 school versus public school and we're starting right now. It's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, wanna let you know I'm your host, James Coons and we are a nonpartisan channel. So we have no positions ourselves. Our goal is just to provide a level playing field for everybody to get to make their case. And so, wanna let you know folks, no matter what walk of life you're from, we really do hope you feel welcome here and welcome. And also wanna let you know folks, we are pumped. This basically, Modern Day Debate, the podcast has launched and it's been months now but I am so excited that we've gotten so much. People have been downloading the podcast a lot which is super encouraging so we hope it's of value to you and if you have not tried it yet, well hey, pull out your favorite podcast app, find us on there as I'm just super encouraged. It's apparently useful for people and so that's just awesome. And so with that, wanna let you know the details for tonight's debate, we're gonna jump right into it folks. So in particular, we are going to give it over to Justice Walker first followed by Tom Jump for their opening statements then about 50 to 60 minutes of open conversation and finally Q and A at the end. So if you happen to have a question, feel free to tag me in the live chat with at Modern Day Debate. That'll make it easier for me to see your question in the chat. And as always folks, do wanna encourage you, we're all about attacking the argument and we encourage you to stay focused on attacking the argument rather than the person. And so with that, I am going to introduce our guests or give them a chance more so to introduce you to their links as folks. If you wanna hear any more of our guests, you certainly can, I have put their links at the very top of the description box below. They're waiting for you right now. What are you waiting for? First, Justice, thanks so much for being with us. We're thrilled to have you here. What can people expect to find at your YouTube channel linked below? Thank you, James. People can expect to find just basic videos about our life here in Siberia, the work that we do, as well as in the future after this debate, I hope to be launching a podcast and so I'll be putting up episodes on the YouTube channel about home education and my views on that. So basically faith, farming and family, that's what we do on my YouTube channel. You got it. Thrilled to have you here and also thrilled to have my twin brother back, Tom. Glad to see you, buddy. What can people expect to find at your link in the description? I do candid scare videos of Stephen Steehan and James. I like walk up behind them with a balloon and pop it and then record their reactions and upload it on YouTube. That's what I do for fun. That is my hobby in the spare time. You can find that on my YouTube channel along with James's only fans, only on my YouTube channel exclusively. What a nasty guy. Nobody scares me like Tom jump does. That's for sure. And with that, we are excited folks. We're gonna jump right into this. And so excited to hear your new take. Because this is a brand new topic, which is also exciting. So Justice, the floor is all yours for your opening. Right. Once again, thank you so much for having me, James. It's wonderful to be here on modern day debates. I ran across modern day debates, I don't know, quite a while back on the YouTube channel where you guys are still pretty small and very big thanks again for doing the podcast version. That helps those of us who are on limited satellite internet and have limited access to get some pretty good debates that way. So as has been said, my name is Justice Walker. Just as by means of introduction, I'm a missionary farmer, entrepreneur, father of three, home educated, home educator, live in Siberia. My basic position about the topic today is that in the last 200 years, the Western industrialized world has produced four ideas that are tragic and intolerable in if we want to see society progress. The first of them, it was socialism. The second was fascism. The third is the threat of eradication of the planet. And the fourth is massed force public education. The fourth being the worst because it enables the prior three. I believe that public education is not only this great woe, but it was also systemic child abuse writ large. And like societies who have systematically abused their children in the past, public education is being ubiquitous as it is. We don't see it for what it is and it takes a little bit of abstraction stepping back and looking at it to kind of observe that. My case against public education is based on three basic observations or three basic positions, three basic premises. The first is a historic observation of how children have always been raised in the family prior to in the United States the last 100 years in the Western world in general, the last 150 or so years. As well, the second premise is that public education is not about education to begin with at all. That's not its goal in general and that is explicit. This is not some sort of conspiracy theory, but can be demonstrated from the documents and from the history. The third is that public education is a menace to free society and that we would want to continue to grow up in a democracy and raise our children in a free society that is free from tyranny. We must abandon this form of education. So those are my basic three stage attack on the public education system as well as I support home education for exactly the opposite reasons. Of course, I believe that home education gives is both natural, historically has been the way that families have always socialized their children and thirdly, it has wide reaching societal benefits as it would, especially if it would be implemented on a larger and larger scale. So beginning with historical, it goes without saying that in the history of humanity, public education is a novelty, it's a unique thing. In the past, it was always the role of the family to educate their children, especially up to the point of specialization when a child was expected to go in and specialize in some trade. This has been the historic norm and was so until in the Western world just over just around 200 years ago, when the Prussian state first was the first one to begin to experiment with the idea of public education. In 1806, Napoleon destroyed the Prussian army at the Battle of Gena. This was a public, absolute public catastrophe, a PR catastrophe for the Prussian state, which a large portion of its income was derived from its military prowess and from renting out its armies, basically mercenary armies all throughout Europe and the King Frederick Wilhelm III, I think it was, is the proper title, was basically looking for an answer of how this ragtag army of French revolutionaries could possibly defeat his mercenaries. And the answer that he received from scholars of the day from philosophers was they have a national identity, a national idea that they're willing to fight for. He said, how can we get that synthetically in our country? And the answer that came back was written by a man by the name of Johann Fichter philosopher who basically sets out the idea, the project of public education as we know it today in two books, the first and the second address to the German nation, where he talks about the primary goal of public education, forest mass public education as we know it today, is to set up a synthetic nationalism that will get people or guide people towards replacing their natural patriotism they have towards their family, towards their clan, towards their town to a centralized state. Johann Fichter is explicit that the idea of public education is not to teach math, reading, science or other useful skills, but to indoctrinate children into a belief that the state is their primary object of loyalty. As we progress through the history of public education with such people as Horace Mann or John Dewey who eventually brought the public education system to the United States, we see that this is always in their writings the main reason they have a utopian view of remolding society in a particular vision or a particular view. And it does not have very little to do with the actual education of children as much as it has to do with indoctrination and propagandization. Horace Mann in particular and John Dewey as well saw that public education was a way of taking what they saw as a backwards rural nation, United States, renting the children from the clutches of their Christian upbringing and their home environments and indoctrinating them in a new progressive vision. Unfortunately, the utopian vision of what can be done using school is not limited to the proponents of modern public education. Such people like Martin Luther also saw that the idea of a state-sponsored public education far before it was actually implemented, he thought that that would be a great way to indoctrinate children into Christianity. Either way that you look at it if you're on the progressive side or on the Christian side, I particularly believe that the idea of forcibly indoctrin other people's children is important. I believe that it is the responsibility, right and role of parents to not only provide their children with their physical needs, but also to pass on their cultural and spiritual heritage to their children. And this is part of the defining functions of the family. As I already mentioned, the primary goal of public education as described by its proponents throughout the ages has been indoctrination and propaganda, making people more malleable and obedient to authorities willing to go along with the narrative. And I believe that this is completely opposed to the idea of a democracy, the ability to be able to resist tyranny. We see this as it plays out in jury trials. As public education progressed in the 20th century in the United States, the acquittal rate on jury trials dropped dramatically. To the point where today, 90% of trials that go before a jury are convicted. And I personally believe, and I think the studies show out or at least the comparative information we have would show that part of the reason why we have this deference to what is perceived as the authority in a courtroom has largely to do with public education. So it's the alternative. I think the alternative is that parents take responsibility to educate their children at home. I try to even get away from using the term home schooling because the term to me is so important that I would prefer to use the term home education to educate their children at home in a way that is in line with how children have received education throughout the entirety of human history. I believe that this not only produces a better human being, a better, less traumatized human being, but it also has exponential effects on society. Studies have shown that children who have been home educated are not only happier, healthier, wealthier, more involved in the community, but also more politically active, as much as two and a half to three times more active in political and community matters than their comparative cohorts in public school. Also, home education is one of the few educational models that is resilient to outside factors, such as the income of the family, the racial makeup of the family, and many other factors that have, in general, traditionally huge effects on children's outcomes. Children from economically less advantaged families, as well as children from economically favored families do relatively the same with home education, which is leaps and bounds ahead of their public school counterparts in general. And so we see that this is generally a better system all around. So I don't have this preamble written out. I'm kind of ad-limbing, and I hope that after we hear from Tom, I can kind of get into it in the open discussion. You got it, thank you very much. And we will kick it over to Tom Jump for his opening statement. You know, guys, forgot to mention at the start, we are pumped as we are in talks with Matt Dillahunty and Samuel Nassan for a one-on-one debate next month on whether or not Jesus fulfilled prophecy, which you're seeing on the bottom right of your screen. So hey, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button and that notification bell for a reminder as you don't want to miss that one live, it's going to be a party. And so thanks so much. Tom, the floor is all yours for your opening as well. All right, so topic, home education versus public education. Now, I don't want to bash home education because all the studies seem to show that home education does better for the students educating them and giving them a good education. They do better on test scores, they do better psychologically, they have better socializing skills. So home education, having a parent, a one-on-one teacher to parent ratio where the teacher can specialize the course to the child will absolutely do better for the child, like absolutely for sure. It's like, if we all had personal doctors that would clearly we'd all be healthier than having to go to some public doctor. The problem is that it's not a realistic thing to do in a society, because in order to have one of your parents stay at home, one, they have to be not have a job. So they're gonna have to like essentially or have a part-time job. So not to be being paid as much, which means you need to be in a very wealthy country where someone can actually afford to stay home and teach their kid and they need to have access to the resources and knowledge to do so. So they need to be educated, which means home education can only happen in first world nations pretty much. You need a significant amount of money and time to be able to give to the child. And so which is why the vast majority of countries don't implement home education on a large scale. Like most Western nations, even the highest