 Hey everybody, tonight we are debating Flat Earth versus Globerth, and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. If this is your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we want to let you know we are a neutral platform that hosts debates on science, religion, and politics. My name is James Coons, and I'm your host, and we also want to let you know, no matter what walk of life you are from, we really do hope you feel welcome, folks. We really do appreciate you hanging out with us, the more the merrier, and want to let you know if you're sick in the head, like us, and you like juicy, controversial debates. Well, you were in the right place, and I would say, hey, hit that subscribe button, because we have many more juicy, controversial debates coming up. So for example, at the bottom right of your screen, you will see that we are going to have a debate next weekend on whether or not Bigfoot is real. So that is going to be a blast, folks. That is next Saturday, and so as I had said, hit that subscribe button for reminders as Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum will be here, and he's actually going to be defending the Bigfoot thesis, and that'll be against a PhD student, a newcomer named Maddie, as she will be arguing that she's agnostic on Bigfoot. So very excited for that, and want to say we really appreciate you guys being here. This is our triple header. You guys, this, we've never had such an epic lineup of debates. If you had not seen it, oh my gosh, today's been an amazing day, and so we're excited for this one. It is our third in the triple header, and so we are thrilled to have our guests here want to say especially the last debate was so huge, it went way over what we expected, and so we really appreciate our guests tonight being so patient, being so awesome, and so flexible, given that we started an entire hour late, which by the way is two hours later than we originally, so we really do appreciate you both, Mark and Lemon. Thank you guys so much for being here. Mark is ready to roll. So with that, Mark is going to get the ball rolling. He has a quick opening statement, and that can be about 10 to 12 minutes at most, can be as short as he wants as well. And then we'll have one from Lemon, and then right into the open conversation. And so with that, thanks everybody for being here. And Mark, the floor is all yours. We appreciate you being with us. Okay, thanks for having me, James. Really appreciate it. And thanks, Lemon, for stepping in there. It was, as some of you might have seen, it was supposed to be Billy Zeig, and I spent all day reading his novel, The Elusive Curve, and I absolutely recommend it. Genuinely, it's about two pounds, that's English, on the Kindle Store. I can definitely recommend it. It's amazing. So, I have no scientific knowledge whatsoever. I was crap at school. We do this thing in English called GCSEs, which are like, you take them when you're 16, and then you go on to the further education sort of thing. And I was so crap at science, they maybe do one called the Jewel Award, where they sort of just bundle it together and go, all right, just try that. And you sort of scrape through. I don't know about physics. I don't know about biology. I don't know about chemistry. So you could say, yes, I was a globist by default. But my point is that tonight, I feel a bit bad for you, Lemon, because it's going to be like arguing with a flat earfer, because I don't know scientific terms for nothing. I don't know. So we'll find out. The thing is, I'm convinced that the worst round, and maybe you can convince me that it's not. But I've done my time in conspiracy circles. I've gone to the bottom of the rabbit hole, like way down. And so a couple of years ago, I saw a thing on some Instagram truth page I followed, and it said something about flat earth. And it said, like, you know, don't knock it till you've looked at it. And I was like, okay, that's fair. I'll have a look at it. And I think it was a link to probably either the debate video or Mark Sarge's videos, one of them. And I watched like 10, 15 minutes. And for five minutes after, I was like, holy shit, like the earth might actually be flat. That's like, that was a pretty convincing video. I was like, oh, man, I don't want to be a flat earther. And then I was like, well, let me look to see if there's a debunking video. So I looked to see if there was a debunking video on the wars. And then 20 minutes later, I was like, of course, of course the earth isn't flat. Like, it was so easily debunked in 15 minutes. And that was all it took. And that was that. So again, like this could be interesting, because basically, and this is going to be tricky for you to admit them. And this is a tough task here, like the same as, because I've seen you argue, I've seen you would debate with fight the flat earth. And I've seen you debate with T jump here. And they've put like so much proof in front of you and you haven't taken it. So I'm not even going to try. There's no point. But until you can, your model can do better than the globe model at explaining and predicting sun rises, sun sets, seasons, volcanoes, day and night at the same time, why the sun and the moon are in the sky, stars in the separate hemispheres, Polaris, solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, tides, Jupiter's moon, celestial poles, why the sky goes red, why the sky goes blue, weather, how we have weather, what's that all about until you have a model that can explain all this and not contradict another part of that model. Yeah, then maybe I'll take another look at flyers. That's all. So with that, thank you, Jim. Thank you very much. And we'll kick it over now to lemon. Lemon, now is your time to do your opening statement. And thanks so much again for being with us and you're still on mute. You got it. Thanks so much. No problem. I used to think the flat earth was, you know, illogical and stupid, but I kept on hearing about it. I heard about it from school where they said they thought people fell off the edge. And then I kept on hearing about it, you know, in the current day and age and I'm like, how can people believe this? And then the back of my mind said, you know what, this is true because people don't just keep believing stuff like this unless there's something to it. So I looked into it. I looked into the YouTube videos before the YouTube started purging the videos and putting them at the bottom of the feed. If you were able to find them at all, 200 proofs by Eric Dubay, you know, which is hard to find now in English version of it, you can find like a foreign language version of 200 proofs the earth is, you know, not a spinning ball or whatever, but you can't find an English one, which is really weird, you know, which, you know, just shows that there's something here that, you know, people don't want us to see. And then, you know, I heard the arguments, you know, and I looked out and saw a flat plane and I said, how could I think that this was a ball for so long? And then I tried to see where the science, you know, was not only there, but could only be interpreted in one way. And I saw a science that could easily be reinterpreted in another fashion and still have validity as far as I could see over a flat plane. And so I'm still learning about this myself, you know, I'm learning how the, you know, globe science could be absorbed into the flat earth fold, you know, and seeing how that can happen, you know, without contradiction. But the main thing would be, you know, as far as I can see, feel an experience, I see an experience a flat motionless plane. I don't feel the earth turning through space. I don't see curvature. And the curvature that I do see is pretty questionable. So I guess the main question now is, do we need to take another look at this evidence and see if it can be reinterpreted over a flat plane instead of say a ball? You know, seeing what is science really, really telling us, if anything, what are our experiences telling us? And even what other sources other than science are really telling us. Thank you very much. We will kick it into open discussion mode. Gentlemen, thanks for being with us. The floor is all yours. So lemon, would I be right in thinking you have a similar level of scientific expertise as myself? Probably layman level. I'm not an astrophysicist. You're at layman level mate. You're one or two up from me, then it sounds like you're probably doing a little better than me there. But a point is like, I guess like what are we doing discussing this? Like scientists have already discussed this and the globe won't, didn't it? So like, I understand you're not quite. Okay, well, let's, okay, well, okay, let's write. I'm a blank slate. Lemon, what's your best bit of evidence that the earth is flat? Well, if you've ever been at a table or a restaurant, you'll notice that there's a flat surface in front of you where you're putting your food on the table. Notice how the table appears to rise up toward the level of the eyes. If you wanted to put, say, a round surface in its place, notice how there's a top position on the ball from which everything else falls away immediately and no longer rises to the level of the eyes. So going pound for pound out into the real world and comparing that, you know, empirically, technically, whatever the heck you want to call it based off of your experience and what you see right there and what's reproducible. The horizon appears to rise up toward the level of the eyes as if it's a flat surface, not like it's a beach ball where it drops immediately from the highest point. So based off of that similar experience, the earth cannot be anything other than more or less an irregular but a topographical plane, especially if you're looking out over large bodies of water or even over land. Now land in general does slope gently down toward the sea from, in general, the highest sections in the middle of the continent. But it appears to be more or less topographically a plane even then if you're looking out over land. And so based off of that empirical experience alone, what your senses are telling you, it appears to be indicating that it's a flat plane, not a ball. Okay. Somehow we went from to being a table in a restaurant and then there was a circular table and then there were some planes and then therefore flat. I don't know that didn't like, I'm just going to draw this here. Like that's a bit of a curve, right? Okay. Like, you get that like, there's a little dot there now. That's like how big Everest is on the earth. Like, it's always going to look flat. Like we're too little. It's really big. Like, do you know how little the earth would have to be for us to be able to see a curve? We have to be like 200 miles around. We're not that little though. It's just, you know, we're not that little compared to like, obviously, this is not too scale. But like, and if it was, that's probably wrong. It's probably way bigger than that. Like, compared to the earth, yeah, we're really bloody little. Like we're not going to see it. The earth would have to be like 200 miles round for us to see a curve. That is a tall arbitrary number, by the way. Like, but it would have to be really small for us to see a curve. Like, why would you expect to see a curve? Like, how big do you think the earth is? Well, the thing is, the earth has a curvature formula of eight inches per mile squared. That's like with a parable or something or other. I've seen enough debates to know that like conspiracy cats get upset when people say that. So I'm going to mimic him. Apparently it's not that really. So you don't think that there would be an x squared because you're talking about the parabola, which is normally x squared mathematically. You're saying that the formula wouldn't have an x squared in it. Is that what you're saying? I don't know what you're talking about. Because anything squared makes a parabola mathematically like a parabola. Every time I've heard this been brought up, it's been said, that's not really true, even if it is true. Like, I don't, it's very clear to me that the earth is dead big and we're dead little. So we can't see a curve. I don't give a shit if it's eight inches per whatever. It doesn't matter. We're dead little. That's dead big. But that gives you a baseline to check the claim. That way they can't just, you know, speak out at both sides of their mouth and say, Oh, we've accurately cataloged the earth. Why would they lie wrong? Using the curvature formula because it's so big. That's contradictory. Why would they lie wrong if they were lying? Why would they just say it's really, really, really big? Well, if they were lying, why would they lie wrong? Why make it so easily disprovable if that's easily disprovable? Liars only need you to have faith in them. They don't even need to make the lie that good. That's why we have to explore this to get tools of discernment so that we can ferret out the lie and never be lied to again. The mathematical formula for a circle just to let you know, like the circular earth, the spherical earth. If you took like a 2D orthographic representation of the earth, it would make a circle. And the mathematical equation of a circle is x squared. That's where that x squared comes from. Plus y squared equals r squared, the radius squared. And so basically the circle formula for the earth roughly would be x squared plus y squared equals the radius 3963 miles squared if you're going to go with miles. So from that, you get 8 inches per x squared since the units in that formula are x squared or 8 inches per mile squared if x is in terms of miles. That's where the 8 inches per mile squared comes from. It will not be super accurate because... Hang on a minute. At