 Hey everybody, today we're debating veganism, ethics, and nutrition, and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. If it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, I want to let you know we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics, and we want to let you know as well that no matter what walk of life you are from folks, we hope you feel welcome we're glad you're here and cool you guys we are pumped. If you have not hit that subscribe button yet please do so now so you don't miss this epic debate tonight namely Vosh and Endernax will be debating tonight on Modern Day Debate on this channel they'll be debating socialism versus capitalism so hey hit that little notification bell as well if you want to be sure that you don't miss that debate it's going to be epic. Want to let you know if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and you haven't heard that we have a podcast now folks pull out your phone open up your favorite podcast app and see if you can find us if you can't find us let me know we'll work hard to get on your favorite app but we are on the major apps including Spotify, Apple you name it and so we hope that's useful to you and we've been super encouraged by how many people have been using that so hey that's awesome and we're going to get into today's debate so for today easy going format kind of like an eight to ten minute flexible opening statement from each side we're going to be starting with the professor following that we will go over to vegan gains for his opening and then open conversation after those opening statements followed by Q&A so if you have a question feel free to fire it into the old live chat and if you tag me with at Modern Day Debate makes it easier for me to get every question in the Q&A list so thanks everybody and with that want to introduce our guests and say thank you we're thrilled to have them and so we'll start with vegan gains Richard thrilled to have you back and if you want to share what could people expect to find at your link to your YouTube channel in the description so I mostly cover veganism related topics so I talk about animal ethics and I also cover health nutrition fitness so I do a lot of weightlifting content as well and occasionally I'll delve into some political issues as well it is a I've always enjoyed your style so it's a it's a fun channel folks it's definitely it's spicy and so with that we will kick it over to the professor we're thrilled to have you here first time with us so thank you for being here and if you want to share about your background we're thrilled to have you thanks so much yeah my pleasure so yeah I'm a huge fan of vegan gains I must say I watch all your videos and I think you and I agree or I agree with you on almost everything that you talk about I myself am a trained physicist PhD and physics and a professor I'm an atheist I'm not a vegan although my diet is very heavily plant-based you know 80 to 90 percent plants I am an occasional hunter and fisher I maybe if I'm lucky once a year and health-wise I'm very well into my 40s pretty healthy body fat about 15 to 20 percent and I am also an avid weightlifter and I think actually Richard you and I have similar numbers I'm about a 300 bench 350 squad and a 450 deadlift although I've probably been doing it longer than you yeah so that's that's a background of me should I get into my kind of my my stance here absolutely so with that we'll jump into the openings and the floor is all yours professor thanks for being with us yeah so my stance is pretty so I guess the debate topic as I would formulate it is is one that many have formulated I think with Richard in the past which is that I do not believe that veganism is obligatory to be either moral or have excellent health okay that's it okay so I do think veganism is a moral obligation I think for the same reason we give human beings a right to life we should grant a similar right to life to animals so my challenge to I'm sure you've heard this before my challenge to meat eaters is name the trait so name a trait that is lacking in animals that justifies murdering and eating them but if you were to find a similar traits or a lack of those same traits in human beings in order to be morally consistent you would have to bite the bullet and say okay we should take away you know the right to life from those humans that are trait equalized animals and for the most part I would agree with you you don't necessarily need to be vegan for optimal health I would say on average vegans do tend to be healthier they tend to have lower risk of multiple chronic diseases but I mean if you were to compare a vegan diet to a diet that is very low in animal products you probably wouldn't find much of a difference between each population but with that said I do think you know probably it is best to avoid animal products for ideal health again vegans just tend to be healthier on average and but you can be healthy as a vegan great yeah I guess this is great I think we can save some time because I think I'm basically an 100% agreement with you I don't think veganism is obligatory for excellent health you know I think if you follow essentially the nutritional guidelines of the government eat mostly plants and with saturated fats that you can have some chicken breast and fish and that it's actually probably beneficial given your particular circumstances so you know just for me for example I looked into you know I don't know what your stance is on protein but you know all what you hear from people is that you should get about a pound of protein sorry a gram of protein per pound of body weight so for me it's about 200 210 grams of protein per day and it's just very difficult to do that in a vegan diet you know we can go into details of that but well it can be done it's a I would say it's essentially a bland diet and not something that you'd necessarily want to live by and and I think it's actually just probably healthier to be able to include some animal products in that scenario but I agree I think you can be healthy very healthy on a vegan diet and on average the vegans are probably healthier than non-vegans although I would take some issue with the data on that just that you know I think you understand that it's very difficult to do a very properly controlled study on human beings and the expectation of the difference in health as you can measure by any given factor is going to be relatively small the variation across the population is going to be relatively large and so while you can make the statement that on average the vegan diet is healthier than a non-vegan diet I think that what you might expect as an individual if you're already a relatively healthy person is to have essentially no change in your in your health markers by going vegan so would you more or less agree with everything I've just said I have a few disagreements so it doesn't really matter like I don't know if it's a big enough of a deal for you to like flesh it out in the debate maybe we could just skip over it but I would disagree that it's difficult to get enough protein on a vegan diet like I eat around 200 grams of protein per day you know doing weightlifting it's pretty easy especially with supplements protein powder like I just have like a protein shake in the morning maybe another one later in the day and then I just eat some high protein foods like lentils beans toe foods really not a big deal and on top of that I like vegans do tend to have lower levels of cholesterol on average they tend to have lower BMI they they tend to have lower risk of diabetes and that seems to be independent of BMI there's just an inherently lower risk for meeting vegan that's probably due to higher fiber intake so I do think the diet does have some unique benefits to an omnivorous diet again like if we were to do some sort of properly controlled study where you compare you know a diet that doesn't contain much animal products but just a little bit compared to a purely vegan diet you probably wouldn't see that much of a difference between each group each group I do think the vegan diet would probably edge out the infrequent meat eater diet but I do agree like there's a lack of randomized trials we're mostly relying on just population data and you know population data you can get populations of people that eat like crap and then you end up comparing them to people who are more healthy you get a lot of you know confounding variables but I think for the most part we agree with each other here cool yeah so I mean I guess that wraps that up so so I guess we could say that a vegan diet is not obligatory for have excellent health no no I wouldn't say so okay cool so you want to move on to morality then yeah sure great well I guess let's see how would you like to start the debate I mean yeah so why yeah so yeah so why do you think it's okay to slash animals throats open okay so um I mean yeah I'm happy to answer that question but very do I'd actually like to ask you a question I think it'd be elucidating and that is that it's the same question to you I heard you say on your stream that there are circumstances in which you think it's okay so can you just clarify that like circumstances where it's okay to eat meat or torture animals torture animals let's say eradicate animals eradicate so I don't know if you equate that to okay sure okay sure so I think circumstances where it would be okay to eradicate a species is perhaps if they're an invasive species and killing them would reduce harm overall to other wildlife I do think it's okay to eradicate some predatory species again depending on whether or not eradicating them would reduce harm overall and it like in terms of meat eating I would say it's more really acceptable to eat meat like if you have to survive like say you're stranded on a desert island like I mean if you have to kill a fish or a crab or something to live I think the the like length the lifespan of a human being the quality of life the amount of well-being it can experience is greater than that of like a crab or a fish or something so I think it would just make sense to basically kill another animal like that to save your own life in that sort of circumstance but otherwise like I mean if you know we're modern human beings that live next to supermarkets I don't think we should be you know slashing animals throats open when we have plant-based alternatives right so my answer is the same answer I think there are circumstances that essentially require it and I think the definition of require is key and that we can get into that later before we do that though I think you know I hate to go into the whole his morality subjective or objective but I do think that we just I think we can do it quickly and I think it is important to do I mean you called yourself you stated many times that you're a moral subject in this or you do not believe that morality is objective is that correct yeah I like I don't know if there's a specific definition for moral subjectivist but I don't believe that morality is objective it's a subjective thing that we basically have to agree on communally so then how can okay I'm just gonna go back to the props into the debate which is that veganism is obligatory to be moral how that those two things seem intractable okay well no this is just based on you're like some normative ethical beliefs that we share so if you have some of these you know ethical beliefs that human beings should have rights like a right to life then I think by extension you do have an obligation to grant that to animals so I'm not making a statement that morality is objective and subjective at the same time I'm just saying based on some beliefs that we already agree upon you would have an obligation in order to be consistent with your moral views to grant some of these rights to animals are you saying that it's impossible for somebody to live in our society and not have the same beliefs that you have as an individual because I guess you know the obvious point here that I can have I can have an I can have a different set of beliefs from you right that that generated moral code that I live by and according to my moral code I am moral even though that conflicts with your moral code yes sure so that would mean I could be moral by the definition of I think what it means to be moral and not be a vegan if my moral code doesn't include veganism yeah I mean like you could be Hannibal Lecter and think like you know it's okay to kill and eat people like okay based on his moral code he's being moral but you know again this is something like you know morality something that essentially it's it's something that encourages pro social behavior so it is something that kind of has to be agreed upon communally I mean maybe it's a tech maybe I'm being too technical in the wording but I just want to make sure that we agree on that that the definition of morality is that you follow a code of different pre-defined more you know rules and if you follow those rules and you're being moral and if your rule do not include being vegan and you can be moral and not vegan right but you could have some conflicting moral views and I think that's something that name the trade is good at pointing out right but wouldn't you say that okay well why don't we get into that but so then before we move on I just want to make sure that we agree that by the definition of the debate here being a veganism is not obligatory to be moral you would agree with that statement no not necessarily so again if you have a set of moral principles like we can agree on something like fundamental human rights humans deserve a right to life if we can agree upon that then I do think by extension you have an obligation to grant animals a similar right to life yeah I'm not I'm not following you but maybe we can just move on yeah I guess maybe actually what might