developed ones have a few thousand at most. Most countries who do home education have a few hundred. The US has two million, so more than like everywhere else combined. But again, this is only possible in an extremely wealthy nation where you have access to all of the technology and resources from the government to do this. It's not a realistic thing to be able to be implemented on a systemic level. You can't have an education system of people being taught this for the entire country and have a sustainable literacy rate, which is why the implementation of public schools is one of the biggest contributing factors to global literacy over the past two centuries from the global education network or whatever. From a historical perspective, the world went through a great expansion in our education over the past two centuries. This can be seen across all quantity measures, global literacy rates have been climbing over the course of the last two centuries, mainly through increasing rates of enrollment in primary education, secondary tertiary education have also seen a drastic growth with global averages years in schooling being much higher now than a hundred years ago. Despite all these worldwide improvements, some countries have been lagging behind mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, blah, blah, blah. So the public schools are essentially the major contributor to fixing global literacy rates and a population that's better educated has less unemployment, reduced dependency on public assistance programs, greater tax revenue. Education also plays a P-roll in reducing crime, improve public health and greater political and civic engagement. One of the things Justice mentioned is that public schools are a way to indoctrinate kids to like the government. Yeah, that's technically true. That's why we teach history. There's no other reason for it. History is kind of useless. We just teach it to indoctrinate the kids into getting involved in political and political engagement and it works. I mean, that's a good thing in a sense that we want people to be engaged in politics, preferably not by manipulating them, but it does get them engaged. And so the only way to do this is through public education. Like doing a home education isn't going to work on a systemic level again, because you need parents who can stay at home. Like if we were back in the 1950s where women didn't work, maybe that's a possibility, but we're not like people have to work, people have to get a job. And so expecting parents to stay at home or to give up a significant portion of their day to teaching their children is a big thing to ask. And it's definitely not possible in most third world nations. So this homeschooling idea of replacing public schools with homeschooling is just not realistic at all. It's great for rich people who can do it and who have time. It's not so great for poor people. And so in order to have a system that has reliable, successful results and bringing countries out of poverty and creating a consistent system to make people literate, public schools are essentially one of the leading contributors in the world that have been demonstrated to do this. Now I agree there's lots of problems with public schools, but overall it has had a significant and demonstrable positive impact throughout history. And so denouncing it and saying that we should replace it with a program as unrealistic as having every parent stay home or one parent stay home to teach every single child is completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as socialism or just giving each person their own personal doctor. Like it's not a realistic system that can be implemented. And so I would advocate public schools are what we should invest in and we should try to fix the problems with public schools. But they are a better system overall than homeschooling because it is more applicable to everyday people. And it isn't as extravagant and expensive and time consuming as homeschooling, you know, conclude there. Thank you very much. We will jump into the open discussion section everybody. And with that, thanks so much gentlemen. The floor is all yours. All right, so I just like to take the opportunity here to respond a little bit to what Tom said and then maybe Tom has some questions for me as well. But the, one of the reasons why I mentioned right in the opening that I am a, you know, a missionary and work in Siberia in Russia is because this is one of the contensions that people bring up, you know, home education is for the rich and for the well-developed country. Russia has an average income of about $10,000 per family, actually a little bit less due to the currents and manipulations that have happened in the inflation in the last couple of years or something like $8,000 per household. Below global average and that's average household incomes. Most of the people that I work with, most of the parents that have chosen home education path are in that position or below it. So they're definitely not the economically advantaged even of this country, let alone the world. And this is one of the main reasons why I'm an advocate for home education because we see in public education that one of the biggest predictors of a child's success in public education is the economic status of the parents. Whereas in home education, we see that this does not bear out in the statistics. The economic status of the parents does not seem to affect the outcome nearly as much other than the outcome of the child's education nearly as much as in public education. So if the idea of the time is promoting that home education is for the rich seems to be contested in the statistics. If the family makes the decision, even takes the economic hit to educate the children at home, we see that the educational outcome, again in the large majority of cases is going to be better than the public education. And as I know from experience both in this country and the United States the question of whether or not one parent should stay home at least part-time to educate their child, their children and take the economic hit of that has to do more with lifestyle choice than with survival. And I believe that as parents we should always put the welfare of our children ahead of some potential economic advantage that we have ourselves. So that would be the first objection I have. The second one to what Tom said is that the implementation of public school in most of the European nations, industrialized European nations that happened before the turn of the 20th century happened under scenarios of coercion. So it was illegal not to send your child to school. It's not like there was this great wonderful government program and everyone sent their children there and it was great. There was a lot of resistance to the implementation in Europe and in the United States when it happened and only recently have we regained the ability or the freedom to educate our children at home. I'm glad that I'm native born to the most free country in the world as far as home education is concerned that's the United States. And I live in the second most free country when it comes to home education that happens to be Russia but this is a new turn of events and it's not like this was a naturally developed system. It was a system that was in place via coercion and I think we don't know what a system would look like if we didn't have home education. Tom mentioned literacy, world literacy rates. If we look at countries that had industrialized and therefore were in need of a very literate society pre the implementation of public education like for instance the United Kingdoms, the United States to a lesser degree New Zealand, Australia we see that literacy rates among the segments of society that were not limited by law from learning were for all intents and purposes relatively unchanged with the onset of public education. And there are some data that we can look at that would suggest that in fact the United States literacy has actually dropped with the implementation of public education. Again, among those segments of society that were historically not forbid by law for taking part in education. So that's kind of I guess my come back there to responding to what Tom said and if you have something to say there, I'll not one so. Well, your first statement is just factually wrong. Like a study conducted by Ray in 2010 indicates that the higher the level of parents income the more likely the homeschool child is able to achieve academic success. That's just one of the papers I found Ray Bryant 2010 academic achievement and demographic traits of homeschool students, a nationwide study. So your first thing was just factually false. Secondly, when we're talking about literacy rates like obviously literacy rates have gone down over the past like 30 or 40 years due to crappy public schools but literacy rates going from like the 50% level to like the 90% level and dropping down to like the 84% level or whatever. Clearly public education has had a positive impact overall by a significant margin. The fact that there's been a small drop in recent years is just irrelevant to the topic. So those points didn't really make a difference. You said that the public schools aren't really for or homeschools aren't demographically for the wealthy. Well, that's just not true at all. Like India homeschooling illegal but only like 500 to 1,000 children are in homeschool in India. Well, why is that? Because they need to work. It's like, and they need to have an education in the first place to be able to teach the kids. Like having a homeschool parent is hard. It's not just about a financial benefit. It's about being able to feed the rest of the family. So like food or education, you usually go with food. It's not just like you can choose to give up most of your hours of your day to raise your kid and teach them schooling and just some loss of some extra money. That's a benefit of a first world nation. Like all the examples you mentioned are still like first world nations. They're not India, they're not Pakistan. Like Austria, 2,000 kids being homeschooled, Belgium 500, Bulgaria fewer than 100, Czech Republic 2,500, Denmark 400, Estonia 100, Finland 400, France has 63,000, that's a decent amount. Germany, it's illegal. So we have examples where it is actually illegal to have homeschooling in Germany as one of the most educated well-off countries in the world. It dominates American education by a significant margin. So clearly public education works just fine. You just go down the list, there's on the wiki, there's homeschooling international statistics. You can say like everywhere has essentially none or very, very limited. And which includes the vast majority of countries who have the absolute best levels of education anywhere in the world. America's like 20th or 30th or something. All of these countries, Norway 400 homeschooled, one of the top 10 in education in the world. Poland has 14,000, not surprising. It's one of the higher members, Romania 500. Like if you just look at the top countries for best education in the world, they usually don't have that much homeschooling. America being like 20th with 2.5 million homeschooled students. There's a direct opposite correlation to the amount of homeschooling than usually the amount of educational success in this in general. Like obviously if everyone was homeschooled, there would probably be better off. That would be true because I do homeschooling is a really good thing. Having the parents who can teach your kids on a one-on-one basis and make the curriculum fit the kids' needs is obviously better than a public schooling. But public schooling when done well, like in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Australia does work extremely well. That's why they're the top of education. Putting in homeschools while not realistically feasible wouldn't really change much. They're still gonna be the best in the world. Like we don't need to have that extra benefit there. It doesn't do anything. Like the homeschooling or the public schooling systems work in all these countries. Obviously there's problems in America and other countries, but public schools work like objectively, one of the best metrics of success of a country of pretty much anything. Like I don't even understand why you would think they're bad. Like obviously some public schools are bad, but the vast majority of them have a positive outcome everywhere in the world. Yeah, I guess the idea of taking a correlation of the educational outcomes of a country and then looking at the level of home education in that country. I think it's not exactly very useful because- Oh, right, right. First of all, sorry to interrupt, but yes, you're right. I mean, I'm not saying that, as I admitted earlier, homeschooling is better than public schooling. So the homeschooled on all of the studies, kids who are homeschooled do better on tests than kids in public schools. So obviously if everyone was homeschooled, you would get a higher score on this metric. So that's not the comparison I was making here. What, when you said that public schools was abuse of some kind and are bad, I can show the most educated countries in the world do predominantly public schools and it has a very good impact on the kids and builds the society to a very positive way. And so it's definitely not abuse in those cases. It's a very good thing for the countries. That that was my point. It wasn't that homeschooling would make people dumber that I would, I agree homeschooling is good education. So, I mean, I guess the thing that I would say here is that if again, we're comparing a, you know, looking at countries that either greatly restrict home education and therefore we don't have a comparative cohort within that country of how those children would do if they were home educated, who knows, maybe German