's the base field, and you're saying, well, my eyes are recollecting the base field this way. And I'm saying, well, that's your eyes, not the base field. And perhaps some of these empiricist arguments that I'll grant you aren't the most compelling, or as compelling as they could be. Back over to you, thanks for listening. I totally agree with what you're saying. So to figure out what, well, she's right. Like we can't necessarily trust our eyes here on the ground. But what we could do is see if the drop rate is there. That's what we could do, especially over a body of water, because water always seeks its level. So we could use a flat level body of water and see if we see too far. Because that's what we're trying to talk about, is they give us, this is where they slipped up, is they gave us a size. They gave us a radius value, and the breakdown is 8 inches per mile squared drop rate. And that is exponential. And I think you can use it up to 1,000 miles. And this is not a flatter thing. You can just Google Earth Curve Calculator and you can plug in these numbers yourself. And you can see it takes in the observer height and then the target distance. And if you see too far, you are seeing beyond the cutoff that there should be. Because again, it's a sphere, right? So if you're seeing five times as far, 10 times as far, you are falsifying the radius value. And we have several observations that have been documented. There's also laser tests that also document this as well. So there's no drop rate. So that's how we know there's no curvature. It's not just, we don't just have to use our eyes here at ground level. We can actually take photos and use lasers and see if there is a drop rate and there is none to be found. Yes, there is. People have taken footage of drones going up and they show the drop rate. They show that it looks like the horizon is in the same place. But if you actually measure it like real people do, you can actually see that it does fall away. And you've already admitted that refraction can change the apparent horizon. So I don't see why that has anything to do with anything. You've already admitted that. You guys brought up refraction, which is hilarious. Yeah, that's what we're saying. Maybe what we'll do for everyone to understand, even the audience and everything, there's two fundamental differences here. You guys think there's a sphere, okay? And the sphere has a physical, you believe it. You have a physical horizon. You have a physical horizon and a sphere. On a flat earth, the horizon is apparent. So when you say you already admitted the horizon's apparent, yeah, that's our point. You need a physical horizon. And it has to be a specific location based on the dimensions of a sphere. No, refraction can change where that horizon is, and you already admitted that. So then how could you ever have found it in the first place? Well, we take into account the refractive index, which again, we can measure because we're actually doing science and just not stuffing around in our backyards like you guys are. So to clarify, without the add-ons, you're saying that if we assume the Earth's sphere... That's not an add-on, that's a fact. What scientific organization are you a part of? If we assume the Earth's sphere and we look at the horizon... This is bad, bro. Add-homes are insufficient. No, sorry, mate. I'm not playing into that.  So, yeah. All right, brother. Well, fundamental difference, right? Either horizon's physical or it's not. Maybe just to bring it back to something we can agree on, what do you mean by a physical horizon? Because at some point you mentioned you said the Earth isn't breathing. And I would say it kind of is because when it's daytime, there'd be a little more thermal expansion, right? And we talked about second law of thermodynamics. So there would be a variation from day to night. You would expect that. Well, I just, I promise I'm not going to talk a lot. I'm just trying to break it down so everyone understands, even in the audience, globe Earth, if you have a pregnant woman, right, and she runs her hand down her stomach, she can't see her hand anymore because her hand physically blocks, or is physically blocked by her stomach. You can't see through a mound of dirt. That's physical obstruction. Flat Earth, the horizon's just your vanishing point because you can't see any further in the sky and the ground appear to meet. Globe Earth, hump of Earth curvature, blocking your view physically, tangibly, literally, okay? Two different things, patently different. Not even close to the same, they're opposite, okay? So all observe is the one.  So I'm asking how did you find out it was there? He said, well, we account for refraction using science. Actually, I can get into that, but the point is how do you know it was there? You had to assume it was there and then you had to do the mathematical calculations assuming it was there, make corrections because it didn't match what you expected to see. That doesn't prove it's there. Yeah, we said we've done experiments. Well, hang on a minute. How can you account for refraction on a flat surface? Yeah. How can I account for refraction on a flat surface? Yeah, so refraction is just the terminology that we rock with for intents and purposes, but the horizon just fluctuates based on atmospheric conditions. Actually, you want to get technical. Refraction actually comes from- I'm excited. Wait, wait, time out. Yeah, refraction comes from Snell's Law, right? Which is actually a differential between two mediums, which is why when it comes to the globe Earth, terrestrial refraction, you had to come up with a differential equation of Snell's Law because it does not transfer from two mediums. So whenever you put something- Fine theta one. Just to give Austin a chance to finish. Yeah, like if you put a pencil through water, you'll see it kind of bend. That's a transfer from two mediums. That's refraction, Snell's Law. Okay, so that's actually not applicable to the atmosphere, which is obviously not two different mediums. This is awkward. So I just wanted to come back to what you said before about the citations from the government. So a government that lies, what it says, can't be trusted period, even the stuff that flatters our biases. So what I saw briefly, I didn't see the entire screen share, but it did appear to be a model and maybe we should spend some time just discussing the utility of models and how they don't, in a lot of ways, can't correspond to reality for the computational complexity we have access to at the time. Yeah. They're called approximations. So what you're saying is, you're looking at a bunch, to me, you're looking at a bunch of approximations and saying, well, this is actually how it is. It's like, well, no, these are the approximations that work given the particular task that they're being implemented for. And that could be any number of things, but generally you want to think of it as navigation. Well, I think Flat Earth is used a lot of special pleading. They basically go, well, your model doesn't have this, this and this. Their model doesn't either. And so they go, yeah, but it's our model. It's special. We don't need to prove this. We don't need to prove that. We don't need to show experimentation. We don't need to show anything because we're not presenting a model. So either they have a model and they're not, they're not able to support it or they don't have a model at all. Either way, they've got nothing to show for their thing, but it's just special pleading that say Flat Earth doesn't need a model. Real quick question for either one of you guys. Is falsification independent of replacement? Yes. Okay. So we're falsifying the glow of Earth. We don't have to replace it. This debate's about Flat Earth, sir. Yeah, yeah. I don't know about independent. Flat Earth. So you have to defend the Flat Earth position. Offer is going to be mistaken. So if you're not presenting a model, why are you here? Well, I don't need a model. Well, why are you here? This is about Flat Earth. You're not talking about Flat Earth. Did you not listen to what your partner said? So why are you here? Did you not listen to what your partner said? She actually said it great. Models are not a good indication of reality. We are showing. Yes, but if you're not here to defend Flat Earth, why are you here? I wasn't on. So, okay. So you said we have two things. We don't actually have an official model. That's why we keep it vague. Let me just speak. No, no, that's fine. That's all we need to do. Just to figure out. We don't have an official model. There is a lot of, hold on. One sec. There is a lot of, even if it's just a little like jumping in and getting a few points out of somebody's talking. It has been a lot. Sorry. So first of all, we don't actually have an official model. We just keep it vague because we can't know. So we know it's a topographical plane with mountains and valleys. Now you said we have no evidence, okay? We showed the measurements that there is no drop rate. We showed through long distance observations and also through laser tests where the laser hits the target on the other side of a body of water or frozen lake. You hit the target where there should be a drop rate. A laser shoots perfectly straight and level. And if there's a drop rate, it shouldn't be able to hit the target on the other side. But it does, okay? So that is our evidence that there is no drop rate. There is no drop rate. There is no evidence that there is a drop rate. And if there was, they could show this with observations or with laser tests that there is a drop rate. The only thing that you guys have in your toolbox is refraction. That's it. But again, refraction doesn't even work like he brought up with Snell's law. There's only one medium with the atmosphere and you need two. Okay. So you basically said you've got no modesty of presenting nothing today. You've said, oh, keep it vague. Yeah, I bet people trying to hide something always keep it vague. Con men keep it vague because they don't actually have to present any evidence for what they're trying to demonstrate. Well, I think she's usually asking for a different, perhaps more compelling argument. Well, I mean, apart from all of the videos, photos, I went through a few things. I went through, they still haven't explained how the demonstration that I did. I noticed that's run completely away. Can you concede that it's energetically flat because it's a globe? What do you mean by energetically? Yeah, I don't think I just want to go through my points, Jen. I really do just want to go through my points, Jen. I think that we should maybe get on the same side. I thought we were having an open discussion. Hold on one sec, but like I said, there has been some interrupting. So I do want to give Mark a chance to finish. Yeah. So where was I? Yeah, keeping it vague. So when you don't have a way to prove what you're saying, that's when you keep it blank. Don't drop right. You said you proved you demonstrated that. No, you just claimed it. That's all you did. A claim is different than a demonstration. And we don't just have refraction. We have a lot of evidence to demonstrate that the Earth is a globe. Go ahead, Jen. Sorry, that's all I want to say. It's no problem. I'm just trying to keep up with everything that's being said here. Topographical plane. I don't know what that means, but I will concede the Earth is energetically flat in the sense that it's approximately the same gravitational field at all points. Give or take. So we say topographical. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I'm just saying I'll grant you that it's energetically flat, but the only reason it's energetically flat is because it's physically nearly spherical. I believe the technical term is an oblong spheroid. Oblate. Oblate. But it started out. What I tell people I'm explaining is it started out as a sphere. It wants to be a sphere. And the reason it's not a perfect sphere is because it has some additional forces or actions doing work on it that deviates slightly from this shape that it generally wants to be. And then I draw on things day-to-day objects that namely bubbles, what have you, eyes, anything that tends towards a sphere and say, well, this is just. Like other planets and moons. Different stuff, right? So if I look up and I see a light bulb, does that mean I'm standing on a light bulb? Because just because you look up and you see something that looks like a circular light doesn't mean that you're standing on a circle. That doesn't help your cause at all. And also a topographical plane. So we know that there are mountains and valleys. So just say flat earth is just, I mean, the earth isn't completely flat. So there's mountains and valleys, but water is flat. Water always seeks its level. And I kind of want to see if we can switch gears. And since you brought up gravity. I just want to address that light bulb thing, because I'm not saying that because we're standing on a sphere or we see a sphere in the air that we're standing on a sphere, it's because planets, moons, celestial bodies, when they form, they form spheres because of the principle of that Jen was talking about, that things always move into sphere shape unless they're under the influence of another force because it is a minimum energy. And correct me if I'm wrong, Jen, you know more about it than I do, but it is a minimum energy shape, correct? If we want to define a minimum energy shape as something that minimizes torsion for particular dimensionality, you can argue that in three dimensions, yes, the sphere meets this criterion. And we're, we've got a lot of exposure to the third dimension. Technically we're in three plus one dimensions, which is where I think all this confusion ultimately stems from, but we get a lot of back chatter into the 3D so we can draw on that the specialness of the third dimension to sort of say, well, spheres are in some sense a starting point because three physical dimensions is what we're playing with. Just to address when I said something to you earlier about how I actually honestly disagree with you, things seem to revert back to spherical oftentimes because of energy efficiency, right? So like a magnetic field of toroid, well, like if you drew, if you draw the outline of a toroid, it's effectively a sphere, right? Well, that's the most energy effect, effectively you can draw a celestial sphere if there's a toroid encompassing the earth, right? A toroid and a sphere aren't the same. So you think of a sphere under so much pressure from its internal energy, but it doesn't have any opportunity to get any bigger. So it's just pressing and pressing and pressing and eventually it just feeds into itself and creates a three plus one dimensional, what you're describing with here. Sure, but let's say, say there's like to be sure, pardon my interruption, sorry about that, Austin, just to be sure that people understand in the audience, I think there's a little bit of confusion in terms of exactly how everything ties back. And I know it's obvious for you guys in the debate, but just for a few people in chat, in terms of tying back like how this relates in the most direct sense to flat versus globe, if you'd be able to do that just for maybe like 10, 20 seconds. Sure, basically the argument is that everything in nature reverse back to spheres and so that it is the default position that it would be spherical. If I don't want to straw them, if you guys can maybe... No, I'm essentially saying is that the least action principle is a universal governing principle and the sphere is the three dimensional instantiation of the least action principle. Yeah, so we're not saying everything in nature goes back to spheres, it's just that when the formation of planets occurs, physics and the least action principle that Jen was talking about, naturally causes them to form into spherical shapes and we see that in the sky all the time. And for people to think that, hey, all the planets are spheres, the moon's a sphere, sun's a sphere, but we're standing on a pancake, it's just a bit, it's beyond me. The only person, again, okay, we didn't say there was a pancake, so that's frustrating that you're not... A pancake shape, sorry, my apologies. Flat's not a shape, but anyway. Anyway, so again, so you're talking about all these planets and the only way that you know that these are spherical objects apparently is through NASA. There's nothing else that you can do here on Earth to actually tell if these lights in the sky are a sphere and we wanna actually transition the conversation to the vacuum of space. And I wanted to ask, your name is Jen, right? Sorry, okay. Does gravity affect gases? That's a very good question and the answer is yes. And this is actually something where my own model differs where I say the top of the Earth is still a sphere, but top of the Earth is actually the South Pole. And we have this effect in the Northern Hemisphere where the sunset drags out super long, that is not present in the Southern Hemisphere and that's because the gases are all pooling at the bottom of spherical Earth. And what does it mean to be at the bottom? It means that the gravity field is the strongest at the base. That's the bottom of me. Well, the gravity field is tiny bit stronger at my feet than at my head because my head's a tiny bit farther from the center of the planet. So I see helium rising. Why is it going up? Because compared to the other gases comprising the atmosphere, it's less dense. So everything is ultimately... This is one thing that the loud Earthers get right is that the density actually is very important. So there's a gradient. Well, that's a little bit different because once you've invoked a gradient you're presupposing space temporality whereas density is less. So you can define density without delving into space temporality whereas a gradient implies some type of motion and lo and behold, you have to condescend into the ickiness of space time and well, we all know where that goes. Pseudo science, yeah. Yeah. Pseudo science. Exactly. But so what stops the gas from going to the vacuum of space? What stops helium from leaving the exosphere which is the outer layer of the atmosphere, I believe and going into the vacuum? Why does it... Density as well. So it'll go up and up and up and up because the density of the ambient air is higher and then eventually the density of the ambient air will diminish and then it will be equalized and then at some point it'll probably pop and then the only mass you'll have left is the container and that's gonna... So we have gas pressure here on Earth, correct? So our argument is gas pressure requires containment. Uh-huh, very good point. This is something that they can't really account for so I'll grant you that you're right to be skeptical. And maybe... Your honesty is very refreshing, by the way. I just have to say that at least we can have like somewhat reasonable conversations, you know, even if we disagree. Yeah. It is a big bandaid. It's a big bandaid. What happens from a scientific perspective is that gravity pulls all of the air molecules down because gravity acts upon everything. Upon pulling it down, it compresses. You have pressure. The lighter or less dense things that gravity is not acting as strongly on goes up. When it goes up, there is less pressure that is pushing it away. So it eventually finds an equilibrium where it's not being pushed out by pressure but it's still being pulled by gravity. We still do lose atmosphere into the space every year, by the way. Yeah, but entropy would necessitate that it would be a spontaneous seeking of equilibrium. And you're bringing up pressure to answer the question of how do you have pressure? What's the antecedent to pressure? Gravity. No, it's... Yes, gravity pulls down. So when you get propane, when you get propane, are you using gravity as the container or are you using a physical container? That's got nothing to do with anything. We're talking about gas. That's a complete non sequitur. Wait, so if we take the propane to the top of Mount Everest, do we need it to be here? So why does the propane try to get out? Because it's seeking its equilibrium. High pressure wants to go to low pressure unless there's a physical barrier. No, a barrier. It's just that gravity acts as a barrier. It isn't a barrier, but it acts as a barrier. It pulls down the molecules. The molecules try to rise. It finds equilibrium in that stage. That's it. It's very, very simple. Okay, let's pretend that we're going to a kid's birthday party and we're going to have some helium balloons. And I need to bring helium to the party. Okay. How do I do that without a physical container to contain the gas? That is a gravity. Do I just go to a... Do I just use... I'm not straw manning. No, because helium is less dense and unlike the upper atmosphere, you are surrounded by pressurized oxygen that if you release it, it will just go up. I've explained this. Is helium a gas? Yes, of course it's a gas.  Of course it's a gas.  No. Oh, so is helium isn't a gas? Is that what it says? No, no, no, no. So to transport helium...  Is that what you're saying? No, no, no, no. No, that's for good. Then what are you saying? Because that's what I said. Helium's a gas. So what are you saying, Oscar? You said that gravity actually holds pressure down adjacent to a near-perfect vacuum within the negative 17 core and it prevents it from seeking equilibrium, but some of them get a... No, no, no. It does seek equilibrium with gravity being part of that equilibrium.  