 Today, we're debating whether or not Lollikons are pedos and we are starting right now with LP, aka I Hippocrates opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us. LP the floor is all yours. Yeah. Hey, James. Great to be here as always. And Lollikon is a portmanteau of the words Lolita and complex. Lolita refers to the book, of course, by the Russian author in which a middle age man sexually abuses a 12 year old girl. It's one of the most famous words of fiction that involve pedophilic interests. And the word complex, which refers to a psychological complex, which could be just defined as like a preoccupation or an obsession. So the word Lollikon, the root etymology of the word needs a obsession with underage sex. In addition to that, and this was the one part I wanted to do a screen share for. So let me get that going. But anybody can also try this at home. It doesn't work on phones from what I tried, but it does work on a desktop computer. Hopefully you guys can see this. So if I go to Google.com and in Google, I type in English to Japanese. And then in the English box, I type in Lollikon. It's going to translate into Lollikon. But then they've got these little two arrows here. I can click to reverse the translation back. And you're going to see it translates back to Lollikon. But below here, it gives us a definition. And the definition says a noun pedophile. And then below that, it says sexual attraction to children. So Google defines the term Lollikon as a sexual attraction to children. Now, how do I stop my screen share here? Stopped video? No, that's not it. Well, it's weird because it always like minimizes the thing. You do it on your side, please. So, okay, so the reason Google translates Lollikon as a pedophile who has a sexual attraction to children, which is redundant, but I guess they really wanted to drive the point home is because that's how it's used in Japan, where the term comes from. So if you, again, you could try this in Google. If you type in Lollikon teachers, you're going to get some stories that come up in your results about teachers in Japan who are perving on their students, sexually molesting their students, taking photos in the bathroom, stuff like that. And these are going to be published on websites like JapanToday.com or TokyoReporter.com. These are Japanese media outlets reporting on the issue they're having there, which is the teachers who are perving on the real life human students that they have. And it's such a problem they've had to come up with a battery of psychological tests that they give to people who are trying to become teachers to make sure that they aren't pedophiles. And again, those are real students that they're perving on, but they call them Lollikon teachers. That's how they describe them. Now, what we're talking about for the purpose of this debate is a little bit different. This refers to the, I guess you could call it a fandom, I don't know, but we're talking about the Japanese art form, the manga, anime style drawings of girls and there's a range when it comes to this stuff. So there's the stuff that's fairly innocuous and maybe you're not necessarily a pedophile just because you like it. You can almost even say it's wholesome. When I was a kid, we had Sailor Moon. That was a cartoon I watched as a kid. And I wouldn't say that you're necessarily a pedophile just because you watch Sailor Moon. Although if a grown man was watching Sailor Moon, I probably wouldn't let him babysit my kids just to be safe. But on the other end of the spectrum, you have just explicitly, graphically obscene depictions of children being raped and penetrated. This is pornographic material that is created for people to masturbate to. Again, it's drawings and animations depicting just graphic and obscene sexual activities involving children. It doesn't have to involve children, but this is what I'm talking about for the purpose of the debate. So for the purpose of this debate, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not going to argue about the stuff that's in the gray area unless my opponent wants to concede that the hardcore stuff is pedophilic. If he wants to say that that stuff, the explicit obscene material is pedophilic, then okay, we can have a conversation with the gray area. But you have to understand the entire axiomatic worldview that these lollicons hinge on is that nothing you do in the realm of fiction can be immoral or can matter in any way or can have any kind of real-world implication. And so because of that, he can't say that the explicit drawings of children are pedophilic. So that's what we're going to talk about, the explicit stuff. We're not going to waste our time in the gray area. Now, I've had the pleasure or misfortune of kicking the lollicon nest once or twice on Twitter already. So I'm already familiar with the common arguments that they like to make to defend their repugnant hobby. And most of these arguments are so bad that I'm not going to even bother talking about them right now. If my opponent wants to bring them up, I'm happy to respond to them then. But I'm just going to focus on, I guess, what I would personally consider to be the strongest argument that they have, which is they like to say how there's no scientific research which links liking these drawings to being a pedophile. Now, as far as I know, that is true. That research hasn't been done. A bunch of lab codes haven't gotten together. And you've done the phalametric testing required to determine whether or not the people who like these cartoons are sexually attracted to children. The research hasn't been done at all. So it hasn't been proven in that exact direct sense that they are pedophiles. And of course, it hasn't been proven that they are. Of course, here in the debate field, we know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. So just because that research doesn't exist doesn't mean that there isn't the link there. That just hasn't been explicitly tested in a research lab setting. Having said that, there is enough research on this stuff that as long as we're willing to use our own cognition and connect a few dots, we can show that in fact, science does tell us that lollicons are pedophiles. And that's what I'm going to do for you right now. So the first thing you have to know is that studies on child porn, real quote unquote child porn with real children, these studies have shown a few things. The first off is that there's a high correlation between people who look at child porn and molesting children, really high in fact, as high as like 85% according to some studies. The second thing you need to know is that a child pornography offense, so somebody who's been sent to prison or convicted of a child pornography crime, it's been determined by some of the world's foremost experts on pedophilia that that is a valid diagnostic indicator for being a pedophile. In fact, what they found is that looking at child porn is a better indication that somebody is a pedophile than actually having molested a child. Now to the uninitiated, that might seem strange, you might think, well, obviously, if you molest a child, you're a pedophile, which I would agree, but to be a clinically diagnosed pedophile, you have to have a preference for children. So some people could molest children, but not necessarily prefer children as their sexual partners. Somebody who looks at child porn, that indicates that they almost certainly do have a preference for underage sexual partners. Okay, so that's the first thing you're going to know. The second thing is that many people in all civilized Western countries have been jailed and convicted of trafficking or possessing this material that we're talking about, this Lollicon material. So we have convictions for people here in the United States of America, in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, and many other places. So we can really take this and put it into a just nice little airtight syllogism where we would say P1, being convicted of a child porn crime, is an indicator of pedophilia. P2, trafficking in this material, we're talking about the obscene depictions of children and sexual activities, is a child porn crime for which you can go to jail. C, conclusion, Lollicons are pedophiles. And the last thing I'll add to that, and I'm just about finished my opening, but the last thing I'll add is that Ray Blanchard, one of the people involved in the studies on pedophilia, one of those foremost experts, he did a paper where he suggested changes to the DMS V5 or whatever it's called, the thing that psychologists use to determine how to diagnose these conditions. And he suggested that for diagnosing pedophiles, you should treat any kind of attraction to fictional or fake children the same way as you would treat looking at real child porn. So that was a recommendation from one of the experts. And there was also an Ask Me Anything on Reddit that a doctor did, a psychologist who treats pedophiles in Germany, he said he's been treating pedophiles for nine years and he didn't ask me anything. And somebody asked him, what do you think of this Lollicon manga stuff? And