children would do much better than even their public school compatriots. That seems to be what the results of every country that does have a large sample of home educated children would show. So again, comparing those two things I don't think has as much usefulness. I didn't misspeak in my probably, probably when you spoke in my opening statement and again in my rebuttal when I said that, if I said it in fact that the economic status of the parents has no effect on the educational outcome. Of course, economic status does have effect even in home education. What I meant to say was that it has, the effect is the home education is more resilient to the economic environment of the family. So if you have a person who is in poverty in public school, a person who is in poverty in home education, their outcomes are going to be less departing from the mean in the home education environment than not. So that is the primary thing that I'm trying to say. And the other thing is that, what is the other thing I was going to say? Got lost here, lost my train of thought. But maybe you have something to say that I'm trying to remember. Well, you mentioned that there wasn't a country that has no regulations on homeschooling to compare with or something. Like India has no regulations. Anybody can homeschool with their kids whatsoever. And there's only like a few hundred to do it. I mean, so if it was really a viable option for poor people, you would probably have more than a few thousand people in a country of a few billion, but it doesn't happen. That's why it's not really a realistic thing. You need to, one, have parents who are educated and wealthy enough to be able to take time off work, which is not something very common in India, unless you're, of course, rich. And so, which is why homeschooling isn't really included. They all have the opportunity. Like there's no regulations in India about homeschooling or very limited, but no one chooses to do it because it's not easy. It's not something that can be implemented on a societal level unless you're rich, which is why it's more prevalent in richer countries. Like Canada has like 60,000 homeschooled. France has like 60,000 homeschooled. The rich countries have a lot of it. Poor countries have essentially none of it. For the reason it's hard to do, which is why it's not really a realistic strategy to implement on a societal level. Do you think that if we did force homeschooling, just as an example on India, that that wouldn't cause a lot of people to starve to death? Yeah, I'm against forcing anything on anyone. I'm for choice, for freedom, for people to choose. And so the main problem with public education as we know it today is exactly that lack of choice. You're bringing up India as an example. But I mean, we have to remember that India has just, within the last not so many decades, undergone the process of industrialization where a modern style of education is necessary for the advancement of a family. And so it's like saying, again, in the 1700s, how many children in America had literacy skills? Well, how many needed those literacy skills to survive? And as your economic environment develops, and as the families adapt to new economic environments, those families, again, also adapt to their circumstances and their environment and providing the education that their children need as they have done always in the past. So there's always a transitional period, like India has been going through that transitional period. And it'll be interesting to see, first of all, if they retain their stance, legal stance on home education, or if they decide to implement laws that would either regulate or limit access to it. And in the future, and then see as people, as the economic environment develops, what people would then choose. I'm not sure what your point was there. Like they have both. Anybody can choose either one. The point is that if you are raised in an agrarian environment, and that's the environment that you've been in for hundreds of years, the tens of generations, that the skills that you need to survive in that environment, in that economic environment, are largely not what we consider it, literate skills. And as the nation goes through in a process of industrialization and comes out of a primarily agrarian economy into something like an industrial economy or a post-industrial economy, the skill set that you need changes. And as that change occurs, there is an adaptation period after which then families, again, are once more equipped in their new environment to give their children the education that they need. So it's, you know, not... They've definitely chosen going to public schools because India has one of the largest education systems in the world with over 1.5 million schools and a quarter of a billion kids all going to the public schools and they have like 1,000 homeschooled kids. Like there's no comparison. They've all chosen to go to actual schools instituted by the government. Like a quarter of a billion is a lot of students and only a very few choose homeschooling. Like I don't know, the transition periods are even past here. Like we know they're going to school. So, I mean, again, it's hard to speak to the Indian particular environment because that's not something I'm necessarily compared, not necessarily familiar with. But one of the other things is, is you say like what is the question of why I would see that public education is what I would consider to be child abuse. And again, like if we're going to go look at correlation, of course we understand the correlation is not a means of causation, it's not proof of causation, but if you're to look up the, by rank, countries that have the highest level of educational achievement, especially as measured not on the college level, but on the elementary and high school level and then compare those to, for instance, teenage suicide. It also is not a one-for-one correlation, but it's pretty high. So you have Japan, which is one of the highest achieving nations in the world, as far as public education is concerned, is also one of the higher nations, at least in the industrialized world of teenage suicide. So this is something that also has to be dealt with. And when we think about it, is not only what we think of as the education, well, achievement, what is the psychological impact and societal impact in the society in general? And again, you had mentioned before that one of the benefits of public education, like you mentioned history, is to get people to be involved in their government. Again, based on studies that in the United States, we see that people that are educated in home education as opposed to public education are two or three times more likely to be involved in the community as measured by volunteering or by voter participation. So again, if the idea is to get people to be involved in their government, as opposed to simply obey government edicts, that seems that home education would be preferable. Yeah, again, I agree. Home education is essentially better in every way than public education, but it's not realistic on a societal level. We can send most, we can send a quarter of a billion kids to school in India. We can't have a quarter of a billion kids going to homeschool in India. So if the rates of getting them engaged in politics is even a third less than homeschooling, it's still gonna get a third of a quarter of a billion people to engage in politics where that wouldn't have happened with homeschooling because you couldn't get homeschooling for that many people, it's not realistic. So even though homeschooling is better overall, it can't be implemented on a large enough scale for the numbers to balance out. Public school is always going to have a better positive outcome because it can affect more people successfully in a country-wide scale because it doesn't require a parent staying home for each kid. You can teach a whole bunch of kids with one teacher and get not as good of an effect, but still a good effect. And the suicide rates are like, even in the highest countries they're like 12 for a hundred thousand people. That's pretty small. Like obviously it's a problem and something we need to fix, but you can't say public school is child abuse because the suicide rates are 0.0000001%. Like that's, like if it was like 15%, yeah, I would be with you, but you can't, that's not a strong correlation at all to say that though the suicide rates are the highest in these countries, therefore it must be the public schools. Like, no, it doesn't make any sense. Yeah, that is just one data point that I'm looking at. It's not definitely the whole picture. I do, of course I disagree with you that you can't take a, for instance, number like 12 per 100,000 and extrapolate some meaning from that as far as the effectiveness or the input of that system on that statistic. For instance, we measure police effectiveness by a metric of say, for instance, United States, it's five murders per 100,000. And we definitely use that as, on average, we definitely use that as a metric of the effectiveness of police. So if we were to look at the other, the reverse. The point of the police is to stop crime. The point of police is to stop crime. So the way we would measure if police effectiveness is the crime rate directly, but how do you correlate public schools and suicides? Like that doesn't seem to have any connection directly at all. You can't just say that, well, because there are suicides, it's due to the public schools. It's not, that doesn't make any sense. You'd have to show that there's a correlation between those two things, not just that countries with both of them have both, because that's just like saying the number of tires. You'd have to look at it. There definitely takes a deeper statistical analysis to say that definitively. But when you look at example after example that the success rates in public school are positively correlated to higher suicide rates, to me it just like gives you pause to think about it and say, you know what? We know that in early childhood development, one of the most important things is parental attention. You know, one of the most important predictors of a childhood, a child's psychological balance and wellbeing in life is how much attention can they get from their parent? And then, oh, we have a system where kids are being taken out of their home or given out of the home, exported out of the home at six, at five, and huge large amounts of their life are spent outside of the home, outside of parental attention. And they're deprived of that and that this would be positively correlated with you suicide to me seems to be not, again, like I'm not gonna say it, like absolutely definitively because of course we'd have to look at more statistical information on that, but it seems to me to be not a completely off the wall idea to look at. Again, the idea of what is potentially implementable in on a societal level, I don't think that just because something is hard to do or hasn't been done before, doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be done or even shouldn't be done. Again, if we're looking at the effect of home education on the educational outcomes of those who do participate in it, we might say, you know what? Look, this is actually a better system. We see that the idea of the 19th century utopias was that we would create a different kind of society through public education that hasn't turned out to necessarily be true. So we also see that home education is a better system. Maybe this should be something that we should be looking at more pointedly. And especially those of us who do have the ability to make that choice, maybe that's something that we should very, very strongly consider. I mean, there are situations like for instance, in the early 1800s, it might have been absolutely necessary for certain segments of the population to send their children to work in factories. It doesn't mean that child labor in factories is an abuse. There might have been absolutely necessary for certain segments of the population in industrializing or pre-industrial United Kingdoms to send their children down in coal mines and work for the survival of the family. That doesn't mean that that's not child abuse and that that system is not preferable. Okay, so three things there. First is the suicide rates. Like America has the highest suicide rates, but not the highest public education rates. Like again, Germany has completely outlawed homeschooling. They have lower suicide rates than America by a decent margin. Suicide rates are actually higher in lower to middle income countries, which is like 300 per 100,000 versus high income countries, it's about 200. So that's again, not the case that the highest achieving countries have the highest suicide rates. It's not true. Just one second, Dom, let me direct here. Looking at suicide rates among school age children. So children, teenagers, school age, we're not looking at the general suicide rate in the country. We're looking at a cohort that's particularly affected by that. That's what we need to look at. And that is like, if you dig into the data, that is what you'll find. Age standardized rates, it shows those are the same. They're different. So Europe, it's 15 crude rate. Age standardized rate is 13. Southeast Asia is 13, 13. Global is 10, 10. West Pacific is 10, 8. They're about the same. So there's not a significant difference whatsoever. Again, so the numbers come out to be pretty much the same. Yeah, I will, for everyone who's interested in following up on this, that's something I'll be addressing in a podcast issue that I'm, or a podcast episode that I'll be putting out in the future here, not too far. So at rawhomeeducation.com, you can find my podcast and I'll will definitely go over the data on that one because I don't have that right in front of me right here in