It can't exist. So it can't be part of this equilibrium. Well, if it is, it makes sense. Sir, if there is propane, if there's propane gas in a propane tank, okay, and you open the container, what happens to the gas that's inside the container? Because of the pressure at sea level, its lower density will cause it to rise. So it will leave the tank, correct? If there's propane gas in a propane tank and you open the container. Yes. The gas inside will leave the container. Yes, because the gravity of the container is not the same as the gravity of Earth. This is a complete straw nan and a false analogy. So that's my answer. It's because of gravity of the container is not as great as the gravity of Earth. What direction does the gas... What gives the containment in the flat Earth model or you don't... Oh, there's some type of physical containment because we don't deny natural law. So like the second law of thermodynamics necessitates that there's a physical container. Of course, the good old people over at the government don't really find a bus going to be able to find stuff like that out. That's how you know they're not hiding anything and we should finally believe them. Okay, so you think there's a physical container? That's fine. So can we address the demonstration that I brought up with the different Sure, I did, but real fast. Just to make a point, just real fast, bro. When the gas disperses... Sure, mate. Do you agree that it disperses omnidirectional? It's omnidirectional dispersal? Yeah, I'd like to go on to the demonstration that I brought up with the... Let me move him a point then. Omidirectional dispersal, that's all directions. That includes up, antithetical to down. And then, of course, gravity supposedly has a singular vector of down relative to the center of mass. And so that would be the strongest, the most accessible, strongest point of gravity. Yes, but on dispersal, it goes up and to the sides because there's more than one force acting on it. Like, you can't just say, hey, gravity's the only force to exist in the world. There's also wind patterns, there's currents. There's a ton of things acting upon it. Your effort to sort of make these really false analogies and these really poor analogies are just, it's really... These are more clearly irrelevant. Hold on, just to make sure that... If I hop in and maybe try to give an account... Just a second, hold on. Just to be sure there's not too much interrupting. Like I said, even those little ones, but I do want to give a chance. Who was it that shared their screen? Just because I want to... If you do want to share something, I want to give you a chance. Otherwise, I want to return to the normal view. It's me. I'm trying to account for the containment, if I could. Sure, go ahead. Yeah, so I'll grant you what you're saying. Like, it does seem strange.  Well, why isn't that happening to us right now? How do we account for the containment? And I can give you a model that accounts for it. No problem. It's a little bit complicated because it's a question of like, what's the role of the moon is playing in the sustenance of the atmosphere? And as it turns out, the moon is a necessary condition for the atmosphere. We could say it was probably the same event that created the moon and the atmosphere. And at the time, the atmosphere was frozen, which is what the top of the diagram is showing there. It's actually that frozen mass that dislodged the moon and the moon is just perpetually falling away and in space that just keeps spinning around. Again, it's got to be globes for this to, sorry, it's nearspheres for this to work. And over time, more and more and more sun just keeps coming in. And basically the way to understand the stasis field, as it were, is that the moon is deviating the path of the water that wants to evaporate away in a radial direction. So if there was no moon, the water would just evaporate all the way to the end of the universe because there's nothing to stop it. Once it gains that energy from the sun, it's gone. But the moon, what does the moon do? Just comes around and scoops it and keeps it behind it. So the moon is effectively creating a three-dimensional spherical wave moving in towards the planet as the planet is emanating heat energy away from its surface because the sun coming in, bouncing off the surface and bouncing out. And those inward pressure and outward pressure from the moon and from the atmosphere creates this sort of stasis field that contains everything. Does that explain it? And you need a sphere for that to work. So hopefully that clears it up and you can be having to come to sphere moment right now. Why on the show? Okay, prove this, prove this a little bit of your sphericity of the moon. Okay. So again, we're going to just walk it through really slow. So if I have a pro-painting with... Could you address Jen's point? Sure, you don't need to interrupt. I'm going to address her point. Okay. We need a physical container to have gas pressure. The moon orbiting around us is not going to create gas pressure. Okay. So I'm going to talk to Jen now. Thank you. So Jen... This might have to be...  This might have to be our last point. We got to go into Q&A because I know that we want to get you guys out of here as promised on... Can I make one two-second point at the end? Just one two-second point. If it's super fast, but go ahead, Kai. If it is so piffy. All I want to say is that they never actually addressed the model that I brought up, dodged up, you know, asked three times, never actually pressed it. We watch it once this airs, and you'll see I literally answered it before the presentation that all stars move east to west. Clockwise and counterclockwise are not directions. They're simply perception, and maybe you should pump the brakes. But I think Kai interrupted like 50 times. No, I can't speak. You keep interrupting even the lady, bro. Even the lady. Even the lady, bro. So like, can she ask these three fundamental questions real fast before we go into Q&A with that you interrupted? Thank you. And I wish we could go back into gas pressure. It sucks that we can't. But okay, so this is about the sextant. Are sextants used by mariners to successfully navigate using the relationship between Earth's surface and celestial objects? You guys aren't familiar with sextants? Please speak now, but... Is that dividing the visible sky into six? No. No, it's used for navigation by the Navy. It's a navigational tool. Well, you're making three points or three questions. She has three questions, and they're yes or no, close-ended questions. And she just wants to see so the audience can see how knowledgeable the special amount is. Yeah, I'd rather be able to respond to questions without sort of just a yes and a no. I find they're usually loaded questions. Sorry. Ask your questions and I'll address them. I don't know if I can do this. Okay, let's just go back. Okay, well, here's the deal. Are sextants used by mariners to successfully navigate you using the relationship between the Earth's surface and celestial objects? The answer is objectively yes. It's been done for decades, hundreds of years, maybe even longer. Number two, are sextants used to obtain elevation angles from your position to celestial objects? The answer is also objectively yes. That's how they're used. The number three is, can you obtain an elevation angle from a curved adjacent, a curved baseline, or a spherical surface? And of course, the answer is objectively no. Well, they're not supposed to be accurate with relation to a globe. They're just meant to measure celestial objects into a navigation system. They're not assigned for them. Well, why does it work then? If there's a globe, it wouldn't work. Well, why does GPS work? GPS comes from the Loran system using a Cartesian coordinate system that adds a z-axis. That's nonsense. Like, you can be in the middle of Australia here, in the middle of nowhere, nothing around you for, well, nearly the entire country. And GPS still works, and it wouldn't work on a flat Earth. It's all good. Like, you may not know about it, looking to it, but I know Jane is trying to move on, and we are kind of time crunched. Yeah, I'm not sure why you brought up three questions. Well, just because of, yeah, well, because we went through a few times, but Kai couldn't get a full sentence out. But it's all good. We can move on to Q&A. I think that anyone that actually understands sextants knows that your answer doesn't cut it, but we can move on. It's no big deal. Yeah. And they only can work if the Earth is well. Yeah. Mariner's known that the Earth has been a globe for centuries. So, you know, they obviously disagree with you. Oh, okay. Cool. I know one that disagrees with you. We do want to jump into the Q&A. One, yeah. Congratulations. My dear friends, first, our guests are linked in the description if they have a link right now. So, for example, Jen and Whitsi gets it are linked below. Highly encouraged to check that out. And that includes if you're listening via the podcast folks, as we put our guest links in the podcast episode for every single debate as well. And with that, we're going to jump into this Q&A. I'm going to move fast, folks, because I've got to warn you right now, we have so many questions, and we have to wrap up in 30, actually less than 30 minutes to get the speakers out of here at the time that we promised. And so at this point, any questions that come in as of this moment or later, like you're rolling the dice, I don't know if we can get to them. I'm going to try to work through these as fast as I can. Here we go. Three, two, one. Udav, heck you. Thank you for your question. Says, can Medicare for all work on a flat earth? If so, why can't we get it in America? I think that was rhetorical. Thank you very much. Zach Morgan says, my good friend is a strong Christian and a commercial airline pilot. He says the earth is undoubtedly spherical due to their navigational system, based on a globe, as well as other proofs. Is he just a liar? No, he just missed the understanding. I know hundreds of pilots personally, and everyone knows you only see a flat horizon up there, and you use small portions of mapping using Cartesian coordinate systems on a horizontal plane. So no, he just missed understanding.  You got it. And thank you very much for this question. Coming in from made by Jim Bob says, Jen optimization of shape assumes teleological position. What is the purpose of the earth and what is it optimizing? And you might want to define teleological in case anyone's new to that. Teleological. Like I think they mean purposeful. Like there was a purpose or design behind it. I see. The oft touted non-problem of design. I would refer you to the least action principle. Fairly strong assertion in physics. Difficult to interpret, but quite valuable. Using one of those things where we look back, it's like, oh, the models that work really well, well, they abide by the least action principles. So we're going to stick with that. Thanks for your questions. This will come in from Ilset Nova says, for the Q&A, Austin and Kai, who runs the scientifically proven facts that you all refute, please be specific. I think they're saying who's leading the conspiracy of the flat earth on the planet. Who's leading the conspiracy? I don't even know. Oh, powerful groups of people that, if they were intelligent at all, which to pull this off, they'd have to be, wouldn't let you know their name. And again, no, not everyone's lying. And it's science masquerading, pseudoscience masquerading as pseudoscience is now the norm. We're asking you, just think for yourself. You don't have to believe any theories. Some do with the lab coat tells you, use empirical evidence in the scientific method. They show correlation. They don't actually really establish causation.  You got it. And earth is life. Thanks for your question says, those are all wide angle lenses with it. Yeah, they impose curvature. Thank you for playing.  