his answer was to say that he thinks that it indicates you're a pedophile and it leads to increased likelihood to look at real stuff. So he said he thought it was like a stepping stone that pedophiles use, that they will lead them to more likely to look at actual children being sexually abused. So that's my opening argument. Lollicon's are obviously pedophiles. I rest my case. Thank you very much for that opening statement, LP. And what I'll let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from. And if you haven't already, hit that subscribe button as we have plenty more debates coming up. For example, on the bottom right of your screen, Alex Stein and Hunter Avalon collide. This is coming up in the next month. You don't want to miss it. The topic is still being negotiated. So hit that subscribe button so you don't miss it. And with that, thanks so much for being with us. Evad, the floor is all yours. Thank you. I'm about to share a screen right now. Tell me when you are able to see it. Yep, we can see it crystal clear. Okay. Let's start off defining pedophilia since we are talking about something being equal to another thing. The pedophilic disorder is classified under the SME-5. And that's an objective definition. That's not a legal definition. That is a clinical definition. You need to have attraction to a prepubescent child that has less than 13 years old. And some people don't know, but even if you are minor, you can be diagnosed with it. Even if you are 16, 17. It's clear that, even though what he said is correct, that is one expert that said hey, maybe fictional children, they should be included in the diagnosis. What is actually putting forward and actually come out as the definition is that biological children should be the ones that make up for the diagnosis. Because when you put up fictional children, what is a complete messy concept that you cannot put yourself behind it, and they'll show it more forward is you kind of get anything, literally anything that you should be viewed as a child. And sociological children, as a legal child or someone that is like 70 years old, does not classify someone as a pedophile because they are already post-pubescent. We agree on that, okay? Fourth, paraphilic disorders. As any disorder, that is two criteria that has to be met to actually diagnose it somewhat with it. And the first criteria is harm. The disorder must cause harm. In pedophilia, it is obvious that cause harm because child cannot consent to act. So when the pedophilic engages on it, he's molesting or raping a child, he's raping by definition. And this function, as in you have to not be able to complete the intended situation. Like what is supposed to be doing with sex? Reproduction. You cannot reproduce with a prephobescent side. So it's dysfunctional. One other thing that is interesting is that on the Japanese site that goes about pedophilia, they stated that lollicon is clearly misconstruction and not recognized as different and is misunderstood by the general public, but it is different. Now let's go defining lollicon. First of all, I need to make a small correction on the definition. It's a slang word, so there is no objective clinical definition of it. But I want to say that these two characters right here, there's nine-year-old and eight-year-old, they are not lollis. Regardless, they are young, it's stated young. They do not look like a lolly. So lolly is an aesthetic. It's not an age number that is just put on a character or a title. Because of this difference of age and what is a lolly, you can be considered a lollicon for somebody that's older than you so that obviously set it apart from being a pedophile. The pedophile needs to be at least five years of age gap of the person, higher, and there is a source. What is a complex? Complex is obsession, like he said, that's correct. It's obsession, infatuation, and it's not necessarily sexual. You don't need to be sexually stimulated to have a complex. This is an example of somebody saying that they love their brother. They're not saying they want to fuck their brother. They're saying that they want to have a good relationship. They love their brother. It's just an obsession they have because they really fond of their brother. And there you can have lollicones. There are not NSFW about it. And that's how you get sexual lollicones. They are of course hair and a minimal type, but they exist, so it's fair to notice it. So what would be a lollicon scientifically? Here's a paper, there's a previewed paper, that classifies attractions towards cartoons, especially Japanese media, as fictophilia. You can't call it many different names, as tunophilia, as shantyophilia, fictophilia, but generally that's how it is classified scientifically. And in anime, we know that pedophilia is completely different, a little complex, because a little complex is a completely subjective and vague terminology. Now let's go to the main arguments. Goho Lollibaba. This is a character called Chuten Doji, and she's based off her VA, her voice actress. Her VA is called a legal lolly in real life, because she's short, just like Chuten. She has the same exact height, and she has the same features, the differences, Chuten is of this character in the fight. And about Asia of the characters is the first character to ever be called a lolly to be designed as so immune. And 1979 was a character that is 18 years old. So you see, it's not just a very, very rare exception, and it's not just me pulling up a character and say, oh, this dragon lolly has 9,000 years old. Many of these are based directly on petite women. But since my guy here, he posted sexualized depictions of a character that is 15 years old canonically, I will say he does not care about age, so I'll proceed to the next argument. Proportions. Lords are not necessarily prepubescent looking. So if they are not necessarily prepubescent looking, they cannot, even if you think of them as real life, they cannot be diagnosed as a pedophile. Even if you put the prepubescent character in real life, you wouldn't be diagnosed as a pedophile for them. So even if you don't believe that life in fiction, in reality, you need to like exactly what you like in both cases, you still wouldn't believe that all polycos are pedophiles. And then here we get the definition that clears the states that lollies have, prepubescent characteristics. And this definition is nothing coming from me. It's coming from the biggest side on Japanese media and lolly art that speaks it. And this style of creation is very old, that is dates from the very, very first lolly drownings from the 80s from Ushima Aki and Diozuma. Here's some examples of clear lollies that can be based off around petite adults. There is a whole section of Javiavi, that is basically pornographic actress, that they are classified as lolly in real life. Why? Because they are very short and they are PT. And to show you more what showcase what's the differentiation is, I'm going to do this. I simply put the real life people through the AI and you can see how they are perfectly matched with many lolly or average lolly characters. So why do people like lollies? There is many reasons. The first one is simply that the range of attraction is wider in fiction. That if you have a distasteful for really, really, really big breasted people in your life because it looks exactly for you, you may find it better in fiction and anime because they are made to look perfect and symmetrical. The same way it can work the other way around. Second point, they like taboo shipping dynamics and that's completely fine. Third point, CCSA victims use it for cope. They hate white trauma with it. They cope with it. Another point, they can feel represented in self-serving the lolly. That's actually a great deal of people self-inserting themselves on the lolly character, not on the abuser in this case. And like the Iprocate said, pedophiles can also like it. Like the very one that he stated, they can project themselves onto it and that's completely something that also happens. I'm conceding this. I'm not saying that all lollicons are not pedophiles. And people can just like lollies platonically, like the sexuals that are seated, but they are, of course, the minority of the minority. But they look like children, but they do not because they look more like aliens than children. And if you're trying to say that is a excuse that they look like how they look, so I can lose off their bodies, you like this Wojak lolly over here? No, nobody finds that beauty because we do not like the body for the body. It's not a excuse. We like the whole complex thing. We like the moe of the character. Here are a few citations. He said that there is no studies about it, but there is studies about it. There is many citations about it. And this is the first one. There is no claim to support that the assistance of lollicon or engagement with such content on courageous cognitive disorsures. This is another report that was looked into by the Danish government. And they simply come out to say that it does not provoke the people to engage in child sex abuse. These are very, very interesting