 Today we're debating Flat Earth versus globe Earth and we're starting right now. With our globe side starting us off, thanks so much for being with us Del, the floor is all yours. Yeah, so I just have a few, I guess, points that we're going to go over. I guess the core of one would be that the Earth is observably spherical and it is rotating. We've done that through different technologies that we have and different measurements. If you'd be willing to play the one video, the arm video James, this is just a quick physical practical experiment that I performed a few hours before starting this debate actually just to demonstrate that density is in fact not what causes things to fall. So in this very short 40-50 second-ish experiment I made two cubes, two very nice companion cubes and one of them is completely solid and one of them is pretty much hollow. Just to be sure I'm on the same page, did you want me to actually press play? Yeah, go ahead and press it on the arm one. It is playing so it's now showing it being shaped by the machine. So it should be able to demonstrate that even though they're more dense than the other, they fall at the exact same rate and they hit the table floor at the exact same time. So that's part one of what I would, I guess, want to go over is what's causing that, if they're more dense than the other, how is it going down at the same time and hitting the table at the exact same time? So that's part one and part two would be in the second video. James, is it done? Two seconds, it went into autoplay on one of our past videos. So two seconds, I'm going to switch that over. I've just got to click over two seconds. And your second video, speed of light, gravity, I have playing three, two, one now. Excellent. So in this video I've actually used, this is all seen through, this is what you would see through the headset. I'm using one of my Magic Leaf headsets, which basically projects, you could call holograms, like HoloLens by Microsoft, but it's different company. It can project holograms and other things, like whatever you want, basically, computer screens in your world that you can see. So in this video, I have a couple demos, there's a ball that's bouncy and it's thrown up and then it rolls down the hill where I am outside. There's a couple where a little robot jumps off a table and everything's done. Purely with math, because it's computer, so it's pure math. And how can gravity, if we don't understand gravity at least enough to like, you know, simulate it, how are we like accomplishing this? And then I think Magic Leaf is kind of the flatter killing machine, just because it not only shows that we understand gravity enough to simulate it, we also understand the speed of light because we're using only cameras and lasers to tell depths and distance and to basically assign objects and recognize tables. And then the controller, which uses a magnet on the side, is not interfered with at all. So it can get an accurate position using only a magnet, or like a sensor, to get the position of where the controller is in space. And it can do that accurately without interfering with anything else. So if it doesn't work, if gravity is magnetism, why aren't I getting interference on something that is so sensitive to magnetism that it can track an object in 3D space? And then the final part, I guess, of this is the lenses themselves. We understand light adequately enough to be able to make these sensors for the headset, but also the lenses that project the images into your eyes. So the whole point is here, I'm going to, I guess, address this as we go along, but if we don't understand these concepts well enough that we think the earth is flatter or whatever, how are we making a headset like this? And how is it doing the things that it's doing if we don't really understand them? And if math isn't really able to demonstrate the real world and figure things out, basically, they say, oh, math is fake, but we can recreate things like gravity using pure math. And I guess that's it. Thank you very much. There are almost times left. You got it. Well, thank you very much, Dell. And I want to remind you, folks, a couple of things. First, our guests are linked in the description. We really appreciate our guests. And so you can find their links below. And that includes if you're listening via the Modern Databate podcast, we put our guest links in the description as well for the podcast episode. And by the way, folks, if you haven't found us on your favorite podcast app already, do pull that out and find us as we've been really excited that people have been, we've got a lot of positive feedback. So we're thankful, it's useful to people. And with that, we'll kick it over to Wotan for his opening as well. Glad to have you back, Wotan. It's been a while. Well, I'm glad to be back. Yes, so I'd like to change it up a little bit with my debate strategy here. I told Dell here that I wanted to set up a modest tolerance. But first, I want to show my little cool video that I made here. If you don't mind, James, like I said, I wanted it as a little Mozart playing in the back. So if you could decline right now, if you want the copyright, I don't think it should be much of a problem. But you could send a bill to me or something if it's a copyright strike when you see it. Okay, here it is. Second, you can see it. Yes. Wait, where is it? Okay. There we go. I'm going to just fucking do anything. I'm going to put this there for a second. Shut up. Oh, we got audio. Was the music supposed to have started by now? I don't hear anything. Okay. If the music was supposed to have started by now, we can't hear it. We see a man doing some sort of interpretive dance, but we don't hear music. I hope there was audio there. There was. It didn't. I didn't hear anything. Excuse me? I think that it might have been the case. I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be there yet or not, but... There was no audio. All right, forget it. Okay. We'll just get right into the debate. That's a typical Ravenfell right there. All right. So modest tallens. So do you agree, Dell, that if the art is round, if P, then you? I just want to confirm your intro is done. Yes. Okay. Right. I'm not displaying anymore. No, no. I just want it time-wise. Like your opening statement. No, no. I need to get to my opening by the modest tallens. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Go. So if P, then Q, if the earth is round, then water is adhering to the exterior of the shape due to gravity, correct? Yes. Yes. That's a concession. Okay. If P, then Q, if the earth is round and your model gas is in a vacuum around the ball due to gravity, correct? Yes. Is it any vacuum? You mean like the earth is out of space is a vacuum? Earth is not a vacuum, right? It's not. It's not. Out of space is a unperfect vacuum, but sure. Okay. Yeah. But it's a 10 to the negative 17 tallens. It's in there. Absolutely. Yeah. There's no vacuum chamber on the face of the earth. It can become even remotely close to the vacuum of space, correct? For this debate, sure. No, no, no. It's not for the debate. It's a matter of fact. It's a matter of fact. Well, for the sake of this, I don't know. Nasty's chamber. Listen, don't play stupid with me. Nasty's chamber doesn't even come of 10 to the close to the vacuum of space. Okay. Sure. I'll give you a question. Yes or no question. Yeah. 10 to the negative 17 tall is the vacuum of space, okay? And we have gas around the ball in your fairytale world. Gas around is around the world in your fairytale world. We do have gas pressure. We've got the spirit pressure. And it's enveloped inside of a vacuum known as space, correct? It's enveloped within the vacuum known as space. It's inside the vacuum of space, correct? Yes. It's inside. Yes. That's a concession. Yes. Okay. So that's true also. If you wanted, yeah. Weird way to phrase it. No, no, no. It's not if I wanted. So if you wanted. These are your claims. No, I said it's a weird way to phrase it. These are not my claims. These are your claims. These are your fairytale solutions. I said it's a weird way to phrase it. No, it's not a weird way to phrase it. It's very simple. Yes. There's gas around the ball. Is there not? Yes. There is gas. Next is if the earth is round, the atmosphere, which is around the ball earth, is spinning at the same speed as the earth, correct? One second. Just want to, in case, pardon my interruption, but just want to let people know because they are asking who is speaking. So if you hear a thick New York accent, and I'm going to pull it on screen so you can see his screen. That's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Walton saw on Graydon Dawkins. I should probably just change my YouTube alias by now. You'll be able to see in a moment. It's a low talk. I'm making it so that you can see the light on the screen. As our guests have not used their cameras tonight. So what I'm going to do is you'll be able to see on screen. It'll light up on the outer edges of the picture of the person speaking. And that way you'll have an idea of who's talking. So go ahead, gentlemen. Excellent. Right. So the last premise, I could grow in about 100 premises into this modest hall. It's easily. But for the sake of brevity, for the sake of James's time and our time here, I left it down to three, to two, but short and simple. I could believe you, I could add many, many more. But these are three of the, just to let the audience know, these are three of the single most foundational baseline claims that must absolutely be true. There is no question that these must be true. You're saying it's a little foundational, basically, is that the earth is in space and there is atmospheric pressure? No, no, no, no. If these are the most foundational claims that if the earth is round, these three claims must be true. There's no other way that it cannot be true. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So the third premise is if the earth is round, if P, then Q, the atmosphere is spinning around the ball at the same speed as the earth is turning inside of a vacuum. If the earth is spherical, I don't know if you're one of those flat earthers that says, oh, you're not flat, you're round. But for the sake of this sphere. No, I'm talking about you. Forget about flat earth. I'm talking about your claims. I just want to make sure that you're not safe. Forget about flat earth. I'm a triangle earth. How about that? I'm a triangle earth. What does it matter? It makes no difference. These are your claims. Good to continue. I'm challenging your claims. Okay. So the third time I'm going to say this, the atmosphere in your fairytale heliocentric ball earth model is around the earth and it's spinning at the same exact speed as the earth is spinning. Correct? Correct. Thank you. Okay. So now can you please show me one single scientific experiment to demonstrate anything which consists of Q? You want to play that? I mean, we have pictures of it. That's not it. That's not an experiment. I want a scientific experiment. I don't know. I want a scientific experiment. What is the main experiment? I send a problem and above the world and I take a picture of it and I send it. Listen to me. The debate is over. Dead stop right now. If you do not have a single scientific experiment to demonstrate anything which consists of Q. I don't know. I don't know. You don't know what the debate is all about. I'm going to take a picture of it. This is the world. But this is listen. Listen to me. Listen. Give me a minute. Give me a minute. Give me a minute. I'm still in my opening statement. Okay. Hold on a second. Okay. This is the world. This is shut up for a second. Shut me up now. Hold on a second. I want a minute. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. He's interrupting me James. I'm talking. I said I just want a minute. I just want to make sure you know. One second. We are going to hold on a second. What we're going to do is I'll give you a chance to speak Wotan. But to be fair. No, but I just asked you questions James. You were holding on to Wotan. That's it. Now I just want to continue. That's all. Wotan. Okay. So give him time. Wotan. It's all the time. It's all the time James. But okay. Wotan. Now Wotan. So Wotan. I have got you on. I've got you dimmed down. So let me just for a moment explain my concern. In particular. Is that just because I know it was your intro. But I was into the oppression was open conversation. So that's one thing is. I just want a minute. Well I'm going to give you. Okay. Gosh y'all. Okay. So just for clear. Because this will give you a minute to wrap up. And then we'll go into open conversation. To Flat Earth community. I, Graven Dawkin aka Wotan Soran. Been debating this topic for over six years. Okay. Easily. Debated astrophysicist. The whole nine. Team fuck stick. Fight the fight the stick. Okay. I don't want to say their names. Because James gets triggered. When you didn't say somebody else's name. Does not here to defend them. But I've debated just by everybody. Everyone. Okay. Blues fairy tales. Okay. You probably know who he is too. But it's up to you. Don't know who that is. Okay. So yeah. So I've debated everybody. I'm not stupid. Okay. You have just conceded. You've conceded in the premise. In my modest talents. You said that they are all true. And they're all accurate. That if P then Q. I asked you to provide me a scientific experiments. To show me how anything in Q. Is true. And you said no. Right. You don't know. You don't know. So. No, no, no, no, no, no. I didn't say no. You do not have scientific experiments. To. I'm going to give you a whole time. This is the world's fastest YouTube clatter debate in the history of YouTube. It's over. I just won. That's it. It's over. There's nothing to talk about. Okay. So I'm going to repeat that. I might as well just leave right now. I know I would love to leave right now and have James Jones's video show. Five minutes. And everybody's going to be like, wow, a five minute debate. Holy shit. Let me click this. Let me see what that's about. All right. We're going to do that. All right. We're going to get a million views. So we're going to jump into. I would love to just end it right here. We're going to jump into the open conversation. That's fair that each of you guys gets a chance to address each other. I want the world's record faces. I'm still talking. What we're going to do is want to say folks, we're going to jump into the open conversation. And thanks so much for your questions. We'll have Q and A at the end after this. Roughly 50 or 60 minutes if we survive of open dialogue. And also want to say, folks, if it's your first time here at that subscribe button, as we have many more juicy debates coming up, including in May, we are thrilled for this one, folks. Bigfoot on trial. So that should be a juicy debate on whether or not Bigfoot exists and whether or not there is evidence for Bigfoot. You don't want to miss that one. So do hit that subscribe. I'm more evidence for Bigfoot than the Glovers. And notification bell. All right. Here we go into open conversation. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. The debate's over. It's not a talk about. Yeah, you can babble. You can do crap whatever you want to say. You want to show you a little CGI. Virtual reality crap to show that that's reality. You can do that. That's fine. I live in the real world. I'm on tour. Well done. Well done. Are we calm? No. I'm from New York. I'm very serious. I'm very confident. I did not say that there is no science to prove it. You said you don't know. I showed you to show me experiments. You said you don't know. So I said I don't know what experiment that could prove every single point. You don't know what you believe is true. If you have multiple claims at the globe, you can't prove those multiple claims with one scientific experiment. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. And it says show me a scientific experiment. Every single part is a different claim. I see one experiment is not going to show all three. Yes. I want a scientific experiment for each premise. Yes. So you're asking for an individual experiment for each premise. Three different claims. You need three different experiments. And not one experiment that proves all of it at one time. There are three different claims. You need three different scientific experiments. I just want to make sure because I thought you were saying you wanted one experiment that shows everything because that's dumb. Right. So do you have three experiments to show me that the three premises are true? So bring up your first premise. What do you want to know? Just say your own claims. I'm not here to prove your world. You're here to prove your world. I'm sorry if I said what I brought in. I don't know. I'm not here to prove your delusions. I'm not here to prove your fairy tales. You're here to prove your world. I don't think you're your guess. Okay. I'm asking you, Wotan. Wotan, I can prove it, but I'm not. Do it. Now. What are you talking for? Do it. Well, if we're going to do that, let's go to what I brought. No experiments. Not. I don't want to see a virtual reality bullshit. I don't want to see a fucking super virtual reality bullshit. Okay. I don't think there's a virtual reality, Wotan. Don't get me wrong. I don't think so. I think there's a lot of video games. Okay. But I just know I think there's a big difference between video games and reality. I know there's a big difference. No, Wotan. I don't have fucking difference. You apparently you don't. You live in a video game. Let's get to the issues, though. Gentlemen, I do want to get to the issues. So what we will do is we're going to jump into two-minute intervals if it doesn't calm down. So in other words, we would basically be two minutes for each person to talk at a time and we just switch back and forth. So we want to keep this organic, open conversation going. We let's jump into the actual issues. All right, Wotan. You're asking me to prove the globe. What specific part? What specific? What specific part of it that you brought up? Would you like to know about? The three premises, each one, whichever you want to choose first. Doesn't matter. The atmosphere spins with the globe. The atmosphere spinning at the same, very specific, the same speed. Well, ironically, if I take a helicopter up. The same speed as the globe is spinning. Yes, yes. In a vacuum. If I take a helicopter up, it doesn't scoot around the globe. Right, because you have a fairy tale belief that you think that the atmosphere is going at the same speed as yours. Absolutely not a single remote scientific experiment to show whatsoever that that is even remotely true. You do not have any science on your side. There is no science on the globe. You don't have science. You have tropes. That's what makes trees up delusions. There's no time you've got to let Dell respond. Go ahead, Dell. All right, Wotan. Well, like I said, you can take a helicopter. You can go up. That's not an experiment. We know that it's not spinning. It doesn't have to. It's not an experiment. That's your observation. Wotan, why don't let him finish seeing it? It's a patent logical fallacy. Well, that's it. That'll just bring up the premise. I don't know. Like, he can continue from there. You understand that that is a patent logical fallacy? You're begging the question when you say that. The observation is, don't interrupt me for one second. Your observation is. Okay, I'm going to interrupt you. Wotan, don't take this personally. Just hang with me. Okay, we're going to just go into two-minute intervals. So, Wotan, if you want to get a response in, we're going to give it to you right now, and then we're going to go over two. So basically, I'm going to mute both of you if I have to as we switch back and forth, but just to keep things in order. But, Del, do you feel like you've got everything you needed to say? Yeah, if we fly a helicopter straight up, we know that the atmosphere is wicked. The Earth isn't flying around below it as we go up. Gotcha. And as we go higher up, we don't magically have the Earth going faster, faster, faster than us. All right, we're ready for you, Wotan. Wotan, are you going to purposely... Is he done now? Are you going to purposely not unmute yourself? Well, did he leave? No, he's still here. Oh, I didn't know I was muted. So, okay, the beast is unleashed. So, do you understand that when you use your observation and you include it in your conclusion, that is a begging-the-question logical fallacy. Do you understand? The observation is the helicopter goes up in the sky. Your observation is the helicopter goes up in the sky. It stays over the helipad, but it doesn't spin off. The helipad doesn't move underneath the helicopter because you believe that the atmosphere is moving at the same speed as the globe. And you're using your observation to prove your conclusion. Right. So, how would we test that? That is a begging-the-question logical fallacy. Do you not understand that? Or you absolutely can't? How would we test that? That's my observation. That's not the experience. That's what I observe. That is a begging-the-question logical fallacy. Are you ready to kick it back, Wotan? Yeah. Do you understand that's a begging-the-question logical fallacy? All right. Two minutes for Dell. Go ahead, Dell. All right. Well, that's not the entire experiment. That's what we observe to start asking the question. We see the helicopter doesn't scoot around. So, then we can do something else. We could send a probe up and see, oh, well, the Earth is a ball. And that's how we tell. We could go up higher, not into space, but just enough. And we can watch the helicopter go up. And this is what we're going to do. The helicopter would see it go up. And this isn't really my point. So I'm just kind of like free-balling. Because I don't really care about the helicopter. You don't care about the little bird either. You can watch it. You don't care about science either. I can tell. That's apparently obvious. You don't have any science. You're just babbling. So, I'm more in the mutual. You're using your- Dell is done. So, Dell, go ahead. You've got another minute and 24 seconds. Sure. Well, I mean, you could observe the helicopter. You watch it. And you watch the ground. If you keep going up, you notice it's not scooting. I don't change. I don't really know what it's like. Because I didn't bring up the helicopter. I don't know. This isn't my point. I didn't play the helicopter. All right. Whatever you're going to say, you have a minute left. Well, I don't know. I just know that regardless of that, I did a practical experiment to prove that gravity works the way we say. So if you want to talk about practical experiments, there you go. So we could talk about helicopters, or you could address the actual physical proof that I brought in. And it's your choice, Wilson. It's not my choice. This is your fairytale. Can I go now? Go ahead. Okay. You have to understand. If you don't concede that you're begging the question, every listen, there are scientists in this, most likely there's actual literal scientists in this chat right now. And they absolutely- It's probably- Listen, stop it. Don't interrupt me. Don't interrupt me. I have two minutes. How dare you? Okay. There are probably literal, actual scientists in the chat who would disagree with me that's fine, but they would agree with me on the grounds that you are absolutely committing to begging the question logical fallacy right now. You see an observation. You see a helicopter flying in the sky and you're fucking trying to sit here and tell me that the proof that why is the Earth is spinning with the atmosphere is because the helicopter is in the sky and not moving. That is a begging the question logical fallacy. Do you understand that? That's the observation. It's a logical fallacy. I don't care what it's a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy. Let's fly a helicopter. You're coming at me with a logical fallacy right now. That's the observation. And then you're making a grave mistake right now. That's what we would test for. You're making a great mistake. If I remember right, we're on Wotan. You got another minute and 25 seconds left. You're making a grave error right now. I'm letting these philosophers probably in the chat, people who study philosophy, that you're making a grave error right now. You're committing a literal, actual, patent logical fallacy and you're trying to sit here and fucking tell me that that is your proof of your conclusion. That's like me saying I'm dribbling a basketball and the reason why the basketball is dribbling is because I'm dribbling the basketball. That's exactly what the fuck you're trying to say. Why? Why is it happening? There's reasons. There's physics involved. Something's happening. What's going on? The wind, the air, the fucking, the fake gravity, whatever the fuck it is, there's reasons. You understand? It's not just you don't use your observations to prove your conclusion. It's a patent logical fallacy begging to question. Now I'm going to ask you one last time. I swear to God, I'm going to leave this debate right now if you don't show me an experiment, okay? I want the world record fastest YouTube flatter debate on fucking all of YouTube. I'm begging for it. I'm about to leave in two seconds, okay? No. It's about the fastest, most concise, and most conclusive, flatter the victory in the history of YouTube. Okay, I'm going to fuck. I'm going to fucking do it. Okay, let's see. I'm going to ask you one last time. Oh my goodness. Do you have a single experiment, clinical scientific experiment in my first video? Any premise in queue? Okay, I think that's the end of Wotan's time. So we'll give it to Reddy. Dowl for two minutes. Well, I can admit and I'll concede that I don't have an experiment involved. The debate is over. See you later. Wotan, don't do this. Don't do this. The debate is over. See you later. Wotan, don't do this. Well, I guess the helicopter did it for real. The debate is over. Wotan, listen. You just conceded. Wotan, you can interrupt. You just conceded. It's over. There's no point to say anything, no more. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It's not working. It doesn't matter. I hate to do this, Wotan. I temporarily have you on mute. It's just for a moment. Bear with me. But we've got to give him his two minutes. Let's at least let him finish. Maybe, even if you don't think what he said so far is convincing. I don't like James. Let's at least let him have the first two minutes. So maybe he'll bring up something that will convince you. All right, go ahead. All right. Well, he's yelling about me doing a physical experiment. And in my first video, I showed a physical experiment proving magical gravity. So I don't know why he's yelling about that. You could address that. Like address the evidence in the experiment that I brought. Or we could talk about helicopters and how that's an experiment. And by the way, just so we're clear, the helicopter flying is not the experiment. That's the observation you would have to initiate your experimentation. You would go from there. You see that happening. And then you go, oh, why does that happen? That's not the experiment itself, Wotan. I don't know if I could be even any clearer than that. Are we done? OK. The helicopter flying is not the experiment. That is the observation to initiate testing. I did not do that testing because I'm not talking about helicopters. I brought a physical experiment in and showed you. If you want to talk about experiments, address that experiment. That's it. Done? Yeah, go ahead. OK, so what does that have to do with the speed of the atmosphere around the earth? Oh, my goodness. You're dropping two little objects and they're flying at the same speed. What does that have to do with the claim that the atmosphere is spinning at the same speed as the earth? It doesn't have to do with the claim that the earth is a ball, Wotan. No, no, no. That's the deal with the claim. We were talking. Don't play stoop with me. Don't play stoop with me. I'm not stupid. OK, you're not going to fucking argue. We do want it right, Wotan. I want to give you two minutes. So I'll give you two minutes, Wotan. But if you keep asking questions, we're going to get sucked into dialogue. So I do if you can make your case in that two minutes. Otherwise, you guys, your dialogue chemistry is frightening. So I don't want to do any more. My dialogue chemistry chemistry is always frightening. That's just how we are. So when you take two objects and they fall at the same speed, that doesn't mean that doesn't necessarily follow to quote Darth Dawkins. So I'm going to want my family. That doesn't necessarily follow that the air is going at the same speed as the ball earth. In order for you to demonstrate that air or gas can travel at the same speed as an object is spinning in reference to the globe earth, you would have to get some kind of a giant gas chamber, huge gas, huge vacuum chamber, like something the one that NASA has, put a little gas in there. OK, however much you want to put, I don't know whatever it is. OK, make it like scale it down like the size of the earth. Like take like a scale, the amount of gas that would be around the earth and take an object and put it around that object. Make that object spin. Make the ball spin. OK, tell me at what points that when you're spinning that ball inside of that giant NASA fucking vacuum chamber, at what point does the gas inside that vacuum chamber number one go near the little tiny object and be attracted to it by retrograde, which is absolutely never going to happen because the ball is simply fairytale. But number two, you need to show that the atmosphere or the gas inside that vacuum chamber is going to somehow magically spin at the exact same speed as the ball earth, which is impossible, which has never been demonstrated. OK, are you done? Crickets? Yeah. I don't know how long that was, Wotan. I'm being polite to you, Wotan. Don't do the cricket shit because I waited till you were done. So shut up. Yeah, again. My experiment was not to prove anything about the atmosphere. That was your point that you have brought up. But I told you that I wanted to talk about this. We've got to do two minutes. If we're addressing my experiment, the experiment is to drop two cubes, not balls. Cool. Two cubes to see if the atmosphere is moving. I don't know why you're even getting to that point. I don't understand that. That's whatever. My point. Don't psych chart die. I'm sorry. That was ridiculous. OK, I'm sorry. OK, the experiment was not to show that the earth has the atmosphere moving around. My experiment is to show that gravity is what's pulling things down, not density or buoyancy or whatever else see you want to say. So we can talk about helicopters, the atmosphere, and the balls in the vacuum chamber. I don't care. I don't have a vacuum chamber here. So that's not my experiment. So you're trying to aside. I'm saying my experiment proves A. I'm saying, why doesn't it prove B? Go ahead. Yeah, so I told you before the debate started that I wanted to talk about the premises, which consist of my modest tolerance. And you're showing me an experiment which has patently absolutely nothing remotely. Whatsoever to do with anything which consists of Q, which is a part of my modest tolerance. So number one, you haven't you haven't shown a single scientific experiment to demonstrate anything which consists of Q. Now, one single premise. And now what you're doing is you're saying, oh, well, this experiment that I'm showing you shows that there is wrong. No, I'm talking about the modest tolerance that I set up. OK, the modest tolerance that I set up is what I want to know. Do you have an experiment to show water