By the way, if you're sick and twisted folks, we do have a question on whether or not Santa, it's a debate coming up this month on whether or not Santa is satanic, namely the idea of Santa. You tuned in for that one. But this one is, why doesn't the angular size of the sun change throughout the day? It changes throughout the year. And why do you assume it would change throughout the day? You'd have to actually know its makeup, its location, the difference between a parent and actual location. And it actually does apparently change in the sky using proper filters, just a minute amount due to its relative location to us, its makeup, which we don't know. But I know for a fact, it's not 93 million miles away as gas chilling in a vacuum and defying entropy. So you got it and thank you very much for this question. Coming in from Earth as Life says, NDT also said, quote, the earth isn't, Neil deGrasse Tyson says, also, quote, unquote, the earth isn't effing flat, unquote. I think that's pretty good. Yeah, yeah. It's called a hostile witness, right? So we're just using someone from your side because oftentimes you're running into people ignorant and so they make arguments that even the people that are above them on their side disagree with because of ignorance. So we're just trying to spread information for everyone. Most people don't know Neil deGrasse Tyson said that. He's explaining the curvature pictures actually are not really Earth curvature. That was our point. You got it, Ann. This one coming in from Quick Lemon says, this goes to both Mark and Jen. Please explain the universe in under 30 seconds. My guess is the most realistic answer will be the most concise. Oh, this is a setup. So I think that BigBag Cosmology, the rapid expansion of the universe, we can prove this by our redshift. What caused it? We don't know. I guess that's under 30 seconds. I'll leave it to Jen. Can you make the 30 seconds, Jen? Uncreated universe exist in the mind of God. I am that which is. I see the rest of my time. You got it. Yeah, good stuff. Good stuff. Decepticons forever says if the Coriolis effect is fake, what properties of the Earth are making hurricanes and how are their quote unquote life spans ranges and spin so understood? Okay, yeah. So differential and weather patterns that build up over months and months of temperature fluctuation is how hurricanes are actually formed. And so, yeah, we actually observe and document the temperature fluctuations which result in due to the difference in temperatures, the water moves around. There's nothing to do with the Earth spinning as all hurricanes have to be in two opposite directions on above and below and they don't, so weird. Well, and it contradicts itself because they say that the atmosphere moves in synchronization and then at the same time it doesn't and that's where you have the Coriolis. So it actually contradicts itself. There is no spin. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Mr. Monster says, why does the shadow on the moon have curvature if Earth is flat? Why are you assuming it's a shadow, bro? Because if it's a shadow and lunar eclipses are caused by the Earth blocking the sun, casting shadow onto the moon, how come during the selenilion eclipse, actually the sun and moon are above the Earth during the eclipse? That seems to falsify the notion that it's a shadow, which is a privation and absence of light. It is not. So what is obstructing the moon? Good question. We know it's not the Earth being a sphere, though objectively it's called the selenilion eclipse. They call it the impossible eclipse. Space.com says celestial geometry says this cannot happen, but it does. Science. This one coming in from GPS says what causes Doppler shifts in satellite RF signals? What causes Doppler shifts? That's right. A differential in the amount of time it takes the sound to get to you in your location, a distance. As it pertains to this conversation and actually are red shifts and blue shifts nothing more than Doppler shifts and what actually are they? That's the real question. Why do satellites give us Doppler shifts? Good question. What medium are they in and then what's the duration of time it takes to get there to know the efficacy of propagation? You need to know the medium. But that's just word. So I'm sure. And it's not a vacuum. The medium is not the vacuum. This one coming in from Mr. Monster says what do you think is under the flat earth? No one's ever dug deeper than 7.8 miles. It's called the borehole in Russia. No human being alive that breathes that says they know further than 7.8 miles is being honest objectively. You got it. This one from debate night says Kai made the claim she can zoom the sun back in after it sets. I want to see proof of that or a retraction. I think in a retraction of what you said if you can't show it. Yeah, we don't have a video. I don't think we don't have a video right now. But yeah, we have videos. What always happens is the Glober say it wasn't a good enough filter. You know, as we spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on cameras and filters and they don't do anything, they say it wasn't a good enough filter. That's why you could provably bring the sun back into view.  So we must be done. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. Melkoth X says if the earth is quote unquote flat, how can I prove it for my own confirmation? Watching the videos of people saying it is quote unquote flat is not enough. Agreed. And we would hope you never do that. And that's a beautiful question because that's where you should be if you're intellectually honest. Go make observations. Man, make long distance observations, laser tests, mirror flashes, et cetera. You can shoot lasers. You can do the globe math. It has to block your view, block the laser, block the mirror flash a certain distance based on the geometry of a sphere. And it doesn't do that. So you go look for yourself and you will find out very quickly. There is no earth curvature blocking our view. They lied about where you live. Yeah. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. Coming in from quick lemon says this is for Jen. I watched your previous debate with Mark, but with this Ligma stuff, are you the greatest troll of all time? Have we been Rick rolled? If I am, thank you. That does still not make me the best scientist alive at this time. Thank you very much. This one coming in from Soldier of Science says, Austin, if we can predict a supernova that will be visible in the sky next year, does that go against the flat earth theory? The typical conflation of post-Dixon and prediction. There's a cyclical nature to the sky. And actually it's clearly electromagnetic and a fluid like medium. Oh man, Austin. But so anyway, yeah, there's electromagnetic cyclical nature to the sky and to post-Dixon is the same as prediction.  This one coming in from Ozzie in talks says, I do satellite end to end testing that must see four satellites and I test with people 100 miles away. Only works on a globe with gravity in space. So seeing things way too far away only works on a globe in space. Gotcha. And there's also no real pictures of satellites. Just try to Google real pictures of satellites and they will all be CGI. That's kind of weird. We did it two nights ago. Real pictures of satellites in space, NASA. All you will find is CGI, the first results on NASA's website. So that's kind of weird. Do better, NASA. Science. This one, Ozzie in strikes again says, he says I have observed water curving around the globe with a drone going up 500 feet above sea level with a cargo ship in scene. Saw the curve are my eyes lying. The other guys Tyson would say that you're lying because he said that the Felix Baumgartner jump, you can't see the curve from there. So, yeah, math says you're lying also. So, yeah. Stellar J. Atkins says, Erath Sinise experiment works on both flat and globe models by simply challenging the presumed size of the sun. It's a flawed experiment. Correct, specifically distance. Yeah, I think that was for me. So we have other evidence to back it up. And he postulated it first, and it turns out he was right because we have mountains of evidence to confirm it that Flat Earth is just one wave away, but yeah, it's other stuff as well. We missed that. We're asking for it. Yeah, we missed that. We just had your little rubber ball with like piece of paper on there. We'll get there. We'll get there. Yeah, which you didn't address in the slightest and you didn't want to talk about because you couldn't actually refute it. You just ran away from it all, all debate. So thanks for jumping in there. This one coming in from Quick Lemons says, Jen's argument isn't true. It's beyond true. Isaiah 42 says, Austin, do you think Round Earthers consider the Bible is 100% motionless Flat Earth book? Jesus, a Flat Earther and Round Earth is from T. NASA equals Satan? Do I think that? I think it's pretty funny that NASA means two deceiving Hebrew as a staked tongue going through it is missing the T when they shoot a rocket. They say T minus, but people that are degenerate atheists that are afraid there's a creator so they have moral accountability don't want to acknowledge the inevitability of the Earth being stationary geocentric center of everything. So yeah, every ancient civilization knew it. I do happen to know the scriptures of the most historically accurate compilation of room will never shy away from publicly stating that. So I'm about my father's business next. Will Stewart says, quote, I don't know who I like more. Mark or Jen? Well, you have a fan mark and Jen. They are fighting over you in their own head. Made by Jen Bob. Thank you. Thank you. Black Jen more. Jen's more lackable than I am definitely. Absolutely.  All right. That's enough of this. Made by Jim Bob says, James, I recommend for future debates that one side affirms a claim and the other side refutes two affirmed positions is bad faith. I don't know if it's bad faith, but thanks for your feedback. If any of you want to respond to that, otherwise, I'm going to move to the next one. Glober has sponsored claim falsifications in the period of placement. I will give James a bit of a down here. This is a very tricky subject to debate because of, you know, modern times. Chris Gammon says, no matter the strength of my telescope, I can't see Mount Everest from Dallas, Texas, where modern day debate debate con will be in January. Thanks for that plug, Chris. Go ahead, Austin and Kai, if you'd like to respond. You have a limit to how far you can see just like when you're in LA. You can't always see the Hollywood sign because the pollution and the atmosphere is in the way. So you can't see forever. The telescope can't see forever. The atmosphere literally gets so thick that you can't see long distance. So the big flat earthers would be able to see forever. If the earth was flat, it's a straw man. It's pretty ignorant. This one coming in from Magellan of Singapore says Jen is adding. Oh, not a fan here, Jen.  How do you like them apples, Jen? I will work on it and try to come up with some better diagrams for next time. Maybe we can get a slightly more engaging topic. Come on. We better look at it at least as much sense as everybody else. Let's let's face it. Come on.  