ones because this one was made in pedophiles to see how they can cope with pedophilia without acting on it. And one of the things they tried is giving them lollicon. And they noted that specifically the exclusive pedophiles, the ones that can only be attracted to children, have difficulty to cope with it. So if it was pedophilia, this could not possibly happen. Simulacra. First, we need to understand that virtual child pornography is something that's very, very broad. And it includes petitwim as well. Lolli is simply a simulacra, not a representation of something that is real, but something that substitutes completely what is real, legal and moral. It's very legal in the U.S. The last legal case that was referred to was in 2019 when the UN tried to ban it. And they simply say that it is protected by the force amendment. They would never say this as far as illegal. I bought lollis online. It is not illegal. They... That's time. It's 11 minutes. I can give you maybe another 20 seconds if you want to conclude. All right. It's just conclude really fast. And the case they had that should get lollicon ice complete was Ashcroft West Free Speech Coalition. You got it. That's it. With that, I want to say thank you very much for those opening statements. We are going to jump into open dialogue. If you happen to have any questions, folks, you can submit them via the Q... Or I should say if you have any questions for the Q&A, which will follow the open discussion, you can tag me with at ModeratorBate in the live chat, or you can also do a super chat in which case we push those questions to the top of the list. And with that, thank you very much. I, Hippocrate and Evad, the floor is all yours for that open dialogue. Yeah. One thing I want to point out there in his opening statement is that he claimed he had debunked or refuted something I had said, which is that there has been any research done, any kind of objective empirical research on whether or not lollicons have pedophilic tendencies. And then he showed some studies, some reports, sorry, not studies reports. He showed some reports claiming to refute that, but they don't actually refute that. If you do a report on what evidence is available and you come back and you say, well, we couldn't find any evidence. That doesn't mean you actually conducted the research. That just means you looked to see if anybody else had conducted the research, couldn't find the research and said the research doesn't exist. But again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So a report saying we couldn't find any evidence that these guys doesn't mean they actually conducted a study where they took them, hooked them up to phalometric testing or a polygraph or something like that, and actually tried to determine whether or not they're pedophiles. So that's the first thing. And I don't know if you want to respond to that. But I do. Okay. Even if you think that's like someone saying there is absence of evidence, if there was evidence, these would be show up. When they look into it, if there was evidence, it would be show up. They just sit on a desk and say, yeah, I think so. And then write the document. That was not what happened. Well, do you know what a meta study is or like a meta analysis, right? It's when you look at all the studies you have available, and then you draw conclusions, you can't from that studies. If you look and there's no studies, you can't draw conclusions. So then the report will state we couldn't draw this conclusion because the evidence doesn't exist. Right. Show me the research where they actually tested all the cons to see if it's not a thing. No, no, you don't. You can't analyze the studies that determine there's not adequate research. Let me say, you cannot say that you can only have something, some science, if it's a study, that's not a thing. It's a science because experts say, you see the expert. So I'm seeing an expert. You didn't see their study. I don't know if you're if you're being an expert. Why don't you why don't you define for us the methodology that they used to determine whether or not. What's the methodology that your expert used it to say that it was necessary to diagnosis in that study? Yes. By the way, it's not studied by continue. Well, it is. It's not. You're right. It's an article. It's published article. What I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. So it was a recommendation from an expert. I agree. Yeah. So I'm saying empirical evidence. I agree. I agree. So why are you trying to discard my argument, but your argument is the same? No, I'm saying you. Listen, you you acted as if you had refuted me and shown that they have researched this and found that there's no link, but that's not true. The research doesn't exist. It exists. You didn't just sit at one. I have many citations left. Okay. I so again, then if you're going to claim that the research exists, I'll ask you to lay out the methodology that they used in the research. I can give you some here. Let me check. For instance, they found out they studied the history of molecules. And of course, on the 80s, when shout pornography was still legal on Japan, they had a huge magazine was the biggest magazine ever on Japan that has lollipop. And it also is used to run together with shout pornography on it, pictures of it. And lollipops actually ran out of it and pressured the magazine was was still legal. They pressured the magazine to remove the contents. It is not just shout pornography. That's an anecdote. No, it's not. It's the biggest. No, it is because it's not just one case. I'm not sitting on an anecdote of one dude. I'm seeing the biggest magazine ever on lollipop. It's the very magazine that gave birth to the otaku. It's the biggest one. It's not just a small anecdote of one dude. But that's not it's still not what you're saying is not scientific research. That's public. Of course. That's just like public opinion. What do you mean? It's not how it's not like this, like this magazine, ask them to stop publishing the child porn. That's your argument, right? That's not pretty fresh. Yeah, pretty fresh. And that's an anecdote. That's not an anecdote. It's not one dude. It's not one individual. It's the biggest magazine ever. But we don't. So what was the percentage of the users who were lollies? Like, like, this is nobody can't look at the data. It's the character, not the people. Sorry, all the lollicons don't even know the definition. Yeah, I use those terms interchangeably. I don't think people are too worried about the technical aspects of the truth. Um, okay. There's no so there's no research. We agree. We can put that aside. I just say that is and they showed you that all people, I guess the audience can determine whether or not they consider your anecdote to be a study. It's a whole magazine. It's not a dude. That is not how anecdotes. Yeah. So you're describing like you're trying, you're describing like a movement at best. You're saying this was like a movement of the lollicons. That's still not a scientific study, but you know, that study is a research like something that I described where they would, where they would like do phalometric testing or, you know, the lie detector tests, something like that to determine whether or not there's actually correlation. That would be real research, but I wanted to ask you about something else you said in your opening, which is you said, you said something like the lolly can be older than the lolly con and therefore, okay. Okay. So what I said was that for the stuff I'm talking about, I'm talking about like explicitly underage. So when you say the lolly can be older, are you talking about lollies that are like older than 12 for that argument? Lollies can be literally any age. Right. So you're not talking about like the lolly can be 12 and the lolly con can be like six or something like that would be silly. Right. The lolly can be 18 and the lolly con can be 16 and then you're still a lolly con for it. Okay. Well, if the lolly con is 18, it's not really petty or sorry, if the lolly, sorry, is 18, then it's not really pedophilic. So I want to go back to the thing that I said in my opening, which is that I want to focus on- That's not how it works. Well, sorry. So I just want to ask you your opinion on this though. I just want to confirm this with you. If we're going to focus on the like extreme end of the spectrum, which is explicit and pornographic material that depicts children. Right. Do you agree that that's a thing? That is lolly con does not depict children. Lolly con does not depict children. So what I mean by depict children is drawings of children. Drones of what children? Just a just a child drawing depicting a child. Fictional pay attention. A fictional character is not a human being. He's not a child. They don't constitute the definition of a child. If I draw on paint right now and I make a easier statement, I put 11 over his hat, he's not a child. That's a fictional character. I understand that a drawing is not a literal human being. Not literal. Just a basic sense. Just a basic sense of the word child. It's a drawing of a child. It's