get to this issue is as we talk about very quickly like moral codes and okay well wait wait just just to clarify things like would you say you have to not rape children in order to consider yourself to consider someone moral like if somebody was a child this could you say I think what we could do is if it's okay with you if we could just go through kind of like a high level of how we define morality and I think why don't we get into these exact I want to talk about name but no I I'm just trying I don't think we need to do that I'm just saying like look we we can agree on a set you know number of moral standards we don't have to go into like this meta ethical discussion on like what is morality like we agree on a set you know number of moral standards like would you personally consider someone who rapes children a moral person like probably not the first the first thing I would say is that you and I do not agree on a set of moral standards because you're a vegan and I'm not so the premises we do well no no no we do agree on some moral standards like we agree that children right yeah yeah of course right yeah I think we both well okay so then could also just clarify one thing is that there's a little morality is essentially just a list of rules that we agree to live by right and I think what you're trying to do is say that those rules must follow from a set of axioms yeah and I think a very important point is that that is not a requirement to generate a list of rules you can generate a lift to list of rules but I have without having them be derivable from axioms and I think actually our existing rules you know hours hours being the society we live in a legal system is a great example of that it's essentially just a hodgepodge of rules that some of them are based on on some ideas and some of them are essentially just added for practical reasons and I'm just trying to point out that what you define as moral is based on this list it's not how we feel about the action it's what's on this list in fact I would argue that feelings are a very bad way to generate a moral code because what feels good may not necessarily be good right you can come up with many things you just talked about child rape you know the child rapist may really enjoy that but we shouldn't allow that to be a rule in our moral code or we don't have to right so I'm just trying to make a distinction that a moral code is just a list of rules it's not necessarily derived from a set of axioms it can be but it doesn't have to be and it doesn't even have to be to be useful right you can in fact I would say that an axiomatic moral code is probably a bad way to make a moral code because it inevitably leads to contradictions right there's no reason that the set of rules that our existing society follows should be derivable from a fixed set of axioms because because they weren't generated that way right the the the the law that we have is something that people basically came up with over time to generate a stable society so if you if you force the you know having to derive axioms or derive your rules from axioms you're kind of placing a constraint that is almost impossible to satisfy so I just want to make that clear that I think you just kind of contradicted yourself you said we derive so you said we derive some of these moral principles or laws from like out of pure practicality well yeah um that like that could be an axiom like to generate more well-being like what do you mean right right so um but at that point though wouldn't you say that you're essentially just what's the point of having the axioms I guess why don't you just just just to find the rules why do you need the axioms what are they at okay well we generate rules to achieve a certain goal like producing more well-being like the reason why we say you know it's wrong to steal or it's wrong to kill it's wrong to rape like it's illegal it's because it just generates more well-being it prevents people from harming each other and it creates pro-social behaviors that are beneficial to us if we didn't care about some sort of axiomatic principles like producing more well-being then we wouldn't create these rules in the first place I mean I just agree I think the reason that we have a moral code is that we can all exist in a large and stable society yeah I think it's essentially it's a it's a side effect of our of our evolution okay well we have the goal of achieving greater well-being and improving our survival like having our society continue yeah um okay well-being well-being is a is a is an addition that is well-being um it doesn't sound like that to me okay well I think probably correspondent but identical okay existence versus well-being is a little bit different but in order to have well-being you have to exist so I'm I think I'm saying that I'm saying that um the moral system that we have today in our society let's say right is the consequence of history um and the reason that it exists is because it led to our society that that is a stable stable way to generate interactions between human beings that they can generate the society that we have as I'm basically making like an evolutionary argument I guess you could say right there's many moral codes that you can write down but the one that we have is sort of a horse historical one that led to a society that is our society and it doesn't need to be derivable from a set of simple axioms that's the only thing I'm saying I'm saying axioms are not necessary to generate a moral code that's all okay I I think I get what you're saying but I still see this is sort of self-contradictory like we have the like we have the goal of existing okay like we don't even have to like incorporate well-being into this since we have a goal that's an axiom how we just do exist well we have if we okay well wait if we don't have a goal of existing then can you explain how these uh like these rules and principles and laws are created if that's not a goal we have I mean it's evolution right okay but we're willing to exist we're conscious creatures do you believe we're conscious creatures like humans uh I don't know how this has to do anything okay so okay so are you telling it are you telling me everyone throughout history never thought of continuing their own existence or the existence of no of course not she is really no one ever thought about how how we could better survive I'm not saying I didn't say I didn't say that I said I don't I was responding to your question to me I agree with that question I think I think that human beings want to survive because they're animals and we evolved and survival is essential survival is essential to to evolution you know the genes that that don't have a desire to survive don't pass on their genes so so what that means is that evolution essentially you know has programmed into us this is this desire to to live but um there wasn't a desire to live before there was an animal right sure okay I I agree you need consciousness to have a desire for anything including survival yeah so I don't know maybe we're at an impasse here um I guess yeah I guess all I'm trying to say is that you know you can have different kinds of moral codes morality is all made up by people it's essentially a side effect of our evolution that we live in in groups and it helps us not kill each other and essentially maximize our our ability to reproduce by living in groups and that there is no there is no requirement to have an axiomatically derived moral code for that I actually think that almost every moral code that people follow is historical essentially it's a unique path through evolution through a cultural individual and cultural evolution so that's kind of my statement on the point I don't know if you want to add anything to that maybe we can move on to some more like specific examples I think you wanted to get into okay the issue I have is it sounds like you're trying to say that no one ever consciously makes any sort of decision to make some sort of moral principle or law in regards to maximizing okay you're not no okay I'm saying that the universe doesn't doesn't care okay but we evolved we evolved in the universe to do just you know you know organic material turning into animals and as a consequence of us essentially of evolution you have a desire to survive and and you have a desire and it appears that to be a very successful animal on this earth it's useful to live in groups and to have morality to facilitate that okay I think I see where this conversation is going to end up going so are you saying it's okay to kill animals because it does not harm the social structure of humanity no I'm saying it's it's I'm saying that well so you use the term okay and that's I'm sorry to be nitpicky but but okay by by what metric are you saying how do I feel about it or whether it's moral or not yeah like whether it's moral whatever right so so the answer is then it depends on your moral code if you think it's okay to kill animals according to your moral code and it's moral okay and universe your universe doesn't provide any insight into that right as far as I can tell right and since you're okay and since you're debating me on this issue you're saying it is moral to kill an animal for food well if if you think that it's moral to kill an animal for food then it's moral by by definition I wasn't going to debate premise okay so according to you you could think anything is moral and have a justification for it so I could think slavery is wrong but rape is okay like that that's just totally fine with you no so again you're kind of being a little sloppy in your terminology you're saying fine do you mean how do I feel about it or whether it's no whether it's moral so you're telling me sorry it's not moral it's not moral because we do not allow slavery okay so because we've okay wait so are you saying because we've collectively decided whether or not something is moral therefore it is or is not moral yeah I mean that was what I was trying to get to earlier when we were talking about the meta effects is what is the basis of how you generate a moral code and I think it's actually essentially a popular vote in history and I think we you know we voted over time and decided that slavery is now wrong okay so the Holocaust in Nazi Germany was right at the time morally right well to the people that were perpetrating it I mean otherwise why did they do it okay uh well there maybe you could disagree with them but no um there are people who do things that they know are moral but um other uh let's not speculate I wasn't actually at the concentration cast myself right so I don't know I assume well people that did it felt that they were doing what was right but so maybe they didn't so yeah there are people who do things that they know are wrong but um conflicting desires I guess you could say uh make them still do it there there was this really great documentary about a genocide in the Philippines and um the people who committed the genocide uh they were actually like horribly guilt-ridden over doing it it's just that yeah they did it over you know political reasons so um just because somebody does an action that doesn't mean they know it's moral and there are like yeah there are um like child rapists who are actually horribly guilt-ridden after after they do it and they actually turn themselves in because they feel so bad about it but um yeah like you read so you're actually telling me that so long as you personally believe it's moral it is there for a moral I mean I think that's the definition of morality I'm not telling you what I I mean I think that that's what it means to be moral I mean do we maybe it's just I'm pointing out a technicality but it just seems to me that independent of me here talking to you um that is the definition of moral okay so you could also uh have a situation where um like do you believe that you could have a situation where you could have a conflict with your moral beliefs but absolutely but each each belief is still moral absolutely so so let's say like you think it's uh morally okay to enslave black people but it's not morally acceptable to enslave white people you could say that's a conflict because there is virtually no separation between you know black people and white people they're essentially the same aside from skin color you could say that's like conflicting but you would still say um their moral beliefs um are like it is still moral for them to believe that like that it's okay to enslave what uh black people not white people yeah I guess what I'm saying is that um there's wait okay so between actually let me rephrase that do you think we should be consistent with our moral beliefs um I don't I don't even know what that question means I'm sorry okay I can't I don't want to speculate it's are you saying you do you think you should feel morally consistent or sorry ethically do you think do you think we should be logically consistent with our morality um I don't think that's necessary to generate a moral code that works I mean I think you could point to many it's not necessary to generate a moral code that works sure yeah um exactly I mean slavery worked I mean society still functioned um but I mean do you personally believe we should be logically consistent with our moral beliefs I mean I don't I don't know what that means do I believe it should I'm just telling you do you personally believe do you personally believe that we should be logically consistent with our moral beliefs um so are you saying that there should be a an axiom from which all of our moral beliefs are all of our moral beliefs are derived is that what you I'm just saying should do you believe we should what's the definition of logical consistency what does that mean in that case if I have a list of rules and it says you can do these things and you can't do those things what you're saying is those rules need