 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating biblical slavery and we are starting right now. These and gentlemen thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. And if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, wanna let you know we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics and wanna let you know no matter what walk of life you are from folks, we hope you feel welcome. So we're glad you're here and also wanna let you know. Folks, if you have not yet hit that subscribe button. Do it now as you do not want to miss Matt De La Huntie taking on Samuel Nassan next month on whether or not Jesus fulfilled prophecy. That is going to be an epic debate and be sure to hit that notification bell as well so you don't miss it live. Also folks, we are going to do basically a quick introduction of our guests. Then I will explain the format and then we will jump right into it. But we are very excited to welcome our guests. We're thrilled to have them. Folks, the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel. We love these guys. We're thankful for all the debaters. And so we are going to give them a chance to share about what you can expect to find at their link in the description. And so we will start with, it's been a long time G-Man. I'm like, what, has it been like a year? It seems like it's been so long. G-Man thrilled to have you back. What can people expect to find at your link? If you go to the G-Man channel, you'll see me going up against the Black people where they're like, you'll see me correcting them on a biblical basis and showing them why they're not telling the truth about being the Jews. And if you go to G-TV, you will hear me argue against the theory of evolution, as well as atheism. If you go to those two, if you either go to G-TV or the G-Man channel. You got it. Well, thrilled to have you back, G-Man. And also, praise, good to have you back. What can people expect to find at your channel? Thanks for being with us as well. Always the same stuff. I appreciate coming here to have a discussion with the art and learn locutors tonight, Jim, and also Canadian atheists. It should be fun. And also, man, my first time with G-Man, it'll be awesome. But my channel just consists of apologetics, just the usual stuff, defending the faith. And yeah, I have a whole new channel now because YouTube shut me down because of a macaroni commercial. I thought that was pretty ridiculous, but yeah, so I hope people check out my new channel. I don't know if you have it, James, but yeah, I'll have to send it to you. Oh, well, you must send that to us. And we are thrilled to have you here, praise. I will update that link in the description once you send it. So thank you very much. And then Jim Majors, glad to have you back. Once again, it's been a while as well, though. It's like, we are thrilled to have these guys. And so anyway, Jim, if you want to share- Hey, yeah, I'm happy to be here. If those who don't know me, I am James's dad. So it's a pleasure to be here. You can find me on YouTube, youtube.com slash Jim Majors or follow me on Twitter. My handle is at the Jim Majors. Thanks, Dad. And Michael, thrilled to have you back as well. What can people expect to find at your link? And thanks as well for being with us. James, thanks so much for having me back. It's always a pleasure. If you go to the Canadian Atheist, you'll just find a podcast I do with a friend of mine where we talk about some of the silly things that believers say and do. And we have conversations with believers and non-believers. You got it. Now there is, I know we worked on this before going live. Praise if you're able to turn your mic down just a smidge. And then Michael, I hate to ask, but because everybody else's mic is a little bit loud. If you're able to bump yours up just a bit, that way we'll be able to hear you. And so with that, we're excited folks to jump into this. The way it's going to go is we're going to have Jim Majors and Michael, the Canadian Atheist, going first for the opening statement followed by G-Man and Praise for their opening as well. And after that, open dialogue followed by Q&A. So if you have another question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat, tagging me with at modern day debate. Cause that makes it easier for me to see it and get those questions in our Q&A list. And with that, thrilled to have you guys here. The floor is all yours, Jim and Michael for your opening statement. Well, Jim and I talked and I'm going to take the lead on this, I have very little to say. I'm going to leave most of the opening to Jim. He's got more to say than I do. The little bit that I will say is that the idea of slavery is completely immoral. And it's absolutely okay with the Bible. All you have to do is read anything from Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy and you can see that. And anyone arguing that slavery is okay, I'm not sure where they're coming from. That's all I've got to say. I'm going to pass it over to Jim. Oh, that was short and sweet. So, slavery's wrong, period. I just want to start with that. But it's important that we distinguish like what we're talking about when we're talking about slavery. Firstly, the slavery that most people think of when they hear the word is usually the antebellum slavery, transatlantic slave trade, something of that nature, something of a more modern sense, something that's happened within the past, 600, 700 years, 800 years. In ancient times, slavery was extremely common. Specifically, whenever we're talking about the Old Testament, the word for slave, a bed, is something that can be applied to many different things. It can be applied to an actual slave, somebody who is a possession of somebody else who can be sold and bought and owned in perpetuity along with their children, bread, so on and so forth, which was the main source of slaves at the time. Or you could have debt slavery, which was from one Israelite to another. It was a sort of grace that was extended to an Israelite, a fellow Israelite. Or it was somebody who was in a position of subservience to a ruler, or somebody of a hierarchical status. Let's see. So God doesn't think that slavery's wrong. God thinks that the enslavement of the Israelites is wrong. He brought them out of Egypt because they are his slaves. As you can see in Leviticus 25, that's why one Hebrew cannot own another because it's the divine will of God that the Israelites serve him. So when we're talking about how the Bible feels about slavery, about whether it's good or bad or whatever, the Bible doesn't think that it's bad. Is it bad? Yes, absolutely. They don't think that it's bad because they say, oh, well, it's just debt slavery. It's just somebody in a financially impoverished situation where they are selling themselves temporarily. It's just six years until they can work off their debt or until somebody buys them out until somebody pays their debt for them. So there are no laws that prohibit slavery. Again, it prohibits the enslavement of Israelites. When an Israelite can't pay his debts, right? Now let's talk about the non-Hebrew, okay? It says that, look at Leviticus 25, right? 44 through 46, it says that you can take them from the nations around you and they will become your property, right? You may keep them as a possession for your children after you. So it's something that can be inherited, right? Inherited property. These people you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, your Israelite kinsmen, you cannot, no, no, you cannot, you shall not rule ruthlessly over the other, okay? So this implies that you can rule ruthlessly over a foreign-born slave as earlier in Leviticus 25 lines out. Those are peer property and that's all they are. So, let's see, sorry, misplaced my spot. So what does it mean to rule over them ruthlessly or with vigor? Is that something that is so bad? If we read Exodus 1 verses 13 through 14, it kind of gives us some context as to what to rule ruthlessly or with vigor over somebody is. It says, the Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites when the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and made their lives bitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field labor. They were ruthless in all tasks that they imposed on them. Now, the Bible goes further to stipulate the conditions under which you can keep these slaves or treat these slaves. For the Hebrew, you had to treat them as if they were a hired worker, as if they were just somebody that you would just normally hire to do a job. It says that you cannot work them ruthlessly or with vigor, you cannot lord over them but you can with the non-Israelites. You can with those that come from around you originally this applied to the Canaanites but later it was extended to all non-Israelites. There was no just indentured servitude for non-Israelites. There was just straight up enslavement. And when later revisions of these laws outlining slave ownership were done, it doesn't call the Israelite slaves or servants or anything of that nature. It calls them your brothers. That you may work the non-Israelites but your brothers, the Israelites, no man shall hold crushing sway over his brother or should your brother come into debt under you and be sold to you, you shall not work him the work of a slave. Usually it's your brother like a resident hireling, right? So yes, it is wrong. It cannot be compared with modern day slavery because it's not the same. Does it have similarities? Yes, absolutely. What similarities? The chattel aspect for one. Like I said, you could breed your slaves. There were stipulations, there was a way that even Hebrews, your fellow Israelites could become permanent slaves and pass down their children and so on and so forth if they decided that they wanted to stay or if they were given a wife and they wanted to stay after the period of many mission was up. So you have Exodus 21, you've got Deuteronomy 15, you've got Leviticus 25. And they seem to be revised in that order. So Exodus 21 seems to be older than Deuteronomy 15 and Leviticus 25 seems to be newer than both of them. And it seems like Leviticus 25 is the same softer approach as Deuteronomy 15 does, but it does so in a way that it takes both Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15 into consideration. You can look into the New Testament, right? Where they use words like do-loss, where that is not a word like a bed that can be applied over a wide range. It doesn't mean, it's not like it might mean servant, it might mean bond servant, it might mean actual slave. It means slave, ownership, possession of a person as if they are your property. You cannot even compare the two. So if somebody wants to say that, oh, well there was only debt slavery in the Old Testament. Oh, well then where did this Christian idea, this New Testament idea of actual enslavement come from? The idea of Lex Talionis justice of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth did not apply to slaves. If you hit a slave so that you injured his eye or his tooth then he was free to go. But if a man hit another fellow Israelite and took his eye or his tooth, then the same was done to him an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, burn for burn, death for death, what have you? You could see that they were seen as lower status people when you look in Exodus 21 verses 29 through 32 or 33 that is talking about the goring of the ox and what you should do to an ox who has already gored somebody before and is not being restrained by its owner and it kills somebody again. Well, if that person is a non-Israelite then the owner of the ox in addition to the ox were killed in with some conditions that a ransom could be paid, a ransom that would be proposed by the opposite side by the person who lost their children's life or spouse's life or what have you and then the person who owned the ox could either accept it or he could die. Now, if it was a slave, if the ox gored and killed somebody's slave, 30 shickles of silver, the going rate for a slave that day it's about $200 today. That's the going rate, the market price for a slave, if you will. So justice did not apply to them in any way whatsoever. Just that there are so many reasons why slavery in the Old Testament is bad. So I'm dying to hear why it's not. So I'm going to conclude my time there. Super juicy and we will kick it over to our theist guests to make their defense. So thanks so much, G-Man and praise the floor is all yours. So G-Man, you want me to do my presentation first or it's up to you brother, what do you want to do? Yeah, you go ahead and do your presentation and then just leave me with about three to five minutes and I'll take care of it. Sweet, perfect. James, do you have that up there? I can, you'll just have to screen share before I can put it up. Oh, yeah, sorry. Just let me know when you see it. All right, I'm fitting it to the screen and you should be good to go in three, two, one and you're all set. Oh, sweet, here we go, biblical slavery. So we're gonna start our topic tonight and to prevent, to preempt equivocation or the likelihood of us talking past each other with our interlocutors. Our opponents first must provide a clear case for involuntary servitude or subjugation. Anything less than this does not meet the requirements for biblical slavery. So here's a quick overview of the biblical socioeconomic system. Israelites and non-Israelites were under one law, numbers 15, 15 through 30. So it's impossible to convict Israel of mistreating non-Israelites, especially when God commanded Israel to love and not to oppress aliens. Exodus 22, 21, 23, 9, Deuteronomy 24, 14, Leviticus 19, 34. The biblical socioeconomic system was instituted to prevent poverty of both Israelites and non-Israelites by providing debt relief. Deuteronomy 24, 14, Leviticus 25, 35. If child slavery was such a thing in the script there would have been owners, ba'als, not masters, adones, because chattel, livestock, for example, would have been returned back to their owner. Examples Exodus 21, 29, and 34, while escaped if beds were not to be returned back to their masters as Deuteronomy 25, 15 stipulates. The Israelites and the surrounding nations were involved in a Susan Vassal treaty throughout the region, which makes it impossible for there to be chattel POWs. Both had contractual agreements to do specific jobs like military support and tribute, for example, Joshua 9, 3 through 27, 16, 10, 17, 3, judges 128 and 30 through 35. For instance, God punished the Hebrew nation for their breach of the Susan Vassal Treaty, 2 Samuel 21, 1, and the king of Israel was required to compensate the Gideonites for their loss, 2 Samuel 21, 2 through 9. This demonstrates that the Hebrew-Susan D. Treaty placed a higher order of obligation on the Susan, Susan, in this case, Israel than it did on the Vassal, which is the Gideonites, a situation unique in the ancient Near East. Now I'm gonna bust misconceptions about biblical slavery. For there to be biblical slavery, this supposed 613 laws of the Pentateuch would have to be shown to be legislative. However, the mainstream view by scholars is that only the Decalogue was legislative. This is because only the 10 commandments are apoditic or prescriptive, while the other laws are casuistic or descriptive. Since only the 10 commandments are prescriptive, then the atheists and skeptics alike cannot pin any notions of slavery on the biblical God. Contrary to what atheists peddle about the 10 commandments not prohibiting slavery, the 10 commandments do outrightly outlaw slavery. The 10th commandment, which is Thou shalt not covet, is very specific because it particularly prohibits coveting any chattel. The Hebrew word for covet command in the Hebrew is used in regards to humans and other physical objects. Deuteronomy 7, 25, Proverbs 6, 25. Now we're gonna go into Leviticus 25 in Exodus 21. The word forever used in Leviticus 25, 46 is misapplied because it's used anachronistically by those who proclaim biblical slavery. The word forever, olah, means by mainstream Asianary scholars to be the jubileer until a master's death. Moreover, how could Leviticus 25, 44, and 46 be equate with slavery anyways because the Lord himself is called property and he's inherited in Ezekiel 44, 28. Now in Exodus 21, 20 through 21, it does not mean you can beat your bed slave to an end to their life because restrictions of physical abuse are providing the following passages, verse 26 through 27. In fact, Exodus 21, 20 through 27 are chaiastic and structured casuistic in nature, meaning they come as a group of repeated themes. The theme of this chapter is death penalty first and if not death penalty then Lex Talion is followed. So literally, if an event is murdered unjustly, the death penalty ensues and if they stay alive, they are free from their contractual obligation. That is in the very structure of the Hebrew text. Before I hand the baton up to my brother, G-Man, I wanna say this debate is a call out to Josh Bowen and Matt Dilla, honey for a debate on slavery. With that, I yield to my brother, G-Man. Thank you very much. Praise and... Right, so let's get my beautiful face on camera here so everybody can see me. All right, so there ain't a whole lot more I can add to that but I will say this, number one, I also would like to call out Matt Dilla and the other gentleman that praise I am was calling out as well, considering that me and Matt has a little history and I called the atheist experience twice and I was still waiting for him to refute me on anything that has to do with slavery at all. With that being said, I wanna say this, Jim Ager's opened up his statement by saying that slavery was immoral and he just generalized it when he said it and then later on when he spoke, he said, he started categorizing everything with chattel slavery, the dex slavery, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Here's the thing, Jim Ager's, if we're gonna talk about this topic, we gotta know specifically what we're talking about. I'm assuming you're talking about the act of a human being on and on the human being is wrong in and of itself, right? And I think my partner already covered that but I gotta say this, I believe that you and your partner do support a form of slavery since we are using your definition. I'll start off with you, Jim Ager's and I'm assuming you're an American, as a matter of fact, you did tell me that before we got started here. I'd like to read something to you in the Constitution. It says, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime throughout the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress, and this is section two, Congress shall have power to enforce this article by an appropriate legislation. If you are truly against slavery, I would love to hear how you feel about community service, people working in jail and only making about a dollar per hour or whatever, and major corporations benefiting from that. And for Michael, if you are truly against slavery, I gotta say this for the people that are watching this and for my partner, and for the moderator, for people who care about this in general, you say that you're against slavery. If you are an evolutionist and you believe that you are an animal, my question is this, do you believe that animals should own other animals? If you do, then you are a supporter of slavery. If Jim Major supports what is written in the Constitution, he is a supporter of slavery. The Bible, however, when we're talking about God, God does not condone anything in the scripture that would be deemed immoral. That goes to beating their slaves, as you guys point out, which would merely be punishment for breaking the mosaic law. And we'll get into that when we get into the direct conversation. Owning a slave forever, my partner already talked about that. And that's really all I got to say about this because he covered everything. So I believe that both Jim Majors and Michael Stewart both support slavery because Michael supports the theory of evolution and believes that an animal can own another animal, unless he has strong arguments against that. And Jim Majors, you have a constitutional problem, my friend, and how you feel about the prison system. So I'm going to end it there. I believe that my partner covered most of what we need for this debate. We will jump into the open conversation, folks. One thing I want to mention, that I forgot to mention up front is we are pumped, folks, that modern day debate is available via podcast. And so pull out your favorite podcast app on your phone and find us as we have been super encouraged. That people, there have been a lot of downloads, so we're encouraged and we want to let you know if you're listening via podcast, our guest links are in the description so that you can reach them whether you're listening via YouTube or podcast. And so with that, we'll jump into the open conversation. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours. So it's the first place I just started. First of all, I mean, well, actually, I guess I will address it just to begin with. We're not talking about anything but the Old Testament. If you want to conflate what slavery is, yes, I disagree with the prison system, but that's not what we're talking about today. So let's try to keep this topic on the Old Testament, whether, well, whatever it is. So when I was breaking up the different usages of a bed, it was within the context of the Bible. But so something that really stood out was the Lex Talionis and how you praise said that if they stay alive, that nothing would happen to them if they beat their slave. But if they kill them, then they would be punished. Doesn't say that they'd be killed, doesn't they be punished? No, let's just say that they were killed, okay? But if they beat their slave, nothing happens. If they beat, hang on. If they beat a fellow Israelite, they have to compensate him for his time in bed, for his recovery. They do not have to do the same for a slave. That's in Exodus 21. Right, so, well, first, do you know why there was at least two to three days for downtime? Do you know why that was the case? Why there was two or three days for downtime? Yeah. I imagine because they were beat. Well, what do you mean why there was? Well, see, the Ancient Near East Scholarship has covered this extensively. What this is for is to deliberate if this was unwarranted assault or not. See here, do you see the apparent loophole in these passages in verses 20 through 27? Do you see the loophole? And where? So if you read verses, okay, Exodus 21, 20, and then verse 20 through 27, there's an apparent loophole there. Do you recognize that? 20 through 21? No, 20 through 27, because these are we call casuistic laws. They come as a group of texts and they're also chiasme. Well, first of all, you need to include 18 through 19 because that includes somebody being beaten, right. So if they're confined to bed, then, but they don't die, then they're not held liable, but then they're not held liable, but they still have to pay them. Right, I would like to address that. But if it's their slave, they don't. Can you address that first after you, can you see the apparent loophole, yes or no? I mean, this is a yes or no question. Well, why don't you just tell me, what do you think the loophole is? So the loophole is that they can get out of their contract by just making stuff up and fraud their master. They can say, oh, look at my master did to me, and look, there's a bump in my face, and they can get out of their contractual obligation. So that's what the deliberation was for is because they had to go to the court, a court system, court law, to determine if this was made up or not. Okay, it's as if they destroy his eye or knocks out his tooth, in other words, if they impaired his ability to live like everybody else. It's not specific to an eye, if you were right, Fisher, for right. Well, it's not specific to it, but it uses two examples, knocking out a tooth and destroying an eye, two things that you can't fake. No, it's any unwarranted assault period. And have you read Christopher Wright's commentary on that? We're talking about the slaves. We're not talking about anybody else. Right, I'm talking about the slave. Can I give you a quick quote here? This is from Christopher Wright. The inclusion of the tooth indicates that the law does not intend only grievous bodily harm, but any unwarranted assault. So I think you misunderstand the tooth and the eye. But we're talking about Lex Tallyonis, though. If somebody did whatever they did, then the intern was done to the other person, right? It was an equal trade for trade. But it is not like that for the non-Israelite. For the non-Israelite, there is no compensation other than the release of them, okay? I'll try to respond to that. Yeah, I'll go ahead, Jeevan. That's nonsense. First of all, next to the 2112, it says, he that smited the man so that he died, he should surely be put to death. Where does it say Israelite or a foreigner? It says if he smited the man, it doesn't matter if he was a foreigner and it doesn't matter if he was an Israelite. Numbers 15 to 16 says, for the assembly, there shall be one statue for you and one for the stranger who so adjourns with you. A statue forever throughout your generations, you and the sojourner shall be a life before the Lord. And one law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who so joins with you. It's for both parties. One of the things that you have to remember, Jim, when you're talking about the Old Testament, that law was for anybody who lived in the land. And it wasn't just Israelites. You had strangers, you had proselytes and you had, you know, a variety of different people living here. So those laws would apply to the people that live in the land too. Is there a punishment for beating your non-Israelite slaves? There's nothing wrong with beating them. You have to remember, there are certain laws, like for example, you get caught in an act of adultery if you disrespect your parents, any kind of way. Or let's say for example- But regardless, it doesn't say why. It doesn't say it has to be justified. Let me finish, let me finish. And let's say you work on a Sabbath. It was a death penalty. But it doesn't say that it has to be justified. In this particular case, no, no, no, in this particular case, if a person got beaten, it was a punishment for breaking the mosaic law. What it is like to do when they're having this particular conversation is they like to try to say that, oh, they don't have any reason to beat them because they don't have their property. No, that's translated slave trade, my friend. Under the mosaic law, if you break the law in the Old Testament, there were severe consequences for doing that. And you like to try to separate it that you can't. Where does it say that you, that they had to break the mosaic law in order for you to beat them? Numbers shot the 15 versus 15, 16 again. I'll read it again. And I'll get you the Bible verse where it talks about that if you beat your slave and they die, all right? It says... We're not talking about them dying. We're talking about them being beat. Okay, you can go to Exodus 21. Exodus 21. 20. Let me see something here. Exodus 21. 20. Towards the end, let me show you here. In Exodus 21. Oh, you're talking about the bull goring? Okay, here we go right here. Exodus 21 versus, yeah, Exodus 21, 12. He that's mighted the man that he shall die, he shall show you, put the deck. The beating will be the punishment. The beating will be the punishment for breaking the mosaic law. Now, as far as the scripture... No, this is a fatal blow that they're killed by. Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. If you read Deuteronomy, I believe it's 25 versus 1 through 2, you know what that says? That says that if you're brought to court and you're found guilty, then you can be beaten. It is right there in Deuteronomy 25 versus 1 through 2. Exodus 21 doesn't say anything. It has nothing to do with why they beat their slave. Let's go to Deuteronomy 25 versus 1 through 2. You can avoid answering it. That's fine, but... I'm not avoiding answering it. I'm answering it. Deuteronomy 25 versus 1 through 2. If there'd be a controversy, pay attention now. If there'd be a controversy between men and they come into a judgment that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. And it shall be if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten that the judge shall cause him to lie down and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault. Okay. All you're doing is showing that if the mosaic law was broken, which applies to who? The mosaic law applies to who? Not the foreigners, but the Israelites. Thank you. The Israelites are like anybody who lives in the land. Thank you. So if you had a non-Israelite slave, if you read the text, it does not say anything about it being a Israelite or a stranger or a sojourner. It says if a person is brought to court and they are found guilty, it says it like that in there. So in order for your argument to hold anyway, you got to be able to show that that's specifically only for an Israelite, which I know you can't do it because there ain't a commentary on Planet Earth that's going to come to that conclusion, but you can try. You're aware that a slave cannot bring his master to court, right? I'm fully aware they can, especially if they break the mosaic law. Like for example, a slave, hold on a minute, hold on a minute. If a slave caught his master working on the Sabbath day, what does the law say to do? He ought to be stoned to death. If he's an Israelite. I don't understand that, right? If the master is caught in the act of adultery, that person is to be stoned to death. Why? Because they're both under the mosaic law. You show me a scripture where it says that the slave is not to follow or to obey the mosaic law. We both know that the slave would not work on the Sabbath day. I didn't say that they were not to obey the mosaic law. I'm saying- They caught their master, they caught their master in the act of adultery. If they caught their master doing something wrong, they are to be punished according to the mosaic law. You're talking about criminals, about criminals being punished. I'm talking about slaves being beat. You cannot find anything that says that the slaves are beat because they break the law. The slaves- I'd like to jump in here for a second because there's another scripture that I found that could be interesting, a little tidbit to toss in here. And that is Proverbs 29-19. Servants cannot be corrected by mere words, though they understand they will not respond. So that seems to be pretty clear warrant for, sometimes you got to beat their asses. That's an assumption. Scholars don't agree upon that. If you can show me some type of commentary or hermeneutic that would digest- I'd like to see in the Hebrew, since that was written in the Old Testament, how servants automatically need sleep. Because if it does, you've got a problem with indentured servants who at this particular point. So- Okay, so one question I have for both of you guys is, do you see the Bible as the inerrant, inspired word of God? Absolutely. Right. So it turned to Proverbs 29-19 and read it. And that's what it says. No, that's what you're saying. Yes or no? That's what it says. Oh, no, it's not my opinion. It's in black and white. It's in black and white. What does it mean though, sir? What is word of servant mean? Is there a difference? What do you mean? Is there a difference in the word servant and a slave? Because earlier- Not in Hebrew? Not in Hebrew. Not in Hebrew. Not in Hebrew. In Hebrew, there's not a difference. If they're allowed to be their servant? If there's nothing wrong with, okay. So if a servant's a slave, what's wrong with indentured servitude? Since you claim that there's no- So you want to make a differentiation? Okay, no, you're making an error right now. I'm not making an error. I know my Bible very well. I don't think you know it at all. I would like you to share it with me. Okay. I don't think Michael Sird understands the context of that passage. So- It's always about context. Hold on, hold on. Do you understand what Chastisement is? Yes, I understand what Chastisement is. Do you understand the verse that I read to you 29-19? What does it say? It says nothing what you're implying. So I'm going to actually get another. What translation are you using? That is, that's NIV. Which one would you like? How about KJV, okay? Sure, but give me the passage again. Proverbs 29-19. Okay. A servant will not be corrected by words, though he may understand he will not answer. So that's KJV. So, and it's funny because if you say that, if you want to differentiate between slave and servant, if they're allowed to, if they're allowed to not just use words to correct their servants, what the hell are they going to do to their slaves? Can I answer that, praise I am? Yeah, go ahead. I have an explanation for this. So go ahead though. Okay, so it sounds like you're completing tournaments here, Michael Stewart. Yes, the Bible does say that a servant, which isn't the answer to the way that you're talking about. But again, we're talking about slavery. You see, I'm a servant to Jesus Christ and I don't look at myself as being that way. You know what I mean? Last time I checked, Jesus was a servant of Almighty God. You are a servant to atheism, all right? So where are you getting this idea, sir, that, hold on a minute, where are you getting this idea that the way you're using the word servant is the same way it is being used when we're talking about the kind of slavery that you deem to be immoral. Because at this point, we can talk about a person who's simply a servant and have a job or whatever, because if you're going to go there, I'm going to go there too, because there's other forms of slavery I can bring up that I know you support. Okay, so let's be honest here. Is it talking about a person who was owned by another person or someone who is simply under someone's authority, which is a huge difference between the two? Right, that's the thing. There is no, it's only talking about it. Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. No, no, you're good. Hold on, so you got to put this in the proper context in the proper genre. So Proverbs is talking about things that have to do with wisdom. This is not, this has nothing to do with the law. So you're just trying to extrapolate this and try to impose some type of law in here. But here's the thing, it's talking about a fool. This is descriptive. So someone that doesn't even service, even eveds, if they're going to be foolish, they're not going to listen to what you have to say. It doesn't matter if they're eveds or non-eveds, it just, that's just the way it is, the human nature. So then what do you do to them if they don't listen to your words? Well, I mean, you can correct them different ways that doesn't imply corporal- I know it's hard for you to say it. I know it's hard for you to say it because it hurts. But if they're not going to listen to your words, what do you do? I can say it because you quoted the Proverbs. Praise, praise, let me take care of this praise. Can you quote it the Proverbs? Okay. And then you, well, first you ask us whether or not the Bible was an error, right? And you're misusing the Bible. See, if you misuse it, then you can, hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. You do understand the Proverbs as a bunch of saints, right? Sure. You do know that, right? Yeah. One of them that I read. Hold on a minute. So in what context was that scripture actually being used in a sense you're so familiar with it? So I didn't even say I was not familiar. We started talking about it and I looked it up. So I mean, either the Bible says it or the Bible doesn't say it. And if you're saying that the Bible is the inner, don't roll your eyes. If you're saying the Bible is the inner word of God and it either says it or doesn't. And if you're going to talk about context, you're going to say, well, you have to understand where the Bible is right and where it's metaphorical and all this other stuff. Then where do you stop? Where do you stop? And that's when we started getting into biblical interpretation. Existing Jesus, Jesus, line by line, letter by letter type of thing. So it doesn't say it then? Hold on a minute, hold on a minute. This is important. If you don't know how to properly interpret the scripture, then you have to admit that the way that you're going about interpreting it could possibly be wrong, which you clearly are wrong. No Bible scholar on planet earth is going to agree with the unless it's a heretic or a false teacher. You know what I mean? And most of the church doesn't recognize that person as being somebody who- That's a no-trust God's one, Phallus. No, it's not a no-trust God Phallus. You don't even know what the Phallus you mean. So the thing is that, can you demonstrate that your interpretation of what you're reading is valid and that the rest of the church looks at it that way? If not, you're a straw man in us. How do I know how the church looks at it? That's a straw man. That's a straw man text. Can I pose something really quick to you, Michael or Jim, a question? Sure, Jim should answer. I've been talking a lot. So Jim, can you prove that these laws and the pen that took the 613 laws were they legislative? Can you prove that? Or can you give me some type of demonstration of that? How about the OX scoring in Exodus 21? Do you know what a legislative means? That is a law. That, yeah, so can you give me a distinction? OK, are these descriptive or prescriptive? And can you show that these are prescriptive laws and the 613 laws? In Exodus 21, if an OX who has gored somebody before, gored somebody and kills them, then the OX is put to death. If that person is a non-Israelite, the owner is put to death as well. If the person who dies is a slave, then the owner of the slave is compensated with 30 shiggles of silver, and the owner does not die. Can I respond to that? I have some scholarship here. G-man, I think you should be very pertinent. Who? Yeah, so can you cite it? Yeah, so I'm going to give you some quotes from scholars here. So this stipulates that a negligent case of an OX scoring someone, the owner must die or pay a ransom for his life. So how can chattelby slavery be relevant here? Here's the quote. Whoever one should notice that Exodus 21 30 also remarks that if a ransom is imposed on him, the owner, he shall give whatever is imposed on him. This means that this is not something that he agrees to. It's something that is proposed by the other party. So the incidental event is allowed to be conditioned with some pecuniary compensation. Therefore, it's previously discussed, the punishment for the one who causes a loss of any human life, regardless whether it be a free person or a slave's life, remains the same. No, no, no. What if he doesn't pay the ransom? What happens if he doesn't pay the ransom? Well, here's the thing. Can you just answer me real quick? Yes or no? What? Well, what happens when he doesn't pay the ransom? Does he die? Yes. OK. Now, if it's a slave, then what happens? Does he die? Yes. Where do you see that? I'd like to add one thing to it. Go ahead, go ahead. I mean, I wanted him to prove. The prescriptive and prescriptive, just so that you know this, James, your major, if it's prescriptive, then that means that it's for today. I know what prescriptive means. OK, so if it's for today, then you're going to have to demonstrate one church, just one that actually teaches today that the laws that was followed under the laws that were given to the land of Israel is actually applied for today. No, I don't have to because prescriptive. We're talking about the Bible. The Bible is prescribing. I'm not saying the church prescribes. It's less absurd. No, we're talking even grammatically. Do you understand what the podosis is? And do you understand that what that means? And yes, but what the church says is irrelevant to what the Bible says. We're talking about slavery in the Bible, not slavery in the church. That is not true. That is not true. Oh, it's not? Well, am I am I mistaken on the topic? No, hold on a minute. If you was in the know, you would heard of a group called the Judaizers that existed in the days of the apostles. The apostle Paul wrote a whole book on the topic called the Book of Galatians. This is mentioned also in the Book of Acts, Acts 15. I talked about this all the time on my G-man channel. We want to deal with the Hebrew original likes, OK? There were a group of false teachers out there that told that that's what you have to keep the law, as well as believe in Jesus Christ in order to be safe, right? Are you aware that in the Greek? Hold on a minute. The scripture does not teach that you have to keep the mosaic law in order to be safe. What you're saying is true. About it being prescriptive, listen, then that means that we have to practice that today. No, it does not. No, it does not. Because we're not talking about the New Testament. If it's descriptive, then that means it was good for that time. We're not talking about the New Testament. OK, fine. Fine. I'm just kind of finding a phrase I am was trying to say to you. OK, fine. That's a dumb argument, but OK. You're making a bad argument. At the end of the day, do you have an argument to suggest that slavery in the Old Testament was considered immoral and wrong? Because up until this point, you still have not come up with a solid argument to do so. I'm not saying that it was considered. I'm saying that I consider it. And yes, I think that it was considered wrong. It was probably considered wrong by the people in the neighboring nations who were invaded and taken into serenitude. No, no, no. How about by every slave? The majority of the countries in the Middle East at that particular time all practiced the same thing. So no, they did not think. Right. Matter of fact. Whether or not they practiced the same thing or not is irrelevant to its morality. Hold on a minute. If you go read First Kings and look at the wisdom of Solomon and how he was doing things, the nations all came over there because they were amazed by his wisdom. And if real was looked upon as being a nation, that I was supposed to be the example for the entire world. Where are you getting this Egypt and Canaan and all of them? Yeah, but hold on. Oh, my gosh. Oh, well, you know what? Well, then all the problems that are in the world today, well, poverty and world hunger and stuff, since that's happening in so many places, then it's OK, right? No, not that. Hold on, hold on. I need to say something. No, it's not. No, it's not. You were sitting here trying to say that just because it was happening everywhere else at the time, that it's not wrong. Well, it's wrong to the people who were captured. They're like, well, fair play, fair play, guys, because I did it to everybody else, so you're going to take me into captivity. So I'm just OK with it now. But Mr. Nager, you said that you're a pretty shit mother nation idiot. Let's hold on one second. OK, I hate to do this, guys. Just because it's getting slightly unruly, let's just be sure that we heard that full point from Jim. And I promise we'll come right back to you, Jim, and to hear your full point as well. So can I? Oh, well, I was you're not Jim, though. But if you had a point that you were trying to get out, but weren't sure that it did hurt. So so the point I'm trying to make is it's irrelevant whether or not they were all doing it at the same time. OK, you can think that that that lying is OK, so I can think that lying is OK. And they'll just lie to everybody. But once they're lie to their offended, right, it's wrong. And it's the same thing that we see here. OK, whether or not the Canaanites thought it was OK to enslave people in neighboring nations does not mean that they, by default, thought that it was OK for when they were invaded for their wives and their children to be taken into servitude. OK, I'm actually just to piggyback onto that. I'm going to just see if I can respond. I'm going to just feed all this. Well, praise is your own partner. Let's hear from the team and I promise then we'll go to Michael and then we'll go to praise. No, let me say everything that I said was in response to Jim saying that he's pretty sure that the neighboring nation thought it was wrong as well. Again, if Jim majors knew anything about Middle Eastern culture, he wouldn't know that that's belonging because all of them did the same thing. And also, Jim majors, when you're trying to come back after praise, I even finished. I want to hear what you believe is a good economic plan for that time to pay back debts, to take care of the poor, and also to punish people back then also without bringing up what it says in the Constitution. Go ahead, praise I am. You did. Oh, I think it's the answer. OK. So no, Jim, the Exodus 21 is impossible to be prescriptive law because it's called case law, casualistic law. And that's based on arbitrary things that happened in the court, arbitrary things that happened in daily life. Arbitrary. And so, yeah, these are just arbitrary things made up by the people in the societies. And why is this important, though, is that you