depicting a child. The character is a child. So the character, the character is not a child. You're saying you cannot draw a child. That's your position. No, you can draw a child. You can come. If I have a daughter, someone else can make a drawing of my daughter. And that is, by definition, a drawing of a child. But if I draw a fictional character, there is not a drawing of a child. When you say a drawing of a child, you imply the child. Okay. So I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I gathered myself here. So if let's say somebody, okay, here's a question for you. Here's a question for you. How do you know that the lollies are not inspired by real children? I can give you reference right now. See if you let me share a screen. Let me rephrase it. Is it theoretically possible that a lolly could be inspired by a real child? I mean, yes. Okay. So it is possible. And you wouldn't really have any way of knowing unless the person told you or something like that, right? Same with any kind of form. Okay. Okay. Right. Okay. So let's say for the sake of argument, again, I was trying to like do the most steel man, the most worst example. So let's say somebody has a daughter, their friend has a daughter who's like six years old. They draw a lolly based off of that child and they depict the girl getting like raped. And then they traffic that on pornographic websites for people to masturbate to, right? Would that be a pornographic depiction of a child? That's identifiable as a child. Yes. Okay. Okay. So we agree then that there can be lollies which are pornographic drawings depicting children in sexual situations. So would you consider somebody who masturbates to those two to be pedophiles? If they're conscious about it. Yes. Yes. If they're conscious about that it's. Yeah. If they know about it. If I don't stick man right now and I say, oh, I'm not going to say anything, but I have friends are real shy right now and then somebody masturbates, they stick man and they don't know about it. That doesn't make them a pedophile. So they have to know that it's a child. I mean, yes. Oh, you're going to say that masturbated to a stick man's pedophilia right now? To a stick man. Yes. I mean, well, the thing is, is you can, you can use your because it's your argument. Well, you can use your imagination, right? So that's the problem is it's hard to know what is in somebody's mind. I mean, pedophilia by definition is the fantasies with children, like biological children. You can look at the stick man and then imagine a child. Exactly. Exactly. About. Yes. But on the behalf of being a stick man alone and masturbating towards the stick man, you agree it's not pedophilia. Even if the person that makes the stick man, they're only to have a child by some reason. Sorry. You agree that the stick man does not make somebody a pedophile necessarily, correct? Even if the person that drew the stick man is not, is going to reference that on a child, correct? Sorry. If they, if they reference this, if they're not referencing the stick man for a child, they're not a pedophile. Look, man, I, it's hard for me to relate to you because I don't jerk off to cartoons. It's hard for me to understand. Can I don't take the question? Yes. I don't even, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm really sick. I'll have formulae. I'll have formulae. You have a stick man, have a stick man, the person that drew the stick man, make the reference on an actual child. Right. Also, the stick man's inspired by a child. I got you. Okay. Yes. Yes. But the just a stick man doesn't have anything special. And then someone else looks at the stick man. Oh my God, that's so hot. And they must be the stick man. And they don't know about it. Right. Is that person a pedophile? I mean, I can't guarantee that they are, but it's sort of, it's sort of a ridiculous hypothetical because I don't think people are jerking off the stick man. Don't fight the apathetic answer. Okay. I'll say no. I'll say no. I guess no. Okay. Or we couldn't, we couldn't guarantee it. That's right. Finally. Okay. So here's the, like, why, why jerk off to drawings that look like children? Why do that? Why not just jerk off to, if you, I mean, it'd be better not to use porn at all, not to mass pedal. What if you're going to do it? Why not do it to drawings that look like adults? They don't look like shooting it to me. They look like shooting to you. Okay. So you don't think that there's any lolly that looks like a child at all? No, I don't. That seems a little bit disingenuous. No, that's the entirely subjective. Okay. Well, I guess we could, we could ask a jury of your peers at some point what they think. Well, speaking of which, let's talk to the, let's speak to the legal question. You said it's not illegal because you have imported lolly con. No, no, no. I say it is not illegal because the UN tried to ban it in 2019 in U.S., Austria and Japan. Categorically said it is protected by their freedom of speech laws. And this is official. I give you the source. You can return the video later. You can, you can read it. The UN? The UN tried to ban it and the U.S. responded saying it is typically protected by the First Amendment. That's not a discussion that we need to have. No, it isn't. This isn't. No, it's not. The legality of it is not matter. Yes, we're discussing the legality for sure, because it's not legal. If it's, if it's obscene, that's why people go to jail for it, right? Which is what I refer to. It matters by case by case basis. It's not a blanket ban on literally anything. That is 90,000 obscenity cases. You're not going to sit here and tell me that going to porn hub is illegal because some porn was banned. We're going to make it illegal. That's, that's coming down. Oh, so you are, the media is not illegal. Thank you, bro. Thank you. No, porn. We're talking porn. Porn is not illegal currently, but I'm talking about depictions of children, right? That is obscene drawings of children in sexual activities is illegal. That is 90,000 kids. I repeat you, 90,000 kids of obscenity. And that is like two or three on cartoons. You are not claiming that for me going to a porn hub is illegal. Why are you claiming that lollipop is illegal? Because people go to jail for it in the US. People go to jail for obscenity for porn, too, bro. You're not addressing the argument. What do you, what do you mean? I will repeat you one more time. That is 90,000 case obscenity. That is like three on cartoons. Why are you not saying that every other case is telling me that is a blanket when porn. So, well, this is, this goes back to what I said in my opening statement, which is I'm talking about stuff on the far end of the spectrum. I'm not, I'm not talking about like the Sailor Moon cartoon or whatever. I'm talking about explicit obscene drawings of children in sexual activities. And how does that address me saying that's like 8,000 cases of pornographic being considered obscene and you're not saying that is illegal categorically because of it. Right. But the obscene stuff is illegal. That's the point. Oh my God. Oh my God. You do realize that obscenity in legal terms is not the same as in logical terms, right? What is obscenity in logical terms? Yeah, I understand there's like legal tests for what is. Yes, that is a similar test. Yes, that is a test for it. Right. And I also understand that when people are brought in front of a jury and the jury sees the cartoon children that they're masturbating to, the juries then decide to send those people to jail. Literally who? Who are the people? Yes, who are the people in the U.S. that did that. That is not a single case of conviction in the U.S. that was not by somebody who already had actual child porn. No, that's not true. There is. That is true. Tell me one. Tell me. I'll tell you to Christopher Handley and Allen Arthur. Oh my God. Had I think had the case had list about men. It's about men. I think if he had. Yeah, I think I think that is two case one. The guy had actual pornography in the world was a duty was not a conviction. Yeah, you know, you're right. That's Handley. He did also have real child porn and he had Lollicon and he was convicted for. Yes. Yes. Right. Right. So that's one example of a guy being convicted for having Lollicon and the other one. What? Not solidly on all the time. Yeah. Well, he also, you know, I'm not sure the fact that the Lollicon also had real child porn supports your argument that much. Because you don't get it just by being a Lollicon, just having Lollicon. You have to get something else or you need to play guilty, like, you know. Okay. And what about the other guy, Thomas Allen Arthur? What's the guy that played guilty? No, he didn't play guilty. He was convicted by a jury of his peers. Let me see and look it up. I'm pretty sure there's only two cases and one is the play guilty. Thomas Allen Arthur. The guy we just talked about played guilty, Christopher Handley. He had porn and Lollicon and he played guilty to all accounts. Thomas Allen Arthur was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 40 years in prison. And that was in, he was convicted in 2021 as