my notes, so I'm not gonna spend time trying to argue that out with you there. But I do, again, I have seen to my satisfaction that's borne out in the data. Okay, the second thing you mentioned was the implementation. You said just because it's hard, we shouldn't do it or we shouldn't not do it, whatever. Like it's not just that it's hard, it's that if we did it, millions of people would starve to death. The problem isn't that it's hard, the problem is that it would kill everyone. Like if we implemented homes, like the reason I said, if we forced everyone to go to homeschool, like obviously I'm also against forcing anybody to do anything, but if everyone in India chose or forced to do homeschooling instead of public schooling and one of the parents had to stay home instead of going to work, I'm not talking about forcing the kid to work and talking about the parents, then they would lose a significant portion of their income which they need to feed their family and they would starve to death. So the problem here isn't that it's hard, it's that it's completely impossible to do that and to feed the family in most standardized countries. You just can't do it. So the problem isn't about the difficulty, it's that it's not possible without killing people. So I mean, yes, it's better just like it's better to give every person their own personal doctor. And sure, I would be totally for that if it was possible but creating 50% of the population, making them doctors to give every person a doctor is completely unrealistic and it can't be done. The same reason we can't do public school or homeschooling because to have one parent to one kid and stay at home and not get the money to feed the family is not realistic in most third world nations. A lot of first world nations, it is possible and I agree if you do have the money to homeschool, you probably should. It's significantly better for the child in many ways but it's not a realistic thing to apply on a systemic level. All right, so the convention that I have here is that for the vast majority of human existence, our development on the planet as a species, home education has been the norm and somehow we didn't all starve to death because we were being home educated. And when there was starvation in the past and privation was largely due to the absence of industrialized methods of food production and so forth and so on that has very little to do with whether or not you had a second person to household, two income household or a single income household or whatever. I mean, even up until recently in the United States, historically speaking, families were not necessarily double income. And so again, the historical norm that agrarian societies have had where dad is out being the breadwinner and mom is home taking care of the more domestic chores which also included the primary education of children. I don't see that that sets up a situation where millions of people are starving. I see that that's a pretty hyperbolic statement taking into consideration that as a percentage of income the amount of money that any family on the earth today spends on food or even basic needs of life is as low as ever in the history of humanity. I don't think that by taking a half a day to work specifically towards the education betterment of your offspring is a death sentence or something that's gonna like, oh no, that the entire country is gonna starve because the population decides to proffer their education, their children over economic advantage. Well, I mean, that's demonstrably the case, especially in countries like Africa and India where you might have to walk for several hours to get clean water and then walk back for several hours like putting in like, we're just gonna teach the kids while walking or whatever, like this is not a realistic thing. You're comparing it to first world nations. In first world nations, is it possible? Yes, in third world nations, no, it's not possible. And comparing it to 1950 standards, that wasn't home education. That was parents teaching kids how to live, like how to go to work, how to hunt, how to fish. They weren't teaching them mathematics in English because they didn't know those things. Like first, the parents need to know those things to be able to teach them to the kids, which again, because this is relatively recent in India, most parents don't in the first place. The literacy rate is only in the 80% is. So they have to send them to schools in many cases because they don't have any of the education material which you need money to get or the knowledge required to teach the kids the education material. So in most third world nations, this isn't an option. It's just completely not an option. I don't even understand what you're saying. Like where are they gonna get the books in Africa or India? Are they just gonna like read the math out of the universe? You and I both understand that in the modern age, procuring of especially, the rudiments of an education, the necessary rudiments for education, you just mentioned it, books is takes the, just a minimal amount of economic investment. But again, like going back and saying this system is not doable because we can find societies that are at a economic level where it's difficult to implement or even looks impractical to implement is the same thing as saying, in an economic environment where it looks like we should have child labor that that isn't preferable. So I'm not arguing with you that in a situation of abject poverty, there aren't circumstances in which some kind of public schooling may be necessary to get you past that point where the next generation can take care of their children. But I'm not even, that's not the development of it. It's not what I'm wanting to argue. But when we do have the choice, when nations do have a choice and I am definitely more convinced than you are, of course, that the spectrum of nations that already have that ability to choose, when you do have the choice, parents, societies in general should look towards home education because it gives better outcomes. So yeah, is India or other third world nations in a place where it's much harder to implement than the United States? Sure, without question. Should parents in economic environments that would allow for it make that choice? Absolutely they should. And should countries who are developing a public education program look more seriously at home education as a mainstream option? I think the data again bears out that absolutely without a question, without a doubt they should. Well, I agree with you there. Home education is great for the people who can afford it. And if we could subsidize it with the government, that'd be great too. I'm happy with that. Even with the crazy religious underpinnings which I think shouldn't be done in homeschooling, it's still a very successful program to homeschool kids and we should subsidize it and make it as possible to do so for as many people as possible. But again, the vast majority of people living in America can't really afford to homeschool their kids because many of them need to work two jobs at underpaid jobs for under minimal age. It's not possible for them to do it, like especially for single moms who pick up a very large portion or parents who both have very low paid jobs in America because you can't just do like what they did in the 1960s because the pay has dropped so dramatically, the average pay in America and other first world nations, the average pay comparatively to now from back then when you did have a single parent income is significantly lower. So saying that because it was done back then that it can be done today doesn't make any sense because you can't make that comparison due to the disparity in the pay and how pay wages have not gone up at all relative to the GDP and how the expenditures have gone up significantly like cost of living, cost of food, cost of amenities, taxes, everything has gone up in prices, housing especially, but pay has not gone up. And so in order to create the same standard of living today as it was back when we had single parent homes in wealthy nations, you could not do that today because the pay is different. We're not paid as much overall and things cost more than what they did. So that it isn't a realistic comparison to say that because they did in the past, we can do it today. Yeah, I mean, the comparison that I'm making is not to the 1960s that I'm making comparison is to the 19th century and prior to the 20th century when home education was forcibly fasted on the United States as well as many other, most other European nations. So like in the 1960s, home education was almost unheard of, right? Largely why? Because it was illegal in most states, United States until parents began to fight for their rights to educate the children on their own. And so, I mean, the comparison I'm making is not to the golden age of the American worker. I mean, the comparison is to the industrializing pre-industrial America where of course, if you compare comparative household and comes to then we're doing much better than we were way back then. And still we found time to educate our children. And when you have look at the date of, you know the relative rates of literacy, even then with when you take into consideration the classes of people who are not legally prohibited from learning, then yeah, it's still pretty good. So again, we're not comparing to the 1960s or comparing to something earlier and basically saying that if we could do it in an agrarian pre-industrial society, we can do it now. And we see that the idea that, you know again, the utopian progressive idea of their 19th century that if we can just, you know have the education of the children being taken care of by the state then that will give us this great utopian society that has not panned out, but we see in every case that home education seems to be better largely because it is the natural and the normal way of doing things. And that that is the function. One of the functions of the family is to socialize and educate their children to the standards of the society that they're living in. So again, I believe that your first contention that it's not practicable in all nations everywhere as the economy of the world stands today and your example of India is a good one. You know, I've already stated my contingents with that my objections to that contention but when it comes to the United States I am for the vast majority of people it's definitely a choice of some, you know marginal economic advantage over the advantage of your children. And again, this is looking at from a perspective of someone who has worked and lived in both countries with the United States and Russia Russia being a lot less economically advantaged than the United States. Well, the first thing is like if we're talking in the 19th century like American literacy rates was like in the 70 percentage range and it's gone up to like the 90 percentage range since compulsory education. So if you're comparing to then that would be a significant decrease in literacy. So I don't think that's a good comparison to make if you're going based off the 19th century. We're, you're looking at the pre-public school. So public school is government public school is basically implemented in the right at the beginning of World War I and into the post-war interim war period was the first large expansion of public education in the United States. So what you should be doing is comparing the results of post-industrial United States. So the late 19th century, early 20th century with subsequent generations and there was a small uptick. Yeah, I will admit that, but it wasn't that significant. And then in later years, it seems that actually the effect has not been that great. So it's borne out in the numbers if you compare apples to apples here. 20% seems pretty significant to me. I think that's a significant increase. Again, if you're looking at the generation that's already in the industrialized United States that's the very end of the 19th century, very beginning of the 20th century, that generation comparing to the generations that came afterwards, so the World War II generation and after the increase isn't that significant Tom. Yeah, if you go back to mid 1800s, the Civil War era, sure, I mean, but then again, you have to remember that United States was largely an agrarian country at that point and the benefit, economic societal benefit to literacy at that point wasn't as great as it would be later as the country industrializes. So again, families adapt to their environment because they wanna give their children the advantage that they themselves have. So a child that's raised in a farming community learns to farm. A child that is raised in a community where computers are ubiquitous, learns to handle a computer. That's the natural progression of how things work. Child that is raised in a society that values STEM knowledge is going to be exposed to that just by virtue of the fact that they're in that society. I mean, this is just naturally what happens. Definitely not. Like we can just pick a like Iowa or something go to the middle of Iowa or go to some, sort of some like a redneck majority state and we teach them basic science. They don't know it. Many of them are homeschooled in this case, like basic science, creationism, especially does doesn't teach their kids basic geology. We can, the fact that it's valued in the culture doesn't mean that the kids are gonna be taught it. That's not how it works. And most again, the fact that it's valued in the society doesn't mean the parents knew it to teach it to their kids. So again, this is all predicated on the hope that the parents have access to this knowledge and then want to teach it to their kids. So just saying that the society values it therefore the kids are learned inherently is completely backwards. That's the whole