 is bad for society and we are starting right now. With Daniel's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us again Daniel, the floor is all yours. My pleasure. Thank you to modern-day debates and thank you to Vosh for taking the time to discuss this very important topic. I'm a Muslim and there are many religious and spiritual arguments against pornography, but I understand that Vosh and many of those watching are not religious, so I'm going to mainly stick to non-religious arguments for the purpose of the debate. The main secular argument against pornography is best explained by looking at the research of Nikolas Tinbergen, a Dutch biologist. Tinbergen did experiments with butterflies. He realized that female butterflies attract males due to the eye catching designs on their wings, so Tinbergen made some cardboard butterflies and painted their wings to be super eye catching, more eye catching than what would naturally occur in female butterflies. Surprisingly, the male butterflies would swarm the cardboard butterflies even when real female butterflies were available. The males would ignore those females and instead keep trying to mate with the cardboard. Tinbergen called this a super normal stimulus. By artificially enhancing the normal, Tinbergen could fundamentally transform the behavior of the butterflies. Basically, he tricked the butterflies to abandon the females and instead spent all their time trying to mate with cardboard. And of course, if those exciting cardboard butterflies were not removed, then those males could never reproduce and as a result, the entire butterfly population would die out. You see where I'm going with this. Pornography is the exact same thing. It's the exact definition of a super normal stimulus. That's not my conclusion, by the way. That's the conclusion of neuroscientists and behavioral psychologists. That is one of the biggest harms of pornography. It derails normal human sexuality in the same way that colorful cardboard can derail butterfly sexuality. Look, I think whether you're religious or not religious, most of us agree that long lasting committed relationships such as marriage are very important for human happiness and the overall well-being of society. Second, I think most of us also agree that stable, healthy families are very important for human happiness and the overall well-being of society. Now, if we can agree on the importance of committed relationships and family, then my argument is simply that pornography prevents these two things and is therefore harmful. I ask the audience directly, do you want to have a loving spouse who will offer you companionship and sexual intimacy? Pornography prevents this. Do you one day dream of being a mother or father with loving children and grandchildren to care for and spend time with who care for you in your old age? Pornography prevents this. Do you care about the future of a society that mainly consists of happy marriages and healthy, stable families? Pornography prevents this or greatly hinders it. Numerous peer reviewed studies prove why and how all this is the case. Biologically rooted sexual drives, attitudes and behaviors are crucial for marital familial and communal relationships. These are the things which have been the foundation of human society throughout history, but pornography disrupts all this. This is because porn usage produces psychological transformations which deeply impact sexual drives, attitudes and behaviors. There are three major ways that this happens. The first way pornography disrupts human sexuality is that it changes our norms and values. This is huge. What people see as good and normal gets warped by porn in the same way that what a butterfly sees as normal gets warped by artificial cardboard. Empirical studies show how the porn users' values change. Porn causes people to see sex as a recreational act for personal pleasure without any long-term commitment. It causes people to view non-committed, non-heterosexual sex positively, things like sex with strangers, group sex, incest, etc. It causes people to accept when others engage in uncommitted sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex, etc. rather than stigmatize such behavior. Basically, pornography promotes sexual behaviors that are contrary to stable, committed relationships and family. Due to biologically rooted learning mechanisms, humans unconsciously imitate behaviors and accept norms which they see as widely practiced around them. This is known as social conformity and is linked to certain hormones like oxytocin. Media of any kind is powerful because it affects what people believe is widespread and causes individuals to unconsciously imitate and accept norms they observe performed on TV and the internet. Studies also show that humans are highly inclined to imitate and accept behaviors they see when they're children. In fact, with the growth of internet availability, huge amounts of pornography are now consumed by children from six years of age and up, and the amount of porn consumed is only increasing with time. So all of this porn exposure results in masses of people who, to a much lesser extent, associate sex with committed long-term relationships and producing children. This in itself is a major psychological shift in the population caused by porn that affects people's behaviors and their attitudes. The second way that pornography disrupts sexuality is that destroys the motivation for pair bonding and family. Porn and masturbation go hand in hand. Those who watch porn come to depend on porn watching, coupled with masturbation, to fulfill their sexual drives. This results in spending less time trying to find mates. Porn watchers engage in frequent masturbation, which ensures that their sex drive remains relatively low. With low sex drive, they're not motivated to find mates or to do the things that would make them more attractive for prospective mates. Again, this is exactly like the butterflies. Pornography is a supernormal stimulus that derails people from normal sexuality. This results in fewer marriages, fewer pair bonds, which results in fewer children and fewer families. The third way that pornography disrupts sexuality is that it causes people who are already in committed relationships to have lower quality relationships. A meta study published in 2020 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that pornography usage was strongly correlated with less satisfaction in marriage, less happiness, etc. Furthermore, studies show that pornography consumption is associated with people feeling dissatisfied with their partners and eventually cheating on them. One study, for example, tracked couples over a six-year period and found that, of all the factors considered, porn consumption was the second strongest indicator that a marriage would suffer. Also, pornography has been tied to an unprecedented epidemic of sexual dysfunctions in otherwise healthy men who, because of their porn usage, suffer from erectile dysfunction, diminished libido, and less satisfaction when having sex with their partners. These are three major ways pornography usage harms pair bonding and family. To make matters worse, neuroscientific data shows that viewing pornography leads to addictive behavior akin to the use of hard drugs like cocaine. Addictive behavior produces massive changes to brain structure, including structures related to self-control and desire. This does not happen with behaviors like breathing or drinking water, but it does happen with the use of drugs and pornography. Addictive behavior like porn watching has especially powerful effects during childhood, as the child's brain is more malleable in terms of neuroplasticity. The average age with children exposed to porn nowadays is 10 years old. Now, consider this. If I asked you whether it is bad for society if a drug as addictive as cocaine or heroin were freely available to the masses, including young children, and it was easily accessible, wouldn't you think, wow, this is really bad for society? This is exactly the situation with pornography. In many countries throughout the world, large percentages of adults have never been in a relationship and remain as a virgin. In Japan, for example, according to government data, just making sure. In Japan, for example, according to government data, about half of single men and women under age 34 are virgins, yet Japan has one of the highest rates of porn consumption in the world. Other countries have similar trends. Marriage and family are collapsing the world over. Not all of it is due to pornography, but porn has played a significant role. To conclude, I just want to note that Islam has unique and detailed rules about relationships, gender roles, dress that promote stable loving families and marriage. Islam provides a detailed blueprint for marriage and family. And this has never been as important as it is now, simply because people's understanding of gender roles, marriage, family, sex have been warped by modernity. I just want to make this point because my message is not just that porn is destructive. It's one thing to point out the disease, but it's also important to point out the cure. If you want a proven model for marriage, family, and community, Islam provides that. Thank you. With that, we're going to kick it over to Vosh for his opening statement as well. I want to let you know, folks, if this is your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from, whether you be politically left, politically right, Muslim, atheist, Christian, you name it. We are glad that you are here. Thanks for being with us. And, hey, if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up. For example, tomorrow night is religion harmful. Tom Jump taking on Jung for the first time. It's going to be a great one. Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss those upcoming debates. And with that, thanks very much, Vosh. The floor is all yours for your opening statement as well. Thank you. We got a lot to go over. Muslim men, of course, being such comers that they need morality police to make sure women aren't exposing their faces because they can't control themselves in the presence of a female flesh. I don't know if that's the healthiest attitude one might take towards the opposite sex, but whatever template we want to go with. All right. So the problem with everything that you just said, in addition to a collection of statistical errors like the correlation causation one, which is a classic to the it's different, therefore bad one to the we're not considering the implicit alternative to porn, which is the social resources which would be required to entirely ban porn, something that has never succeeded anywhere in any country on earth since the advent of the internet. Leaving aside all of that, it doesn't matter because at the end of the day, you're only using empirical metrics as a way of supplementing your real position, which is a fundamental ideological opposition to morality. We'll get to that, but first we can take apart the other bits. So a lot of this was correlation causation bullshit. A lot of the stuff surrounding the research into porn addiction provides results which are comparable to a great many things that humans have potentially unhealthy relationships towards. Food, for example, depending on a person's relationship to food, regular old food, not even drugs. They can have incredibly destructive outcomes, addictive behaviors, life ruining stuff. No one would ever talk about banning food, of course, because it's a fundamental human necessity. But if you take a look at how we interact with a great many things, you'll find similar patterns. When humans like something, we have a tendency to to fall into habits of engaging into an unhealthy extent. This has been the case for all of human society. It's not new. The reason why we hear about this with regards to pornography so often is A, a moralistic opposition and B, because the advent of internet pornography happens to coincide with another demographic change and people tend to conflate their outcomes, namely the fact that the birth rates are falling and marriage is becoming less popular. It should be noted, of course, that I don't think marriage is in and of itself a necessary institution. It's not inherent to the human character. We were running around just fine as Neanderthals, clubbing, I don't know, snow leopards and not marrying people. Whatever form of social organization people want to engage in is the one that I support. And I think it's entirely possible to simultaneously support healthy relationships without trying to bring the long arm of the state down on pornography. An act which in every country which it has ever been practiced has led to incredibly authoritarian outcomes, something which I am principally opposed to. At the end of the day, humans exist for the benefit of humans. Some people, usually of the authoritarian disposition, like to gesture at some nebulous social benefit that you can get out of forcing people to behave in a certain way. But often in doing so, they neglect to mention the human cost. For example, stable marriages are good for society because stability in general is good for society. I mean, even if marriages involve three people, if those were stable, they would be good for society. But one of the big reasons why marriages have historically been so stable is because women have had no political rights. You need look no further than the Muslim world to see examples of this. Of course, your marriages are stable. You can't get a divorce. People are married off sometimes before the age of 18. Arranged marriages where people are pressured out of their social spaces and communities if they don't follow the orders of their parents and marry the people that have been lined up for them. Of course, you have stability there. It's because you have no freedom, obviously. It's like bragging about the stability of the Nazi German hierarchical order. Well, of course, it's internally stable. They get shot if they don't follow it. You see this all the time, especially in American history, being an American, of course, I'm biased towards those discussions. But you see people going like, yes, well, nowadays, everyone's getting divorced and women initiate most of the divorces. If they want to divorce, good for them. You know why they weren't divorcing before? Because it wasn't legal for women to open their own bank accounts up until the 1970s, at least not consistently. Of course, if you put a gun to people's heads and force them to behave in a certain way, then you might get generally reliable outcomes in that one metric. But that doesn't mean society is better. It means it's worse because people's freedoms are being infringed on. They're less happy, less able to act. You get a nice clean, pretty slate from the outside. I think that's what you want. That's why you were touting Islam at the end there. Gender relations in Muslim countries are fraught with bias and bigotry, rape, legal oppression. But it all looks nice and clean from the outside because you get to keep your divorce rates zero. It looks nice and consistent, nice and clean. But society is not experienced from the top down. It's experienced from the bottom up. We have to consider what people actually want. And what people want is to jerk off to porn. They love jerking off to porn. It is an undeniable fact of the human experience, one which has been around for hundreds of years in whatever form pornography has taken, that people like cooming. Every effort to take this away from people has failed. There are no countries that are not full of degenerate coomers. Osama bin Laden had like risqué anime titillation on his computer. All of them do. You do. They all do. Everyone does. It's a fact of modern life. Some people pretend they don't when they're larping as some kind of like trad cat or whatever. But in reality where we all live, the idea of eradicating this from the public space is entirely unrealistic and would only be done to suit some kind of city skylines as top down paternalistic idea of authoritarian goodness. Where if you can line everyone up like Tetris blocks and they behave the way you expect them to, you get some kind of positive outcome on paper. If you want to help people who have porn addictions, by the way, there are lots of things you can do to like meaningfully improve that porn addiction is a real problem as are many other kinds of addictions. But as somebody who favors drug decriminalization, I don't think the state is the solution. Has it been the solution for drugs? No, we have an unprecedented drug problem here in the States despite committing tens of billions to fighting it. If you really want to help people, you have to try to find what it is they're actually looking for and provide that to them. A lot porn addicts are suffering from a kind of social alienation, which I think is brought about by capitalism and some other factors. Drug addicts lacking at appropriate medical care, job opportunities. There are a number of things. We can walk down any street in Midwestern America and see the consequences of our attitude towards drug criminalization. Let's see what we can actually do for those people and for porn addicts as well. We'll see what we can actually do for them. There are plenty of metrics by which we can improve their lives. You got it. And with that, we're going to jump into open conversation. Want to let you know folks, if you happen to have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with at modern day debate, that's one way to do it. As well as if you put it in as a super chat, let's go to the top of the list and also want to ask that your questions would be germane for the topic that the guest prepared for. With that, we're going to jump into this open dialogue. Thanks so much gentlemen for being with us. The floor is all yours. So I wanted to address some of these points. Let's go one at a time. I like talking. Okay. I'll try to be respectful of equal time. So the first point correlation is not causation. I agree. But there are many studies that are longitudinal in nature that actually do indicate causation. So there are many studies that I kind of alluded to in my opening statement, which I'm happy to go over if you want more details. But some of them, yes, they are cross-sectional and therefore it is correlation or causation doesn't imply causation. We can't know. But some of them, many of the most significant are longitudinal. So they do show causation over time. So that's one point. And also then it should be worth noting that for something like why one might look for pornography in a relationship, it might be difficult to understand what the insiating factor was. So a person can report satisfaction in a relationship, not consume pornography, but then as things in the relationship get kind of worse and they feel kind of distant from their partner, they start to look at porn and they look at porn because they're dissatisfied, not necessarily the other way around. But from a studies perspective, it's really difficult to chart which one caused which. Well, these studies do show that. Like these studies are set, the longitudinal ones are set to determine causation. I'm familiar with the limitation of longitudinal studies. They don't make the correlation causation fallacy disappear. They can track behaviors over long term. But when you're talking about nebulous characteristics like psychological influence, it is legitimately very, very difficult to parse out what is happening and why. I mean, this is, yeah, you can say that about any kind of factor that you want to study in science. It's hard to parse out what is actually the causative factor. So the job of the researcher and the scientist in order to publish peer reviewed research and say, Hey, pornography actually leads to relationships breaking up at least a higher dissatisfaction. Part of the barrier of whether this is publishable research is to justify that through statistical means through all kinds of experiment setup, double blind studies. All of this is part of the research process. So I don't see how what you're saying disagrees with that. I'm familiar with the research process. I have a sociology degree. The issue is that for something like this topic in particular, self reporting is the only metric by which you can measure something like the health of a relationship. If people self report, say on the cause of their porn usage, you know, you're also relying on their degree of introspection, which is not reliable. But when you're when you're looking at the development of these things, people don't really have a great assessment of why they act the way they do. And I have seen a good deal of research on pornography and its effects on people. And obviously, I don't want to debate with you like specific studies, because then we get really in the weeds and a broad topic. But I'm only pointing out that like from what I have seen, the idea of a sort of consistent, direct, causative relationship has not been demonstrated in the research that I've looked at. Certainly there are relationships. I wouldn't deny that. Even if there were causative relationships, I don't necessarily think that's a defeater for my positions. But it is complicated. I only mean to say that because it can be very easy to paint a consistent and clear brush when looking from afar. I mean, I agree that it's complicated, but you know, all these studies are showing that there is a negative impact to relationships, but we can put that point aside. I would also, you know, if you want to look at causation, there are biologically rooted mechanisms that are causal in nature that I described, because pair bonding and pair bonding is not something that's only valued by Muslims. This is something that every society throughout history is valued, even if they haven't technically called it marriage. But the idea of a committed relationship with a person, like a soulmate, or a committed relationship over time, that is something that's valued universally. It's not just a Muslim thing, and it's not just like a modern thing. It's something that's throughout history with human society. But if you look at pair bonding, sex is what creates that kind of pair bond, because oxytocin is released. When you are, when there's orgasm by male or female and touch through the skin, the skin touching is what generates oxytocin. And that's something that does not exist with masturbation to pornography. You cannot create that kind of pair bond. And that doesn't exist for any kind of masturbation, though, whether or not you have pornography. That's true. I agree. Well, then that's fine. You masturbate from time to time, and it doesn't contribute to your God-given soulmate potential. And then one day you do lay into a girl, and then it does. No, but the causal relation there is that when you ejaculate, without that pair bond through oxytocin, you have lower sex drive. So you're not motivated to actually go seek a pair bond. You can't keep people from masturbating, whether they have pornography or not. Humans have written on masturbation for as long as we have written language. If you plan on making that illegal, I don't know how you would do that, some kind of 1984-esque telescreen in every living room, probably best to leave people's nuts to themselves in a legal sense. Well, I do want to distinguish porn plus masturbation as its own distinct phenomenon because of this whole supranormal stimulation that is created through pornography. This is its habit-forming. It creates this frequent masturbation, which results in frequent ejaculation. So I do think it's good for your prostate. The goodness for the prostate is just through ejaculation, which you can get through many other means other than masturbation. But the point is that your lower sex drive makes you less motivated to actually go seek out a pair bond or relationship, whether you want to get married or not. The stats on... Yeah, so when we look at... We'll keep trying. We're both at a narrow bridge here. No, I'm just saying that would apply to any masturbation. If you're at lower sex drive, a disinterest in seeking out a sex partner, I feel that after I jerk off, whether I'm looking at porn or not, you jerk off once or twice a day or whatever, like God intended us to. But that's just life. I think that for most healthy people, you can jerk off one day and then want to fuck somebody the next. I feel like there's a quick rebound on this. Some people have lower sex drives, but I don't think the ability to masturbate... Because we've always been doing that. Monkeys do that. Yeah, I follow what you're saying and I agree that masturbation has existed way before pornography. But do you agree that pornography is a different kind of stimulus? Like it is a heightened kind of stimulus, just like in the butterfly example. And the factors that the researchers point out is that pornography has this kind of accelerated novelty because people can access lots of different kinds of pornography that has not been possible historically because of the lack of technology. Yeah, we've got wacky stuff these days. I agree it's a more extensive kind of erotic stimulation than anything your imagination could conjure up, at least it has the potential to. It's a quick template to that. But I would say the same thing about candy. Food used to taste like shit. Not really. You could cook meat and it would be fine. But generally speaking the medieval peasants subsisted on gruel. It wasn't a great life. Nowadays you can go down to the grocery store for four bucks, you can pick up a chocolate cupcake that if eaten by a Dickensian orphan would immediately cause them to explode. And people get fat off that shit. It tastes so good, people get hooked on it. That's a real problem. A lot of folks are fat over that. But you can't ban the cupcake, it's just you have to learn to live in a world where those resources are available and teach people to be moderate about it. I completely agree with you that this is the same kind of argument applies to certain kinds of food. But the thing about foods as well because of processing and the ability to highly process foods and you have entire food scientists whose entire job is to artificially manipulate food in order to make it as tasty and addictive as possible because it generates this dopamine rush in an artificial way. I agree with you that- What's an artificial dopamine rush? I mean, if it's tasty, it's tasty. It's artificially induced because the natural food, like if you