well, this guy. So it's not, this isn't like old news. This is recent with the up to date laws. Like I see over here, he had older issues as well. It was not solely based on Lollicon as well. He had assaulted females, had done a lot of stuff that actually categorically make him more likely to be charged with stuff. That is still not just on the Lollicon. No, no, no, no. So after he was convicted, it came out that he had in fact molested a child, but that's not what he was charged with and brought to court. That came out after, which again, it's a bad look. This guy who just is, he's charged for trafficking and fictional material only that he wasn't charged for real child porn. He wasn't charged for sexual, he was charged for trafficking, this fictional material, and he was convicted. And then it came out afterwards that he had also, one of his victims came forward after he was arrested and charged and it came out that he was, that he had sexually molested a child. I can read the link or I can give the link here. Additionally, according to court documents and statements made at the sentencing, made at the sentencing, R2 sexually assaulted two females. So it was not after. He came forward during the investigation of the case, right? Yeah, it was not after. After he was arrested, yeah. No, it was after the, it was before the sentencing. It was taking into observation that as well. It was not just solely on the lollipop. If that was even lollipop because virtual child pornography has a really, really wide black. He wasn't charged for sexual assault or molestation. He was charged for this. It doesn't matter. When somebody is charged with something like obscenity, they look up their history and what they have and then they decide if he's, if he's due or not. Right, right. So, so you, you agree that it's illegal, but your argument is that you're good. They're not going to come after you as long as you don't like. No, I don't agree. It's not illegal. Obesity. Well, we just, we just objectively proved it's illegal because of the sentencing. Obesity law is case by case basis, not a blanket ban or anything. You're going to say that the porn is illegal because there is 8,000 cases, obscenity charges for porn. No, but we're talking about the obscene stuff, right? Listen, listen, here's the thing about when it comes to these lollicon convictions. Again, there's, there's other ones in other countries as well. What the thing is, is that they, they've never convicted anybody for lollicon that depicted adults or like manga, sexual hentai is ours called hentai. They've never convicted anybody for looking at hentai that depicts adults. Every single of these convictions, it's because it was depicting children. So that's where you're crossing the obscenity line is when you're jerking off to drawings of children. No, obscenity does not use cartoons. Why the 1466? I'm not talking about lollicon there. I'm not talking about obscenity. I'm talking about obscenity. You talk about obscenity charges. Obscenity charges do not use obscenity charges for lollicon. That's what we're talking about. No, I'm talking about everything, right? When does lollicon cross the line into illegal obscenity? The answer is why it's depicting children in explicit sexual situations. Hold on one second. I just, just to be sure, because if there's too much talking over each other, I like letting it fly because we like it wild here, but we don't like it too wild because then they can't hear you guys. So let's let LP finish that sentence and then we'll come right back to you and we'll give you a full 30 seconds or a minute of that. When lollicon becomes illegal, illegally obscene, when it depicts children in sexually explicit situations. That's the reason I'm saying that, what I'm basing that on is the fact that that's what all of the convictions have been for. There haven't been convictions for people looking at hentai that depicted adults or demons or whatever. It's when you start doing it with children that the authorities and the juries, they say, no, you're going to jail. Like I said, in 2019, they categorically said it's protected by the First Amendment. They would not have said that if it was illegal. And they usually, they literally use the word not a real child on the on the on the part when they say that. I don't know why you're talking about the U.N. before we come back to you LP. Well, can you just be clear on what? Because nobody even knows what you're talking about. You're talking about some U.N. declaration is if anybody gives a shit what the U.N. has to say. I say the U.N. tried to ban it and the U.S. responded saying it is typically protected by the First Amendment because that is no real shot. The U.N. has no authority. Yeah. The U.S. thing. The U.S. have it. That's why I'm saying the U.S. answered that way. That's what the U.N. is saying. That's the U.S. saying. So how so you're saying Thomas Allen Arthur's conviction is unlawful. Is that your position? If you read the document, obscenity is an exception to the rule, not the rule. Right. So the obscene stuff is illegal. That's what I've been saying. That's what I've been arguing the whole time. It's not saying all lollicon or all lollies are illegal. I'm saying the obscene stuff. And even you can probably have really gross obscene stuff that a lot of people will consider obscene, but it isn't depicting children. Let me speak. You're probably not going to put a jail for that. Let me speak. All right. I'm sorry, but you're not letting me speak. You're agreeing with me. Hold on. Let's hear from lollicon. When they say that it was legal, they were not reference to SFW, Q2Z, Lolli. They were reference to pornography. The whole talk was about explicit material, not a Greek area. Oh, just H.E. that was about pornography. So you don't come to talk to me. That's that's just, oh, that's what is not obscene. Like it's a logical term, it's a legal term, and that's case by case basis. It is not a blanket ban on anything, just like it's not on pornography. Right. But you agree that you can go to jail for your lollicon. That's the point, right? It's possible you can go to jail for uploading these drawings to Twitter or Discord or whatever. That's the important part you need to agree on. Can go to jail by uploading that if I infringe someone else, like I wanted, or if I wanted sexual harassment, sexual sending stuff to people that doesn't want it, or if I have some other charges with me. So that categorically makes me a target for the charges. No, no, you're wrong. You're wrong. You can go to jail. You can go to jail. I showed you the case. No, that was the end of the show. There was more stuff in the case. He was not charged with sexual assault. It doesn't matter because it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Okay, so so again, your argument is that it's illegal under the law, but they they're not going to come after you as long as you as long as you are only jerking off to drawings of children, right? But if you're if you're trafficking this material, do not do anything else illegal. Do not assault any women because then you'll they'll charge you. That's your argument. Your argument's not that it's legal. Your argument is just that they won't come after you as long as you keep your nose relatively clean. No, no, that is not it. That is exactly what you're saying. No, that is not because if it's legal, the law alone is legal, then it is legal. If something else that comes forward with it and makes it illegal, that's different. You need to assume or something else to make it illegal because you're wrong when you say that. It's literally that. It's literally that. Well, no, that's not true. You're wrong. It's seen material can put you in jail. If you have some of the law, I mean, the law is obscenity, right? So they can. Obviously, he's a joke law that's basic case by case basis. It's a joke law. Is that what you said? He's a joke. So you don't have to like the law. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is the law. That's the point and this case by case basis. You don't know that, right? So you want to get this case by case basis? Thank you. It's not that I got it. Thank you. And you agree that you can go to jail for lawlican under obscenity laws. If you have another another stuff, you can also go for actual normal porn. Yes, there's 8000 cases for normal porn. There's not cartoons. So yes. Okay. So just for all the lawlies out there watching, you can go to jail for this stuff. So just be aware. You know, also God is watching you. Another thing to think about, maybe just examine all your life choices. If they do anything wrong, like actual shot pornography, they molest actual people. They can go to jail and they should. Well, I mean, they should go to jail. All of you guys should go to jail. And actually, it should be a capital crime. It shouldn't be jail. It should be death penalty. That's it, bro. You want to kill people because of me drowning something, the harmless drowning? Yeah, a jury of your peers. You're totally normal person. You are the normal person in the room, bro. You want to kill people because of harmless cartoons. Yes, I dream of the day that you're all dragged in front of a jury of your peers. They see the things you've been jerking your pole, your pun to, and they decide your fate. I can't wait for it. I can't wait for us to actually start cleaning up the filth in this country for real. You can try, bro. You can try on me. Okay. This might be a good chance to go into the Q&A. Folks, if you happen to have any questions, do let us know. Otherwise, gentlemen, do you have any last, you could say, summary statements before we go into the Q&A? Maybe two minutes each if you'd like. Field, we'll jump right into the Q&A. Well, I'll just reiterate that he basically conceded, you can go to jail for a lolicon. It's a child porn charge, and that's a diagnostic for pedophilia. So being a lolicon does make you a pedophilia, a pedophile, sorry. Let me just say something. He posted sexual depictions of Sonic that 15 years old. So technically, he's into minors as well, but he's on the statement. Let's go now. We'll jump into the Q&A. I do want to say thanks so much for your questions, folks. If you happen to have any, you can tag me with at modern a debate at the live chat, or you'd like to push your question to the top of the list or make a statement. You can do a super chat. We're going to start with this one coming in from thanks so much. Do appreciate your question. Quani Upstate says, will evad admit to possessing lolicon material on his computer? That's a good test if he believes what he says. I admit I have about 23,000 items on all the hand-tie, explicit stuff, and most of it is very pornographic, like very depictions, very explicit. Yes. And does your family know that that's what you're into? Oh yes, yes, yes. My family knows. The Kafka trap doesn't work with me because my family knows. They don't care. My mother. They don't care. Yeah, they don't care. They call it those because they know it's not real. This one from, and folks, as you know, I think I mentioned it earlier, if you happen to do a super chat, you can also do a statement. There is one from HitchensBoot that says, LOL, this loli guy is getting destroyed so bad. I'm sorry, loli guy. But we want to reinforce, well, actually a couple of things. One, we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from, as well as both of our guests are linked in the description. So if you'd like to hear more from iHippecrit or Evad, you can by clicking on those links right now. And there's something important. It's one thing to be knowledgeable about your own side. It's another thing to be wise where you can accurately depict the other person's argument in a charitable or strong way. So that's one reason to click on those links. This one from Lute. I just want to say in response to that chat, I threw him a bone here. I think he did a better job than I was expecting. I'm not saying he won or that I'm convinced by his arguments, but I was expecting the arguments to be worse than they were. So I'll give him a shout out for that. Juicy Ann. Pentamat says, I think lolicon is horrible, but I don't think it should be treated like child prawn. That's legal. A legal can of worms you don't want to open. You'll have people registering as offenders for having DVDs of Dragon Ball Z. Based. This one from Kiwi in Springfield says, James is still my number one only fan subscriber. This is not true. It says, thanks, bud. You're awesome. You asshole. No, believe it or not. I am not subscribed to anybody on OnlyFans. This one from Big Cheese says, thanks for your super sticker. And this one from Jack House. He says, there it is. I hypocrite wants to ban all porn. Yes, that's correct. You know, when I started off, I was more libertarian and like was more like, well, we should just restrict it better so minors can't access it. Then I started looking into like the constitutional issues and I realized the constitutional protections weren't there. And I said, well, that's democracy. If the people want to ban it, it should be banned. And then once you start saying that, the coomers come out of the woodwork to whine and cry. So you eventually reach a point where you the reason you want it to be banned is just so these pathetic losers cry. Like, what do you mean? I have a constitutional right to masturbate to videos of methods having sex. You can't take that away. Like you just become so disgusted by these losers that that becomes the reason in and of itself to ban it just to make them mad. Juicy, to say the least. This one coming in from Kwani upstate says that possessing this material is not illegal. Would you have had call the local police and tell them he has some on his computer? Already declared I have over here. I have no no intention to sexually harass my my department. I have no intention to do that. You sexual harassment is not cool. You got it. This one coming in from I don't think calling the police and confessing and saying you have it for it. Hey, hey, hey, bro, I have for that's that's sexual harassment. That's you're confessing a crime to the police really for the cure. How is that a crime? It's for it's obscene. I'm not going to start over again. I'll give you out the reason you need. I will give you out the reason you need. Okay. This one coming in from Dodo M says LP is projecting. Yeah, I mean, that's not the people say that all the time. That's not an argument. It is true because he likes 15 year old cartoons, like I say in the show it. Yeah, so I posted the sonic thing because it's yeah, sexual. It's always great. Show the point is fine. It's a screech. Look, I already said you think it's show the point and you posted you think it's fine. It's a screech. Show the point for you is fine. It's a screech. You're not you're being disingenuous. That's literally what you're saying. No, nobody thinks that nobody agrees with you. This one from in the live chat. Chinese symbols that I don't understand. Thank you very much for your question says ask the first guy LP if furries and animals are the same by his logic. I like his furry porn. I mean, is it I don't think so. So yeah, so looking at furry porn doesn't make you a pedophile. It makes you a zoo file, which means you want to fuck animals and anecdotally speaking, you have stories in the media of like manga collectors who get busted with child porn or get busted. Okay, so you have these furries or these these furries who get busted like fucking their dog or doing these alleys. And those are just anecdotes, but it seems to go. It seems to be the people who like the drawings of children end up when they are busted. It ends up being over child porn shit and the people who are into the drawing, they end up fucking animals that comes out. So there does seem to be a correlation there anecdotally speaking. So you're a zoo file in the pedophile. Okay. You got it. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Nicolo Diamo says, wrap and nighttime lime says, how cute is funny? What does this mean? It's very cute and funny. I just need to know that I love cute and funny. Can I can I talk about something really, really quick? Is it possible? In that is a case of somebody called Melody Duchenne in Ohio. She got 60 days in jail for damages and aggression because she was in a drive through for McDonald's and she agreed some people and attacked people because they wouldn't serve her chicken nuggets. And while she was doing that, she said in the screen, I will go Super Saiyan. That's referencing Dragon Ball Z. So technically it is anecdotal to show that Dragon Ball Z would have to be banned because there is somebody who was inspired for Dragon Ball Z to committing something in your life, Violet Act. I agree. All animation be banned. I completely agree. It's for the common good. Oh, Jesus. This one coming in from Mike says, for both LP and to that, thank you very much for the debate. I really appreciate your time. That's positive. Appreciate your positivity, Mike. This one coming in from Comoribi says, would that mean video games is real murder or that furries want to hurt real animals? Yeah. So the video game and in my opening statement, I referenced like they have a bunch of bad arguments. This is an example of the really bad arguments. They like to say, like, oh, you think playing GTA is going to make, you know, people go out and commit murder? First of all, I don't, the reason I hate Lollicon isn't because I think it's going to make you go out and molest a child. Like I, even if I knew 100% guaranteed, it wasn't going to, you're still like masturbating to a drunk of child. So it's still morally wrong and repugnant and disgusting what you're doing, regardless of anything else that it may or may not lead to. Second of all, the argument about video games is a really terrible false equivalency because, you know, people like masturbating to porn is a substitution for sex. That's why people, they want to have sex. They want to come. They don't have somebody to have sex with. So they jerk off to porn and said, people play video games because they want to have fun. If you're, you know, pulling your pod to a porn video and a genie pops out and I'll ask you if you want