can't. So are you saying that only divine law applies? Yeah. Only divine law was prescriptive. There's not one court docket we have in the Ancient Near East that has any of these laws ever used in the court. OK, so whenever it says that you shall not covet your neighbor's slave, then by implication, it means that slavery is OK, right? The opposite. You're not supposed to covet any chattel. No, no, but no. But the fact that they have a slave is OK, right? Well, the fact that you made a slave in your mind, it's a mental crime. It's not a physical crime. It's a mental crime. But the crime isn't that they own slaves or that you own a slave. It's that you covet the slave. Know that you covet a human. It doesn't say human. No, no, but that's part of the context. No, it's not part of the context. It is. If you look up the word, come on in the Hebrew, Deuteronomy 725, Proverbs 625 plainly says it's in reference to humans, Jim. Come on, man. OK, in response to what Jim Hager said, when he said that slavery is wrong again, without clarifying what he meant by that, don't forget in the Bible we have indentured service to wait for a second. I think that's wrong, too. Hold on a minute, Jim. Hold on a minute. You're a good chance. OK, so apparently people who volunteerally want to be slaves, that's immoral. And then, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Yes. OK, well, let you finish, Jim, man, but then I do want to kick over back to both, Jim, and then, Michael, we haven't heard from for a while. So go ahead and finish, Jim. Yeah, so slavery has a punishment wrong, but you don't have a problem with the Constitution. You know what I mean? You don't have a problem with the prison system. We're not talking about anything else. We're talking about the Bible. In order for you to make an argument, that indentured service is wrong. You have to make an argument for why it was wrong for the Old Testament. And today, since indentured service is alive and well, even Matt Della, doesn't know. No, I don't. No, I don't because they're completely different. I don't because they're completely different. For one, the debt servitude was a courtesy that was extended to your fellow Israelite, right? And there are also laws that were against charging them interest, right? So yeah, so there's a big difference. And whenever you would let your slave go, God said that you should do it with a happy heart. You should do it willingly because they earned you twice as much as they would have had they paid you. So no, I don't think that's just. I don't think that's right. I don't think that's OK. I do not think that that is. Yeah, give us a while. I don't need that out of you out of thin air. I know. Well, what was it that you think I made up? Well, give us a verse. The double the profit thing that you just got for this. Like, where is that at? Show me in the Bible. In the book of imaginations. Where is it? Well, you clearly don't read your Bible here. I'll get you first. Hang on. Now, go ahead and say what you want to say. Well, while Jim's looking that up, there's a bunch of stuff that's been talked about that I'd like to chime in on a little bit. The first thing is that, G-man, a few minutes ago, you said to talk about why slavery would be immoral. And the only thing that I'd say to that is it's the involuntary implication of your will onto someone who doesn't consent. You try to compare that to something we have today, like with a job or something like that, which is ridiculous. I have a job now. But if I don't do my job, I can just leave my job and go get another job. Nothing is forcing me to stay there and keep that job. You also talked about with animals owning other animals. My animals, I have a dog and I have a bunch of snakes. None of them are required to do anything. Like, all my dog needs to do is get pet and all my snakes need to do is to take them out and I interact with them. So there's no equality there in any way, shape, or form. So that's just that's just completely nonsense. OK, and then the other thing, and then the other thing you what you said, hang on, I mean, you guys talked a lot. So one of the things that said is you said that it wasn't a praise, you said that it wasn't prescriptive. So in in in Leviticus 25, at the end of at verse 42, it says, because Israel Israelites are my servants whom I brought out of Egypt in yadda yadda fear your God. So this is God talking. And then he says your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you. That is prescriptive. That's God saying, do this. If you're going to have slaves, this is how you do it. That is not descriptive. That is prescriptive. No, see, the author said the Lord. They say it wasn't the Lord writing that down in the manuscripts. It was Moses of the who was writing this down ascribe. So no, you don't understand that. It's a medium. So we had a medium there writing this stuff down. But here's another thing, too. Wasn't the inspired wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Who wrote the decalogue? Moses did. So it wasn't God inspired. Well, it was God through Moses. So it wasn't God. Well, I mean, it's directly through his. Well, actually, no, no, no, you can't pick and choose here. No, no, no. Well, I think I missed I misstated there. I had to retract that. No, yes, God wrote the Ten Commandments. Yes, I'm sorry. That was the I dropped the ball on that one. God, the other part of it that I said wasn't inspired by God. So so that part of the Bible isn't isn't God inspired. No, it's extrapolated from the Ten Commandments. So we can say indirectly. Yes, it is inspired by God, but not directly. So it's inspired by God. So it's got so it's what God wants, but it's not prescriptive. No, it's what we call fishing on both sides of the river. No, hold on. No, it's the society is extrapolating laws from the Ten Commandments. You know, this is the inspired word of the perfect God, right? Well, no, but see, here's the thing messed up. But no, but see, you don't understand what's going on here. God was not interested. God was more interested in a covenantal relationship based on love with his people rather than being a dictator by posing 613 laws on them. Then he wouldn't have been OK with. If he was interested in love, he wouldn't have been OK with slavery. Wait, so where did these 613 laws come from? Or different topics. These are didactic laws. This is from societies where they inspired by God or not indirectly. That's what I would say the people could have blundered some of these. It's galloping right now. So it didn't come from society. So again, these 613 laws were extrapolated from the Ten Commandments. The people did that. God allowed them. So God didn't inspire it. Can I help my brother out a little bit, please? It's a false dichotomy. He's indirectly doing. Go ahead, go ahead, Gman. Yeah, sure. So first of all, praise I am is correct. The Ten Commandments was spoken directly by God in the Exodus chapter 20. You read it for yourself if you like. The preparation for that, I believe, was an Exodus 19, if I'm not mistaken. OK, if you actually read a little bit, you'll see actually as you go out throughout the Old Testament, you'll see that each of the laws was based on the Ten Commandments. If you read the Bible, you will see that. So praise I am is correct by that. Staying on topic here. The gentleman Michael said that jobs and pets or don't count and they're not the same thing, sir. So in every classroom in America, they teach that you and I are apes and that we are animals. OK, they're wrong. And you are animal and you have a pet as an animal, then you are supporting slavery. It has nothing to do. Pay attention to this now. Nothing to do with how the animal behaves. You are considered the animal's owner. OK, your job, sir. And you, man, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no, no, no, no, you wait. No, no, no, no, hang on. Hang on a second. Hang on a second because that pisses me the fuck off. Hold on, hold on. All right, hold on. You are saying, all right, you need to do this. So they can't hear you guys. Hold on. So they can't hear either of you guys. Right. You guys. So hold on one second. Gee, man, they can't hear you right now. It's OK. So what we have to do is break this into pieces so we can address each point one at a time. And so just before it gets too fast, it looks like there's a point that Jim would like to address. And so, gee, man, if you can wrap up the current point you're on and then we're going to kick it right back to Jim to address that point. And so this just this last point for me. Gee, man, OK, cool. So he can be mad at me all he wants. I'm pretty sure I'm going to be equally as mad in a minute because he's caught chasing. So Michael, going back to the point here, OK? I already brought up the pets. As far as the job goes, my friend in the NFL, these teams are these human beings are owned by owners and the NBA, they're owned by owners. I'm not a professional football player. Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. You don't say anything about that. You don't say there's anything wrong about these owners referring to themselves as owners with these players. You don't say anything about the prison system. You keep ducking in. We're talking about the professional sports. You're done. Yeah, Jim, just before. Let's go back to the point from Jim. I'm using it as an analogy. Shut up. In the Black History Month, to compare pet ownership and being paid billions of dollars to throw a fucking ball through a hoop to the chattel slavery. That just disgusts the fuck out of me. And I'm done. That's all I got to say. And my response to that is this, since this is Black History Month, sir, and your ancestors enslaved my people in the United States, how dare you question me on whether or not I know anything about slavery? You clearly don't care because you're comparing it to owning a fucking pet. Sir, I'm talking about the topic as a whole. You are... Oh, yeah. Let's talk about slavery as a whole. You want to conflate all of it? That includes that, buddy. Sir, you're a cloud chasing, sir, and I don't think you're taking the crime. No, I'm not cloud chasing. You're an idiot. Sir, that's really defended the Bible. And when I brought up my analogy, you wanted to try to say that I was conflating or whatever. I was not. Bring up an analogy. If you were truly against labor, you would be against the prison system. And everybody... I am against slavery. Okay, that doesn't mean that I'm against pet ownership. You really think that there's an eight-inch common ground there? You're talking about slavery as in the Bible. Slavery for punishment is in the Bible. You have a problem with that, but you don't got a problem with it now or modern day today. Slavery for punishment. Okay. And the other thing I think is interesting, we talk about, I mean, the whole sports thing. I just want to make one little thing and then we'll get back to that because I do have a question about how you said all the 613 come from the Ten Commandments. So I'm curious about one in particular. But even if we're talking about a professional sports team owner saying he owns this team and owns these players, what happens to the quarterback if he doesn't go through the ball? Nothing. He might lose his contract. He might lose money. He's not going to get injured. He's not going to get beaten. He's certainly not going to be killed for it. So that's ridiculous. And then you said that all of the 613 laws come from the Ten Commandments. I'm just super curious as to you shouldn't boil a goat in its mother's milk. Which one of the Ten Commandments did that one come from? You'll have to ask the ancient people. But here's the thing like... You're the one making the assertion. You're the one who said they all come from the Ten Commandments. Oh, we have an grammar. No, it's a pod didic. We're going to go into three-minute intervals. So two to three-minute intervals. So I've got the clock set. So go ahead and respond to praise. Is it Mishneh? Is rabbinic law? All right, well, yeah. So they can't hear you because you don't seem to be listening. So we're going to do two to three-minute intervals. And so we'll come right back to you. But praise, go ahead for about two minutes. Okay, so firstly, Deuteronomy 2515 says an escaped aved can go anywhere he wants. He does not have to be returned. So that is a false, that is a falsehood you just stated, Michael Stewart. I'm sorry, Canadian Atheist. But... What's my name? Oh, okay. I can use that name. Okay. My name is Michael. Okay, Michael. So Deuteronomy 2515 says an escaped aved can go anywhere he wants. He doesn't have to return. However, a lost livestock commit like a sheep or something like that, or a horse or a cow would have to be returned back to his owner, which is above all in the Hebrew, not an adone as used in Exodus 21 and other places. So there's a huge distinction there. I don't think you're seeing that. No, okay. So just to be clear, you're responding to a point that I didn't make. And that is that, so G-Man said that he was the one who brought up the whole thing with the sports owners and stuff like that. And all I said, like I'm in agreement with what you said about what it says in the Bible, that's totally fine. What G-Man said was is that the professional sports teams owners are the same as slave owners because they own these slaves. And that's just completely ridiculous. Because... That's not what I said. That's not what I was saying. Everybody can go back and listen to the tape. We're gonna have two minutes. I said it, but you take it all the time. We'll give them two minutes. And then so that person is under, yeah, like just like it says in the Bible, he could go play for another team and stuff like that. He'd get lawyers involved or contracts and stuff like that. But the reality is nothing could happen to him. And so that's why it's totally different. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hang on, are you telling me that the owner of the Chicago Bulls can't beat Michael Jordan as long as he doesn't die within a few days? I don't think so. What? Oh, so you mean that it's not the same fucking thing? I guess not. Well, I mean, come on, Jim. That's just a straight up character. And you know it's a straw man. It is, thank you. Now tell your teammate. Let me know when I can go, James, so I can defend myself. I was done, James. All right, two minutes from Matthias. Go ahead. Okay, so let me respond to this stupidity. I listened to Michael just say, I'm sorry, Mike, but it was just dumb. I use that as an analogy. You see, your argument is that slavery is wrong across the board, just like your majors is. Slavery is when one human being owns another human being. You're under a contractual agreement, sir. Whether you like it or not, the dictionary disagrees with you. The dictionary says that that person owns your butt. Okay, so let's say Michael Jordan doesn't shoot the basketball or the person doesn't go to football because they own you. You will not get paid the millions of dollars that they promise to pay you, all right? You could be severely penalized, just like in the Old Testament how you could be severely penalized. And mind you, I'm not working on my argument. I'm working on yours. Your argument for slavery. All right? Both you and Jim majors have not made accurate definition for what the word slavery means. First you say that, first, Jim, you say slavery is wrong across the board under all circumstances, but if a person voluntarily- Yes, it is. If a person voluntarily goes into an agreement with somebody and- That's not slavery. Well, that's you, sir. There's a lot of black people that would disagree with you, which is why- Right, so that's not me conflating. That's you conflating. So I'm not finished. Why is it that I have to be quiet when he was talking, but he won't be quiet when I'm talking? So the bottom line is, Jimmy, boys, the issue here, Jimmy, boys, you don't know what slavery is. Laundry is bondage, okay? It is when you- What does bondage mean? Hang on, what does bondage mean? Let me finish, let me finish. No, what does bondage mean? Sir, I'm trying my hardest to use my two minutes- If you wanna assert that it's bondage, I need you to tell me what bondage means. G-man, I think I'll give you the time back, G-man, to define bondage, but just so that he knows the argument you're making as you're making it. I'm trying to get to it. I was gonna actually answer it, but he would just let me keep talking. So the bottom line is the definition that we're using, okay, which is true throughout scripture, is when you are in bondage to something and you cannot get free unless someone's stronger, then that bondage that you're in will set you free. You want the other hand, sir. I'm not finished, okay? You want the other hand, sir, or defining slavery across the board as being a human being or another human being. Yes. And then trying to say, that if a person voluntarily goes into slavery and that person is treated well, that that's immoral, what kind of a human being makes that argument except for an atheist who has an agenda? That's not slavery, my friend. All right, I'll stop it, come on in. Yes, because they're... All right, that's about two minutes. We'll kick it over to the Aces. Yeah, there are many... Yes, so slavery is defined basically as the slavery or involuntary servitude, serfdom. A state of being bound or subjected to some external power or control. The state of practice of being physically restrained such as being tied up chain, stuff like that. So, I mean, I understand that dictionary definitions and people can use different definitions, but when you're talking about bondage, that's what that is. And that's why Jim asked you to define the term so that we could have an understanding. Jim said earlier that he thinks that all forms of slavery are wrong. I never actually stated my position. I think it is too, but we're still having this problem where you say that, oh, the sports team owner, they could face stiff penalties, but nothing like. Like there is no set of circumstances ever in the modern world where anyone who works for any kind of company could be physically punished for anything they do or don't do, even though they're employed or under contract to those individuals, nothing. You do me a favor and read that scripture in Proverbs again. Will you talk about the serving, please? Can I respond to that really quick, Jim? Because I'm gonna actually validate your claim here. I'm gonna validate with scholarship. Thank you. Can you cite this one? Because you didn't cite the last one. Okay, so here is the citation. This was from Jay Sklar. I'll give you the official answer of the quote. So quote, a second problem involving Leviticus 25 is that the servants are described in terms not only reserved for property, suggesting to some that they were viewed as less than fully human. This conclusion not only runs counter to the previous point, it is also unnecessary in English. We regularly use commercial language to describe people in context when it's commercial. For example, trading a player to another team as one might trade a stock, transferring an employer to another location. We do not use this language because we view the people involved as less than human. We use it because it is accurately describes their circumstance in a given commercial context. That is so funny that you would mention that praise. I'm so glad that you did. Because if you look in the New Testament, when the word used for slave in the New Testament, do-loss means that. It means that they are deprived of their humanity. Really, are you serious? Have you read Revelation 15? Moses is called a do-loss. Is that mean that he was enslaved by God or something in chains? Are you serious? That's ridiculous. Did I say in chains that their identity is taken from them, okay? So Moses was. What? Are you gonna claim that Moses had his identity taken from him? I'm talking about the New Testament. Yeah, Revelation 15 calls Moses a do-loss. Calls James a do-loss. They don't know Moses. They don't know any of them. They are okay with being slaves to God, okay? But the thing is though, is that they understand what they mean by slave. They're not conflating it with servant. They're okay with being in bondage, okay? That's the difference. Yeah, and a second ago, praise, you said that they weren't property. But Leviticus 25, 40, 346 says, rate out and they will become your property. Whoa, so have you read Ezekiel 44, 28? Okay, so. Hold on, I'm gonna answer the question. Have you read Ezekiel 44, 28? Yes, I've read it, but I don't, I can't recall it just off the top of my head. Okay, I'm gonna say it to you. Yes, yes, I'm gonna read this in the net translation because- D-man, I'm certain you don't remember everything you've ever read either. So don't say it. If you hear what I got to say in a minute, but get ahead of, praise. So Ezekiel 44, 28 says, the Lord is property of Israel and he will be handed down to each generation, just like it does in Leviticus 25, 46, exact same verbiage. No, that can completely take me out of context. That is talking about the temple and the Zedekites being in priesthood and it's talking about how the Levites should not be upset because they have, because they are giving compensation. They're giving the property of the land and they're also not having the risk of they came with the priesthood, such as dying in the Holy of Holies. No, no. So Ezekiel- Yes, yes, it is. You mentioned in there. So Ezekiel, we're talking about the book of Ezekiel, 44, 28. I know what we're talking about. So Brown driver and Briggs, they do not define the Lord there as land and property, which you're claiming that Josh Bowen did. That's a falsehood. That is a fabrication. Read the scholarship notes. He is saying that the Zedekites are Israel, that he is Israel's, that he is there. So in other words, it's giving like a tit for tat. It's like, hey, don't be upset because I am yours. Like even though you've lost all of this, I am yours. No, that's not what BDB is, right? Brown driver, Briggs are Hebrew scholars. I mean, come on, man. Like what else? I have a question since they know the Bible better than us. I wanna know are indentured servants, slaves in the Bible? That's all I wanna know. Are indentured servants, slaves in the Bible? Yes or no? According to them, yeah, because they're like kittens. Okay, is that immoral? Yes or no? Yes, I believe you. Yes, it is. It is moral. Okay. So what's the difference between an indentured servant in the Bible where a person voluntarily goes into a contract agreement and can potentially be owned for the rest of his life, any person who