We want you to look into it. Just look into it. That's the worst thing. This one from Made by Jim Bob says, Jen, if quote level, unquote, on a sphere is technically a point parallel to center of mass, at what length or distance does level, quote unquote, become curved. Sorry, was that for me? I missed that. Yeah, Jen. Oh, Jen, okay. Level. Let me know if I have to say it again because it's a mouthful. Yeah, maybe we should go through that one one more time because there seemed to be a whole host of presuppositions. They said, if level on a sphere is technically a point parallel to center of mass, at what length or distance does level become curved? Oh, I see. Oh my gosh. Yeah. So the idea is that if a sphere is, you got to think with the ant and the ant hill thing, right? So the ant only sees the ant hill. So for the ant, the whole life is the ant hill. So it makes sense that that would seem to be the right shape, but then there has no bearing on the actual shape. So a sphere, if you're small enough, it seems flat. That's easy enough. You got it. A prospecting. Thank you very much for this question. Will Stewart says, I figured it out. I like Jen Moore. Sorry, Mark. She is more interesting. No, I understand. I like Jen Moore. I like Jen too. Thank you very much for this. Will Stewart says, I figured it out. Oh, we got that one. Made by Jim Bob strikes again. He says, Mark, is the bending of spacetime keeping the atmosphere in place or is a force at the center of a ball pulling the atmosphere down? No, it acts like a force, but yes, it's the bending of spacetime due to mass. You got it, Ann. Thank you very much for your... It's like if you have a hole in a shape that it'll bring everything towards it. Things will fall towards the center of mass. It's like bending love. You can bend concepts. Yeah, you can't bend concepts. Science. Well, it's not really a concept. It's called a phenomenon. So maybe... Oh, okay. ...the term is actually... Okay, cool. This one coming in from Debate Knight says, Kai made the claim that she can zoom. Oh, we got that one already. Ann, let's see. Chris Gammond says, Debate, my standard flat Earth question. Airplane with unlimited fuel flying straight ends up where it started when it circled the globe. Explain that. Yeah, so there's no such thing as flying straight, okay? So we navigate using a compass. It's like... I don't understand why people laugh about it. It just shows your ignorance, bro. So you can't go straight. We navigate using a compass. It points north. You go east or west relative to north, right?  North to south circle navigation. Never been done. No such thing as a straight line in navigation. You got it. This one from Mike Menzee says, Mark, what's the distance to the sun, moon, and the nearest star? Nearest star I know is 4.2 light years. To the sun, I'm not quite sure. I have to look that up. And same to the moon, I think... No, I can't remember. I'd have to look it up. 238,000 miles. Just in the sun. But we know nothing. 93 million. Diameter of the moon. Oh, like I said, 2,000 miles. Yeah, yeah, I just... My field is computer science. Well, my field is debunking the globe, man, you know? That's on our calendar. Look, it's on our calendar. This is what we did all week, dude. Yeah, yeah. No, I get that people can memorize things and still be wrong. A lot of people that have memorized things are still wrong about what... But your trampling on my... ...doesn't actually prove anything. I agree with you, because all these people know how to do is regurgitate rudimentary things. They were tight, but you're stumping on our joke here. Oh, but you're special, right? You're special. You can regurgitate things that you know what you're talking about. So you're special, right? Well, I always thought the same thing... I always thought the same thing as you. I just broke out of it. Yeah, but now you're an exception. So you're saying that people regurgitate stuff and it doesn't prove anything, but yours does. Well, look, if you adopt my calendar, maybe you'll get where we are. It's... Well, I want the calendar that works.  Well, and I think Mark just might be strange, because he's been living outside down his whole life and all the blood's been rushing to us, because according to you, you're down onto... You've been upside down for a lot, so that must be really frustrating, right? So from your perspective, yeah, from my perspective, you're upside down, so the blood's rushing to your head. Cool. This one coming in. I got you. Do appreciate your question. Mike Menzie says, Mark, what's the distance to the sun? Did I ask this? I did ask this, right? Yes. The distance to the sun, moon, and the earth star? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, sorry. My working memory is shot. I didn't... Unfortunately, I woke up in the middle of the night and couldn't get back to sleep. Magellan, thanks for your question, says, Loran, capital L-O-R-A-N, was shut down. In 1998, Whitsitt stopped talking nonsense. Well, it's a good thing I said that it predates GPS, and I did not claim that it was still in use. It has the exact same use case. They added a Z-axis to the Cartesian coordinate system used for navigation that's been used for years. You got it. This is what I'm coming in from. Genie, I didn't see a question, Genie. And same with anomaly bear. Let me know if you meant to attach a question to your chat. I didn't see one. But Magellan, thank you very much, says, Austin, does a bifurcated pulse, aligned plasma simplification, falsify the privation of an observed moderator on a toroid reification blue shift? Clearly a troll. Clearly a troll. Pretty funny. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you guys is mind shut down after three syllables. Dude, give me a break. Mr. Munster says, do you believe in circumpolar navigation? Is that a trouble to you? Oh, that's for us. There's no such thing as circumnavigation north to south, which is the only thing pertinent and relevant to this discussion. You got it.  Whitsitt learned some philosophy of science. Oh, so science isn't temporal, meaning temporal, meaning it doesn't fluctuate or change. You know it doesn't change? Natural law in that debunks the globe. Natural. Thank you very much for this question coming in from Marty Leeds Live says, do Mark and Jen think we have gone to the moon? And if so, what is their major malfunction? Yeah, I think we've gone to the moon and there's no malfunction except for maybe a poll of 11 where there was a major. Well, there's a bit of a replication crisis isn't there?   She's just being honest. Maybe she just agrees with us. That's all that matters. Yeah. Well, we're going to go to the moon again. There's a one schedule. So we'll see what happens. I got that. This is juicy. What is it? Do you know what it is, Mark? I'm curious just because it's 2026. 2028 maybe. They push it back every couple of years. It's going to be all girls, allegedly. 24, 25, I think. Wow. Well, they had set the goal. So in the next few years, we will see. Like, and you guys will all find out. You want to bet $1,000 right now live that it doesn't happen on whatever the date is right now? You want to bet $1,000? They change the date again? Well, they may do. I mean, it's not going down the road for a pizza. It's a very, very technical process that if they rush it, people could die. They rushed it seven times in the 60s, bro. And they destroyed the technology. And it's a painful process to put it back together, according to Don Pettit. Yeah. Yeah. That's because the technology was old, outdated. It's not what we did. But it got up to the moon. Yeah. And they haven't been back because of the moon. Let's give them a chance to respond. Yeah. So they just, we basically would not use that technology. It's all redundant and, quite frankly, just out of date. We would create something better there. Hasn't been a reason to go back to the moon. And when other organizations like China have done moon missions, they've sent drones. You got it. We must move into the next one. Why would we send humans? Quick lemon says, Jen, where are your maracas? Oh, the maracas. Yeah. Where are they, Jen? Where are they? Now, let's just go to the next question. I don't even know what to say to that. Is this some sort of innuendo? Are these soldier of science is Austin and Kai? What do you think of the Cassini or Voyager missions? What do I believe about people claiming to go to a medium that literally can't exist scientifically? I'm pretty disinterested in it. I just watch Netflix. And if rockets are going to space, why is your air not going? Good question. They admit they don't even go to space, by the way. They say that they're still in lower thorbis at home, man. So accelerating 2021. This one again, Tom, do appreciate your question. Kango for forces. Flat Earth is the most intellectually dishonest position out there. Two sticks is all that's needed to measure the radius of Earth. And perfect example of how actually it doesn't determine race. It's a circumference shows how you don't even understand your own religion. You self-projected your intellectual dishonesty because actually you're pretending that that proves Earth's a globe. When the Glober earlier admitted that it literally works on both as did NASA on YouTube. It works on both. So that's ridiculous. Actually, Flat Earth is intellectual honesty summed up because we have to admit we don't know everything that actually we just know they lied to us. And now we're piecing together what we do know. We physically measure the surface of the Earth. It does not curve at the rate necessary for a radius value they told us. That's just a fact. You're going to have to live with it or pretend it doesn't exist. Soldier of Science says, Austin and Kai, what do you think of the Cassini or Voyager missions? I think you read that one already. So sorry, you guys. I it's really bad.  It just, Mr. Monster, thanks for your question says, do you think God created the Flat Earth? Well, the necessary antecedent to creation is a creator. So yeah, I don't believe in everything came from nothing, but it wasn't nothing. There was a preexisting energy which comes from a Catholic priest. So your atheists, your atheists, his worldview literally come from a creepy psychopathic Jesuit priest. Yes, Georges Lamontre, I don't know exactly how to say his name, but he was a Roman Catholic priest.  