the end of all this, are you going to say, and we can see further than we should? Yeah, testing their claims. Yes. We also know there's all kinds of things. Like I know you guys do this as well. As I said, I read Billy Zig's novel earlier and there's a whole bit in that about how we can't trust what's going on because of refraction and distortion and this and that. And that's true. We don't know. Like acts funky, like the way light works through the atmosphere and through water. It acts weird. You can't trust it. Sometimes it can give you more, sometimes it can give you less. That's a general rough rule. And also, so say, let's just, like I know that there's an explanation for that in the globe model, which is fine for me because it still matches everything else, all that stuff, right? So even if you could see further than we were meant to, all you've done is prove we could see further than we were meant to. That could, like, why aren't you really a much bigger globalist? Like, why don't you just think it's a much bigger globe? Like, why have you gone to flat earth? Well, the thing is these truths come up in a context. And the context for this globe truth appears to be very suspicious. It looks like they were trying to get away from particularly the scriptures and a very particular worldview of the world that was flat. Now, since they were the scientific establishment and even the church, the church that went Neoplatonic and went with the Greek philosophical mystery schools as opposed to, say, the scriptures. And so in that context, if they're trying to, yes, if they're trying to fight against that worldview, well, then if they're lying, well, then we now have to look at the worldview that they were fighting 500 years ago. And so in that context, we need to see, hmm, were they right when they were saying it was flat covered by a dome or whatever on pillars on top of a watery deep under the waters above, under the heavenly throne of God or whatever, because a lot of the ancient cosmologies appeared to have that in common, flat land covered by some sort of hemispheric dome covering, you know, and in some cases with water. So one of these things is not like the other, the Greek mystery school ball that assumed, you know, a radius and that we couldn't see too far because there's a hump of Earth curvature in the way despite the fact that left to right on the, on the X axis. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. Sorry, let me go back to the historical context just for a second. So what the Romans and the Greeks knew that the earth was a ball for the most part, for the experiments with the shadows and whatnot. You know, did they, did they walk? You've seen Atlas with the globe on his back. He didn't have like a chessboard. Did he? No, he had the globe on his back, Atlas, but there's other explanations even for that. I mean, first of all, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Wait, wait, wait, you're missing the point. So the Romans and the Greeks in general knew or believed from your point of view that the world was a ball, right? No, they assumed it was because they didn't have the same difference. They believed it was, they believed it was. Okay, I'm not saying, right. So if God made a flat earth and God is Jesus a bit and had not, but sort of, but is a bit, but in, but is, and he was there when the Romans were kicking about and the Romans crucified him in all that time, he wouldn't have thought to mention that the earth was flat. Back then, it would have been a fringe belief of some mystery schools. Most people, when they look out with their senses, see a flat motionless plane. You have to be indoctrinated in Jesuit educational institutions with Jesuits who according to some testimony, your crypto satanic at the upper echelons, and not necessarily going biblical anyway or going with God's word and just trying to go with some other model. You don't think Jesus would have mentioned it? If it was that big a deal and the Romans thought the earth was round, you don't think Jesus would have mentioned it? It depends on whether Jesus thought it was necessary for salvation. There are people that are coming to believe in the flat earth, who in some cases are coming to believe. Surely Jesus is the only person who can tell you what's necessary for salvation. That's for salvation. The shape of the earth is in a salvation issue. It's just a technical issue. Don't worry about it then. Don't worry about it then. Well, the thing is- How did I make a deal then? If Jesus didn't mention it, man, no big deal. Round, flat, it gives a shake. It could be a triangle. But most of the sciences, at least in the West, were started by the theologians and seminaries and Christians who wanted to figure out the workings of nature through science to give glory to God. And so with that basis, you can have a pretty good science if you believe that the laws of nature and the universe are unchangeable because we have an eternal and changing God. That's an extremely good basis for science right there. But the thing is, this heliocentric model, besides not being biblical, is not backed up by lasers and is not backed up by long-distance imaging that is breaking the eight inches per mile square to drop that we expect over long distances over the ball. It appears to be more concordant with a flat plane. Or a really big earth. If the earth is bigger, that makes everything else off. It does. It makes all that off. That's the list I read at the beginning. It makes all that off as it does with the flat as well. So, and also there's still the problem of being at the top of the ball and seeing everything else drop immediately. The only time the horizon would rise is me now. That's you where you are. That's James where he is. The only time the horizon would rise toward the level of the eyes is on a flat surface. Not on the ball. You're at the top of the ball, but drop immediately. Logic and reason. Which means it would drop immediately. It's really big. It would go out a long way and drop very gradually and slowly. Because it's massive. But the thing about this ball is it promotes so much metaphysics. And by metaphysics I mean you have a section of reality over here. We have to address the metaphysics of the ball. The basically the replacement philosophy. Basically it makes you want to hold an inconsistent standard of reality over here metaphysically that does not have consistency over here. Where you're saying the ball's so big but it's supposed to have eight inches of per mile squared of curvature but we're not going to test that. That's metaphysics. That's not even consistent. So the ball is promoting inconsistent metaphysical thinking that is not really looking for truth. It's just trying to illustrate a philosophical idea without really testing it. That's a problem. No, I'll tell you what a problem is. This list of stuff that I admittedly I nicked from conspiracy gas. Which you can't explain none of it without contradicting a different part of it. The globe model can and it all works nicely. So that's a problem. That's a problem. All right. Okay. You can help me then. Pick a number between one and how many have I got it? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, ten. I've got about 23 here. Pick a number between one and 23. Let's try 23. 23. Okay. Polaris. How come you can see Polaris from the Northern Hemisphere, not from the Southern Hemisphere, and it moves with you as you move further down the globe? That doesn't make sense on a flyer. That actually makes perfect sense because over long distances, things appear to get smaller due to angular size and due to perspective anyway. So you wouldn't be expected to see it forever. Eventually, you would expect it to become so small it would become unresolvable and too small to see number one. And number two, that's not what happens. Lemon, that's not what happens. And you know, damn well, that's not what happens. It stays the same with the same patterns of stars around it. It stays exactly the same size and eventually you can't see it over the horizon. It doesn't get smaller. It doesn't fade into a bit or all the other stars around it will clump together and go away as well. Wouldn't be until a point. That's not what happens at all. Don't talk shit. It drops on the bottom of the horizon. And number two, we're going to address it partially with number two. Number two, something that's above the level of the eyes when you look down a hallway appears to ramp down and merge with the floor that is ramping up and eventually the stuff above the level of the eyes ramps down the stuff below the level of the eyes ramps up and these two zones of vision sandwich together and become an unresolvable line. You would expect that with Polaris as well due to a perspective over a flat plane. Absolute shite. No, they don't. That's nonsense, mate. That's nonsense. You know that's nonsense. Things get smaller until you can't see them anymore. They don't disappear from the bottom up. There's no sandwich. They get smaller and they vanish. That's what happens. You know that. Come on. Come on. Know this. Don't think that are happening. First of all, you need to have equal room on the object from all sides. Now, if you're only six feet off the floor... What are you talking about? You know things get small. You know that. So the bottom half of your vision will crowd out and make things vanish bottom first if they haven't already vanished into their own self because they're very small. Don't talk shit. That's horrible. I love it now. Absolute nonsense and you know it. Sandwich zones levels out with your eyes. No. Things get smaller and then you can't see them. One sec. We do have to have equal room on all sides of the object. Equal room on all sides. Hang on a second. We're talking about Polaris. Gentlemen, I hate to interrupt, but just to be sure that we have some order here, well, let's break it into maybe two or three minute intervals, at least for a bit, just to kind of slow the tempo down. We could probably do 10 seconds to be fair. Pretty lively right now. So what we'll do is... Sorry about that. I'm getting... We, it sounds like we'll give you a chance to explain Mark, namely why you are saying no, it's not the case. And then we'll give after that two or three minutes, we'll give Lemon a chance to respond for two or three minutes. And so go ahead, Mark, it sounds like you're objecting. Yeah, sorry, Lemon. I won't take two minutes. We were talking about Polaris for a start, not sandwiches. I understand you've got some complicated thing that you can do with the level of this rises here and this drops here, and there's a left-right eye alignment. And when that happens, the thing gets squashed down and then that bit comes up from the bottom and then... But that's not true, is it? Like, if there's one thing I know about you, Flat Earth, is it's the empirical, site-driven evidence and you know things get small and then you can't see them anymore. That's all that happens. And if Polaris was doing that... No, hang on. Yeah, that's your claim and Polaris does that, right? I'm saying it drops below the horizon because that's what it does. All the stars around it will clump together and it would look like you were backing away from it until you couldn't see it anymore. Why would it drop bit by bit until it went below the horizon at the equator, magically? That's all I'm saying. That actually was two minutes, sorry. No worries. The thing is we need to look down a hallway and relate this to real life to break some of these metaphysics that are extremely inconsistent. When you look down a hallway, you see certain visual behavior with the parallel lines that are going the same direction that you're looking down the hallway, with the objects being parallel to each other as you look down the hallway. You see stuff above the level of the eyes appear to ramp down and stuff below the level of the eyes, like the railroad tracks, appear to ramp up and a convergence zone in the middle that would probably turn out to be a line with the two halves of vision sandwiching together, smushing together and converging. You would expect nothing any different with Polaris. Now, as you know, lit objects appear to break angular-sized rules and be seen for much longer than they normally would be, case in point, a candle. A candle becomes a small pin prick that is unresolvable, but if you light it, you can see it for two, three, six times as long as you can over miles when it would have vanished due to angular resolution long before if it was not lit. The stars are no different. So it appears that this stuff is much more complicated than we've been led to believe. Did you want to go on to another number? Okay, I like it. See, we got some structure here. It's good. Yeah, sure. Pick a number. What would you have? Number 23. Yeah, one and 23, Sean. Let's go for number 22. Oh, it's pretty similar. I know Canada isn't, isn't it? It was stars in the separate hemispheres. The northern hemisphere has different stars than what they have in the southern hemisphere. I don't see how if there's a firmament with a sky clock that's in the firmament, that's just a light show, how it could be different for me, say, here than someone in Australia. By the rules of perspective, we just went through where if you go too far away from something, it will appear to converge, merge, and disappear. You would still be able to see it, though. That's a different feeling. No, you would not. Eventually, it would converge, merge, and disappear into the horizon because the visual angle is just too compressed with the top part of your vision, merging with the bottom part of your vision. That's what we just went over, so it would be the same with the