picked up even white sugar that you're using in desserts like a cupcake, the processed version of the cupcake has been actually over-engineered to artificially induce even more dopamine, which is why a lot of people are addicted to junk food and certain governments have wanted to curb this kind of processed food because it's making the population obese. This is actually a perfect analogy to pornography. Would you want to ban chocolate cupcakes? Artificially engineered. All food you get at the grocer right now is artificially engineered to some extent, outside of like the tomatoes or whatever. Some degree of processing goes into almost everything we eat for preservatives sake or because- I mean, hell, a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat are GMO. They literally got engineered at the DNA level to be tastier to us. Depending on where you draw the line, because that's the question, right? It's like, where do you draw the line? Because we've had wood carvings of people's fat ass titties you know, since thousands and thousands of years ago. Depending on how far back you want to go, pornography has been around a long time. So when did it get too far, right? Was it when the video file came about? Like 240p shit? But you can measure this. It has an empirical effect. Folks have gotten fatter lately. I know because for the same reasons, like for the same reasons that people are being addicted to pornography, they're being addicted to other artificial stimuli. Video games are another example. Food is another example. How much stuff in the world do you want to ban? Just out of curiosity, video games, food, movies, I assume? No, I think that these are all of different moral categories. But when it comes to video games, or not moral categories, but having different moral weight, I would say. But I mean, my argument doesn't depend on that. I just want to point out that with like app developers develop apps to make them as addictive as possible. I think this is very harmful to society because people can't put their phone apps. They can't put down their phones because these apps are hooking them in the same way that casinos hook gamblers because of their slot machines like specific ways that they designed the casino to play on these biological, psychological proclivities of the human mind. So I agree with what you're saying. There are things that people do in food production or how they design gotcha games or what have you, where I think that it goes beyond a desire to produce a product and it goes towards an effort to prey on people's addiction receptors. I think that's a real issue. But the problem is, where do you draw the line? When it comes to food production, I can think of maybe a couple of processes by which you could say, okay, maybe companies, you can't use this chemical, go the extra 100th of a cent more expensive per unit produced and we'll call it there. When it comes to how the gotcha games or casinos, you can think of like common sense legislation to try to curtail some of the more extremely addictive predatory elements here. So where is the line in pornography? Because for me, as somebody with an entirely healthy relationship to pornography, if I want to look at fat titties or whatever, I can just look at the fat titties. And then I can just guys, some good fat titties. And then I can just, you know, leave, walk away from the computer. I don't know what would constitute like a pornography addiction, like a line where you none of this, but like the other stuff is fine. What about people who draw fat titties, right? I mean, depending on how abstract the drawing is, you've got, you know, a bunch of junior pornographers doodling in their eighth grade notebooks, you know, I know that I was at the time. I guess my question is like, where do you like what you're you're in charge? You're, you're, you're the Ayatollah, you're the what's the what's the big guy, the biggest guy, like the Pope? In Sunni Islam, there's no biggest guy, but in Shia Islam, I'm not Shia, I'm Sunni. So okay, then I will, okay, then not that. Whatever the big guy, all right. What law is it just like you put a drawing up of two circles with smaller circles in them, and they just come and shoot you? Like where would you draw the line? Well, I think before I, let me answer that question, but first, so you say that it's reasonable for governments to actually restrict processed food, like with real extreme examples of manipulation of food or technology to curb, you know, these kinds of harm. So would you say the same for pornography? I think that there are easy lines that you could draw, but I'd always be careful about this stuff because I'm always going to be like very cautious when it comes to the government's ability to restrict the production of materials, especially media. So like when it comes to the like movies, for example, or TV shows, movies and TV shows absolutely do use marketing and production techniques to hook people. And people do get kind of like lost in some of the fake realities, like those folks who killed themselves after Avatar came out. You know, stuff like that, but I would never want the government coming in and saying like, actually, you can't have like crazy alien worlds in your movies because it makes people like want to be in them too much. That shit's way too far for me. And porn is art and is media. So that line, because it's easy, it's chemical with food. Don't use this chemical. Bam, easy. You can test food for it. But what do you do with porn? Like what's the, like you can't do, like you can't do cum shots? Does the porn has to cut out right before you nut? Because addictive behaviors or these kinds of behaviors that become problematic, there is a difference in the brain structure that is caused. So the wood carvings that they did a thousand years ago, those wouldn't actually change the structure of the brain. But many studies are showing that the use of porn, even like not even, I'm not saying that like outright addicted, even just very little use can change the structure of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, the reward center, just like like one hit of heroin or one hit of cocaine who will change the structure of the brain. They have discovered this same exact thing with pornography. I've seen studies that parts of your brain light up when you're looking at pornography, but I've seen nothing indicating that looking at titties on a screen once will irrevocably change your brain. I mean, they're just titties on a screen, right? You see them on the screen, you see them in person. If it doesn't break your brain seeing them in person, you know, I don't think like, I don't think there's anything more innately harmful to seeing them through a screen and seeing them in person. The problem is like the habitual relationship you form with it, like the degree of dependency. But people have IRL sex dependency too. There are sex addicts, right? Like folks who get real depressed if they're not like, you know, cream and pussy like three times a day or something. So I don't know, it seems like humans just have a habit of getting real into things they like. We do the same thing with video games. That's also new, but we can't ban video games. We've got all the people watching this angry. So where does the line cut? Because I want to know like, okay, you're the Grand Puba, okay? I'm a talented artist. How realistic can I draw my circles before I get shot in the back of the head? But you keep saying that there's no like difference between seeing something in real life. I acknowledge that, you know, sex addiction is also real. You can also be addicted or you can be negatively affected by a certain stimulus that doesn't show up on a screen, but you see in real life, like that distinction is not really relevant to the point that I'm making. The changes to the brain can happen in either case. It can happen through seeing something in real life. It can happen through eating something. It can happen through playing a video game. Like that's just something that is established. And the term that I used is a super normal stimulus. And that's what causes a kind of change to the brain structure that leads to addiction in the same way that a drug addict or the use of even one hit of the crack pipe is going to change the brain and causes someone to fall into crack addiction. Well, wait, hold on. First of all, I'm for drug decriminalization. So that don't fit for me. But if we're talking about, if you're saying that crack is harmful to society, right? I think that banning crack has been more harmful to society than its existence has. Well, put the censorship or banning question to the side because that's the main question though. Even the main question is, is it harmful to society? That's the main question. Well, okay. Do you think porn should be banned? Yes, because it's harmful. But, but that, no, no, no, no, no, well, no, you can't, well, you can't run away from it then because when people say so and so is harmful for society, you know, I don't know, maybe skateboarding is harmful for society, but you got to give people the right to do things that are harmful because otherwise you don't leave in a free society. I don't want to live under a paternalistic nanny state. The real question is, does banning something that is potentially harmful to society produce better outcomes that allowing it to exist at all? The drug war in the United States is a pretty resounding answer to that question. We have not cut down on drug use, but we have increased human misery and spent a lot of money doing it too. So if you acknowledge that you're going to form these brain patterns, seeing titties in real life as opposed to seeing them online as well, then it seems like the capacity for sex addiction, whether it's virtual through porn or in real life is present either way. And we know men have done plenty of crazy shit to get laid. So the potential for harm, it seems, is merely being transplanted here, not invented. Right? No, no, if people didn't have access to pornography, the vast majority of people would not have, unless you're in a stable relationship, you won't have the opportunity to see naked women. So you got to sell me on this. I like seeing naked women. Yeah. So if you didn't have access to porn, you might do something to make yourself more attractive so you can get in a stable relationship. And you can see a naked woman as much as you want. What if I don't want it? What if I want to see multiple naked women? Well, Islam has a solution to that because you can marry multiple wives in Islam. But I mean, that's even if we put marriage aside. Okay. So you can't say like, oh yeah, we're going to solve the problem of men and their infidelity by simply allowing a patriarchal polygamy. No, that's cheating. It's like, we've solved the problem of men cheating. They simply marry their mistresses. You know, okay, fine. Right. Put that solution aside and think like if you really have that kind of high sex drive that you wanted to see multiple women and be with multiple naked women in that kind of sexual relationship, then you would try to make money. You tried to get this kind of high status in society so that more women would be willing to pair bond with you. What if they take a picture of their tits and then they put it online to show me? Like they put it on like an image or link or something. Do they get shot? No society has ever succeeded in banning porn. So the idea of like actually enacting this ban seems weird to me. Okay. So I'm like the counter example would be child porn. Child porn is something that has been successfully banned and no one says that, oh, well, you know, banning child porn is only increases usage. So we have to legalize it. But I'm not talking about whether or not it's, first of all, there are child porn problems all over the world, like massively so. Child abuse has gone down since the 1990s, at least in the United States. I don't have like worldwide stats or whatever. But it remains a serious issue in spite of its ban, which is an indication that banning doesn't necessarily get rid of something. The critical difference here being, of course, that if a bit of child pornography is put online, that kid's being exploited. Whereas if, you know, an adult woman puts her big fat titties up online. Well, that's separate. Like you're shifting from one point to another. Where just your initial point was banning something doesn't get rid of it. But child porn shows that banning something curbs its use and it actually reduces it quite a bit. And if we presume, like my presumption is that pornography is harmful, then banning it would actually reduce the amount of harm. Now, if we want, so that's the whole censorship question. But if it's actually harmful. If, yeah, so that's the whole, that's the whole question of the debate. But it can't get rid of it all like over, right? I mean, we know all the, you know, there are plenty of folks over in the Muslim world who are just sneaking their porn when the morality police aren't up in the foot. You know, there are problems all over the place. So I guess we need to talk about the practicality here. You want to ban porn? Again, like, where's the line on this, right? How realistic do the circles have to be? Because that's the thing. The problem is that what you're talking about is a censorship of expression that is literally unprecedented in the Western world. There's no, there's, there's no comparison to like all media that depicts eroticism is gone. Like that's just such a massive, you know, what about nude art, simplistic drawings? How detailed does an anatomical drawing have to be before it becomes an issue? I just want to know, because I don't know how this plays out, like realistically. Well, I mean, you conceded that there are some restrictions that would be reasonable to restrict porn. Like what? I mean, well, that's what you claimed. So I can draw the line anywhere and I'd be consistent. Where would you think should we draw the line? You already mentioned child porn? Yeah, that's probably pretty bad. I don't want any lines when it comes to like the pornography that we have, though. I want labor laws when it comes to sex workers, but that's not a censorship of pornography. That's labor regulations on its production process. But I don't want any tailing there, but you got to give me an example, because again, like the line on this, the line for like what is determined to be child porn is pretty clear. You have like the age of the people involved, but like what makes something pornography? Like even the courts haven't figured that out. I mean, we can like a start of banning all photographic and videographic pornography. Like that can be a line, like any nudity. And like, so what about that could be a start? What about like anatomical stuff or like any context or like medical research? Like here's an example. Medical research is fine. Well, what about the nude yoga videos you can find on YouTube, you know, like for purely educational purposes? You know what I'm talking about? Yeah. So I mean, I would, again, it's like my argument doesn't hinge on where we draw the line. But as long as you're willing to acknowledge that line can be drawn because there is harm at some level at some level, there is harm with pornography. I think we're agreed. We're agreed in this. Oh, no, no, no, not even not even like remotely. I think there are like, but you just said earlier, you said that just like with artificial food that the government should ban certain kinds of artificial food because it's too addictive. Then also with pornography at the extreme level, you left it vague. It should also be restricted. I never said anything about extreme pornography being banned. I don't know what extreme means in this context. I think that you can make a simple like production labor restriction of what chemicals are used for food. That's a production process thing. But porn is art. And I don't think right now the government does very much at all over here in the States to regulate art production. I would be incredibly uncomfortable with that the idea of like the government getting to lean in on every drawing uploaded, everything produced. You're fine with the government leaning in when it comes to children being uploaded in the Senate pornography. So it's not like a technical issue that can't be solved. It is. Well, you can solve it. The question is whether or not in solving it, you do more harm than good banning child pornography does more harm than good or sorry does clip me clip me does more good than harm. If you that's a pretty simple and easy line to cut down, you point at it right there. And it's like, okay, we're not going to allow that cablamo people pretty much get behind that. The problem is when it comes to like the right for a free citizen to just put their tits up online, when we talk about banning child pornography, it's because then kids are getting hurt. But if some lady wants to put her tits up on the internet, the only harm that you can point to is some kind of nebulous social degeneracy, which I would never support a law being made to to crack down on. But my argument and appeal to degeneracy, my argument appeal to the value of pair bonding and the value of advocating polygamy like five minutes ago. Yeah, it's totally wholesome. Okay, this is very much a you thing you can't pair bond. No, but no, but the example I gave is imagine like you're in a society that does not have polygamy, but also pornography has banned. Look at the benefit that is attained. People have well, let me explain to you like you have people who have this natural sex tribe, they can't get this kind of release from pornography. They can look for a mate and they do that by, you know, improving themselves, making themselves attractive to a potential mate. So this improves society. What's wrong with convenience? You form a pair bond with someone in a loving relationship, you're happier, you're more satisfied, you produce children, the problem is children who will take care of you who will. So wait, stop, stop, all of this is no, no, no, you're narrativizing right now, you're running off to the sunset. Couple of problems here. First of all, this is like arguing restaurants should be banned. So people have no choice but to cook food at home, which will teach them cooking skills and improve society. It is true that it's cheaper and more learned to cook all your food at home. But frankly, I don't fucking want to, and I do want to see titties online. I like titties. I don't think it's like good to restrict human artistic and social development, because you believe that there's some kind of like old world social benefit to curtailing certain behaviors that are only harming society in direct ways that translate through human freedom. Also the idea that people form loving relationships because pornography is not around, this isn't true at all. People love to jerk off about how like the relationships used to be better. That's not true even remotely. We have documentation that goes back to the literal middle ages about desperate women trapped with abusive men, about like spousal violence. Spousal rape wasn't even a crime in the United States till a few decades ago. I'm pretty sure in good parts of the Muslim world it still isn't. So you like you see happy relationships because you deny the people who are victimized in them the ability to like divorce or express themselves in any way. It's easy from the top down when you look at statistics. Oh, look at the good people of I don't know Saudi Arabia, 0.01% divorce rate. Well, these women are like essentially like ball and chain to their house, you know? It's like these narratives. This is why I say narrativization, right? Because we're telling a story right now. It's like people who talk about how like, you know, oh, back in the middle ages, everyone lived together on a farm and they were happy. Like no, they weren't. Like things were miserable back then. We have to be critical about the way these institutions manifest because there are very strong social pressures that try to kind of coerce us into viewing them positively. It's almost like a fairy tale, right? At the end of the day, there are plenty of things that can get in the way of a person and like a happy relationship or a marriage. Those factors have been present for basically all of human history. Some of them are less prominent today than they used to be. Some are more prominent. And I think the best way to handle this is to try to give people what they want and make people want to make the healthy choices for themselves rather than denying them the ability to make a choice at all because that never works. If you give people whatever they want and appeal to their dopamine, you know, circuitry in the mind, then you can give a child all the candy it wants to eat and it'll love it. It'll be convenient. Well, let me finish because I let you give your piece, but the same kind of thing can happen with adults just like with drug usage. Like drug usage is something that you want to reduce. How you do that, there are many different approaches that you can take. You can take criminalization, you can take educational programs or whatever, but everyone recognizes that drug usage is bad and you don't just tell people that, oh, well, here's all the heroin that you want. Here's all the cocaine you want. Just practice enough willpower and that's going to solve the problem. No, that is a very destructive approach. That's literally what we do. Wait, that's the effective method. Yeah, that's the reason. Even in countries, even in countries where there's decriminalized, drugs are decriminalized, that doesn't mean that they're legal. They're still illegal, but you just won't get put in prison for them. So no, no, functionally, they have there are literally facilities, even in the United States, where if these people want to do heroin, the government will give them heroin. I think Sweden does this. This is good because it reduces the likelihood of them overdosing on low quality heroin. People don't want to be addicts. People want to live healthy and fulfilling lives. How do you live a happy and fulfilled life? You can't do it if you're addicted to something. You can't form meaningful relationships because you have no drive to do so. Your sex drive has been completely sapped because you're constantly masturbating. Just like a child who is constantly eating candy or donuts processed food is going to die. That's the harm. We're not children. Second of all, drug addicts aren't children either, but we still want to curb the usage of those drugs. Arresting people who are drug addicts has not lowered the rate of drug addiction. Instead, what you do is you give them a clean place to shoot up. You give them clean dope and you give them access to medical care. This is, no matter how unintuitive it might seem, mathematically more effective at reducing drug overdoses and drug addiction. My point was simply that, I'm familiar with decriminalization, but my point was very simple that the drugs are still acknowledged as being harmful to society and you don't want to just spread them widespread so that people can access them wherever they want or however they want. With pornography, it's widely available. It's easily accessible. Anonymously, you can access it. This has driven up the usage of it to astronomical levels and people are not having sex as a result. Forget about marriage. The percentage of virgins under 34 has skyrocketed. This is what I mean about correlative and causative. There are other things happening right now that are making it difficult for people to get laid. This is a one-to-one thing. The best way to get people to live good lives is not to deny them the ability to make good choices. It's to incentivize the good choices. You don't want to ban drugs because that doesn't really reduce drug usage that much for one. It has increased it for a couple of reasons in the States at least. And for two, because you're not actually giving people the tools that they need to get in a better position that they would have been otherwise. You're still letting them languish in the conditions that incentivize drug use. In Portugal, they decriminalize drugs. You don't get arrested for doing drugs over there, but they keep an open door for rehabilitation. The goal then is to allow these people's better instincts to take over. If you arrest them, all they're going to do is stay a drug addict in prison. They get let out in the street and the first thing they think of is, how do I get more drugs? Banning pornography will not make men act good. Men act horrible everywhere. It might make them, I don't know, go out and rape more women. The rise of internet pornography has correlated with a significant reduction in the rate of sexual assault. So that's another thing to take into account. But for the most part, I think it's far better. If you want dudes to get their not, you don't want to just ban porn. You just want to like say, like give them the tools, build like walkable cities, give them like local areas to congregate in, build a strong social network, give them hot chicks to talk to, you know, get over to Daniel. Go ahead. Yeah. So I mean, you're you look at a society where you have reduced the amount of meth and cocaine and heroin on the streets versus a society where that is increased. You have more meth, heroin and cocaine on the streets, which is a better, healthier society. It's obviously the one that where there's less of the drug that people can abuse. Wrong. It has nothing to do with this. Let me think. It has nothing. It's fewer addicts. Yeah. So people who don't have a source, they don't have access to the drug. They are going to withdraw from that drug because they have no choice. But this has nothing. No, no, no, no. I can't let you. No, no, no, you keep interrupting me. This doesn't work. James, come on now. I will stay quiet. Let's get Daniel a chance to finish. I will. I apologize. It don't work. It'll be another 60 seconds for Daniel. Every government in the world tries to curb the import of these hard drugs. Yeah. There is a public health problem with drug addicts who are hooked on heroin, but all these governments want to get to a situation where there are fewer people who are addicted to these kinds of drugs. And they take, they're just different strategies on how to do that because they recognize that at the end of the day, this is something extremely harmful. Pornography is also extremely harmful. It creates this kind of addiction. It changes the structure of the brain. And it prevents people from marrying or getting into these kinds of pair bonds. It prevents family. And that's why, when we look at all of the statistics on the rate of, the amount of people having sex, okay, forget about marriage, that has been plummeting. And you want, I agree with you completely that we can't make a simple correlation and say, oh, this is because of pornography that is creating less sex. But there is, there has to be some kind of connection because you can very easily see the causal chain between the lower sex drive because you're constantly ejaculating every single day. People are going to porn without porn. No, there's a difference. There's a super normal stimulus when it comes to pornography. That makes a huge difference. Okay. We're doing the narrativization thing again. One more time to make it clear. Drug prohibition fails. The alcohol prohibition in America in the 1920s. We're talking about morality. We're talking about morality. No, we're not. You keep jumping back and forth. Nobody gives a shit about your morality. We're talking about how you- That's the whole topic of the debate. No, we're talking about how do you improve society? Whether or not you think something's harmful, and by the way, I don't think porn is harmful. I don't think cupcakes are harmful. It's possible to have harmful relationships with them. I think that about video games and everything else. There are literally most of the population looks at porn. Most of the population don't have a porn addiction. There are people with porn addictions. There are people with video game addictions. There are people with food addictions who have eating disorders. I don't think that inherently makes the thing harmful. However, what we're really talking about here is prohibition. And there is just no indication that prohibition has been an effective tactic of making people's choices for them. It's the paternalist's answer, the easy answer. Funnily enough, the child's answer. Because it's so simple. You don't like something, so you ban it. It works for child porn. It works for child porn. It works for many other things that people want to ban. This is what the left is constantly wanting. We still have a massive problem. You want to ban guns or not? Like, is banning guns actually reduced gun violence? Yes or no? I mean, there are many things that they've governed. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I waited for you. I waited for you. First of all, when we're talking about stuff like banning actual real-world products and services, entirely different worlds. We're talking about media distribution and what people have access to. You were including stuff like just a lady putting her tits up on Imager, okay? This is some broadly distributed shit. Also, people don't have a general inclination towards child pornography. I'd like to believe that much about human society. But human beings have been replicating and consuming pornography for literally as long as we've been able to, and the majority of humans consume pornography. So in terms of its widespread distributability, its prominence, this is an entire whole other scale. It's a lot like alcohol, something that's typically enjoyed, hopefully, by adults that almost all of them like or partake into some extent or another for which prohibition has failed historically. And it's funny you keep saying it's a morality issue when you're implicitly arguing in favor of the prohibition, by with this gun ban or whatever. I think it's just my thing. So, okay, now you're talking about like, let me be sure, just to be sure. No, you need to, no, no. Prohibition ain't gonna work. If you want people to make good decisions, you give them the tools to make those choices themselves. You want people to make the right choice because you've encouraged them socially. You've given them the tools. You don't wanna just lock people's lives right in front of them and say, oh, well, all these other things would be detrimental society, possibly somewhat in some abstract way. Oh, sure, maybe you could have a drink of alcohol or maybe you could look at a lady's tits online and be fine, but some people wouldn't be fine. They might like it so much that they have a slightly bad relationship with it or possibly a very bad one. So the state will shoot you if you look at titties online or something to that effect. This is a debris of abstraction which does not warrant state intervention. If you want folks to fuck, give the nurses to coincide and fuck. Well, the problem is- Really long narrative. Here, answer this question. Wait, first of all, you don't get the right to complain about long narratives. Yeah, can we like have two minutes or something? Why can't we just talk like friends? Because you keep interrupting me. That's why. Well, you keep going back to the narrativization and you jumped in on me and you brought up the gunbands and I think that's incomparable. So I had to cut that down. No, it is comparable. Or if you want to limit it to speech. Gentlemen, forgive me. I hate to do this, but because it's something that we did for the first time ever tonight, I want to hear both of you guys' opinion on this. We put a poll in the chat to ask what particular topics people wanted to hear you guys touch on. So we can maybe do a quick refresher and what we'll do is just one minute back and forth. Literally, I'll set it for a 60-second timer. Is first of our four topics, the one that actually came out on top was, what about porn? Does it help lonely people? So I want to hear from both of you on this. I'll give you 60 seconds each. We'll start with Vosh. Or is all yours? It's not necessarily whether it helps or doesn't help lonely people. It's more like it can be potentially helpful. It's just a matter of how they interact with it, right? You could argue that, is it helpful for a person who lives in poverty to see movies depicting wealth and luxury? I don't know. Do they get something from it? Do they learn? Do they experience and understand? I think the individual should be given the opportunity to make the decision as to whether or not they should be consuming it. If they think it's harmful in keeping them from going out and getting real pussy, then that's bad. But 99% of the people watching this right now are lonely. Would you appreciate the long arm of the state coming in and telling you what's good for you? You got it. Daniel, what about you in 60 seconds? Yeah. So lonely people need motivation to go out and make social connections. And right now technology is creating a situation where people have these pseudo relationships because of social media, because of video games, because of these artificial communities that trick the brain into thinking that you are interacting socially with others when in reality it's just a poor substitute for the real thing. If people didn't have these kinds of substitutes, they would be actually motivated, as is human nature, to go and make connections with other people, to pair bond, to get romantic with others, make friends, have a real community, have real social connection. That's what's been happening for the vast majority of human history. It's only now, is it a coincidence, that loneliness has been skyrocketing now that we have all of the pseudo relationships through social media, pornography, technology, and so forth? So should we ban the internet? I do want to jump into this next question because there were several topics. This next one was... Oh wait, this is Q&A section? This is Q&A session? Not yet. It's just like a speed round. I just wanted to reset you guys, to be honest. But it is, I did do the poll. It's you. This poll is real. So this poll, the second one, is they asked what about the treatment of the porn actors or actresses, whatever you want to call them. Are they treated decently? We'll give you a wash, 60 seconds, and then we'll go to Daniel. No, of course not. We live under capitalism. Right now, a ton of the products that we use are literally made by like, sweatshop workers and slaves around the world. No, of course not. Pornography is a particularly visible and sometimes very egregious example of a broader problem, which is the mistreatment of workers. Obviously, I want them to be treated as well as possible, and I would support legislation to enforce that. Daniel? I mean, if porn actors and producers were treated like kings and royalty, that wouldn't change the moral argument that I'm making, because it's still like, my argument has nothing to do with poor treatment. Are they actually poorly treated? I don't know. Like, maybe some of them are. Maybe some of them aren't. Sex trafficking is an issue, as Vosch mentioned. So, but that has nothing to do with the morality of the argument. My whole argument is premised on this value that having healthy relationships, loving relationships between people and creating families, this is something necessary and important for society, and pornography cuts that and undermines that at every level. It sounds like earlier, he was arguing in favor of banning the Internet. So, this applies to so many things. So, Vosch, then what about when you said porn is distributive media, you can't regulate it? What about regulating and censoring Nazi speech or this kind of extreme right speech? Like, should we de-platform? I am a firm believer in the First Amendment. Should we de-platform? This is a perfect segue. Exactly, kind of maybe where you're going, Daniel, at least in one way, shape or form. Another topic was where do we draw the line on different types of porn, in particular, whether it be age or whether it be animals in the words of Cenk, if the horse enjoys it, is it wrong? Oh, okay, no, I'll jump right into it. These are like, obviously, there's incredibly easy lines to distinguish. There's a huge difference between the question, what lines should we draw on pornography when it comes to, it's content and what lines should we draw on its pornography when it comes to the people or types of people involved and what was done to them? Like, for example, there's a pretty hard line you can draw for snuff pornography where they kill somebody or something. It's pretty easy. Like, these lines are very clear. I don't think it's at all comparable to banning all pornography. They're so incomparable that it's kind of... I don't think people understand, like, if anyone's on the fence about this, the logistics of even beginning to fathom what banning pornography would mean, in addition to having never worked anywhere in human history, pornography is just something we sort of species produce, I suppose, that are species being. But like, where we draw that line, it would be like the source of... Like, the amount of government intervention. We're talking hundreds of billions for online monitoring. Are we gonna be doing FBI raids on people's houses because they have hard drives of their girlfriends like sex tapes that they took when they were 27? Like, fuck, I don't know where these lines are drawn, man, but like, holy shit, it's not good for like what? Because people are lonely? You stupid shits, would be lonely whether or not there was pornography. People love to imagine that if they just had the government step in and get rid of this or that, if you didn't have all the est-folo femboy hentai to jerk off to, you'd finally be living a decent life. No, you wouldn't. Everyone likes to blame other couples. A minute, yeah. Was it a minute? I was getting into it. You guys, a minute 30 on that one. There's a little left wash. If you have any other types of porn you want to mention. You would be imagining the fucking femboy hentai in your head if you didn't have it online. The problem is with you, all right? Don't you go blaming internet pornography, you loser. Is that specifically to Daniel? No, no, no, not him. I'm talking to the audience. Oh, I'm just kidding. Come on, Daniel. All right, Daniel, we'll give you a safe thing a minute and a half. Yeah, I mean, the whole question of where to draw the line. Clearly you are drawing the line somewhere, but it seems quite arbitrary to the audience. Why shouldn't snuff films where someone gets killed? If it's consensual, like the person maybe is suicidal, euthanasia is legal in many countries. Why not just put it on film? And what would be the problem with that? Adults consenting and you videotape it. You have a snuff film. Why shouldn't that be allowed according to your morality or bestiality or necrophilia or any of these kinds of practices? Where do you draw the line? So this is already have the line. It's already there. I want to give. Yeah, so it's justified. The point is, is it justified? And not Daniel, if you wanted it otherwise, we can go. Yeah, but I really want Vosh to when he keeps saying that, oh, this is impossible. We need billions of dollars. Look, there's all kinds of moderation that's currently used to ban all types of speech online and Twitter and YouTube and Facebook. They have no problem with heavily moderating the content that is posted. And we're not even talking about videos. Anything that is put online that is objectionable contrary to their TOS, yes, taken down within minutes. So this is so this is something that is not difficult to do with technology and especially with artificial intelligence. But you seem to have this kind of fallacy that it's either everything completely or it's nothing. Why can't there be a middle line? But you're denying that it's even possible. Wait, where's the wait? No, I asked you where the line was and you didn't give me one. If you want to give me a midline, if I think it's impossible, then correct me. Where would you draw the line of pornography? I don't know. When it comes to the technological ability to limit it, you're saying that it's impossible to technologically prevent all forms of pornography from the internet. Therefore, nothing can be done. But this is a fallacy. Okay, fine. Maybe 100 percent, it can't be moderated. But what about 50 percent? What about 70 percent? You could curtail it. You could curtail it. But I don't think you could keep it out of the hands of people who want to see it. I know that because there are plenty of reports on countries that have banned pornography, like Iran, that's still like all the dudes there look at porn. Like all the time. You can curtail it. That's the only point that I'm making that you're conceding to. But it doesn't change the outcome. It does. If you curtail it, you are reducing the amount of usage. Just like deep platforming works. Do you think deep platforming works? That's terms of service. Not about the First Amendment. I'm okay with Twitter banning people, not with the state arresting you for looking at titties. So do you think Twitter banning the extreme right won't that just mean that the extreme right can find other ways to fill in on it? I'm trying to be civil, but you're actually, okay. I'm not trying to trigger you. This is a simple example. Wait, you are triggering me because I'm allergic to retards, okay? Hold on for a second. The idea that there is any parallel between the state criminalizing all forms of pornographic nudity across the entire internet in a world where the internet servers are hosted broadly, that that has any bearing on Twitter TOS is insane. There is no comparison between these things. And I know, and by the way, I just want to point out, I said this at the beginning, okay? You don't actually care about the effects pornography has in society. You're religious. I do. You're opposition. No, your opposition is principle. If I could find... It is principle, but it's also based on the society. No, no, no, no. The effect's on society. Let's bring it into 60 seconds. Go ahead, watch. It's principle first. If there were studies indicating, for example, that the presence of gay people doesn't detriment, like society in any way, you would still be homophobic. And I've seen your site. I know you are. You're not evidence-driven, which is why you abuse evidence when you attempt to use it. I find there's plenty of evidence. Is not harmful for the vast majority of people. Wait, what citations have you made here? Horror is not harmful for the vast majority of people who consume it. Plenty of people of harmful relationships with stuff that you see all around the world, like video games or food. We have studies on the effects these things have on the brain. Your argument earlier was essentially one that indicated we should just ban the entire Internet. The way we form these relationships online, like parasocial relationships with streamers, these do contribute to loneliness. Do you want to ban streaming? Should we just ban the entire Internet? Should we go back to eating nothing more than grain and vegetables? If you want to make the argument that the fruits of modernity can lead people towards unhealthy relationships with media and with products, I agree. But I don't think humans are children. I think that we're capable of making decisions for ourselves and the data backs me. Because prohibition don't work. It has never led to positive outcomes. Daniel, 60 seconds. Wait, how come he gets as much time as he needs? But I get 60 seconds. I just gave him 60 seconds. I can assure you, I really did. Okay, sounded like a lot more than that. But look, the state is constantly threatening criminal and civil liability for all kinds of speech, including when it comes to political speech. That's something found in plenty of liberal societies, including the US. You have the government directly involved with many of the social media platforms that you have the Biden White House actually trying to restrict people's speech on social media. The government has had no problem restricting speech that it seems to be harmful and bad. And that kind of restriction is justified because they say that this is posing a severe societal harm. Therefore, we are justified in curbing it. Now, whether you want to disagree, whether the speech that is being curbed is harmful or not, that's a separate question. But the logic there, the liberal logic that you can ban things that cause significant societal harm, that is sound. It's shared amongst liberal societies. It's shared amongst Islamic societies and Muslim societies. So if we determine that porn is harmful and I've made a clear argument on why it is without appealing to anything other than the value of marriage, the value of love and companionship and family, those very empirical metrics. Then, yeah, plenty of empirical studies to justify that. Then that would be something that should be also curbed, whatever way that would be, whatever kind of laws could curb that. That's a separate discussion. Wash or 60? Yeah, no, it's simply not the case. People like to fear monger over pornography in particular, but all of these arguments apply to all of these products of modernity to varying extents. That's why he won't answer directly, should we ban the internet or whatever. All these arguments, he wants to talk about the effects of ejaculation. People have been jerking off without porn. You want to talk about the effects of people forming emotional pair bonds with people they're not in direct relationship with. Say hello to dancers, models, TV actors and actresses, and people you see out there on the street. You want to talk about infidelity? We have plenty of evidence to indicate that infidelity goes back way the fuck before internet porn does. People fear monger because, again, people are lonely and desperate and they're looking for any opportunity they can get to find the problems with their life. People who want simple solutions to those problems will always defer to the authoritarian answer. They'll say, what if the government just banned it? But when you grow up and look at the actual effects of prohibition worldwide, you see pornography and rape is incredibly common in the Muslim world. You see that the United States war on drugs hasn't led to a decrease in drug usage and has made the problem worse and has been very expensive. The criminalization of alcohol, like increased alcohol consumption, when you realize these problems are complicated, you understand that humans are complicated and you can't just pull them along the right social path by the nose. You have to give them the incentives to do well. Daniel. Yeah, I just want to note, you keep saying that the Muslim world is filled with rape. You know, I think that this is an Islamic phobic talking point that I hear from the far right. I didn't expect to hear it so much from Bosch. It's kind of disturbing how much you keep saying this trope about Muslims being raped. It's common in misogynistic countries. Okay, this is interrupting again. But yeah, I'm just pointing out that you sound exactly like the far right. When it comes to banning alcohol and prohibition, no, these things do have a positive effect. This is actually a myth that prohibition led to, was a failure. Prohibition did lead to organized crime and things like speakeasies. But the overall drinking went down in society. It was a positive effect that the government decided that alcohol was causing a problem. It's harmful and they prohibited it. And the actual usage of alcohol went down. That's a positive result if you accept that alcohol is harmful. This whole debate is not about prohibition. You keep wanting to make it about prohibition and you bring all these strawmen. But when it comes to reducing the harm, it's something that's harmful. Therefore, it should be done. So this is fantastic. No, alcohol consumption fell at the very beginning of prohibition, but it only took a couple of years for it to increase massively from that point to the point where it was nearly breaching. Why would that happen? Because people like alcohol. Why would it increase beyond what it was initially? Because people wanted to get drunk. Because people like drinking. They like fun. They like big titties, obviously. No, why would the rate go up beyond its original level? I want to be sure that Hodge gets a chance to make his one minute. I know, it's so hard here. Not only did it not work in curtailing alcohol consumption. Like, ah, yes, we criminalized it countrywide, brought it from 100% to 90%. Job well done, boys. We only created modern organized crime, spent billions of dollars of government money, got a lot of people killed. Job well done, lads. Nothing has changed and everything is worse. No, this is ridiculous. And it's, I don't know. It's just the authoritarian mindset. It's just, you know, well, I think thing bad. Therefore, get rid of it. Should we get rid of gaming? Live streaming. Tell me, should my job be illegal? Go ahead, Daniel. I mean, you keep repeating the same kind of point. Like, yes, things that are addictive, like gaming, like these apps that hook you in because they have taken advantage of your dopamine receptors. That should be made illegal. All getting child porn banning. No, all games do not do that. Playing, like, for example, Super Mario Brothers is not the same as playing Fortnite. Fortnite has been designed to be as addictive as possible using technology and science that did not exist when, you know, ping or pong came out. People get video addiction. So this is, so the point being that you're not an authoritarian if you decide to ban child pornography. This is something that society has determined to be harmful. And the government takes action to ban it because it is harmful. That doesn't make you an authoritarian. You're just begging the question when you're constantly saying that, we shouldn't ban these things because banning will never work. Clearly banning does work. Governments put laws in place all the time to legally restrict people from things that they want to do or they desire to do. That's a part of a legal system. You're basically denying the possibility of laws. I love you, James. Interestingly, the thing that led to the biggest decrease of child pornography production and child abuse wasn't making child porn illegal. I don't even know when that would have happened like a long time ago, I guess. In fact, child abuse like child sexual abuse was much higher back during the 1970s and 80s. The thing that made it decrease wasn't actually making it illegal. It was already illegal. The thing that made it decrease was the Me Too movement precursors. Obviously, the Me Too movement was like 2016. But the idea of taking people seriously when they talk about the experiences of abuse they've had or listening to kids, if they say, or giving sex education to younger people because it would help them identify if they're being abused. Behavior like that was the actual most effective metric in bringing down the abuse of children, which I suppose you find funny because I hear you laughing. But your amusement at the concept of children being abused aside, the actual thing that brought it down, it wasn't just the law. Because at the end of the day, the law is a very ineffective clumsy tool. The best thing you do is to create social pressures and cultural incentives that lead people towards good behaviors. Law can be supplementary. I don't think the existence of pornography warrants it in any case. I don't think it's even remotely comparable in harm. Again, might as well ban all video games because video game addictions have existed for as long as they have. It's not like loot boxes were the beginning of video game addictions. Livestreamers form parasocial relationships, but hell, so did TV stars. Depending on where you want to draw the line, your arguments are an excuse to ban everything. But from the best results, always come not from the authoritarian measure, but the considered measure. How do we address these problems substantively? How do we correct the... Yes, James, I give it to you. Yeah, I mean, this whole thing has been a strawman. Like, when did I say that only have authoritarian measures, quote, unquote? Yeah, I agree, have social programs, have all kinds of deterrents to prevent people from using this kind of material. No problem, but the whole argument should be about, the whole debate should be about whether it is harmful. And I've made an argument about why it is harmful, and all you can do is revert back to this lame strawman argument that, oh, it's impossible to ban it, so your whole position is ridiculous. Like, this is a strawman. Yeah, I agree. Have all kinds of social programs. Child porn, you're absolutely right. It's not just decreasing because of the law. It's also the huge social stigma that's associated, rightfully so, with that kind of practice. Why can't