signs a contract for the NFL. They are not compensated fairly. They are away from their families for a set period of time. If they are given a wife while they are in indentured servitude, they do not get to leave with that wife. Or if they have kids that cannot leave with those kids. Can you shut the fuck up while I answer your question? It was a man, we've got to let him finish. You asked him the question. So we'll let you finish, Jim, and then we'll come back to G-Man. You also could not leave with your children. If you wanted to stay with them, then you had, then you were marked, within all, you had your ear pierced, and then you were owned in perpetuity. You have become their property forever, not just for the six years, but forever. Wrong, have you read Leviticus 25, Jim? I'm so sick of you telling me that I'm wrong. Just tell me why I'm wrong. Okay, so Leviticus 2549 plainly states that the children normally exit out with the family. So this is a case where the father, whatever. If they went in. No, no, this is, they normally exit with the family. Read it, Leviticus 2541, read it. What about the wife? Yeah, the wife, yeah. What if they gave them a wife? That's, that is the rules. Remember, they're under the same law. I mean, meaning- What if they gave them a wife? I can read to you what happens if you want to exit 21. Go ahead, go ahead, Jim. Okay, so let's go to Exodus chapter 21. And let's read what the law actually says here. Now remember, Jim Major, this is a national law here. Now these are the judgments which Thou shall set before them. If Thou buy a Hebrew servant six years, He shall serve. And in the seventh, He shall go free for nothing. That's number one. Number two, if He came in by Himself, He should go out by Himself. And if you were married, then His wife shall go out with Him for a sword. If His master had given Him a wife, okay, this is the part right here. If His master had given Him a wife and she bore Him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her masters and He shall go out by Himself. Do you want to know why? Are you- I'm not finished, I'm not finished. Sure, finish, Jim, man. That is because the woman was owned by the master. See, if He came in with the woman, they left out together. Did you hear what you just said? If the woman was- Hi, can I finish? The reason why I need to say so badly is because you guys never hear the full point. All right? The point of the matter is that if He came into the situation and His master gave Him a wife, He can go free. But she can't and it makes sense because she belongs to the master. What is your argument? Right. Say that many times. That's exactly what I fucking said. How is that immoral though? Say that as many times as you need to. How is that immoral? Because- It's immoral. If He married her while He was in servitude, He couldn't leave with her because she was owned. She was owned. What's immoral about that? Are you married? Have you been laid? Have you had a girlfriend? Imagine having somebody that you loved. Imagine having somebody that you loved, that you devoted yourself to, that you committed. So what we're going to do is appreciate it, guys. We are going to, so they can't hear you right now. I've got you guys on mute. So what we're going to do is we are going to kick it over to praise, then Michael, then G-man, then Jim, and we'll do a roughly one to two minute interval for each. Soon enough, we'll wrap up and go into the Q&A, folks. Just want to let you know. And so go ahead with your quick intervals. It's sweet, man. Firstly, nowhere next to the 214 does it say the children and wife are the masters of perpetuity. Nor does the text mention they were the masters beyond a legal sense. Masters in the Tanakh were investors, not slave masters. Example, Genesis 17, 23, and 27. Hence the woman and children were investments, not objects of subjugation. As a result, the situation entails a father using his family as collateral to pay off debts unless the next of Henry Dean is dead. And because Leviticus 2541 documents his children and family normally exited with him, consequently the law forbids any enslavement of their own people. As Leviticus 2546 in the contemporary English version plainly stipulates, and you can even, the citation is John Walton here and Becker. So yeah, that's ridiculous, dismissed. My turn. I think it was Michael and then G-Man and then you, Jim. Yeah, so just real quick, just take as many times to read that over again as you need to, where you say Israelite, because what about the non-Israelite? And the fact that the whole point was missed, and this is something that Jim tried to highlight, is that the wife, if it was given, so just imagine this, right, the guy, right, the man, the slave, is given a wife. Like somebody's like, here, here's this. It's not like giving someone a glass of milk or something like that. They hear, here's this thing. You're giving them a person. Giving them a person, like it was yours to give someone else. And if they have children, then they have to stay because they're not free, they can't go by themselves. They are owned by the master. Okay, and since it's my turn now, I should have probably said this in the beginning. You have no basis to say that anything is right or wrong, because you still haven't given us anything that say that if you do this, this is right, and this is how we know it, or this is how it's wrong and how we know it. You have no basis to say that anything is right or wrong in this particular context, all right? And Jim Major Spurlier said that it was according to his own personal opinion. My personal opinion says there's nothing wrong with it. So in order for it to become an objective, you got to have a basis in order to say why any of these things are right or whether or not they're wrong. These were laws that was given to the land of Israel, okay? And anyone who dwell in the land, all right? They are not for us today, even though we have similarities to what we see in the Bible and with our welfare program and some other things that we see going on or whatever. But the point of the matter is, I'm still interested in hearing on how indigenous servants are considered, I'm sorry, how indigenous servitude is considered immoral. That would be considered a job according to you guys. That's the argument that you guys made earlier. And if it's considered a job, then how is it immoral since both of you said that it was immoral in the beginning of this debate? When the reason why I bring this up is because I wanted to demonstrate and show everybody that you don't know as much about this topic as you think you do, Jim or Michael. I'll give you my time. Okay, my turn. That is right. Okay, Exodus 21, one through four, says that if you buy a Hebrew servant that he served for six years and they usually set him free on the year of Jubilee in the seventh year. If he came in by himself, he goes out by himself. If he was married when he came in, that his wife shall go out with him. But if his master gives him a wife and she gives him sons and daughters, the wife and her children are her masters and he shall go out by himself. So not just the woman, but their children, okay? And in addition to that, in addition to that, when we're talking about non-Israelites, you can will your slaves to your children. They can be inherited, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. And since G-Man likes verses so much, it's Leviticus 25, 45 through 46. Next up, we jump into the Q and A. So do appreciate your questions, folks. We are going into it right now. Want to remind you, our guests are linked in the description. And thanks for your question from the Craw Daddy, 029 says, let's see, G-Man, what can we, let's see. Okay, looking for more serious questions. Joshua Larson says, G-Man, are you willing to do a rematch rap battle with JF? You did a rap battle with JF? Yes, I did and I beat him. Gotcha, and Cider and Port, thanks for your question, says, so good to see brother Michael back on Monday Debate. James, if you could ask Michael to check his email now, we've both recently done debates here, we need to chat. Well, Michael, that's in your inbox waiting for you. Magellan, thanks for your question, said, can't wait for the Theos to explain how slavery doesn't mean slavery and how actually the slaves were lucky. Praise and G-Man, if you want to respond to that, you can. All that praise you go for this is, I don't believe that's my argument. Yeah, so there is an equivocation of words and I think it's a presence is fallacy to impose the antebellum slavery verbiage with the ancient Near East servitude, with the mosaic servitude. So colloquial, I guess you're gonna use a colloquial wise, that just means debt servitude. I mean, that's what it really means, so go ahead G-Man. There really nothing, I don't think they understand the topic, I just don't, that's all I'll say about that. Next up, I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your question, said, for G-Man, did chattel slavery exist in America in the 18th and 19th centuries? Because you platform someone who claims that it's indentured servitude. I'm sorry, could you read that again? They said, for G-Man, did chattel slavery exist in America in the 18th and 19th centuries? Because you platform someone who claims that it is indentured servitude. I don't know what they're talking about, I'll have to see the video that is in question. Gotcha, Sider and Port, thanks for your question says, James, I just emailed with an after show link open to everyone here. I'm on the side of the atheist, but open platform, Hope, Michael and Jim join. So yes, that's linked in the description folks, we will link an after show for any side. So for any debate, we're willing to link after shows. And so, Mike Billar's, thanks for your, Super Jesus, come on, we're all here for the comedy. And next up, they say, let's see. G-Man, where are you right now? Are you inside of praise's head? Because it's really echoey. I'm gonna, But, appreciate the craw daddy zero two nine. Thanks for your question. G-Man, you have been told this before. Pets are not slaves, we are stewards to them. Pets are considered family members. You're not recognizing this. Respond to that. And he, and whoever said that, they've been told on numerous occasions that, in evolutionary classes, we're constantly told that we're animals, okay? If we are animals, and we share a common ancestor with other animals, then it should be wrong for a human being to own another animal. Since this is what they teach in evolutionary class. So, Did I just hear you accept universal common ancestor? So, again, that's what evolution is teach. And evolution is one of the most racist positions, scientifically racist positions you can actually have. But it's not a position that you hold. So by you positing it yourself, it's dishonest. If you say so, and on James, next question. Next up, Mothra Jay says, what does the Bible say about safe? Let's see. I think this is supposed to be a personal thing. If this is a stupid question about a safe, please don't even answer that question. Evan Steins is, aren't Jim and Michael white-splaining to G-Man? I heard we were always supposed to defer to people of color on issues like this. Yeah, yes we are. And it's very sad that we have to, very sad. And G-Man should be ashamed. And even more so, his ancestors should be ashamed. Yeah, it's probably more my fault. I think I'm probably a little more white than Jim is. Give you a chance to respond if you want, G-Man. Yeah, can I respond to that though, James, since that was kind of- Yes. Yeah, so tell me something about Michael and Jim. How many of you guys have bought slaves over there in Africa since slavery is a lack of will in America? I'm sorry, in the world today. How many slaves do you guys own? And how many of you set foot in Syria today? G-Man, just because you have a gross conflation of the word slavery does not constitute that we have that same definition. So please stop applying it to us. Yeah, that's not what I was heard. There are slaves who own slaves in Africa and they're selling them for about 30 to 100 bucks. How many of you are you going to buy and set free? Wait, I'm confused. Are you talking about human slaves or are you talking about the pet trade? We're talking about human slaves. Are you going to talk about pets? Do you not know what's going on? We've got to move to the next one. Oh, I thought we were talking about pets. We are going to Chris Gammond's question, which is, G-Man, I don't own my dog. Prisoners in jail are not owned. Slaves are not free to leave and live their lives as they wanted. This is wrong. My response to that is it's the 13th amendment where it says, and pay attention, need the slavery nor involuntary service to X. That as punishment for a crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States of any place of subject or their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce their article by appropriate legislation. Number two, if you was paid $1.15 an hour to actually make a major corporation richer, would you consider that freedom or would you consider that slavery? And when a person has gone into the hole, would you consider that to be freedom or would you consider that to be slavery? You're already aware of what the 13th amendment is, right? The 13th amendment abolishes slavery. No, it doesn't. It's a good punishment, when I was like to believe it. Prejudice abolishes slavery. We must go to the next one. This one, Mathura Jay says, what's prescriptive language, G-Man? Prescriptive language would be, let's say for example, if you go to the New Testament, where Jesus says to love your neighbor the way you love yourself, that is actually consistent with both the old and the New Testament. And it is commanded for everybody who is a follower of God. A prescriptive commandment would be if there were rules for like, if you had multiple wives, like if you was in polygyny or whatever, polygyny is not for today and it would generally condone by God in the Old Testament. So, that's different from what you just said. Because you said that it was divine. That prescriptive law is divine. If it's prescriptive, then it's for today. If it's prescriptive, it's only for that particular situation during that particular time. A lot of these need to be quite additional. It's called apoditic, apoditic. Next question, Mr. Lightning 20. So, God's a news desk? Guys, we do have a lot of questions. We've got to keep moving, but. Yeah, sorry, James, go for it. Mr. Lightning 20 says, where does it make sense for God to me, a moral relativist, by condoning slavery back in those times in ancient culture, but condemns it in moral times? Let me read that again. Where does it make sense for God to me, a moral relativist? I think they're saying, how does it make sense for God to condone slavery back in those times and ancient culture, but condemn it in modern times? Okay, so specifically, what are they talking about? They're talking about the type of slavery in the Translantus Slavery. Because what we saw in the Translantus Slavery was evil across the board. For example, if your slave ran away during the Translantus Slavery trade, they could actually kill you. And as a matter of fact, your dog and your cat had more rights than they did. You know what I mean? That's actually mentioned in the, it was at the descent of man too, by the way. But in the Bible, if somebody ran away, you are supposed to let them go free. So the things that God condoned was good and the things that God is condemning are not good and they could be demonstrated from genesis to revelation. Next up, the Craw Daddy 029 says, you have been told this before G-man prisoners are not slaves. They are wards of the state. I read that already. According to the constitution, they are not wards of the state. Because as a matter of fact, it says, and I'm going to keep reading this, it says, neither slavery, nor involuntary service to it, except as punishment, except as punishment, except as punishment. They are not wards of the state. You can try to see it all you want until you actually get locked up and get put into prison and have to work for 15 cents an hour, get thrown in sleeping and have to go in the hole and have to sleep in your own feces and get up and go to bed when somebody else told you, told you when to do it, you are never going to understand this topic. Finally, a question for you, friends. Why is the 13th Amendment against involuntary servitude? But the Bible is in... It condemns, well, first of all, it condemns the transatlantic slave... No, no, involuntary servitude. We're talking about America. We're not talking about Israel and their laws. We're talking about American laws. I know, involuntary servitude and the 13th Amendment. I think that's your question. You don't want the answer. So when we get to the United States, it is condemning what we had here during the Transatlantic Slavery. But what makes me angry, and God knows how many other blacks angry in this country, is how it can be permitted when a person is thrown in jail and people like you don't care about it. So what's interesting, people like me don't care about it. Just one little thing, Jesus. Well, okay. We'll get Michael a shot. Go ahead, Michael, and then we gotta go ahead and move. I am somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but something comes to mind from that movie from Jim Carrey, a long time ago, Liar, Liar, he says, stop breaking the law, asshole. That's why you go to jail. Next, this one's for our Atheists, yes. And that basically validates slavery, but you broke the law, right? There you go. You're a pro-slavery, like I said earlier in this video. So for this next one, we have to let the Atheists have the last word because this is actually targeting them. And so we're just gonna give them a chance to respond and then we're going to the next question. So Truth Nerd says it takes arrogance to judge a former era by modern notions. By the same standards, Darwin was a racist. What the Atheists do prove is that we shouldn't be slaves to the letter confirming 2nd Corinthians 3-6. So I agree. We cannot judge the past through a modern lens. So if we just look at it from a biblical lens, let's look at it from the lens of God, okay? God, God is not against slavery. He is not against integer servitude. He is, however, against enslavement of the Israelites. You cannot enslave an Israelite the way that you do another one. You cannot. So just that alone says that if God has a problem with, if God doesn't have a problem with anything else, he has a problem with you enslaving a certain group of people. So in that context, then your argument falls apart. Yeah. That's an outright lie. I say if the D.A. says he's against it, read it. Okay, so so much for the last word. Yeah, we gotta give the last word to the Atheists on this and then we gotta go to the next one. Cause that's the original Super Chat was targeting them. You let them go to judge anyone, but I wouldn't judge anyone but God either. When the 10 commandments are handed down, it's like super duper important to do all these things, right? And yet there's nothing talking about owning another human being. Just like there's nothing talking about the protection of children. Just like there's nothing talking about treating women equally. So yeah, I wouldn't do anything but judge. But we can look at the bright side and that God doesn't exist anyways. Red Knight 821 says if there is no God, slavery is not wrong. Nothing matters. Life wouldn't matter either. Humans wouldn't matter. So slavery is wrong only in your mind. JNM, I think they're saying for Jim and Michael. If Zeus didn't exist, then drinking arsenic would be good. That's, I mean, it's just, it's dumb. Next up, Cider and Port says praise, what about the other 603 commandments? They are recall casuistic law descriptive laws or case laws and the peoples of the societies determine those laws for the 10 commandments. I mean, I've said that so many times. Hopefully that person can learn from that. Gotcha, next up, appreciate your question. From Farron Sela says throwing hay makers now. Yes, it was indeed a juicy one at night. And M6A6E6M, thank you for your question, says G-man. Change the word God for white suprem, white S-U-P-R-E-M-A-C-Y or triple K. Then let us know how the whole Bible sounds after the minor changes. A better one than that. Can he explain why Abraham Lincoln and the reason why slavery actually ended here in America was because of abolitionists and Christians, the Quakers. So I would love to hear what he had to say about that. Because the orange jewel wasn't no secularist that actually came to the rescue for us. Abraham Lincoln was one of the most secular prisons we've ever had. And the same Bible that was used, that you're saying to abolish slavery was used to condone slavery. Yeah, by idiots. It was used to keep slaves subservient. Yeah, go ahead, G-man. Can I respond to these statements that was made that God only enslave non-Israelites? If you mind if I actually respond to that, to the 30 seconds made. Next up. Can I answer that for 30 seconds about God only enslave non-Israelites? I didn't say God only enslave non-Israelites. I said he's only okay with them being enslaved. But the Hebrew people aren't enslaved because they are his chosen people, because they're his slaves. Can I actually show how God actually enslave non-Israelites? And with just one quote, and that would be Nebuchadnezzarite and the Babylonians and the Demes and the Persians and then the Romans and God knows how many other nations that's been doing it since then. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, also it wasn't an Israelite. Also it wasn't an Israelite, also didn't give a shit what God was talking about. And the reason why they're enslaved is because it didn't keep the law. You should actually go study your Bible, bro. You know what I'm talking about? What do you mean he didn't keep the law? He wasn't a Jew. You don't know what a labor is. You don't know what a labor is. Ben Miller says the perfect infallible authoritative word of God is the perfect infallible authoritative word of God, except when it's opinions of God's followers, misrepresenting the perfect will of God. No, my response to that is that the majority of the people that talk about this perfect God that are atheists don't know nothing about this perfect of God. And since they read the Bible and don't know nothing about his commandments, because they did, I wouldn't even be in this room if I was to be so bad. This one coming in, Cider and Port says, G-man, would you be my slave under Exodus verse chapter 21 conditions, if not, why not? Yes, I would. And the reason why I would, because I know how you have to treat me according to the mosaic law, and you would have to compensate me. I tell you what, come be my slave and I'll beat your ass every day, but don't you'll get up and walk. I'll beat your ass every day. All right, Will Stewart. I'll beat your ass every day. Will Stewart, thanks for your question says, Jewish law demands better treatment than other cultures of the time. If morality is a social construct, how could it be immoral if slavery was a social norm of the time? Is immorality not subjective, Jim? Or time. So they had said, Jewish law demands better treatment than other cultures of that time in terms of like slavery done in different cultures and they say if morality is a social construct, how could it be immoral if slavery was a social norm of the time? Is immoral? So you can look within the Bible and you're right to an extent. There is a revision going on from the other ancient Near Eastern laws regarding slavery, but there's some things that they're worse at. For example, in Mesopotamia, if you had to take one of your fellow kinsmen into debt slavery, you let them go every three years instead of six years. But like if you look in the Old Testament in the three places where we have the laws for slavery, we have Exodus and we have Leviticus and we have Deuteronomy. And it's because there is a development going on there. So even within the Bible, you see that over 400, 500 years, 600 years that there was a maturing just within the Israelites, just within the Jews. So I mean, what you're saying is nothing crazy. That's like being surprised that we don't, we don't hunt with sticks anymore. It's expected. It's something that we'd expect to see, but we wouldn't expect to see three different, three different traditions, three different ways of practicing this law. I'm sorry Jim. But we wouldn't expect to see in a book that is authored by a divinely perfect being three completely different prescriptions for slavery. Gotcha. Thank you very much. Gabrielle Kay for your question said, so according to G-Man, eating meat is cannibalism. Oh, according to the evolution as it is. No, it's slavery. It's slavery because everything's slavery. Oh my Lord, oh my God. My uncle. He's a slave. He's a slave and he's a slave owner. I particularly, like my chicken. Two people in kindergarten. My slaves got slaves and they got slaves. I'm so sorry. Tell me something, Jimmy. I'm only laughing at that. Okay. Hush, G-Man. Hush, G-Man. Okay. Let me actually have a question. Hush, Hush. My people all want one. Hush, hey, hey, no, you're done. Okay. One second. What I do want to do, hold on one sec. The original Super Chat was for G-Man. I don't want to gang up on him. So we'll give him the last word on this Super Chat and then we'll go to the next one. Last word. Thank you. What I meant to say is... G-Man, I'm having the last word. Go ahead, basically, this is where they said, so according to G-Man, eating meat is cannibalism. No, that's not according to me. Anybody who believes that we share a common ancestor with a deer or we share a common ancestor with a cow or whatever, they're committing cannibalism, but they believe that both the animals and they both believe that they're the same genome. I don't believe that evolutionists believe that. Did you just say humans and deers are the same genome? Okay, sorry. It was only a really laughing consensus. I said G-Man's having a stroke during G-Man's head shaking. Monster J says... I'm having fun listening to some of the most... All right, we've got to go to the next one. Monster J. That's what you're making the yard tomorrow. Are they a slave to a whale if they steal 3,000? I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means either. I am confused, but thanks for your other question, this one coming in. Friendly reminder that our guests are linked in the description, folks. So if you want to hear more from them and watch more head bobbing, you certainly can by clicking on those links down below. And this next one coming in from M6A6E6M says G-Man response. Let's see. Nuh-uh, time to get... What does time to get trigger mean? Time to get triggered? I don't... Is it like shoot, like get shot? Like, yeah, like on a firearm. Let's see. I'm confused. Okay, Gabriel... You are so cute sometimes. Gabriel K, bless your heart. Says, let's see. On Twitter with limited characters could have done better. Oh, they're saying if God were on Twitter with limited characters, they could have done, God could have done better. They say thou shalt not harm any human being in flesh or spirit would have been a better commandment. If God was better, Twitter would have an edit button. Go ahead. Can I respond to that, James? Can I respond to that, James? Yeah. Okay, they said that God would have done better, but this is the problem though. Atheists don't believe that God existed. So you know who's responsible for enslaving people in this country and treating them as disgustingly as he would treat it. It was you. God. Okay, I'm not done. I'm not done. Humanists did it like you're self-gen majors and like Michael Stewart, okay? Because if God doesn't exist, if God doesn't exist and then their justification didn't come from God, there's only one other explanation. That human beings are basically evil and they did it because they just wanted to own them for the sake of owning them. Okay, you guys heard it. So either humans are evil or God doesn't exist. It's under these days, but I could be with you. Spot on, gee, man. So either humans are evil or God doesn't exist. Which one? Both. God does exist. Humans are contingent idiots. Yeah, humans are contingent idiots. Yeah. Atheists don't know nothing about the topic and this is proof that the cloud stages. If they cared about this topic for as long as I know, if they cared about the topic, you know what I'm talking about. I'm about to chase you. That's why I streamed for seven hours. I'm watching this right now and I can assure you it'll be important. This one comes in from Samuel Gray, 19K. MSW, thank you, says, gee, man. Were the antebellum slave holders who used the Bible Christian? Okay, so if somebody bought a slave during the Trans-Language slave trade, for example, and they were the beat them with a whip or something like that they stole them from their country or they did something that the Bible clearly says that God is against. I would say no, because they have not obeying Christ. He says to love your neighbor the way you love yourself. As a matter of fact, if you go to Ephesians chapter six verses five and nine, he says slaves obey your earthly masters with respect because the slave owner has a master that is in heaven. So a Christian would have had a totally different attitude about it versus people that, you know, if you ran away to cut your foot off or they whipped you and tried to change your name and tried to change everything about you through force, kind of like these two guys are doing in this debate. So what you just said was a real Christian wouldn't do that. Thank you for committing the no-truth. I'm not saying that a real Christian wouldn't do that. I'm saying that a person would be obeying the word. Do a same Christian wouldn't do that. A person who's obeying the words of Christ would not do something like that. Right, so if someone proclaimed to be a Christian. All right, let me finish, let me finish. So you're trying to argue for the no-truth God's mythology. That is only true when you got a person, when both people are Christians. If one of them is not a Christian, it is not the no-truth God. Who's the one that determines whether they're Christian or not? The Bible does. God himself determines who's a believer. Oh my gosh. How does God determine who's a believer and who isn't? Okay, next James, thank you. This one coming in from, appreciate it. Will Stewart says, Jim, have you ever read Ergo Slavery, Unjustifiable by Alexander McLeod in 1802? How can you say the church was for slavery in America? Not all of the church. Certainly, most of the abolitionists, like the main abolitionist were Christians. But the unfortunate truth of the matter is the majority of the slavers were Christian. And the majority of the people who use the Bible to propagate and to promote slavery and to allow it to continue and to even defend it in its last days were Christians. And they used the Bible to do it. And they even used a modified Bible with certain pastures taken out and give it to the slaves. And even what it did to the slaves, it kept them subservient to their masters because of that sort of language. Because that slavery is what God is to the Israelites. God's a slave master to his people. He fricking got him out of Egypt. What are you talking about? Yes, and what is it saying in Leviticus 25? It says, you are my slaves now. I brought you out of there. So now you are my slave. Oh yeah, they were really slave. Ooh, how many tell? Hey, according to G-man, they were, right? Like how many quills a man had fell in. G-man, were they slaves? Were they slaves to God? Yes or no? Hey, James, can I sprinkle you something real quick? Come on, come on. Let me just give you a teammate. But then we do have to, right after that, we've got to give the last word to the atheists because this was addressed to them originally. So if you want to- I have something I want to share. Once you just, I want to just share my daddy clothes with that with the laundry room. Just approve this real quick for me, James. Can you see that? Yep. Can somebody read to me the title, that phrase I am, what is the title of the origin of species? Hmm? Is the origin, Yeah. Read it. It says the origin of species by means of a natural selection or pay attention, Mr. Majors and- Preservation of- I'm aware of what it says. I'm aware of it. What's your point? Say that again phrase I am, say it again phrase I am. Preservation of favored races. What's your point? The portors of racism and slavery. No, we are not. That is so dumb. All the way you work, sir. That is so dumb. But the point of the matter is we're right. No, no, you're not. The point of the matter is you're not. The point of the matter is that you think you are. I get that you think you're right. I can tell you think you're right. But you're not. All right. We're going to get rid of the savage races. We have to give the last word. Explain the human zoos. G-man, we have to give the last word. If you want to ask me a question, you can just say the super chat. Yeah, Jim can have the last word, I don't care. They support human zoos, but they're not, the support is a slavery. I said Jim. Oh, what's up? Yeah, okay. Go ahead, Jim. And then, yeah, Jim, because the super chat was originally addressed at you, you want to give you the last word. What was it again? Did I answer it? They said, how can you say the church was for slavery in America? Oh yeah, yeah. And I mean, it absolutely is. I mean, even if you want to say that the Old Testament doesn't apply anymore, the New Testament does. The church still teaches that you have to be subservient to this God. I think it's a gross idea. And it doesn't even end in this life. Hey, I understand you're triggered, I understand you're triggered, but it's my question. I'm not sure. And even to the point of an afterlife where you have to be subservient for an eternity, you don't get an option, you're a slave. Wow. And it's in the New Testament that actually says, slaves obey your masters and obey your Christian masters, especially. The employer, that's what it means in the Greek. Because they are brethren and beloved. Let's let Mike, No, let's, I'm gonna have fun with these guys. That's not what it means, because you know what? Because even on the Sabbath, when they're supposed to be off, they're still theirs. Next up, Will Stewart, thanks for your super chat. Said, Jim, are you saying that because a person not following scripture calls themselves a Christian, that they therefore are a Christian? And then they say, does James not say, I think they mean the epistle of James. They say, does James not say faith without works is dead? Nice. That is nice, yeah, it's great. So what does that mean? I'm a Christian, I'm sitting right here, and I didn't mean no lie. And you don't know what it means, and that's the point. Yeah. So I have a question. Actually, you know, I went to my audience last night. Well, just to be sure that you actually heard the question though, Jim, I'm not sure if you did. Like, did you hear the first part? I don't think you did either. What? Repeated? So I just want to be sure you read the first part. I'm not trying to press you, but just be sure. Oh, give me a minute, here's the first part. My audio is not great, but they said, are you saying that because a person not following scripture still calls themselves a Christian that they're a Christian? A person not following the scripture? Correct. And they don't call themselves a Christian or they do call themselves a Christian? They say that they do call themselves a Christian. And so they're saying, does that mean they're a Christian? We're talking about who? They're saying, I'll read it one more time. They say, are you saying that because a person who doesn't follow the scripture calls themselves a Christian that thus they are a Christian? That's it, they are a Christian. I mean, no. Gotcha. No, I'm not. Mike, Bill Ars thinks your question said, why is G-Man such a gamma? Is that the new thing nowadays? Gamma male? I'm not a beta, but I'm a gamma. Thank you. That was actually pretty funny. I gotta give them credit for that. I gotta tell you about the real question is this, James, what does the preservation of favorite races mean? Like, I'm serious. I'd like to know what that actually means. One of these two guys in here can break that down for you. Oh, why don't you ask an evolutionist? You are an evolutionist. That's so is your partner. I am? Yes, you are. You're not a creationist, that's for sure. Is it a dichotomy? OK, so you choose to troll rather than actually answer the question about preservation of favorite races, but I'm supposed to take you seriously, like you care about slavery, right? I'll tell you what, if you want me to answer seriously, send a super chat. This is a black man saying this to you. Can you say this to me? What do you mean by preservation of favorite races? Why don't you send a super chat if you want to seriously answer? Because for free, I don't have nothing for you. Next up, Mike Billar says, why is G-Man such a? Oh, I think we got that one, right? OK, this one, The Art Odyssey asks, tonight's selection of theists. Let's see, they said, I'm not impressed. Gotcha, OK. I summarized it. I gave the summary. But thanks for your question. This one coming in from, I think we might have one that I saved from earlier, this one from Big Thang, Bruce Wayne says, what university still uses that Darwin book as a course book? G-Man. Everybody uses it that teaches the theory of evolution. I have a biology book right over there that quotes directly out of it. So the bottom line is, I want to know before this show is over, what does it mean by preservation of favorite races? If they just don't know, then they can just say it. And then I can accuse them of not knowing what evolution is. So I would love for them to tell me what the heck preservation of favorite races is. Somebody, anybody. OK, so what the preservation of favorite races means has nothing to do with what evolution is. Evolution is change is in a little frequency over time. And even if we grant, even if we grant that Darwin was racist, that has nothing to do with the validity of his theory that is still the best explanation for the biological diversity we see on this planet, period end of sentence. If you've got something better, get your paper published. You'll be the most famous person in human history. I'm already the most famous person because I'm a child of God. So anyway, so going back in response to that is this. If you're telling me that preservation of favorite races has nothing to do with it, then why end of the sentence of man does Darwin say that the civilized races are going to get rid of the savage races, which would be black people, if you know anything about who was considered savage as back then? I think granted. And they would want to enslave women. Hold on a minute. They would want to enslave women. I granted Darwin was racist. Who cares? Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. This is important. This is the people that enslave people going to translate the slavery. These are the people who did it. People had his belief system. So again, sir, what does it mean by preservation of favorite races stop ducking and dodging? You can answer the question. I just said. Can we just get back to the Q&A? Yeah, I just said, let's just accept that Darwin was racist. Who cares? It has nothing to do. Racists believe it's a slavery. It has nothing to do with it. Racists believe it's a slavery. Well, the ideology is racist, though. Ideology is slavery. I can't remember. You always got to talk about this plaster today. I'll tell you that. Go ahead, James. Shannie for gaming says, is slavery more and more than a cash out payment? Not too nice. Praise. Have you been doing something sketchy or cash out? Next up. I love peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, is my answer. Gotcha. You asked a stupid question with stupid answers. Thank you very much. Samuel Gray, 19KMSW says, gman or praise does teaching certain slaves to read out of certain Bible books and turning a whole diaspora to a foreign religion, namely Christianity, make them good missionaries. Absolutely. Number one, nobody can be forced to become a Christian. It is a choice that a person has to make in order to be born again. Again, if anybody had actually read the Gospels, they wouldn't know that Jesus himself said, in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven, you have to be born again. No one can force you to be that way. Anybody who says that don't know jack about Christianity. Go ahead, praise. They can only force you to stay that way. Go ahead, praise. Isaiah 586, God detests slavery. Read it, guys. Isaiah 586. Our God hates it. Next up, Mike Billard. What a shock that you found a contradiction in the Bible. Says, gman in biology, race, quote unquote, is essentially synonymous with species. So I think they're saying that the preservation of favored races really means that. By the way, I appreciate somebody actually trying to answer the question. I greatly appreciate that. But usually when I'm called the inward by races, it's usually because of the color of my skin and not because of who my mom is. I'm pretty sure I've done it and didn't use the inward. I'm not done, Jim major. So hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. Hey, you're my slave. Yes, I'm serious. You are my slave. You watch your mouth. You're usually weird. So this is serious. So hold on a minute. So usually when people are referring to black people as the inward, that has nothing to do with whether or not. And by the way, human beings are all considered the same species. It's stupid. OK, they're obviously going by skin color and how we look different than people who are more involved, which would be Caucasian people. Yeah, that explains why a Chihuahua looks different than a German shepherd. They've got to be different species, right? I'm going to have fun with you later. Because you're going to be deemed a racist after this. All right, next up, we will go into the question from Juzy 1980 says, if HITLER said 2 plus 2 equals 4, does that mean 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 4? I think they're saying that if someone evil said something in the past, does it mean that therefore, because someone evil said something that, therefore, the opposite is true? And it does. 2 plus 2 equals 4. And I say that 2 plus 2 equals 4. And NAP says that 2 plus 2 equals 4, then that would be correct. Even evil people say things that are correct every now and then. Next up, Mothra J says, G-man, what was Michael's answer to the favored race objection that you brought up? Michael's answer. Michael hasn't spoken a while. I don't remember. He hasn't spoken a while. No, what I said was I said, I just grant that Darwin was racist. It has nothing to do with the theory. Next up. It has nothing to do with the theory. It has nothing to do with the theory, period and a sentence. I'm talking about what justifies a person being a slave, because I'm not talking about your evolution or your theory at this time. I'm talking about whether or not you were talking about. Hold on, as an atheist and as an evolutionist is being justified to own another human being. And you do with your theory of evolution. That's what I'm talking about. Next up. I know the theory better than both of you combined. Samuel Gray, 19 K, MSW said, G-man. So then the slave owners were good missionaries because they turned all the slaves Christian? Number one, all of the slaves were not turned Christian. A lot of the slaves turned down Christianity and actually even so like Islam or just didn't want to believe in a Christian God all together because they probably blamed him for actually being there. And by the way, also, you've got to understand something a lot in Africa. Christianity was taught over there in Africa. Atheists wrongly believe that it wasn't. Some of these churches that's actually being dug up over there in Africa, one of them is actually made out of a cross is one of the oldest churches in existence that's still intact. So Christianity was taught in Africa long before the Transylvanian slave trade. Gotcha. You'll be in a unit, you got a bunch of examples. Putting this in the paraphrased form, the Craw Daddy 029 says, oh good, I get to hear G-man tonight. And thanks for your other question, Samuel Gray, 19K, MSW, no, Gabriel Kay, we got that. Thanks, Gabriel Kay said, G-man, Aaron told you all about evolution, come on. Aaron Rod doesn't understand evolution. When Aaron Rod can tell me the difference between an animal and a human, then I'll listen to Aaron. Next up, Brian F says, if everyone became atheist, would the world be better? Or if everyone obeyed God, would the world be better? Question for both sides. Which God? If everybody believed in God, the world would be exactly the same. If everybody was an atheist, the world would be exactly the same. The issue is whether or not, you know, Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior. Yeah, Jesus Christ is the paragon of all empathy in all morals, he's the highest standard, period. Amen, amen, amen, amen. Jim