to be derivable from a set of axioms that's how you derive that's how you define logical consistency right that's what you're saying wait say that again you're saying is the definition of logical consistency that all of the rules in your moral code are derivable from a simple set of axioms is that what you mean by logically consistent no it doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with a moral system deriving from a set of axioms I'm just saying so then how can you have two moral let's say how can you have two rules then if they're just rules that are written down there's no axiom that derives them how can you have two rules that are logically inconsistent I mean there's the obvious one it's like it is and it isn't right but um I guess I don't understand but yeah I don't really understand honestly I think I think what you're doing is you're kind of mixing the difference between moral and feel right and what I would say is that uh you should say how do you feel about the Holocaust right versus was it was it moral right moral depends on the moral code of the particular people that were perpetrating it you know if I am to say well it was immoral well according to my moral code it was immoral but I wasn't there right I wasn't part of that group so what's the point of me making a moral judgment on that it doesn't I mean I can do that right I can I can just I can decide to make that moral judgment but what's the point so how do I feel about the Holocaust I feel that it was bad yeah so logical consistency wouldn't necessarily be dependent on you know basing things off of some fundamental axioms uh you could you could use logical consistency in the sense that whether or not rules are applied evenly across the population you could still run into conflict with certain laws even though they like they aren't based on any axioms great example of this is with like electric bicycle laws they're really weird you can have there's restrictions on the wattage output of the motor but there isn't any restriction on the battery but the wattage output of the motor all that like all the wattage output of the motor it's not based on the maximum power output it's based on how long it can sustain that output without like basically burning out so you could have like a massive battery in an e-bike that lets you go like 100 kilometers an hour uh without modifying the motor uh the motor so you could have conflicts in laws like this where they try to like limit the speed of a vehicle but they also allow you to modify the battery so that it could go way faster like so no um when I mean by logical consistency is whether or not laws conflict with one another whether or not they're applied consistently over the population huh yeah I think you should avoid that absolutely no if I if I understand what you're asking yeah you should obviously have no rules that conflict in your law code so you can't satisfy both okay okay sure and so uh let's say when it comes to something like the united states constitution when it's when it was first developed um you know it granted people you know a right to life freedom but slavery was still allowed so do you think we should apply these sort of moral rules consistently across the population regardless of being white or black then you're asking do I think do you mean me like like living today personally yeah you personally absolutely we should we should not we should not discriminate based on on race but that's because you know I was raised in this like the fact that I feel that to be true right and the fact that I think that it's moral to not discriminate based on race I have to fully admit as a consequence of the fact that I was raised in the society where that has been something we you know I was taught since I was born right but I can't make that same claim of like an egyptian right who enslaved jews uh you know thousands of years ago because they were raised in a different um in a totally different society so to them it was moral to do it and it probably felt fine okay so uh you realize there were people who are against slavery since slavery has existed of course like there there were people who are against slavery of course yeah okay and if you were living in that time do you think uh it would be better to be on the slide of anti-slavery or pro-slavery well what do you mean by better uh what it like based on your own moral views do you do you think it's uh better having grown up in the 20 21st century of course it's better to not slavery okay let me just ask you this do you think it's uh better to create more well-being or less well-being personally yeah so um okay so that's a I think that's a good place for us to go uh is is um let's say are you basically saying that well-being should be an axiom from which we derive a set of moral rules uh sure yeah uh I think we should uh definitely consider well-being okay um yeah I mean I guess what I would say about well-being is that first of all it is just an axiom right so to be clear um I do not believe that you need to define axioms to derive to derive moral code and I think that um and I think you would agree with this that um the axioms that you define are subjective right so yeah so I just want to make it clear that um there's no reason the universe does not tell us that we need to define well-being as like the thing that we need to maximize it's just something we get to choose as individuals and different people can choose different things so you can't spurn somebody for not choosing well-being um because they're an individual they have as much right to not choose well-being as you have to choose it but just for the sake of the discussion let's assume we choose well-being um you know I think that um it's good quote unquote meaning that it feels good to do that and it sounds good like superficially but the problem with well-being maximization by itself is that it um you know at least two to potential cons uh contradictions and and again this is why I think in general axiomatic moral codes are a bad way to make moral code because there's a legal contradiction well um I mean I'll give you some trivial examples that I'm sure you understand but basically the point I want to just make is that um uh we have preferences as individuals based on where we lived where we were raised our life right um there's no reason that any axiomatically derived moral code has to map in perfect congruence with those principles right and in fact you'd expect that that would not be the case most of the time because our you know our preferences are based on history not an axiom so there's going to be conflicts with our preferences in general when you try to derive a moral code for maxioms but if you don't care about that you know trivial examples are like for example um you know maximizing well-being first of all you can't measure well-being right we can only speculate as is there is no measurement of well-being that can tell you that this particular action in this particular organism has exactly this many you know quanta of well-being so we're all basically just hand waving when we're talking about well-being but assuming you could maximize it you start to get to some wacky things like for example you know what is the thought experiment would you would you push one person into the front of a train to save five or or like kill a person to harvest their organisms sorry their organs and save five other lives I mean you can very much if you only care about well-being that you can clearly sure I'm not saying I only care about well-being I understand if you have only one single axiomatic principle where it's just maximizing well-being sure you could take away fundamental human rights we could have other principles like you know personal rights and freedoms that can't be infringed upon just for the sake of benefiting a group and again we can absolutely we can like I'd agree with that but like when we have a choice like do we support or take away slavery okay well it would certainly like maximize like increase the well-being of the slaves because now they'll be free yes and it would only you know be of you know a minor hindrance to the slave owners okay well now they have to pay for employees okay their profits aren't as high right so would you not agree would you not agree that that's a better option than to not have slavery so let me answer the question about well-being so I first of all I totally agree that well-being is something that you could you could use along with other axioms to derive a moral code and and there's no reason to do it and there's no reason not to do it it's simply a preference I mean essentially instead of defining the rules you're defying the axioms but you're still defining something totally subjectively so I just want to make it clear that that is not a moral requirement and I guess I guess I would just point out then like why not just define the rules right why do you need to define this complicated set of axiomatic principles that that can lead to these weird contradictions like just just you know take the next step and and just define the rules and and make sure that they align with your preferences I mean you're it's subjective anyway so why not skip the middle man which inevitably leads to these weird circumstances you know if you're going to have a list of axioms that's as long as the list of rules what's the point right um yeah that's all I have to say on on that do you want to respond yeah I still don't see what the issue is with having certain axiomatic principles like our principles are going to be essentially based on our preferences regardless yeah and sure you might have might have certain axioms that might conflict with each other like you know the exact the axiom of maximizing personal rights and freedoms versus maximizing well-being those can definitely conflict but you can still have conflicts with preferences you can have the preference to want to want to have personal rights and freedoms but you also want to be able to maximize well-being like I don't know it just seems like you're playing a weird word game where like for some reason preferences don't conflict but somehow axiom like axioms do when yeah let me try to clarify that I think I understand what's being what's confusing here so the point is that the axiom is not a moral code is a list of of actual rules that you can either actual actions that you can either take or not take okay the axioms are not those action the axioms are the principles by which that list is generated sure and all I'm saying is there is no need to have these principles in order to generate a usable list you can just generate the list that's all I'm sure but I mean you don't have to you can use axioms if you want sure go for it who might I tell you okay I'm just saying that it's probably better just not to do that just to find the list it's easier and it probably works better in those cases because by definition you can only put things on the list that fits your preferences okay um sure I I think the problem I'm having here is I don't see a meaningful difference between uh like preferences and axioms like obviously the axioms that we're going to value like well-being we have a preference to experience well-being at least vast majority of people so I don't see a big difference between making you know a list of axioms which we base our moral principles and rules on versus just going by pure preference um and and if anything if we like look if anything I think having a list of axioms is a little safer because if we're going to base things purely on preference I think personal preference can um interfere with these rule make these uh making of these rules uh more than having a list of axioms that benefit the group more right I mean I yeah I think we could we could go down this rabbit hole I don't know how helpful it is but I I think um preference there's a little bit of um I think the definition of preference and axioms is being a bit muddled um you know when I say preference I mean like can you do this action or not you you may have a preference to do the action right or not and so you could just make a rule that says that this action is allowable or not you don't need to that's what I meant by preference I'm sorry if you interpreted that to mean a preference is like oh I want to maximize well-being I would call that an axiom that you can derive instead of rules from the rules the rules are you know the actual list of actions that are permitted by your moral by your moral code and um those actions ideally you would like them to not conflict with your preferences meaning like what you would like to do for each of those actions right and I think in terms of like how do we generate you have to you point out an interesting question which is what's a more effective way to make a moral code right and I think that's an interesting point you're you're starting from a presumption that maybe an axiomatic derived moral code is the is the preferable way because it's going to lead to better codes and I guess I would just say that that's not necessarily true um maybe if we were robots and we were starting from scratch that would be true but you know the realities that were you know we were animals that evolved and uh we have a lot of history and so as I pointed out at the beginning you know there's no reason for an axiomatically derived set of rules to perfectly be correspondent with our set of preferences about what we would like to do for any any given action so I would say that well it just seems to me more practical just to define the rules and I'll agree and let's just let's just choose rules that are going to lead to a successful you know society that can wherever it can coexist yeah I don't think we have a huge disagreement here um so I think we might as well just move on um okay so like um why do you have a preference to murder animals