reason that most big countries make homeschools illegal is because public schools work. They make people qualified to work and they bring up the GDP of the nation. It's, if you don't have a requirement of public schools, most kids don't get homeschooled and don't get taught anything. It's not that, well, if you just outlaw public schools or whatever most kids are gonna get homeschooled it's not gonna happen. Most of them just aren't going to get educated. You need public schools to get most kids educated because most kids are not going, most parents are not going to homeschool their kids. Most parents are not that invested in the education just assuming that the society values it therefore the kids will learn it is just not correct. I mean, again, that's a point of disagreement between you and I in the sense that we see that again, the level of education in home education versus public education whenever it's compared is always better. And the explicit reasoning that the architectures and engineers of public education gave for public education has nothing to do with teaching science. Has nothing to do with teaching math or basic literacy. The fundamental reasons of the architectures, architects of public education are always, it's always a political motivation. So saying that we need public education to advance science or to advance general learning goes against the premise of the people who actually built that system. The system was never said, I mean, explicitly Yohann Fichter says that the goal of educating children publicly has nothing to do with teaching them reading, writing or arithmetic, it has to do with a formation of social consciousness. And that to me is again, it goes against the idea that we need public education to teach science or to teach certain things that are valid by society. The observation is that the things that are valid by society, parents will pass on to their children. And that that is, of course, you can, we can find anecdotal evidence to show that that's not true. But if you look at the larger statistical analysis, especially of again, like we always, we've talked about and you agree with that the success rate of between public and home education bears it out that parents actually are invested in their children and actually do want to give their children the best that they can. And so again, do we need to reform the system to allow for more people to take advantage of this particular option? Yeah, I would agree with you there too. If we'd taken a consideration that the average school age child basically the cost per annum cost of their education is somewhere between in the United States, depending on the state somewhere between 11 and $13,000 per child. Yeah, if you were to give your average family that money as opposed to putting in the public education system, would they be able to afford home education? Sure, so are there necessary reforms to make this idea more palatable, more easy to adapt? Absolutely, would there be things that we could do to make it easier for parents? Sure, that does not mean that does not build a case that home education is not a viable option on a societal level. Well, again, the further problem is that even if we did this, most parents would not teach their kids, if we look at the past that's not what happens. They don't, the stated purpose of public education today is to teach kids math and science and to get them into the workforce. The fact that people in the past instituted public education as a way to manipulate people is irrelevant, it's a genetic fallacy. The fact that they created it for that purpose doesn't tell us anything about what it's used for today. The reason most countries implement public education today is because they want people to work. They want people to be educated and make discoveries and invent and invest in companies. So they want people to be qualified to do these things and so they give you the education to make you a good worker in the society pretty much. They don't really care about history as much, history is cut out in most schools. They focus on STEM, STEM is the thing that's not ever cut out, it's required in every school because that's the express purpose of public education today pretty much everywhere in the world. Like obviously it was used for manipulation in the past and still is today with the Texas Board of Education manipulating of the historical data but majority of schools know today it's about science. That's what we teach people, assuming that the parents are all going to buck up and be good teachers and teach their kids is a ridiculous ideological hope that it's not realistic. Again, the idea that parents are not gonna teach their children for some reason, we believe that things like moral instruction of children should be left to the parents but whether or not they can handle an idea of mathematics. Oh, that is completely out of the question that has to be handled by professionals. The genetic fallacy is just not true just because like I've mentioned Yohan Fita but throughout the last 200 years of the development of public education in the West particularly, every time you have someone who is a deep thinker on the subject and who is basically working on being being the brain power behind implementation or behind the architecture of it, you always see the same themes. So if you start with Yohan Fita and Fridget Fruittable in the Prussian state who instituted the first who were the brain power behind the institution in the first public school and public kindergarten systems, you move on to Horace Mann and John Dewey to Alexander Inglis to Bryant Conan. Even as recent as Elizabeth Barthelow from, how is it, Stanforder who basically is echoing all the same argumentation that the older and from the oldest to the most recent is that again, the primary focus of public education is not to teach math and science is to have a particular social environment that the medium becomes the message. Having your child leave home, go to school, do certain things, programs them. And Elizabeth Barthelow, for instance, in her essay concerning the reason why she thinks that home education should be illegal, again, never mentions academic achievement as one of the reasons for her. Again, I bring her up not because she's super influential in today's then time will tell how influential her work in the work of those like her is, but it reflects that this is not just a genetic fallacy that I'm bringing up, this is a consistent, persistent core motivation for public education is social formation. And so then again, if we're comparing apples to apples, let's compare social formation in the one and social formation in the other or compare academic outcomes in the one or the other. And as you have already admitted academic outcomes and excuse me, home education is much better than in public education. Excuse me. Well, again, the problem isn't saying that because they do better in homeschools, therefore the goal of public schools must not be education is false. Like the fact that they don't do it as well doesn't mean it's not their goal to actually be successful. Like if you read, you just go to any education website like education.nsw.gov, the Department of Education, every single one of them explicitly says the whole point of our purposes, the primary role of public education is rigorous academic construction, preparing the students for academic success, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like that is the entire point. Saying that there are these other people who you, like the multiple of anecdote is not evidence. Saying that all of these people like to interpret education this way is a relevance to like the Department of Education or how education is actually written. So none of that's actually evidence. The vast majority of education is centered around SAT, ACT which they don't have any history on them. Those are all math and science and English. There's no history on those tests. All of the biggest tests that measure academic success don't have history on them at all, which the whole point of the GPA is to get into colleges and prepare for these big tests. History isn't required in any of those. So I don't know where you're getting this idea that the entire point of education is to manipulate kids into being good citizens when none of that stuff is in any of the primary tests to measure your academic success. Because again, the architects of the system that we have inherited talked about that the primary way of indoctrination isn't through the curriculum. So for instance, if you're to compare the curriculums of Japan, Russia, Brazil, United States, United Kingdoms, you're gonna find significant differences in the curriculum. What is gonna be the same is the medium. The actual institution, the way that it's set up is largely the same. And the reason for that is that the medium has become or is the message. The repetitions, thousands and thousands of repetitions, leave your home, parents not having the amount of attention that they otherwise would give to their children, giving respect and deference to 40 figures, not based on relationships, not based on any kind of real reason other than the fact that they're an authority figure. These are the kind of things that again are outlined again and again and again in the literature as being the primary lessons of public education. Brian Conant, who is the chemical warfare specialist and nuclear physicist who was actually very instrumental in reorganizing the public education, updating it, public education since the United States in the 1960s, is very explicit about the fact that the curriculum will change with time, depending on the political or economic needs, but that the main thing is that children should be taken from their families and put into the social incubator that inculcates particular social values. So that is the main thing. And again, we can point to failings of home education. There are definitely things that we can look at, but just like I don't think that again, if we're looking at the academic achievement, the data bears out that the home education is definitely the better system. And if you're looking at what someone's intrinsic motivation is for something, look at the results and not what they say, because you can say a lot of stuff, but when push comes to shove, what do you get? So looking at compare, again, that's why I look at comparing the implementation of public school in the United States and the equitable rate of jury trials as a metric for sort of you know, difference to authority as being the expressed goal of public education. The express goal of public education is not to take kids from their homes and indoctrinate them, that's absolutely false. Many schools offer online schooling, many schools offer all kinds of alternatives to that. That isn't the goal, none of that is required in any part of public education. Public education is just about give kids the information in a setting where you can. So if, since because things are becoming online more, nobody's against online education, like it's fine, no one cares, the reason we have a school is because you need the kids to be in the same vicinity to hear the teachers. This is not like a grand 40 chess conspiracy to get kids indoctrinated into the society of going to a school every day and being stripped from their parents. It's just that's how you get them to the source of information because the source of information is the mouth of another human being. Except for historically all the thinkers who have been the architects of public education have been influential in that, then the main names that you can point to all say that, except for that. Multiple evidence there doesn't really matter. Yeah, just, but it does matter. And here's one of the reasons, another thing to think about and that is why are these alternatives available, for instance, in the United States today? Why are distance courses and online courses and pretty much every state in the union more or less allows for home education with varying levels of restriction. Why is that? Let's because back in the 1960s, late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, you had a generation of parents, a couple of generations of parents who fought tooth and nail for the right to do that. It wasn't like the government was like, oh, yeah, I wanna educate your kids at home. That's fine, no problem. It was a battle to regain those rights. And so to just say like, oh, everyone's fine with home education and you can do online courses if you want is avoiding the girl in the room that no, society, the government, especially United States or not especially, but in the United States in particular was definitely against it, even 20, 30 years ago. Again, genetic fallacy, you can't say, well, it was instituted by these people who have this motive that they wanted to adhere to. It doesn't matter, like if someone built a hammer with the motive of building like a prison or whatever, you can use the hammer to do all kinds of other things that they didn't intend. The fact that the people who may have started the education system did it for this reason is irrelevant to how it is being used today. It doesn't matter, it's a genetic fallacy. The whole point of education is to make people good workers to promote the economy that is the entire, in every economics class you ever take, why is education important? Cause we need people to go to work. That's why education is important. Every economics class is gonna tell you this. This is why we need education. It's not for indoctrination. It's not for the getting people to get used to be and away from their parents. Like that's irrelevant. Like no one cares about that. No, that's never talked about in the economics class. We need to take kids away from their parents for eight hours a day cause that's beneficial. Like