stars. And the stars are still inconvenient for the globe because the globe would have a hump of earth curvature in the way, blocking the stars if you're trying to see the same northern latitude stars that they're seeing far north from the south. Some stars can be seen 60 degrees, 70 degrees, 80 degrees of latitude north and south through a hump of earth curvature. That doesn't make any sense geometrically. Right. Okay. Here's the north pole, okay? Here's Polaris. Here's England. That's me having a look at Polaris. Here's Australia. Billy Ziggs down there, writing books without grammar in them. But look, he can see that as well, can't he? The line of sight to it is available, but when you look down a hallway, that's not what you see. The hallway would have a ceiling like the top of that dome. So eventually it will ramp down toward the level of the eyes, converge, merge, and disappear, and you're going to have an unresolvable horizon line with a lot of visual information crammed in. That's why you have to ground your metaphysics in reality and look down a hallway. I'm sorry, I've ground them in metaphysics in reality. Here's Orion's belt, right? Here's me in England having a look at Orion's belt. Here's Billy Ziggs in Australia, writing books with no grammar. Why can't he see that? It's not perspective, is it? That's too far away. It's right there, look. It's not too far away. It's not too far away. It's just merged like the hallway. Please ground your metaphysics in reality and look down the hallway and then make that similar to looking over the flat plane. There's your answer right there. Absolute nonsense, my friend. I'm afraid. Okay, pick another number. Well, that was 22, 21. I can see a pattern emerging. Okay, why are the sun and the moon held in the sky? It's pretty obvious in global. What do you say in the globe? Well, they're not really in the sky, are they? Millions and millions of miles. Well, the moon's not. It's hundreds of thousands of miles away. But they just appear to be in the sky. Well, they are in the sky, obviously. They're in our sky. But they're separate bodies that happen to light our world. I go with the Hebrew cosmology, flat plane, underground caverns, underground topography, probably hell in the heart of the earth, whatever, on pillars, on top of a watery deep, under a firmament dome, under the waters above, under the heavenly throne of God, basically a Christian Hebrew cosmology with an AE Gleason's map on top. So the sun, moon and stars would be in the firmament based off of the Bible from the dude who made it, the AKA God or whatever. AKA God or whatever his name is, according to the scripture anyway. So the sun, moon and stars would circle over the flat plane and you can go back to reality yet again with the rainbow. A rainbow looks like a hula hoop bow that goes left to right, suspended in midair. But if you get close to the ground, it looks like it's arching above and below the horizon because you're too close to the flat surface. The circular hula hoop band of orbit would be the sun, moon and stars orbiting overhead just like a hula hoop. You're too close to the ground, it's gonna make an arch and it's gonna go above and below the horizon. Eventually the sun will go too far away, take its light with it, light does not last forever and you will be in darkness. Same with the moon with its light. The moon appears to be its own light, it's a cooling light, it yields no heat at any magnification or the magnifying glass up to the moon, it will not give you a hot laser like it will with the sun. It appears to be totally different light and the excuses from the globe about dusty moon absorbed light are just bogus as far as I'm concerned. The moon has cold light. Yes, hold up a magnifying glass to it. You're not gonna get a laser, it's gonna be cold. I've done it, I held it up to my eye. It felt like my eye was freezing. Yes, reflected light, why would you expect a laser? Why would you expect a laser? But reflected light partakes in the same nature as the source of the light. If the source of light is warm, reflected off of the mirror, it's still gonna be warm. He said it has cold light. The moon is its own cold light. What does that mean, it's cold light? Hold up a thermometer up to the moonlight, it's gonna be colder in the light than the shade, hold it up to the sunlight, it's gonna be warmer in the light than the shade. Are you sure that's not because of the earth giving off the heat, it's getting through the day? It would do that during the day also. Mathematically that means it's at night, doesn't it? Because it gains the heat during the day and then lets it off at night. But mathematically that's what we would call a constant, so you can just factor out a constant. Hang about, if you put a thermometer out at night where it wasn't covered, where the moonlight would be, but say there's no moon there, I bet you'd find the same thing because it's gonna be colder. Well that would be a fallacy to say that the moon isn't necessarily having an effect just because we can't see it, doesn't mean that it's not having an effect. It may just be going through something, I mean I'd go with, if I had to wager what was happening with the moon, I think of it like a wireless LED light, that you hold next to one of those electrical Edison Tesla balls. It's like this big electric ball, you hold a light bulb close to the ball, it starts to light up. I think that's what's happening with the moon and when you take the light bulb further away, it goes dim. That's what I think is happening with the moon basically being on an electrical circuit with the sun, but not necessarily reflecting light but making light of its own electrically or something. Electrically, okay. You know you're meant to be convinced in me that the Earth's flat, right? So there's, it's on some pillars. Right on the top. There's some water, there's some water, and then there's some pillars, but there's also water above it. It's above the firmament. Right, so there's water above the firmament and there's water underneath the Earth and the Earth's on some pillars, what are the pillars resting on? That I don't know. That's where my knowledge stops. That's just the model that I go with, but we've only drilled like eight, 10 miles down and when we drilled down in like the cola deep borehole, it was thick, it was sludgy, it was destroying the drill bit, they don't know what's down there. Right, but it's okay. So it's mental to assume, I shouldn't use the word mental, I apologize, it's daft to assume that there's lava in the Earth and there's a molten core because we've only gone down eight kilometers, whatever, but it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Earth is balancing on four pillars. That would explain why it doesn't feel like the Earth moves, that would explain why it feels motionless in that rest because it is situated, secure, fast, motionless, and still. That makes sense. And the thing is, the idea of a molten core. You're right, the Earth's probably flat. Good point. If I had a thought about it sitting on four pillars, if someone had just said that two years ago, I wouldn't be in this mess, would I? But the thing is, you're talking about a molten core of Earth, but that doesn't match the magnetic field that they say comes from the core of the Earth. Metals have a thing like the molten iron core of the Earth would have a curie point, a point at which it is so hot there is no magnetism. So even that's contradictory, it can't be a molten iron core, otherwise it wouldn't be magnetic at all. Which do you think sounds more reasonable, Lemon? Which do you think sounds more reasonable, if you're very honest with yourself? Which sounds more reasonable that the Earth's got a molten core and goes around the Sun or that the Earth's on four pillars, what the pillars made out of, unless it meant pillars, like pillows, that's a Yorkshire thing. Even then, it don't make a lot of sense. Which is more likely, really, if you're really, really honest, Lemon, which is more likely? Is it the globe thing or is it the sitting on four pillars thing? Unless the globe wouldn't be reasonable if you don't feel movement. They say that we're moving 66,000 pounds. No, you don't feel movement when you're in a plane, dear. You know that. You're not, come on, you're not thick. You know that. You're going really, really fast in a plane. You know you don't feel it, except to take off a landing. But you know that that's not apples and apples. A plane is enclosed, the Earth supposedly is not. Says the guy trying to bring me desks and corridors for Polaris. I'm just trying to ground your metaphysics because right now, your metaphysics is not consistent. And it's not really a back together sentence in reality. So in a plane, you have an enclosed compartment that is enclosed. The Earth is open, so that's wrong on that count. Number two, you can feel a difference going toward the back of the plane versus the front of the plane, especially if it's tipping up. So you can feel a difference in the movement going against the movement or with the movement. We don't even feel that with the Earth. So this is not matching reality. This is nothing but metaphysics. Okay, do you know how slowly the Earth rotates as well? It's like really slowly. Like once every 24 hours. That's half the speed of the second hand. It's really, really slowly. If I put you on a round, like, I don't know what they call them in these days. We have the things that we call them roundabouts where you push the kids round on the thing. If I put you on that, and it took me a day to do one revolution, I don't think you'd spill your coffee. But all of that would be magnified by the huge junk of the Earth. The amount of the object. The opposite, the opposite. But the amount, but what about momentum? The amount of effort needed to spin a pin once a day is much different than the amount of force needed to spin a racking ball. Needed to spin a racking ball Earth. So you're forgetting about the momentum. The amount of spin multiplied by the force in the matter. This is just metaphysical. It's not even related to reality. It's not going through anything. There's no resistance. So you're saying that space is a vacuum, nothing? Well, nothing, nothing. There's bits and bobs here and there. But for all intents and purposes, this book are all there. There's no wind resistance. There's no air resistance. But how can you go through nothing? That's just metaphysical garbage. To travel from one place to another, there needs to be a medium there. They used to call this medium an ether. And that was the only framework by which you could prove movement in the first place if you're moving against a substance. So you could feel the wind against your hand. Like I could go in a car and be like, it looks like I'm moving or the scenery is moving. But I can put my hand outside the window and feel the wind against my hand. Exactly. And tell that I'm moving. That was the ether. But you know what they did when they got ether speeds that were too slow to go with Copernicanism, saying that we're going 66,000 miles per hour around the sun, 30 kilometers per second? They were lucky if they got five to eight. So you know what they did? They destroyed the framework. Political decision to destroy science and the only framework by which we could prove movement by making us move through nothing. Liar. I've got no idea what you're talking about, Len. I've got not a clue what you're talking about. We were talking about wind resistance. So how can you tell if you're moving if you're not moving through a substance? Let's go back. How can you tell that you're moving unless you're moving through a substance? How? Unless you can feel the wind against your hand, how can you tell? Exactly. Space must be a substance. So you can't even prove movement now. This is metaphysical nonsense. I can see the stars going by. But they could be moving and or you could be moving without a substance to move through, like ether, the substance of space. Let's agree that someone is moving. That was accepted until 100 years ago. You can't even prove that you're moving anymore. So we have the metaphysical brain. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any talk of ethers since like the 1800s. Yeah, but they brought it back under another name. They called it space time. They called it dark matter. Yeah. They lied and just brought it back under another name because it wouldn't admit that the ether appeared to be proving that the earth is either moving much more. Slowly. So you didn't believe in space time. So they thought they're not moving at all. I believe in ether. Space time was cobbled together. Yeah. It was cobbled together to deny the ether and to deny that the ether drift speeds that they had in the experiments back 100 years ago were pointing to an earth moving much more slowly and or not moving at all. That's what they didn't want to admit. Oh, well, I think that there's this thing right called MEPO and that counteracts ether. So there you go. Problem solved. I can make shit up too. What's number 20? How can it be daytime in England and nighttime in Australia where Billy Zeig writes novels with no grammar? The sun appears to be much more smaller and local. Its light does not reach forever if it gets too far away. It's nighttime. By a sentence, the sun appears to be bigger. I'm going to have to draw another diagram, yeah. Sorry, I'm going to draw another diagram. If you're not going to ground your metaphysics by looking down the hallway, we're just going to go in circles with this. I don't need to look down it. Why would I need to look down the hallway when we can draw a little map? You need to ground your metaphysics because it's not related to reality. You're right. It's not. What was I talking about? Okay. So you write the sun's inside the dome, right? And the model I go with yes. Yes. Okay. So let's just put... Okay. I'm going to put the sun here just for... Oh, sorry. You can't see what I'm doing, can you? Okay. Right. Here's my little diagram. Okay. Here's the North Pole. Here's the sun. Here's me in England. And here's Billy Zeig in Australia writing books with no grammar. I don't even know whose day this is because it's both our days, isn't it? Why isn't that both our days? Or is the sun a lot lower down? It's too far away. You need to wait till it circles around the way you are. Okay. Hang on. Let me get rid of that then. So let's say it's sun... Let's say it's daytime in Australia. Is that more like it? It would be daytime in Australia if you're too far away. It would be nighttime for you until it circles around the way you are. Okay. I could still... Do you not see that? I could still see that. I don't care about what you say about hallways because if the sun is round and is over a flat plane, you know this as well. You can always see it. But I already talked to you about the rainbow, which looks like... I know. And it was nonsense. And you know it's nonsense. You know it can't. This is easy. I'm just trying to get you to... No, you know what? You're trying to get me to accept bullshit. That's nonsense. That's nonsense, mate. Okay. Then we'll just go through the numbers for the audience. That's fine. But when you have a hula hoop boat suspended above the land of the rainbow, which looks like a hula hoop suspended in midair, you get close to the surface and it looks like an arch going above and below the horizon. That's the sun moon and stars with their hula hoop path as they circle overhead. Eventually, it will go below the horizon due to perspective. What's number of 20 or whatever? 19, 20, whatever number? Don't get upset with me, Levin. It's you talking about corridors and the ether and metaphysics. Ground by metaphysics. What does that mean? I told you how metaphysics, what you're talking about... We're not talking about metaphysics. We're talking about looking at the sun in the sky. But you're talking about a philosophical concept that it has to be a bomb of no curvature. I'm not. That's metaphysical. So how is that metaphysical? It's clearly a ball. It doesn't relate to reality. We see a flat horizon. There's no curve. The only time you see curvature is when you have curving, distorting optics or NASA's lying CGI where they have a person like Robert Simmons saying, we had to add a specular highlight. We had to add a cloud here. We had to add an effect here to make it look, you know, it looked kind of flat. We had to work with this picture a little bit. It looks like they're cobbling together deceptive images that don't actually match reality. The horizon is flat. And I don't feel motion beneath my feet. I'm not believing the liars anymore until I get some confirmation. What's number 19 or 20? Dead big. Yeah. Dead little. That's why it looks flat. Eight inches per mile squared to test this claim. Otherwise, you're saying we can't come through this. It's pretty big. That's pretty big. It's not that big. Eight inches per mile squared. I can count eight inches on my hand. If I can count eight inches on my hand, really little. Like you could walk to Africa in about an afternoon if you could see the curve. Eight inches per mile squared means if something is 10 miles away from you, you take that distance where it becomes 10 squared 100. You multiply that times eight inches, which is 812 silver foot point 666. You multiply point 666 times 100. That's 66 feet of drop that would be expected over 10 miles. Do you see the thing in the objects, objects in the distance that are 66 feet or lower? If you do, no ball. Because there should be a hump of earth curvature in the way, blocking something that is 66 feet or lower. There usually is to be fair, isn't there? So you're telling me you can see a weird reflection. So you can't see a 6-7 story building 10 miles away? Are you sure about that? Yeah, but they're big, aren't they? They go up. You can see them more. Six, 10 stories that's like an office building. Test the claim. See if you can see past eight inches per mile squared. I grant sometimes you can see further than eight inches that one. But there's a lot of wacky things. There's refraction. There's where you stood. There's this and that. Okay, even if you could see further, I'm like, yeah, that's weird. Still don't get you past all that, does it? It just means you can see a bit bigger. Why aren't you a big earth instead of a flat earth? But the thing is you're using metaphysics to defend the ball and saying, any amount of refraction as long as refraction occurs, I can just use that as an excuse to get away from the claims of the ball and not test them. That's not going to work. Okay. You've got to see these claims. Big earth. Big earth would explain why you can see further. You're not a big earth, right? You're a flat earth. How big of a nurse? And still, with the motion thing, you're still a second. Yeah, it could still be a globe. Okay. But the moment you make a claim, it's going to need to be tested. So you can open up your Pandora's box of any possibility that you want, but you need to make a claim so that it can be tested, like with the ball earth. What's 19 or 20? Mate, no, hang on. You haven't given me one piece of evidence that the earth is flat, not one. One piece that you'll accept, same with the flat earth. No, okay, what you haven't given me is that we can see further than we should do. Earth's on some pillars. There's some I do with the sun's in a corridor. And perspective. Some nonsense about that. Some about metaphysics. You have not given me... Mate, I'm wide open. I'm a flower ripe for plucking with the flat earth. I'm conspiracy-minded to the core, and you cannot convince me that the earth's flat. Then why did you ignore looking down the hallway to see how perspective would work even over a flat plane? Because I didn't understand what you were talking about. So put the sun on the ceiling then. Notice how if you get further and further away from the sun on the ceiling, it will dip down toward the level of the eyes. That is the same with the sun over the flat plane. Eventually it will merge into your eye level if you look at the ceiling ramping down. And you will still be able to see it because it's a light. But light eventually ends. Light doesn't last forever. It does if it's going directly into your eyeballs. But eventually there's a thing called angular resolution in the diffraction limit. But you know the sun doesn't do that. When the sun sets, it doesn't get really, really, really, really, really, really little until you're just getting dimmer and dimmer and dimmer, does it? That's not what happens. I have videos of it changing size and not changing size. I've seen videos where both things happen. So what happened when it didn't change size then? If you're going to use refraction as a get out of jail excuse card for the globe, I'll use it for the flat plane. Refraction over a flat plane. If the angles are narrow enough, you'd have a magnified refractive effect with greater distance anyway, since you're looking through a greater and bigger air column as the sun gets further and further away. Refraction over a flat plane. What's number 19 or 20? No, hang on. You know, Lemon, you know as well as I do, the sun does not fade away into a small dot. You know that. You know that. You've seen it 100 times. You know that. And you know when it rises in the morning, it doesn't start as a small dot and just come at you like that, does it? You know that. I've seen video where both happen. You've seen a bullshit. You've seen video. You know that. You've seen it a thousand times the other way, haven't you? But you're talking about metaphysics. You can't know anything with metaphysics. I'm not talking about metaphysics. I'm talking about looking at the sun. Then how are you relating this to reality? You refuse to look at the hallway. Where it appears that stuff above the level of your head. There isn't a hallway. The flat earth would be basically a big, long hallway with the sun at a certain level forming quote unquote the roof of the hallway if it's revolving overhead. It's the same. Which is the hallway? You're on the floor. The flat plane would be the floor and that dome firmament would be the ceiling effectively. That's not a hallway, is it? That's a circle with a dome on it. Well, a hallway is a box if you want to get technical about it. But it has a ceiling and it has a floor of a limit and stuff above the level of the eyes will appear to ramp down and stuff below the level of the eyes will ramp up. These two zones will converge, merge, and eventually stuff will disappear. It's the same principle. Like this? Basically, yeah. You're talking. Except you have a really high ceiling. Absolute nonsense, Levin. So now raise the ceiling on that box. Absolute nonsense. And notice how it looks like the ceiling is raised when you and incline more when you raise the ceiling in that hallway. Absolute nonsense, Levin. Absolute nonsense. You're not prepared to believe it. Let's go on to the other ones for the audience. You're not prepared to believe it. Fine, whatever. What's the next one? I hope I'm not prepared to believe it because you're talking nonsense. Fine. Okay, you'd have to reveal the truth to yourself. That's fine. What's next? Reveal the truth to myself. Some big pillars, yeah, that I can't see that I've got to believe in with faith. Oh, hang on. Well, we haven't digged down that far. And we're sounding down to three. You do know that even in seismology and in geology, they can sound up to 300 plus miles down. And they say there's even more land beyond that. We don't know what's down there. You do know that, right? They're sounding up to 300 plus miles down through thick land. Levin, is the Bible literally true? The Bible? I think it is. It's literally true. And it's God omnipotent and omniscient. It has history and prophecy. It's God omniscient and omnipresent. What? I guess I have to go with the omniscient. Omnipresent, he is. And the Bible is literally true. It has history and prophecy, so it has some literal parts. It's a multi-genre of literature. You're the first person I've ever spoken to that I believe that the Bible was literally true. So I've always wanted to ask this, and I'm very curious to hear your answer generally. In Genesis chapter three, verse nine, after Adam and Eve have eaten the fruit, it says, And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, I was afraid. Right. So in verse, chapter verse nine here, if God's omniscient and omnipresent, how has he lost Adam? That doesn't mean that he doesn't know. He may just be asking Adam to see or I thought it was literally true. Let Adam reveal how he reacts. If God knows everything, he may know how he's going to react, but he may just go through the motion for Adam. So that Adam can reveal himself. Well, that's a pretty good answer. You do have to learn actually answer the question though. Let's give him a chance. No, I'm conceiving it was a pretty good answer. So if you get back to the flatter, I mean, look, I'm a Christian, religious chart it is what it is. What's number 13 or whatever. Okay, let's see. Weather, let's talk about weather. How does weather work in the flowers? That could work over the flat earth too. In the globe earth, you have pressure and temperature making air columns rise, fall and do when moisture rise, fall, leading to precipitation. It would just happen over a flat earth with, you know, the sun coming in and making the air columns rise and swirl over the earth. Is there a problem with that? Isn't the sun always there though? The sun is always somewhere, but it's not necessarily local. But if it's an enclosed environment, as I like, I know you guys really like the second law of thermodynamics and gas pressure and whatnot. How could it be hot in Africa and freezing in the Arctic if the second law of thermodynamics explains so much? Well, the heater can be in the house, but unless you're in the room with the heater, you're going to be cold if you're far away at the other side of the house. It just depends on how far the sun's heat extends in the system. By sextance, you get a sun that's no more than 32 miles in diameter because back in Samuel Robotham's day in the 1800s, there were sailors who were under the sun getting no shadow for 32 miles. For 32 miles, they were under the sun, no shadow, like Lahaina Noon, and they said, I'm going to get a shadow the moment the sun is no longer overhead and it took 32 miles. So by that alone and sextance, the sun can't be more than 32-ish miles in diameter, if that. And it can't be more than maybe three to 10,000 miles high up. If that, Jesse Johnson's another YouTuber and he took the math to two decimal places and he got a sun that was 1,600 miles up. When you take trigonometry, the tangent of 89.99 degrees being equal to x, the height of the sun you're trying to find in this equation, divided by the distance that the sun travels in a second. So when you do the math yourself, you get a sun that's way closer and if you drop the assumption that the Earth is going millions of miles in space and moving at all, you get totally different figures too. Try it. The tangent of 89.99 equals, put that in your calculator, equals x, what you're trying to find, divided by the distance that the sun travels in one second at the equator. You get about 1,600. It is math. The growth model explains this very clearly and it's something I couldn't follow, but what you just said didn't really make a