pornography have the same social stigma in addition to banning it, in addition to preventing people from accessing it, so that they actually go out and form these kinds of relationships, have happy marriages and families, and flourish like human beings are meant to do so, instead of sitting in front of a screen masturbating all day. So right, so should we ban the video games, sitting in front of a screen, playing video games all day? Video games, yes. Yes, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You keep doing it. All games have the ability to incite that psychological response. No, no, no, no, no. Don't show me the study that shows that. You can't walk by this, okay? All forms of media can, but video games, because they're interactive, have a higher potential to elicit this response. You keep acting like any time, any person sees any pornography, that pornography is designed to be maximally addictive, and we're talking like some chick with fat titties, posting them on Twitter or something. You keep exacerbating the effect of pornography relative to other things that can cause addiction responses. You're lying. Pornography has a prominent effect, but so do interactive mediums like video games. Plenty of people have video game addictions. A lot of people watching have video game addictions. I might be willing to argue more people watching this right now through my audience have video game addictions than pornography addictions. But when I ask you, should we ban video games, your answer is, oh, only the addictive ones. But you haven't delineated the difference between addictive and non-addictive porn, so you're lying right now. You want to ban all games. I'm not lying. Look, if it's shown that playing Super Mario Bros. is going to prevent people from getting married and is going to prevent them from having sex and is going to prevent them from reproducing in the same way that pornography does, then I'll gladly concede ban Super Mario Bros. in the same way that you ban pornography. I mean, this is not a problem for my argument. You want to look at studies that talk about porn addiction? Or the thing is, we don't talk about recreational use of crack cocaine. Pornography is the same thing. Taking one hit is enough to get you hooked, especially since most people, since most children are exposed at an average age of 10 years old, right? They just come across a website and that elicits and that elicits a curiosity that the child wants to consume or seek out more and more pornography. And when they have access to phones and tablets and the internet, that's where the addiction comes from. But the initial hit is the same kind of hit as a kind of hardcore drug. This reminds me, I do want to jump into this because this is the last one on our poll. So earlier I mentioned what are subtopics that people want to see you guys address. We'll give you 60 seconds each for this topic as well. Can I respond to that and then get to what you're saying? No, no. Daniel says no. I didn't get a chance to respond to your final word either. How about we come back to it? Can I just say one sentence? One sentence, sure. He sounds like a fucking dare officer. Everything he said there could apply to video games. Just one hit when you're 10. Oh yeah, Super Mario Bros. A lot of those people ended up getting game addictions. It's the same thing. He's just playing it up. Go give a hit of crack to a 10-year-old. Like we're talking about games. It is the same. We must, I hate to do this, we must jump. This one is on whether or not porn might negatively affect relationships. So let's say it's a monogamous relationship and let's say they're committed to each other. Is that, so let's say yeah, old fashioned. They're committed to each other. They're not open. They're not swinging or anything like that. What do you guys think? Wash first. I think it depends on the relationship. It can be harmful depending on their standards, but I think a healthy relationship should be accommodating of porn use. The idea that like anytime you look at porn, it like makes you think less of your partner or whatever. I don't buy that shit. The idea that it's like cheating your part. I don't buy that shit. Again, like it's people's preferences. You should respect your partner's preferences and talk about it and find out what you're both okay with and the relationship if you're not. But like, I don't know. It's like so many people consume porn. It seems like it's easier these days to just be like, oh, well you like porn. Well, I like porn. Like maybe we can jerk each other off when we look at porn together someday or whatever. It's like a sex toy except it's on the screen. Who cares? Got it. Daniel? Yeah. So there's a study that actually addresses this from 2011, viewing sexually explicit materials, alone or together, associations with relationship quality published in the archives of sexual behavior. Quote, individuals who watched porn alone reported twice the rate of cheating on their partner in comparison to couples who didn't watch porn at all. Individuals who viewed porn alone and with their partner reported three times the rate of cheating. So there are many, many studies on this. Does viewing pornography reduce marital quality over time? Evidence from longitudinal data? Also archives of sexual behavior? Pornography and relationship quality? Establishing the dominant pattern by examining pornography use and 31 measures of relationship quality in 30 national surveys. So all of these studies show that pornography use is associated and sometimes even causally linked to decreasing relationship quality and also cheating. Like where this is not a swinging couple. This is a couple where the one party is doing something extramarital on the side. So this is not the kind of stable relationship that the relationship that leads to a happy, stable society. Time. Sounds correlative to me. No, longitudinal studies are not correlative. Longitudinal studies can absolutely be correlative. They don't intrinsically demonstrate causation. Look, everything is correlative. It's like correlation does not prove causation, but there are indications of causation that are shown through experimentation. Longitudinal studies is not just cross-sectional. Yeah. That's what you do in science. You do experiments to show that a correlation is highly probably causing the phenomenon. They're not doing experiments on people's levels of infidelity related to porn usage. I don't know what kind of experimental model they're implementing. I didn't say it's experimental. But then why are we talking about it? I did our longitudinal. It's looking at over time. That doesn't mean they're causative. I would need to look at that. I can't live react to all these studies here. But the one you said there, it sounded like it was correlative. I would need to look at it. I'm telling you, longitudinal studies are not purely correlative. Also, I think it's the right of those people if they want to look at porn, even if it ends the relationship. As a freedom lover myself, if you want people to have good relationships, you can't just have the state hold a gun to their head and go, don't engage in any behaviors that might compromise the legitimacy of this social institution. No, if you want people to have good relationships, that has to be born out of their individual free will. They have to choose to act in the good way towards each other. Yeah, but you want to help them make the right decision by having kind of social conventions. Yeah, that's another big problem with social conventions go hand in hand with laws. But I mean, most of society... I just said state holding a gun to your head. That's what I... When I say law, I mean state hold... When I say the state holding a gun to your head, I mean law. It's not... You're not choosing the right decision. You're not even making a decision. If the state has a gun to your head. How's that a decision? So you don't think that it is bad for people to have the right to cheat on their spouse, but do you think that... Of course, people should have the right to cheat on their spouse. So, but on a mass level, like a societal level, do you think you're a two society? Society A, you have a low rate of extramarital affairs and cheating. And society B, where there is a high rate, comparatively high rate of extramarital affairs and cheating, which is the better society? The first one, because they're free. P, freedom means the freedom to make bad choices. That freedom means the freedom to make mistakes. That's what freedom is. We're not clockwork dolls and this isn't the Sims. No, you didn't answer the question. You didn't answer... One society has like 10% cheating, and another society has 50% cheating. Are they both free? They're equal in every single way. So they're both so in one society. So there's no law against cheating in either. There's no difference between the two societies. Exactly the same in terms of laws, in terms of social conventions. Everything is the same. Well, then I suppose it would be better to not cheat. It seems like a wrong thing to do to your partner. Why? Because it's rude. Yeah. Yeah, because it's rude to your partner. Because you have standard to your relationship. I'm not thinking it's like an understatement to say that. No, that's it. It's rude. Yeah, it's rude. It's like a violation of their trust. Yeah, it's rude. Yeah, violation of trust is something serious. But the point is that you're acknowledging that the society with lower extramarital affairs is better. Well, guess what? Born usage will increase the amount of extramarital affairs in society. That's interesting because I'm looking at a study right now which indicates that, hold on, across these samples we found consistent evidence that partners who watch pornography together report higher relationship and sexual satisfaction than partners who do not. Notably, this association was not moderated by gender. So this is associations between relationship quality and pornography use dependent contextual patterns of use within the couple. The problem is a lot of the stuff you've said to me feels kind of like Susie. I bet if I looked for your studies, I'd be able to tear a few of them apart because I have the degree to do so. But just looking through some of this modern stuff, the idea like one hit of looking at porn at 10 will ruin your life and you won't be able to fuck about it. Like the degree of narrativization that you've engaged in here indicates to me that obviously these studies are a means to an end for you. Well, you're talking about small effects. Like, yeah, I can agree that one 10-year-old or two 10-year-olds expose some pornography. They're never going to be able to get married. They're never going to be able to have family. No, that's definitely possible. But we're talking about not just one or two people. We're talking about millions, hundreds of millions. And that creates a cumulative effect that has an impact on the character of society. According to this, watching porn together makes the relationship better. So do you think it should be illegal to not watch porn together with your partner? I saw that. So now that we found evidence that watching porn with your partner is good for society, you should be in favor of the state forcing you to jerk off together with your partner while watching some girl getting spit roasted, right? You have like one study, I cited three. But I'll acknowledge that there is going to be studies that will point out what you just read. The means to an end. Right. But I will contend, and I can back this up, that there are more studies that show the detrimental effect. Initially, the science was out on whether smoking is bad for you or not. You could find studies that said smoking was actually great, would make your life so much better if you spoke 10 times a day. Are you seriously comparing? Yeah, I am comparing. But your studies... I'd say pornography is much more harmful than smoking, actually, how I'd go that far. Okay, I know you would, because you sound like a dare officer, like one hit of porn in your life is over. Like, you're coming at, again, like this is what I mean, the empirics for you are a means to an end. Like, all the studies in the world could indicate that it's beneficial for society, and you would oppose it, right? For some, like, what's your point? How do you feel about gay couples adopting children? Even though... What's your point? Like, what's your point? I'm not here to be interrogated by you. No, no, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait. Don't get it triggered. Literally all data indicates that the outcomes for a gay couple adopting children are the same as a straight couple. There's no harm to the kid, no social harm, no, like, weird problems with that, but you're opposed to it, aren't you? Because your religion tells you to. The empirics for you are a convenient, secondhand justification for biases you hold anyway. I bet if I took a look through your studies, it's fine they weren't as causal as you think they are. Yeah, I mean, that's a great argument, too. You know, I don't know what. It's just, I can, you know, when it comes to these questions about these kinds of social issues, this is something that we can do, like, a careful reading of the studies and have an extended discussion. Yeah, we could look at the Quran for answers. I know. No, no, I think that I've established that the empirical studies, like, I've laid down a very clear argument. I've pointed to research studies, I've named some of them. People can look it up on their own and try to verify whether I'm wrong or not, or whether you're right. But the data is all there. And you want to say, oh, this is just a means, this is just a means to an end. So what? Like, address the argument. Can you answer the gay adoption? Address the argument. Wait, can you, just out of curiosity, can you answer the gay adoption question? Are you okay with gay couples adoption? I've answered this on my website, muslimskeptic.com. What does it say? I've answered on YouTube. Do you want me to start interrogating you about your statements about child pornography? I know what your answer is. You want me to do that? The empirics are second hand. Well, for me, empirics, you can interrogate me or whatever. For me, empirics are first hand. I try not to do that. Like, I try to be decent and respectable in this debate and not bring up these kinds of points that are not related to the topic or the debate. Indecency. When you're having a discussion on stuff like this, which is really complicated, like, I want to be clear, my positions on this are strong, but the subject is very complicated. Child porn is more related to this topic of debate than gay adoption. If you want to have a debate, if you want to have a debate on gay adoption, I'm happy to have that. Okay. You want to debate on that? Wait, no, I'm trying to answer your thing. So the subject is really, really complicated and people have the ability to narrativize and bias their perspective in a lot of ways, like, even like researchers do this all the time. So it's important to understand where people come at their arguments from. And I think in your case, it's important to know that for you, like, the empirics don't matter. You could be lying about everything you're saying empirically. It doesn't matter for you either. But it wouldn't matter because your actual source of reasoning is coming from another place. What if all the studies showed that gay adoption is actually, like, horrifically abusive to children? What if all the studies showed that? Would you then say that we have to ban gay adoption? Well, why would they be harmful to the children? Well, wait, why? We're just, I'm just stipulating that all the studies show that gay adoption is extremely harmful. Would you then ban gay adoption? Wait, why is it hard? Wait, that determines my answer. No, it doesn't. It's a very simple question. Wait, no, it does, yeah. All the studies show that. Imagine, imagine. You approach every question with a cudgel. You're like, ban, don't ban, ban. You can't answer the Q&A shortly. You can't answer a simple question. If all the studies- Can you just answer why it's harmful? Just imagine this fantasy world, this impossible world, where all of the studies show that gay adoption is empirically harmful to children. Would you support banning gay adoption? Why can't you answer? Because there's critical context. Because of what you're revealing right now. Empiricism is just a means to an end. What you're revealing right now is that you don't actually- Wait, James, he's not actually- All right, given that you're each speaking at the same time, nobody can hear either of you. And this is what the audience will feel mercilessly. I only want to say, I think this is indicative of his thought process, because to him, whether he likes or doesn't like something has nothing to do with why it is. He has the simple mind of an authoritarian. He approaches it with a hammer, you see? It doesn't actually matter why it is the way it is. It's just whether you like it or don't like it. And I think it's kind of revealing that you wouldn't care what the context of why something is bad is. Oh, we just stipulated for the sake of argument and you couldn't answer the question. If gay adoption was proven in some hypothetical world to be very harmful to children, it should be very easy for a normal person who is guided by the empirics and is not guided by some kind of politically correct ideology or liberal ideology to say that, well, given that all the studies show that this is harmful, this practice is harmful, let's ban it. But you were not willing to say that. You were not willing to say that. Can I ask you a question to help you understand? The existence of Muslims in America causes hate crimes. Should we ban Muslims in America? Can you repeat that? Sorry. The existence of Muslims in America allowing them into this country, allowing them to be here, causes hate crimes. Hate crimes exist because Muslims are here. Should we ban Muslims from being in America? But why are the hate crimes caused? Is it because of the Muslims or is it because of Islamophobes? You're wondering, but you can't ask me to clarify, can you? Because that would defeat the whole point. No, the gay adoption, the gay adoption. Look, okay, fine, fair enough. Ah, it's getting tough. No, it's not getting tough. The gay adoption causes harm because the gay couples are abusing the children. That's why they're harmed. Oh, I figured that. But why are they abusing the children? They just have this hatred of children. If gay couples had an intrinsic hatred of children, then yes, I agree. Maybe it should be bad. I don't think that's true, though. Yeah, or I mean, for any other factor, like the children are being harmed because of gay adoption, whether it's like a lifestyle of the gay couple or gay couples happen to be more violent or whatever it might be, hypothetically, you would support banning it. What if it's people bullying the kids for having a gay parents? But it's not that in this hypothetical scenario. So the reasons matter, yeah? If gay people were inherently more violent or so, yeah, you could talk about that. That's fantasy stuff, but yeah. But the reason matters, you know? The real reason, historically, you know, like a lot of bad outcomes associated with the gays, it's been because people treat the gay people bad, right? Same with Muslims in America. It's not them committing the crimes. People do hate crimes against Muslims. So the reasons why bad outcomes are happening, like the product of what incentives, you know, that matters a lot to me. Yeah, but in this scenario, like the gay adoption is causing harm to children, you can say, because children need a mother and father, children, you know, gay people have to be more violent. In reality, however, everything's fine. This is purely hypothetical. There are no research studies that I know of that show this. But in this hypothetical example, you would be forbanning gay adoption. In a hypothetical fantasy world where things were different than the way they are, then I would have different positions on the subject, yes. Thankfully, in the real world where there is no harm, I do support gay adoption and you... Right. I'm happy to debate you, Vosch, on this topic. James, I think we're ready for the Q&A. We're ready for another debate. Juicy, we're going to jump into the Q&A. I want to say, folks, a couple of things in particular. Our guests are linked in the description. So you have been exposed to their views and you might be like, hey, you know what? I want to learn more about their views. You can click on their links in the description box right now, including the description box for the podcast. As we put all of our debates for modern day debate on the modern day debate podcast. And we put all of our guest links there as well. If you haven't yet, pull up your favorite podcast app and find us as, hey, let's say you're driving to work and if you, like me, I'm in Fort Collins, Colorado. I drive through spots where all of a sudden I don't have data. So it's nice to have it downloaded beforehand and it's 100% ad-free. We don't make a dime off the podcast. We just hope it's a value for you. This one coming in from Satanic Cabal says, I must ask upfront, what are the thoughts of Vosch and Daniel on furry porn? Stuff is fine. Art isn't it. It sure promotes artistic development for one. It's the greatest product of our generation. In reality, the furry stuff isn't that new. People have incorporated anthropomorphized humans into mythology for longer than we have writing. Shinto, Japan, the Greek and Norse gods are constantly turning into swans and fucking people. Loki turned into a female horse. It's a whole thing. I don't know. I think it's fun, whatever. Also, they draw really good porn because the dicks are always really big. That's important. Daniel, would you agree? That sounds degenerate to me. You got it. Thank you. Very empirical answer. Short and sweet. You to have a cue says, shout out to sideshow nav and let's farm great mods. Great mods indeed. And I saw there were some people getting banned in the chat. As a reminder, folks, we do follow YouTube terms of service. So any sort of attack on a group is going to get you banned immediately. No warnings. If you are harassing one of the speakers, such as if you're making fun of Vosch's appearance, depending on how malicious it is, we'll give you the answer. Let him do it. Let him rent. We'll give you, depending on how malicious, if it really looks like you're really going for the throat, we'll say, hey, can you chill out? Otherwise, if it's of the Lucy, like he said, let it rent. But yes, I agree, though. Thanks very much for saying that. Sideshow nav, let's farm, and the other mods do a great job as we do want to follow the terms of service for YouTube. The coolest FR says for Daniel, if authentic Islamic hadith agreed and basically said, quote, porn is good, would you change your entire argument? I'd be Muslim. If the hadith, like, said that, like, if God commanded something, then, you know, that's, we would follow God's commands. So God says, for example, that it is moral and permissible to marry multiple women. That's considered something very disturbing and disgusting to certain cultures. But that's something that God has permitted. There are all kinds of arguments or wisdoms that you can point out to why this is a good practice. For example, you know, in all kinds of societies that don't have polygamy, higher status men inevitably have mistresses. They have inevitably cheat on their wives. But in Islam, it allows higher status men who have more wealth, who have more influence, whatever. They have the option of marrying multiple women who agree to marry that person. So, you know, this is something that gives leeway to men, higher value men in society, within Islamic societies. So we can talk about the wisdoms of that. But at the end of the day, it goes back to what, well, what did God allow us to do? And in the case of polygamy, God has allowed men to have multiple wives. If God had commanded something else related to whatever topic that you want to imagine, then we would follow that as well. You got it. Thank you very much for this question. Coming in from Mr. Monster says, I believe the said topic is actually helpful for the human body. For stress relief and easing of sexual tension, the more you bottle it up, the worse it gets. Daniel, agree? Yeah. Yeah. So ejaculation is something that's necessary and ejaculating with your loving wife or if you're a woman and having an orgasm with your loving husband, that produces a kind of hormonal response that is really beneficial for your relationship. It creates these feelings of companionship and pair bonding that doesn't happen with masturbation. So yes, ejaculation is necessary biologically. It's important. It helps with all kinds of endorphins and feelings of happiness. It's just that much better when you have a person to do it with. I don't disagree with that at all. I just like a reminder that if you want to just quickly boil some ramen so that you can just have it real quick while doing some homework, like that's food, but it doesn't feel that good. But if you make a nice home-cooked meal and you have it with a friend, then there are lots of social receptors in your brain, that pair bond either in a romantic or social sense and make it better there. I'm just pointing out this phenomena exists in almost everything we do. Sex is a social activity, of course. So a lot of the exacerbating factors associated with it versus doing the solo version on your own, like those are going to be present for a lot of different things. We literally do release different brain chemicals when we're hanging out with a friend having a good meal than if we're just eating on our own. Be with people. That's the lesson, right? Be with people. But I don't think the best way to get people to have meals with others is to deny them the home ramen. You can't be like, all right, well, it's better for you to go eat with another person. So fucking starve until you do, you know? I am. Well, that's not the correct analogy, though. It's not like comparing eating food with masturbating. Pornography is creating this super normal stimulus. You should compare eating out with friends versus staying at home and eating a highly addictive, processed, super food that has been generated in a lab. Yeah, ramen is that better? Like if you keep having that, if you keep eating that kind of processed food, that's going to prevent you from going out and seeking those social relationships. Yeah, I don't want the state to ban the ramen. That's the correct analogy with pornography. So the state should ban that super food, highly engineered product. They should ban that. The ramen is, though. Those little squiggly ramen packets are literally a product of millions of dollars agricultural and food engineering. The little powder that you add to the water, like this isn't just some like home recipe or whatever. Scientists worked in it, you know? I don't want the government to barge in, kick down the door and go like, no, it's better for society if you can't have the MSG packet or whatever. You know, fuck that. That'd be, that'd suck. That ramen got me through college. Yeah, but prevented people from actually forming these kinds of relationships. The government would be justified in banning it. I know. Like with the Mario Brothers and everything else good in the world. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Oh, Flamie, oh, this is my religion. Discordianism mandates pornography. Daniel, I don't believe in the super normal. I think that they're a troll. Mr. Monster says not everyone out here wants to be in a relationship or have a partner. And if those people have sexual tension, they should be able to relieve themselves. This is a lot like the last one that they just said in terms of like relief rather than bottling it up. A lot of comers in the chat. Do it like how your ancestors did. Find a, get a telescope and find an open window from a lower rise apartment and peep on some lady. Okay. That's your pornography and the gigachat Muslim future. Oh wait, that's allowed. That's allowed and you're according to your morality? No, that's not allowed. That's voyeurism. It was a joke. Just want to make sure and just want to make sure. The angry Canuck says, Billy Ellish said porn destroyed her brain. Discussion done. Addiction should be discouraged, but not stigmatized in cells and leftists need help. I played like a hundred hours of underrail in like 10 days. I know addiction destroys your brain. Just being an adult means learning to work through these things. The state can't come in and solve every problem. You can't, you can't stub your toe on the step up to the loft in your, in your house. And then like you call the government and have the fucking cops show up and shoot it. You know, we have the potential to form unhealthy relationships with a ton of stuff. You know, it's not just porn. It's always been like this. We have to form strength of character. We have to form the social relationships that allow us to overcome these, these adversities. This one from Malavia. Thanks to your says as a former math and heroin addicted person, porn is nowhere near as addictive nor destructive as drugs. Daniel, I can read you the studies that will disagree with that. Let me quote it for you right now. Okay. Neuroscience of internet pornography addiction, a review and update. The review leads to the conclusion that internet pornography addiction fits into the addiction framework and shares similar basic mechanisms with substance addiction. Another paper, neuroscientific approaches to- Wait, that doesn't speak to the severity though. That just says it's in the same frame. So it says the same basic mechanisms with substance addiction. Yeah, like how a punch in a book use kinetic energy. That doesn't- Yeah, the same basic. So the review, this other study from neuroscience of internet pornography. Oh, that's what I registered. Neuroscientific approaches to online pornography addiction. This is actually a textbook on internet addiction. Given previous results, excessive pornography consumption can be connected to already known neurobiological mechanisms underlying the development of substance-related addictions. Next, searching for clarity and muddy water. Future considerations for classifying compulsive sexual behavior as an addiction. Quote, we recently considered evidence for classifying compulsive sexual behavior as a non-substance behavioral addiction. Our review found that CSB shared clinical neurobiological and phenomenological parallels with substance use disorder. And if you look at the neurobiology of pornography addiction, a clinical review, it goes through how all the same mesolimbic dopamine pathways are fired in the same way as cocaine use or heroin use. This is not triggered by playing Super Mario Brothers. It's not triggered by- Yes, it is. ...having ramen noodles. It's not- Like video addiction. Let me know, literally. I'm answering the questions. Fits under the same pattern of behavior addiction. Video game addictions to Fortnite and those kinds of modern games that have been designed. Video game addiction. Being an online or being a casino addict addicted to gambling, yes, those all have the same kind of pathways. Those are all behavioral addictions. So yes, they're all in the same category. Pornography is in that. They're all bad. So wait, so like you just said, yeah, they're all behavioral addictions. This includes so many types of behaviors. The point that you just made for me is, yeah, the stuff you're complaining about with regards to porn is present in a ton of different human behaviors. You would have to make it illegal like half the shit humans can do. Just because it's a potential for some people. There is no evidence. There is no evidence that shows that playing Super Mario Brothers or eating ramen noodles or eating ramen noodles causes the same kind of pathways of addiction to light up causes prefrontal cortex diminishing in the gray matter of the prefrontal cortex. None of that has been established. None of those other behaviors. None of those other behaviors calls that to the brain. Wait, can you find me a study saying Ron Jeremy specifically causes the same kind of neural pathway markers? Ron Jeremy, can you find it? Control F, can you find it? Because you're just saying ramen and Super Mario. If you said food and video games, food does not cause it. You find the same behavior. Food does not cause it. Yes, wait, you can absolutely find studies. Eating food does not. Eating food is not the same as taking heroin. Consuming pornography does not immediately give you a behavioral addiction, but the category of behavior fits into the solid behavior addiction. How many more studies can I read for you? No, the studies you just read agree with me. Wait, hold on, James, I need to point this out for the sake of medical accuracy. Okay, this is, we're going to get shut down by YouTube for medical disinfo, right? I want to be clear. The studies he just read indicates it. Behavioral addiction is something that can be caused in a ton of different ways. The reason he keeps fashisously bringing up like ramen or Super Mario Bros. is because he knows that if he googled can video games form a behavioral addiction or can food form a behavioral addiction, the answer would be a yes. Can porn form a behavioral addiction? Yes. Is there any evidence that it always will? No, same with food and video games. You would ban the world, man. It would be, there would be nothing left, but an empty room in a Quran that we could ram our head against because it's also been found that reading can cause addictive behaviors when it comes to narrative dependency. So we just rammed our head against it and prayed. That's all we'd have, but people form addictions associated with religiosity as well. There are people addicted to religious-oriented behaviors. So we'd have to ban that as well. They looked at specifically non-addicted behavior. They looked at very low exposure to pornography and they immediately noticed these kinds of changes to the brain. Look at the study. Brain structure and functional connectivity associated with pornography, consumption published in July 2014. It's looking at non-64, non-porn addicted males and it's pointing out that just when you start, these changes start happening to the brain. We must look forward. Exactly with any kind of drug usage. It's not the same with food. It's not the same with eating bread and then your brain starts to change. We just have so many questions. Is this one coming in front of you? This one. You'd have to accuse, says Daniel, adult porn bad. Let's see, question mark. This one coming in from Jesse Miller says correlation does not equal causation and the opposite fallacy is rejecting the possibility of causation because correlation does not equal causation. That's absolutely true. 100%. It is entirely possible that there are causative factors here but I think they need to be determined when claims are being made so strong as like society will crumble unless we ban this or that because human happiness is oriented around the strength of the family. The problem is like having read a lot of research studies on the subject myself, these studies are not as determinative as he claims they are. I mean, the ones he just read out loud completely support my point that it's porn addiction just fits into a broad category of behavioral addiction which is present in a ton of other human behaviors. But if we take a look at the specifics on this a lot of it is like way more complicated. You can get interesting results on people's brain patterns but just if they change their diet over a long enough period of time like in a short time because the rush of chemicals their brain and the sugars that process stuff is complicated. I just don't want people to fear monger over like fat titties online. I like fat titties online. They're fucking huge sometimes. This is important shit. Like the changes that you're talking about when it comes to going on a diet or what about music? Like people who learn how to play an instrument their brain also can change. So you could say, oh well see playing you have to ban playing music because it causes changes to the brain. That's not the argument that I'm making. It's a change to the brain that changes your ability to control yourself. Changes your ability to make a kind of long-term decision making because you prefer short-term benefit over long-term value. Like the prefrontal cortex what's called hypofrontality will actually change your attitude your personality. And this is something that has been documented in research study after research study. You've been on this one for so long. I hate to do this but this one coming in from Yeshua the king says if Allah allowed porn would Daniel contest it? I think we basically had that question before. If you want to say anything you can otherwise I'm moving to the next one. Yeah I want to say something because this question about banning like I'm only arguing on the basis of empirical studies and it's only in reality my position is only because Islam disavows it. Like this is a mischaracterization of Islamic and even just religious reasoning in general. Like you can have a kind of utilitarian argument within religion. Like Islam does consider like the real world circumstances and how things can be negatively impacted by societal behaviors. So even something that is not explicitly banned in the in the Quran or in the Islamic tradition Muslim scholars could still on the basis of a utilitarian or consequentialist reasoning determine that that needs to be banned or that needs to be promoted. So you're straw manning actually religious arguments and specifically Islamic arguments. Like the kind of argument I made in this debate is perfectly in line with Islamic religious morality and I'm not trying to be too faced. Like I really actually believe that non-Muslims should seriously consider the harms that come from pornography usage even if they're not committed to any kind of religious morality. This one from Olgoat says Daniel your arguments involve flipping the script and using peer reviewed studies from Western institutions against liberals. How do you decide when science is valid outside of an Islamic agenda? I think that the truth is the truth. Like I think the truth is consistent. Empirical reality is consistent. My belief and what I've seen in the entirety of my life is that empirical reality is consistent with Islamic teachings about the world about ontology about epistemology about morality. And that's on the that's you know the premise that I take to all the debates that I go into. So there's a concordance between the truth. Sometimes science can get things wrong. I think everyone acknowledges that. But if there's something that is definitely true empirically then it will coincide and be compatible 100% with Islam. And if there's something that the science says that happens to be conflicting with Islam then I would just say that we need to look at those studies and determine what is exactly the truth. You got it. And in terms of the phrase PMO addiction I think this means pornography masturbating and orgasm. This person says King Cash says as a person who separate from PMO addiction for more than four years with on and off cycles thankfully now I've conquered the horrible addiction Vosch has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to porn. Well that's not very specific. No I do. Behavioral addictions can be really serious in many ways. Even without a chemical reaffirmation like by doing cocaine or heroin or whatever you know. People say this about like marijuana right? Like they're marijuana addicts even though the like people can form behavioral associations and this stuff can be really strongly. People will live or die over behavioral associations. It's not that I don't recognize how serious it can be it's that I don't think like the problem is getting the state to run in and like ban for all humans the shit that you have an irresponsible relationship with you know. It's a bit it's self-interested on your part with respect. The best thing we can do I think is like better mental health access and resources better sociability in society so it's easier for people to make friends. I think that a lot of this also comes down to toxic masculinity because people have a really tough time like talking about shit like this if they're a guy you know girls talk about a lot of shit with each other and that can be good for your mental health you know guys tend to clam up and that can be kind of fucked like there are things that you can do and I wholeheartedly support this I just don't want the government to like bring the hammer down but it's not about a lack of concern for you okay. I do take it seriously if I sound like I'm being facetious with all the big titty jokes or whatever like you know I mean I am facetious generally but it's not because I don't care you know this one from Charlie Dowell Tazkirin says wrestling is a sooner in Islam Daniel and Vosh should have a freestyle wrestling match Salam Alaykum Daniel May Allah grant you Jannah this one coming in from I don't have a law on my side I'll lose what the fuck I'm an I'm an atheist I'll lose Sunflower says Vosh you support decriminalization of drugs but you support fentanyl vending machines in every home because that's how accessible porn is to anyone with a computer it's uniquely ubiquitous and free I wanted to be the third tap right next to the right next to the hot in the cold for the sink let me base this fuck no really though I don't think that after some drugs I don't think actual drugs are comparable to pornography at all I don't think it's possible to have a healthy relationship with something like fentanyl I do think it's very easy to have a healthy relationship with pornography because I think I think that with pornography fits more within a behavioral category that I would compare to stuff like food or television or video games where people can form negative relationships with it and that's serious but like most people are fine whereas stuff like fentanyl is being a drug it's not just a behavioral addiction it's a chemical addiction it literally kill you it rots your body this one from Brenton Lengel one of my favorites Brenton to see you Brenton he says oxytocin doesn't just come from sex it comes from touch music exercise a dad gets more oxy from holding his baby than from sex the idea that every activity should produce it is patently ridiculous does that ban babies contradict does that contradict anything I said ban babies this one from usb and first try he says the question wasn't whether it should be outlawed but whether porn is bad for society I wonder how many people would be comfortable admitting their mother or sister does porn for a living not judging okay wait that's a bias result though right there first of all like your if your mom tells you that she just took a fat shit you probably wouldn't wouldn't want to hear that either but you wouldn't set the government on banning moms from taking shits you know that's that's more of a like tmi type deal than it is like a social harm type deal also people of biases that don't necessarily translate into objective social harm right like that's that's what goes back to like the muslims cause hate crime argument you know like maybe them being their causes hate crimes but it's really a discrimination against them that like actually makes them happen yeah no this this stuff is complicated um yeah brendan langle strikes again says if you have problems with apps and food using the science of addiction to manipulate the consumer you have a problem with capitalism and the profit motive daniel well i guess that's true i don't believe in a kind of libertarian free enterprise i'm actually surprised that if i'm wrong i think vosh is a marxist or he has some sympathies towards carl marx who said that religion is the opium of the masses but i think that porn is actually much greater opium for the masses that prevents revolution because if people were not able to release through pornography they would actually look at the kinds of problems in society such as you know not being able to get married you know when you have like a over 40 percent up to 50 percent incel rate in some countries like japan people aren't able to get married but they don't revolt why do they not revolt even though they can't get married and have a loving relationship have a family they don't revolt because they have all of this pornography that they're busy masturbating to if the government closed you know turned off the spigot those japanese or you know those french or whoever would be out in the streets calling for you know revolution peaceful peaceful revolution at the ballot box of course at the ballot box but you know the the pornography is actually tangibly preventing people from being you know aware of the problems and the oppression of the ruling elite capitalist class so i think on that basis we can have some common ground vosh but remember the full quote is religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions that is the opium of the people so carl marks would also say that pornography that deep anal is the heart of a heartless world in which case i would have to agree with him again really drop up and bangers that guy this one again from do appreciate your question kairi erving says vosh stop comparing anatomy slash scientific drawings to the unlimited amount of internet porn which kids can discover usa obscenity laws cover this difference they cover it by basically saying and you'll you'll know when you see it that's the problem the obscenity the obscenity laws are already incredibly vague and people are already really really really unwilling to invoke them in large part because they're so vague that they're almost legally useless like the literally like the us like legal precedence on what pornography is as you know it if you see it right and trust me like if you make an anatomical diagram of like oh well this is like the how the breast tissue whatever looks like there's not really a hard line there okay people were jerking off the sears and robot catalogs for like decades before internet pornography came along I promise you that if there was broadly available anatomical medical diagrams online the government would be watching that shit with a very close eye you know it'd be it's you know is you can you can show a male erection but you it's long as it's less than six inches you know I mean this is not like this is not accurate like the whole idea that I know it when I see it like that's the that's the thing for a lot of complex phenomenon like tell me give me a definition of happiness and if you can't give me a definition we don't legislate happiness no I'm just making a conceptual point that just because there is not like a criteria in a few lines that you can express in the law doesn't mean that it doesn't have a definition or it doesn't have a clear distinct concept that you can regulate that's the whole point of that that's the whole point of the statement I I know it when I see it that's not clear or distinct that's incredibly vague that the human mind knows what happiness is even though if I put you on the spot to define happiness no it doesn't if human minds do what happiness was we wouldn't be talking about porn you can you can define happiness you can define justice like what is people could what is that what is a game like no no but we all have an idea of what a game is my idea of porn is probably I mean this is the whole this is like the vipkinsonian argument in philosophy that you don't necessarily have to have a concrete verbalized definition you have the concept you can have the concept of something like what is obscene or what is a game I have the concept and I can recognize examples I've never seen before in my life I can say yeah that's a game yeah that's obscene yeah that's justice I can identify those things I'm sure you have very confident answers but mine would be different yeah I'm just giving it like a vipkinsonian argument you can't have like legal lines being drawn on vipkinsonian abstractions here you can because people know what is obscene no people have different ideas our ideas of obscenity are different yours and mine that's not good enough every judge would have a different ruling that's not law that's just individual tyranny that's just giving the judge the free right to decide what they do and don't like you can't have legal lines drawn people have different definitions therefore you can't make laws basically you're denying the possibility of any law because all laws depend on different concepts have a central that people will differ on people will differ on concepts that are invoked in the law there is no central definition of what pornography or obscenity is who decides what's the central definition well usually through legal precedent and we haven't done it so you're just begging the question no okay wait legal precedent is what the law is I can't tell if you're deliberately being dumb or not there is a huge difference between the law making a concrete distinction in direct terms and trying to legally distinguish what's something like happiness or obscenity is those are two completely different things which is why our legal system hasn't tried to do it our legal system has given up on trying to define pornography it doesn't there is no strict or clear definition how can they define child pornography how can they define it because who defines the child that is we do just by setting the line at 18 years of age that's it that's empirical you can measure that with that you can measure that with radioactive decay you can't measure what the effect is you can measure the psychological transformation of porn use that's what the whole debate I've been trying to express to you decide whether or not it's not just a subjective thing it's not just a subjective thing it's not just a subjective thing there is tangible objective empirical psychological effects on the mind and I'm not even talking about those of addiction looking at serious roboclips if that were the case then that should also be under the purview of the law wait chicks wearing clothing in sweaters those Sears robot catalogs were like magazines I don't know what you're talking about I don't know what Sears robot young men would jerk off and fucking nut while looking at chicks in tight sweaters okay their brains are lighting up too this one coming in from do you appreciate the word question that should also be been okay raise 174 says Daniel can studies and arguments convince you when you're underlying reasons are really it's the will against the will of God and people who do it go to hell I mean this is the same thing like this is the third time this question has come up but it's important because this is the same thing with liberals okay with people like Vosh hate those guys I'll ask Vosh yeah like whatever you want to define it but Vosh here I'll ask you the same question all your values okay do they can you give me an example of where your values and what you believe actually contradict or contradict the empirical studies like the empirical studies say one thing but you believe something else well the empirical studies can only describe things descriptively whereas my moral values would be prescriptive so there can't be a contradiction between them I have axiomatic values that I attempt to achieve and maximize through empirical understanding and to that extent I try to have my beliefs conform with reality no but what if you have like a certain kind of belief that deeply conflicts with the empirical reality is there any example of that that you can give me no because I would have another word so then you're the same as me we'll know because I have axiomatic values I gave the same exact exact answer to this question of whether anything in Islam will could conflict with empirical studies and then go back to the gay adoption question no I mean this is a conceptual point again like no it's a pretty you're saying that there's it's just coincidence it's just a coincidence that all your values are supported by empirical studies no it's not a coincidence it takes a lot of effort actually okay so I can say the same thing no but yours aren't we demonstrated that with the gay adoption question your beliefs aren't informed by we haven't had that debate if you want to talk about it agree to a debate I'm challenging you Vosh I'm challenging you Vosh or do you know except the debate except the debate any studies that indicate that it's harmful for a child to be adopted I got plenty of studies I got plenty of arguments I'm happy I'm happy to give you any kind of argument and study that you want I know you have arguments on it get into a debate a formal debate we'll have James here he's such an amazing moderator I love him and