um I mean you know you you you said at the beginning the answer to this question could I ask you the same question there are circumstances under which um it's it's required but I think I think that's a great place to go is to define exactly those circumstances okay well okay do you live in the woods with like a bunch of tribes people where you don't have any access to grocery stores or do you okay so why do you prefer to pay for animals to get tortured and murdered rather than just eat plants right so um so I think uh what you're uh what you're talking about here I mean I think the direction you'd like to go is based in maximizing the wellness of the animals and the humans right that's the point um sure we don't want to just maximize the wellness of the humans we want to maximize the the wellness of the animals and the humans um we want to maximize total wellness on the planet no not necessarily um I think like again I still value things like uh personal rights and freedoms um but like if if we're going to maximize wellness I don't know that could lead to some pretty crazy ideas uh yeah agreed but like I'm just asking you why do you have the preference to choose to torture and murder animals versus just eating plants I mean again it's it's the same question that you answer is that there are circumstances under which it's required okay what circumstances require you to torture and murder animals so so like for example um you know you said in the past that if you had like an infestation of let's say rats in your house that you would eradicate them right sure if that was the only way to get rid of them yeah if I didn't infestation of humans in my house I'd eradicate them too somebody break in right so so you agree that there are times to kill yeah okay so I'm asking you yeah no no I'm trying to answer I promise I'm trying to answer so so what is it that that entitles you the right to kill those rats okay I would say uh personal property protecting my well-being those two things I mean the rats going to take your computer or something is that what you're saying uh well no they can spread disease they can eat my food they can make me sick they can bite me um they're also just simply on my property where I don't want them to be like if somebody were to just wander into my home and the only way to remove them was to use lethal force but they weren't doing anything that would directly harm me let's just say they were I don't know sitting in the hallway uh I I still don't want them there and I think because you don't want them there you know what so yeah so I think just because this is my personal property which I own and if if there's a circumstance where the only type of way I could get rid of them is by using lethal force then I think I'm entitled to do that now if there's a less lethal option like when I see bugs or something uh in my house I just pick them up put them outside I don't have to kill them right so if I had an infestation that wouldn't be practical like I wouldn't be able to pick up uh you know literally a million insects that might be hiding inside walls and stuff right so I guess all I'm all I'm trying to point out is that um you've you've determined that your you know your preferences are superior to those of the the rats lives could you just could you just answer like the question dude like why do you have the preference to torture murder animals when you have an option not to well I'm trying to answer the question by you know actually getting into the detail I don't the question is honestly it's just too high level and vague for me to give you an answer that actually makes sense and that's what we're trying to do here trying to give you basically the basis for my answer so um basically what you said is that um there's times when your preferences your well-being are exceed that of the animal that you're going to kill that's all I'm trying to say and that is my answer as well right so um you however you define your god so you're saying just because you like the okay so wait just you're saying just because you like the taste of me therefore it's okay to kill an animal um here's here's uh here's what I would say is that um uh you want to extend it like I wow I thought debating a professor would be a bit more interesting than that tastes good I didn't I didn't I didn't agree with you okay you maybe ran with that a little too fast all I'm saying is that and you agree that there are times when your individual preferences are human exceed the well-being of that animal to live and so you feel justified to kill it so all I'm trying to say is that they're that you know if we let's just say quantify the well-being of all of all organisms right you and the rats in your house you're saying that well-being I think what you're trying to say is that um you actually care about the well-being of the rats so you want to include that in the calculation but you've determined that your well-being by having them dead is larger than their well-being by living in your house as they get by living in your house and so you feel justified to kill them no not even that no not even that um let's assume like we could even apply this to human beings let's say um you know a bunch of human beings moved into my house when I didn't want them let's say their well-being of living in my house far outweighs my well-being of having them not in my house I still think I should have a right to get rid of them just because I own that property yeah right it's mine I think I don't think anyone should have a right to just intrude on my own property like that so if the only way to get rid of them is by murdering them I don't care if I murder like 20 people who just end up living in my house regardless of whether or not their well-being living in the house far outweighs my well-being of them not being in the house I still think I should have a right to use lethal force if necessary to remove them so it has nothing to do with you know they're being a greater amount of well-being um I mean I think it has more to do it has more to do with just personal uh personal property rights that's just my own personal belief okay yeah maybe we could move on um let's see you still haven't answered my question though like why do you have the person preference to torture and murder animals versus not doing so well so so yeah so I guess the answer to my question sorry to that question is that if if I mean my my understanding is that what you and many vegans would like to do is to extend the wellness calculation to all animals not just human animals okay right okay maybe maybe we got um have on a tangent there with the with the infestation but basically that was the that was the argument that I was under the impression most vegans make is that we should not only consider humans in that calculation and um I guess really what it comes down to is that there is no machine that right now can measure wellness accurately okay we we don't know you're not answering the question dude so can you tell me why you have the no you're not can you tell me why you have the personal preference to torture and murder animals when you don't need to right so if you if you try to measure the wellness so what I'm saying is that um the wellness to an human by eating an animal might be larger than the wellness than an animal experiences by dying or loses by dying okay so in that case it makes sense for if we're talking about wellness maximization and considering the wellness of all organisms not just humans it still is justified in terms of maximizing wellness for the human to eat the animal because the animal experiences more wellness than than the animal does that it loses by dying so there's a there's a there's a possibility just mathematically that a human that melt wellness is maximized by the humans eating the animals I mean I think this is not this is the most crazy should have ever like this is amazing honestly um well no for example you say suffering you say animal suffering right so you say animal suffering what is that exactly uh okay so they can suffer in a similar way that we can um they have a brain nervous system no receptors so they can feel pain they can be tortured they can suffer um they can also experience um emotional distress so when you isolate them they can feel lonely they can feel hungry they can feel like detached so like if you rip a baby cow away from its mother it's extremely stressful for both the mother and baby cow other animals are like that too so they can suffer and feel pain in a similar way similar way that we can so like you're telling me the wellness like just the taste pleasure you get from eating bacon is greater than the amount of suffering that they would experience from getting suffocated to death and having your throat slit open I mean I I didn't say that what I said that um what I said is that it's possible to maximize wellness while still having humans eat animals that's all I'm saying okay how in the hell could that be possible when you're you're learning trillions of sentient beings right no exactly I think that's exactly the point right is you have to somehow quantify and this is where I think actually the vegans and non-vegans could maybe um come together is that I think you should just recognize that you fundamentally disagree about the amount of wellness that a human experiences by eating an animal and the amount of and and how how much the animal loses by dying right I think that most people that eat sorry if I could just continue for a moment sure most people that eat animals feel that the animal doesn't really experience very much wellness I mean I understand you disagree with that and I've heard you make you know long arguments about this that are plausible frankly but I think at the end of the day the point is there is no accurate way to measure wellness and so we're all just going to have to choose we're all going to just have to make up our mind and say this is how um how much wellness I think you know a chicken can experience right and and I and you either deem it to be more than your wellness by by eating it or less and the the answer to that question basically determines whether you think it's morally justified to eat the animal or not okay this is okay this is really strange so you're saying because a chicken cannot experience as much wellness as a human being therefore it's okay to murder the chicken I'm saying if you're trying to maximize wellness then you have to calculate how much wellness the human gets versus how much wellness the animal loses by dying right uh and whatever is larger is the moral thing to do according to maximizing wellness okay so when are most common chronic diseases are highly correlated to consuming animal products when most zoonotic diseases come from animal agriculture the recent coronavirus outbreak uh you know as a great example so what two million people in counting have died from a bunch of people thinking that uh you know eating bats is okay um you think that maximizes wellness I mean I'm I'm not making any I'm just talking in theory about um why people disagree with you and other vegans on whether or not it's more unique I think that many people do not think that animals experience as much wellness as many as you as you do you assume that animals experience more wellness than people that eat the animals I think and you just disagree on that point I don't even see how that matters okay like I'm not basing this off of what degree of wellness an animal can experience uh I think they're sentient I mean that was the definition of wellness maximization sorry that's the definition of wellness maximum we we started this saying that we want to maximize wellness for all beings so okay well okay well we'll wait okay well wait a second um how the hell are we maximizing wellness for all beings by systematically torturing murdering trillions of sentient beings each year while increasing risk of disease uh death and pandemic diseases among the human population well can we can we just focus in on the morality issue and not necessarily on on the side of you know the other effects of consuming animals I agree there's a lot of problems with agriculture disease we're just talking about the morality of actually eating the animal okay killing the animal okay so by your okay so by these standards that you're creating let's say we determined that um it would the wellness of a tribes person so like an un-contact un-contacted tribes people like I don't know the Sentinel leaves it's far less than the wellness of let's say you or me does that make it okay for us to enslave the Sentinel leaves because uh we get a ton of wellness from enslaving them versus them not experiencing much wellness anyway I mean absolutely not that's why I think that you know max first of all having an axiomatically derived moral code doesn't make sense right um and and why maximizing well-being leads to okay well I I never said wait wait wait wait wait listen I I never said the only thing I care about is maximizing well-being well what's the justification that of including animals to not eating animals if it's not that because of my opinions on human rights I think sentient beings are talking about animals why should you not kill animals if you're trying to match okay well my trying to maximize their well-being what's the point listen listen my my ideas on animal rights extend from human rights okay I'm not quite sure how that is related maybe you can explain okay so my ideas on why like animals should have a right to life uh it's just an extension of human rights I think for the same reason we grant other human beings a right to live we should grant animals a right to live that's why so I never claimed so look I did say one of my axiomatic principles is to attempt to maximize well-being but I didn't say that's one of like my only axiomatic principle and I don't