to have sex with a girl. A lot of people would say yes. But if you have the same situation with Grand Theft Auto and it's like, do you want to go out and murder people and you won't get caught? You'll never face any reproductions, but you will be killing real people and their loved ones will have their lives destroyed. The average person is going to say, no, I'm good. I'll stick with the video game. So this entire argument that if you think Lollicon's are pedophiles, you think GTA should be banned because it makes people want to murder. It's predicated on the idea that people are as interested in committing murder as they are in having sex with a porn star. I think you'll find in reality, people are a little bit more interested in having sex with porn stars than they are in committing murder. Let me say something, bro, you just say that you want to be a dragon ball for violence, not for violence, banning anime. That was a joke. I was a joke. I like to. Oh, okay. Yeah, you got me. I'm back. You got me. So I forgot your autistic. Next time I'm joking. I'll let you know. Oh, yeah, yeah. He's a joke when you want it. Yeah, this one coming in from, you see, I thought we had one more. I want to say one last blank. Thanks for your question. This is for LP. Can attractions against exclusively? Attractions against exclusively within fiction? I think they're meaning like, can you have attraction to somebody that's in a fictional story? For example, can someone be attracted to RAPE in fiction, but not as if this isn't already demonetized. Say in fiction, but not be attracted to such in a real life situation or content. This is kind of what I just said. I think that's possible, but it is immoral all the same. You got it. Oh, thanks. Nicola Di Amo says, why is I hypocrite a clout chaser? It's just in the jeans, I guess. Don't blame me. I was born this way, you know? Just like the pedos like to say. Dan the second says, a VAD's voice is cute. Also, LP, do you know what obscenity laws are? Yeah, we talked about them, the Miller test, all that stuff. Yeah. Obscenity laws, I know they're real. Okay. And I know someday they're going to be applied when we take this country back. What to remind you, folks, our guests are linked in the description. We really do appreciate all of our guests that come on to Moderated Bait as they are the light blood of the channel. If you haven't yet, and that includes at the podcast, we put our guest links in the podcast. So if you're listening via the podcast right now, you can find both LPs, aka I hypocrite, and if adds links in the description box there as well, folks, if you didn't know, we have a podcast. No ads at all. If you want to drive around town and you have bad service here or there, you want to just have smooth listening and not worry about data. Hey, you can download the podcast zero ads. It's a nice little trick with that want to say huge thanks to IP. I mean, LP and I hypocrite, aka I hypocrite. And if add, it's been a true pleasure to have you guys. Thank you. Hey, James, Christ is king, everyone. God is what I should be. So think about what you're doing. God's like six qualities. This one just Jack house ski says LP being ableist towards autistic people. Now I'm autistic. I have lost any and all semblances of respect I may have once had for him. That's fine. I would encourage everybody also to donate to autism speaks so that we can cure, you know, we can rid the world of this terrible. That's another terrible affliction we need to deal with is this autism scourge. Okay, so donate to autism speaks because they're trying to find a cure with that want to say both of our guests are linked in the description and appreciate you being with us tonight. We have another juicy debate coming up that I mentioned. The topic is still being negotiated, but I can tell you it's going to be a juicy one. Alex Stein and Hunter Avalon. As you can see the bottom right of your screen, you don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button with that. I'll be right back in just a moment with an update on other upcoming debates. So stick around. And want to say thanks so much for being with us. I am absolutely thrilled to let you know modern day debate is a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from folks. We know that there are many of you out there. You are from all over the place, whether it be around the world or ideologically, you might be Christian atheist. You might be lolly con. You might be non lolly con. I don't know what it's called. Is there a name for non lolly con? Want to say we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life modern day debate has a vision in particular to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field. Sometimes it's rough and tumble here. Sometimes the topics are controversial, but at least it's real. In other words, we're willing to explore the topics that the mainstream media doesn't allow or doesn't consider because we know that people like you who are watching or listening, you're probably big on ideas. In addition to ideas, some of our values are these. In particular, we want to give everybody a fair shot. Second of all, we want to host, like I said, those topics that might be out there, might be different novel things that aren't in the mainstream and that the mainstream maybe won't even touch, but not only that. Third, we value competition. We believe in what you might call a natural selection of ideas where the strongest ideas are going to win out. In particular, at this channel, we believe that you could say if you thought your side is more persuasive or not, it's meaningful. And the reason is because it's a neutral channel. If this was a channel where we were kind of pulling for one side and where the moderator kind of took a side and they tried to have one person win over another because they, you know, maybe wanted to see their own side win, that would be pretty lame, right? And it wouldn't be very meaningful if you thought your side won because you'd be like, well, my side won, but the moderator was kind of helping my side. And the channel is like obviously pro, you know, pro lollicon or anti lollicon or whatever it is. Modern day debate takes no positions. It's fully neutral. So in other words, our moderation is neutral. Not only that, but all of our videos are neutral because they're nothing but debates where both sides are represented. There are no, you could say essay videos where, for example, I might say here is why lolly con is good or here is why lolly con is bad. No videos like that. It's purely debates here at modern day debate. My name is James. I'm your host and also want to let you know, my dear friends, there are some people that they would say, Oh, James, you shouldn't even have hosted a topic like this. Lollicon is too controversial or you shouldn't host a lolly con person or whatever it is. They might want to have what you might call a prohibition on ideas. Namely, they want some ideas to not be allowed. But here we would say, Hey, we are going to make sure that we give everybody a fair shot. And thanks so much for your super chat just came in. Dag Euras, Asu, Chi, am I saying it right? Let me know. Thanks for your super chat says I vote Davey Wynn. Thank you very much for your super chat and want to say my dear friends, it's important to us to give everybody a fair shot. And like I said, there are some people who are almost like prohibitionists when it comes to ideas. Some people that would say, No, no, no, you can't do that. That's too controversial. It's too naughty. It's too bad. Whatever it is with somebody, please think of the children. But we here at modern day debate have decided we are going to be you could call us your idea barons. We are going to provide an industry of ideas because you folks, if you're like me, you like juicy controversial topics. You like going places where the mainstream won't. And so I've got to tell you want to say hello to you in the old live chat. G and Nina Carla. Thanks for coming by. I see you there in the old live chat. Satan. Thanks for dropping in as well as caveman smash. Thanks for dropping in. Fire rises. Glad to have you here as well as Fentacle glad you're with us PGC net. Glad you're here. No toe. Glad to have you with us. D bomb Ivy. Thanks for dropping in profane. Glad you're here. Constancy. Thanks for dropping in as well as Ico. Thanks for being here. Jack Husky. Good to see you there as well as DJ whizzalow six. Thanks for dropping by Nanology. Glad that you are here as well as Ronak Zibran. Thanks for dropping in. T bone. Glad to have you cool champ. Happy you're here. Mill Nia Rebu. Glad you're with us as well as Elbar woman and Peek at Ryu. Am I saying that right? Let me know. Leonardo glad to have you here. Amanda. I see you there in the old live chat. Huge thanks to Amanda folks when we do our conferences of which we have done two now two huge successes. Debate con is modern day debates in person conference. We just did one. Was that a week ago two weeks ago? Let me look at this. It was approximately. Okay, almost two weeks. This is a week and a half ago. Modern day debate does