no one says that. That's not in any paper or in any academic journal. No one says that. It's all about making kids smarter so they can work because we want people to build the economy up. That's the point of education. That's the only thing the government really cares about is their tax money. Again, when you look at the, and again, I know you'll say that, you know, multiple of any of those is an evidence, but when you look at the people who brought the education system from Prussia United States who helped implement it and throughout the 20th century have been responsible for the brain power updating it, all disagreed with you. And they all believed that, you know, public school was more than just a way to teach people how to be better, you know, more literate. So they don't matter. Like literally nothing they say matters at all. Like they can have whatever motives they want. The government can hire them to do work because the government wants them to do this job for the government's purposes, which is to make people be workers. The fact that those individuals have an opinion on their work is irrelevant. None of their opinions matter whatsoever. The only thing the government cares about is economics. We want our tax money. There's no secret indoctrination of take kids away from your parents. There's no benefit to that. No one in the government cares about that. They want kids to go to work. That's it. That's all they care about. Yeah. And again, I think that most parents probably have higher aspirations for the children than just for them to go to work. Yeah, I agree. I don't think it's a good thing that we're forcing kids to go to work though. So. Yeah, I'm ready to go to Q and A. I think we've articulated our positions pretty clearly. You got it. Well, thank you very much. And want to let you know, folks, our guests are linked in the description. So if you want to hear more of our guests, it doesn't have to stop here. You can hear more by clicking on those links. And thank you very much for your questions, folks. Excited to get into these. So first up, oh, this must have snuck by. Nice super sticker. Appreciate it from Mike M. G. Appreciate it. And P. Barnes says, how do you replace the social skills you gain in public education when homeschooling? I think that's for you, T. Jump. Actually, it's for him, but I will answer it. The social skills in homeschooling are actually usually better than the social skills in public schooling. So there's been a number of studies that have shown that in homeschooling, you have better social skills than in public schooling. Public schooling, even though you have more interactions with people your own age, in homeschooling, the parents usually are proactive in making their kids do social civic stuff. And so even though it seems like in public school, you'd have more social interaction at homeschooling, you'd actually truly have more social interaction, get better socialized. But you still get a lot of social interaction in public schools too, because you're around people all day. Gotcha, you're right. That was totally for justice, long day. Okay, next one. But yeah, Tom answered. Thank you though, Tom, for humoring me. Seth Nesmith says to both, do you believe what is needed to go to college, parentheses K through 12, could be compressed by say 50%, could homeschool help by compressing that? Yeah, we could compress it by like 90%. Most of the garbage that people are taught in high school is a complete waste of time. Like history, we can just get rid of all of history pretty much. It's completely useless. Why do we need like President Washington, Lincoln? Like, no, you don't need that. You need math, you need English, that's it. And pretty much everything else can be gone. Geography, you don't need geography. We want smart kids who can like do science. We don't need useless garbage facts, completely useless. Well then, okay, so next question. Go ahead and give me a chance to respond, Justice. So they said for both, so Justice. Yeah, one of the things that radicalized me as a home education advocate was that I was a teacher in public school setting for three years. And it was like, I was an English teacher as English language was a foreign language. That's not the top priority thing, but I was like the curriculum that we're supposed to give in a year, like I can give this in a month. Like we could have the entire 12 years worth of English in a year, like 50%, like exactly what Tom was saying. Most home educating parents find that beyond preliminary instruction of their children up to about age eight or nine, when they have a really solid grasp on basic arithmetic, reading and writing skills, they can, their children can attain, can go through their curriculum pretty much independently of the parent in a matter of three to four hours a day. So kids sit down at nine, they're done by one, they lunch, boom, they're out the door, they can do whatever they want. So compressing, yeah, 50%, that's easy, no problem. Thank you very much. And this next one coming in from Seth Ness. Oh, we got that. Thanks for, Farron Salas, good to see you. He says, homeschool prom sucked. Nasty guy, it's a dad joke. He says, thanks MDB for all you do. Thanks for your kind words, Farron. And then, good day to you, sir. Says in Canada, you need a bachelor's degree in education with additional certificates in science or math to teach our children. What is justices education? Yeah, I have a bachelor's degree from H and U in Autodidactics. So that's my background in higher education. You got it. And? Bachelors in Autodidactics. What, is that really a thing? Because Autodidactics is like H and U is hard, right? H and U is Hard Knocks University and Autodidactics is so hard. But actually, I wanted to address that because the stats are actually that parents who don't actually have a formal education in homeschool their kids still do better than kids going to public schools with someone who's formally taught. So the fact that parents don't actually have a degree in education, as long as they're invested in trying to teach their kids and take the time to do it they actually do end up better than people with a degree. So that isn't a good question. Gotcha, and thank you very much for your question. From Mars The Man, appreciate it, said Mr. Walker, to what standards should we hold homeschool or home educators to? Public educators are almost universally required to have a bachelor's and actively continue in a significant graduate level and professional development to maintain certification. And again, just, I mean that goes back to the previous question and Tom pretty much answered that for me. Thanks to the strange arrangement that we, the strange and often beneficial arrangement we have in the United States legislatively. You have different states in the United States who have different levels of requirements for home education. And what you've seen is the parents having these requirements placed on them doesn't, they don't do necessarily better. Like having parents who do not have higher education bachelor's degrees, what teaching certificates don't seem, doesn't seem to have a big effect on the outcomes of their children. And again, the average outcome of the home educated child regardless of the parents education level of education is better than the average public schooler. So again, I mean, the question is, it's a matter of appearances. Like it seems like it would make sense that if you require all those continuing education or higher education degrees or college degrees, whatever for parents to be able to educate their own children, you'd get better results. But again, the statistics bear it out that that's just not true. Well, as for a standard, you could say the results. Like if the kids get higher test scores being homeschooled, that's a good standard to hold it to. Next up, this one coming in from, oh, we have another one from Matthew R. Appreciate it, said, okay, it's a lot, but don't worry, you'll be able to make sense of it. Even in first world nations, more than 60% of households, both parents work full time. And many of these families rely on both parents' income. I would argue this isn't a choice that many families can even seriously consider. As such, wouldn't many of our statistics on schooling be skewed due to homeschooling families tending to be more affluent, educated families? Not all parents have expertise enough to keep up with their students learning as is. Tom, or Justice? Yeah, I would agree with pretty much everything you said. That was one of my points. Gotcha. So yeah, again, just bring that back in is that these, again, the statistics bear out that even families that are economically deprived or economically disadvantaged, their children do better home educated comparative to the children in the same economic class in public education. So making a choice to home educate, even if it causes marginal economic disadvantage in your family is still better for the child. And I think we as parents, our responsibility is to do the best by our children that we can. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question. Coming in from Mark Reed says, Justice, you stated that there is a correlation between public school and suicide. Can you show any causation between these? Again, like Tom jumped on me after that. And rightfully so, like correlation is no proof of causation. It just is a, it's just something that jumps out at you at the data is if you look at it, go through it country by country. The amount of public education or especially hours spent in public education per country and a lot of time success rates in public education is correlated to a higher suicide rate in children of school attending age. And I know Tom disputes that assertion. I'm not saying that that's conclusive or 100%. I'm saying it is interesting to consider that, you know, you have a system that says, we're gonna take the kids and we're going to be responsible for their education and for their formation. And then you have a larger suicide rate, you know, it could definitely be related. And I wouldn't be surprised if we did find a better hard relationship if we did the regressive data analysis necessary to approve that. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Crepitis S. Appreciate it, friend said, public education standards set a baseline for society at large, will giving common ground to everyone via curriculum. Tjomp is assuming educated people are creating well-rounded children via homeschool, maybe. Well, all of the studies show that like you could go to homeschooling on just the wiki or whatever and you go to results. You can, they show that the homeschooling results are 30% better or something like that than the average public school results. Next up, hardcore, hardcore darkness says Tjomp, is your chair haunted? And if yes, what implications does this introduce to your dogma? Yes, yes, it is haunted by James Gray, Gray grandmother. It's how I learn all of his secrets. Oh my gosh, why do you have to make it personal? Okay, Corvus Croc says, I went to a homeschool co-op ran by a college professor and other teachers. We would have a 10-student max class. Tjomp, if we had more of that co-op model, would you be more open to homeschooling? Yeah, I'm perfectly open to homeschooling. I just think it can't be done for most parents. So yeah, that would essentially just be a smaller school. Gotcha. And thanks for your questions. Silver Harlow, good to see you, says, Justice, those people you quote about why they wanted school are all dead now and no longer telling people how or why to run schools. And the point that I'd like to bring up here, and I make it a little bit more express or explicit than that I was doing a poor job of when I was talking to Tjomp is that you not only look at their personal opinion of how the system is implemented, but when they say, for instance, that part of the indoctrination they're trying to provide is age segregated classrooms, is specifically having different teachers consistently changing, even in lower class grades, that these particular artifacts of public education that we see are the means of indoctrination. So my thing is, is sure, I mean, maybe modern education, of course, your local principal, your local school board isn't sitting there saying, the main goal of education is to indoctrinate children, but if you're using the same methods that were expressly and explicitly put into place for that purpose, you gotta ask yourself, is that still what's happening? And I think, again, with the correlation or looking at jury trial acquittals, and as they drop in relationship with the implementation of public school across the United States in the late 1800s early, 20th century, I don't think that's born out. Gotcha, and thanks for your question. Coming in from Gabriel K, good to see you, Gabriel. It says, I hope you were joking about history, T-Jump. Nope, history is garbage, you don't need it for anything. Like a quadratic equation, no human should have any quadratic equation. Next up, thanks for your question. I just have to disagree with T-Jump. History is important, man. Next up, oh my, Empedocles, appreciate your question. Says, question for T-Jump, would you homeschool your children if you had the choice to? Oh no, boarding school, instant boarding school. Sorry. This guy. What was it that you said? Instant boarding school as soon as they're like four. Oh my goodness, Tom. Until they're at least like 20. Do you think Godless Girl is gonna go along with that? Next up, thank you for your question. Seth Nessmith says, a bit off topic, but do you think there's a correlation between Mississippi being the most religious state and it being the least educated? Yeah. Historically, the correlation between religiosity and education has always been positive in our particular