and Michael? I just said which God? Jesus Christ, that's simple. Because it is already noted God exists, it is the price of truth and unrighteousness. We all know that. I can prove it though, and it's been another debate. No, you can't. Yes, I can. Next up, thank you very much for your question. Carnivore, oh wait, so everybody feel like they got to answer that? I want you to pre-sub-argument Jim majors that you can't do what they do. So anyway, go ahead. Oh yeah, I can't, yeah, I can't, it's just. Hold on, hold on. Okay, all right, so right now, I challenge you to a debate, you want to do a debate of pre-sub-argument? Yo, yeah, I would definitely do it. Okay, cool, all right. If you were in five minutes. If you were in five minutes. If you were in five minutes. Okay, gotcha. Michael, if you wanted to respond to that one, I wasn't sure if you felt like you had sufficient time to. Oh no, that's fine. Okay. Let's keep the train wreck rolling. Carnivorous Ape says, does G-Man still think evolution was responsible for the transatlantic slave trade? I believe that people who believe that human, that there's a group of people out there that's more involved than the next person. Yes, I believe that evolution was the main, was the main driving force for people to go out there and to have slaves during the transatlantic slave period. That's cool. If you remember what the slave owners actually thought about black people, they thought that black people were not even animals. I'm sorry, they were lower than animals. And that white people was considered a more involved race. Kind of like how the Israelite films about the Canites. But the question is a genetic fallacy anyway. Gotcha, next up, let's see. Carnivorous Ape says, does G-Man still, we got that. Shani for gaming says, is slavery okay if you give them a house and a phone? Only if it's an iPhone. Next up, Guillermo Alexis Morales. Michael, quick on your feet. Are they saying for the Theos? No, that wasn't the real Shani for gaming. That was a fake one. Gotcha. And the Guillermo Alexis Morales says, for the Theist, why did your deity create us? From my point of view, he needs us more than we need him. We've been living out of his grace like, we've been living out of his grace. Hold on, let me finish it. He said, we've been living out of his grace like forever. What's the point of hell? So, no, God as we call a sati as a sati, self-sufficient himself. He doesn't need humans. If he needed us, then he wouldn't be God. But he shows his love. He has incredible unconditional love and it's the highest love possible. What I call super-rogatory love, which goes beyond obligation because Jesus died for his enemies. That's what he wants to share and have. He wants that relationship with people. Man, I mean, why are people, I don't understand this. What's the separation here? Just love God. And I mean, that's the way it's meant to be. You go ahead, Jiman. Morales. The short answer, the short answer to that, I guess, with the, to add to what you just said, they prayed, they didn't get that pony that they always wanted. Therefore, they're mad at God. So they're pretending that there's no God. God is a loving God. God was outside of time. His face, he is all powerful. He is on that present. He certainly don't need us. We was made for him and for his purposes. We- Your God doesn't exist, Jiman. You're nothing but dirt and comparison. And I'm only proud of the narcissistic man believes that God actually needs us. Your God doesn't exist, Jiman. Next, this one coming in from the Crod Eddie 029. This is a summary or paraphrase says, James, Jiman, what can be found at your channel, at your link? Jiman responds, you can find a lot of me and what's in the Bible. So, okay, thank you for that. And then let's see, Gil, oh wait. Hold on. You mean after that? No, no, no, it was like I was paraphrasing there somewhat less charitable super chat about- Oh, okay. But Ben Miller says, how did 1850s Darwin and evolution start the 1500s Atlantic slave trade? Because people have been thinking that humans, that life originally came from the ocean since ancient Egypt. The ancient Egyptians actually taught their people that life originally came out of the Nile River. Darwin just made it popular. People believed in evolution long before Darwin. Gotcha. This one coming in- But that doesn't make sense though, because if we all have the same common ancestor, how would that lead to racism? Because according to that- We're monkeys, that's why. We're all one. Black people are- Hold on, let's hear from Jim, let's- But that's not evolution. You're saying, nevermind, nevermind. Gotcha, next. This one comes from Magellan says, if God is the highest form of all empathy, why are there diseases like, I'm probably gonna mispronounce this, is it loasis where worms live in your eyeball, slowly turning blind, oftentimes with kids? I can answer it, sin. That's why it exists. Sin is made up. Man's disobedience to God, eating the things that they wanna eat, doing the things that God tells him not to do, and because of that, the creation is cursed, and the only way to reverse any of this is you have to come to Jesus Christ. We get cursed before we do anything. We get cursed when we're born. We get cursed in the womb. No, you- Jim is Jim. Jim, you're- In the Garden of Eden. Oh, so you're not born in sin? You're doing what your father Adam did in the Garden of Eden with all our heart. So you're not born in sin? When it says that no one is righteous, no, not one? I'll repeat this again. You're doing what your father Adam did in the Garden of Eden when he deliberately disobeyed God and ate what he was told not to eat, and because of that, he became dead in his trespasses. Yeah, that's- That wasn't me. It's like you, sir. That wasn't me. I didn't do that. Next up- Yes, you did. You've been mocking God this entire show. No, that was me. I didn't do that. I think you're doing it this entire show. We'll be guilty of our dollars. Next up, Will Stewart says, Jim, if you can see that, and let's give Jim the last word on this because we have had a lot of rebuttals and we do have more questions. So Will Stewart says, Jim, if you can see that he's simply saying you are a Christian doesn't make you a Christian. How could slave owners who harmed their slaves be Christian during the times after Christ? Well, I mean, I don't believe God exists. So to me, there are no Christians. Like, because in order to be a Christian, God has to exist, right? So I mean, it's kind of weird putting it that way. But yeah. Next up, Ben Miller, thank you for your question said. How did- Oh, I think we did read that. That was on asking how 1850s Darwin evolution, yeah, we get that. And then let me just reload in case any last questions came in. Want to remind you, our guests are linked in the description, folks. You can hear plenty more where this debate came from. May I say something real quick? Yep. I just want everybody to be clear. I don't want OMG, man, as a slave. I don't want to have slaves. I'm not a racist person. It was simply for the purpose of this video. So if this gets meamed or whatever, that's, I just want this to be known. I think that you was a clock chaser Yeah, Jim's a good guy. Now, he would never be like that. Next. I'll say, let's say we're going to review tomorrow and she ain't over that thing. I think every time I might be seeing something like that. I'm a clock chaser. OK. This one comes in from Mothra J says, what about the late night phone calls in slavery? What does that mean? I reject those. I just swipe to the right. Next up, the crawdaddy029 says, gee, man, I challenge you to the same debate. I think on slavery, they mean, they say because modern database, I think that's supposed to be me, is being extremely dishonest with my super chat. It's true. I did clean up crawdaddy super chats so that they were more amiable. I even, some people, like there were some super chats. I skipped completely. I didn't even try cleaning them up because it just looked like it was petty trolling of one of these or more than one of the speakers. We don't like the personal attacks on the speakers. If they personally attack you, if you're in the live chat and someone says, oh, hey, I see you there in the live chat, stupid horror energy, you're such a beta, then I'm like, OK, I agree, it's fair game to lash back, but I've never seen any speaker ever do that on our channel. Griever dreed. Anyway, gee, man, are you going to take on the crawdaddy? Well, actually, is he a real person or is he like in control or whatever? Like, you know who he is? He seems somewhat ill-tempered, but he seems sincere, too. I would have to know who he is. I always need to see his YouTube channel and see how serious he is about the topic. I don't see none of that, and I think he's a troll. The answer's no. Oftentimes he's amiable. Sometimes he's cranky. Griever dreed, thanks for your questions as Extraordinary Claims. Need Extraordinary Evidence. How is it that believing in a skydaddy is proposed as a more reasonable position than non-belief? It's so stupid, that's a character to begin with, but here's the thing. When you say Extraordinary, that's just your opinion of what Extraordinary is. It becomes circular, it becomes question-begging. So, yeah, I mean, I'm just saying, well, how about we show the universe without God? I mean, that's an Extraordinary claim in itself. So, who were you to say that's Extraordinary? Oh, yeah. God loves to see God completely off the picture and talk about the big bang and find out what that matter and that energy came from and how it expanded and created all these universe without any intelligence actually doing it. And I love that with those conversations. And how do you get new anatomical features with perform mutations when nobody's been able to demonstrate that at all in history? I love to have that conversation. And your answer is Jesus did it. No, it's not me. That just flicking sounds, sir. That just flicking sounds. With evidence, we got that back up, though. I'm a long-conson logical argument at the laws of nature. Oh, man. I don't want to think I have, sir. Gotcha, next up, this one coming in from Dearest Juzy. I hope I'm pronouncing that right. 1980 says, why did a perfect God create imperfect beings then punish us for being imperfect? Can I answer that? Can I answer that? Because you wanted to kill his son. Can I answer that phrase I am, if you don't mind? Absolutely. If you actually read the book of Genesis starting from chapter one, you'll see that God is creating everything. And then when he finished creating everything, he called it good. Then you see this repeated in Genesis chapter two. You actually read it. And then in Genesis chapter three, a really good read, you will see how the things that God called good sinned against God and they became corrupt and evil. For you to say that God created these corrupt things shows you have never read Genesis chapter one, two or three, or you didn't, you didn't understand. So now that you're educated about it, never say that again in public. No, he didn't create things perfect, but he created things so that they could become it even worse. No, no, no, John. That's not the question that was presented. Now you're changing it now in Genesis. Right, John 317. He created humans to save him, John 317. Next up, detective Ruby says, as a Christian man, why does G-man think it's okay to threaten to, let's see, allegedly, gosh. Is there anything to do with slavery and a Bible or anything like that? Or is it going off topic now at this point? No, this is a tricky, I don't think there's no way I can interpret this to the next. If we've been on topic ones, I'm surprised. Let's see, I'm sorry. Wilson says, so the triple K is completely just because they're not Catholic. Who said, anyway, I don't know what they're talking about. Nobody's talking about that. Gotcha, and by the way. Well, what does it mean you can't do the slavery? We are working on it. I don't think I got to do it with anything. I guess this is a dumb statement. Okay, okay. I don't know. I, it's a, Endo XD says, G-man, Bible acknowledges that some people don't believe in God. Belief is not a choice. Why would God punish people for something that isn't their choice? It is a choice. And in the scripture, it talks about that God gives you a choice between life and death, between curses and blessings. It's right there in the book of Deuteronomy, okay? You can read it, it's right there in Deuteronomy 28. All right? Okay, okay. We have a choice. I'm not finished, I'm not finished, okay? It is a choice, okay? A person can locally choose a belief on the Lord Jesus Christ or they can choose to reject it. But you're not answering the question. No, you're not. No, you're not answering the question. One second, let's give him another 30 seconds then we'll come right back to you. So he says that, yes, there are some people in the scripture that don't believe. You're right. There are such people in there that don't believe and those people don't believe both in a lake of fire. The people who do get eternal life. And by the way, it was their choice and they will be judged based on that choice. That's one hell of a selfish choice. But wait, wait, they're not asking about the choice to believe in Jesus. They're asking about the choice to eat of the forbidden fruit. They're asking of the choice to commit the first transgression that made it necessary or that made it possible for us to sin. That's what they're asking and that's what you're not answering. I'm answering. Okay, okay. If you're answering it, then choose not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Sir, you don't know what you're talking about. You cannot. Sir, yes, you can. Do it. It's pretty simple. Do it. I'm gonna obey God and I'm not gonna sin. We have that same choice every day today and people make decisions. No, no, you've already done it. I'm saying never do it. Sir, you don't know what you're talking about, sir. No, you don't know what you're talking about. Because I haven't even been through it. You're telling me that I'm guilty? You don't know what you're talking about, sir. Because I have a choice? Next up. You sound like Psalms 14. Psalms 14. Psalms 14. Will Stewart is coming after you praise. Will Stewart says, why do you denigrate Calvinism when it has a more moral argument to defend these types of topics? What? Yeah, no, Calvinism is not moral. I'm sorry, because God brings evil. You're impugning our God. But slavery is okay, damn it. Yeah, dead slavery. What's wrong with that? That's that people have dead slavery today. So. But you want to know what they got a point. Slavery is wrong. They need to acknowledge that murder is wrong. Nobody's killed more people in the last 100 years. And atheists, 100 million to be exact. Then God? God? You have murdered 100 million people over the last 100 years. God drowned billions. If you combine everybody who died in the Old Testament or the New Testament, you don't even come close to what happened in the last 100 years, sir. You know what you're talking about. Yes, you do. If you include all the miscarriages and all the dying of old age, God did all those. Miscarriages. So now you don't support abortion. When did you say that? Last time I checked the ACA. I said miscarry. But wait a minute, God's not responsible for that, though. But you are responsible for your tax dollars for supporting people to go out there and murder or more babies. Do you know what a miscarriage is? Do you know what a miscarriage is? You fucking idiot. I pray for all these atheists to commit every day, man. Come on. Never mind. Oh my gosh. You can talk about slavery, man. Come on. This one coming in from Magellan says, gee, man, you are an evil human. So, but. Amen. No, no, no, no, no, read it, James. Amen, read that shit. He said you're an evil human being that can attempt to justify the suffering of children and say horrific diseases are okay. Okay, so my Bible tells me that we have all sinned and has fallen short of the glory of God. You are a sinner just like me. And no, I don't say all of those things, all right? But because we're both sinners, we both need Jesus. We're 10th while you still have time. That's my answer for that. Or else. Next up, the art odyssey says, why are there- He doesn't remember some Michael or Canada or else, or even locked up. What kind of statement is that? Yeah, yeah, but I won't, I won't, I won't languish in eternal torment. This is all a lesson. Come on, man. The art odyssey, you guys have so much energy. The art odyssey says, why are there- You really got a restructuring of the Q and A. Hold on. Hold on. Yeah, next restructuring without G, man. Bear with me. The art odyssey says, why are there so many specific rules in the Bible against mixing fabrics, eating certain foods, certain sexual behaviors, but none against owning other human beings? How is that moral? Theists are immoral. There are laws in the Bible against, and actually talking about how to treat your slaves in the Bible, read it. Try it. Is it really this thing you like to read the Bible? Why is it dead to where it makes clothing? This is why I know about it. Anyway, so as far as mixing fabrics go, God is teaching the difference between clean and unclean, holy and unholy. If you actually read your Bible, you actually read the law, you wouldn't know this. Amen. So what's more holy cotton or wool? That's why it's wrong. Yeah, what's more holy cotton or wool? I just, I need to know. No, it doesn't matter, but why? Why is one more holy than the other? It was a forerunner to Christ, because Christ can only fulfill that. Because God said so. Might equals right. And why is it that- If I read the G, man- It's a pre- You're the Messiah, Jim, you know that. Come on, man. You were a Christian for 27 years, I thought. No, that's what the Christians think. Sure, that's what the Christians think, but that's not the old testament. He believed that he could own a slave. He probably had him in his back, or it didn't, you Jim, when you was a Christian, right? Right? I probably had what? He didn't have a pastor. Wait a minute, hold on a minute. Could you think Christians think it's okay to own slaves? So what pastor taught you that? I didn't say that. I didn't say that? I didn't say that. I didn't argue that Christianity supports it then, you moron. I said the Bible. Come on. The Bible, you idiot. Next up. James, you- I don't think that needs to be- Holy crap. Man, you should- You're just taking one less Xanax than you did. Next up. Okay, James. The Art Odyssey says Isaiah 45 verse 7 says, I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things. God is reasonable, or responsible, they say, for evil. No, read the word evil in the Hebrew. It means distress. It means something with natural evil, not more evil. Yeah, I agree. It means more like destruction and things like that. But- Can I respond to that? It's still- I don't remember. It's nothing good. It's like, you have to remember- I think the other word is calamity. That the Bible is not- Yeah, calamity. It's written in Hebrew and in Greek. And if you look at it in the Hebrew, the scripture that he's got to finish reading, it is talking about a calamity. Go to blueletterbible.com, go to the Hebrew, and it's gonna show you that it means calamity. Yeah, you're awesome. They're in my awesome job, man, so you know your stuff like that. But they don't want the answers to it. Yeah, okay, agree, man. So, G-man, I was the one who said calamity. And hey, fuck calamity. Calamity's awesome. Let's have more calamity. You don't know what calamity is, sir. Okay, yeah. You're fun to educate. For the record, in Michael's defense, he was basically on your side. NBA contracts are a calamity, amen? M.O. says G-man has, let's see, they say G-man is silly and admitted he left. Let's see. And wait, what? I love it when James breaks down like that. They said, and they said G-man left somewhere because he wasn't able to punch special ed children. No, that can't be true. They said stop engaging him. G-man, say it ain't so. What if I got to do with slavery, though? I mean, this is a good opportunity for you to deny it. You know what I mean? Because they have a teacher. With the actual topic at hand. Sure it does. They have a teacher. That's your slave master. I am finding answers to the check. That's okay. That's fair. I mean, to keep saying this, there are clout chases on here who do not care about slavery in the Bible and whether or not it is more or not. Next up. G-man, to sum up what you said tonight, you said that everything is a slave and nothing's a slave. Next up. All right. I'm sorry, Wilson, this really is embarrassing. It says who has the better chin between Jim and James. That's embarrassing. You know, I have to tell you, Jim, more than anybody who comes on this show, people, it's always, oh, Jim, what a beautiful man. Oh my goodness. So you've got that going for you. But, yes. It's honestly, I have to say, Jim, Jim wins the chin, man. It's, according to the chat, that would seem to be the vote. But thanks for your super chat, Magellan, who says, why is it with theists that words never mean what they mean when you don't like what they mean? G-man, wait a minute. What do you mean it's for the me? Say, G-man, wait until you have a sick title, but I don't know why. The Bible is not written in English, people. I mean, the me is- I'll give Matt Dillahunty credit. I'll give Matt Dillahunty credit. At least he understands that the Bible was not written in English, that it was written in Hebrew and Greek. Unfortunately, the majority of the audience who are atheists don't know this. Right. Next up, this one coming in from, I'm sorry, Wilson says, lost it. Where did it go? Says, doesn't G-man's buddy claim that- I don't even want to answer it no more. The people that hear me just trolls. I don't even want to answer it no more. There's no intelligence in the most of the atheists' hate comments and rejections. I don't even want to talk about it. Okay, I'm sorry, Wilson. G-man is, he's tired of some of these shots. He's been testing his questions. So I don't want to answer anything. They got real questions, I don't answer it. They truly care about it. Let's see. Thank you. This, let me just see if there are any questions that I missed. I know that there were some earlier, but folks, this has gone longer. It's already been two and a half hours. And so- Hey, James, James, if you don't mind me saying this real quick, but the people out there that are sincerely and genuinely interested in stopping slavery, and if you think it's really wrong in Africa right now, there are several people who are