Yeah, the creator created where you live, man, just accept it. It gives you more power, not less. All right. The last two, we've run out of time, folks. So to get these guys out of here on the time that we promised, I'm going to read these last two and then we're going to wrap it up. Magellan says, Witsit, how does a radio-based navigation system differentiate, in parentheses, Loran, L-O-R-A-N, between a y-axis and x-axis signal? Sorry, it's not physically possible. So differentiate between the x-y signal? What that doesn't even make sense. The Cartesian coordinate system is how you map it out. The signals are how you actually determine location relative to a centralized location. So you take your Cartesian coordinate system and it maps out central to your location, right? So we have the Cartesian coordinate system for mapping purposes. How do radio propagation work for thousands of miles if the ground's not horizontal, though? So this one coming in. Seriously, folks, stop with the questions. What this says, what stars really look like, says, the Potter's Clay, quote unquote, is a great flat earth channel for the skeptics. You won't find evidence for a stationary earth unless you know where to look. This one coming in from Ben Snyder says, Austin, we can see the stars rotating counterclockwise or clockwise, depending on how far north or south you are on the globe. How do you explain this? All right, I'm going to say it really slow this time. So clockwise and counterclockwise are not directions. They're relative directions. They're relative to one another. They are not absolute directions. East and west are absolute directions. Every single star in the sky moves east to west around the central points. Okay, perception changes clockwise and counterclockwise. These are two different things. Actual directions, absolute directions, and just apparent conceptual relative directions. Steve McCrae's manager says apparently G-Man, his channel has been raptured from YouTube. What will we do now that he's been banned? I didn't know G-Man was banned, poor G-Man. Rumrunner says sniper schools teach sharpshooters to compensate for the curvature of the earth for long-range shooting. So are they all lying as well, Austin? That is patently false. And everyone in all the globes trip out and they call my bluff. I literally know the people I say I know. I know tons of people from the military that shoot one, two, and a half miles. I just talked to one person the other day. They're never taught to account for earth curvature. Now they're told that at a distance, there may be some Coriolis, but they never actually have to account for it. They account for bullet drop, much more significant at those short distances than the earth curvature, which just shows how detached from reality that thought is. And if the earth is spinning underneath the bullet, it should also spin underneath a drone or a helicopter. A helicopter should be able to hover over New York and wait for Paris to spin underneath it. And this can never happen because the earth is not moving underneath it. You got it. And we've got a wrap up there, folks. So sorry if we didn't get to your question. I did definitely announce it on stream. About two minutes ago, I said, like, we can't take any more stuff sending. But we do appreciate your questions and we do want to say we appreciate our guests. They are linked in the description. So if you want to hear more, hey, what are you waiting for? You can find their links down below right now, whether you're listening via YouTube or the podcast. But I want to say Austin, Kai, Jen, and Mark. Thanks so much for being with us. It's been a true pleasure. Thanks for having us. Thank you so much. Thank you guys for being here. Thanks for being pretty cordial. Thank you, Jen, for being cordial. It was cool. Nice to meet you. Talk to you soon. Say it flat. Appreciate your guys' spirited responses. And I want to let you know, folks, stick around. I've got a big, big update. I am absolutely pumped for in that post-credits scene. I'll share that with you. As DebateCon is more formally launching, this is our in-person debate conference coming up in January in Dallas, Texas. It's going to be huge. So stick around for updates on that in just a moment. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to let you know about some huge updates. My dear friends, if you did not know this, modern day debates, DebateCon is launching. I want to show you some of the big, bad, and amazing debates that are going to happen at this conference.  Let me show you these right now. My dear friends, this is going to be huge. We're absolutely pumped for it. So let me show you just two of the debates have been put up out of a grand total of 10 that will be happening during the conference. You don't want to miss these folks. And we are also launching our Kickstarter, or basically Crowdfund, for the event tonight. And so I am going to put the link in the chat. But I do want to show you really quick first. You might be thinking, James, what are you talking about? Like, what do you mean about this? I didn't know that there was going to be this DebateCon thing. Well, let me show you. I am so pumped, you guys. Seriously, this is big time. We are doing big things here at Modern Day Debate. We are stepping it up. So let me show you on screen right now. You can see the main page for Modern Day Debate. Those are just two of the DebateCon events that we're hosting. This is going to be monstrous. You guys, we are absolutely pumped for this. And we are 100% determined because this is a big risk for us, guys. I've got to tell you, our Crowdfund link is in the chat right now. We do want to encourage you to help us make this event happen because the simple truth is this. We are, you could say, running on borrowed capital. What I mean by that is basically, we are doing this conference in hope that people will support us through the Crowdfund and through ticket sales. You might be like, oh, James, I'm sure it's fine. It's probably nothing. Like, no worries about that. No, no, no, it's actually, it's a big, the budget is probably, I haven't done the, like the precise math, but it's around $20,000. No joke. It is a huge budget to have a two-day conference with about maybe like 15 to 20 debaters. It is going to be monstrous. And so I've got to tell you, I have just linked or you could say pinned that Crowdfund to the top of the chat right now. It just opened literally within the last couple hours. My dear friends, I worked on it, in other words, right before this debate in terms of launching it. This is going to be huge. And so let me show you, because you might be like, huh, I was like, I don't know. What are you talking about, James? Like I'm kind of curious about this. I haven't seen it, but I've got to tell you, we have got a huge budget that we have to meet. So let me just show you some of the details on this. And so I've got to tell you, I have just linked. I'm clicking on the link and I will pull up this actual page itself just so you can see, because it is a monster. I am showing it on screen right now. This is the page which I just pinned at the top of the live chat. And you guys, for real, we are going for it with this new conference called DebateCon. So let me show you, in particular, our goal for the Crowdfund is $5,000. That is 1,500 more compared to last time because I don't know if you guys remember, but last time it was 3,500. And that was for a single debate.  You're having 10 big debates. How are you going to do that if it's only $1,500 more for the Crowdfund? I will tell you, this is how, in particular, we are also going to sell tickets at the event. We have no idea how that'll go. We hope that we can sell a lot of tickets. The reason being, if we didn't sell any tickets, we are in big trouble. And that's why you could say that the Crowdfund is kind of like a fallback plan where if we don't sell enough tickets and we're like, oh, smokes, we have this huge bill for the venue, as well as for all the flights of the speakers, that would be a big, you could say a big, something that we'd be nervous about. So I do have to tell you, my dear friends, we are pumped about this. It is going to be gigantic. And it's very easy. You can log in using Facebook. So if you're like, what is this website, Indiegogo, James? If you log in via Facebook, you don't even have to give them your information. You can throw funds right into there. And the trick is, with this, we absolutely have to reach our goal. Like I said, this is something that we have no idea how it's going to go. And we want to ask, would you partner with us? If you have enjoyed modern-day debate, if you're like, yeah, I love modern-day debate, it's been fun, would you help us fulfill this goal of putting DebateCon on? Now, you, like I said, might be wondering, well, I was like, hi, James, I don't know, like, what exactly is it, though? Like I said, I'm going to show you a couple of things. One is, you might be thinking, well, James, I don't know, like, are the debates good? As I mentioned, oh, they're good. They're very good. So I'll show you two right now. You can see on screen, David Wood versus Nadir Ahmed, that is going to be a juicy one. And in particular, let me read the title for you, that is on, does science show that the Quran is true? That's going to be a massive one, as well as in person, too, can religion and government overlap with Elijah Shaffer and destiny? That is going to be big time. You guys, that's honestly, like, these are, like, super high caliber debates for the conference. And so I do want to say, are you willing to join us to fulfill this vision, namely, of providing a level platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field? We're determined to do that.   We will reach the goal. And this event is going to happen. So I have to tell you, my dear friends, we're going to keep releasing with each debate that we have in the next five debates. We are going to release two more new debates where we share with, hey, basically, this is the two new debates that we're adding to the conference as we release them. And so I do want to encourage you, my dear friends, maybe you're like, well, I don't know if I can give it this moment, but you know, I'll think about it. Do think about it because this, if we, I don't know if it's going to happen. Who knows if we had a surplus somehow, if we were like, wow, we sold enough tickets and the crowdfund made it so that we have, let's say an extra $1,000. It is guaranteed we are going to put it toward the next conference.  No, no, no, no, no. It is going to go into a checking account that we're going to, we're working on basically having it ideally be a public checking account so that anybody could see the amount that's in it. That way people can see that, yes, 100% if we happen to have anything extra, even if it's $100 extra beyond the 5,000 goal, it will be used for our second debate conference, which frankly no joke is already being planned out as two people reached out to us today because they were like, hey, we know that our debate is going to be big and we want to have it at modern day debate. No joke. So we're super flattered that they trust us because that's ultimately what they were looking for is they said we want to make sure it's like a neutral platform. That's why they have been so gracious in saying that they'd be willing to have their huge debate at modern day debate, debate con, part two in May. And I do want to say, you might be wondering, like, ah, James, I don't know. I mean, is there any reason? Like, are there any perks? Yes, there are. So let me show you these because you might be thinking like, ah, I don't know, James. Like, what are the perks? I mean, are they just for betas? Well, let me show you. For one, as you can see on screen, oh no, you can't, but now you can, is the first perk being support the cause without a perk? That's an option. If you want, you can throw a few bucks in. That helps. And you have our sincerest thanks. As this is a, like I said, we're taking a leap here. Like, we're really like, I'm very serious folks. Like, we don't know how this is going to go. So your support means a ton. I'll give you an idea of most venues per day that we were looking for. And I think the one we