even really necessarily see how that even if it was my only principle I don't even necessarily see how that um I guess yeah here no I agree I think that we could just have said you know you and I disagree on what our molecular codes are and that could have been the end of it I'm just trying to to to understand like is there do you have a an argument for why we should include I understand you want to include animals in the um you know in the same realm as as human rights of human rights right but what I'm asking is is there a reason to do that do you have an argument for why that should be done and I thought maybe I was okay wait okay your rationale for that is is to maximize their wellness I think I think we can um try and wrap this up a little bit so with these same principles um the same reasoning applied to humans so like the same principle of if we find humans that lack well-being and we obtain well-being from systematically torturing and murdering them would that justify you know torturing and murdering human beings just as we you know torture and murder animals I mean if if what you're saying is that your goal is to maximize well-being and that's all you care about then I mean it would seem I'm asking for you personally well no I'm asking for me personally murdering humans is wrong for me personally absolutely wrong okay okay so then why are okay so wait like you don't see that as like inconsistent so you're saying it's okay to apply these principles wait so you're saying it's okay to apply these principles to humans to animals but not to humans I'm not sure what you're talking about so you were telling me if we find creatures that have that do not have as much well-being that cannot obtain as much well-being as we can and we obtain a significant amount of well-being from systematically torturing and murdering them you're saying that justifies you know if you're if you only want to maximize well-being then yeah that's that's I'm talking about your own personal beliefs no I told you my own personal beliefs is that murdering humans is wrong okay so I don't agree with an axiomatically derived moral code okay are are you just wait wait are you literally just saying that I think it's okay to kill animals because I want to are you talking about yourself no I'm asking you the question I'm not talking to myself I'm asking are you literally just saying you think it's okay to kill animals just because you want to no I'm saying that first of all I guess I'm saying two things what I actually believe is that to be moral in our existing moral code you can kill animals okay that's that's number one number two is that if you this is a thought experiment if you care about maximizing well-being then you can come up with a circumstance where it actually makes sense to kill the animal that's all I'm saying okay okay you know what um no I'm gonna throw I'm gonna just ask you to name the trade again so you're saying we can apply the sort of reasoning to animals where if they lack well-being then it it's totally fine to you know kill them but you're not going to apply that standard to human beings so can you name the trade can you name the trait that's lacking in animals that justifies this difference in treatment yeah I think you didn't understand my answer but um according to the moral code that I live by it's okay to kill animals okay so are you asking me that or are you asking you're you're literally just saying you arbitrarily just decided to murder animals and that's your justification what I'm I mean what I'm saying is that it's moral in in our society to kill animals I'm not sure what else you're asking beyond that okay so if anything is clarified that therefore it's moral so if we live in a society where it's okay to murder gay people that's moral if we live in a society where slavery is okay that's moral we live in a society where it's okay to rape children that's moral that's what you're saying the definition of moral is if okay are you using as justification to eat me are you using society's moral standards as a justification to eat me I guess um what do you mean a justification exactly like are you saying it's moral to eat animals I'm saying it's moral to eat animals what do you mean by justification okay okay so you're saying you're telling me it's moral to eat animals because society says so I'm saying that our society in our society it's more elite animals yes I mean is that new and that is your justification to what do you mean by justification like that's how you justify that that's how you justify that action that's how you justify torturing and murdering animals because society says it's okay it's okay I'm not I'm not exactly who am I justifying it to okay you know what I think this debate's over this dude's just fucking dodging I'm trying to I'm honestly trying to answer your question I really don't understand what you mean by justifying he's just he's just dodging I think he means like justify like give a reason for why you say this is why it would be you recognize it causes harm I'm asking you how is that harm justified and it sounds like you're saying because society says it's okay so is that I think here here's I guess here's here's maybe more color on the other thanks James for for explaining um uh first of all as I think that the the actual answer is that it's moral to eat animals right but but further insight into it is that I personally don't believe that animals experience even a modicum of the well-being that humans experience I think that sense sense is a spectrum and that humans are absolute outliers on that spectrum we're we're so weirdly smart compared to every other animal on this on this planet that we can't even conceive what it's like to be uh one of those animals and so again we've never concocted a machine that can accurately measure well-being but my guess is that we experience a lot more sorry about my baby screaming in the background we experience a lot more well-being than um by eating an animal and that animal loses by dying um that's my personal feeling okay okay so that's how you justify killing animals I mean I would say that's my feeling on the matter is that humans probably experience a lot more well-being okay so okay so that's how you just by killing animals okay so if we trade equalize a human being to an animal where that human being has uh the same limited capacity to experience sentience and well-being as an animal you're saying it's okay to kill the human being and that's and that's because because because in our moral then name the trade then name the trade sorry but um then name the trade name right right that justifies name the trait that justifies that difference in treatment right so the moral again I'll tell you that the moral code that I follow is our you know the moral code that essentially everybody almost everybody in our country follows which is that you should not you're not naming the trade name the trade the trade is human human plus very high intelligence yeah okay so intelligence sentient you know very high sentience and and and humanity is the traits that I think most individuals would agree why you should the the trait is human can you define human the trait yeah the trait is a is a human according to you know the you know all I mean can you define human I don't know what that means I think you know what I mean like genetic like is that some other weird like I don't know esoteric philosophical belief yeah so to be clear that it doesn't need to be one trait right it can be a trait plus another so it's two traits that this is my personal preferences by the way I'm not speaking for everybody the trait is human plus a very high sentience so those two things together make a trait or traits that define animals that you should not kill or I don't think you should kill but yeah maybe you know it's a different question of what I think versus what's moral right I just want to make okay okay so we okay so I gave you a hypothetical where the human is trait equalized to the animal so it has a limited amount of sentience okay right so let's say you found a human being with a limited amount of sentience um this does happen right there are like genetic defects so let's say uh we had some sort of technology where we could change its genetic code so it's no longer human would it be okay to murder the human then and that circumstance since it's no longer human and it's trait equalized so you're saying you take like somebody that has the intelligence of an amoeba and you more no no no no like the intelligence of a cow chicken pig deer the animals that you can eat okay so the intelligence of a cow let's say okay so it's a human being that has the intelligence of a cow and you just you do some magic to it and you turn it into something that looks like a rock and it has rock tna or something but it still has the intelligence of a cow you're asking me why are you using like it's so bizarre how you immediately go to the like oh an amoeba oh a rock like no let's just say it doesn't even have to look different it's okay it turns into a cow it's no longer it has the intelligence of a cow and it turns into a cow is that what you're asking me sure so sorry just to just to clarify forgive me just so like just that it's a human being and it's a one which has low intelligence such that its intelligence would be compatible to that of a cow yeah i mean okay so let's say we so like again uh we could like just modifying its dna so it's not human it could look exactly like a human theoretically but just not be human so it can't interbreed it doesn't have the you know chromosomes and dna that a human has but it could look exactly the same you'd be in favor of murdering that creature yeah it's a if it's well i mean when you say it's not a human but so it lacks human dna but it looks exactly like a human i mean i think that would be that would be hard to kill to kill something that looked like a human because i've been raised in a society where killing humans is wrong but i guess you know whether or not it's morally wrong to do so according to my moral code you should not kill humans so if you're right according to my moral code you should not kill humans if it is no longer a human then you can kill it okay cool all right um that satisfies me so if you're mentally disabled and your dna is just slightly modified according to the sky it's okay to you know murder that you know i said if it's not a human yeah right so dna is slightly modified so it's no longer technically human it's all right i would still consider that a human okay great so uh funny like it's funny how you just weasel out of this so we already you know you already agreed to a definition of what we consider human it has to have human dna if we just modify its dna slightly so that it's no longer human then it's okay to murder you i mean sorry sorry if that's what i said i don't actually believe that i think i'm just trying to clarify because you sometimes use pretty sloppy language and it's hard to know exactly what you're saying but if you're saying that the thing looks basically like a human you know uh in every way possible except it has the intelligence of a person of a cow and it's dna is slightly modified i would personally i would call that still a human so i would feel very okay personally so your own subjective interpretation of a human absolutely morality is subjective okay all right well i think this argument's over might be a good time to jump into the q and a want to let you know folks first i have a link richard in the description and professor does not at the moment have a link but if it ever comes about i will put that link in there someday if there is one and also want to let you know oh all of our super chats 100 of them are going to go to charity today for this debate so i don't want to speak over chris's debate because she set up a different one for tonight but for this one all the superchats are going to save the children and so that's basically focused on educating and helping feed children throughout the world and impoverished nations and so thank you guys so much for your questions and we're going to jump right into those right now so thanks so much this one coming in from snake was right said if morality is not objective anything is moral and morality is meaningless how is this any different from opinion that i can reject subjectively i think that's for you richard okay sure um so the reason we have morality is for practical reasons it has prosocial benefits so if a moral system lacks those prosocial benefits let's say it has antisocial effects then it's like you could you know still technically say well this is moral but i mean the reason we develop these moral systems were a big reason is because it has those prosocial benefits so it protects other people it not only protects individuals but it also protects the group uh so yeah you could have a moral system where it says it's okay to like murder you know murder everyone rape children horrible things um but no one's going to agree on that because it doesn't protect themselves or the group doesn't have those prosocial benefits um i don't i don't even understand how this even proves that morality is objective usually people who have this belief that morality is objective they use this sort of argument well oh if it's not objective then it's useless that's not an argument for morality being objective that's just you coming up with some sort of argument for why we should believe morality is objective but that doesn't actually prove morality is objective gotcha and stef karum karuba thank you for your question said i hope the professor will comment on this later society already generally agrees that it's immoral to harm sentient beings when it's not needed and the professor already agrees that it's needless help wise um i'm not sure is that a question so during the q and a like