context, the United States, modern. That is something that as a religious person myself, it's like, gosh, but I think that's one data point and we have to take it on the chin. Gotcha. And I wanna say, I forgot to mention folks, want to request if you happen to identify as I-N-C-E-L, we are looking to host a debate on that topic. Don't say the word, you guys. Tom, I know you're gonna, don't do it. We are looking for a debate on that controversial topic. So we want you to, if you can, just shoot me an email at moderndaydebate at gmail.com if you happen to identify as I-N-C-E-L, as we are really hoping to host a debate on that soon and we have Nama Cates who would be willing to debate you on whether or not that position is reasonable. So we had one guy email, I haven't heard back from him, very sad, but also wanna remind you, our guests, Justice and T-Jump, are linked in the description, folks. Now that the stream is ending, it means a great time to click on their links because you're probably like, I like that, I want more. So you can hear more at those links. You wanna say a huge thank you, Justice and T-Jump, this has been a true pleasure. Thank you guys so much for hanging out with us. Thanks for having us on, appreciate it. Thank you, James, for hosting this, thanks, Tom. And, ooh, last, I love this question. Gabrielle Kay, last minute question says, how about philosophy, Tom? Oh yeah, totally useless, just get garbage it, get rid of it, never teach it, jump. Tom, are you serious? Yes, like kids don't need to know this. Kids need to know how to pay your taxes, how to raise a kid, basic morality, how to not commit crimes. Those are the things, hygiene and health. All of this garbage philosophy, history, junk, get rid of it. Tom, okay, so thank you very much for that. And what does this say? In general, I have to agree with Tom, except for about history. I just got to just, you can't touch the history, man. I can't believe it, I am shocked. I want to also, folks, speaking of Godless Girl, is it time to have Godless Girl on again? She apologized for her last time she was on, if you guys remember that, I think Tom was here. I wasn't here that night, Converse was in charge. But basically, if you see that. That was the one where she left in the middle to get a beer and then fell asleep at the end, that's not the one? Yes, fell asleep, okay, sorry, okay. I mean, we love Godless Girl, but it might be time to have her back on. So anyway, though, folks, we do appreciate Justice Walker and T-Jump. It's been a truly fun time, so thank you guys so much. I'll be back in just a moment, folks, with a post-credits scene on upcoming debates. And so, thanks everybody, stay tuned for that. And one last thank you to our guest, though. It's been a true pleasure to have, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, this is a good one too. Seth Nessmith, thanks for your last minute question, said BS. What about logical fallacies, T-Jump? Shouldn't they learn that? Nope, garbage, complete waste of time. How to raise a kid, how to pay your taxes, how to manage your finances, how to live. Those are the things that kids should learn in high school, everything else is extracurricular. Tom, really? Those things are, those things, and those things are best learned in the context of your family. So, there you go, home education is the best. Ooh, all right, well, thank you guys. It's been a true pleasure. And so, thanks everybody for hanging out with us. Be back in just a moment. And yes, very excited to share the upcoming debates with you. Be right back. Ladies and gentlemen, that was epic. We really do appreciate both justice and T-Jump. That was a really fun time. And I love, I love getting to laugh during a debate, just from you guys' question and everything else. And so, perfect one says no on letting Godless Girl back. She did apologize for what she had said on stream. So she, you know, she said some like stuff, some wild stuff. And, but yeah, good to see you guys. D-W-M-A, thanks for being here. Perfect one, wanna let you know, by the way, it's still up in the air, so not for sure. Bible burner, always here to troll. We're glad you are with us hanging out here and Motel Wi-Fi, thanks for hanging out with us. Perfect jelly one. I laughed during the debate. I felt bad because I laughed while justice and T-Jump were talking, because perfect, was it perfect jelly? Perfect jelly one said that allegedly that their keyboard was broken and that's why they were using all caps. I started laughing at that. That was pretty funny. Xerafa, good to see you friend. Let's see, first name, last name. Thanks for having you, or thanks for coming by. And King Hasse, thanks for being with us as well. Mark Reed, good to see you. Amy Newman, Rai Rez. Thank you guys, Jeff Huff. Is it Jeff Huff? Let me know if I pronounced it right. And Lawson Harrison says no. Thanks for being with us, Lawson. No final decision yet. Partly depends on converse. Lance plays LOL. Thanks for hanging out with us, buddy. We do appreciate you being here. And Mylia Rydberg, thanks for being with us. Let me know if I mispronounce your name. Anybody. So I do want to pronounce people's names right. And BRTLE, thank you for hanging out with us. Shadow Mayor, good to see you again. Soldier of Science, glad you're back. Tony Hunter, glad you were here once again. And TSZYMK77, stoked that you came by, my friend. And Ophir, is it O-F-I-R, Ophir? Glad you're here. And King101, good to see you again. But yeah, I'm pumped you guys and want to tell you about upcoming debates. So tomorrow, we are excited. Ariel Scarcella and Kay Fellows pictured right here. See, there's Kay right here. They will be on tomorrow. That's going to be epic, folks. We're really excited about that. And so, you don't want to miss it, folks. It's going to be a blast. And so, do be sure. If you haven't yet, hit that little bell notification next to the subscribe button. And so I think that's how it works. You hit subscribe, then the bell notification menu, the little drop-down menu comes. And that way you won't miss that debate live is that's going to be a lot of fun tomorrow night. And we hope to see you back here for that one. If this is your first time, want to give you a huge welcome, want to remind you, or maybe it's the first time you've ever heard, we're a non-partisan platform. So this debate, we will never have, let's see, we'll never have videos that take a side. It always is going to be debaters. And so if you ever hear my opinion, it's because I'm participating in a debate on the channel, which I don't do it as much, but I do want to, in the future, I do love debating. It's fun. It's therapeutic. And there's a lot of good that can come out of debate. You get to hear new ideas, and people are trying to bring their best in terms of their ideas. And so it's like, hey, there's a lot of, like there's a lot that can be good from debate. And let's see, Bruce Wayne, good to see you again. The Sinegeek, synagogue, synagogue. Thank you for being with us, CJ. I don't, I still don't know how to pronounce your name, man, it's so esoteric and cool. Joe Ollert, thanks for being with us, Tony Hunter. Mashi-M, or Masha-Me-M, glad you're here. Seth Nessmith, I loved your question for D-Jub. Not even logical, fallacies, but yeah. Thanks for your idea, Sean Kelly, by the way. That would be cool if we could get an app on how do we, like in terms of showing people screen. I feel like it might overwhelm some of the speakers. Some of the speakers, I'm not trying to, you know, like it's different strokes for different folks, different people do different things. The only thing I would say, Sean Kelly, I love your idea. The only thing is like with an added app. I guess if it was me, so maybe I could say, hey, send me your PowerPoint beforehand, then let me know when you want me to click through it and I could show the PowerPoint from my side. Because that way, you know, that's a piece of cake, doing it through OBS. That way the guests wouldn't be burdened with the extra, you know, kind of tech stuff of, you know, an app, an extra app. So it's possible. Frankly, it's a little bit challenging just because sometimes I'm like, simultaneously trying to monitor that the debate's going fairly and the chat. And yeah, so it's, some debates would be easier than others. I'm open to it. We'll think about it. And Tim Durand, thanks for hanging out with us, Tim, says, please do a debate at least once this year, James. If you did, what topic would you feel comfortable with? Oh, that's a fun one. You know, I was thinking about this, I think, recently. I'd probably debate whether or not Christianity is dangerous, maybe whether religion is dangerous. Those are fun topics. And I would take a slightly different angle from what you've seen, but it's, frankly, it wouldn't be that new. And that's frankly kind of why I'm not, I just don't feel compelled to do it because it's like, I do like more empirical questions now. I used to be really big on more philosophy topics. So like, does God exist? And those are still fun. I do enjoy those. But now I'm more into like empirical, like what is the psychological data say? Cause like, that's now what I'm doing is working on my PhD in psychology. So I love psychology. I do have a passion for it. So that might be fun stuff, but Gabriel K says, do one on private versus public education too, James. Oh yeah, that would be interesting. That could work. And then let's see. Boiled pizza, glad to see you again. And all right, there she is. Megan St. Tannis, glad you're back. Sigefredo Sarabius has debate SJ. Oh, that's funny. Good ol' SJ, we haven't had SJ on in a long time. It's gotta be like six months a year. It probably like six months. But yeah, we are pumped you guys. And let's see, Bruce Wayne says, perfect jelly may have had a jellyfish on their shift key. That could be perfect jelly. And let's see. You guys, I am pumped though. I am excited. I think that the last time I just logged into the channel creator studio, I was pumped because it was at 42,999. And we're now at exactly 43,000 subscribers. So thanks for your support. I'm reloading the page to see if it shows on the main page, like how fast it takes to take an effect. Let's see. Oh, still not showing, that's weird. Maybe it just takes like a few hours to update. But you guys, we are pumped. Thank you guys for all of your support. Thank you guys for everything. Seriously, thanks for your likes and your subscribing and all that. It really does mean a lot. You guys make this fun. The more the merrier. We hope you feel welcome no matter where you are, no matter who you are. And Gabriel K says, we need alien debates. James, there is a lot there. I'm open to it. Stephane Bronsard says, hi, James. Hi, Stephane. Or is it Stephanie? It must be Stephane or Stephans. Let me know. Thanks, friends, for saying hello. We're glad you're here. And what else? We have, let's see. Thanks for your encouraging words, Gabriel K. That means a lot. Appreciate it, man. And Larry Letts says, never got that debate on the continued usefulness of the Electoral College. That could be interesting. We should have done that right before the election. That actually would have worked then. Political debates have kind of cooled off since then, but I'm open to it. Another one, what was I gonna say? That made me think of, oh, it might. Yeah, so there's some interesting topics. I would take a moderate view on the role of higher ed. So it's interesting, there's a lot of polarization on higher ed online. Some people are like, oh yeah, higher ed, like of course you should. You should for sure go to college. That's not me. There are also, though, people who are like, college is just dumb. And I'm like, well, if you go to a doctor, are you hoping they went to medical school? Like, there are good reasons for college, not for everybody. I think for some people, it's like, yeah, probably would be happier without college and there's nothing wrong with that. I was like, great, you know, different strokes for different folks. But I am like, so I kind of fall in the middle where I would say, hey, I think for a lot of people, especially if you wanna go into like a professional career, if you wanna be a lawyer, you're, well, I mean, maybe, let's see. Well, yeah, if you eventually wanna become past the bar exam and stuff like that, then higher ed is a good route. Same thing with, like I said, being a doctor or a dentist and other things too. But not all jobs and I would concede there are jobs where you can make a huge amount of money without any college education. And it's like, hey, cool. So I'm like kind of in the middle where I would say, you know, I would say like, I would never say like, everybody should go to higher ed like college. And I would never say that it's like dumb though too. And I'm surprised that some people will take these extreme views or it's like, I'm more in the middle. Larry Letts, let's see. Stripper liquor, good to see you. Says, S.H.A. is hanging online with the Maddox crew sometimes these days. Ah, I didn't know that. John from America says, James, you're cooler than I realize I, than I realize I just wanna say hi. I just got here. Thanks John from America for your kind words, buddy. And Mark reads, thanks James and all caps. Thank you. Seriously, you have no idea how much that means to me. It really does because this is like, sometimes it's kind of tiring because you know, sometimes we put out an email and like, hey, we would love to have you on. And you know, a lot of those emails we never get a response to. So it's like, it's a lot that goes on behind the scenes. And so that seriously, your positivity encourages me. BRTLE says, can I ask if there are any subjects you'd consider too reprehensible to host? Like practically speaking, I know I'm just gonna be real. Like YouTube has been a good platform for us. So the only reason we won't host a topic is if YouTube would like, come down on us. We've actually had no strikes, which in my opinion is kind of crazy. None? Really? Zero? That's crazy. We've had some controversial topics and some controversial people to say the least. We've never had a strike. So I've got to say, YouTube's been pretty good to us. So I do want to stay on the YouTube platform because I think they've treated us well actually. So I would say topics that offend YouTube I wouldn't do. That's about it. Otherwise I'm kind of, I really do believe if you have good debaters, you know, evenly matched debaters in terms of skill, the truth ought to come out. In other words, like you should see the view or the position that's more reasonable. Vicki Otoro, thanks for being with us as I homeschool my kids. Their curriculum is secular and based off of common core standards. Thanks for sharing. And Vicki, we're glad you're here. Thanks for hanging out with us by the way. And let's see. Bible Burner says, James, I'd like to meet you and everyone in the chat for beer one night. That could be fun. Maybe when we're doing, what is it called? When we do our traveling debates this summer, I'm like almost certain, you guys. We're gonna go for it. We're gonna try to do some in-person debates this summer. That's my plan. I'm really excited about it. Things are looking optimistic with how things are going. So Seth Nesmith says, I'm sure a lot of people would totally pay to see debate in person with you as the moderator. 