we'll have that debate this would run just a friendly conversation I'm happy to talk to you as well Vosh Brenton my civil rights Brenton what about civil rights my civil rights I'm gay this one from Brenton Langel says one hit of cocaine has been shown to cause brain changes in mice not humans drugs cannot change a human brain that quickly only long-term use can the hit of cocaine I think that's a super normal is a super normal stimulus this is a neurological term there is more dopamine that is produced in your brain when you take drugs or watch pornography or see big kids on the street or online gambling there's a bigger rush of dopamine to your brain in that one hit then you get from you know eating a hamburger or seeing a curvy piece of wood or looking in a Sears magazine there's a big difference between these kinds of super normal stimuli versus many of the things in common life that humans have lived with for thousands and thousands of years like big titties on the street which didn't exist back in antiquity because we didn't have streets yet but you can't go and sit you couldn't go and stare at someone and masturbate while watching someone's you know breasts in public you couldn't do that like 40% of no no because the alpha male the alpha male would kill you if you stared at his woman that's actually all just jerked off while looking at the big titties no they couldn't they had no access to it because there was no photography they just found the girl a historical you just have a historical opinions that you're just a canuck or angry canuck says this debate is about whether or not porn is good or bad vosh is just debating about whether or not it should be banned because you'd be angry if it gets banned well I mean I do believe in like freedom yeah sorry that I'm an American no the real the real problem is that whether or not it's good or bad is like not an answerable question in large part because there is absolutely no data on the quantifiable happiness achieved by society through jerking off to porn he laughed like he laughed when I said that but it's true any question as to whether or not porn is good or bad became unanswerable the moment it was posed because we have literally no way of empirically measuring the counterfactual we have no idea what good is being done we just have some studies on what harm is being done so the real there's a fact of the matter like no the fact of the matter there's a difference between have that data you'll never have it the real question in the real world as if we're like mature enough to realize what we're really talking about here the real question is what should we do about it that's the actual question people have because big like discussions and whether or not something is good or bad and you don't have all the data it's worthless there's no point it's a child's discussion you know who would win Superman or Iron Man I don't fucking care the real question is what do we do and in this you know in this question we have much more data to work with but yeah you've got to focus on the good stuff this one coming in from do appreciate your question Salman Khan says Vosch pornography isn't natural throughout human history it has always been discouraged or looked down upon that's why you would never marry a porn star after viewing her porn for men is a means to an end that's completely retarded what the fuck are you talking about what it's not a good point people have been carving big fat titties to fertility goddess we have like cave paintings what are you talking about here's a historical precedent established by the concept of a modern porn star not having partners except modern porn stars have partners again like please I'm begging if people disagree with me come up with a better disagreement than I disagree and here's this fantasy world that I live in please god no I think that's like a very coherent that's a very important point like these kinds of behaviors were stigmatized no they weren't do you have a study on that yeah I have plenty of studies do you have a study on ancestral humans and their stigmatization of pornography yeah this has do you do not pornography it hasn't existed show me the study that that says that pornography existed a thousand years ago without using you know that's not pornography oh wait the greek urns where they would literally draw men with erect penises fucking other men in the ass with erect penises that's not pornography that's not pornography pornography is a photo what photo it's a photo only wait then what's wrong with furry porn you were you were dodging me earlier on the big titty drawing question now we okay so our drawings okay well what if it's a hyper realistic drawing like you can draw drawings that basically just look like people these days oh so I agree that there is all kinds of phenomenon that would fall under this broader phenomenon of pornography or what is eroticism or erotica or whatever but I deliberately try to ground the discussion in a conversation about changes to the brain actual physical physiological processes so that we wouldn't get lost in this kind of debate about definitions because it's a pointless discussion to have when it comes to whether pornography is bad for society you you conflate the epistemological question of is can we ever know can we ever know with the actual ontological or moral question because there's a fact of the matter that it is yes it's good or no it's bad for society that whether we can access that true or truth or not that's a separate question so when it comes to child when it comes to child pornography everyone will agree that that is objectively bad someone could come and say oh but what about the studies there's all kinds of conflicting data or maybe the studies are all biased and that's why there's this stigma against child pornography these kinds of fallacious arguments can be used to defend all kinds of any kind of media any kind of pornographic content I was asking you whether drawings are porn what the fuck I wasn't listening to you for a second what the fuck did you get on about I was googling this shunga a type of Japanese erotic art typically executed as a kind of ukiyo-e often in woodblock print format while rare there are also extant erotic painted hand scrolls which predate these it means sex let me see enjoyed by all social groups in the Edo period this is a very explicit drawing if I got if I show this on YouTube look at look at look at it would not I would my channel would get banned is this not porn is this because they seem to like it usually that kind of usually that kind of art or erotica is is very limited in society so the Japanese said it was a Japanese if it was drawn is it drawn I just made a point about we don't need to get the exact definition of what is or is not what whether it's drawn or not that's pretty important okay it's drawn but look at the point okay so porn can be drawn so let's say it's porn let's let's just say let's just say it's porn okay let's just say it's okay so like the but that the effect on society is not the same in those societies like pornography has the effect on modern society why can't you acknowledge the difference so you keep saying that oh we pornography has always existed okay fine let me concede that okay so okay so there you go yeah let me concede but the effect on society has not been the same because technology has made it mass distributed holy shit society has changed in the past two millennia I knew that well yeah we were talking about whether pornography was socially discouraged throughout human history now that we acknowledge that drawn pornography is pornography no it wasn't just because it existed just because it existed did not mean that was not discouraged those vases that were painted in in ancient Greece with like that guys doing deep anal fucking each other those were not like scanty little shad drawings being done in an alleyway this was stuff commissioned by child porn also existed in ancient greece buddy why do you keep going back to child porn because you're a 50 in time you brought it up yeah you bring up a lot of stuff too but why can't you just because child porn is just you're committing these fucking you're committing a fallacy you're committing a fallacy by appealing to the past and I'm saying that okay if pornography is okay because it's existed throughout history well child porn has also existed we're talking it's also been on the urns on the vases of whether or not eaves and all of this has also existed all of this has existed James I'm so sorry I'm just saying I just want to say just as a reminder the specific question was whether porn has been shunned all throughout history to which the objective answer is no those things were commissioned by the aristocracy they were widely enjoyed this doesn't mean that socially acceptable or widely enjoyed the next one and on your mouse says vosh prawn takes away the luster in the face the fire in the eyes you have none that's true if only we had the luster in your mom's eyes after I blew my load after her face you know if only we could all be that happy honest to god I know it's a joke but people like that are really fucking creepy what a zinger what a zinger look in the mirror and you know they're thinking like fuck if only you're genius holy shit you wait you got your chance in the interruption nobody cared don't make four attempts at it you know they're you're like in very obscene you know they're looking is that necessary why is he like this he's like mad the level of obsceneity is like yeah he's like he's like this is this is going beyond like terms of service a better batter a better batter I just smacked vosh with an insult I gotta give him a chance to at least respond yeah but you didn't insult him like that you didn't insult him like talking about his mom I haven't insulted you at all I insulted some random guy who don't know by saying I came that's not appropriate that's not appropriate oh I'm sorry you fucking pussy calm down Jesus Christ was that an insult do you keep bringing up child pornography because that's your mental age he said something rude about a chatter's mom what the fuck is wrong with you how old are you wow you're a beard you're really trigger man well anything from James James just moving on all right Joshua says what is Daniel's opinion on enforcing morality standards on media media does influence people so should a government limit things like glorification of crime and movies he wants to ban serious catalogs I think he'll do whatever you could if you could demonstrate that there is a societal harm that comes from certain kinds of media and yes the government is justified to ban it the government does ban all kinds of things already on the basis of societal harm and Joe Biden is no exception to that look at the amount of things that are being constantly banned because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris determined that that's bad for society look at the whole gun argument that the left constantly uses they think that gun violence is this huge harm and they want it media banning yeah so media wait what first amendment violations has Joe Biden what anti first amendment takes as Joe Biden well they work to regulate the internet on the spread of certain conspiracy theories or covid this information what they define as disinformation there's all kinds of regulations they're pushing these kinds of laws that this is extremist speech what is misinformation yeah where look at look at DHS the department of homeland homeland security look at the department of disinformation that they are trying to to create so what in order to create civil and legal liabilities for those who spread certain types of speech for like defamation and libel yeah we already have laws on those but they've been around for hundreds of years these are these are laws about extremism these are laws about who's been charged this is laws about insurrection laws laws on terrorism these are all about speech these are all about what laws have been created he doesn't he doesn't know you want to have a the she's talking about yeah i do you don't know anything if you want to have a debate on free speech i'm happy to have that debate i know you want because you want to just talk about this because you like talking to me because i'm happy you're entranced by my on on any of these topics can you name a law like hb like a number like one law that's been passed by the bite administration to curtail first member rights yeah look at the countering violent extremism policy that the biden administration uses that the fbi uses that the department of homeland security uses realize that that if you if you if you if you if you express if you express well the scope of what is considered violent and what is considered extremism is constantly expanding so they do do you arrest it who's definition no no let me finish like this is kind of tactic where you're trying to interrupt me you're not telling me a law i am telling you if you let me finish these are policies in the government that are used by the executive branch they're found under the different departments like the fbi like department of homeland security like all of these agencies under biden and it's not just biden it was under trump too like i'm not a trump fan trump biden obama all of these presidents and throughout the us government have banned certain types of speech that they viewed like what like look at co-intel pro look at the kind of okay restrictions that were brought against we're talking about biden i agree co-intel pro was a violation of people's us yeah so the definition of extremism includes speech people can say something that the government decides is extremism like even though they haven't no no not that threats if you like are you know saying something like in favor of Islamic government non-violence who's been arrested for that do you want me to give you a list of imams that i know personally that i've been detained who's been arrested in the united states for being muslims yeah i know that you think all Muslims are rapists as you've said but there have been restrictions on Muslims in the united states through cv e through the patriot act through surveillance biden has the patriot act i thought you were talking about changes in the term of extremism but you can't tell me what change every time i answer your question you add some other question because you completely same one how you debated on all of these issues you don't know what you're talking about bro i'm gonna go to the next one just make some crude remark again like that's your go to a crude remark i'm sorry for offending your sensibilities so wear a hijab next time brenton langels says as someone who is polyamorous polygamy as practiced in islam and Mormonism is inherently abusive it's not about bonding it's about supremacy a healthy relationship must be equal regardless of numbers i have several i have a wife and several boyfriends hell yeah at space to shit yeah it's pretty obvious that the polygamy shit this guy pushes for has nothing to do with like um like pair bonding or like honest committed relationships but it's just like man's expressing his dominion over women it's funny that like somebody advocating that aspect of muslim faith would pretend they give a shit about pair bonding we've already determined that a lot of your positions are not based on empiricism either what the fuck wait because you said that there's it's just coincidental i can't deal with eight hours of you misunderstanding a basic thing i said okay it's a misunderstanding it's a misunderstanding just continue just check the hiddies okay they'll tell you what i said because it's written in there with god's word this is from usb in first try says people who think porn is creepy watch creepy porn franco truillo says was wondering what was bothering me about the question we can't ax out the other half of this the conversation can't stop it whether it's bad but what to do about it i'm personally fine talking about whether or not it should be banned vassily and tanoff says vash doesn't like the state legislating morality how would he feel about cultural shift towards what daniel advocates without any legislation i think that the the pre-existing civil rights legislation that we have is good if the cultural changes that he wants to well first of all the changes he's advocating for like legal predominantly if people made a cultural shift towards like not using pornography though i wouldn't want the state to like force people to look at porn more generally speaking using the government to force cultural changes has just not worked out it's really fucking bad and it's it's just deeply authoritarian practice you know i think the government exists to protect people their rights and to facilitate like infrastructural development stuff like that keep the systems you know sort of laid in order but everything outside of that i think it's up to humans to decide what they want to do and you know the the path they want to walk down yeah so i mean circular argument because you're basically saying that the government should protect the rights of whatever i think is moral and that's justified and wherever i don't think is moral or has no moral basis then yeah i mean that's what your argument that is true you realize your argument right now is i give evidence we can't make distinctions between things your argument could be used to justify child pornography no jessica that was a parody that was a parody of your argument that's okay argument at a certain do you know what that means do you think it should be able to shoot i was showing you how absurd that argument that you are showing me your ask which should be against your faith do you know do you think it should be illegal to shoot muslims you can't even understand a basic can you answer my question once ever are you scared of everything that you can't answer any of my questions can you answer do you think it should be legal to shoot muslims i'm going to a suit you don't think it should be legal okay oh but you think it should you think it should be legal to walk down the street then like this is completely well you blew me away with your argument no but that's literally what you just did to me that's literally that's literally yeah that's literally underwhelming did that oh that's amazing what a literal wow did that feel low IQ you're too you're too sharp bosh i'm like completely outmatched we're looking in a mirror right now it's the curse of the lights bouncing back and forth too much such a brilliant so brilliant franco drulo says was wondering what was bothering me about the question we oh we got that one they said love this content and all credit to the speakers gotta say that it's their content we appreciate all of our guests they make this show what it is and robin sparkles says vosh his statement regarding cps remind me what is that cp i haven't made statements on child pornography this fucking guy has like 80 times i know i think he's got the names mixed up they said regarding cp lack of appeal directly contradicts the statements is mr girl convo 1416 would be obviously be a top search fairly legal is now what i don't know what this means either i i don't know and i feel like that person should see a therapist i have no fucking clue what they're trying to say alex jones says how are free porn sites funded and you can't say advertisements or quote people buy subscriptions no way just that covers the costs what what have you seen how many ads there are on a porn page i promise you those free porn sites are paid for by advertisements that's why there were 17 trillion fucking videos in every corner of the screen yeah i think they're trying to suggest that like some women are trafficked or like forced into it and that oh yeah but that's that has nothing to do with the free porn site the free porn site just repost shit from other places or people free upload that that is nothing the trafficking happens yeah but that's not they they don't they're not producing the pornography they just host it there are places that produce pornography like porn sites like browsers or whatever though that place is legit enough that they probably don't do human trafficking yeah but no i mean obviously trafficking is a real issue so meme and scheme says why will vosh debate random topics with a moderator with small creators but refuses let's see yep we want topics that are germane to the event usb in first try says i want to go back to magazines found in the woods by the way basically meme and scheme was they were just asking vosh will you debate nick flentes and we know that you have declined before and uh he can literally just email me he's the biggest pussy in the universe and every fan of us that continues this this charade is just as big of a person brenton langel says daniel you have not showed that porn is harmful in and of itself you have only shown that porn can be addictive sometimes under certain circumstances no the argument was not about addiction addiction if you go back to the opening statement is one aspect of it but the main harm is the psychological changes that occur it changes people's values it changes people's behavior and it decreases the ability to get into these kinds of loving relationships build families that's the argument and it is a consequentialist argument it's a it's a utilitarian argument but that's something legitimate i don't have to make an argument on the basis of the inherent harm or the or the inherent evil of pornography like i can agree that it is inherently evil but morality is sometimes multifaceted you can make it a utilitarian argument you can also make a deontological argument there's no conflict between the two and islamic moral reasoning involves both utilitarian aspects what's called maslaha and also deontological aspects such as things being bad in and of it in and of themselves i think it's hey my religion says it's bad i think it's inherently bad and it's bad in and of itself but coincidentally here are some misinterpreted studies that prove i'm right remember the studies do show that it's um your relationship will be better if you look at porn with your partner so i look forward to um dark brandon sending swat teams to every home to make sure you're jerking off with your wife while watching like uh some chick at gang bang secret xxx stars says daniel people frequently come into physical harm because of their real life relationships do human relationships therefore need regulations or curtailing the same way you believe that porn does yeah of course there's all kinds of harms that come from all kinds of relationships you could have there are so many examples of teachers taking advantage of their students whether it's like grade school or even college does that mean we have to dissolve colleges because of this teacher student relationship or dissolve public schools because of that no so there's always going to be a certain amount of abuse that happens or oppression that happens in any kind of human relationship even the relationship between a president or a congress and government and the people there is abuse that happens all the time through corruption or whatever else but that doesn't mean we ban the concept of government or we get rid of the concept or the institution of government that's just to be expected of all human relationships you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from franco true although it says you have to look at context and what causes people to over consume whether it's worth banning etc you can't just say banning reduces it even if true and leave it there seems dishonest we need to weigh these things appropriately yeah again the issue is that there's no empirical measure of what like what good freedom is of it in and of itself like humans are innately disposed towards freedom we like having choices in our lives the overwhelming evidence we have on a psychological and sociological level is that it's generally not good for humans to have like some greater power telling them what to do or what not to do not count it of course so you know I am biased towards freedom of course but but when you're when you're looking at like well how do you weigh that against this that or the other you know at the very least if you're going to have this conversation you'd better make sure the data on its harm is bulletproof but in this case it's just not you know porn is just another thing people can have behavioral biases towards which is like so many things fall into that you know but he would ban Sears robot catalogs he would ban video games like what life would you be living you know there's a reason why all the rich people who live in the Muslim world run off to Dubai where the all of the morality police basically turn their eyes so they can get drunk and fuck as many people as they want you know it's because they don't want to live in that world either the moment they have the power and social capital to escape the tyranny of Islamic morality police they go fucking hog wild and do whatever they want they do more than whatever we'd want they do lots of bad things in Dubai you know the problem is like this is just a fundamentally unrealistic attitude toward how humans behave and what guides their behavior now human freedom is curtailed by every government because no one is allowed to do whatever they want there's all kinds of laws premised on banning things that are harmful or considered evil that's how laws work so things are always going to be people's freedoms are always going to be restricted to a certain extent but the circularity in Bosch's argument is that he just presupposes the things that he considers to be moral should be allowed absolute freedom whereas the things that he thinks should be restricted or are evil he's fine with all kinds of bans he's fine with the government actually restricting that to the maximum extent this one coming in from do appreciate it Hasan Sayed says Vash you said in the past that consuming child prawn should be legal is this still your position sorry I'd consumed one too many of the muslim skeptic videos but I've since reformed and I no longer believe that nominal says is porn bad for society Daniel wins should we ban porn Vash wins looks like Daniel got this one what I don't think he won the banning debate either but oh this this one says us I think I think Allah won every part of this debate as as any faithful member of the flock should us be in first try says problem is that negative effects of porn are impossible to