super yeah it's like a we just let people if they want to raise an objection they can do that too yeah it sounds like that was directed to you so the person's basically saying that okay well since most of society agrees it's wrong to harm animals and you've already agreed that it's not necessary to eat animals like doesn't that mean you in your own moral view you should not eat animals right i mean i would i would go back to i'll say the same thing over again first of all it's moral to eat animals according to our per society and moral code i live by but if we if we take wellness maximization as the as the axiom that we want to apply here that there there is a possibility that humans derive more from eating animals than the animals lose but he wasn't arguing for wellness maximization he was just pointing out that most of society agrees that it's wrong to harm animals needlessly right because that would reduce their their wellness without a benefit needless but you've already okay needless okay so needless means no benefit okay so if i rape a child that means it wasn't needless since i like i had a personal benefit from it i don't i don't quite understand what you're asking me so you're telling me if i killed an eater ate a person and then you asked me why did you kill an eat that person i said well i need to eat something you're saying that that isn't needless i mean if you're pointed that's why i think wellness maximization is a really bad rule to follow i mean i agree with you listen to what anyone like says to you honestly i'm not exactly sure what you're asking me what you're saying is that the person who's raping the child gets benefit from it and so that justifies it is that what you're saying no i'm asking about your definition of needless like if i were to do something like okay let's say i could choose to either eat a steak that i got from a grocery store or kill you and eat you would you say that it's i needlessly killed and ate you oh yes okay so i mean assuming that you get the assuming you get the exact same benefit from both right okay why does have to be exactly the same let's say i got slightly more benefit well no let's say i got slightly more benefit from eating you maybe i got slightly more benefit from needless let's just go to i hate to do it but just because we have a lot of questions okay sure we um this one coming in from snake was right says why be consistent if it's only subjectively good i think that's for you richard so sorry repeat that again they said why be consistent if it's only subjectively good why be consistent um because consistent consistency usually leads to um more beneficial outcomes if we're not going to be consistent and we have that principle that consistency doesn't matter that means like we don't have to you know apply anything consistent consistently we don't need logic or reason and i think if we just totally ignored logic and reason that would lead to worse outcomes and that's not something most people want um again like this doesn't prove that morality is objective the only argument i'm making is that uh you know if we have a goal to like you know increase our well-being live in a productive society and yeah consistency is important and if other people have that goal then yeah we need to use consistency gotcha and thank you for this question this one coming in from super sticker appreciate it woody thanks as well to it's a beautiful thing to follow sorry i can't read the rest of your name i think it said christ but uh thanks for your donations to save the children as they said hi and save the children times two grimlock thanks for your question said i lift a total of six tons every night on a plant based diet vegan for four years and going carnism is trash lol gotcha and thank you very much uh if you want to respond to that professor you can but i don't know maybe you're kind of like hey i'm like i think you can be totally healthy on a vegan diet and you can i think it actually has optimal macros for weight lifters because um need a lot of carbs it's just hard to cut on gotcha in general it's difficult sorry to cut you off general balzac says vegan gains are coyotes wolves tigers and bears all immoral based on your standard um i'd say they lack moral agency um but are they doing something that generates a tremendous amount of harm by killing and eating other animals yeah um you know based on my moral beliefs i'd say it is moral to kill off a species that is uh you know mass murdering other species like for the same reason i'm fine with you know human beings killing xenomorphs like in aliens you know if if that were ever real like nobody would disagree that it's you know wrong to kill off xenomorphs for the same like for that same reasoning i think it is fine to um you know kill off you know these predatory species now despite them lacking moral agency sure it's not their fault sure they do it out of necessity just like xenomorphs but why would you allow like you know these mass murdering creatures to exist if you don't have to gotcha thank you very much and thank you for your question this one coming in from twitch we have twitch folks and we're live on it right now question from urban heat says what do these speakers think of the intersection of capitalism and veganism okay um i guess i'll go first uh i don't think capitalism conflicts with veganism and i think there's a lot of issues with things like uh socialism and communism when it comes to veganism like sure you could maybe argue when there isn't a profit motive to do certain things that you could maybe more easily push towards plant-based eating because you know there isn't an industry that's trying to cater to you know supply and demand so you know the government could just take action and say okay you know this is better for society and then that can change but at the same time you could have bureaucratic slowdown where okay if a lot of members of the society or you know members of government just want people to keep eating meat and torturing animals it can be a lot more difficult to change things over versus you know in a capitalist economy things can change like that like if the company sees oh shit like plant-based products are you know really taking off and popular let's just make plant-based products from now on you know they can make those sorts of changes so i don't see how capitalism necessarily conflicts with veganism i think you can have a capitalist economy in a vegan society god i would i would more or less agree with that i think just to to add actually i think you know if if we wanted to maximize wellness you know you could imagine a society where you know we cared about the wellness of the the light the animals entire life so not only its death but you know everything leading up to that death in which case actually i think you could have a fairly humane way of raising and killing animals such that the total wellness of their their their summed wellness with their entire lifespan it's actually positive and i think you know i don't know how you would make that a rule in a capitalist society where you're you're driving towards maximum profit there need to be some legislation but i think you could have a capitalist society where something like that existed gotcha and ralph alice thanks for your question said vegan gains how many insects and animals are you willing to harm and displace with sequestering habitats via crop appropriation and harmful farming practices okay so uh the uh huge increase in uh soybean like growing soybeans is actually due to animal agriculture and if you look at every single major um you know like wildlife organization agricultural organization like the FAO they all agree animal agriculture is the number one cause of deforestation um the reason you know these crops like soybeans are so popular right now is they're being fed to livestock animals so if you're actually concerned with things like deforestation habitat loss loss and biodiversity you should stop eating meat yeah there are animals that are killed just to produce plant products like that we eat like you know beans lentils we eat stuff like that but that is the best option we have right now if you consume animal products it's only worse actually i have a question on that for you richard is sure don't you then feel that you're morally obligated to consume consume the plants that cause the least amount of animal death so the only rationale then for eating other plants is taste pleasure uh you should you should choose you should select a a subset of plants that is that you can survive on that causes the least amount of animal harm no uh so i can come up with a number of reasons for that um i could say i don't see a significant enough difference between each plant product to really justify that there are reasons why you'd want yeah i there are other reasons why you'd want a variety of crops uh you can have crop failures so you know like if okay let's say we were only eating like one or two foods okay well if those crops failed and we don't have anything else that could resist like a drought or some sort of fungus or insects or something like that then we'd be really fucked we need food variety for uh health reasons things like that i can come up with a number of reasons for why but yeah like this this idea of like absolutely maximizing well being to the greatest extent um i i don't minimize minimizing the number of animals that need to die right also yeah so i don't necessarily you can survive off healthfully while while minimizing the number of animals that die yeah so i i don't necessarily agree with okay let's absolutely maximize to the greatest extent possible like how many animals we end up killing in agriculture um if you actually look at the data the amount of animals that are killed in harvesting like different crops like vegetables grains it's actually a very very very minute difference so just based on that i'd say no i don't have any moral responsibility if there was like a hypothetical crop where i don't know like thousands of times higher animals died versus like eating something like beans or rice then sure i i'd probably say like i'd agree we shouldn't eat that but no the difference between crops and animal deaths it's pretty insignificant gotcha and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from grimlock says rock dna though uh let's see gotcha sigifratos arabia says both for both of you if asked why does maximizing well being maximize well being how to answer when agreeing with morality of the population or concesses in control okay that's a really weird question like by definition maximizing well being is maximizing well being i think he was trying to say like like either ask how do we determine if something maximizes well being or if um there's really any way to maximize well being because you could try to maximize well being but in doing so you could significantly reduce well being in one aspect and maybe just based on our preferences we'd prefer to not maximize well being um so like there's no way to really know if we are truly maximizing well being i mean we can make approximations um maybe in some circumstances more accurately than others and yeah you are going to run into situations where maybe maximizing well being interferes with some preferences you have and maybe particular preferences you have with regards to i don't know personal rights and freedoms you care more about personal rights and freedoms than maximizing well being of the population so yeah you can come into conflicts with that gotcha and thank you for your question this one coming in from alan green said would you eat other hominids if they were still around oh i think he means like chimpanzees monkeys things like that i think that's for you yeah yeah i mean i i i would say that uh for me personally my the trait is a human and sentience like extreme extremity of sentience so i think for example it's worse to harm a gorilla than to harm like an ant right there's a spectrum of sentience humans at the top i think primates are pretty close i mean i think they're way below us but they're you know if you had to rank order it would be near us so i feel bad about people eating you know hominids gotcha and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from daver asks how come veganism has a very high dropout rate so i i know what he's talking about he's talking about the phonolytics study which was a survey on how long like vegans and vegetarians stick to their diet important thing to know about that survey is they weren't actually looking at whether or not people were vegan what they did was they asked people if they were eating a purely vegan diet so they were only looking at diet not whether or not they were actually vegan and avoiding things like leather wolf and and also you know sticking to a plant-based diet so what they found was okay most people eating strictly plant-based they fall off very quickly i think within the first two years most people eating strictly plant-based they end up going back to eating meat but what they found was people who followed the diet long term so over two years majority of them actually stuck with the diet long term so i think you can extract from that is people who are actually vegan and care about you know these ethical principles avoiding meat dairy eggs other animal products like wool fur they will stick to the diet long term but the people who are just eating plant-based for health reasons or something uh they'll probably fall off gotcha and thank you for your question stef kruba let me know if i'm mispronouncing it said if the professor agrees that harming animals is unnecessary health wise how can you make wellness related objections against veganism because uh wellness uh is not just concerned with health it's concerned with um how the how the how your brain interacts with what you're