50,000 subscribers, all you need is 200 people. I'm confused. We're not that, do you, like, we're not that close to 50,000 subs. We're at 43,000. So we're 7,000 away. But I feel like I misunderstood your question unless you just kind of, maybe just the numbers were, it looked, because for me earlier today, it looked like it was at 49. My mind was just playing tricks on me. Platium says, good morning. And Zirafa, let's see. More people prefer Pepsi that they're wrong. And let's see. Oh, I didn't even know that. Crepetus says, you can't even take an LSAT without a bachelor's. Oh, I didn't even know that, that's interesting. Lawson here says, James, predatory loans and fractional reserve banking are not capitalism. Debate. That's interesting, yeah, that might work. And then Joe Ollert says, is the word that you spelled really taboo on YouTube, how are going to have a debate on that if the word can't be used? That's a good question. Frankly, that debate might be like risking a strike. So it might not be a good idea. I'm not sure. I think we'd be okay, because it's a debate. If it's not clear there's a debate on the issue, I don't wanna bring it up. But I think that YouTube might give us more grace when they see, whoa, they're like, sometimes we host really controversial debates on let's say race and police brutality and they're, I should not have mentioned those. But anyway, I think YouTube when they see us giving a platform to both sides, they are like more tolerant, they're more okay with it and they don't get a, so hopefully that goes okay, I don't know. Gabrielle Kay says, are you gonna have Aaron back on? We'd love to, maybe in the future, we'll, time will tell. We'll reach out to him in the future again and we hope Aaron's doing well. I don't know if I told you guys this story, but I met Aaron in person, I loved him. He's just an authentic guy and I know that some of you might notice that once in a while, Aaron sometimes is cranky if depending on who he's debating. But I can tell you though, getting to meet him and just have a conversation is just like, he's very, there's an authenticity about him that I just really enjoy and so we really do hope he's doing well and if you ever think Aaron has a temper, you should see my temper. I mean, it was like, we'd run out of ethernet, internet space, that's how bad it would be if you saw it. So it's, but a perfect one said, not that I think my opinion matters over much, but tell me that you caught my telling you that I was not gain saying granting Godless girl amnesty, I'm in favor of it. Okay, so you'd like Godless girl to be back on. Thank you. Sorry about misunderstanding that. And let's see. Yeah, yeah, let's see. BRTLE, Brittle says, I asked because it seems like subjects revolving around the benefits of blank or the humanity of non-blanks would be widely rejected as being beyond the pale, but you almost hosted a debate discussing the actual legitimacy of tea people, which would be, which should be equally repugnant. No, let's see, was it discussing the actual legitimacy? Oh, I think you're, so the last debate we were gonna have with Sargon and, what's his name? Mouthy Infidel. I think that was more gonna be on the topic of, oh, the sports thing. Yeah, that's what I anticipated at least. I might be wrong, but we are okay with frankly debating the legitimacy of anything though. I mean, like, I don't know if you guys know it, we hosted a debate before on like, is Christianity a hate group? Did that offend some Christians? Like maybe some, I mean, some of them got thick skin and they're like, I don't care. But you know what? Like we're pretty much willing to offend anybody. Now we welcome everybody, but I mean, we, it's like, yeah, I mean, if you, if people wanted to debate the legitimacy of Christians or atheists or you name it, like we would say, yeah, we're willing to host the uncomfortable questions. And it's not that we enjoy, you know, triggering people. It's that we do believe in kind of this open discourse. And so we don't allow hate speech. Everybody knows that. That's always been the rule, but, but yeah, like we'll host controversial stuff. So Joey E says, what did I miss? Glad you're here, Joey E. We're, I was just, I was just thinking, man, I haven't been triggered for a while. Dave, glad to see you here. Says that might as well call this the T jump debate channel. It's true. We do have T jump on a lot. I, you know, we love Tom. We, we really do. We love justice as well. And as he has an off says, why is there a small number of subscribers? It's true. Look at us. We have big aspirations folks. Let me tell you the goal. In the future, we seriously do 100% plan on modern day debate being big time. And by that, I just mean we have huge aspirations for creating an even bigger platform where everybody gets to make their case on a level playing field. We are determined folks. Believe me, we're going to do it. This channel will always be a debate channel and it's going to become bigger and bigger. So don't bet against us folks. Join in as we fulfill the vision of creating a fully equal platform where everybody has a chance to make their case on that level playing field. And so we do appreciate you guys and helping with that. And you guys, we have, what is it, 120 people. If we can get to 200 likes, I will show you what's behind the curtain. I know that some of you have seen this, but this back here, you guys, this is a curtain. Do you see that? Look, I'm poking it. That's a curtain. I will show you. If we can get to 200 likes, everything behind the curtain right now, no matter what it is, no matter how juicy or how much it frightens you. And so do hit that like button if you want to see behind the curtain folks. Believe me, it's going to be epic. And Mark Reed, glad you're here Lenny Cash. Let's see. Spagilla13 says, every Friday should be Wotan. Well, maybe we'll see about that. We're up to 193 likes folks. That's awesome. We're almost there. So we can do this. We can make it. And said, oh, air church said, we need more peeps on Twitch. We do, we really should expand. So we are looking for more Twitch debaters. And that's something that I should be working on. And R-F-F-E-F-C-E says, James, can you try to do a debate on panpsychism with Tijon P hates panpsychism? It would be fun. Oh yeah, you mean with somebody else. I'm not a panpsych person, but that might work. Poor Tom. Oh, Tom, he's a character. Big Don said, should I spoil it for people? Done. We're almost there. We're at 199 likes you guys. The curtain, it's going to be sexy. You guys, I'm going to, I'm going to lift this up. 200 likes, okay, you guys. So, but thank you guys, appreciate it. And yes, you have to see this. You guys, let me, I'll just pull it up all the way. Okay, so this is my normal office. This is like how I just party. And so yeah, it's the real deal. Thanks so much for your super chat, by the way, from Ryuzinski says, Patreon tier where you tattoo our names on you. Oh, that is epic. Seriously, that's funny. Maybe we should do that. That's funny. And then Perfect One says, members of modern native age should push to find more members, recommend to a friend. Please do. If you guys know of a person out there, like a YouTuber or Twitch person who likes to debate, especially like if they've got experience, that's the biggest thing to be honest. They don't even have to, like they don't have to have a big following. If they have big experience, that's really, that's what people enjoy listening to. Like that's the trick is that like people do, I tell my students sometimes, so I teach general psychology and I tell my students, people recognize when there's a good speaker. They know it. Like people are good at picking that up. And so good debaters, that's the biggest thing that helps the channel. And Gabriel K says, and you're from now, you will have Joe Rogan on. You never know, I'm serious, you never do know. You guys, we're pumped about the future and we've got big goals. So I will show you some of the other stuff. Yes, perfect one says, woot, sexy office. Let me show you this, potassium, see that? For real, that's potassium right there, potassium citrate to be specific. I do have potassium daily, I do it on purpose. It's supposed to help prevent gout because I am no joke. I'm on what used to be called the Atkins diet now keto, for real. I went on the keto diet a month ago. I'm sticking with it. So far, so good. But I'm supposed to do this to prevent gout, which is where you get like painful joints. So, so far, so good. This, I will, I'm gonna tell you guys something controversial, something juicy. Let's see, Spigilla 13 says, James in all seriousness, I absolutely love the channel. Some debaters are on so much and the chat is full of many regulars that I feel like this is a loving, dysfunctional family win for all. Thank you for that. I appreciate that, that means a lot buddy. Yeah, we are excited though. We hope it feels like a community. We hope you feel welcome. This right here, yeah, bought this at Costco. The Kirkland brand, I think that's it. Yeah, Kirkland, it was like two years ago now. It's crazy how time flies. Basically, I will admit, I use nicotine. It's a little dangerous. Don't do this at home. But I use nicotine to help me study. So I put, I've never smoked, but I use these, I just stick them in my lip while I study. Also to help like stay awake. Let's see, you've seen this before, my candle. All right, but yeah, you guys, we do appreciate you. And so I wanna say thanks everybody for hanging out with us. Darth Dawkins debunked has arrived. Aaron Lopez, thanks for being with us. You haven't been convinced by Alex O'Connor's case of veganism? Yeah, that's a great question. Oh, that's right. I've just offended all the vegans, not on purpose. I would actually, so there's a tricky thing here. I actually find cosmic's arguments persuasive. I like that he doesn't stick too tightly to name the trait. I would say granting his presuppositions. We don't have the same presuppositions. I would actually be in the same camp as cosmic skeptic. Although I would say is it impossible to do keto while still being vegan or at least vegetarian? Oh, stripper liquor says Atkins isn't the same as keto. Good to know. I didn't know that. I thought it was. But yeah, Tuss Beatbox says is keto the low carb, high fat? Yes, it definitely is. And yes, we do appreciate you guys hanging out here. I gotta go, I've got a letter to quick write that I'm behind on. Gabrielle Kay said, made me jump when you said potassium and held a bag up. We don't want you to catch on fire. Is it, is potassium flammable? Huh, I didn't know that. Platium says join the MDD discord by the way guys. That's right, please do you guys. We highly encourage you to do that as Platium and people like Larry let's do a great job. I'm so sorry I'm absent from there. It's just so hard to learn you guys. It's so hard. Bear with me. It took me so long to learn Twitter. I still don't know how to Twitter. So please be patient with me. But I would say it's true we do have a discord and it's linked in the description. So CS Spencer ND says keto vegan is a thing. I didn't know that, that's cool. And CS Spencer ND says Atkins is a type of keto. Oh, okay, that's interesting. Thanks for that. Appreciate you adding that. And thanks for your Super Chat Ryuzinski. Really appreciate that. Says I voted you to start a second channel called Ancient Day Debate where the debaters use trial by combat to determine who is correct. That would be fun. I do like that, that has a nice appeal to it. And Oldboy says you don't have to use meat for keto but I can see how it would make it easier. But you can be plant-based in keto. But social slacker, thanks for being with us. Glad you made it as well. And so yes, we do hope you all have a great rest of your night. We'll be back tomorrow. As you guys, we're excited for it. You don't wanna miss it. It's going to be tomorrow night. It's going to be live. And we are stoked as the charming K-Fellows and the charismatic Ariel Scarcella. Join us for a debate on this controversial topic you're seeing at the bottom right of your screen. And so it's gonna be fun guys. Hope to see you there. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care everybody. Thanks so much for all of your support. I love you guys.