around the ball adhering to the exterior of a shape by virtual gravity alone? No. Do you have an experiment showing that the air can travel at the same speed around the spinning object inside our vacuum chamber? No. Do you have an experiment showing that gas can exist inside of an infinite eternal vacuum and be attracted by a little tiny ball? Yes, I do. No. I proved gravity. Well, John, that's what I'm talking about. Where is the experiments? I want to see. I don't want to hear your big shit jogging nonsense. I showed you the experiment. I want to see you share a screen and show a scientist with a giant chamber with an experiment. Oh, John, do you know what I mean? When you say that it's real. We're going to. I showed you. We've got a new. No, you didn't. You showed me two fucking cubes falling at the same speed at the same time. All right, all right. You've got it. Laura, now are you so stupid? What we're going to do. These are the people that I've got to deal with. Hold on. Wotan. These are the morons that I've got to deal with. Wotan. Are you serious? Just take a deep breath. This is the best you got. Everything. Is this the best you got? All right, we are going to, what we were going to do is set it for two minutes. And remember, right? Whose turn was it? I don't know. It's always my turn. Okay. I guess it's mine. Because he's the flatter. For two minutes, Dell, you get to make your case and then we'll kick back to Wotan for two minutes. Go. Yep. I don't know the time. I'm sorry. All right. So my experiment, I'll say this one more time, does not entail that this fear really at all? It involves it, obviously. It doesn't prove anything about this. It doesn't prove any of that. You just said, I can't prove gravity. I've shown you gravity. You just said, show me a guy in a lab coat, which doesn't make sense. Show me doing a video, screen share, doing an experiment. I just showed you an experiment being done on the screen. We can watch it again, James, if you want to see. The whole point is, one is really dense. One is not at all dense. They fall at the exact same time. How is that possible if it's dense to your boys or whatever else? Because that's what gravity says will happen. That's what buoyancy density does not say will happen. Why do they both have the same speed falling? I guess that's, yeah, go ahead. Okay. So at what point in this debate did I make any claims as to why things fall? You just said, I can't prove gravity. No, no, at what point did I ever make a single claim about how or why things fall? That is basing on the point that you do not think gravity is correct. No, but at what point, you're not understanding the question. At what point did you attack, you're literally committing a straw man right now. You're attacking me for a position that I never, that I know, that I don't know. Okay. You're saying that I believe that density and buoyancy explain why I think so was, I never even once, I never, matter of fact, that is the first time I even said the words density and buoyancy in this entire discussion right now. That's the second time. Okay. You're attacking me as a straw man. And in the other straw man. Density, buoyancy, or any other sea. I said that it shows gravity. At what point did I say density and buoyancy caused things to fall? I said it proves gravity. I didn't say you said that. Okay. So don't attack me for it. Don't attack the straw man. Then you just set up. Thank you very much. I'm telling you as an example. I'm asking you for your evidence. And also your experiment doesn't show, it's, hold on, your experiment doesn't show water around the ball, does it? I'm not experimenting for water around the ball. Well, that's what I want to see. That's what I'm going to say. Oh, I didn't prepare that. You will agree to the modest tolerance. You will agree to set up and to discuss the modest tolerance. Did you not? I'm sorry. No, I didn't know that. You didn't say that. I don't know your problem. You're lying right now because I recorded on my stream. You're lying. You're saying you didn't. No, no, no, no. Well, Tom, I did my experiment and I said this a few hours before the extreme. I would not be able to prepare an experiment for your argument, which doesn't make sense. Because you don't have it. That's obvious. I would not be able to prepare. I'm debating this topic for six years. No one has ever shown me a single scientific experiment. Do you understand that? Not one person. I'm showing you what, well, Todd. Not fight the glow birds. Not fight the fox, not, not not Blu's, Blu's fairy tales, none of them. I'm not testing for water around the ball. None of them. No one. Not Steve McFlane, nobody. I don't know why he wants to address the experiment, Loton, why do they fall at the same time? The exact precise same time. It doesn't matter. I want to see water around the ball. Why? It does matter, Loton, because that shows that there's water around the ball. Do you have water around the ball? I don't care what you want. You don't have water on the ball. Do you have gas around the ball? That's silly, Loton. No, OK. Do you have gas around the ball spinning at the same speed as the ball? It's very silly, Loton. No. No, no, no, no, no. It's very goofy. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's like issue of the world, part one. Well, the girls are saying no, no, no, no. They just know. Everything's no. You just don't have any experiments, do you? Can I quote one of the great scientific minds of all time? Oh, please do. I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the, wow. Apparently, you're not familiar. You can't remember the name. Good job. Wow. I didn't do much for you. How the fuck could I forget to say his name? Wow. Six years ago, I was talking about his name. How scary do you? You are. How the fuck is his name? How did I forget this guy's name? You can just tell me what he said. It doesn't matter how smart you think you are. It doesn't matter how intelligent, how beautiful your theory is. If it doesn't agree with an experiment, it's wrong. We'll try. I did an experiment through gravity. And it worked. So it is correct by his logic. Richard Feynman, Dave, Richard Feynman. Part of his tough was that it doesn't matter who it was. Do you agree with Richard Feynman? Do you agree with my, with the claim that Richard Feynman is absolutely one of the greatest scientists that ever lived? Yeah, I would say. Well, yeah, I would say one of the greatest scientists who ever lives says that I don't care how beautiful your theory is. I don't care how smart you think you are. If it doesn't agree with an experiment, it's wrong. Do you disagree with that? Oh my goodness. We'll try. You don't want to agree because you're not going to. I agree with him. I've said that already. Of everything you say right. We'll try. I already said I agree to that. You agree? OK. I already said. By definition, logically follows that everything that you're saying is wrong. My definition does not because I presented an experiment that you failed to address. Your experiment doesn't show water around the. I don't give a fuck about the water, well it does. Keep it separate, gentlemen. It doesn't show gas around the water around the ball. And the best part. The fucking robot arms. All right, you're going to jump into those two minute intervals. We're going to jump into the two minute intervals. So the best part is yet to go. I've got two minutes starting with. You're a moron, bro. You're a frickin moron. Wotan, we're going to start. We're going to start with Wotan this time for two minutes. And then we'll go over to Dell kicking it back to him for two minutes as well. Go ahead, Wotan. So he shows two cubes falling at the same speed. That's not what my premise in my modest tolerance. In my modest tolerance, it specifically says specific. OK. I want to see an experiment with a ball or any object, whatever shape you want to have it, with water being adhering to that object by virtue of that object's gravity alone. That does not exist. That's not in reality. That doesn't happen. So there is no scientific experiment to demonstrate that claim. Therefore, using Richard Feynman's logic, it is wrong. I don't care how beautiful your theory is. I don't care how smart you think you are. If it does not agree with an experiment, which the claim that water adheres to the exterior of a shape by virtue of gravity alone, it's wrong. Because there's no experiment to prove it. The second claim, guess in a vacuum. How does that happen? Defies the logic of definition of what a vacuum is. That's, first of all. Second of all, have an object attract guess inside that vacuum. Does that exist? No. So using Richard Feynman's logic, if it doesn't agree with an experiment, it is wrong. It's wrong. Period. And it's dead stop wrong. Richard Feynman makes it very clear. Net video on YouTube that he has, he makes it very clear that it's not that it's just, oh, it could be true, but they didn't know. He says it is wrong. It's wrong. 100% wrong. Third one. Show me an experiment, which he didn't show. He shows two cubes falling at the same speed, which is absolutely ridiculous. Doesn't show anything. It doesn't show any single thing that I'm showing in my modest thumbs. Nothing. Show me an experiment with a ball spinning inside of a vacuum chamber, put a little gas inside of a vacuum chamber, and then I want to see the gas and get attracted to that object, number one, number two. Show me at what point does the gas ever, ever. I don't care how fast you spin that object. Gas will never, ever spin at the same speed as that object. It is impossible. It's completely impossible. And the story. It doesn't exist. Your model of reality does not exist in reality. There is no way to scientifically demonstrate anything that you say. Do you understand that? The three most foundational, the three most foundational fundamental claims that absolutely must be true, which you agreed with, that those are absolutely three of the most foundational claims that you'll possibly make about the baller. These three must be true. Otherwise, your model of reality is just wrong. There is no science to demonstrate it. I care about science. I like science. I like science. Sorry, we're out. You can laugh when you want. But you're the answer to no science. You're the answer when you want. Laugh and be all you want. I will. Show me an experiment of anything that I said right now. So first off, if we had a ball that was just floating and having a bunch of shit floating around it that was tiny, that would actually debunk the globe. So that's not even a valid thing to say in the first place. Second, within science, which I know you've never actually done real, you don't work in any kind of practical field or you have to do science, so you wouldn't know this. You don't have to directly do that. You can prove concepts and you prove parts of it. I've shown that gravity works the way that we say it does using the VR or the AR thing, the hall or whatever, and using the test for gravity, the physical experiment. So if we can show, yes, gravity is correct. We can then continue saying it can, in fact, if it is real, it can, in fact, hold water to a ball. That is the point, Wotan, by proving gravity, by showing, yes, we not only know it's there, but we can use it mathematically. You could use the formula to replicate it completely digitally. We know gravity is real, and if gravity is real, we've just confirmed that water can stick to a ball in space because we know that gravity can do that. That's the point. We've proven that point with an actual experiment. Now the easiest way to debunk it is to debunk the experiment that I brought and just tell me why they both fell at the same time. Go ahead. Looks like it's switching over. Go ahead, Wotan. Does it necessarily follow the quote of Darth Dawkins that just because two objects fall, that just because two objects fall at the same speed, that there is no other conclusion, no other conclusion imaginable as to why it's true. Listen, loud talking, shut your mouth, shut up. Give him two minutes as well. Go ahead. Again, I'm going to read myself. Just because you show two objects falling at the exact same speed, does it necessarily follow that there are no other conclusions, no other remote, even possible other conclusions whatsoever that can possibly even fathom that the only reason as to why those two objects are falling is because the earth is this giant spinning flying ball that is attracting mass because of the space time, it's bending the space time continuum, which is causing an emergent non-force that is causing those two cubes to fall at the same speed. Does that make sense? Is that exactly what's happening? Are you asking me, is that how gravity works? That's exactly what gravity is. Gravity is the bending of space time at conceptual medium, two concepts. Well, no. Yes, yes, no, yes, don't say no. Yes, that's exactly what gravity is. Gravity is the bending of two conceptual mediums. But the problem with your little thing that you just said is that, yeah, it could be something, it could be pixies, pushing the cubes down because they're racing and they were just the same speed. The problem is, the problem is we have this thing, this concept of what gravity is and then we test for it. Concept. We can find out. Concept. You have anything real to talk about or you just talk about concepts and show your virtual reality? Do you just show virtual reality all day? Just virtual reality, CGI, bullshit, and representation? You keep going back to that, Rotan. That was the other video. What do you have? Do you have any actual real scientific experiments with real objects and no concepts? That ain't gonna go here. Do you have anything real? We do want to jump back into these two-minute intervals. If I remember right, is it Rotan, your turn? Yeah, sure. So, wait, you just thought this is absolutely ridiculous. No experiment of water around the ball. Number one, with these balls, with these cubes falling at the same exact speed, how can you possibly even remotely assume that water is gonna behave the same exact way and be adhered to the ball earth in the same exact way that however you think it is? Right, so when we talk about the Cavendish experiment, Cavendish is with two fucking wooden objects and a barn in the 1700s before science was even thought of, okay? Before science was even remotely imagined, okay? They were running around with horse carriages and eating feces or whatever the fuck they were doing, okay? Absolutely ridiculous. The way that he's weighing the earth in a barn, okay? With wood, okay? Is water wood? Does water behave the same way as wood? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. It's a physical thing. Yes, sir. It does not. It has no time. Is water wood? Is water wood? No water. Is water wood? But, ironically- Water is not wood, right? So do you have an experiment with water doing that? So that was a poor choice of material. Water is not wood. All right, what we're going to do is we'll tell you, you have 50 seconds left in your statement. Do you have an experiment with water doing that? Not wood, water. Are you asking? Crickets. Yes, I'm asking you. Crickets. Okay, don't say crickets because I'm being polite to you all the time. I'm letting you get your full thing out, but don't give me that shit. Show me water around the ball. Water is a physical thing. Yes or no. You can touch it. Yes. You can interact with it. It falls. Excellent. So if one thing does it and one thing looks like it does the same thing, how is that not the same one? Wow, okay. So I have a theory that- I have plastic. No, no, no. I'm going to take your logic right now. I'm going to take your logic and I'm going to crush it right now. Oh no. If I take a brick, right? And I take a giant anvil. Let's say I drop an anvil on top of a brick. What happens to a brick? It crushes, right? Well, no. If you drop it straight on, it won't crush. It'll probably just- Well, just for argument's sake, you take an anvil heavy enough and you drop it on a brick. The brick will crack. Sure. Right? Okay. So if you do that with water, if you put an anvil, you put in what is the water going to crack and crumble? It's not going to crack and crumble, but it will be the same. Right, because they're two different things. Just the same way. Because they behave differently. They're just because they're physical. Doesn't mean they behave the same way. Water is kind of sticking to itself. How stupid is that? How stupid is it to be to say that? It's still disperses. When you see little bits of brick fly up. Oh, so it's crumbling? You also- Water crumbles. You also see a bit of little water fly off. Don't you? We could build water houses now, guys. Why do we even use brick to build water houses? I mean, we don't build water beds. We could just build water houses too. According to this guy. If I drop using your ship, we just get hit. Let's just take two giant PVC walls and just fill up the water and just water the water. We are at the end of that timed segment. Let's go to questions. Dave, James, this is ridiculous. He has absolutely no idea what's going to happen. And the rest of the experiment is going to kick it over. We do want to hear from Dell. So we'll give Dell two minutes as well now. And then we'll go into- Got a single shred of science at all. Nothing. All right. Well, using your own analogy, you just brought up, oh God. If I drop a brick, or an Anvil on a brick, it splintered. It shoots everywhere. It goes, ah. What happens when I drop it in water? It goes, shush, everywhere. Wah. It's a different physical thing, but it's still a physical thing. And it still acts similarly to a physical thing. And that's the problem with the analogy you just gave. Because they will both shoot off in the little ditty bits. And they'll go off into the side. So I don't get your analogy. You prove my point. Because they're the same. If I drop an Anvil, it'll go, shh, on either of them. Like, I- What a crumbles. I don't get why you brought that up. No, does it crumble? Well, it separates in a similar way. How about wood? How about wood? If you take a lighter to wood, what happens to wood? If you hit it hard enough, what's on it? You're seeing wood getting chopped. If you take fire to wood, what happens to wood? If you take fire to wood, what happens to wood? Is an Anvil fire? If you take a lighter- You can't just say that's not scientific. If you take a lighter, if you take a flame to wood, what happens to the wood? What do you talk? It will burn. The wood goes on fire, right? Yeah. Okay, what happens if you do that to water? Does water go on fire? If you put fire to it? If you heat it hard enough, it'll start dispersing. No, no, does it go on fire? Does water go on fire? Does water go on fire? Not if it's water. Thank you. Okay, but they're both physical objects. They should both be in your fairytale world. They're still losing energy. They're still losing energy. Why do we even have solids? Why do we even have solids and liquids and gases? They're all the same. They're all the same. Why do we even have a distinction? What's the difference? Everything is the same. I could fill my bathtub with wood, apparently, with you. I could take a wooden bath. I'm sure you take lots of wind baths. You see how stupid this conversation got with the money? You see how stupid this conversation got with you? It's like the experiment that I brought. Because you're a fucking retard. All right, all right. You're a moron. Let's get back to the issues. People are excited to hear about the issues. People are excited to hear about any of these. By the way, it's interesting because it usually comes up during the Flat Earth debates. If any of you, either of you, have personally done any of these experiments. Yes, I just did. That was my video. I have it on the desk. I can screen share it right now. You guys. I have those arms on my desk. I did all those experiments. I have nothing to do with my premises. Nothing. They prove gravity. I've seen only positively nothing. Well done. Okay, so prove that that's the claim. That's the claim, buddy. Prove that gravity can do that. Prove that gravity can do that. I did. What are you talking? It doesn't matter. You got gravity. Prove that gravity can do that. Prove it. That's the claim. It's a downward force. You understand? Listen, how about this? How about this? How about this? I will grant you gravity is real. How about that? The first flat, I'll grant you just for the sake of argument, just for the sake of the argument. I'm going to grant you that gravity is real. Show me with the scientific experiment that gravity can make water adhere to an object by virtue of its gravity alone. Oh my goodness. Well, if you want to play like that, if I put, well done, well done. What is it? Go, talk. If I put water on my table, does it float off into space? No, it goes down and here's the object of gravity. Because you have a begging to question logical fallacy that the earth has gravity. I don't think that's what that is, well done. That's a begging to question logical fallacy. Again, again, that's a begging to question logical fallacy. Why does it go the same rate as everybody else? That's the second time. That's the second time you've begged the question. Well done. Why does it go the same rate as everything else? That's the second time you begged the question. You're using your observation and your conclusion. That is, they patents begging the question logical fallacy. The problem is, I wasn't my experiment. That was your, you're a moron. You are a moron, you're a stupid. We're going to, let's stick to the issue. I don't need to be a scientist. I have formal logic I will bring. That's all I need. This is an interesting and fun question. It's one that I had already asked to Dell as well. In particular, if you've done any of these experiments yourself, people usually get a kick out of that. What kind of, have you done an experiment? I do. These are your claims? Yes. It was on my desk. I have that map. Again, you're going to go with that again? How many times have I done that? How many times? I told you that I'm going to grade through gravity. Can you show me that gravity can do that with water, please? Water? I want to see you water your experiments. I want to see water in your experiments. Where's the water? Why would I put water in my experiment? Water around the ball. You mean if I drop two drops of water? Show me water around the ball. Show me water around the ball. I'm asking to clarify. Show me water around the ball. I can't clarify. Show me water around the ball. If I put two drops of water, then I'm going to say water. We'll talk about water on the wall in a second, but just to let him finish this point. I'm just wondering, are you saying I should redo the experiment with water so that I can see that water does the same thing? No, I don't care if they fall the same speed. I don't care if one falls 1,000 miles an hour faster than the other. What does it make a difference? It makes no difference in a climate. It makes a difference because we have an understanding of gravity. We can then test that understanding. So you're assuming that that happens. It's an assumption that water behaves the same way. You don't know that without an experiment, do you? I think it's going to be more fun. You don't know that without an experiment, do you? I'm telling you right now. In my second video. You're assuming that water behaves the same way. I'm not assuming. I'm telling you right now, Wotan. Just listen. Just listen up. In my second video, which was the AR thing, the mixed reality, I have a bunch of little dudes and they're interacting with the physical world around me. They are falling off things. I can simulate a bouncing ball which bounces accurately to the mass it has in the simulation. Yes, Wotan, do you know why that's important? Because we are using the formulas for gravity. Wow. And the results we get look an awful lot, like what we see in the real world. You know, you could also put in that VR. So you're saying that just because you could put in the VR, you could make the formulas that grab five times the values. I could, but then it wouldn't be accurate to what we see, Wotan. But so what? It just matters what you're putting into it, right? But that's not the formula. It doesn't. We're putting in the formula. It's not proving that spacetime is bending. Is it proving that spacetime is bending? Is it proving that spacetime is bending? Wotan, we're off into the weeds. But that's gravity. That's not what gravity is. We can then use that formula. I don't care what it is. You're off the weeds. We can use that formula. And we somehow, in completely math world, get the same similar results of things in the real world. That confirms that our understanding, at least to what we know, is correct to a point because it can replicate it completely and get the same results. Can you please just let the YouTube audience- The world is correct because of math. Just let the YouTube audience- Wotan. Just say yes to that. Wotan. So your world is real because VR. No, Wotan. Just say yes. Please. Wotan, no. That's not the point. The only reason I did that is because- Just say it. I know you want to say it. I know you want to say it. I know you desperately want to say it. Wotan. Just say VR is real, please. Just say VR is real. Wotan, we have to let them respond. You're not addressing the point. Say VR is real. That's not my argument. I don't know why I was saying this. Wotan is not my argument. Hold on. It's not your reality. Wotan. Wotan, for real. Let's hear from Del. I also want to hear. This is a- if I can bring this up, because it's interesting. It's due to see I want to get both of your guys' opinion on it. We can talk about the science stuff, and that's fun, and it's engaging and everything else, but there's one thing that's also fun and interesting to think about. You could say social epistemology, namely, like how do we know who to believe, because most of us haven't directly observed these things. And so, for example, if the Earth is flat, because trying to be as neutral as I can, if the Earth is flat, why is it, or how is it, that oftentimes it comes up, could there really be this big of a cover-up? Are all of the governments and all the space agencies in on it? That's actually a good question. I think I can phrase that. Wotan, hold on. Hold on. I'm going to say this really quick, and I think it might help us move forward. And it's on James's point. I think he'll like it too. If the world was actually flat, why would they say that it's a ball? Just I don't- I just want to know your quick reasoning. Is it power? Is it money? Just say what it is. What does it matter? OK, and just to say for the sake of this, it doesn't matter. They're covering it up. We agree on that. They're covering up that it's flat. That's the premise, yes? Is $52 million a day from NASA enough? No, no. So it's money. I didn't hear you say it was money, but I asked. I'm not trying to talk to you. I'm trying to ask you a question. Is the untold billions of dollars that Elon Musk is making from doing, from crashing rockets and wherever he's just launching rockets and they're just crashing, is that worth it? That's what I'm asking. I wasn't asking the reason. I'm asking, are they doing it for money? I'm not saying I don't think that's why. It doesn't matter what the reason. I'm not going to play you stupid little game. I'm going to say money can be anything. Great. How about this? The reason is because pink unicorns are flying in the universe. What the fuck is the difference? What is that? What is the shape of the earth? So why if the earth was actually flat, looking at this from the conspirator's point of view and they are going to hide it and they're evil and they're twiddling their little mustache and they're like, I'm going to hide the shape of the earth. Twiddling their little hats on their head. For whatever reason, why wouldn't they just say, across the ice wall, it's super radioactive. It'll kill you if you leave. Because that would be way easier. Who says that? If the earth was flat, if it was flat in reality and we were trying to cover it up and make people say, stay inside and not know and whatever the hell else, wouldn't it be a lot easier just to say, if you go past ice, well, you'll die for radiation. Who the hell says that? You can't go past a certain amount of space. Nobody goes past anything. I'm asking why in the hell would they come up with, instead of it being flat as a ball in some space that raises a billion more questions and it'd be so easy to debunk. Why wouldn't they just say- If they debunk it conclusively tonight, you don't have any science on the other side. Why wouldn't they just say something simple? You don't have science. We can't leave and you would die. It's been debunked. It's been long debunked. You don't have science. We're not doing science. We're talking about this. Oh, we're not doing science now. We're getting into the combo. We're asking the same question. You see, you just get to shut off for a second. Can you shut off for a second and stop talking, please? Can you shut off for a second? Go ahead. My God, man. It's like I'm trying to get a point at this and you just get your freaking voice, man. Just be quiet for a second. OK, I'm trying to stick to the science. I'm trying to ask you for experiments. I'm trying to ask you. I want to see real science. I want to see scientists just objectively minded, brilliant, fucking intelligent PhD level scientists. I want to see them doing experiments. OK, that's what I want to see. And you're fucking sitting here and telling me, number one, you said you don't have any experiments. But what you believe. OK, I didn't say that one up. No, I did not say that. I didn't say that. You're lying, Wotan. You said two little cubes. Go ahead. You said two little cubes prove everything which is in Q, which is absolutely absurd. And I already conceded. I really can not concede it. I said just for the sake of argument that I'm going to grant you that gravity is real. Can you show me an experiment to prove that gravity does that with water? No, do you have an experiment to prove that? Show me that gravity does it with air? No, do you have an experiment to show me that air can possibly even revolve around an object at the same speed as the object is revolving? No. OK, so that's what I care about. And you're trying now. You're trying to sit here and tell me, oh, well, what if? Well, what if the conspiracy is too big? You know, this and that. Who cares, man? I want the science. You're going into the realm of conspiracy and the whole of the governments. And then why are you going to the realm of conspiracy? Yeah, what's the reason? I don't care. How about there's the reason? The reason why they cover up the board is because pink unicorns are flying out of my asshole right now. What the fuck is the difference? That's a good reason I would cover that up here. What's the difference? Who cares what the reason is? Just to be sure. That's not the point, well thought. Exactly. Exactly, that's not the point. So why are you hot? Why are you hot on this point? Just to be sure I understand your point. So I think what's the reason doesn't matter. Who cares what the reason is? I'm just trying to clear the air so people can see exactly what's being said here. So I think you're saying there's a lot of money involved. And money is a powerful motivator. And I guess one question that I think Dell had asked, I could be wrong. Dell, let me know if I'm misunderstanding you. Did you, like, you're asking like, well, why would you get more money one way, namely saying that it's a flat earth versus if you say it's a flat earth? Well, yeah, just in general. Why would you come up with this giant, oh, we have rockets