found is a little bit cheaper than this. But most venues are about 4,500 per day. So in other words, this will cover, this crowdfund will cover the venue for half of the conference. And we're hoping that ticket sales come in to cover the rest of the venue costs as well as the hotel and flight costs for the speakers. So this is big time, but I've got to show you the other ones. You can watch all of the debates live. Not all of the debates will be streamed live for the public. Some of the debates are actually going to be such that only if you jump in at the, as you can see on screen, where it says, watch all the debates live, if you throw in less than, less than 10 bucks and you'd get to watch at least three epic debates live that otherwise they're not going to be live for the public. There's 10 total debates and we're probably thinking about three of them are only going to be streamed for people who have thrown into the crowdfund to help us make this event happen. And so that's one perk that I'd say, oh, like, hey, like that's absolutely worth it. That's three debates. So it's like $3 per live debate that you get to see, which is, like I said, these are big time debates. We are looking for like the top of the top people. And so this is going to be a monstrous event. We expect it to shake the foundations of the debate world on YouTube. It is going to be gigantic. So let me show you another one. If you wanted to, because remember, we're selling tickets to try to help cover the cost of this event, we're going to have a live audience. So if you want to ask a question from home, because maybe you're like, James, I'm in Los Angeles, James, I'm in Canada, I'm in Europe, but I still want to actually ask a question. If you put in $50 toward the crowdfund, you can ask a question from home as we won't be able to take questions as usual. Because obviously for those who have bought a ticket, we want to prioritize those people's questions. But we're like, hey, if you're willing to support the crowdfund, we are willing to let you ask a question from home as we appreciate that support. Because we really do need it. And we want to say, please do consider this though. It's so easy. You do not have to, like I said, put your info in there. You don't have to create an Indiegogo account or something. You can just log in via Facebook and add funds to this crowdfund. It's like, we are really excited about this, folks. We are really determined for this, folks, as well. Thanks for your super chat. Shetty Bear says, Ninja, appreciate that, Shetty. Seriously, we do appreciate your support. Thanks for being with us, Bear. And good to see you though in the old chat.  And you might be thinking, oh, is debate con? Yeah, absolutely debate con. But even in addition to that, let me show you this one. This month, the picture is quite grueling. It's quite frightening. I'm almost like I was looking at it, and I was like, maybe I should change that. That's almost too scary. Whether or not Santa is Satanic is a topic we are covering this month. You do not want to miss that. Believe me, it's going to be juicy. We are excited for that. And so I've got to tell you, that one's going to be an awesome one. That one's not in person. That's one of our normal remote debates, or basically over Zoom. But we are pumped about that. And I've got to tell you though, we are absolutely thrilled, my dear friends, that so many people, I've got to tell you, they have said, hey, it is so useful to be able to listen to modern day debate on the podcast. And the reason is, or something is like, maybe I can't even make it live, or maybe I don't have the data to watch it live on YouTube. And so they're like, it's so convenient.   There's our sweet little logo. Thanks to Tepotzle. Thanks for your edits on that Tepotzle. And you can listen to these debates. We always put the debates up, almost always. Within 24 hours of the debate happening. And so if that's useful, we really hope it is. I'm just encouraged that people have said, yeah, it is actually really useful. And Carl Taylor, good to have you with us, as well as Master Optics and Dude Liberty. We are glad you were with us. The ultimate, we are pumped, you're with us, as well as Daryl Frost and Wind. Deborah E, good to have you with us. And Extra J, pumped that you're with us.  Thank you for your support, seriously. That really does mean a lot. And thanks for real. Thanks for being a member. That's encouraging. We really do appreciate that. By the way, if you happen to be a member or a Patreon supporter, what we are going to do is, for those particular debates that I mentioned at DebateCon, that will be basically only for those who put into the crowd fund, you will be included with those people, even if you don't put into the crowd fund, just because you're either a member or if you happen to be a Patreon supporter, don't worry, if you want to watch those debates live, all of the debates, including the exclusive ones, you'll be able to watch those without putting into the crowd fund because we appreciate that you already have supported us. That really does mean a lot. And we just want to say thank you for that. And we don't want you to put any extra into the crowd fund. If you feel like you want to, you're welcome to, but you don't have to. We're going to send you that link for those exclusive debates anyway. And then, CMDR, thanks for being with us. We are pumped, as well as, question the answer is good to have you with us, as well as, Science Works in Mysterious Ways, and Ryan, thanks for dropping in, as well as, Joe Leto, good to see you again. And Jared A, thanks so much for being a member, Jared. Seriously, that means a lot. And Wyatt Earp, thanks for coming by. Amanda says, this is so epic. It really is, for real, you guys, this is going to be gigantic. And I know you're like, I don't know, James. I only see two debates. There's going to be, like I said, a total of 10 debates at this conference, five per day.  Like, this is big time, believe me. These are going to be high-level debates. I mean, you've already seen it. David Wood is a huge debater and influencer, a content creator with over half a million subscribers, for example. And then Elijah Schaefer and Destiny, between themselves, have easily over a million, probably close to a million and a half, subscribers, followers across their platform. So like, this is big time. This really is big time. And the crazy thing is, there are other bigger debates than those even, that we haven't released yet.  So, Shetty Bear, thanks for coming by. Thanks for your kind words as James. You look better than ever. I swear you have an age of day since the All-Star Game. That's so kind of you, Shetty Bear. And Shetty Bear, I'm trying to remember, are you talking about the Shriners All-Star Game? Let me know. But I am pumped, you guys, I've got to tell you. We have got big things coming, in particular, not only do we have this conference coming up, and we are pumped about that, believe me. But I got to tell you this. In addition, we have a lot of debates we just put up. So, for example, if you're looking at the YouTube page right now, I want to show you this, because you're maybe like, James, I don't know. I'm like, what are you talking about? As you can see, tomorrow, so I'll, oh, she put my cursor on it, and that might make it easier for you to see. Tomorrow, Victoria and Sanvi are going to be debating the controversial topic, A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N. That is going to be a slobber knocker. No, actually, they're really friendly. So, I don't think it's going to be too slobber knocker-ish. I think they're actually quite cordial. But we are excited. We already mentioned that one, with regarding whether or not the idea of Santa is satanic. That's going to be a good one. But also, pumped, Islam versus atheism, which is best for humankind, between Randolph and Nadir, that's this month. So my dear friends, we've got a lot of big ones coming up that we're just absolutely pumped for. And so just so you can see, in the top row, those are our debates that we have coming up before the conference, just our normal, like remote debates. And then in the bottom row, where it says debate con, you know, it's got that playlist there, and it says debate con January 15th through 16th. That is our debate con list. So, it is going to be gigantic. I am pumped for it, but let me say hello to more of you in the old chat because I really do. I'm pumped to have you guys here, and it's always a fun time for me. This post-credits scene is always a blast for me. So I've got to go in a little bit, but I do want to say hello to more people as I want to say thank you so much for all of your support. Jared A. says, James, do you ever support no glasses? Actually, I rarely wear glasses. I wear these because sometimes my eyes burn because I look at a screen all day. And so these are actually just blue light blockers or lenses or filters. I don't actually wear glasses. These are actually just because, and also especially because I usually stream at night, I want to like prevent blue light just because I want to go to sleep somewhat soon. But thanks for asking. And later, Deborah, thanks for coming by. Ryan saying goodbye to Deborah, I think. But Deborah, we hope you have a good night. And then, CMDR, after hours, pumped to have you with us as well as Peter G. And ExtraJ, thanks for coming by. Let Tornado, good to see you again, as well as Michael Keeling, thanks for coming by, as well as Mango Tea, pumped to see you. Chris Gammon, thanks for coming by. Seriously, thanks for your support. It says dropping some dank coin on that base crowdfund. Seriously, that means more than you know. We really do appreciate it. And believe me, I know that every time we do this, folks, sometimes it's like, James, are we going to be able to make it for this crowdfund? Like, you might be thinking like, James, like, thank you so much for our first donation of $250. We are going to make it. Believe me, my dear friends, thank you so much, Chris, for your support. Seriously, that means more than you know. It really does. And so we are determined. We will make it. It is going to be huge. It is going to be gigantic. And it is, it's true. We're taking a risk, but it's time. We are there, folks. It is time for modern day debate to take some risks, to take some big steps. We are close to 60,000 subscribers. And we're so thankful to you guys for that. Seriously, thanks for your support. Thanks for subscribing. Thanks for sharing the content. All that you do for real, that means so much. And we are determined by the end of the year to hit 60,000 subscribers, we are on a march to make it there by the end of the year. And our goal, Lord willing, is by the end of 2022, we really do plan on hitting 100,000 subscribers. We are shooting for the stars, my dear friends. We have a lot of potential for growth. And these conferences we really do believe are going to help us get there as we try to expand the vision across YouTube of providing a level playing field so that everybody can make their case on a neutral platform. We're determined to do that and want to say thanks for your support of that vision. Win, thanks for coming by us. Thanks for modern