considered chattel over there in Africa because they're too poor to take care of themselves. If you really care about the topic, they only cost about $30 to about a hundred. You can go buy one and set them free. And this is for the people who care about it. But if people out there that are clout chasing, please understand this will be thrown in your face every day you don't do it. But there's so many people that are under contract in the NFL, we should free them. Yeah. I'm really concerned about Tom Brady. Notice that I'm talking about chattel slavery, and now they're talking about a different form of slavery. So slavery is all the same work. It's all there are in the beds. Listen, take 30 bucks. I'm sure you got a really good job. Take 30 or a hundred bucks. Go buy one in Africa. And set them free. Do it right now. They're all in beds. Next up, this one coming in from Mitchell says, Jim Stash is a slave master. It owns his persona. Yeah. A beautiful stash. And thanks, Christian Alexander says, G-man, I appreciate you coming on to defend what you believe, but it never lets you, let's see. It never lets you anywhere near my special ed students. Your son is whacked. G-man Zato, you couldn't have said, this is a great opportunity to clear the air and say, I didn't, you know. Super simple, man. Just say I didn't do anything. I didn't punch any special ed students. Okay, well. No comment. It's just the easiest line I've been always doing. Okay, well. I think Jim means an ambulance. Somebody said one ambulance. I don't know what, no sense. It's okay for them to do it and it's so funny. If they would stop touching little children. No, let's not talk real-time. That's not, that's not slavery. And I can say that. I can say that. They can say that. That was touching? This chat, I mean this conversation has already gone to the worst places. There's no need to go to that final last place. But we do, we do an argument, cause they're not even making real statements. I didn't even hear the question. Next up, Magellan says, G-man, why are you so upset? I'm not upset. Why are atheists asking questions that have nothing to do with slavery? I believe you guys have heard about the topic. Jim Nages don't care about, he thinks it's funny. I'm not laughing at the question, I promise. No, slavery's a funny topic. That's what it is. It's a funny topic to them. Next up. What I can't say is Jim, I'm just trying to remember that. Yeah, it's a little late to pull the race card. It's a little late to pull the race card. I'll deal with you later. It's a little late to pull the race card. I'm not pulling the race card. I'm not pulling the race card. What I'm saying is that we're supposed to be debating whether or not political slavery is immoral or not. You know what you're doing is you're laughing. You're not making any sound rational. I'm laughing at you. I'm laughing at you. You're not even talking about it. Okay, everybody in the chat, all 127 of you that have laughed, you shouldn't have. Do me a favor, Jim. Tell me what my position is, Jim. I know what your position is. Tell me what my position is. That slavery is everything and nothing is slavery. Two seconds. One, this is, it's like perfect timing. Endo XT says, could you guys steal me in each other's position quickly? Okay, their position is that slavery is immoral across the board. And that the Bible does not at all, under any circumstance whatsoever, make rules against slavery at all. At least Jim Majors holds that position. He thinks that slavery is wrong across the board. Michael didn't say a whole lot. So I can't really say anything a whole lot different than what he's already said. Jim Majors has also straw me at the Bible like no one else has ever done. Even worse than Matt Dillon hunting today because Jim Majors has never read the Bible. Are you aware that I'm a PhD candidate in Hebrew Bible? I'm aware that evilbible.com exists and that anybody can go on that website. No, no, no, are you aware that I'm attending an academic institution that I already have a master's in, master divinity in New Testament studies that I have preached? I'm sorry, I apologize. But Benny Hinn and several other prosperity pimps out there also went to school too. That don't mean nothing, sir. That means nothing. If you've ever been, then you would know that you have to read the Bible. I don't need to go to the Bible, sir. And everybody in Washington knows that you don't know what you're talking about. You're an idiot. Let's give Michael and Jim a chance to steal man praise and g-man. Well, I'll be real quick, Michael. I'll let you have our last word. I'm not gonna say anything about g-man in his position because it's my position that I know and it is that if nothing else, and I said this before and I'm gonna say it again, if nothing else, if God was not against anything else, he was against the Israelites owning each other for longer than six years. Okay, even if we wanna say that debt slavery is slavery, they were against owning for your fellow Hebrew for longer than six years. But he was okay with owning people's children, those same people, of them owning those children forever, and them never being able to see it unless he also entered into a lifetime of servitude. So- That's a steal man? I don't think so. Again, I'm not saying, I'm not talking about your position. This is my last word, okay? So I don't care what you think. Next up. Appreciate it. And that's it. That's all I gotta say. Not Mothra- Oh, go ahead, man. Yeah. God said it. I believe that settles it. That's their position. Gotcha. Mothra J, thanks for your super chat set. Is it slavery if somebody pay pals you? I don't understand. Mark Reed, thank you for your question. Said, G-man, do you know how to buy an African person? And if you do, why do know? Why do you know, I think they mean? I don't like to answer the other statement that was made where it was said that God, what Jimmy just said, that God's only against Hebrews, owning other Hebrews for longer than six years. And Deuteronomy chapter 28 verse 68, for those of you who have heard me read this again, it says, and the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt, to get his ships, by the whereof I have spoke unto thee. Thou shalt see it no more again, and they you should be sold unto your enemies for bonds of men and bonds of women and no man shall buy you. Well, there's your problem. I'm taking change. I'm not done, sir. I just got finished reading this. Let me explain what I just got finished reading, okay? The punishment for the Israelites, for breaking the covenant that they made with God is that they would be enslaved, would be in bondage or servitude to these other nations. That would be- Yes, yes. Not by the fellow Israelites. The Persians, can I please finish? Amnesia and the Persians, okay? It would be the Greeks, and it would be the Romans. And actually, look at the land of Israel today. I'm not finished. Look at the land of Israel today. They are literally in servitude to every other nation on the planet. You don't know what you're talking about, Gemma. Okay, because their capital is- They're gonna make anti-Semitic, sir. More or less, coming from the slave being paid. Average of 11. People in prison are being paid all the time. Average. A dollar and a quarter. Average, average of 11 says, if G-man is against slavery, why does he get owned so often? Okay, next up, Detective Ruby. Just teasing, come on. That was just a playful one. Detective Ruby says, G-man, WWE career, let's see, could have taken off, but didn't. And here we are. Well, I can tell you, G-man, if anybody knows how to cut a promo, well, it's you. And so, WWE might be an opportunity as well. Magellan says, G-man, how many slaves does it take to change a light bulb and how much would you pay them if they messed it up? Is it okay to beat them? No, I'm not answering that question. I'm not answering questions until somebody asked me something about slavery. Gotcha. Next up, I think that, J. Mixon is in the house. Good to see you, J says, G-man, why didn't you engage with Digital Hammurabi on Godless Engineers show you really showed of? I want that. I want to take him on and Matt Dillahoney. I'll squish him, I really will. Yeah, and believe me, there is no glory in destroying Matt, because I did it twice. Josh will fuck you guys up. Yeah, right. Next up. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Is Digital Hammurabi, Josh? Digital Hammurabi? Oh my gosh, they're just going to strut around like they are right now. They got totally demolished tonight. I'm just walking around like they are on. Is that what Josh thinks he's talking about? Is that what I'm talking about, Josh thinks? Is that what I'm talking about? Dr. Josh Bowen. Dr. Joshua Bowen. Yeah, he's an H.T. He's Godless Engineer in some other places. G-man, you haven't beat anybody. Yeah. You don't beat anybody. You can beat yourself. It's right there on my channel. You can go back there and watch it if you like. You can even beat your nails. That's a good opportunity for me to let you know, folks. All of our guests are linked in the description, so you can hear plenty more where this came from. We really do appreciate you hanging out with us, folks. Sorry we didn't get to every single question, but we do want to respect the time of the debaters. We appreciate they've already been here for close to three hours. So I want to say thanks so much to our guests. It's been a true pleasure. And yes, thank you, everybody, in the chat for hanging out with us. You make it fun. I'll be back with a post-credits scene in just a few minutes, which I will talk about the upcoming debates as I've put out a lot of emails today to try to organize upcoming debates in March. It's gonna be epic, but thank you one last time. We appreciate you. G-man, praise, Jim, and Michael. Thank you so much for being with us tonight. My pleasure. Thank you. Thank you so much. It's been juicy to say the least. Stick around, folks, for that post-credits scene. Be right back. Thanks, everybody. Ladies and gentlemen, that was a juicy one. No doubt about it. Oh my goodness, praise is still here with me. I was amazed at just how... You notice, as someone pointed out, you can see praise up here. He didn't blink once during the debate. Can you hear me, praise? It's like the silent treatment now. Okay, that's it. Let me just kick him out of the Zoom call. I don't know where he is right now. He's obviously at a strange location. Whatever that background is, I don't know, but all right, praise, so long. Take care, everybody. Okay, so he's gone now, but I want to say thanks, everybody. That was something to be sure. And so I want to let you know, you guys, I am 100% pumped as we want to remind you for one thing, it's honestly going to be epic. You will see, see this poster right here? We are scheduling this debate. It's going to be in March, Lord willing. We're still finding out the details. We're talking to Matt about it. I'm still waiting on Samuel for exact dates, but that is upcoming. And so, hey, hit that subscribe button. You don't want to miss that one live and hit that notification bell as well. That way you for sure get all notifications, but do want to just have a chance to say hello and thanks everybody for being with us. We're thrilled. So thanks everybody for being with us. PMARS, Paradise Lost, Canite, and what? And Purgatory, Prytania, as well as EndoXD and Samuel Littleholm and Colorado biker prepper. So pumped to see all of you here. Seriously, thanks for coming by. It's always a fun time. Colorado biker prepper, thanks again. I'm still using that gear head camera right now. I'm so sorry that I haven't used that tower yet, but let me know, brother, I can seriously, I'm happy. It's not at all the problem if you need the tower. I am happy. I can basically swing that down to you down in the Denver area. So we do appreciate your help. Thank you so much for your support of Modern Databate. Jaymix and thanks as well for your support. Good to see you, buddy. And a moon as well as Mark Reed, Shadowmare Z, and 316-350, thanks for being with us. Saxe calzone, good to see you again, buddy. And let's see. Afterparty, it should be linked in the description unless I totally failed. Yeah, no, it's in the description. You might have to reload the page, but there is an afterparty linked in the description that Cider and Port is hosting. But Captain Vidcar, thanks for being with us. Don Larson Jr., good to see you. And yes, we are excited. So, we are excited for the future, folks. We have other debates coming up as well. So let me mention those. In particular, I'm trying to set up a debate between Kim Iverson and Bastiat. I think it's pronounced Bastiat, but long story short, that should be epic. And so we are really pumped. And then Steven Tibbetts, I saw you said in the chat, I wish I could find that theme song. It's linked in the description, man. It's World Goes Wild by Above Envy. But it's in the description if you want to get the exact spelling of those words. Just, I think it's toward the bottom of the description I put it in there. And so you can hear that song plenty more. Leslie Flemons, thanks for being with us again. We're glad you're here. Oneness of Rock, Kodash, thanks for being with us. And God of Spaghetti, glad you're here as well as Batsors, thanks for coming by. And yes, we are excited, you guys. It is Matthew Simar, good to see you, buddy. Said it'd be great if you made a debate. Like I said earlier, Atheist plus Theist versus Atheist plus Theist. Tons of subjects could be brought under that perspective. That's actually true. That would be pretty interesting. Let me think about that. I feel like for some reason, I feel like it might be hard to set up, but I could be wrong. I'm open to being wrong. Jack021, glad you're here. And Detective Ruby, thanks for being with us. Samuel Lilleholm, good to see you again. Megan Satanus, good to see you as well. Stupid whore energy. There she is. She's back, glad you're here. Brooke Sparrow, thanks for being with us as, let's see. Brooke Sparrow and Jacob Twitch, 911. Thanks for being with us. Lawson, good to see you in the Twitch chat as well. And yeah, you guys were pumped. I love it. Yeah, oh yeah, you guys. We are pumped as we do have Twitch. So if you like Twitch folks, hey, let me throw that link into the YouTube chat for you. And you can see our Twitch link. And we stream there all the time. And so I hope that's useful. And big thing, Bruce Wayne says, I still need a QANON versus GOP debate. That could be interesting. Man, it's so hard. Some people are really hard to find in terms of the topics. As an example, if you happen to know of a person who would be willing to debate and defend the INCEL position, please let me know at moderndatabate at gmail.com so that we can have them on. And so we are willing to host that topic as it's controversial, but it's hard to find people for a lot of these topics. We're willing to defend controversial views such as INCEL as well as QANON. Webb Bard, thanks for being with us. We're glad you're here, friend. And yeah, but yeah, let me know in chat. I'm reading the chat just, I like kind of getting a connect with you. And so thank you guys so much for hanging out here at this channel. We always say the more the merrier, you guys. It makes it fun. We do appreciate you. And Jay Mixon is right. Kiss that like button, you guys. We, as of right now, are at 143. Oh, baby, we can totally get to 160. Let's go for 160 likes. And you guys, I appreciate all of your support. Seriously, we are excited about the future. And Brittle, good to see you again. Just seeing if there's anybody. Did I miss anybody? But Brittle says, I'm telling you man, G-Man has got to be a candidate for that debate. We'd be happy to have G-Man on for that debate. And Josh Josh, thanks for being with us, said, they said, I love your SSDs, H. What does that mean? I wish I knew, but thanks for being with us, buddy. Johnny V, good to see you. Glad you made it. And King101, good to see you again. G-Manic Panna is good to see you as always. Perfect one, glad you're here again. King, oh, Beelzebud. Thanks for being with us, buddy. And oh, show. Oh, okay, sweet Josh. I think you're saying, I love your show. Thanks for your kind words, Josh Josh. All credit to the debaters. They make the show fun. And so they're linked in the description, folks. We appreciate them so much. Like seriously, we really do. We're thankful for them. And so, yeah, it is honestly, it's always fun here. Tigera Hitman said, when will Michael Jones be back on? That's a great question. I'm not sure. I talked to Michael once in a while, but I don't know for sure. We, I think he said maybe August. He's pretty busy doing a lot. So that'd be fun. Jack021 says, hey, that was an exhausting one. Appreciate you and the platform is always, dude. Thanks, friend. I appreciate that. I am exhausted myself, to be honest. Giggling, sewer, ginger. Thanks for being with us. We hope you're doing well, friend. Don Larson Jr., good to see you. Will Stewart, thanks for your support tonight and being involved in the chat said, need a debate on Calvinism. We're open to that. We used to do theology more in the past. We don't do it as much now just because we lose, to be completely honest, we lose a lot of the audience. A lot of the audience is like, eh, it doesn't really, they don't feel compelled because a lot of the audience, they aren't Christians. So they feel like they don't have a dog in the fight. And so we always like, we're trying to find the debates that appeal to the most of the people in the audience. And so that's like one that I'm like, eh, maybe, because it's true, we do have Christian subscribers who would enjoy it. And a lot of atheist subscribers would probably enjoy it too. So maybe, I don't know. But that's the reason why, that's kind of the reasoning behind why we haven't had as many and maybe in the future though. So never say never. And then Jay said, at first I thought James was saying they are gonna debate, yeah, we're not gonna debate INC EST. That, oh, I saw what you said there. Okay, that's funny. We are super thankful. Stephen Destiny has been a huge supporter of our channel. I mean, he's just by coming on, that helps the channel a lot. That gave us, his debate with Kent Holvend was our first big event in terms of like big, big, I would say, that was a fun event. If you've never seen Destiny against Kent Holvend, that was a fun one. That was, yeah, it was a character, that was a fun one. Let's see. But yes, keeping up, trying to keep up with the chat. What are my music tastes? I listen to rock while I work out. I listen to classical while I do my work, like schoolwork and grading and all that. And yeah, I would say I listen to like, usually like older rock, like 1990s, early 2000s. That's when it was like in its greatest day. Chris Gammon says, question James, why do you spell out words like that sometimes? It's because YouTube doesn't like certain words. And I don't want them to like notice that we're a channel that keeps saying certain words, including Q-A-N-O-N, as well as I-N-C-E-L. I always worry that, I always try to keep it on the download. So we're once in a while, we're like willing to do the topic, even though it's a little risky, but my hope is that they'll maybe be like, eh, they only do it once in a while. Let's not bring the hammer down on them, you know? But they do seem to have the ability to detect words in the video itself. Because yeah, so anyway, Bible runner, glad you're here. And let's see. Jay Mixon says 300 in the chat and we're going for 160 man up modern day debate. He's right. We should, we're at 158. We can make it folks. Let's go for 170. We're 12 away from 170 likes. So thanks for your support you guys. And let's see. Yes, we are excited though, you guys. Thanks for all your support. More than Mario, you guys make it fun. And so Megan St. Tana says, miss that like button. Yeah, tap that thumb, please do. And thanks for your support Megan. She says, kiss that thumb. But Jack021, thanks for your thumbs up. Appreciate it. And then let's see. Manic Panda says, oh yeah, you're right. That was a spicy one, man. Thanks for your kind words. Boy of God, 81 says I don't look up G-Man right now. Go check out some interesting videos. Well, we, let's see. Lenny Cash says, James get vocab Malone on here to debate some black Hebrew Israelites. Ooh, I think that actually might even be one of the phrases I shouldn't say. But yeah, that would be epic. And so let's see. Yeah, Chris Gammon, great question. If we say H-I-T-L-E-R, sometimes I, that used to get us in more trouble. And now we just, cause it, you know, on a debate on ethics, for some reason, his name almost always comes up. But YouTube seems like they're maybe like loosening up in terms of like, maybe, maybe I wonder, I wonder if YouTube personnel are able to leave notes on an account that their staff can see. So like, let's say like, they're looking through videos and they're like, oh, look, this modern day debate just appealed one of our videos, they appealed and they said like, hey, there's nothing wrong with this video, which we oftentimes do. We tell YouTube like, hey, why are you like counting, considering this naughty or controversial? And sometimes I guess they are. So some of them we don't even bother challenging. But a lot of them we challenge and we're like, eh, this isn't that bad. And I always wonder like, does YouTube like keep notes such as like, yeah, this channel gets flagged a lot, but every time we do like a human review, we find out that their appeal is legit and it's actually not that bad. Cause we do, most of the appeals get turned over, I think. But yeah, Carniverse Ape says the link to the after show is broken. Ooh, I'm so sorry. Let me, let me see. I'm like 99% sure I put the same link that he gave me. So I'm a little bit like, oh, come on, man. Like this one, this time it might not be my fault. Let me check just to be sure. So that way I can blame Cider and Port. But I might be wrong about that. He says, oh, I think he emailed me again maybe. Let me check. So yeah, I'll let you guys know about the updated link. But man, I'm exhausted right now. I'm gonna have my sleepy time tea. I'm not trying to brag, but I just got some sleepy time tea that I bought off Amazon and it's been really helpful. So web bar, it says, or you should get Satanic Temple members. That would be interesting. Beelzebud says, do you get flagged a lot or did you? We used to get flagged virtually every single debate. It was so annoying and we would challenge it all the time. And they eventually, now I'm kind of wondering, cause we don't get