and we can leave and we can do all this and we can have this. We have a plan and we have a plan. Why wouldn't you just say, if you leave the ice wall, you die from radiation? Because they already say there's radiation out there. Why wouldn't they just think it's not the same question? But nonetheless, we'll give Motan a chance. So what if they did? Does that mean the earth is flat? What if they did what? No, if they said the opposite of what you said, what if they did say that if you go past the flat earth, you die of radiation? Does that mean the earth is flat? That's not the point, Lothan. So what exactly? So who the fuck is what the reason is why you're not understanding the reason as to why what the reason is. I don't know what the reason is. The reason is irrelevant. Because you want to go down to science when you get down to the reason flat earth that's not going to go anywhere ever. The reason is irrelevant. Do you want to understand that? I want to deal with physics and science. Every day they say, yes, that's real. I don't care what the reason is. Because that's what science says. I don't care what the reason is. It doesn't matter what the reason is. I care about the science. I've given you already that all the photos are fake just for the sake of it. I care about the science. That's what science is. Yes, Lothan. We've taken pictures of the earth. Is that science? Is it picture science? We've been to the moon. We've been to the moon. We've been to the moon. Don't even get me started with the moon. I will go to the moon, Lothan. You'll go to the moon? I will go to that topic. You'll go to the moon. I would also love to go to the moon in general. Yeah, I would also be fun. Oh, yeah. And is it your whole argument that they lost the telemetry to the moon? One thing before it comes up, because for some reason I know it's going to come up, there is a certain word that starts with a Q that we cannot say YouTube has a, they will instantly, you could say notice it and not like it. So don't say any word that starts with a Q. You probably know what group I'm referring to. Don't say it. But we also, folks want to let you know we'll be going into the Q and A shortly. So just a few minutes. Gentlemen, do you have any sort of last kind of points or remarks that you'd like to make before we do go into that Q and A? Well, I guess, I don't know why you couldn't address the experiment because I don't care about water. I'm not, I don't care about water. That's not like, wait, what is the proving gravity? That's a whole idea. We can prove gravity because we have the math. We have the formula for gravity. We could demonstrate it with the robot arm, dropping the things. Cool, it works a real life. We can then take that formula. We can go to a world that is pure math. We can put it in and things in that digital world act pretty much the same way they do in real life, Lothan. They act the same way. So why is it if we're wrong about gravity and wrong about earth? Why is it that when we go to a completely mathematical world, it works the same way? You done? Yeah, I'm asking a question. Go for it. Okay, you keep saying you prove gravity. I told you that for the sake of argument, I will, just for the sake of argument, if you do that, you lose. But shut your mouth. That's a literature sponge. Can you mute him, James? You always mute me, James. You didn't even mute the other person. That's fair. Okay, I've been a humor you, Lothan. Okay, thank you. He's right. I muted Lothan a lot today. Okay. So I already conceded for the sake of arguments, just for the sake of argument, that I'll grant you that gravity is real. That the earth, the mass of the earth attracts objects. Can you show me with gravity, show me an experiment with gravity with an object that has gravity, okay, and make the gravity of that object attract water? No, that doesn't exist, okay? Can you make gravity, show me, show me that gravity can make guests adhere to the exterior of the shape by virtue of that object's gravity alone? No, you don't have that. Can you show me that guests can travel at the same speed as an object is spinning inside of a vacuum chamber? No, you don't have any of them. Therefore, if P, then Q, in this case, if this is not Q, so then not Q, not P. The debate is over. Flat earth wins, you lose. You have no science. There is not a shred of science that is coming out of your lying mouth. Okay, let's go to Dell. Hey, NASA's being good for this, so don't even start that. Two cubes falling doesn't prove jack shit. But you already gave me gravity, Lothan. I don't understand why you're saying you gave me gravity and telling me to prove. No, no, no, we're not going to question those. We're going to questions. Why are you giving me gravity and then saying that I have to prove gravity, Lothan? I'm not saying you have to prove gravity. I'm saying you have to prove gravity that it could do the things that you're saying that it does with respect to water and air and gas. But our understanding of gravity shows us that it does. If you give us gravity, you give us gravity. You just love begging that. That is the question, Lothan. Just beg that question, baby, beg it. James, can we go to, I'm about to leave. Can we just go to questions? Because this is getting annoying. We're just going to circles, James. Moderator. We're going to circles. Let's go to Q and A, moderator. This is over. You lost. I lost within the first five minutes. I really wanted to leave in five minutes. I wanted James's time to be in five minutes. We're going to jump in with this first question. Two seconds. It's loading. Sorry, game. But we are excited to jump into the Q and A. Let me see here. Oh, thanks. Sigma Any, thanks for your super chat. First one says, don't forget three suns, the only proven reality. Thank you, Sigma Any. He's big on that. And thank you very much to your Sigma Any. He also says, explain why so few flat earthers are in engineering careers. It's not an argument. It doesn't matter. Gotcha. Well, to be fair, you could ask him. It's not an argument, but it is a question. I know you agree with this, if I frame it this way. If I frame it this way, why are there so few Christian Christians in the field of evolution? Does that mean that evolution is false? Evolution is true just because there's so few Christians. There's a lot of Christian evolution. Hold on. But in respect to atheists, there's a lot more atheists in the field of evolution than there are Christians. The argument does not follow. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't matter. It doesn't mean that Christianity is false just because there's so few disproportionately few Christians in the field of evolution, let me science. It doesn't follow. It doesn't matter. It makes no difference. It doesn't matter if there's one Christian. It doesn't make Christianity false. I see what you're saying. I think you're saying something to the effect of you're calling it a non-sequitur. Yes. I think. Displace, gamer, thanks for your questions. I know flat earthers think the earth is flat, but how do you know the earth is round like your maps show? You can only use personal experiments to prove. Uh-oh. Not very unscientific one, Paan. Well, I didn't know those to me. I didn't know those to me. Yeah, it was for you. Yes. They said, how would you prove? I heard round earth. I heard round earth. My brain's round earth. They said, I know flat earthers think the earth is flat, but how do you know the earth is round like your maps show? Namely, they're talking about like the pictures of flat earth that are out there from flat earthers. They say you can only use personal experiments to prove things, right? So that's for the round earth. No, that's for you. He's asking, how do you know the hexagon or octagon? How do you know it's a circle? You see, he just said, how do you know the earth is round? Yes. No, I think he means. That's for the round earth. He said, to the flat earther. Well, he didn't say that. But I, but to be. That would be the other question? It must have been the other one. He didn't say, he didn't say to the flat earther, but I think that Wotani's referring to like, if you ever look at like maps of a flat earth from flat earth people that are putting them out there, they're usually like round shaped. I think that's what they're saying is like, well, I don't, I don't agree with any map that's out there. I'm not a cartographer. I don't, you know, I just, I use basic logic, formal logic. You know, if you can't show me an experiment to prove your fairytale religion of the ball earth, then all I'm left with is my observation, which is that the earth, I go outside, I see the horizon is flat. I don't feel anything spinning. Therefore, the earth is flat and motionless until you can prove otherwise. Oh my God. Just even seen, thank you very much for your question says, John Depew said he wants to debate flat earth, hit him up. I didn't know that. I don't know who John Depew is. Bubblegum Gun. John Depew, is that one of your friends, Wotan? No, I never heard of him. Next up, Bubblegum Gun says, Google how the Parthenon correct visual distortion. Well, I don't know what that means. Next on displace gamer says, we can see Mars from earth with a consumer telescope. We do, we see it. I think maybe they said, they meant when do we see it? Folks, I got to tell you, I love you guys, but it's okay if you do a quick spell check of your super chats, because sometimes like, even if I read it several times, I'm like, I still don't know what they're saying. So we want to read super chats, but sometimes they're, I'm like, so I think they're saying, we can see Mars from earth with a consumer telescope. We do see it spinning, and why is it round? Would this make earth round too? I mean, this is literally, literally like, these are the questions. I call them day one arguments or day one, day one questions. So like when you're introduced to a new frame of thinking, a new idea or something, you come up with very elementary basic questions, the most basic questions that you can possibly ask. The fact that this guy's asking this, this is probably the first time this guy's ever watched a flat earth debate in his life. And if that's the case, that's fine, okay? But I'll just explain it, okay? So if every planet in the sky was a triangle, does that automatically mean that the earth is a triangle also? No, you could assume that, you could assume that, but that doesn't mean that that's the case. It could be anything, right? So every, like the classic example, right? The pool table, you have a bunch of billion balls on the pool table, they're all round, right? And from your perspective, if you're on a pool table and you see all these pool balls, they're all round, you're going to think that the pool table is round, but it's not, it's flat. So it doesn't matter what you see. I don't care if you're in a forest and all you see is trees, that doesn't mean you're a tree. Gotcha, and thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Steven Steen, nasty guy says, John Depew is interested in debating universalism with Mr. Batman. Does anybody in the chat know who John Depew is? I don't know, anybody in the Twitch chat or the YouTube chat? I have no idea. Frank the Tank says, I love Wotan. Dell is pretty cool too. Hashtag alpha males. True. Alrighty. Next up, Tim Pryor says, until Wotan came, or until Wotan can name one field a science, I think they meant field, one field of science that backs up flat earth, he should not be allowed to even talk about science. I agree with that, that's a good standard. Do you have any science to prove your globalists? Wotan, I was the only one that came with a physical experiment. Again, again, I'm not going over a thousand time, bro. I'm not, I don't want to hear it. Oh my goodness. I already destroyed everything that you believe. I'm sorry. The debate was over the first five minutes. I really wanted to leave the debate and have James's time stamp on his video, five minutes. He would have got a million views. Now we just talked about like, 100% he would have got a million views on this video. World record fastest flatter debate and the history of flatter debates. Next up. Thank you very much for your question, Abdullah. Ibn Iblis, good to see you, says go home already. I don't know what they mean, but Anthony Dickinson thinks you're a super jet as well, says blessings to you, Wotan. How do you deal with such nonsensical questions is these huge round one victory for flat earth? You are the record holder brother. Thank you very much, SMB. Juicy and Nephilim Free throws his hat into the ring. Good to see you. Nephilim Free, I like Nephilim Free. That's right. We discussed this a few times. Your father, Nephilim Free is in the chat and he says you have to do flat earth. There's also a thing there are green monsters living in the earth, waiting to take over the world. LOL. That's not true. Oh snap. He just battered you down. No, that's not true. I like Nephilim Free, absolutely. Like I love anybody who destroys evolutionists and atheists. I absolutely respect that. We may not agree about the shape of the earth, but I just let Nephilim Free know. Nephilim, I was a lifelong militant atheist and flat earth completely changed that 180 degrees. I now believe there's definitely some kind of a creator that has to be. There's no way you... He doesn't seem to like you. There are no atheists on flat earth. Juicy. Let's see. Happy dude. Thanks for your super chat. All of all, thanks for this debate. I needed this. So glad you enjoyed it. By the way, our guests are linked in the description. We love our guests. We appreciate them. And that includes if you're listening to the Modern Databate podcast. We link our guests there in the episode description box as well. Bubble Gum Gun says, Wotan, YouTube centrifugal divergence second video. YouTube rankings must be the same for everybody, right? Yeah, they must be. Cause that's why everybody talks about like if you can get a video ranked, but nonetheless. Also folks, jumping into this next question, we do appreciate this one from Tim Pryor, says, making water stick around a ball due to gravity is a straw man. Wotan is implying that we can make a ball with a stronger gravitational force than the earth itself. He is demanding an impossible experiment. Yeah, I said that. If we could do that, it would debunk the globe. What was that? Say that one time. They said, making water stick around a ball due to gravity is a straw man. Wotan is implying that we can make a ball with a stronger gravitational force than the earth itself. He is demanding an impossible experiment. I did it. It debunks itself. The scientific. If you can do that. Shut up. Shut up. If we could do that. Shut up. Debunk the globe. We do have to let Wotan respond. Your misunderstanding is my question. Shut up. We have to let Wotan respond. Shut up. Okay. He debunks himself in the question, in the very question he's debunking himself. He said himself that the experiment is impossible. Ergo, the belief in that hypothesis is impossible. Anything that is impossible to prove is impossible to believe. Next question. Next up, this one. Well, if you guys want to banter back and forth on that one, I can let you. It sounds like Deli wanted to. I'll give you just this. That's a stupid question because you came up with the experiment, Wotan. Low birthers aren't saying, well, we have to do this to prove it. You came up with the experiment. No, you do. There's no claim. You need to back up. It's extraordinary claims. It's extraordinary evidence, Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims. It's extraordinary evidence. It's what only Carl Sagan is. It's one of the greatest scientific minds. Next up, Tim Pryor. Next up, Tim Pryor. We've got, all right, Tim Pryor's got another question. He says, now he's lying. I've seen people show him experiments in debates. Him not liking