quantify lower sex drive depression etc just like what booze does to us or bad food I mean a lot of people turn towards pornography addiction or they nobody turns to addictions more like they turn towards the thing and get addicted because they already feel kind of bad right like I like it just you can find this often talking to people there are qualitative studies on this if you talk to people who are experiencing depression very like more often they're not their story is you know I felt bad because these things in my life are going wrong and then to like cope with that I started like you know doing this that the other and like that and things went downhill from there you know very rarely is it like my life was going great and then I looked at porn and then I looked at it more and then everything else went wrong and I got depressed you know it can happen but in reality usually these things are a lot more complicated and multivariate and frankly like a lot of these depressed people you take porn away they're not going to go and get married or whatever they're just going to be like depressed and have a harder time jerking off I don't know if I'd make things better for them and this is related to a another debate that I had is that there's always going to be conflicting facts and all any kind of issue that you want to talk about society is going to be complicated and multivariate things like gun ownership abortion immigration all of these things are multivariate and the facts are always going to conflict or the empirical data is not always going to fully support one particular position but we do the best we can with certain kinds of arguments and yes ideology and relief religious belief does play a factor I as a Muslim bring my beliefs as a Muslim to the table but I'm open about that whereas liberals or people like Vosh will pretend like they're only operating on the basis of empirical empiricism but they smuggle in a lot of liberal values about freedom and equality into the discussion beyond what the empiricism can actually prove you can't prove a moral position through empirical facts that's the moral facts are based on the moral facts are based on empirical data there's no such thing as a moral fact but like for example again if you want to ban guns you will bring facts about how it causes a lot of death how it's used in mass shootings these are facts that support your moral position that we should we ought to ban guns for example how do you know that death is bad what if human suffering is good actually well those things that's a very valid point but usually like in these discussions there are some very basic things universally that people agree on like death is bad family is good marriage is good that's why I have that whole opening statement about we all agree that pair bonding you know having loving relationships is good everyone agrees this is a fallacy of popularity you know just because people agree on a thing so every you know people here in America like what they agree on is lumbophobia so that's morally correct no obviously we have to return to some kind of predicating moral justification in my case it would be an axiomatic belief in your case it would be you know religious beliefs but your axiomatic beliefs you acknowledged earlier that they are based or they are they do coincide with empirical reality right no they're they're I sustain the maximization of those beliefs through things that I believe are empirical reality but I don't think you can support an axiom with empirical reality and an axiom is metaphysical it comes before empirical reality this is your god right do you appreciate your question why my says isn't the study that porn causes cheating a direct counter to the study that says porn prevents people from looking for sex so that's for me interesting question yeah so the people who watch pornography in relationships what the study I cited shows is that they have dissatisfaction with their partners because they compare their partners to what they see on the screen and this makes them more likely to want to go beyond the parameters of the marital bond so that's the way the researchers explain it but for someone who is not someone who is not married then you know even the person in the marriage will have a lower sex drive but the people are driven by the desire for novelty and so that's something that affects a marriage in a way that it doesn't affect the bachelor who's by himself in his apartment that can make you more or less likely to go have sex with new people you know it really depends on what's spookier do you appreciate April Cox's what causes more harm in the world porn or Islam well I imagine we'll have different answers to this one to be clear all the shit like I don't there's not really a difference between Muslims and Christians I guess and maybe you guys are more fucked up about like keeping women like clothes or something I don't really know you guys are all the same all the like religious fascism tends to take the same form no matter where you are so all the shit I've said about Islam here if I was talking to a Christian fascist I'd be making the exact same fucking jokes not a Christian fascist it's like well I know you're not a Christian I'm not a fascist I'm not a Muslim fascist again this is like a very Islamophobic type of argument but the traditional kind of Christianity traditional Islam you're right there are a lot of parallels when it comes to sexual morality but also traditional Hinduism traditional Buddhism traditional Confucianism all of these are patriarchal religions prior to modernity like if you look at their sacred scriptures and texts and their teachings they all teach this kind of patriarchal morality that today is associated with Islam so the kind of problems that you would have Bosch with Islam you actually have with all all traditional yeah I just I just said that yeah not just Islam and Christianity you'd have a problem with Buddhism with Confucianism with Zoroastrianism and so forth I don't know anything about Zoroat yeah I don't know anything about that particular religion but probably yeah um I don't like Sikhism Sikhism all of them most of the Sikhs that I've met have been really cool but I they probably believe some fucked up stuff yeah this one coming in from imagine imagine what they think about you Bosch well I don't have a knife so they probably think I'm a cuck this one coming in from Alyosha says the literature is clear that porn rewires the brain it says how is it possible Bosch doesn't understand the distinction between production what? literally everything rewires the brain literally everything your brain you realize you couldn't learn if new information didn't rewire your brain right that's literally how you learn things that's the reason you're different from bugs okay yes everything rewires it aging rewires it the temperature of the area that you live in rewires everything rewires it okay stop stop stop looking in the mirror thinking your life is falling apart going online misunderstanding basic socio psychology and then becoming a fascist over it okay stop this stuff is really complicated I know there are scary terms associated with porn addiction but a lot of psychosocial terms are scary there's a scary genre it's a scary field don't don't freak out over it okay look at the broader discipline look at the Wikipedia article and subject all right you'll freak out less Tim Pryor says no it's not it's how your parents raised you if I got told to sit in the corner I would have been more violent now because I did not get my butt beat people need to pull that stick out of their behind while we're on the subject of evidence all the evidence shows that spanking just does not make people better in any way whatsoever literally zero evidence for it and there's counter evidence like spanking tends to make people more like fucked up makes them more paranoid less trusting of others stuff like that which makes sense because they got you know hit by their parents so yeah like while we're on that subject and this one coming in from do appreciate your question as well FAMO TV says Vosh what's your take on broken relationships and poor sex lives because of men comparing their wives or girlfriends to the porn stars they see well I think that's a problem with a guy right porn stars are like it's it's it would be like it would be like looking at like like an actor in a TV show or something and being like you know wow why can't my partner be that hot like you see hotter people in media all the time you know like that's a problem with the mindset when you're looking at porn you're not looking at like the shit everyone goes through every day okay even very famous successful people aren't doing porn star shit every day because people don't fuck like porn stars because porn stars are fucking for a camera not for themselves like that speaks to me to like an immaturity in the mindset you know like like and that can happen in a lot of ways and we know that's a trope right of like women like seeing like a handsome like James D and S actor and going oh and then they like compare every guy to that or like this is the thing that happens you know but we shouldn't do it I think that's rude to your partner it's not good you got it thank you very much thanks very much for all of your questions we're going to try to speed through the ones that we have yet folks got to say please don't send in anymore we got to get these guys out of here by a decent time it's been like two hours and 50 minutes so we got to move fast it's been pretty uh pretty on this one from FAMO TV says boss just like your comparison with moms taking a dump and the Muslim hate thing your analogies are off it's apples and oranges dude in response to your peeping Tom joke since you're an atheist how would this be wrong if the woman doesn't know about it ignorance is bliss because I think people have a right to privacy as a concept within their own home and in some other places and I think that the expectation that people should have that is like something worth protecting after all like it's not only bad to do something if it only like if the person knows right like groping a person while they're asleep is also bad even if they never find out you know you should have a right to understand that even if you're not aware you have certain like rights to privacy and to to bodily autonomy also my comparisons are great the mom taking a dump thing was on point fuck you this one coming in from Tim Pryor says I'll try this one more time God made us to enjoy sex but Daniel you'll believe it's wrong to do sex right do you see why this is silly no Muslims believe that sex is something that's very important it's something that is meant to be enjoyed with your wife with your spouse and it's something that's actually encouraged it's something that is considered beautiful and wholesome in Islam and there's nothing against sex in Islam what sex does is it regulates sexual behaviors that are destructive or are deontologically or inherently vile and wrong such as you know sex with animals or other types of sexualities but sex between a husband and wife that is something great it's something beautiful it's something that sustains society and we have to work to protect the institution of marriage the institution of procreation and having families and that is purely Islam you have sex with your wife to like negate the urge to fuck your dog is that how it works for you that's pretty fucking weird this is really disrespectful Vosha that you just try not to insult you you just said that wait you just said that you just said you have sex with your wife to negate other degenerate no I did not say that I did not say that at all wait chat did I miss I'm going to just be as respectful as possible and not reciprocate but I just want to note that this is very offensive Vosha we must go to the next one Brennan Langel says alpha males are not real you will notice Daniel lied when he said one hit of crack changes your brain that's not true I mean most of what he said has been like narrativizing over a really really shaky empirical basis it's obvious when he starts talking about things that are day ontologically wrong where he's actually coming at this from you know it's it's pretty it's pretty clear Daniel any thoughts on this is Brenton full of it wait who's you said his name but I can't remember his questions he said alpha males are not real but just look at James James is the great example you guys know James like six you're all huge Faye says if porn is bad it is very important to define porn you got it Vosha gave us the standard congressional definition of porn as you know when you see it but this one cafe nation as the analysis Vosha is against child porn because of the exploitation of children what about animated child porn since no child is being exploited and some adults who might find that arousing would get pleasure out of it well right now we don't have any laws and drawings of that as very evidenced by any fucking anime forums anytime any anime comes out unfortunately I think the problem there is that I don't necessarily know if the state should run in and be like putting out the calipers and whether or not a drawing is 17 and a half or 18 I do however think that like any enjoyment of that stuff is pretty fucked up so like this is another question of whether direct state intervention can like actually solve anything and my question is like if the state was on Twitter and and like looking at like what is obviously a lolly drawing and then the author is like actually she's 18 like is this is the law going to solve this problem for me the actual solution to this problem is being really fucking mean to people who post that shit that's the for me that's the actual solution I again I think this is what a cultural thing like if you're if you're like in a fucking anime community some shit people like oh my god I love this anime lolly girl whatever like you should be like what the fuck is wrong with you and that I think that would actually do more because there is way too little shaming of that shit in those communities I'll tell you you got it and folks I'm telling you please I mean I appreciate that everybody's so pumped about this debate we've had a ton of questions we just can't take anymore if it's gotta run sit three hours if I see any more questions as of this moment I'm gonna load the page so that I can see all the new ones that came in like I just can't read it and I'm sorry if we don't read it and even if you submitted it but for real if you're listening out there folks we really can't take any more because we want to get these guys to bed by a decent time this one coming in from Plummy 005 before we ask that just I asked a follow-up like what you didn't really answer the question boss like what is the problem with looking at those drawings oh because I think that like the cultural normalization of fetishizing aesthetics that are like associated with underage people obviously that pushes people towards bad behavior right so like you wouldn't want like I wouldn't want that in any community I was in like if I was enjoying like fucking Steven Universe or some shit I wouldn't want people so then like the kind of well there's plenty of pornographic material that is mimicking behavior that is illegal right there's like rape porn there's bestiality there is all kinds of things that are legal there's a very porn you know it's though you think that those should be legal as well I think that's actually really difficult question right because like if you follow that logic you could say like well here's a hentai where the guy like rapes her now whether or not you're into that sort of thing and I'm not like should it be illegal to post that I think I would defer to the same thing that I'd say about the lolly shit and I would say like I think that culturally it should be disincentivized to whatever extent I guess feels morally right I so I would have to think about that because I do think that's an interesting question because I think that people who post lolly should be like mega bullied but if somebody is into noncon art I don't think they should be mega bullied you know because there are a lot of people who enjoy that kink in the context of a healthy relationship right I guess that would be the difference in the context of like the lolly con shit you can't healthily enact anything lolly con in real life their children whereas you can do consensual nonconsensual roleplay with an adult and that can be sort of represented in like drawn pornography so yeah I think that's really complicated that might be like the general trend that I would try to follow though this one from light of the twin lamp says Israel used porno as a psychological warfare they played porno audio in the Gaza concentration camp which Bosch supports what's it what I support the Gaza camp what the fuck this is like saying I support drinking what like I like water drinking water so you're like us you support waterboarding and in Gitmo what the fuck you talking about they were using the porn because like a lot of people in Gaza are Muslims and very socially conservative when it comes to porn so it's a form of like demoralization right like you could do the same thing to an American like if you played a bunch of like I don't know shit what do Americans hate I don't know um school shooting audio or some outfucking you could like yeah it's like a demoralization thing but the sound of like pornography does not innately like fuck your brain or whatever it's just like a way of establishing supremacy but I'm not in favor of Israeli supremacy over the Gaza strip I'm actually quite famous for not believing that you got this one coming in from light of the twin lamps we got that they said I'll read that other one later in the after show Tim Pryor says apparently now that it is a thing I no long I no longer identify myself as a human being you all are embarrassing okay thanks for that Tim I identify as an attack helicopter myself fraymo tv says did vosh really resort to internet insults like a sissy boy well this one coming in from what age am I in what what I'm sorry Jesus Christ what is live streaming anymore sissy but is that a sissy boy thing you've got guys with their like a pink top straps and fucking giant butt plugs sitting online and salty shit actually that does happen hold on that's just twitter okay wait they might have a point this one from lights aliyasha says vosh the FBI clearly told zucker droid to spike hunter's laptop okay this isn't really about the we'll ask you guys for questions about the topics that the guests have prepared for but I'm gonna humor this one says Matt to no I'm not we don't have time Ian game it's it's complicated I know what they're saying and it's complicated thank you sir you got it this one yang game dude says Daniel my dude I literally heard you defending let's see okay so folks again we're looking for topics on questions on the topic people are mad today it's okay says vosh what's wrong with polygamy okay anything but porn questions folks say the U.S. is notorious for polyamorous relationships such as what brenton is in no laws prohibiting a man from having 50 girlfriends hypocrite I don't have anything against polygamy I have a problem with male only polygamy because I fucking know this guy this is not okay with like one chick having like 50 husbands or whatever so um so polygamy is a concept but well I don't like marriage in general but as long as we have marriage I'm fine with polygamy but like in the Muslim world polygamy is like he I mean Daniel literally said it like it tends to be like a wealthy high status guy who basically would just have like 50 mistresses who he fucks and doesn't care about but because that's not allowed he just marries all of them instead so now he just has 50 wives he doesn't care about and we pretend this is like wholesome and trad values or whatever so it's like a fucked version of it basically but like I'm not against it inherently this one coming in from Jamie Russell Christian Middle says Bosch and Trump 2024 this one coming in from absolutely Woody Woodpecker thanks for your super sticker of Rainbow and FAMO TV says Bosch how about the studies that show if you resort to salty internet insults and a debate you've lost and now you're just a panicking soy boy wow they're coming at you why are they why are people you're so sensitive but I've been doing this for three and a half years I'm not exactly a stranger to the spicy engagement I didn't realize it was so unpopular here my god we're having fun Daniel's having fun he insulted me I insulted him we're having no no no no I didn't insult you I only reciprocated but I don't know but we have fun it was like some rough house how you can have fun you don't you can have fun without using this kind of language like I'm sorry I'll wear a burka next time I'm a goddamn American Liz says Vosh is speaking of hyper realistic drawings what are your thoughts on hyper realistic drawings of children it exists and why do people keep going to this why should it be banned in particular what you know what I just sure unleash the fed shoot everyone I don't care what I don't know how hyper realistic like they took an existing drawing of child abuse and then put through one of those like etch encoders or like they drew it so methodically that it just looks real I don't fucking know send the feds their house I don't care why why do we I I don't know we're like we're like trying to reallocate like the micron thin line people keep trying to like make me dance on or something just don't do that shit don't do any of it it's bad fun adults fuck check with giant fat titties fucking huge milkers come on man just what I mean I mean child porn 70 times no I was a big titties and that's the bad address I wanted to address the concept you know of child pornography but I wanted I didn't want to include you in that or like regurgitate kind of the trolling against you because I'll say it very clearly Vosh for anyone who keeps asking about child pornography Vosh has stated many times he is against child pornography I want to be clear that you know you have stated your position very unambiguously I only wanted to bring up the topic because it's related to the issues of obscenity and morality not as a way to bait you or create clips from that that wasn't my tactic Vosh so I just want to show like this was all in good faith I just I'm interested in debating this topic I am kind of offended by some of the things that you said but if you you know you said that you didn't mean to be offensive okay I can understand that I consider the obscenity a part of my general demeanor but I appreciate that yeah I don't yeah it's not I don't try to treat it or think of it as a smearing thing or whatever this one from FAMO TV says Vosh Pornhub got busted for it you guessed it child porn how do you know children still aren't being exploited by this industry you're so heavily defending I'm not I'm not so heavily defending I'm literally just saying that government shouldn't ban its entire existence I don't know if that's a heavy defense yeah dude it's a serious fucking problem and Pornhub actually did like the gigachat move right there and banned like two-thirds of the shit hosted on their site probably saved a lot of server costs too and now you can only upload stuff to Pornhub if you have a verified account which means showing them proof of among other things the fact that you're an adult which is good it's actually the main reason why I don't like amateur pornography you know people talk about amateur pornography being more authentic than like professional pornography which is true but it's also completely fucking unregulated which means that you know like I don't know and you've heard I've heard so many stories too of people saying like yeah I was raped on camera like three years ago when somebody uploaded it and I contacted these porn sites they wouldn't take it down there's a lot of fucked stuff up there yeah but I don't think you're going to solve any of these issues by like just the government flat banning the shit you that needs like a holistic feminist approach towards these issues making it easier for like misbehavior to be reported or like encouraging a culture of of taking these issues seriously or have police test any one of the trillions of rape kits they just let mold in their back room you know it's a broader social problem and Facebook has an enormous amount of child pornography too unfortunately it's a broader internet issue yeah it's it's pretty bad it's bad out there we live in a hell world this one coming in from do appreciate your question Jan ours is why naval gaze about definitions and measuring by utility stuck in the Anglo-Skinner box the real debate here is Islam versus ethics of Marquis de Sade I could never compete with the ethics of Islam all glory Matthew Booth says Vosh is based but Daniel wouldn't it be better for your argument to just increase funding to mental health for people with addictions to porn rather than banning yeah like I said I wasn't committed to saying that banning is the only way imagine if you took banning off the table fine I can still you know agree that this is something that's bad for society it should be curbed we agree on that then we can determine what is the best way to actually reduce its use in society maybe Vosh is absolutely correct banning is not going outright banning is not the best way to do that we can agree to disagree on what is the best or most effective way to reduce the usage of pornography but that's like separate like it's a separate conversation that this debate wasn't supposed to be about social stigma is very important using all kinds of institutional psychological programs that can be important as well changing the culture is important why can't there be a stigma against pornography usage in the same way that there's a stigma against you know other types of illegal what what has been banned illegal pornography so these are things that we can have a conversation about I don't I think there's a lot of room to debate on that but the main topic is is this immoral or not and that's why I tried to show you got it thank you very much for your question this one coming in from Alyosha says how are those STD rates working out for you Vosh what the fuck how does jerking off the porn cause what how does jerking off the porn give you STD wait does it wait oh this dude wait I'm I'm getting worried now what the fuck this one from analchames