doing so you know it's good to do things that feel good for example and eating feels good gotcha and this one coming in from like handthropic testicles appreciate it said so if i'm a psycho and get pleasure from stepping on puppies and grinding them into the ground it's ethical to do so because i get more pleasure than the puppy suffers what the heck kind of a justification is that well i mean um it's not i guess it's not moral because we we think that torturing you know puppies is wrong but uh yeah i mean people that eat meat you have to be comfortable with the fact that animals have to die for you to do that and if you equate that to killing a puppy then you know that that's all meat eaters have to come to terms with that fact you're basically putting your well-being above that of the animal yeah actually could i ask you about that would you be fine with uh killing and eating like dogs and cats when you say fine i mean i say i would find it personally disgusting yeah i find it personally disgusting because i was raised in a society where eating cats and dogs is you know it's pretty disgusting but um but i would give you a reason why i can't give you a rational reason why i should eat a pig and not a a dog if all i care about is its sentience right okay up grimlock appreciate your question said indoor vertical aeroponic farming solves our current agricultural problems but people still insist on quote-unquote traditional farming okay um not much to say there there are new farming technologies that are more efficient that are more environmentally friendly that end up killing less animals there is veganic farming that actually seeks to do that where you don't have to use um any like any sort of strategies to kill off and any animals including insects so i would be in favor of using those farming technologies in the future because it will um maximize the amount of food we can produce while minimizing the harm that that food produces gotcha daver thanks for your question says how does the slaughterhouse specifically profit on just torturing animals i don't know if anybody um i okay so i think he's trying to say that you know me saying it's like wrong to torture animals like he's trying to make a point that there's some sort of practical reason why they're doing it like it generates food um we can produce enough food to feed the population on a plant-based diet if anything actually it would maximize our food resources if we were to follow a completely plant-based food system if you take a look at the un's latest climate report on chapter five page 76 they actually outline how moving to a completely plant-based food system where no animal products are used that would generate enough food to feed the population in 2050 which is going to be much higher than now um and we would actually use less agricultural land than we currently use today so plant-based agriculture extremely efficient um i i don't see how just because it makes food that's a justification to torture and kill animals gotcha thank you very much and taint mu slicks says vegan gains name the trait that justifies human exploitation under capitalism but not animal exploitation okay um exploitation is a really weird vague term i know there's a lot of socialists and communists who say if you are like working for anyone like even if you're a hollywood actor and you're making millions of dollars that's considered exploitation i don't see how like work is inherently exploitative just because i don't know your boss or something is making more profit than you are um you can sign a contract you live in a free market you can be your own boss you can create um you know your own businesses and it makes sense that your boss would probably make more money than you because like especially a business owner because they have way more risk in their business than you have they've invested way more time money effort into creating the business than you have so yeah i think they'd make sense for them to make more profit off of your work you also don't have to agree to you know whatever contract there is you can um you know argue for making certain wage and i i don't see how communism necessarily gets rid of this issue you can talk to plenty of people who lived in under communist societies like in russia china guess what i i i have quite a few friends and family members who lived under communism and they say it sucked they were exploited so i don't necessarily see how you know communism is an answer to worker exploitation gotcha and thank you very much for your question appreciate this one coming in from iphone musing says shout out to monkey pretzel bunny prismal and fin thank you for that and daver by the way folks everybody we 100 of super chats will be going to charity today so thanks so much for partnering with us on that we disagree on a lot folks but this is something we nonetheless agree on as well as fair debates and so thanks everybody for your support and you're pitching in daver thanks for your super chat said name the trait that makes it okay to stop a crying baby in a stroller but not a crying puppy uh babies are much smellier than puppies that's my answer and they sound more annoying too something has to be done with that folks we want to say thank you so much for being here it's always a pleasure we have linked our guests those who uh richard who has a link in the description so you can hear plenty more where that came from for this debate want to say thank you everybody for hanging out with us and yes do not miss it carissa is hosting an epic debate tonight between enternax and vosh and so hey hit that subscribe button and that bell notification you don't want to miss it folks it's going to be epic and that's live tonight at 9 p.m eastern time so with that thank you so much to our guests though it's been a true pleasure vegan gains and our professor guest thank you guys so much for hanging out with us today thanks to both of you really appreciate it absolutely i'll be back with a post-credits scene about upcoming debates folks so stick around and thanks everybody again be right back in a moment ladies and gentlemen that was an epic one we appreciate you guys so much for all of your contributions as well this is a great cherry stream that gets me excited folks believe me we are a united community believe me we really are even though it's true people debate here people debate in the chat as well sometimes it's a little rowdy but i can tell you it's always like hey nothing personal no grudges and it's just like hey that's what real tolerance is is when you disagree and you can still be friends and so want to say thank you guys so much have upcoming debates to mention in fact this one right here you guys this you do not want to miss it it's going to be epic see this right here or i'm pointing vosh versus endernax tonight it's going to be gigantic i'm actually going to pin that in the chat right now just to be sure that it's convenient for you as you don't want to miss it carissa will be hosting that one and so we are pumped as we love carissa is honestly phenomenal really kind person she does a great job and so we are so thankful for her and want to say hi to you in chat though and uh joseph turcott woody rayard ill chamo canan canite lenny cash rick amy newman ross thatcher aka flattered aussie and tusk beatbox john smith thank you guys so much for hanging out with us it's so encouraging to have you tusk beatbox says cool stream james perfect timing got a few minutes until lcs starts now so glad to hear that tusk thanks for all your support seriously you are just a super positive and pleasant person appreciate you always helping out in the chat and all that good stuff and so oh baby you guys this debate tonight is going to be epic you don't want to miss it so i'm throwing that link as promised in the chat and so that link for two nights debate just put it in there and then spark three four four good to see a buddy says when is sargon gonna have that debate we're working on it we got duped there's a fake account of sargon's fake account for real so i used to talk to uh sargon at like his fake twitter um but now his fake twitter doesn't exist and there's a different one that looks just like it of someone to try to trick everybody so very clever very meta but yes good to see you woody and yeah we're pumped we are oh steve coat good to see a friend mr c glad to do or glad to have you here they said they said pinecreek let's see we hope pinecreek is doing well friend of the channel and uh yeah we appreciate him miles long good to see a friend munda skeptical glad you're here as well vs nk so glad you're with us jack 021 so glad you're here with us says juicy i couldn't agree more i've got to show you guys this let me see if i can get it this someone sent me a shirt let me find this i loved it it was the nicest thing who is this loud hang in there all right so basically let me find this shirt okay someone sent me this shirt and i love it it says juicy right on it and then it's got mdd in the back and uh mr nelson that's his last name for somewhat anonymity person so basically mr nelson i'm only giving you half of his name thank you so much mr nelson if you're listening and so i appreciate that gift that was really nice of you and so yes apocalypse bear glad you're here buddy thanks for hanging out with us rick pumped you're here and grimlock good to see you again friend said you said my name enough tonight what does that mean and but yeah we were pumped thank you guys general ball sacks says moderated bait got pooned is it is that how you pronounce it poined pond i did they got me good i'll admit that now i'm thinking about a really good prank i can play on them i'm working on it you know work in progress you got to plan these things but yes spart 344 said would have would have loved to have heard richard accept isic's acceptance i have no idea what you're talking about but that's juicy as well calling the rents good to see a friend and yeah stoked to have you guys here laura pettit thanks said i'm new here what's going on laura welcome to the community or is it pronounced laura let me know i had a person i worked for named laura and uh it was spelled just like your name but we're glad you're here and oh amy neumann that's so cool says i now have a black modern day debate shirt that is so cool i do too actually so um i don't wear them a lot because it like but i hear in there i'll like wear them as like pajamas and stuff and so that is really cool as a teespring is like a neat little invention isn't it i i think it's cool but yes the world teacher thank you for hanging out with us endo xd thanks for being with us friend we hope you're doing well meghan satanus good to have you with us again wilmar castro and you as well good to have you with us again friend flash gordon glad you're here but we are excited you guys i actually was pleasantly surprised so this morning as you see at the bottom right of your screen vosh and intern acts are going at it tonight on capitalism versus socialism you don't want to miss it folks but in addition i was pumped that i woke up this morning and i was i always kind of look at videos to see if they've got likes or when we've got our upcoming debates on our youtube channel i always like kind of peak i want to see if they're going to basically if they have a lot of likes or dislikes because it kind of gives me an idea like okay maybe that's a good idea or a good event maybe it's not and i checked it out and i was like whoa this one on the bottom right of your screen namely uh it's going to be a debate on whether or not the holy book of the islam religion is dangerous so that is going to be juicy you don't want to miss it you guys that's going to be epic and so really excited for it and so please don't uh don't miss it it's going to be epic because it's already got like 46 likes and i was like what the heck like i just didn't it was like i think because i put it up like last night i think um was it maybe thursday it was recent and it just apparently people are excited for that topic whether or not the q u r a n is dangerous that's the topic of the debate so that's going to be a big one and yes uh let's see spar 344 said vegan gain challenge challenge isik butterfield i have no idea about that friend um you have to i have no idea what their entanglement is so i don't want to speculate but square circle says invite perspective philosophy one day phd and philosophy and a debater uh and a debater on topics like veganism and socialism thinks vosh is blah blah blah i don't want to slam vosh when he's not around to defend himself but he said arrange him versus vosh that could be cool i'm open to it we have a lot of debates like sometimes we can only have too so many vegan and socialism debates i'm open to it though um that might work by the way do you know if he identifies as woke i'm not trying to be when i use that i'm not trying to be derogatory i know that sometimes people use the word woke as a derogatory i remember when like back in 2016 people used to like sincerely sometimes like say at the end of their like message online like stay woke and it was like so i didn't know it became an insult i don't know what's what the rules are you guys do i look like a guy that's like socially in tune flash cordon thanks for being with us buddy says word you go there it says always good to be here thanks buddy that's super i appreciate that that means a lot and then our dear friend i cannot read your name because it's in a language that i do not understand but they i said why did james say islam that way why did i spell it out the reason is certain words i don't know if that's a word that would get me in trouble but youtube has like certain words that they seem to zone in on there's another one that starts with q i won't say it on stream and i tell our guests i asked our guests