the experiment shows does not mean it did not happen. Okay, so when I debated team, Fox stick. All right, all right. He's not here to defend himself. Let's be nice to him. I didn't say his name. I said, I said a different word. So people that don't, they don't know. They don't know who he is. It's from now on, it's Tim. Okay, so when he, I asked him to show me an experiment of water around the ball due to virtual gravity alone. You know what he showed me? He showed me in the fake, well, let's just, I'm just far going to say what's real. The ISS he showed the astronauts have water around the camera. But the camera, the, the gravity of the camera is absolutely nowhere near the gravity of the ISS. So if by that logic, if it was the gravity that was making the water stick around the camera, then the water would have just flung in every single direction because the ISS gravity is far more than that little camera. Okay. Holy shit. The reason why water sticks to objects is because of adhesion. Water adheres to things. Okay, it sticks to things. Okay. Just keep on the second part with the first one. And it has nothing to do with gravity. Next up, this one comes in from Tim Pryor. Is it no, it was Sigma N, sorry about that. Says, it gives me warm fuzzy feelings that the, the flat earthers are rare in science and engineering fields. I like my bridges, structures, tech, et cetera, to actually work. So, Flatter is one of the, one of the fastest rising movements, whatever you want to call it, quite possibly. I'm pretty sure, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people who are engineers, who are bridge makers, who are this and that, who, who they just come to the realization that the earth is flat. So I think that's, it's a pretty, a bit of a, like there's no way that you can possibly know. Like there's also, there's a lot of things. So you know, cause bridges start falling down. There was a guy, Mark, what was his name? Mark something, Mark, homage, something like that. He was a, he was a creationist, creationist evolutionist. He lost his job because he found proteins instead of a bone. So just by him saying that, he found protein instead of a bone. He lost his job. So it is the risk of you losing your career. You're losing your job. There was an engineer. There was also an engineer on Flatter. There was an actual engineer. He was a, a civil engineer or something like that. I forgot his name. He was from Florida. Okay. Some other guy, some Globert who was also a YouTube, I had his license revoked. And they showed his, he showed the engineering board their videos and they wind up revoking his license or something like that. You had to go. Wait, wait, wait. I have never heard that somebody got their license revoked for a huge, whatever it was. Listen, okay. Okay. You got me there. I don't know exactly what happened, but he had to go. He had to go into hiding. He completely removed his channel. He removed his Facebook, everything, all of his social media. He just completely disappeared. Well, that's cause he was wrong. And he thought, show me. No, no, no, no. It doesn't matter. For the protein, I'll do this in 30 seconds. For the protein inside the bone, first off, he was pushing his bullshit as why he got kicked out. And second, that would be really cool. Being a scientist, that would be cool to find. I would be all for that. They wouldn't kick him out. They would give him a Nobel Prize if he was correct. Yeah, that's what you think. That's the fairytale delusion of science. Everybody who believes in science literally thinks that science is the most objective thing in the world. It's not like it because we have people who are corrupt, who are in the fields of science. Science as a concept is perfect. You use money in science for showing that others are wrong. You just gonna let me, you just gonna talk over me? Or you just, the way Richard Feynman, the way Richard Feynman frames science is the single most perfect framing of how science is the most beautiful, eloquent way. I love the way Richard Feynman thinks. I agree with him philosophically, 100,000%. Okay, anything that he says about science, I love what he says, okay? But that doesn't exist in our world. The crowd has zero to nine. Because we have people who are corrupt who have paychecks. Next up, the crowd has zero to nine. We'll tell him to make money in science for people. All right, we're gonna jump to the next one. The crowd has zero to nine. So James, what is the shape of the earth triangle? Next up, thank you, Tim Pryor for your question. Said, you guys can't try to pull me into the debate. Next up, Tim Pryor says, dip a basketball in water. It's all evenly wet. There's water conforming to the shape. Due to adhesion, because the water is adhering to the object. They even put shut up Wotan at the end of it. It's okay, dude. That's good. I'm actually serious though. He knew I was gonna interrupt. I'm saying, quote, they said verbatim, dip a basketball in water, it's all evenly wet. There's water conforming to the shape of the object. It's on shut up Wotan. I'm dead serious. Go ahead. Absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Nothing at all. Next. I think that maybe they're asking like, what is it then if it's not gravity? It's adhering. It's adhering. Why is it dripping down the ball, Wotan? Why is it dripping down? Come on, listen, buddy. Listen, listen, don't play stupid with me. You know damn well that the reason why water sticks to a basketball, it's not because of gravity. I didn't say sticks. Okay, don't play stupid. Why is it dripping down? Don't play stupid with me. I said, why is it dripping down? Because the invisible fairies are flying out of my ass and they're pulling them down. That's why. What's the difference? Next up, we'll talk about that later. But Kango24, I think you says, Wotan, every aspect of your day-to-day life is built on physics that you deny. Enjoy your computer, clown. Yeah, because we have computers, the earth is round. Great logic, next. Next up, let's see we have a question from Kango24 again. Says, question for Wotan. When designing a car or cell phone or microwave or vibrators, do you think engineers might need to use some math? Of course. Gotcha. And? Of course. Next up, okay, well, so you're not an anti-math type of? No, of course not. I love science, I love math, but the thing is with the global is they don't have it. Use one. They have math. I'll say they have math, but like, like some of you said, they build up, they have, science is all these mathematical concepts which has no relation to reality, which is what Tesla said. One of the DC scientists that ever lived. Oh, yeah. There's no scientist as Tesla. The great truth teller. That's the greatest scientist of all time, no question, dead stop. And he knew the fallacy of the scientists a hundred years ago. He knew how bullshit it was. I'll just say this, Wotan. This is really easy and simple and quick. Everything that he did was super cool back then, but now it's like a first or second year electrical engineering degree. It's not that. Free energy? Well, wow, free energy. He didn't do free energy, Wotan. Are you sure about that? How do you know? Yes, I am sure about that. How do you know? Because it is enough. Why did the FBI constantly get all those documents? But so I don't want to know the Tesla. I don't want to know. Keep it to flatter. Next question. I don't want to get into this. Next up, this one coming in from Topot2. Good to see you. It says, by the way, huge thanks to Topot2, folks. I don't know if you know it, but all of our emoticons in Twitch were made by Topot2. So check those out if you haven't already, folks. And thanks so much for your question. It says, I don't know if you drink alcohol, James, but buy yourself a drink of something you earned at this debate. It has been a wild one. I was sweating. Oh, it's always the ones that I sweat that are the good ones. But Tim Pryor says, he said, for the sake of argument, he will concede that gravity exists, then in the same breath wants proof of gravity. And he calls other people. Yeah, I asked that question, too. No, that's not what I said. And they said, and he calls other people morons. That's not what I said in my premise. It says here, I'll read it again in my notepad. It says, if the earth is round, water is adhering to the ball due to gravity. So gravity is included in the premise. So in order for you to prove Q, you need to show that gravity can make water adhere to the exterior of a shape by virtue of gravity. But you gave us gravity. And that doesn't exist. You gave it to us for the example, Po-Tah. You're not understanding. You're not focusing. You're to channel dolphins. You're not focusing. Nobody, you lose for signing dark dockets. You need to focus. The guy who literally calls a script to get sissy if you need to focus, you're not focusing. Our stock is the last one. You're not focusing, Po-Tah. You need to focus. For your own good, you need to focus. And not focus. For your own good, next question. We are going to jump into this next one. We appreciate your question. By the way, I got to tell you guys, I can't. It's hard for me to withhold. It's hard for me to not say it because I'm so pumped for it. Tomorrow, we're debating whether or not Noah's Ark has ever been found. Brand new topic, a juicy, concrete, empirical topic in the realm of science. I want to let you know about that, folks. I am so excited about that. But anyway, Kengo 2 Forces. Hey, Wotan, I'm walking here. I'm walking over here. You don't see me fucking walking over here. I'm trying to go to the fucking store, get a cup of coffee. I want to go on my porch and get out of the glass. And the schmuck doesn't want to let me fucking walk over here. Next up, Kengo 2 Forces. Wotan, look at Jupiter. It's a giant ball of gas and space. You can do a simple observation and see it. Does Jupiter have a dome around it? Yes, Jupiter has a dome. Oh, my goodness. Yeah, there's an invisible dome made by fairies and leprechauns. The leprechauns, they shoot the magic dust. The fact that I couldn't tell you were joking at first says it all. I think that's what it is. Yes, yes, it is. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from you, guest at the Crod Eddie 029 strikes again. He says, Wotan, if you do leave, will you ever come back? Attacking the argument and not the person, it would be awesome to never hear flat earth bull crap. Now, when did I attack the person? I'm attacking his arguments. He doesn't have experiments. I showed you a physical experience. I never once slandered Dull. I never once attacked his character. OK, yeah, I may have pulled him a moron or whatever, but I didn't do that. Yeah, but I called you a fucking idiot, too. So I don't really care about that. Yeah, I don't care about personal. Gotcha. Let's see. You living in New York, maybe we'll have a beer after this. I don't, but I would be up for that, Wotan. You're not a terrible person. I don't hate you. I might be wrong, but I don't like it. I made it wrong. I think the Crod Eddie. You know what I mean. Hold on, one folk, one second. One moment, because the Crod Eddie 029, I think what they're referring to was when you occasionally told Dull to go F himself or whatever else you said to him. They're saying you're attacking the person when you do that. OK, Dave, you got me, sure. I don't give a shit. You're fine. Next up, as long as you don't bitch when I do it to you. Let's see. No, I'm still walling. Next up, Kango24 says, Wotan, these days, one question. These, one question, what? Kango24, is this like some sort of you'd punk in me? I don't know what this says. They said, these day, one questions have never been answered with any explanation that makes any sense. These day, one questions, because he called them day, one question. Oh, day, one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, day, like the first day. Yeah, yeah, that was weird, though. I get it. Or is it like the hyphen? I don't know. I get it now. OK, thank you. They said that's why they are asked again. You have nothing. I just answered your day, one question of if you see round planets in the sky that doesn't necessarily follow that the Earth is round, just because you see round planets in the sky demonstrate that's pure inference. You're just assuming. You don't know that that's true. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question, this one coming in from. Bimi says, I don't think there are no atheists in flat Earth, quote unquote, is that they're saying, I don't think this is my fault. Sorry, I'm not reading this well. They said, I don't think the phrase, quote unquote, there are no atheists in flat Earth is the best endorsement for Christianity. You're probably not helping your case. I've heard. I don't really care about religion. There was a Flat Earth atheist, though, and he debated a Christian. So I remember at least one. I remember. Yeah, to be fair, I do remember on non sequitur show, this is like years ago, like three or four years ago. I remember there was a fellow. I think he was saying it was the topic of Flat Earth that I'm trying to remember his. But I think he said that there are surprisingly like some, well, technically, though, you don't, they wouldn't necessarily have to be atheists because I think he said they're non-religious. But I remember, you guys remember Jeff Doherty? We want to get him back on the show, but he no showed me the last two times I tried to book him. But yeah, I know, a tasteless joke. But Tim Pryor, thanks for your questions, says all science backs up the globe. Wotan, get with it. Hey, you have an experiment? Get with it, Wotan, come on. You have an experiment? No. No? Okay, well, then therefore it's wrong. Juicy. If it doesn't have an experiment, it's wrong. If it doesn't have an experiment, it's wrong. Tim Pryor, appreciate your question, said they literally have to formulate gravity into making aircraft, Wotan. If gravity wasn't the real aircraft, oh, sorry. If gravity wasn't real, the aircraft would not work. Better tell airplane designers they are doing it wrong, there is something pulling things down to the earth. No one denies that, okay? It's absolutely ridiculous to deny that because it's one of the most fundamental obvious truths that you can imagine. It's used in arguments all the time to demonstrate how something is so obviously true, okay? What is causing that is the issue. He believes it's because the bending of space time to conceptual mediums which have somehow amalgamated into one omnipresent ubiquitous physical reality. Construct which comprises the entire universe, okay? Because something is inside of this conceptual medium that it bends like the high school demonstrations when they have that big round object, like that big round table and they have the tablecloth in the middle and they put the ball in the middle of the tablecloth and then they spin the coin around it, okay? That's literally what you believe, okay? That's what we're contending, okay? I don't think that some completely hypothetical bullshit space time continuum is bending because of objects existing in it. It's ridiculous, okay? It's absolutely absurd. That's all we can work with at any time. What's causing it is the problem, not what it is. Gotcha, and this one comes in from Top Hot 2. Appreciate it. It said, could we perhaps see the evidence Wotan has brought in favor of a flat earth? I don't need any. Because like I said. No comment. Because like I said, you go outside, you see the horizon is flat. Shut your mouth. Shut up. I don't remember. Shut your mouth. Del will let you have a response, but I want to just let Wotan go ahead. You need to focus, shut your mouth. I go outside, I see the horizon is flat. I go outside, I don't feel anything spinning. Therefore, the baseline thing that you could, the most simplest pragmatic conclusion that you could come up with is that the earth is flat