lot of sense to me. That's all. It's very simple. It just doesn't relate to reality. What's number 18? Let's see. Again, I did steal these conspiracy cats and I don't even know one so I'm looking forward with tides. I just get that it's something to do with the moon so I'm sure you've got an answer that won't bother me either way, to be honest. Again, I'm not really that proud of what shape the earth is. We have to do that one. Let's go with seasons. Seasons. We didn't do tides. No, we didn't do tides. No, but I don't really know what the globe argument for tides is besides it's something to do with the moon's gravity. I'm not good enough. Okay. Well, the Flat Earth argument would probably be something electromagnetic. You just rub a balloon against some cloth. It gets nice and staticky. Hold it up to a trickle of water and notice how the water drifts toward the balloon because of static and electrostatics or whatever. I thought it was the flat earth tilting. That's another one. The earth bobbing up and down on the great deep underwater activity in volcanoes. The main thing that's wrong with gravity is the earth gravity compared to the moon's is like 88 times the force or something like that. And the earth would be pulling the water more than the moon. It doesn't work out mathematically. And high tide does not come when the moon is closest seemingly when it's at high noon over the horizon. Sometimes it's off from that by hours. It's not a one-to-one correlation with when the moon's in the sky and the tides. Sometimes places have high tides. The tides are all over the place. It's a pretty big body of water though. It would take some time for the momentum and gravity to catch it. Charlie, a couple hours. Yeah. But I mean, you could rub a balloon right now and get something demonstrable right now with electrostatics and electromagnetism. Hold it up to the trickle of water and wash the water. It's not bigger though. It's portable. It's not the same. So you're just going to say it's so big and unfathomable and metaphysics? Okay, whatever. No. What's 17 or 18? It would be to like, literally, the only way to prove it to you would be to like fly you up there and show you. Like it's basically unfalsifiable, isn't it? Because you can... But... What was that? Like, again, I'm not trying to be a dick, but all this stuff works and matches and doesn't contradict each other. And I'm not really clever enough to go through all this. Maybe someone in the chat is and see how what you said contradicts is another part of it, because I'm sure it did somewhere. And I don't understand why you're going to so much effort to like deny all this. I'm sure. But the thing is either you're willing to test the claims or you're not. If you're going to go metaphysical and be like, trust the math and science priest and not test it yourself, I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes you have to take this in your own hand and test it yourself. Right. Okay. I might go on a bit of a rant here. So bear with me. Right. I agree that there are people, secret people, cabals, bankers, this and that, who want to screw us over. I agree. I agree that there's a lot of weird stuff with triangles and the mystery traditions and cabalistic traditions and nostics and all this. I agree. I think that too. There's a lot of weird stuff happening and there's a lot of weird people trying to do these things to us. But I think this flat earth thing, if all that stuff is true, this is a Psyop. Because instead of keeping an eye on bankers and people who are legitimately politicians, bankers, whatever, corporations legitimately in your back pocket, in your wallet, getting at you, instead of looking at them, you're on the shore of a lake with a Nokia looking at the tide. Like, eye on the prize, it doesn't matter what site, what shape the earth is. Like, are you conspiracy theorists or not? It doesn't matter. Like, if the scooters are on a flat earth or the scooters are on a round earth, we've still got to deal with them. But have you heard the testimony of the people who came to believe in flat earth? Some of them are coming to belief in creator after being atheists for years. Some of them are even coming to God and Jesus Christ. As sometimes, not with everybody, some people judge us like, oh, there's flat whatever. But some people like, you know, this has been changing. Sorry, carry on. I went on the round. Sorry, carry on. Well, that's it. What were we saying? I was going to say, if you think that Christianity isn't part of the con, you're on, like, wrong one of the ladder. What? Christianity is the big con. If you don't believe me, what year is it? 2020 years after Jesus Christ was born. There you go. If you don't think Christianity is part of the con, you need to catch up. I mean, there are some conspiracies, even I won't believe in. And the zeitgeist, I call it zeitgeist conspiracy is one of them, that Jesus is some sort of copy of pagan gods. It's rubbish to me, but I don't know. I'll have to look into it. But what's number 17, 18, or whatever? What's the next one? Oh, OK. Let's see. Wait, we didn't do seasons, did we? Seasons. Oh, seasons change over a flat earth. They just follow the sun as it circles over the flat plane. It gets a nice, tighter orbit as it spirals toward the north and stays in that general area. The north pole is in the center of the flat plane with the north pole in the center. And so the sun is circling overhead, making a circle around the north pole, and the inner part of that circle would be what we call the northern hemisphere-ish. It expands outward toward the south, making a wider orbit toward the south, the southern Antarctic ice ring, and it takes the seasons with it. When it's further toward the south over the Tropic of Capricorn, the southernmost latitude circle that it goes toward the south, it's summer down there, winter in the north. When it's closer to the north, toward the Tropic of Cancer, the northernmost circular latitude around the central north, it's summer in the north and more like a winter in the south. So the sun has to speed up the further towards the perimeter of the disk it gets. It would have to, yes. To cover this more distance in the same 24-hour time, it would have to, yes. Do we have any idea of the mechanism behind that? The best thing would again be electromagnetism. I can show you quantum locking where you put a magnet over an electromagnetic track and you can get it to orbit over that thing for as long as you wish, basically. Sorry, go on, sorry, go on. I'd go with electromagnetism. What were you saying? Is that really more believable? Is that really, to you, more believable than the Earth's a globe and it spins? If I don't see curvature, if I don't feel movement, it is no longer valid. But again, mate, how are you going to see curvature? Because the Earth's dead big. It's not that big. If I'm seeing something go over the curve, like a boat go forward in the, I guess, X, Y would be left, right. If you're looking at a graph and putting it on the Earth in real life, Y would be up, down. Z would be straight through toward the horizon. If I see a boat disappearing over the Z axis, the Z axis, I need to see corresponding curvature on the X, Y axis, or I'm not believing it. Otherwise, what are you saying? It's a cylinder. It's like straight left to right, but it has a hump curve over the side. Are we talking about what? Cylinder Earth, toilet roll Earth. What are we talking about here? I'm saying if you could see a curvature, like I said earlier, you could probably walk to Africa by tomorrow. Well, I mean, yet again, we don't have eight inches per mile square to curvature. I could bring out some good binoculars and peer right through that curvature of Earth and bring stuff back that is supposedly gone over the curve of the Earth. It's just not making sense. All you've done there is prove that you can see a bit further than eight inches per mile squared. I haven't seen a single thing that's proved to me that the Earth is flat at all. You've given me conjecture, guesses, and problems you see with the globe. You haven't given one positive claim for the flat Earth. Let's keep going. What's your next remark? Okay. Okay, solar eclipses then are predictable. Are they not? They are predictable. I can tell you when I can Google right now when is the next solar eclipse and I bet it happens. And that's done because the globe Earth model predicts when that happens, the heliocentric model. So the flat Earth model cannot predict solar eclipses. So how do you explain that? They were predicted long before the globe by the Cerro cycle. The Cerro cycle is basically for the lunar eclipses an 18-year, 10-month and some change cycle that says that the eclipses occur and recurring patterns in the same area every 18 years, 10 months, and some change. So it looks like they were already patterning eclipses irrespective of the model anyway. And it looks like the Chaldeans and the ancient cultures that mapped this stuff out appeared to be pretty at the very least geocentric, if not flat, based off of the illustrations of their cosmologies. And yet again, they all appeared to have a couple of things in common, flattish land covered by some sort of dome-like covering. So maybe they knew something that we forgot. So you're saying that eclipses are pre-programmed? They happen in regular cycles called the Cerro cycle. You can look it up. It's the Cerro cycle. Okay. The only thing that's improved since then is better clocks to help us time it a little better. But that's it. Generally, it's just the Cerro cycle. Geolocentrism hasn't really added anything to that. Right. But if ancient cultures are looking at the sky and noticing a pattern in when eclipses happen, it doesn't matter what they thought the shape of the Earth was. They've just worked out a pattern. Exactly. So it doesn't prove the Earth's flat, but it does prove that it's round. So it doesn't prove anything? But it proves the Earth is round? It proves it's not flat. It proves it's not flat. Either way, the shape of the Earth is immaterial. It's just a general pattern that you chart out. I think it's eminently more reasonable to believe that there's a Sun, a Moon, and the Earth, and every now and again, the Moon gets in the way. But it's unreasonable to believe that the Earth is eclipsing anything if you look at the impossible eclipse. Look at the selenelian eclipse. Okay, I've heard that debunked 50 times on modern-day debate. How did they debunk it? I don't know. Refraction? They said refraction, didn't they? It's refraction. The go-to excuse for why you're seeing too far and why stuff is happening over the globe Earth that shouldn't happen. Okay, what's next? I'm still not convinced. I'm right to the plug in here. You have an audience? What's next? No, I can't help you. You're not ready to believe. No, I told a lie. In my opening, I told a lie when I said I didn't want to be a Flat Earther. The truth is, I love being a conspiracy guy because you get to feel all like, you know, some other people don't and get to call people sheep and that. Like, I quite liked it when I was into all this. And I was like, when I first heard about it, I was like, oh, that'll be a Flat Earth guy. And I'm like, know all this stuff that no one can debunk. But it was too easy to debunk. Like, I actually wanted to be a Flat Earther because it's quite, I quite liked it, that, you know, that having something over people thing, it's quite intoxicating, isn't it? I was a bit disappointed when it was easily debunked. It's not the truth. So is it, mate? It's not, it's not, is it? I'd like it to be as well because it's cool. But the truth is what matters. People are believing this and they're getting a whole new perspective on things. The truth is the truth, isn't it? I think the truth is the truth. It doesn't matter what, I think the truth is the truth. It's objective. Like, and even if it's bringing people to Jesus, it don't matter if it's not true. It doesn't, because it's not true, is it? And you know it's not, really. But when you look at the horizon, when you look at the horizon, do you see something flat or something curved? What do you see? Yeah, it's, they're big. It's flat. It looks flat. It looks flat to me too. That's all I'm saying. Yeah, but if it looked curved, I'd be able to walk to Africa. But where's the eight inches per mile square to curvature? How do we test this? I don't give a shit. There's all kinds of lucky things. It's not proved to me, like all that matching and being explained is proved to me. It's not. I'm sorry. Well, if you zoom in on a curved object, it'll look flat. But if you zoom in on a flat surface, guess what it's going to look like too? Flat. So how are you going to test those claims again? I've also seen eight inches per mile square. Eight inches per mile square. mctune.net. And it's got all the evidence as well. And I'd look at it and I was like, yeah, that all absolutely makes sense. The way the angles work out. I'm just about smart enough for that. And I looked at the way he did that picture and he took the pixels and showed how he counted all the pixels out. And when he compressed it, there was a curve. I saw that. That's pretty good evidence. That's the curvature of the lens. That's the curvature of the lens. All lenses suck from barrel distortion. They take that into account though, don't they? It's not. No, they don't. In close, it will be hardly any barrel distortion. But just like a fisheye camera, it will magnify with greater distance and greater elevation and become absurd. That's even with the best lenses. All lenses suffer from barrel distortion. And when you compress it left or right, you can see the lens distortion, but not necessarily the