if they would not see it unless necessary oh i don't once in a while i remember to ask them that but usually not but uh there are certain words that like i feel like youtube like zones in on and they're like what are you guys talking about over here are you guys behaving over are you sped are you spreading misinformation over here so um it's funny like the keywords of the day date words that weren't popular long like even just a few years ago people hardly well maybe misinformation and disinformation were kind of popular a few years ago um not four years ago though maybe maybe about how about this not five years ago back in 2015 you didn't really hear much about it they became like buzzwords of the day another one would be like problematic why so and so is saying that is highly problematic buzzwords but which become cliche really fast but uh at least that's what i think flash gordon says it's always good to be here thanks for that and caligula thanks for hanging out with us buddy darth callum thanks for being with us and miles long i said hello glad you're here looking for anybody did i miss anybody i'm i want to be sure i get to say hi to everybody can't carnivorous eight glad you're with us friend and thank you jesus thanks for hanging out with us buddy we hope that you're doing well emi newman says questions quiz knows oh you that reminds me square circle says thanks thank you square circle for hanging out with us we're just glad you're here more the merrier folks you guys do make it fun and so i i totally appreciate you for hanging out with us it's always uh it's always fun now we are excited we may start doing debates we may start a new series called the woke wars so let me know what you think about that i know that there's going to be a lot of triggering some people are going to be triggered but we want to know whether you're triggered and you oppose the woke stuff or if you are triggered and you are for the woke stuff want to let you know we want to be sure that everybody's represented at moderate a debate diversity of thought and that includes those who are woke or if that's what you want to call it i don't know what else you want to call it as well as those who are not woke those who oppose it and so that's the trick folks is we really want to do diversity of thought and so carnivorous ape says hi james thanks for saying hi friend we appreciate that i appreciate all your guys's love in the chat you guys we are excited about the future we are excited about all of the epic stuff coming up at this channel and so it's going to be fun you guys we really do appreciate it and yes it is going to be juicy you're right about that Amy Newman says that triggers me oh i love it thanks avia caligula says sounds juicy woody says woke versus sleep uh ken divino says james you legend that's kind of you i don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but woke war is lenny cash says work woke war is sounds fun thanks for that buddy we are uh we are excited about at this new series we need to change it up you know we have a lot of the same topics and we're like hey let's do some new stuff these will be some new topics and so we appreciate you guys for all of your love and support and i just can't say it enough you guys make this so fun for me so thanks always for cheering me up making it so fun you guys really are a rocking awesome group i love you guys thanks for everything let me know if there's something i can do for you if you can email me at modern day debate at gmail.com and if it if it's useful to you like let me know if you had a hard day or something i'm for real like i'm open to that and so we do appreciate you guys staying in touch and thanks for uh i'm sometimes i'm a little slow on sometimes i'm a little bit slow on getting back to emails and i'm sorry about that so forgive me for that but i do try to be in touch and endo xd says are you an are you an atheist after listening to matt delante for so long that's really interesting i get that question a lot or they say are you an atheist after listening to these debates i would say though i learn a lot from these debates having gotten and having read like the peer reviewed philosophy papers on atheism and religion in my bachelors and masters in philosophy um there's not i do learn new things but that's more kind of where my that that has had a greater influence on what i believe than uh the debates that we host though we do enjoy these and i do learn new things nonetheless i would highly recommend basing your uh i would highly recommend people recognize that you too like a modern day debate we hope it's useful we hope that people learn new things as well but we hope that ultimately you would probably put more credence in like peer reviewed papers on the atheist religion debates and any topic for that matter but ghostwood 19 thanks for being around here said did the debate conclude oh yeah it did we ended about 20 minutes ago stripper liquor says yes we might be able to find that demographic i appreciate you asking buddy that's funny ghostwood 19 glad you're here buddy and uh let's see we appreciate you guys oh adam albillia late arrival good to see you buddy says what's up guys how was it it was fun it was a good one it's a juicy one we enjoyed that we appreciate our guests they were they were great and so that was a fun one but yeah we really do hope you feel welcomed here it's a community folks and that's a thing we disagree on everything but i will leave you with this we have a vision there are things we agree on and that we are working on bringing about together in particular we are all all on the same page regarding wanting fair debates on an equal platform so everyone can make their case on a level playing field we all believe that's valuable we are all excited about that and continuing to do that in the future and so thank you guys for that support as we pursue that together as a community and also today we are excited that we did a charity stream so 100 of the super chats that came in today are going to save the children which has a great charity watchdog rating if you guys didn't know that there are so for example like charity navigator is a website or group that evaluates how effective a charity is or how transparent they are with how they use the money that's donated save the children has a great charity watchdog score last i checked it was i think it was an a or an a minus so uh but it's an a and it's phenomenal they do a great job of helping educate and feed starving children across the world and so they're looking for sustainable solutions to help these people that are frankly impoverished in severe poverty in most of these cases and so we're excited that all of us agree that is a good thing all of us are excited to contribute to that and so we appreciate that you guys are so supportive as we partner in that goal together and so thank you so much let's see oh hello holo thanks so much we are glad that you are here it's honestly a pleasure to have you my dear friend and but yeah i would recommend like um i do find it kind of surprising that sometimes when i recommend peer reviewed papers um people sometimes like people are like no i'd rather just stick to youtubers i'm like well it's better than nothing to probably listen to youtube uh debates but i really do want to encourage you i think that there's a lot of value in reading uh peer reviewed papers so for example i mean like these are by atheists by christians it's kind of just uh i think you'll find that the arguments are a little bit more refined and a little bit more the specialists kind of get to talk about what they specialize in more and so i highly encourage you guys i think there's a lot of value in there but if you're like nope i don't want to hey no judgment here nobody's uh nobody's gonna look down on you general balls act thanks for being with us said this place is like the new town square love everything you're doing here thanks general balls act seriously that's super encouraging i appreciate that love man that's always encouraging current verse 8 says i had a debate idea again for gman but he refused to do it i think he's still upset with me from last time oh my gosh i just remembered i had a dream last night that someone told me gman was d e a d oh my gosh i oh i'm so glad he's alive because i like in my subconscious i was thinking he was gone oh my goodness that's so weird like when somebody it's funny when i just read that in the chat they're like but gman refused to them like in the back of my mind i'm like how could gman refuse that he's not here i'm so glad he's okay i really did dream that i don't know why tom is cultured thanks for being with us so we are pumped to have you with us my friend mr hisama thanks for hanging out with us and let's see missable mercy thanks for hanging out with us my friend we are really glad that you are here stripper liquor good to see you again john smith glad again to say uh glad to say again that we're happy you're here friend and so yes you guys we are so excited about the future as uh we've got a lot of epic debates coming up including you guys this one right here that i'm pointing to oh my goodness might be our first strike it could be a special day so that's really fun stripper liquor says james dreams of gman oh my i should not have said that a b newman says gman can't he can't die if he lives in our hearts thank you for that he's not really he's he is alive i can assure you uh let's see what he says gman can't can't endarth on the same team that would be epic now wouldn't it we'd love that so but yeah thank you guys so much we appreciate you we love you guys and so thank you guys for all of your support i'm excited about the future and again i am excited about this debate with vosh and enter next tonight which i'm going to leave you with as we uh i'm going to put this in the chat and so tonight i uh just linked that one blop thanks for coming by again good to see you buddy and we are glad you are here and so yes you guys appreciate all you guys love you guys thanks for making my life so fun you guys are honestly a blast and so thanks again laura pettit said well you got a new subscriber hot hot nice content i love it going to be here quite frequently thanks laura thanks so much for your kind words and so thanks for subscribing as well seriously we're glad to have you be a part of the community and we hope you feel welcome so thanks for your support we're excited about the future you guys oh boy we were pumped as we just have so much fun stuff coming up and yes tonight there is a debate don't miss it that's going to be vosh and enter next on socialism versus capitalism for real so secular rarity says already got to say it one more time before i go this channel is awesome thanks so much secular rarity for your support that seriously means a lot blop says thank you love the channel thanks blop that seriously means a lot uh we love that that means a lot and grimlock says five dollars for james say i'm a heavy weapons guy and this is my putis i don't know what putis means but we appreciate you for hanging out here and so thanks everybody and yeah we will be back tonight with a debate that will seriously rock youtube debate the youtube debate sphere it's going to be epic and so thanks everybody though for your support and what we're going to do i think what we're going to do we are going to put the donation receipts that we have in a google drive folder and i'm going to link that on our youtube community page that way because i want you to know anytime we do a charity stream we want you to know that you can absolutely say hey can i see the receipt that is what we think of as transparency so yes the answer is even if it's your first time here no matter who you are we're like yeah we'll send you the receipt or what we're going to do to make it more convenient than that is we're going to put it in this google drive folder and then put it under the community tab and that way if you ever want to see those receipts like you can you can see that it's like we actually do make those donations that we promise we're a hundred percent of for example 100 percent of today's super chats are going to a good cause and so thanks grimlock for that final donation to the good cause is that will be uh like i said for real that is going to be helping starving children across the globe children who are impoverished and so we are excited that we get to team up for that good cause everybody from all walks of life contributing to that so thank you guys so much for your support of this channel and the vision of bringing about fair debates on a level playing field and helping make the world a better place so thanks everybody we hope you have a great rest of your day because tonight we are excited to see you back here for that epic debate that i pinned at the top of the chat and so thanks endo xd for your kind word said nice debate love your channel see you later thanks friend i appreciate that that seriously is encouraging that means a lot and glad you're here adam albina said i wish grand debaters like vosh and destiny wouldn't stream in parallel to debating in modern day debate no worries that's all right they've you know they've got an audience too that's excited to see stuff and so i can't blame them like we're happy just to have them so but for our traveling debates we may ask for that because uh and for them a lot of times it's just easier because they don't want to bring their own equipment so that is something in the future you may see as well and so thanks tuss beatbox for your positivity said great stream looking forward to tonight thank you guys love you guys appreciate you i hope you have a great rest of your day and we'll see you tonight so thanks everybody we're excited about it and keep lifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable everybody take care