and it is not moving because the horizon is flat and you don't feel anything moving. Anything after that, anything to say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. And I've asked him for the burden of proof. He doesn't have it. So therefore, all I'm left with is my observation, which is the horizon is flat. I don't feel anything spinning. And if you're gonna say anything otherwise, you need to prove it. What do you think, Del? Are you persuaded? I think he gave me gravity, so I don't know why he's going on that topic. For the sake of arguments. For the sake of arguments. If you give us gravity, the flatters collapse into the ball. That's the problem. For the sake of argument I gave it to you, right? I don't actually believe it. For the sake of argument I gave it to you. Next. Okay. This is juicy. Okay, Kango G4 says the bending of space time has been shown to be real with the L-I-G-O experiment. LIGO. That's the bending, the light bending. Is that, Del? I have a good question to LIGO. Alexa, what's LIGO? That's easy. According to the opinion, LIGO is a line of plastic. LIGO. The toy company. Of course, the global has Alexa. Thank you for your question. Darth Revan says, Where's the stop? We've got Darth Revan says, where's Wotan's experiment for his creator? Or he doesn't have one? Guess his creator likes his, his like, his, his like his flat earth. In that, Darth Revan is saying, so yeah, they're saying, where's your evidence for this? The flat earth is the proof of the creator. Gotcha. On a flat motionless plane, and the stars and the stars, shut your mouth. That's my question. He'll come right back. You need to focus. The earth is flat and motionless. The sun and the moon, which, which provide us the life on earth that we need, are spinning around over our heads for us. The stars are spinning around our heads for us. The planets are spinning around our heads for us. And you need to say to your interpreter, that's not a design system. People are using the stars and the constellations for keeping time and traveling for thousands and thousands of years. And this is not evidence of some kind of a intentional creation. If that's not, if that's not evidence of a creator, then nothing is. Gotcha. This one coming up from Kango24 says, oh, we got that one about Lego. And then Mark Reed, thanks for your question. This is Wotan. You can see mirages in the desert as well, Wotan. Does that mean that there is actually water there? Isn't it water vapor? What causes that? The humidity in the sky causes the mirages? I could be wrong. This is only my best guess on the context, that there may be saying like, if Mark Reed, if this is wrong, forgive me for totally butchering it. I don't know if Mark Reed is maybe referring to like, kind of an optical illusion of like things that, especially with regard to the element of distance, may look different than they actually are. I think they're trying to refer back to your, you know, you step out the door in the morning, you look and the earth looks flat. I think, I don't know if it could be wrong. I'm kind of reading into it. What do you expect to mirages? They're not saying they work the exact same way, but I think they're saying that there's a similar principle at work, namely that due to, for example, distances, perhaps for different reasons in terms of the mediator, we nonetheless kind of see things differently than they actually are. Okay, so prove it. I see the horizon is flat and I don't feel like they're spinning so, you're saying it's spinning? Okay, prove it. You're saying it's, you're saying it's round? I think it's round, prove it. Next up, this question from Dave Linger says, question for Wotan, when you were in a plane and don't feel it moving, does that mean it's not moving? You're in a closed atmosphere in a plane, are you not outside? If you're on the wing, if you're on the wing, would you think you're gonna feel it? I think you feel it if you're on the wing, right? Gotcha. K.O.24 says, Wotan, looking at the horizon at sunset or sunrise shows the Earth is not flat. You could take a quarter on a table and move the quarter past the table and you'll see half the quarter, if the table's long enough, you're gonna see half the quarter, so what's the difference? If it's even long, if it's long enough, even then, it'll wind up disappearing and your eyes will be right at the level of the table, so that doesn't prove anything. Okay, and Robert Summers says, by Wotan's logic, oh, I remember that old nickname. Do you still like to be called Wotan? No? Okay, Wotan's logic. They say, we are on a motionless square and I don't need proof for that. He must now show me it's flat as a positive claim. No, it's basic observation. I'm not saying that it's fundamental, it's absolutely true just because you're observation. I'm saying that that's what I see. I go outside, I see the horizon flat, I don't feel anything spinning. Therefore, if you're gonna say otherwise, you need to prove it, the burden of proof is on you. If I went outside right now, let me give you an argument. If I went outside right now, let's say the diameter of the earth was 100 times smaller. If you go outside on earth that's 100 times smaller, you would be living on a basketball. You would see the curvature everywhere. Obviously, the buildings would be sideways and toppled all the different directions. So now imagine somebody back in that world saying, listen, you're not on a round earth. Even though you're seeing the buildings tilting different directions, obviously you see the curve of the earth from left to right, that says, no, the earth is actually flat. Would you believe him? No, he's gonna need to prove it, right? The burden of proof is on him now, right? Okay, there you go. Next one comes in from Joseph Mass, says, Wotan says, I look outside and I see a flat horizon, therefore flat earth. But in the same breath, he says that round planets can't mean a round earth. Because that's basic inference. You're saying that just because there's commonality in the sky, that that commonality is what the earth is. You're just appealing to possibility. You're just appealing to what you see in the sky and you think that's what the earth is. But meanwhile, when you're on the earth, right? You're on the earth and you look up in the sky, you see all the objects around. But when you look on the earth, on the horizon, everything is flat, right? So that's going against your own logic right there, is it not? Juicy and bubble gum gun says, please Google Parthenon, correct visual distortion. Was that a second one that said that or did you just read it again? That is a second one. They're really big on this. But what is it now? I'm gonna actually do it if you keep saying it. Parthenon, like, P-A-R. Parts like the Greeks? Yeah, I think that's right. Parthenon's what? It shows correction? Parthenon, correct visual distortion. Juicy, Wotan, yeah, it's just showing me like all I'm seeing. Oh, I see. So there's apparently with the Parthenon that you were referring to the Greek temple, there's apparently some sort of interesting optical illusion. I like to look that up. I don't know yet, but thank you for your question. This one coming in from Tim Pryor says, so basically, Wotan agrees gravity exists. He just does not like the name that they've given it. Yeah, I don't think, I make it specifically clear that I'm granting gravity for the sake of argument. And automatically all the morons say that, oh, he thinks gravity's real. Come on, I said it a hundred times before I even said my statement that I'm just giving it to you just for the sake of argument. It's ridiculous. It's like, you gotta put it in black and white letters and you gotta put it, you gotta draw things in red crayon for some people. It's absurd, come on. Damn. Next up, thank you for your question. Robert Summers says, so you never have the burden, LOL, emotionless cube shouldn't have said square fits your observation. Who says it's a square? I think he's just saying it fits the observation too. Well, that's not, that's not what I believe, I don't believe it's a square. No, no, no. He's saying that the observations that you're making could also fit a square or a cube. Yeah, sure. Well, I think the point is you can't say it's flat. You can- Why can't I say it's flat? If I see the horizon is flat, why can't I just- The same thing would be visible on a cube is what he's- A cube is flat, is it not? One side of a cube is flat? Okay, so you- A cube is not flat. A cube is not flat, wow. I think like- No, a cube is three dimensional. Well, depending on how we define it. So like, I think you mean like, flat in the sense of like, on the top of it, it is smooth and not like, ever rough it off. The surface that we're living on is flat as far as we know. Anything otherwise, anything you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. So you'd say- End the story. So you don't think it's anything like a disc? I have no idea what shape it is. I can't make claims. I will never hear me ever make claims of things that I don't know. So you're open to it being either a disc or a square. I have no idea what it is. I don't know. Gotcha. And- I know it's flat. Is it? Sure. This one, Dave Langer. It says, question for Wotan. Do you know using a gyroscope shows the Earth's rotation? That is an experiment anyone can do. Bob, for themselves. There's plenty of people debunking the gyroscope thing, showing that it's absolutely 100% proof of a flat Earth. I'm not- Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm not a pilot. Explain. I'm not a- I don't go into territories. I don't go into technical territories that I don't know about, okay? I use basic, formal logic. Okay, that's it. That's all I need is basic, formal logic. This one comes in. I'm not an airplane pilot. I'm not an engineer. I'm not. I don't go into those rounds. I believe you on that, Wotan. Okay, cool. Next up, Joseph Mass says wrong as you have not measured it to be flat. You are assuming it is. Something can appear to be, quote unquote, flat and still not be flat. No, there's every- What is it? The skyline across the Great Lakes? The guy in the news does it's a mirage? Well, it's the guy in the globe, in the globe bird. Everything has a fairytale with the globe bird. You have to understand that. Every observation that goes against the globe bird is automatically either A, an illusion, or B, because of refraction. There is no exception because any of those observations, if they're true, if they're not a mirage, or if they're not from refraction, then that absolutely completely destroys the globe bird. So every globe bird, what they have to do is any observation, any mountain range that you see that violates the Earth curve formula. Anything that you see past what the Earth curve formula says that what you should see, if you see past that, it's automatically not there. That's exactly the globe bird position. 100%, they say it's not there. The units you see here in Tommy, who's the one being dishonest? Gotcha. Next. This might be it in terms of questions. If I've missed any questions, let me know folks. We do wanna make sure that we get every single question in, and let's see, we've got from, yeah, so, wanna say thank you very much folks. We'll be back in a moment with a post credit scene where I will let you know about upcoming juicy debates. For example, we are pumped as tomorrow, there will be a tag team debate, a two on two debate on whether or not Noah's Ark has already been found. And then also in May, as tomorrow is May folks, that's crazy. Some of you maybe listening right now are already in the month of May, but we were excited that also in May, the Bigfoot debate should be epic as well, folks. So we have many others that are not in the paranormal realm as we regularly host debates on science, religion, and politics. We hope you feel welcome here no matter what walk of life you are from, folks. We're very serious about that. We are a neutral platform for debates on science, religion, and politics. Whether you're Flat Earth, Global Earth, Christian Atheist, Republican Democrat, you name it, we're glad you're here. So thanks for hanging out with us, folks. Gentlemen, Wotan and Del, it's been a true pleasure. Thank you for being with us tonight. And with that, folks, thank you very much for hanging out with us. We'll be back in a moment. Actually, Dave Langer has one last question for Wotan. It says, why does your observations, why do your observations count, but Del's don't? What observations does he have? He doesn't even have a scientific experiment. I literally showed you the experiment. Again, again with the two cubes, bro. Not even coming up with me who did it, too. Again, you two cubes, like a VR, bro. You have VR and you're two cubes. Again, you're gonna go on that. Okay, we'll just leave the debate with that. That's the Global Earth Proof. Two cubes and VR. There you go, done. GG. See you later, guys. Have a good night. Hold on, Victor. Victor, I mean, Wotan. Victor, I mean, Bubblegumgun says, please show the panth-parthenon correction picture to Wotan. I will send it to him. I don't understand it myself yet, but I will for real, I'll send it to him because it looks interesting. So, wanna say, I don't know if you're still here, Wotan, but wanna say thank you very much for our guests. We do appreciate them. They're linked in the description. I'll be back in just a moment with a post-credits scene. I think he's still here. Well, that was short, juicy, folks. Wanna say hello to you. I feel like I harden, that I've hardly seen you guys in the last week, even though we did three debates in the last week. We did Saturday, then we did Wednesday, and then we did this one. And so that's three within a week, but within seven days, and I still feel like I'm like, because we usually do more. I mean, it's been like oftentimes four, but long story short, I'm just excited to be back with you guys. It's good to be back. And to say hello, I am pumped. Thank you guys for hanging out here. I'm gonna say hello to everybody, both in the Twitch chat and in the YouTube chat. So good to see you to Potsul, Dave Langer, Sideshow Nav, and there's gotta be more of you in here. Ozzie, and good to see you in Tillionaire, and Brooks Sparrow in the old Twitch chat. Thanks for hanging out. And also though, pumped to say hello to you in the YouTube chat. Before I talk about upcoming debates, you guys, I just wanna just say hello and greet you and say thanks for coming by. And so, oh, folks, two minutes. I just, sometimes I'm like an old man, boomer tech. But good to see you Ross Thatcher, AKA Flat Earth Aussie says, I wonder if Dapper Dino will come out, let's see, to show his face when I debate him soon. Well, that's juicy, maybe. And Mark Reed, good to see you, says hit like if you think the world is a triangle. Thank you, Mark, and no doubt is a triangle. Yeah, you guys, you guys are funny, trying to pull me into the debate, trying to get me to take sides. But let's see, not you, Mark, but bubble gum guns, good to see you. So thanks for coming by, as well as Fanta Ring. Thanks for coming by and Haxed, good to see you. I like that little bacon emoticon, that's pretty hit, man. Fox Sushi, good to see you. Thanks for your super chat from Tim Pryor says, once again, if you given it to us, then stop demanding evidence for it. I don't know if you know, just so you do know, Tim, you might be watching, you might be earlier in the stream. And so, if you get to this point in the stream, because we're in the future, relative to where you are in the debate, so sorry that Wotan's gone, he can't answer it. But glad, thank you for being here. And Norman Bates, thank you for being with us, as well as in Haxed and Defreak and Argon, the sad, as well as Brian Griffin, good to see you. Says, what a show. That was indeed, you were right about that. Robert Page, good to see you as well. And Paradigm Shift