day debate. Another globe person. Let's see. MangoT says, debate con, the biggest debate conference in the world. I've got to say, I think it is. I don't know of any other purely debate conferences. I've seen some that have happened in the past like five to 10 years ago, but we really are moving into this space, picking up the flag and running with it, leading the way. And so we are pumped about that. And like I said, we are willing to take some risks here. And we want to ask if you would help us as we do that. It is going to be gigantic. Like I said, the budget is close to about $20,000. And so that is something that we are hoping to sell a lot of tickets. Tickets will be on sale soon. We are hoping to launch the tickets within a week, maybe ticket sales. As anybody in Dallas, Texas, we want to welcome them as it is going to be a gigantic one, a fun one, and we are pumped for that. Jared, thanks for coming by. Pumped to see you there in the little chat. Rumrunner, thanks for being with us. And Wynn says, I would like to go to that debate life. Well, you definitely should, as that conference is going to be on the hook. Hannah Anderson, thanks for being with us, as well as Wyatt Earp. Good to see you. Chris Gammon says, based on the poll earlier, we might need, let's see, to have a globe versus banana-shaped Earth. Hey, that could be. It's 2021. And Joe The Toe says, hit the Rogan up button, you all. Please do hit that like button if you enjoyed this debate, as that does help us in the algorithm. And we are at 167. We can totally make it to 170. We're only three likes away from 170, my dear friends. So want to say, though, let's see here. Sheddie Bear, good to see you. It says, let's see. We love to aid in moderation. I have a lot of experience in using OBS. I'm open to that. Oh, that's right. Sheddie Bear says, I am Ninja, Wisconsin All-Star. Yes. I remember Ninja. That's right. Because I can't remember, I'm actually, I'm struggling with his name because we called him Ninja for the whole camp. But basically where he would us, one of the largest offensive linemen, I don't know how tall he was, so tall. But basically this huge offensive lineman, powerful guy, I think it might have been Jacob. But I can't remember because we called him Ninja as his nickname, could sneak up on us in the most surprising way. I can't believe it. Wow, Sheddie Bear, thanks for being here. I am so encouraged to have you here. That wasn't that the game of a lifetime? I can't, we were the underdogs. Oh my gosh, that was awesome. So the North team, blue. That was amazing. So we are pumped seriously. I'm pumped to have you here, buddy. Thanks for dropping in. And we have, I have such good memories of that game. Seriously, that was just a fun, fun game. And let's see here. Ryan, good to have you with us. Thanks for your support. And then Cheddar Bomb, thanks for coming by, says, thanks for providing such a great neutral platform for debates, best on YouTube for sure. Thanks for that. That seriously means more than you know. Seriously, I'm pumped to hear that. That is encouraging. And let's see. Cheddar Bomb, thank you for real. I'm just so encouraged to hear that. We really do want to make it so that we can be the most neutral platform possible. And Andrea says, Shalom, y'all. Much love. Thanks for your support. And I'm so sorry to the Twitch chat. Let me jump into the old Twitch chat because I have so sorry, folks. I get sometimes YouTube, the YouTube chat tonight was pretty busy, but I think like 500, over 500 people watching today. And so I'm so sorry to the Twitch chat. I was so like occupied, tied up and want to say though, thanks so much for all of your support. I see you there, rad goat. Thanks for being with us in the old Twitch chat, as well as Brooks Sparrow and Rewardian. Thanks for coming by. We are pumped to have you here in the old Twitch chat. And we're obviously on YouTube. If you are not following us on Twitch or YouTube, we're on both and you can find us easily on both by typing in of course the same name, Modern Day Debate, as well as Kiz8Zik. Thanks for coming by, as well as Allison Wonderland. I see you there in the old Twitch chat, as well as Ozzie and to Potsle. Thanks for coming by in case you're still in there. But yeah, I am pumped that you guys, it is really fun. Cool stuff coming up. And then let me jump back into here. Let's see. It's moving fast on me. Sideshow Nav, good to see you. So you're going to rock the Blazer and basketball shorts live. That will most definitely sell tickets. That's funny. I actually believe it or not, I'm wearing jeans right now. I don't know what I'm thinking. But let's see. Yeah, it's like the only night ever that I didn't wear basketball shorts. But two seconds. Embarrassing. Now, Hannah Anderson, good to see you. Thank you so much for being with us. And I agree, Hannah Anderson. Thank you so much, Chris, for being so generous. Believe me, folks, we are going to keep hitting higher numbers with that crowdfund. It is going to happen. You guys have seen it before. If you have any doubts, if you're like, oh, I don't know if they're going to make that goal of $5,000. I don't know if I want to go in on this. We are going to make it. We and all of our crowdfunds, we have made our goal. In particular, you'll remember Kickstarter, Michael Schermer and Mike Jones. That debate was our very first one. We made our goal for that. The second one, Matt Dallanti versus Dr. Kenny. We made our goal for that as well. We are 100% determined. We will make our goal for this.  It is going to happen. Believe me, we are pumped, you guys. Thanks for your support, Ryan.  Got you. And a Maraca dance. What is it?  This is like I said, it's some sort of innuendo that you guys are doing like that. All that hot Carl talk you guys are doing. I don't want to know what all this stuff means. Iron Horse. I see you there. Let's see. Oh, Iron Horse. We told you, you have to. We don't want you to be personally attacking people in the chat. You know that. And then the ultimate good to see you as well as Rumrunner says, why not find a quote, quote, stork theory advocate to debate a quote, live birth advocate? Hey, it's 2021. You're right. Why not? I agree. So I am pumped to see you though, Peter G and Howard Moore. Thanks for coming by. Chris Gammon, thanks so much. Seriously, we do appreciate your support again. And then let's see here. Mike 71 pumped you are with us. I hope you've had a good day, Mike 71. And Chris Gammon says, Saturdays are holidays in December. Do you have a date for Patreon meeting this month? I don't. I have to figure that out. Saturdays are holidays in December. I don't yet. I was thinking about it just this morning and I am looking forward to it, but I do have to still set it. It's been a busy last several weeks, but nonetheless, we will make it. Jared A, thanks for coming by. And I'm glad you reminded me of that, Chris. If you guys know me as you do, you've already noticed, I would lose my head if it wasn't attached to me.  I don't know. It's like G-Man. I don't know if Dawkins is going to be willing to take on G-Man. That's a lot of power and energy. A G-Man. We love G-Man. I can't believe his channel's gone. I feel bad for him. That's true. Debt Rusty Guard Rail Bear, thanks for coming by. We are pumped that you were with us. And we blew past our goal of 160 likes. We're at 170 likes. I think we can totally get to 180. We do want to encourage you, hit that old like button as we are absolutely pumped, my dear friends. We can make it to 180. But I've got to tell you, I know you might be thinking, James, I don't know about this. I really, I just don't know. We are going to make it to this goal. And I've got to, I'm just pumped about it. I'm sorry. I'm a little bit obsessive as you know. But I've got to tell you, we will make it to the goal for the, for the actual crowdfund. It is going to be gigantic. It is going to be mega. Even me and T-Jump are doing a car wash in January. It is going to, it's going to work. We're going to do this and it is going to be huge. Edward Redbeard, thanks for your support says, everybody hit like. I agree, Edward. I couldn't agree more. Thank you so much for that support. Amazing. Captain Crunch, we are pumped to have you with us. And then Pudafoot says, I live five hours away from Dallas. But if you and T-Jump have a bikini car wash, I will be there. Hey, you better believe it. We will do whatever we have to to reach this goal. We are 100% determined. We have to reach it as we are doing big things here at modern day debate. And many hands make light work. Really, that's so true. Because let's say you're like, ah, James, I don't know about this.  Because like I said, some of the live debates we're asking people, will you put in the crowdfund in order to watch them live? So let's say we have 245 people here today. If everybody put in 9 bucks, then in a single night, we would almost reach, actually we would reach because we've already got 250 in there. We would already reach our halfway point or so in a single night. We absolutely can do it. And like I said, many hands make light work. So if you have people, even if it was just everybody putting in 3 bucks, that makes a huge difference. And like I said, if there's any surplus, we have no idea. Like the truth is, theoretically, it might be the case that it's like, okay, we didn't sell as many tickets as we thought. Maybe we are a little bit in the hole. We'll take care of it. Like I will personally make sure that we're okay. In other words, like I'll make sure we survive. But that's something that we want to at that point, we want to say, well, are we able to do this again? Because to be sustainable, to be able to do these conferences more than once, we're hoping to at least break even. And like I said, if we make it beyond that break even point, it will all be saved for the next conference to help defray the costs for that next conference to be cheaper. So that's something to keep in mind.  I couldn't agree more. I haven't seen that son of a gun in so long. Brooke Chavis, thanks for your support. Seriously says, I put $9 on it. Thank you so much. Seriously, Brooke, that means more than you know. It really does. And we are pumped you guys. And I would say, help us gauge where we can expect to be because it helps if people are putting in sooner rather than later because it is common that people put it in especially the last week. But it does help us know like what can we expect? Are we, you could say, how far away are we from the goal? So we do want to encourage you to consider helping us get that early momentum. If you will throw in some cash right now, is that seriously does give us a good start? We really do care about that. But we want to say, we are excited about the future. We appreciate you guys. I love you guys. I always enjoy this. I've got to run. I've got to get to sleep because last night, I got to be honest, I did not sleep well, but we are excited about the future. I love you guys.  I really do enjoy you. And I do appreciate you so much for all of your support, but it's already late. So I do have to run and want to say, thanks everybody. I am pumped. And I hope you guys have a great rest of your night. Amazing. Isn't that amazing?