says Vosh is watching cp bad if it's cartoon it's god it's like they're asking me for permission like it's like all these people like Vosh I've got a hot take for you and they're like sweating they're like okay do you think he's gonna like you he's gonna give me the argument I don't I don't know what you want I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm so sorry James and I'm sorry to you too I love you buddy I know it's every it's like the hundredth one this one from Omega Supreme to Vosh I'm from a rich family and I enjoy my life under Islam in KSA bingo you lying plummy 005 says for both is what do you believe the legal age of consent should be you know what just make it just make it 50 just make it 50 that's fine 50 is fine I don't I guess you know we've got some inertial momentum keeping us at 18 so that's cool if you want a serious answer I actually think you can make a decent argument for raising it because like people don't really age as quickly now as they used to right like 15 years old back like 400 years ago you were like the like working on the farm like you know you were basically like treated like an adult nowadays 18 year olds are like infants like they're fucking children like you like you can see a high school graduating class full of 18 year olds and they're all like baby people you know so if it was kicked to 21 or whatever I don't I don't know there's actually like an interesting hormonal discussion on the way in which aging has changed over time people look younger longer nowadays I think there was a Vsauce video on that anyway anyway I don't fucking just 18 or higher like whatever many thoughts Daniel no I mean that's an interesting discussion FAMO TV says Vaj in your debate with YouTuber Vegan Gaines you stated that you believe that it should not be I'm going to kill myself in Minecraft no sure James go right ahead absolutely I'm ready for this incredibly novel inquiry into my positions here yeah I know I'd say you're reading through it it's like getting fucking a mogus jump scared or something Jesus fucking Christ whatever whatever the answer to whatever his question is you can step by just the answer is yes or no whichever one is less weird like folks if we see a duplicate question we gotta jump over it Brenton Langles says no traditional Buddhism is not patriarchal I don't remember so they said read the lotus sutra the dragon king's daughter obliterates patriarchy that sounds fucking rad the dragon king's daughter holy shit I did a video on the patriarchy of Buddhism with citations to primary sources from their religious texts there are statements from the Buddha himself that are like women are like evil vipers and you should separate yourself from women and just go and be a monk those are direct statements from the Buddha so it's hard to argue that Buddhism traditionally isn't misogynistic or patriarchal but check out my video on the topic you got it on this one by the way more than half of the people on a scale of 1 to 10 more than half said that this debate was a 10 or a 12 I really enjoyed myself I do have to dip though it's been three hours 11 that's a solid commitment but I've had a tremendous time we'll let you go if there are any questions I'm gonna let's see I'm gonna read them to Daniel while he's still here if Daniel if you're willing to stick around Bosch I understand if you gotta go I totally don't blame you same thing Daniel if you have to go to hit me one or two more then I'm good to go let me just make sure I get the ones that are asking you that question I gotta filter out 80% of them off the back Aleoja says Bosch unlike the west Islamic societies are able to hit replacement rates that has more to do with rates of industrialization if you look at it the replacement rates averaged around the world like it's basically 100% level of industrial proliferation like the stage of society that people are on however I don't think there's anything inherently good about like hitting replacement rate if you're doing so through things that I would consider unethical right like you could also just have rape camps if you want it you know like you can you can hit the replacement rate if you want to but yeah no I do I do think more could be done but I think it has more to do with cultural alienation which is kind of like the Marxian answer on my part you got it they're only if you're willing to humor me Bosch I'm sorry there are only two more one of them it's a little bit like so they say Benny Kay Ebbinson says Bosch you just mentioned quote a right to privacy for all humans is that a moral judgment if not can you expand um I think that people feel more comfortable when they know that there's kind of like a general protection a general expectation that they're not going to be violated even if an individual violation doesn't hurt them in any way it's possible the knowledge that there might be a violation like could right so like empirically speaking if I'm at a party and I get drunk and pass out and someone moves me to the bed if somebody like walks over to me and like ropes my dick or whatever like that does not it literally doesn't hurt me if I wake up I never know but if someone tells me I'm still going to be furious about it you know and I think the reason for that is because it's good to have an assumption of some protections even if they're sometimes like vestigial or um not strictly like like they're not like they're not utilitarian in that specific instance you know you want the knowledge that you're you're consistently protected and not just like what you don't know will hurt you you got to this one thank you very much for your question this one only because I I'm like well I'll just let you kill me they said wash according to drama report that's not what you think oh drama report oh okay I'm ready for this the this fucking investigative journalism into my life did it they say I only want to ask you because it gives you a chance because it was already in the live chat so hundreds will see it or have seen it already and thousands will see it after this is you know done and I want to give you a chance to actually respond because it is kind of like a like gruesome accusation and I have a feeling that it's I want to you to be able to defend yourself they say according to drama report there are allegations about you admitting to watching child porn my guess is this is not true I'll give you a chance to respond that's not true I think at one point I was saying that like hentai sites are really bad to use because there's a fuck ton of like lolly hentai on them that's probably what he might have heard or something I said something like if you're like fucking flipping through a hentai site or whatever like you're going to see some lolly shit or whatever which is obviously an indication that I've seen lolly shit which is something that will inevitably happen if you even casually view hentai out of your peripheral vision at some point it's one of the reasons why I think these people should be bullied way to fuck more but you know I mean if somebody wants to interpret that as me admitting I've seen cp it's pretty fucking bad faith you got it and with that we'll let you go Vosh because it is super super late so I do want to actually let you go get some rest same thing Daniel if you have to go I don't blame you otherwise there are a few that Daniel I save for you that in particular are for you if you have a moment I love you guys I love you both glory to Allah I know there are some other sayings but I don't remember all of them because I'm fucking infidel so I hope you both have a wonderful evening James always good to see you I hope you have a great time take care thank you Daniel you take care as well thank you Vosh thank you for your time appreciate it for sure I'm going to re-shramble the screen folks and in the meantime I got a question for you Daniel Empress says Daniel what do you think of Allah's Den's number I don't know what this means Den's number I don't know what that means me neither and this one thank you very much for your question this one also for Daniel actually well Samir Farsin says most serial rapists have shown a history of porn addiction criminal psychologists all agree the obsession always starts small and then matures to a crime I'm not sure if Vosh would disagree with that per se although I would say yeah you would he would disagree with that he thinks that rapes have gone down like the amount of rape in society has gone down well that was a question for Vosh I wish I would have I didn't realize it was for Vosh or I would have read it while he was here but I want to say thank you very much folks for being with us we appreciate you being here it's always fun and thank you very much Daniel it's been a true pleasure to have you as well thank you very being with us tonight it's been a long one yeah very long debate and very harmful to my ears I hope the audience because my audience isn't used to this amount of swearing so I was hoping that he would respect that but I mean things happen so I apologize to my audience for being exposed to that level of obscenity in the in the debate which I thought it was going to be more academic in nature you got it well I want to say that was a long one but a fun one no doubt about it like I said 50 percent said they'd give it either a 10 or a 12 want to say thanks so much folks for all of your questions as well as thanks for sharing this video as roughly 19 percent have shared this video which is a huge amount of people and we see we just appreciate that our guests are linked in the description so if you after having been exposed to Daniel and Vosh's views during this debate you can click on their link below what are you waiting for we really do appreciate both of our guests we hope you feel welcome whether you be Muslim Atheist Christian you name it we're glad that you were here and if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up you don't want to miss them but one last thank you Vosh and Daniel thanks so much for being with us also can I say thank you to you James for everything you do a lot of work behind the scenes to organize these debates and I really appreciate all your hard work and I also appreciate your moderation it's always excellent excellent great and I just want to express explicitly to my audience so they know how much I appreciate you James and modern day debates thank you seriously that really does mean a lot I seriously appreciate that it's encouraging because yeah it's just it's affirming because uh you know so I appreciate it and by the way folks I have not mentioned this but well I did last night I mentioned that we are hosting debate con on oh yeah Daniel I don't know if I told you about the new date we are so this debate conference which Daniel was on our last one and he was in actually the biggest debate of the conference that was Daniel and Destiny that was a monstrous one Daniel has actually been invited to our second debate con also in Dallas that's going to be now did I tell you that we're planning on November 5th now Daniel I can't remember if I got in the word out to you that should be fine but who's that who's the who's the debater that is still being confirmed so I can tell you it's still who I hope to have and I've got good news because I got a response from them recently so it's not confirmed yet but I can tell you folks this debate if we get it booked for debate con it will be so big you won't even believe it folks very serious so want to say those seriously thanks Daniel for all of your support of modern day debate as we've tried to give everybody a fair shot as we really do for real folks we really hope you feel like your position is given a fair shot we really never wanted to be such that we will never release a video afterwards that is like oh man that Muslim debater or all that atheist debater was so bad that we're like we really just want to let you know let there be debates and that's it like I James nobody from this channel is going to put out a video and likewise I as a moderator I'm never going to systematically take sides in the debate or anything like that so we really do appreciate all of your support of this neutral platform and so thanks Daniel for your support that means a lot thanks for your kind words yeah of course so and thanks for your patience on that conference those conference details I'm going to hug that info to you ASAP and so with that folks I'm going to be back in just a moment with a post credit scene letting you know about upcoming debates including some of the details on this conference so want to say thanks Daniel again and I'll be right back moment in just a moment folks so stick around thank you everyone thank you James my pleasure my dear friends I've got to turn out the lights it's getting late I've got to tell you we really do appreciate you hanging out here and I want to tell you about some of these upcoming debates in particular tomorrow we are going to have a debate between T-Jump and Jung first time here Jung is I am told and I have seen just a snippet I've told that he is a very effective debater it's going to be a fun one on whether or not religion is harmful you don't want to miss that one it's going to be a juicy debate we're really excited about that one and thanks to our guests seriously Daniel and Vosh stayed super late with us tonight I'm actually like for my drive home I actually oftentimes try to have my Valyrian route or melatonin before I even drive home the reason being is it just helps me to fall asleep when I get home but anyway the idea is that's why I've got like a multiple of pills right now but want to want to say my dear friends also this Friday hunter avalon versus Kyclips on whether or not diversity is good it's going to be controversial many people are probably going to be very triggered maybe you hey who knows but that's going to be another one and it's going to be a fun one as well as King Crocoduck versus David McQueen is radiometric dating reliable sorry folks that's been pushed to October 7th I hope you can bear with us I know that's a lot later than you expected that one just kept getting pushed back it's just that it's hard to schedule people people are really busy but you know I don't want to make it seem as if those guys are difficult when I say that it's hard to schedule people I mean just because that's the way life is life gets in the way and so it's not like the debaters it's not like the guests have made it more difficult in any way so we are looking forward to hosting that one and 20% of people have shared this debate on twitter or discord or facebook or via text message so I want to say have you shared this debate you certainly can I highly encourage you to do so my dear friends what are you waiting for that helps a ton as modern day debate grows so much through that type of third person testimony let me have these filled seriously it really does mean a lot we appreciate it Gina from Cologne says should try valerian root tea it's nice and very effective thank you I may try that I usually have valerian root and I usually have chamomile I have all sorts of the the herbs and stuff to help me unwind and uh but yeah for real we really do appreciate all of your guys of support and I've got to tell you as well so many things we are planning on not did I tell you guys this are in raw will be back are in raw is scheduled to have a debate with partner Dr Chris Thompson a first-timer on modern day debate who's got his doctor it and he's going to be going against Sal Cordova as well as Rebecca this is it's going to be a gigantic debate we're excited about that classic creation versus evolution you don't want to miss that and then CSSEL CSS element thanks for your channel support seriously that means a lot did you guys know we have channel memberships we do if you haven't yet considered checking those out you can use these based and red-pilled emoticons including the one that says soy boy that I just put in the chat and thank you very much CSS element says you can take the tag off your canteen now I really can't I I want to show it off in terms of how relatively new it is it's from this summer sigma any thanks for coming by and thanks for your support ceaseless sys charge says James is in Colorado weed is legal there that's true it is Jonathan says shout out to James for being a good moderator thanks Jonathan seriously that means a lot Christy says I'm going to share the love texting every single person on my phone now huh that's funny it really does if you have people you've got probably people maybe friends you know who like you feel like you can share controversial stuff with them and you say hey you know you can say things to them that maybe you wouldn't say to other people but you know that you're like yeah but I know this friend I can say to them they won't be offended or anything or they won't get weird about it I would encourage you consider sharing modern day debate and in particular this very debate with them as we are excited my dear friends to pursue our vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field we are determined to do that that's what we are called to do on YouTube because YouTube deserves a better class of debate channel and we're going to give it to them that's something that we are determined to do we're excited about it and so I've got to say we want to say thank you guys for your support thanks for all of your guys' encouragement thanks for all of your support through likes we are only seven likes away from hitting 450 for this live stream so if you haven't hit like yet let's get to that 450 mark before we log off and I want to say Melody, Kate, good to see you thanks for your kind words says James, you're a really great moderator thanks for your kind words David Kelleb-Hamillness says James is the greatest I appreciate that friend Kira Rodriguez says Matt, Bill Huntie versus Daniel Huckigichu that would be pretty gigantic that would be sweet and then Manuel says Aaron, Rob versus Sal hell yeah I've been waiting for those two to debate and Zerv Zerv thanks for coming by says more flat earth Alex Stein and Nick Fuentes thanks for that feedback Lord Bees says James versus James debate thanks for that idea as well as Captain Abbas says my question never got answered I know I and I apologize for that we had a lot of questions a lot of questions tonight frankly that did not get answered or asked I should say that we just we have to get these guys out of here by a decent time and so thanks for your patience on that I know that that can be tiring or frustrating but yeah I am excited you guys it is amazing we just hit 80,000 subscribers the reason I say that is to thank you for that happening for real you guys have helped so much in so many different ways things like that for real it does if you hit like it's not a trivial thing that actually does help us in the YouTube algorithm YouTube does recommend our videos more when they get more likes when they get more engagement through comments and likes when they see that like hey people actually are engaging with this they're spending more time on the site that actually does make YouTube or I should say their algorithm on YouTube recommend our video to more people and it helps our video to rank more highly when people search a certain term so for example if people type in the word vosh on YouTube the more likes this video gets the more highly ranked this video will be in other words if people type in vosh it may be temporarily YouTube will test it like say like hey let's put this at the third spot right now and just see how it goes and then you know if people like it more maybe YouTube would put it at the second spot so that those things actually do make a difference so Gianna Cochis thanks for coming by says hello Hassan Sayaz says James who do you think won this debate I can't tell because I don't want to take sides but I thought it was a great debate Christy says did you try to invite Aaron to debate con too I am it's in the works so I'm glad you asked and let's see want to say though we appreciate you guys you guys thank you for your support Saito Knapp says no thank you James thanks Saito Knapp for helping me get these two venues that we've been trying to get for this fall we're I'm really excited about that as that's going to be awesome yeah we have we have some big debates this fall you guys that seriously if they happen and they're like they're close like we had one of them was actually booked and then we had to rebook it and it's a long story but we have there are going to be some really really big ones so seriously there might be some this fall that shake the foundations of the what's the word I'm looking for shake the foundations of the YouTube political debate world and then let's see I can't even see what your name says it says G something says dislikes went from five to 10 when you asked for likes that's good for real no joke actually dislikes the the YouTube algorithm treats them the same that kind of because frankly oftentimes when people are angry they stay on the site longer which means more ad revenue for YouTube so it's kind of sick that YouTube does that but nonetheless hey if you want to hit dislike that's great that supports the channel as well seriously if there's a video you don't like I can't even see dislikes I've got to figure out how you can actually see them let me see if I can see them when I look at the video right here that's interesting because yeah it used to be that you could see dislikes but then you know YouTube took them away because you know everybody became so soy that they couldn't handle seeing if their video got a ton of dislikes which they probably deserved it I mean yeah couldn't it be the case that you just put out a video that deserved a lot of dislikes I don't know I think so but yeah let's see here engagement the click-through rate for this video so far is pretty good it's at eight percent that's pretty nice so thank you guys for all of your support want to say though yeah it's always a fun time I'm going to let you go Alyosha thanks for your super chat says Matt might be better to press the guest to answer the super chat questions rather than let them slag them off I appreciate you letting me know that Matt I'll call you Matt as well but my my name is not Matt but thank you I will take that feedback seriously even though my name is not Matt and I do appreciate you saying that and Awaken FN says who will Daniel be debating next that's a good question I will let you know as soon as I know it's in the works and all of these things are like coming into place and it'll continue to release debates remember debate con is coming up November 5th if you're in Dallas or even the state of Texas you are going to want to make it out there in person you're going to want to get a ticket because you can get a ticket and it's going to be awesome Alyosha says Zeit Geiser thank you for saying that we're at 458 likes if we have two more likes we're at 460 which is massive for a live stream so thank you for your support I got the Rona did you guys know that for real this is I think this is the third time I've gotten COVID the first two times I got an actual test and it showed and it said yep like you have COVID and this time I haven't gotten a test yet but I'm pretty darn sure that I have COVID again but this time since I've had it twice already one of them was even two months ago I'm doing pretty well with it so you know it's just like it's like a very mild cold it's not bad so far but I should get some rest it's 10 o'clock it's freaking late I've got a rest so thank you guys for your support hopefully that'll help me to what's the word I'm looking for heal from the Rona but want to say I love you guys thanks for being with us seriously I hope that you are having a great night thank you guys for all of your support thank you for all of your everything you guys seriously you guys thank you guys for the fact that we've grown this much and made it to 80,000 subscribers technically 80,200 now so thank you guys for that and we were actually if you haven't hit like eight more subscribers of eight people eight more people hit subscribe will be at 8,000 or 80,300 so we're actually almost 300 above the 80,000 mark which we just hit the other day so thank you guys for your support seriously love it it means more than you know I love you guys let me know if you ever have a hard day you know in the description box there is a like an invite just to let me know and say hey I had a really hard day I've had people reach out and say hey I've had you know someone in my family passed away and it's been a hard day I just want someone to talk to I'm not a counselor but I can be a listener so want to support you in that way if you want prayer whatever it is if you just want someone to listen if you don't like prayer let me know I'm happy to just listen and Eliosha says you are now Batman thank you for that I appreciate that Gina Kokis says I love you too thanks for that Gina is it Gina or Gianna I think it's Gina thanks for your kind words little piss baby says have a good night get home to bed safe thanks for the entertainment thank you for that I appreciate that and then Hira Rodriguez says give us a side dealt flash is that you Sarah all right thank you guys for your support I appreciate you I hope you guys have a great rest of your night master optic says dang is there going to be a special celebration when you hit 100,000 subscribers heck yes there is for real we're excited about it and that is our that is our goal we want to hit that as soon as possible as like frankly it's not because of the numbers it's because we care about living out this vision and providing youtube with being the premier debate platform so that everybody has their fair shot to make their fair case on level playing field and that everybody would feel welcome it's not a channel that's going to have a moderator that takes one side all the time it's not a channel that's going to put out videos that say oh man didn't that muslim suck in that debate just now or oh didn't that athias suck in that debate right now no no no we don't do that here so i want to say thanks guys for all of your support love you look forward to seeing you at the next debate as i said we've got one tomorrow night then we've got one friday night and then we're working on getting several lined up for next week so we've got a lot coming so hope you're excited for those juicy debates coming up i love you guys thanks for all your support and we'll see you the next one