Music, good to see you back. Proper FPV, says, hello, James, hello. Good to see you, friend, we hope you're well. And Ross, let's see. Oh yeah, I don't, did you want to debate him, Ross? Let's see. And Hax says, hi, James, thanks for the shout out. My pleasure. The Crod Daddy 029 says, but you can't go outside right now and see Chicago from New York or Better Philadelphia, which is 80 miles away from the tallest building in New York. Thank you for that, Super Chat. I, my guess is you might also be earlier in the debate. I'm not sure, but, because I mean, Wotan is gone. I cut him loose. As well as Dell, they're both gone. So they can't answer it, but thank you. And Sigmani, good to see you again. Talking smack with Flat Earth Aussie. Good to see you, Flash Gordon, as well as Algo Rhythm. Glad you're here. And Urschman, thanks for coming by. Thanks, Thaum Wellbrand for being with us. And let me know if I'm pronouncing it right. Is it Dilboticus? Thanks for coming by, Dilboticus. We hope you're doing well. We hope you feel welcome. And Kilgore Trout, good to see you. And Hannah Anderson, thanks for all your support in the chat. That means a lot. And yeah, folks, if you did enjoy the stream, hey, hit that like button. Or maybe you were triggered by it. You were put off by it. You were perturbed. Hit that dislike button. Let her rip, folks. Express yourself. Big screen bird says, let's see. Good to see you. And also good to see you. Let's see. Is it Woolly Booger? Woolly Booger, good to see you. As well as, is it Jossi Masillo? Thanks for coming by. Let me know if I pronounced your name right. I really do want to pronounce it right. And then the crowd at E029 says, yeah, you can't go outside right now. Did you just send the duplicate super chat? Or am I crazy? Oh, that's a duplicate super chat saying, yet you can't go outside right now and see Chicago from New York or better Philadelphia, which is 80 miles away from the tallest building in New York. He's really into that argument. But yeah, Darth Revan, good to see you. And we are excited, folks. This Monday, I should have confirmation on our next big mega event. It has been a little bit behind. I will admit, I meant to announce it this Friday, as in right now. However, we just want to make sure that all the eyes are dotted on all the teaser crossed. But I believe me. This Monday, the news will come out and it's going to be epic. Or wait, that's right. We don't have a debate till next Wednesday. So it'll be on Wednesday that it comes out, which is, I think, exactly a month from when we hoped to. Yeah, it's exactly. So we'll have 30 days to do the fundraiser. So it'll be in a time crunch. But that's OK. So let's see. Thanks, Resawa. Of course, as you were the modern dad in control of the modern dabbers, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. That's funny. I remember Jerry Springer when I was a kid. I was 12 years old. And I'd stay up. I think if I stayed up late, I would sometimes see it on. Joseph Moss. Thank you for your super chat and clarifying who said, it's pronounced Moss, by the way. That's right. I think I was saying Mass. Sorry about that. Joseph Moss, we're glad you were here. He says, LOL. Yeah, I was like, I'm still. I feel like I'm still waking up in some ways. But Ross Thatcher says, I agree, James. Thanks for your kind words, Ross. I appreciate that encouragement about moderating. It is true, folks. We have to warn you. I mean, if this is your first time here, we've got a pretty easygoing, moderating style. In other words, I purposely, and I also tell guest mods, like Carissa or Converse, I say, we don't want to be too overbearing on the debaters. We want this to be spontaneous. We want to let this be fluid and go where it wants to go. And we used to even let the debaters midstream. We don't do it anymore, because nobody's asked to do it anymore. But one time, in the past, we used to be so easygoing that we'd let the debaters change the topic. We don't do that anymore. So halfway through the debate, they'd be like, well, let's debate that instead. And we're like, OK. Now we're like, well, let's just keep it on this for tonight. But yeah, we like it being organic. And to a T, to a degree, you've seen that, for example, tonight, we would jump in, and we would try to bring about some controlled chaos to the debate. So we're not just completely letting anything go. But Hannah Anderson, thanks for your support, said hit that like or that dislike. Either works fine. Just hit one. Thanks for participating. We appreciate everyone. We do. We really do. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. Norman Bates says, James is my friend. You're right about that, Norman. We are glad you're here. And so thanks for hanging out with us. It is a melting pot, folks. And yeah, I mean, this ain't your grandma's debate channel. Sometimes it is. And you know, you heard a couple of F-bombs tonight. And I know Steven Steen, he sometimes he cries when he hears people swear, literally like tears crying. And I'm like, Steven, seeing a grown man cry over something like this is just, I don't need to see this. But nonetheless, the flat fellow, good to see you. Peter Griffin, glad you made it as well. And let's see. The crowd at 8.09 says, yes, I sent the same Superjet twice on accident. It was about five minutes behind the live feed. And no Superjet bubble popped up. So I thought it didn't send. Oh, gotcha. I just thought you were like really into it. But Robert Page, good to see you. And I don't think I got to say hi to you yet. But let's see. Yeah, I think you are. And Hacks said, I always feel like I'm participating because the debaters read the chat sometimes. Yeah, they do. Some do. And we do want the chat to be friendly. We want two things. One, we want the chat to be respectful, which the chat does a good job of. Once in a while, we have to mute somebody or whatever. But most of it, like 99% of the time, it's always been the case that 99% of the people that hang out here, they're not slandering anybody in chat, which we like. That's one thing we ask. And the other thing is, yeah, it is true. It probably, I'd rather debate or have their whole attention on the debate because it is a little bit like I would think that there is research on multitasking does affect performance. That's just what the empirical data says. But nonetheless, let's see. Hannah Anderson says, yeah, it's always true that the moderators are allowed to have their say. So if you were a flat earther and you're like, hey, I'll be a fair moderator, you can still express yourself. If you're a flat earther and you're a moderator at this channel in the chat, you can still say like, hey, the earth is flat. People, that's fine. We let moderators say whatever they want. So just like a lot of moderators say, hey, the earth is a globe. That's fine. We want the moderators to be able to say what they want. And they're enjoying watching the debate too. And they're just, frankly, we don't want to have the moderators be burdened. The goal is that they basically are just only having to look out for hate speech or slander. And Shramajir, am I pronouncing it right, Shramajunior? Thanks for coming by, says I can't believe how much I've learned not only about the topics, but also about my own process of thinking through what I believe and why. You're awesome, James. Wow, that is super encouraging. Thank you for that kind. That's one of the nicest chats I've ever gotten. Thank you. That really encourages me. And Mark Reed said, like this video while the earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour. Thanks, Bob. I don't know what you're talking about with Bob, but let's see. Let's see. We are excited that I think someone did reach out to me for the potential debate of a new flat earth debater who's a pretty popular flat earther. So I will let you know when I find out about that in terms of how serious the person who reached out to me is. But I'm excited if we are going to host this person. It could be a lot of fun. And so we do hope you guys are doing really well. I love you guys. Thanks for all your support. Seriously, I hope you guys know how much we appreciate it. And then Ross Thatcher said, the chat mod seemed to be very biased towards one side only. Well, good. Then now you're a moderator. And as long as you don't do anything to lose it, you can be a moderator. And you can talk about how the earth is flat if you want. So it is true. One thing to keep in mind is that it is true that most of the moderators are probably globe earthers. It's not because of any favoritism on my part. Like, I really do try to be very serious about not playing favorites. It's probably just because most of YouTube is globe earth. So like, our channel is just representative of YouTube as a whole. Like, most of the people that happen to be glovers. I mean, I could be wrong about that. If you want a survey or some empirical data, I don't have it. But that's my guess. And I don't think that's controversial. So anyway, and Hacks says, beyond the curve on Netflix, James, I almost watched that. I started watching it because I saw that it had Nathan in it. And I was like, oh, it's like Nathan, I guess, was in this documentary. And I guess it's popular. I was dating a girl a year ago. She said, I think she saw a debate where we had Nathan. She's like, you have Nathan Thompson on your channel? And I was like, she's like, I saw him in a Netflix documentary. No joke, it was a true story. And I was like, is he in a Netflix documentary? And she's like, yeah. And I was like, Nathan Thompson? But anyway, Paradigm Shift Music says, I was impressed by the fair moderation here. Some spammers and other undesirable things were said and both got well-addressed. Thanks, Paradigm Shift Music. I'm so glad to hear your positive feedback about the moderators. They're doing a great job. And they really do. Moderators, you do a great job. We really do appreciate you in both the Twitch chat and the YouTube chat. And folks, I've got to let you know, this is a huge important thing that I've got to end with. Crawdaddy is row 29 says, most of your moderators are probably global birth because the Earth is, let's see, I'm sorry, I can't, there's got to be a period missing in your chat. I can't, I don't know what you're saying, but I don't know why you keep holding the topic. Yeah, so frankly, it's because people like to debate it. People are excited to debate it. Like I just said, somebody really popular just reached out to me and they're like, hey, I want to come on and do a flat Earth debate. So I was like, hey, if people enjoy it, I'm cool. And Bimmy says, thanks for your super chat. Bimmy says, new debate does multitasking if at performance, Jane versus to be determined, kidding aside, love the channel. Thanks for your kind words. Appreciate that. It does, like there's empirical data. I could show you the papers if you really want. But that's like my field. I'm working on my doctorate in psychology. So I don't know a lot about a lot, but I know a little about psychology. So, but yeah, it is interesting. Now, some people, my theory on why, some people are actually like their chronic multitaskers, but they're still super productive. Probably because they work a ton. And that's okay. If you love working, like you like to grind, which like frankly, I like, I love working. I love doing what I do. Then, more power to you. Like, you know, there are people that multitask, they do really well. So, Paradigm Shift Music says, sure thing. I also sent it twice since the first one didn't get tagged properly. Oh, you got it. Thank you for that. Appreciate you being persistent. And Hax says, thanks James, thanks Mods. You were very welcome. And yes, Argonne the Sad says, vegan debates are good too. We will have vegan gains on. He's scheduled for May. So May should be, man, we should, I think May is gonna be pretty big month. It's gonna be a lot of Epic debates and June might be even more Epic. Like, I'm so excited you guys about the channel. I appreciate your guys' support so much. And yeah, I couldn't stress it enough. So thank you so much. Kilgore Trout, thanks for your kind words that I love, oh, said I love to work. I agree. I think it's great. I find it engaging. But wanna say folks, before we go, I would highly encourage you, if you haven't already, pull out, see on screen on the right side here on the bottom right, check us out on your favorite podcast app. Open up your favorite podcast app on your phone right now and find us on Spotify or Apple or podcast addict or Google podcast, whatever. We're on pretty much every single podcast app. So pull out your favorite podcast app right now and subscribe to Modern Day Debate on that podcast. And hey, if you wanna be supportive of the channel, give us a rating on there as well. That really does help for real folks. We are excited that the podcast is growing pretty consistently. It's just encouraging. And our average podcast amount or downloads per podcast is growing. It's super encouraging. People are finding it useful. And so that is awesome. And so yes, do pull out your favorite podcast app and find us. And we are excited to keep growing there as well. Platium says, don't forget us on Discord. Absolutely right, Platium. Thank you. Platium and Larry Lutz, thanks for all you do on Discord. As well as Mathpig originally got us started, right? I think Mathpig was one of the original starters. So we do appreciate you very much. And Platium, please let Mathpig know. Mathpig left the chat before I got to say anything to him. But please let him know, like, I'm open to hearing more about the GoFundMe that he mentioned. I'm still, because I've turned down a ton of people who are like, hey, are you open to this GoFundMe for the charity stream? And I was like, wow. It's not that I don't wanna help people. It's that we've always looked for charities that were approved by a charity watchdog. But there's maybe some other way I can help. So feel free to email me as I do wanna help. And so it's just like I said, I've turned down so many people because I've always been like, for example, we've given to save the children a lot because they've got a great charity watchdog rating. But Brian Griffin says, can we get a gotcha? That's right, there you got it. I just said it. And I'm excited though. So thank you guys for all of your support. Thanks for all of your love. And thank you for Platium, Larry Letts, and others for doing such a great job on our Discord as we are excited about that. And the crowd daddy says anyway, said your moderators are probably mostly global. Bro, don't, by the way, don't drive while you're in the chat, man, said, cause your earth is, so let's see. Oh yeah, I got that one. You don't know why I'm holding the topic. But let's see. Resuad of course says, would a poll before and after you should be possible would be interesting to see how many people's minds were changed? It's possible, but I don't have a ton of time to be able to do extra stuff. It's honestly pretty hard. Working on the doctorate is usually like grueling. And so trying to do extra tasks, even something small like that is just, it's kind of taxing to remember to do all these little things. Cause there are a lot of little things I have to do for every stream. And so long story short, I'm open to it, but I don't know. But anyway, I want to say thank you guys for hanging out here. We love you guys. Hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life or from globe earth or flat earth or Christian atheists, you name it, we appreciate you. Thanks for hanging out with us. We're excited about the future. And so love you guys. Thanks everybody for being awesome. And I'm excited we will be back tomorrow night. So you don't want to miss that. So do hit that notification bell and that way you will see it when it goes live. So thanks everybody. Keep sifting out reasonable from the unreasonable.