our own conferences. Our own. So you hear you've heard of like Vidcon, which is kind of like the YouTube one. You've heard of twitch con, which is like the twitch conference. Well, modern day debate has debate con. That's our conference and it is amazing. So if you haven't seen the debates from those, they are crushing it. People have really enjoyed those. You've got to check them out. And Amanda helped us find not only the hotel where the speakers stayed, but also helped us find the venue, which was super helpful because we had to find a new venue this year. Or I should say this part of the year because we did our first one in January because flight costs are so high. We said, Hey, we've got to change it up here. So we went with a new venue and it was great. It was fantastic. So thank you Amanda seriously. Modern day debate is not just a one person channel. It's true that like my name is on the channel, like I started the channel, but the volunteers that help me that help modern day debate that help carry out the vision, they're numerous and they really do work hard. They're excited about the idea of a neutral platform just like I am. And just like I bet you out there are such that Amanda has put in serious time scouting, looking around Dallas because that's where she's from. And that's where we've hosted our debate con conferences and that's where we're going to host the next one by the way, April 22nd, my dear friends. It's 99% confirmed and it's going to be official once we confirm it with the venue. So that's in the talks, but yes, debate con three is coming and it's going to be April 22nd. It's going to be huge guys. But I've got to tell you, as I mentioned, Amanda looked all over Dallas looking for the ideal spot for a venue because like I said, flights are so expensive, but we were like, Hey, okay, flights are really expensive. If we do this conference, we're gonna like lose a lot unless we find a more affordable venue. So we found an economical venue, I should say more, not more purely Amanda found the venue and that saved the conference so that it could still happen. Not only that, I've got to say for real, like you think I'm like just saying this, I'm not saying it just to say it, I'm saying it in the most serious way. The volunteers that helped moderate a debate, another one being Bob who helped us set up the event bright like the online tickets. I am usually so fatigued. I can't do like any I'm just like, Oh my gosh, I'm so wiped out. I just I can't do anymore. So Bob helped with that. Chris and Kaz and Brian were in person. And not only that, and they helped, they were busting their butts. So I'm super grateful. The conference would not have happened if it wasn't for those volunteers. If like seriously and then Brian saved lunch, Brian went to get lunch and Kaz was bringing speakers to the venue. So like in the most real way, if one of those volunteers was all of a sudden they just like, like the Thanos snap if all of a sudden they disappeared, like conference would just break down because we wouldn't have the speakers there because Kaz if he disappeared, we wouldn't have people, you know, the speakers brought to the venue. So all sorts of different ways in which the speakers or I should say our volunteers have made this possible. So and also though we've already talked about it, but the speakers are the lifeboat of the channel. They make this channel rock. And so we do appreciate all of our guests LP and evad tonight. We're grateful for them. They're linked in the description. And thanks for your support. Jamia thanks for your support says like the stream. I appreciate that seriously. That really means a lot. Hannah Anderson, thanks for your support. It saw that in chat as well as that. Hey, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button and click that notification bell. I don't know if you know how the notification bell works. Technically, it's a little bit more complex than this, but I'll explain it. You can click the bell and you can have it give you personalized. In other words, YouTube uses its algorithm to try to predict which videos you want to see. So that's one way to do it. Or you can click no notifications in which case they don't give you any notifications or you can click all in which case YouTube will give you notifications for everything that you're subscribed to, except it's actually a little bit more complex than that. If you click all, but you don't click on the recommendations that YouTube gives you for that channel that you clicked all notifications for, YouTube actually does eventually stop recommending it. They'll stop. I won't say they don't recommend it anymore. They'll still probably recommend it, but they won't give you notifications as often. So that's one thing to be aware of is because sometimes people in chat are like, James, I don't get notifications anymore. It might be because some debates and not who can blame you. I mean, modern day debate is like a buffet. It's always been like this. Some people like political topics. Some people like religion topics or science topics, whatever. They don't like every topic. Who can blame them? That's fine. But if they don't click on a number of debates for a while, that's why they might not get notifications. So I want to let you know about that. But I want to say Leonardo, I see that you're there in the old live chat, as well as good to see you. Riley S, thanks for dropping by. I see you there in the old live chat. Surgeon General, thanks for restarting a modern day debate discord. Folks, I, as you know, like I'm not able to join the discord because I'm just, I'm just running on fumes. I just don't have to bandwidth to be involved with discord. But Surgeon General and Amanda are working on getting it up to where there is a new modern day debate discord, which is cool. We, like, I'm grateful for that. I hope it's a great community where everybody enjoys it. And so I've got to say thank you to them for providing that community. And we're happy to have the modern day debate name on it because, you know, it's in the spirit of debate. It's a great place for people to get experience in debating. But Mike Guy, thanks for dropping in. Niko Neem, thanks for being with us. Tohob, glad to have you here. Undead Stormer, thanks for dropping by as well as Kiroi Kerasu. Thanks for coming by. I see you there in the old live chat. I hope you're doing well. Cheese Rabbit, glad to have you here. Maya Ava, thanks for dropping in as well as thanks for dropping by Jerry Lennox. Thanks for being with us. Ronak Zibran, glad you're here. Jay Prax, BR, thanks for dropping by as well as DodoM, good to see you. Hey, thanks for being a member. Deej, I appreciate that. Seriously, says thanks for hosting James Good Debate, a member for two months. Thanks for renewing your membership. Seriously, that means a lot. And we do have channel memberships. If you love the idea, guys, if you love the vision of providing a neutral platform, hey, feel free to support it. You're welcome to join. We have those memberships. You're always welcome, whether you have a membership or not. So appreciate you guys being with us as well as Kylo Alpha Tango. Thanks for coming by. So what James is saying, in other words, James is not responsible for why the followers of Moderated Debate enjoy his comments and agree with him. Thank you for that. I don't even know what that means, but I'm glad you're here. But I want to say thank you guys seriously for all of your support. Tebow, I'm glad you're here. And yeah, we appreciate it. Seriously, we've got a Patreon as well. We hardly ever mentioned that. I always forget. We do have a Patreon in case you didn't know. It's linked in the description box as well as maybe you're like, eh, I don't know about Patreon or channel memberships, but we have an Amazon referral link. If you use that Amazon link, if you click on it and all of our videos have it in the description box, if you click on it and then go buy whatever you were going to buy on Amazon, 2 or 3% of your purchase goes to Moderated Debate. So hey, that's a way that it's no price increase for you. You pay the same amount as if you didn't click the link. But if you do click the link, Moderated Debate gets 2 or 3%. So that's another way to support the platform. We appreciate you guys doing that. I want to say thanks for all of your support, you guys. I hope you have a great rest of your night. I've got to get ready for bed because I'm an old man. It's 8.30 here in mountain time. But I want to say thanks for coming by, guys. Seriously, John, Paul, Matthew, I see you there. Thanks for coming by. Kev, Ab, glad you were with us. Goyschild Unlimited. Thanks for dropping in as well as everybody. I'm trying to get everybody. PJC net. Thanks for dropping in. Thanks, guys. Seriously, love you. Thanks for making this fun. We look forward to seeing you at the next debate. There are going to be a lot of juicy ones coming up. So stick around at Moderated Debate and join us now while we're small because this channel is just beginning and our story is just getting started. Love you guys and we'll see you at the next one.