curvature of the earth. What is your next one? Okay, the point is that I look at horizon and yeah, it looks pretty flat. And you look at horizon and yeah, it looks pretty flat. But that works on both models. Do you see what I mean? So that's an old point. That's a moot point now. So now that's gone. But you have to use more evidence. But you have to use more metaphysics for it to be curved, you get look flat. You have to disconnect your mind more for it to be curved and look flat. So why don't we drop the metaphysics and see if we can test this stuff? I need to go to what metaphysics is first. The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time and space. Okay, it sounds like bollocks to me if I'm honest pal. Mm-hmm. Right, what is, I have to, apparently, I thought you guys were all about actual empirical evidence and you're telling me to look into my metaphysics. Yes, basically stop saying that it has to be a globe even though it looks flat and disconnecting your mind. How can you even believe in that with anything other than metaphysics? Because I know that if there's a light in the sky and the earth's flat, you have to be able to see that light all the time. It's just obvious, mate. It's just obvious. But we don't even see the light at the end of the street forever. Why would the sun be any different? Please relate this back to reality with real examples at the very least. Get out of that metaphysical realm where we have this light that lasts forever despite the fact that in real life we don't even see that happening. But it's far more likely that there's a flat earth built by God on four pillars with a dome what's the dome made out of? Do you know what I mean? There's so many more questions. What makes weather? Where's weather coming from? Where's the big machines blowing clouds? I don't know. I'm still trying to figure some of this stuff out too. But we do know and it's really clear. I really don't think that they do. I really don't think that they do. It's obvious. All these things match. What's the next one? I think you like being a flat earth there because it makes you feel more Christian than everyone else. I think it makes you feel like you've got one up on everyone else. You know something that they don't. I think that's what's going on. I've been there as well. I was like that. And I still am a bike that with a lot of things. But it's just not true, is it, mate? We'll give you a chance to respond to Mark or Lemon. I'll give you a chance to respond. But I do want to let you guys know that in just a few minutes we'll jump into the Q&A as it's already been about an hour after those opening statements, which were pithy. That was a go. Go ahead, Lemon. Very pithy. Oh, I forgot. Getting old. I think Lemon had said you are just trying to feel, I think he had said you're just trying to feel like you're a more Christian Christian. Oh, yes, yes. We all want to feel special. We all want to feel loved and special. You know, the red pill arrogance. You know, I can admit to some of that too, but I used to be a Christian glober. I just, you know, didn't really think about what the Bible said about the shape of the earth. So we have a lot of Christians, Christian or not, that go with the globe. But the only thing with that Christian thing is what does the Bible say? Then I looked at the Bible a bit with the other Christian flat earthers. And, you know, God said to Job, it's pressed out like clay into the signet ring. Back in Babylon, they used to carry these rings, these flat rings with an impression on it, their family insignia, their signature, whatever. And they'd press it into documents. And it would flatten the clay out to seal the documents, like letters and stuff to show that it hasn't been tampered with. It would be covered with like wax or a clay seal to show that it hasn't been tampered with or whatever the hell they use. And it would leave a flat impression. It's flat like clay under the signet ring, God said to Job, that's flat. With some impressions, and it's upturned at the edges like the Antarctic ice ring. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. You know, it's flat, upturned at the edges. Makes sense. That's what the Bible says. Not Greek philosophers. Not Greek disconnected from reality philosophers going into neoplatonism and metaphysics and saying that the earth is this perfect ball because it's so pretty and so abstract. And that's what God would do if I were in God's shoes and how I'd make it. You know, this is God, the maker, saying what he did to Job. So there's a disconnect there. Am I going to be a pagan, metaphysical Greek philosopher? And or am I going to go to God's word? That's just with me. I'm a little bit disappointed in lemon that you're not more objectionable. You're quite a nice chap. You should see me when I get triggered. I mean, I absolutely disagree, but we've got a little bit of fire. I mean, that was probably my fault because it's like 4 a.m. and I've had about 17 beers. But it's been quite nice talking to you, Lemon. Oh, it's been a pleasure. Despite all the questions, shall we? Yes, definitely. Want to remind you that though it's not in there now, not far away. We will be putting Lemon's link in the description. He's just going to send it to me afterwards. Mark H. at the moment doesn't have a link. However, you do get to stare at him right now intently. And so we do appreciate that. By the way, is it just me or does Mark H. look like destiny? Whoa, totally. About to ruin that for you, James. You already. Huh? Totally bald. Wow. Yeah, not very destiny. You had me go in there, but it was like close. Like for a little bit there, you did. And Isaiah 40-22. Yes. So we're jumping into Q&A, folks. Thank you so much for your questions. Starting with Isaiah 40-22 who says, Atheists love T. NASA slash Satan and NASA's cartoon slash CGI ball Earth because the Bible is 100% a motionless flat Earth book. Well, I love Satan. I'm flipping love him with his arms and his pokey stick. Can't get enough of him. Good point. And NASA. They're awesome too. Evan Stein. But it echoes. I'm sorry. Well, let's see. Well, just because we might have more questions coming in as well, I do want to quick move to the next one. Next up, Evan Stein says, If globe Earth conspiracy is about, quote, hiding God, then flat Earth disproves your God. He's not omnipotent or worthy of worship if men can hide him. Oh, snap. Lemon, what do you think of them apples? Uh, people believe what they want. God is a God of freedom. He's the God of the living, not the God of the dead. If we're not going to reach out to him with living hands of faith, then we're practically dead. So, you know, God's like, uh, you know, I'm here, you know, if you ever want to get to know me, I'm right here. But if you don't, well, you know, turn to me before, you know, it's too late, but you know, that's up to you. Gotcha. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. This one coming in from Isaiah 40, 22 strikes again. This time saying, Atheist, please stop calling theoretical scientism science. It's nothing but fairy tales for the godless. All right, I'll stop that. Next, RL age. Appreciate your question says for lemon. Why does the sun go down over the horizon and not get smaller the way planes do? Aren't they both going away from us over a flat earth? Why do they behave differently? Don't cop out. Go to Puket World. He'll show you it going down an angular size, disappearing an angular size. I've seen it disappear with a filter. I've seen it reduce an angular size with a filter, without a filter rather. You know, basically it looks like the top and bottom half of your vision merging into an unabsorbable line due to the diffraction limit as the, you know, light tries to crowd into your eye at the level and elevation that you're at an angular resolution, which says that two objects will eventually appear separated at first, but will eventually appear to come together, merge, and disappear due to angular resolution. Object one is the top half of your vision from your eye level up. Object two is the part of your vision from your eye level down. Eventually they will smash together, merge, and converge into a horizon line over a flat plane. Gotcha. This one comes in from Spurg Lettuce, says nothing. They just left up, but we appreciate your support. Let's see. General E. Shady, thank you for your question, says, Flurfs deny actual science. Substitute with crap. I apologize. I didn't bring any actual science. That's my fault. Lemon. Just scientism, a fake science. It's scientism, excessive belief in faith, in science's methods and protocols. It comes from materialism. It comes from atheism, and it's an inadequate method. It deals with nothing that is unseen, nothing that is beyond the material world when we can't even see all of the wavelengths of light. There's an ultraviolet spectrum beyond that. There's wavelengths of light. We can't see x-ray, gamma, whatever. There's wavelengths beyond even the ultra red, infrared. We can't even see that yet. We're trying to tag this materialism onto it, saying that we can catalog and see everything scientifically. It's bogus. There's an unseen spiritual realm that can choose to interact with us, but we're not going to be able to always science the crap out of it unless it chooses to interact with us. It's just the way it is. Next up. Thank you for your question or comment. From Fight the Flat Earth, says, Good job, Mark. Kill the Flat Earth. Next. My name checked him, didn't I? That's why. Also Fight the Flat Earth says, lemonbird.uppercase-e-x-e has stopped working. Please restart. Oh, I see. Is it that he's saying you're like a robot? I should know this, but I'm embarrassed to say I don't. I wouldn't be too upset, Levin. It's pretty obvious he was going to be on my side here. C. Parns. No problem. Thank you for your question. Says he lost you. He lost you when this debate started, Mark H. Next time come prepared, but they said he lost you. I'm confused by that. Yeah, I think they're saying like he ran ahead with his. Oh, I see what you're saying. And he was left me on the back of your mind. Gotcha. Like the road runner leaving the coyote behind. Mike Billars, thanks for your question, says, You can predict, quote unquote, when eclipses occur, but not where they occur using a Flat Earth. Levin, is that true? Are you only able to predict when they happen? It just depends on the model that you superimpose. Flat plane and or around globular Earth. The rest, a lot of this stuff just seems like rhetoric. It looks like most of the predictability came from the serocycle at best improved by better clocks. What, you know, geographical map you superimpose it on to. That just depends on whether you go with the globe or the Flat Earth. I'd have to look into it more, but it looks like mainly it's the serocycle from the Caldeans back in two, three thousand years ago or whatever. But it would be arbitrary on the Flat Earth, though, wouldn't it? It would be whenever God's decides to do it. It looks like the skies are regularly occurring clock that you can chart and predict stuff off of. And the only model that you can have flat around where you have recurring patterns that happen over and over and over again is when something's spinning or circular. So that would imply that, you know, there's some sort of circular clock like event happening overhead, because that's the only thing that we know of that makes things occur regularly and with a rhythm. Gotcha. And thank you for your question. This one coming in from Mike Billars as well says, Lemon, I have four photos of the sun from Chicago, Atlanta, Miami and Omaha. Provided the time of capture, can you calculate what angle or direction the cameras were pointing? Because I can using a globe Earth. I guess we have to see how it works on the Flat Earth, but I don't know. Gotcha. And Moomin Rider bicyclist for J.U. I can't see the rest of it. So sorry, friend. It's oh, let me pull the page. It'll it'll make it bigger. And thanks for your patience, folks. If you're in the Twitch chat, we do have Twitch. I'm a little bit slow at checking the chat, but if you like Twitch, I'm actually going to put that in the description right now and want to let you know, hey, check out our Twitch. And that's also a way you can both watch a modern day debate. You can follow us there and you can also, if you want, you can subscribe to modern day debate on Twitch as well. So Tuss Beatbox, thanks for having my back. Thanks for that as well. But Moomin Rider, Moomin Rider says, this is worse than the guy that said we went to the moon because Nvidia graphics. And commenters said vacuum tubes can go through the Van Allen belts, but microchips can't. Oakley versus T-Jump, text one for agree. Well, maybe we will have that. That's a possibility. So that could be a juicy one. And this Nathan Oakley fellow, does he debate ever? I've got Curia just kind of asking. Only on his own channel when he has access to the mute button. I don't think he'll come on. I wonder, okay. Once we, I do have to tell you folks, we have plans for doing some in-person debates this summer. Really excited for it. Is Oakley in the US? No, he's over here. He won't come on. He won't come on? I guarantee you he won't come on. He just, he does his mute button. He yells, he screams. You don't want him. He's worse than that, Dawkins. That's juicy. And thank you for your question. This one coming in from RLH says, to Lemon, your answer made no sense. I'm just not ready for the truth. May I give you their... So can I just interject? I apologize to like the sciency glow people who were like really rooting for me. And I totally let them down. I don't know about science. I just wanted to like be like, I don't know either. Can you convince me? Like that was, I'm not trying. I don't know shit. To be fair, I think that last guy though, was a flat earther. Okay, he probably didn't like me in the first place. So it's, the flat earthers are the ones throwing their poop at you, I think. Oh, I would expect it on both sides, frankly. But Thelma, well, Brad, thanks for your question. Said, ask Lemon if he can see a one degree over 69 miles, 25,000 miles circumference, miles divided by 360 degrees, a globe, is equal to 69 miles per one degree. You'd have to be at the center of the earth for that to be even be applicable. We make angles from the surface of the earth where we appear to have a 60 degree visual zone from our eye level up and a 60 degree visual zone from our eye level down. We're not at the center of the earth. So that's, you know, the principles that that's based off of are fallacious unless you're located at the center of the earth where those angles will be made. And that's assuming it hasn't merged, converged and disappeared due to perspective and angular resolution when you're at the center of the earth and looking toward the center, the surface of the earth from the center of the earth. That's not based on any sort of real principle at that point that relates to reality. Gotcha. And in fact, regarding one of the people that said that, you remember that Super Chat that said that Lemon lost you market age, the person C. Pames gave a response after you had responded to their last Super Chat. They said, that's fair. I respect that. So you've perhaps gained a fan, a new fan as well. And so thanks also for your question. This one coming in from, let's see, where did it go on me? Two seconds. Donald Cronos asked this. What are the pillars standing on regarding the earth? And they say, so this is for Lemon. They say, if anything, how does Lemon think he knows the Bible didn't get it wrong? There's history in the Bible. It's a multi-genre work. A lot of times people who just want to run kicking and screaming from the Bible say it's all fake. Well, it's a bunch of books cobbled together over 15 centuries. It's prophecy. It's history. Some of it's poetry. Some of it has a little bit of allegory, but it's a mix. And it's immature to just discount the whole book when the culture that had the work did not treat it that way. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your question. This one coming in from hyphen Swireville hyphen. Thank you for your question. Said, can you ask what would happen if you walked in a straight line until you reached the horizon? What would happen? Would you fall off Lemon? There's a dome beyond Antarctica. Eventually, you'd go plink if you didn't freeze to death in the Antarctic ice ring that surrounds the perimeter. If you didn't get stopped by the Antarctic Treaty at the 60th parallel, where they are authorized to use up to an including military force to detain you and turn you back from exploring what's down there. It looks like we're in an enclosed world that's covered by a firmament dome, especially by the ancient cosmologies. It looks like meteorites or chunks that fall off of it make a cry of meteors. You got the sun dogs and the pahalions that look like sunlight shining off the thing. It looks like we're covered by a dome. Gotcha. And may I, sorry, hang on. May I, what are you talking about? You can go to the Antarctica. I was looking today, because Billy always says this, and I thought it was debating him. You can, I was looking up tours. You can go there like next week. Well, probably not next week, but like, you know, when things get about to normal, but the pretend it is next week, you can literally book a tour there. You can go there. Can you explore at 60,000 miles or conference? Or are you going to be kept in corraled in a very specific area? Depends. Well, I'll tell you a book, I guess. Like, you can go there, though. You pretend you can't go there. You can totally go there. And like, that treat is just for, like, government, so they don't put nukes there and stuff. Next up. As if. I'm sorry. Well, I'll give you a, I'll give you a, since the original challenges to you, Lemon, I'll give you the last word before we go to the next question. Time's so precious. Let's keep going. Master Optic says, do you think Hovind would debate Lemon? Maybe. Actually, Hovind is like big on, he doesn't want Flat Earth. I've asked him before. We've tried to get him to debate Nathan Thompson. He refuses every time. So I wish, but I doubt it. And want to let you know, though, we are in the works of setting up another, you could say a Kent Hovind Returns type of debate, as we haven't had them on in a long time. But that should be fun. And so keep an eye out for that folks. And also James Payne, thanks for your super, or this is a question, a standard question says, please ask how the North Pole has half a year of darkness, Lemon. It's too far away. It's too far away from the North, circling too far away over the South. So you're going to have 24 hours of darkness when it gets real close. You're going to have 24 hours of light in the North. Nice. Same deal. Nice question from Neilio. This is interesting. I didn't know, Lemon, that you believe that the moon gives off its own light. He asked, why are the, why are there shadowed craters on the moon if the moon gives off its own light? Shadows can't be cast on a light surface. These are the questions I should have been asking, frankly. No worries. I've seen this glow in the dark stone called Uperlight. It's even got dark sections. Maybe the moon is some sort of glow in the dark Uperlight stone or something like that. It could light up from within. Maybe it casts shadows on its own self, depending on its topography. I guess I'd have to look into it, but basically based off of holding a magnifying glass from the moon light up to my eye, it felt like a cold ray. So I don't think that that's sunlight at all. Gotcha. And had another chat. Who's Ski-ba? S-K-I-B-A. Ski-ba. Rob Ski-ba is another flat earther. He does different flat earth proofs with atmospheric lensing and stuff. He's got some pretty good videos as well. Does he do debates? I don't know if he does a whole lot of debates. He'll do like a conversation. I don't know if he'll do a debate. I need to look at more of his work, but he's got some pretty good stuff. Gotcha. And with that, I want to say thank you, everybody. We have really appreciated you. We want to let our dear friend, Mark, get to sleep. He's already stayed up two hours past in an extremely late time. Fight the flat earth. Fight the flat earth. He's with me as well. He's been staying up. Bless him. He's over here somewhere. What time is it right now there where you are? It's 25 to 5 a.m. Whoa. Okay. So it's going on 5 a.m. for him. He stayed up. It's a good job. I'm not going to church, frankly. He's in England, and he is staying up extremely late for us. So we want to say a huge thank you to Mark. I seriously owe you big time, Mark. Seriously. We really do appreciate you. And also, thank you to Dearest Lemon for his return to Modern Day Debate. I think it's been a long time, but I think we've had you here. We've had you on before, right? Tea jump, yeah. Oh, it's been a while. I think I want to say a couple months, maybe a year. Oh, it was tea jump. Okay. But yeah, so we do appreciate that. And so, yes, we are stoked, you guys. And so we are pumped and want to say thank you so much, everybody, for hanging out with us. As mentioned, that Bigfoot Debate is coming up next Saturday. You guys, this is honestly going to be epic. I had mentioned I was watching the Bigfoot documentary and I was watching it with my girlfriend. And what happened was I listened to Dr. Jeff Meldrum. And I thought, I was like, whoa, that guy's good. Like, I got to get him on. And so I emailed him at Idaho State University. And yes, he says, he's not, he's like, hey, I'm not a believer in Bigfoot. I'm convinced there's a Bigfoot. That's what he says. And so you guys, it is going to be epic. He'll be going against Maddie. And she is a PhD student. And so she's a, you could say, she's educated in the sciences and meteorology. So not his specialty, but nonetheless, you could say scientific thinker. So that we're going to do a shot every time someone says Patterson. Patterson? The Patterson film. Oh, that's right. The Patterson Gilmore. That's a good film. That's right. They will, that's one of the talking points that we'll have on. So hit subscribe folks. If you're not subscribed, that's going to be an epic one you don't want to miss. So be sure when you do hit that subscribe button, click that bell notification. The one that has the little like ringing symbols like on the outside of it. That basically says you want reminders for all of them. And that way you'll for sure get a reminder for that debate. Oh baby, it's going to be a good one. So we want to say thank you guys. It's honestly a true pleasure to have you all here. Thanks to the more than Marrior. Appreciate you hanging out in the chat, asking questions. I would say yes. No matter what walk of life you're from, flat earth, globe earth, you name it. We appreciate you. But one last huge thank you. Oh, by the way, thank you so much. Mods for doing a great job. Getting rid of any of that hate speech, any of that stuff. We're a pretty easygoing channel. But one thing we don't want is any sort of hate speech, stuff like that. And so we are pumped. We appreciate you guys. Mark and Lemon, thank you guys sincerely for being with us. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Take care and happy. Folks, I'll be back for a short post-credits scene. And so stick around and thanks so much. Again, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Whoa, stoked you guys. That was an epic day. I am honestly thrilled. That was like one of the more epic days we've had in so long. I am blown away. And so we really do. We want to say thank you guys so much for supporting Modern Day Debate. It is a community effort. You guys honestly make it rock. And you know, the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel. We appreciate them immensely. They make it so fun. And we do appreciate that. And but yeah, we appreciate you guys it's a huge help. When you do things like sharing debates, like posting them to friends, you know, enjoy these topics or on Twitter if you retweet our stuff. We are on Twitter and we appreciate whatever people retweet debates to kind of help get the word out. So new people might be exposed and new ideas. And so we really do appreciate that. And so always fun to hang out with you guys. I can only hang on a little bit because I'm behind and I'm honestly like my butt is sore because this is no joke. The seventh hour I think of streaming today from the three debates that we've had today. If you didn't see those earlier debates, they were Epic, Cosmic Skeptic and Smoky Saint. Actually, they had an Epic debate on veganism. That was a great start. And that was in the afternoon. And then we had at night, yeah, we had Tyler versus Victoria on a very controversial political topic. So you can see that already has 10,000 views. And we finished that stream less than two hours ago. It was about two hours ago, exactly. So that has gotten a lot of attention. Those two, by the way, Tyler and Victoria each are Titans on TikTok. They have huge amounts. Anyway, so it was an interesting story that Tyler was like, yeah, you want to host. And I was like, yeah, I would love to host. So that was cool. And so this flat earth debate, we've appreciated it. It was Epic as well. And so thank you guys all for being here. Brooke Chavez says, thanks, James. Thank you, Brooke. Seriously, appreciate you. Appreciate your positivity. And thanks, Megan, Satanus, who says, great show. Thanks so much, Megan. Appreciate your positivity. G Cash says, good times. Thanks to everyone. Appreciate that. G Cash agreed there. Amen to that. Flat Sky says, ballerith is... Oh, let's see. I'm trying to focus on the ones that are, you could say, nonpartisan. Let's see. Adam Elbilia says that the debate that we just hosted this afternoon has 11,000 views. Geez, that one is exploding. So Adam Elbilia says, no thank you for hanging up for such a long day. Thank you, Adam. Appreciate it. You guys make it fun. So we do appreciate you guys. And we are pumped as it's honestly, this is just a joy for me to get to do this. I love what I do. And so we appreciate that. L.R. says, I'm proud of all of you interested in challenging your ideas. I agree. Yeah. And also that you guys debate and stuff and you don't have hard feelings over it. Adam Elbilia says, now it's 12,000. Holy moly. That is unreal. So Brooke Chavis, thanks for your kind words. That means a lot. And yeah, I'm pumped, you guys. Seriously, it's been a great day. Joe Blogs. Thanks for saying, hi, Joe. Appreciate it. Says, hi, James. Hello back. We're glad you're here. Thanks for stopping by. And Donald Cronos says, wow, lemon. Well, I can't read a partisan chat, but I appreciate it. Let's see. L.R. says, getting better and better, James. Thanks. Appreciate that, L.R. I'm pumped, you guys. And Liliya just says, can we raid Prime K's on Twitch? Yes, I'm open to that. That'd be cool. And let's see. The only thing is, forgive me, hopefully, is it Prime K's, is there stream right now, like a debate or like something that's non-partisan? I'm a little bit nervous about if we raid a certain channel, like let's say we raid, like let's say Destiny was doing like a talk on his views on Axe. And people might be like, oh, James, you're like directing people to a channel that it's like only taking, I'm just a little bit nervous. So let me know about that, but I'm open to it, especially if it's a debate. General Ball's Axe says, great job today. Modern Day Debate wasn't able to hang and interact much today. We caught the second debate and listened to the last one. Good job again. Appreciate that, General Ball's Axe. Really do appreciate it. Thank you. And Stoke the Packers won today. You're probably a Los Angeles Rams fan, but I grew up in Wisconsin about 45 minutes from Green Bay. So it's kind of in my heritage to be a Packer fan. But yeah, we do appreciate you guys. It's seriously, it's always fun. So we really do appreciate you guys being so positive and supportive. Thanks so much. And then Flat Sky said, James, don't read my post because it's too controversial, but they were his own words. I can't remember what it was. I'm sorry. I could have, maybe I'm wrong. I thought you said something. Oh, Colubb says, who's your girlfriend? Her name is Frankie, actually. And she's a real girl, not like an imaginary friend. But no, she's really sweet. She's got a heart of gold. And I just adore her. And so let's see. We are pumped though. Want to say, yes, you guys, you didn't know we are on podcast. We hope that's a value to you. Like, check us out on podcast. Hopefully you enjoy that. And so, yeah, I would pull out your phone right now and see if we're on your favorite podcast app. And if we're not, we'll work to get on there. Because I'm pretty sure we're almost certainly going to be. Because those apps that you see on the right side of the screen right now, that's a small, that's like a quarter, maybe a third of all the apps that we're actually on for podcasts. Like we're on Stitcher. I could go on and on. It's honestly a giant list. And do we have, yeah, we got Googled on there. Tussbeatbox says, James didn't ask my meme question about gas. Oh, you're right. I'm seriously sorry about that, Tuss. I honestly completely screwed that up. I honestly did write that down. And I think I got yours confused with Donald Cronos. Because Donald Cronos has the billion. It's okay, Donald, that we love you. But yeah, if it makes you feel better, Tuss, I skipped like a hundred of Donalds. But yeah, let's see. Tussbeatbox says, I listened to Modern Day Debate through Spotify. It's pretty cool to have them in the pocket on a walk. We appreciate that, Tuss. I hope that's a value to you guys. A lot of people are like, ah, man, you know, it's hard to tune into YouTube. I don't have a lot of data to stream it. So hopefully a podcast is convenient. You can download it with Wi-Fi, listen to it anywhere on the go. And so let's see. But yes, we are pumped, you guys, about that. Also, we're on Twitch. And in fact, we're on Twitch right now. I see there's 11 people hanging out on Twitch. Glad to see you, friends. Thanks so much for partying with us. And yeah, I would tell you guys, we, if you did not know this, let me send you the link right now. How to use your Amazon Prime Twitch subscription. If you have Amazon Prime, you may not know. You actually, no joke, you actually have a free subscription that you can use on Twitch toward anybody. And the cool thing is, yeah, you basically just have to activate your Amazon Prime free Twitch sub. And once you do that, you can re-subscribe to us each month. And it's a small thing, but it helps. I mean, and it's no cost to you. Like folks, it's only like, so you don't pay anything. If you have Amazon Prime, you have a free Twitch sub you can use each month. You can use it each month. And you have to renew it each month. But the cool thing I have to tell you guys is that it's $2.50 each month. So if we have 100 people that did that, you guys, this would be epic. How to use your Amazon. You already beat me to it, Tuss. You got the link and everything. Thank you for doing that. Is that basically folks, gotta let you know, if we had 100 people who did that, that'd be $250 a month, which can help us cover things such as, let's say we did an in-person debate, that could cover a flight easily, especially if you're flying Southwest, the very best. They don't even pay me to say that. I've got no sponsorship with them, but I love Southwest. They honestly are, they just got a great customer service that a lot of airlines don't, I believe me, I know. I've dealt with a lot of airlines, especially American. They're like my arch nemesis. But yes, Caleb, thanks for your kind words. He says, good, glad to hear that. Appreciate that, Caleb. And yes, we, so yeah, if you click on that link at the top of the chat, if you have Amazon Prime, I want you to know you can click on the link on the top of the chat and you will be able to basically enable using your Twitch, your free Twitch subscription that you can give to almost any Twitch streamer you want. And that includes us. And like I said, you know, that can cover like maybe a part of an honorarium for somebody if we want to have a big debate, like if we ever wanted to have, if we could have that debate with like Matt D'Alhanti and Nathan Thompson, something like that, is that we usually do, because Matt D'Alhanti debates got us a ton of new people. And so we do, as an example, just using one individual as like, we do give a gift on behalf of that for kind of helping us grow in that way. And so let's see. Dave Langer says, you need to get some emotes. I will work on that. I'm so new to this, but I am totally happy to do that and embarrassed that I don't know how to do it. But yeah, Toss, thanks so much. Who had said, yeah, if you want to learn how to use your free Amazon Prime Twitch subscription, you can do that using that link pinned at the top of the chat. And also, let me show you guys this. If you have not known about our Twitch, we are pumped. It is. I'm gonna link it one more time in the chat. Check that out, you guys. We hope that it is a use to you. And if you dig Twitch, yeah, like chill out party with us there, hit that follow button, and you'll get, I think it gives you notifications then, right? But yes, other stuff is, we haven't really talked about our Patreon a lot. If you are on Patreon, hey, consider signing up for modern day debate. And for example, like it's $5, your name will be in the scroll at the bottom of the screen. And also though, what we do is, you'll get the, that's the second level of Patreon is our Patreon, which I'm gonna link in the chat in just a second, is that's just the second level. I want to mention that. Sorry, I'm like trying to stay focused, you guys. It's a long day. My brain is like hanging in there. It's fighting. Is that our Patreon, which I'm about to put in the chat if Tussbeatbox doesn't beat me, is if you, that's the second level. If you sign up, you can sign up for like two bucks a month. It gets you into all of our live, what are they called? Our live Kickstarter campaign events, which basically those are events that we usually ask people to pledge on Kickstarter. But hey, if you're a patron, even at the smallest level of just two bucks a month is, you can actually, you'll get to watch those for free. And so thanks Tussbeatbox for sharing that. You got me again. But yes, I'm pitting that to the top of the chat as well. And so highly encourage you. Yeah, consider joining that Patreon. We do appreciate that as we're excited to see you there. And then there's like three different levels at least. And so we're kind of like, we're figuring out how to make it cool or so if you have feedback on how to make it cooler, that helps. We do appreciate that. And yes, yeah, we're pretty pumped. Like if you're kind of like, Hey James, I don't know about Patreon. I'm just kind of like, man, I don't really want to give to Patreon because let's say they, maybe you don't want to give a consistent monthly gift. And you're like, I just want to give like maybe a one small, you know, gift. Well, we do have PayPal as well. I'm going to link that and throw that in the chat. And maybe though you're like, Ah, you know, James, I just right now, I am not feeling like doing either of those. Totally cool friends. I hope you know that that's like totally cool. And so maybe you're like, I just, you know, appreciate it, but I'm not going to do either Patreon. And I also don't really want to do PayPal. That's totally cool friends. We understand. We hope you know, we just are glad you're here. And that link for the PayPal, I'm finally putting in the chat if Tuss hasn't already done it, is I'm throwing that in right now to PayPal. And so we do appreciate that support you guys. And I'm pinning that to the top of the chat as we hope you guys are excited about monetary debate. Hopefully we all value a couple of things. One in particular that I think we, I think you must be valuing because you're here. And that is fair debates. And so we do appreciate that folks. Your support means a lot. And last, you might be like, James, you know, I don't know. I right now just don't want to spend any money or at least any more money than I already am. Want to let you know, similar to Twitch, something that you can do to support us is, Brooke Chavez says, it says 4.99 per month donated to Twitch through Prime. I'm 99% sure, like that we get half. So I'm like 99% sure that Twitch gets 250 of your Amazon Prime subscription. One thing too is when you activate, so if you've just activated your Amazon Prime free subscription to use on Twitch, sometimes it takes a day. So just wait because it will show. Usually it'll say, like if you click on subscribe to a Twitch streamer, it'll give you the option to like do like the paying like with cash, which I think that might be the one you're seeing, Brooke. And what it'll also do though is it might take until tomorrow. You have to basically, it might take a few hours or maybe a day to show up is, it'll say use your Amazon Prime subscription on this account. And so that'll be an option. It'll be like you can either pay with cash like you normally would, but it'll also have that added option, which will say, do you want to use your Amazon Prime free Twitch sub? So just so you know, that should be coming. And then our Amazon affiliate link, this is another way is like we want to, if you guys want to support us, want to let you know, here's another way that you can do it, is that pinning this to the top of the chat is that we have this, YouTube says, James this part of the show is better than the debate was. Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you at least like this part. I hope you like the other part too though. Is that our Amazon affiliate link, this is how it works. You can buy, basically if you enter Amazon through the link that we pinned at the top of the chat, then any purchase that you make. So let's say you're like lately, let's say you've got something in your cart, you're like, yeah, I was going to buy that, but I'm kind of waiting around. Well, if you use our Amazon affiliate link, which is always in our description as well, and then you go and you buy that thing in your cart, or you search for it in the search bar on Amazon, basically you can then, basically you'll pay the exact same you'd normally pay as always, but 3% goes to modern day debate. And so, hey, like that helps. Every little bit helps and we appreciate that. And it's also just convenient that it's like, it's nice that you don't have to like give anything extra. And so, highly appreciate that you guys. And it also, if you use that Amazon Twitch, or I'm sorry, the Amazon affiliate link, it'll show you the equipment that we use for the show. And so, if you want to buy any of that stuff and do the same show or something like it, you can. Ryan Price says, which day next week is the big foot debate exactly? Saturday. It's on the 23rd. And I'm 99% sure that is a Saturday. Yup. So, it'll be a Saturday. And Gutsick Gibbon, our dearest little buddy, YouTube's favorite daughter, we sometimes call her Erica. She will be co-moderating for that. So, she's pretty pumped for it as well. She was like, hey, I want to come and co-mod, and it'll look cool. It'll be a party. So, yeah. Thank you guys. We appreciate it. And want to say, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Thanks, Ute, Hube, Hube, and Tusse, and Ryan Price, and David Geralt, and 444, The Truth, Colin Lorenz, and Stripper Liquor, The Maverick, David Geralt again. And Oli Tyrio, or Oli Tyrio. Thanks so much, all of you, for being with us. It's always fun. And hey, if you ever want to email me, if there's something I can do to make your day better, I'm going to put my email, debate at gmail.com. I am going to, I put my email in the live chat. And if you, if there's something I can do to make your day easier, please let me know. Seriously, I do appreciate you guys. The more the merrier, you mean a lot to me, and you guys brighten my day so much, just when I get to be here. That's why it always takes me like 11 times to say goodbye when I'm going to leave. And stop the stream, as I honestly, I just really do love this. So you guys, seriously, you cheer me up, you make me happy, I appreciate you guys. And we hope that modern day debate is fun for you. And so, but yeah, I do want to kind of encourage you, or kind of, you know, be there for you. And that's no matter what walk of life you're from. Christian, atheist, agnostic, flat earth, or globe earth, you name it. We really do appreciate you guys. So thanks so much. So, thanks Brooke Chavis who said, I'll remember the Amazon shopping link for my next orders. Thanks so much, we appreciate that, Brooke, seriously. So I'm pumped, you guys. Love you guys, thanks so much. I hope you have a great rest of your day or night, depending on where you are. And yes, we'll see you next Saturday for that epic Bigfoot debate. So yes, thanks so much. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable, folks, take care.