flagged as often. And I'm wondering now if they maybe kind of realized like, oh, maybe it was just a false alarm. Maybe our computer tech is being a little bit too, cause that's the thing is I hear about channels that are like so called, I don't know what they want to call themselves. Social justice channels with some call social justice warrior channels. Like I have heard that some of those channels get flagged a lot because even though they're saying like, let's say they say like, oh, we'd love gay people, which you would think like, why would you get in trouble for saying that? But YouTube, the computers, like they're not intelligent enough. The AI is not smart enough to realize like that you're saying I love gay people. Like, and so it might be the case that they just like recognize certain like controversial words like gay or something like that. And they might demonetize. That's what I've heard. I don't know. I don't know for sure if that's true, but I've heard that. So to be fair, like I don't, I've never thought YouTube had a bias against us or anything like that. I actually think YouTube has been pretty kind to us to be honest, but Web Bard, oh, there's another question. Oh, big thang Bruce Wayne says, what grade level do you teach? I teach freshmen or I think we're supposed to call them first years. Most of them are first year students in college. Some of them are like maybe some, I mean they could be sophomore, junior, senior, but I teach general psych, which is fun because I get to cover a lot of topics. It's got a lot of variety, which I enjoy. And yeah, I actually, to be honest, I love teaching. Like when I teach, I tell my students too. I just tell them like, I love being here, you guys. Like this is like a great part of my day. And I do enjoy it. I'm like very in the moment. It's just a blast. Don Larson Jr. says, I hit the like button twice already. You gotta hit it three times. But yeah, no, I get your joke. I get your joke. But yeah, I mean, Megan St. Tana said, I may get on to debate sometime, maybe in a team debate. Hey, we're open here. That'd be cool. I had a dream. Oh, you know what? It's funny that Alec Stein might come back on. He on Twitter today actually said he might be up for a debate. So that's interesting. I'm surprised because it was a political debate. I didn't know he was interested in politics. I guess that makes sense. I think he was like, he's at least talked about like things like masks and stuff like that. Oh, okay, there it is. L, thanks L. L said, it's happened to the serfs at least twice. I've heard about that. That's right. I kept seeing that serfs. I think that their videos would get marked as controversial or demonetized or whatever it kind of flagging. But basically they were getting in the business from I think it was YouTube because YouTube doesn't discern. So I mean, that's the trick is it's like, if you say H-I-T-L-E-R, if you say that name out loud during a stream, the AI, and that's the other thing too is these channels that actually think of that person as a hero, because there are people out there that think that they might say it sarcastically. They might say things sarcastically so that maybe that they don't get caught by the AI. Wait, the AI I think would not be able to detect sarcasm. So that's why, so let's say the serfs was like, hey, everybody agrees that H-I-T-L-E-R was a bad evil person. And everybody's like, yeah, we all agree on that. And that's like a fair, like I think the vast majority of the world would say like, yeah. But it could still trigger the AI. But Jay Mixon, let's see, where'd you go, Jay? He said, not demonized, demonetized. Yeah, sometimes it happens. And then, oh, okay. Jay says, yeah, James, a lot of LGBT creators were complaining a year ago because their videos were demonetized simply for having LGBT words in it, such as gay and trans. I believe it, yeah. And so it's like, yeah, YouTube is doing their best, but it's like the technologies. And I don't know if, yeah, it's like, technology's not there yet. But Web Bar says the computer sees a relation between LGBT and sex because a lot of LGBT channels are free or, I don't know what you mean. What do you mean by free or? But Manic Panas says, have you ever been recognized from YouTube by any of your students? I've never had a student show up in the chat and be like, oh, James, you're my professor. I don't, I'd rather they didn't. Just because, don't get me wrong, I like my students, they're great, I enjoy them as people, they're fantastic. But I did have a student one time come after class and they said, I saw you on, they were actually a fan of Vosh. When we hosted Vosh, I don't know if they were watching our stream or Vosh's stream, but it was when we hosted Vosh for a debate. I think it was with Sargon. And anyway, a student came up after class and like, I saw you were the host for that debate. And I was like, oh. And I try to be like, I try to not say a lot about it because I don't wanna do anything that would be sketchy or like, obviously I don't mention my channel. I don't mention this channel to in class because that would be like, not only unprofessional, but there's another word for it. A conflict of interest, that would be like, yeah, it's like, so I know that you didn't ask that. But long story short, it's really rare. I've only had one student say that they recognized me from YouTube. And then the crowd daddy zero two nine says, give me G-man so I can call him the dishonest clown he is that you were too afraid not to tell him that I paid for. Yeah, so you know, here's the trick is the crowd daddy zero two nine. I know that you were very unhappy is, you know, it's hard for me. We, if we, if I'm trashing, even if you are giving a super chat, even if someone gives a super chat, if I'm hard to on the guests in terms of like calling them like an idiot and all that. And it's like, which I should be honest, I did anyway, which, you know, G-man kind of rough tonight is that the guests eventually won't come back. And it's like, well, so it's like, that's why we have that policy, kind of that umbrella, you know, blanket rule. Jay Mixon. Yeah, we did have the Patreon meeting tonight, man. I'm sorry. I promise the next one will be sooner than the last or second to last day of the month though. Oh man. And the other thing too is I figured out Jay Mixon. Jay, email me your ideas though. I'm seriously pumped to hear them. It's going to be hard for you. I wish I could meet tomorrow, but I can't. It's just, I've got too much schoolwork to catch up on and I've been just beat up this semester, but Web Bart says they talk more about sex because sex ed is a bit lacking for them outside of YouTube. Oh, that's interesting. I see what you're saying. That makes sense. I would have, okay, it's kind of what I, so Will Stewart says need to get Jeff Durbin in one of these theism debates. I'd love to. I've tried to get Jeff Durbin, but I could, for some reason, I think they responded, but they said that it was like, not a good time of the year, the last time I reached out. So let me reach out again. I'm going to put that in my kind of like list of upcoming things and then I've got to go. It's, it's been three hours I've been in this chair and my butt sometimes hurts when I sit for too long. But yeah, I do, I appreciate all you guys. I love you guys seriously. Flum666, thanks for being with us as well. Mitchell, good to see you again. And yeah, I am excited you guys. Thank you for your huge support you guys. Thanks, oh, and then thanks everybody for your likes. Where are we at now for likes, 169. So thank you guys. We're almost at our goal of 170, the altered second goal. You guys, I told you, I'd show you something behind the cat. What is it called? My curtain, we're at 172 likes. Thanks so much everybody for your support. Seriously, that means a lot. Code 5601 says, how often do you host new debaters? Is having a debate partner mandatory to come on? Thanks for asking. I really am glad you asked that. We host debaters, new debaters sometimes. I mean, it's like, we usually host them in a tag team. Because in a tag team, even if they were like not great, because it's true, I mean, like that's a value, like the audience wants good debaters, like who can blame them? Even if they're not great, the other person can usually, we'll try to pick up the slack, right? And it doesn't mean that like, yeah, so like long story short, it's a good way if we can put them in a debate, ideally with an experienced debater, that way if they're new to it and they flounder a bit, then the experienced debater, you know, it's still pretty balanced. They said, so anyway, we do. If you email me at moderndaydebate at gmail.com, the other thing they said is having a debate partner mandatory to come on. Nah, but it makes it, if you don't have, okay, so here's like the conditions, like there are a lot of factors. If you don't have a partner, but you have a ton of debate links that you can show us that you did pass debates in, that helps a lot. Because I'm like, oh, okay, I can see that they've done a lot of debates. They've got a lot of experience. And so I'm kind of like more happy to look for a partner because I'm like, hey, somebody that's got experience. So they probably learned how to, their skills, like anything, with experience, you get better, including debate. So with their skills, I'm like they can, it's more, I'm more motivated to look for a partner. But if they're like, oh, I've never, please don't email me and I guess it's, maybe it's good that they're at least honest. But like sometimes when they're like, I've got no experience at all debating and I've never done any sort of public speaking ever. And they're like, can you find me a partner? And I'm like, I'd be more compelled to find you a partner if you were like more experienced, to be honest. Debate links help a lot. So, Web Bart says, any chance for more than four debaters, it can be a mass debate. Very clever, nasty guy. Thanks, Mitchell, who says, hit that like everybody. And Tim Durand says, smash the like button for the algorithm, the algorithm and the craw daddy user tonight says, I'm happy to have a debate partner if you give me G-Man. I mean, I can ask, but I mean, G-Man doesn't like the combative stuff. And if you're gonna like be combative, I mean, tonight was like war zone. Now I've actually genuinely felt kind of bad because tonight was so, like the debaters, it was pretty rough, it's pretty, so I don't know, I can't make any promises. Thank you for your support though, you guys. And Riddell said, that's a bit of a catch 22. And BL's about said, does it make sense that the moderators would try to be neutral to reflect the stance of the channel? We thought about that. And a lot of times people are unhappy that the moderators can say whatever they want. We thought about it, but ultimately I was like, well, their only job, the only thing we ask the moderators to do is to try to get rid of hate speech. And some of them, some of the moderators, like Amy will go the extra mile and they'll do things, and Tusk Beatbox does a lot. Tusk Beatbox is like super helpful. Is that, sometimes they go the extra mile and they'll say like, hey, everybody remember, just tag Modern Day Debate with your questions. They go above and beyond, which we appreciate, but long story short, because we only ask that they wipe out hate speech. We're kind of like, eh, well, it's kind of boring for them to not get to put their opinion. So it's kind of like, eh, we let it fly. But Christopher Hatch said, James, do you live in Colorado? I do. I live up in Fort Collins, Colorado. So I'm about an hour north of Denver. It's a lot of fun. I love it here. And it's seriously fun. Let's see. Brittle says Catch-22 was regarding needing debate experience to get debate experience. Yeah, I mean, there are other channels though that are smaller and they're, so here's the thing. Frankly, we have more people that would be disappointed if we had debaters come on with no experience. And by that, I just mean like, we have a pretty good audience. Like it's pretty good size. And a lot of people are kind of, they want to come in and watch the debate. If it's a smaller channel though, like when we were a small channel and we had like a few hundred subs, like we were basically like, we would have, we had almost anybody on because we didn't have as many audience members that would get ticked off. So that's the truth. But now we've got a bigger subscriber base to where it's like, it's not huge, but it is still kind of like where it's like, the audience is like, they're wanting higher quality debaters and that's fair. We don't blame them. Frankly, I could probably do a better job of that already. Like it's, and so it's, in terms of a lot of things, but Jay McSin says, got to watch out for misinformation speech as well, James. What was treading a thin line? I didn't know what what said, but yeah, I mean, I don't know, misinformation, that I don't know about, in terms of us like deleting it. I prefer more that, you know, we'd confront it without like censoring it or you know, deleting it. But Saxie Calzone, you're right, you were there. So as I miss when modern day debate was small, it had debaters instead of recurring characters. Yeah, it's true. We do have a lot of recurring debaters. And that's something that I do have to work on. I need help finding like the experienced debaters that are out there. I'm starting, I'm trying to, like it's hard to find, learn Discord, but maybe that way. Thanks, God's leg said, you guys are better than, you guys are better ran than non-SAC, I will say that. Thanks, that seriously means a lot. I'm surprised. I never thought anybody would say that because they used to be like our big brother channel, non-sequitur show helped us get started. I remember when they had like, I think it was like 14, it had to be more than that. I think they had like 17, 18,000, maybe 20,000 subs when we had 3,000. So they helped us a lot back when they would do like collab events with us and stuff like that. And so, yeah, Tigera Hitman says, are you on the carnivore diet because you look like a lean meat fight? Fighting machine, no, but close. I'm on a keto diet and I like it. It actually works pretty well for me. And yeah, works well enough. But yeah, Manic Panda says, have you ever had Dylan Burns on for a debate? He's pretty smart and well informed on foreign policy. He's a good debater. We haven't, we want to. I just connected with him on Twitter. By the way, I hope you guys saw it. Dylan Burns had an epic event the other night. It was like, it was just last night and it was fantastic. I liked Dylan Burns a lot, a really cool guy. And in fact, what I want to do is I want to, I can't remember how to raid a channel. I don't know if Dylan's live right now. Oh, no, he's not live right now, but otherwise I'd love to raid his channel on using Twitch. But long story short, we'd love to have him on. Door's always open to him. We just have to find the right topic for him. Great, he seems like a great guy. I love him. He seems like a friendly guy. Matthew Steele, thanks for your super chat support. I appreciate that, Matthew. That's right, Matthew. I think you debated G-Man before, right? I could have sworn we hosted you and Ned against G-Man. Do I remember that? I know Ned went against G-Man and I think it was one-on-one a long time ago. It was like a year and a half ago. Let's see, Chris Gammond says, I challenge you to a debate, James. Topic is who is the worst debater. That's funny. You're a funny guy. We are thankful for the debaters. Let's see, Joseph Turcott. Let's see, glad you're here. Chris, oh wait, what was it? The chat is moving strangely. Manic Panda says, I was thinking the same thing that modern day debate is better run than non sequitur show. Thanks, I'm so surprised you guys say that. Like, in what way? I'm like surprised, to be honest. Like, I'm not joking. I'm seriously surprised. When I think back to the non sequitur show, I think like they must have, like when I think of how we are doing now, I usually think, I tend to think we must not be, that we are too redundant, namely that we have the same recurring topics and debaters more so than the non sequitur show did. Am I wrong about that? I'm just surprised. But yeah, so let me know. I'm surprised to hear you guys say that. I'm like flattered, but I'm also trying to learn because I'm like, well, how can we do this as good as we can? Because I feel like we can do better. I feel like it's like, I almost beat myself up where I'm like, James, come on. If you sent out more emails, we could have like way more variety of people and talent and you know, like all the debaters that come on. Cause that's what we want is like good variety, that's important. And so that seriously encourages me though. Thanks for that feedback guys. And getting that perspective from people who used to be there, cause I know that you guys used to actually watch the non sequitur show when they were regularly going, like almost every night. That's like your, your feedback. I wait heavily because I know that you guys have seen like, you didn't see just like one show of the non sequitur show you saw like many, but Jay Nixon says, James, do you have a contact for vocab alone? I can get a great opponent for him. That's if you were willing to debate the BH thing. We are willing to host that. Jay Nixon and I can reach out to vocab. Jay Nixon, if you email me at modern day debate, I think you already have my email cause I'm almost certain you emailed me the other day, but if you email me and you know that they would be willing to debate vocab, I bet we could probably set it up. I'd certainly try hard. I think it'd be fun. Colin Lorenz says, the Vashbastiat showdown was great. I agree. It was. That was really cool. I love Dylan's appreciation of showmanship. Dylan with the belt and then he had a great showdown. He had three judges that were watching the debate and then he had like the popular vote, like the poll for the debate. That was epic. Like he is a smart guy with great showmanship stuff. And then he's even mailing the belt to people. Like my hat is off to Dylan Burns. It is so fun. That's a fun thing to do. And some people might think it's corny or whatever. I don't know, but I'm telling you guys, like those little things, they make it a lot more fun. Like that's just a, so that, those things I really do. I was like, that was really smart. So good for him on that. That's awesome. And then I think it's called the hippie-dippy title if I remember right, but I love it. I just, I'm like, Dylan, you've got a great brain for like promoting and stuff. So that's fun. And then Megan C. Tannis says, for anyone who hasn't seen Reckless Ben, check out his pranking Scientology videos. It is epic. He also pranked Nathan Thompson. That could be juicy. And C. D. says it's host. Then it gives you, oh, that's right. Thanks for explaining how to do the raid. I appreciate that. And then I'm just reading your guys' feedback. Brittle says, honest Q, do you ever wonder of hosting D-tier performance grifters such as so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, might actually make A-tier debaters reluctant to participate here? Not really. Maybe it's possible. I don't, by the way, I'm not granting that those are, what are they called? I'm not granting that those are D-tier or grifters. But I'm saying like, they might, you know, I agree like the topics or maybe some of the people, maybe we've seen is kind of like out there. But nonetheless, I'm like, I don't know. Tiger Hitman says, Tiger Hitman says, any updates on Ask Yourself? Haven't seen him on in a while. That's true. We should have him on. He's fine. I like, I like Isaac. He's a straight shooter, he's honest. Jay says, James, do you want to find more debaters? There's quite a few conservatives who go on Dylan Burns debate panels on Twitch. I'm open to that. That's actually a great idea. I should, I could learn a lot from that. And then Sexy Calzone says, non-sequitur show I think gets a little hung up on unnecessarily fine details. Interesting. I didn't know. I'm curious what you mean by that though. Brittle says they were good until they imploded. Sexy Calzone says, oh, I see it. So they're saying you get right to the meat. We do. That was the advice of, I know that not all of you guys like Mike Winger, but I like Mike Winger. He's been helpful to the channel. Mike said, we used to have long introductions and Mike said, hey man, you gotta cut it down. Like you got too much up in front. You spread it out throughout the debate. And now we're like finally starting to do that more and spreading it out. But yeah, he helped us cut down because we were, you know, we want the people to be like, hey, it's like debate. It's like pretty quick. Get to just watch the debate. So let's see. God's leg says you're fair, neutral, better constructed. You don't get emotional as moderators. You put in effort. I can go on all day. Oh, well, thanks. That's seriously super. Like you have no idea how encouraging that is. That seriously means a lot, man. Thanks so much for your kind words. And I just, that's super, super kind. Bible Burner says, James, how do you have time to teach and do this show, Mad Props? To be honest, it's exhausting. I'm almost, I feel like I'm almost always on the verge of burnout from school, but this show is fun. Like this channel is fun. You guys make it fun. And I'm very serious about that. This just puts me in like the best mood I'm in maybe all day. It is really fun to do this. So I appreciate you guys. And then Manic Panda says, non sequitur show like to throw gas on dumpster fires and started leaning to the dark side of debating. You've resisted the temptation and tried to keep things clean. Oh, thanks. I appreciate that. I didn't know that, actually, to be honest. Like I always thought, I always worried that we maybe like let it go too far. Cause sometimes it is a little dumpster fire here, but I'm glad that you're kind of like, we apparently in perspective, it's like, maybe you know, we haven't gone too far out there. Mitchell says, James, thanks for your kind words. So how else does the Tower of Babel come together and disperse without an explosion of diversity? Thanks for your kind words. And Will Stewart says, as a theist myself, the abundance of our many, our many a theists in your panels is exhausting. I find myself screaming at both sides. Well, Will Stewart, I'll let you know this. You strike me as articulate and I get, you seem like you understand rhetoric. You, let's talk. If you wanna come on defending, like if you wanna be a Calvinism, a Calvinist debater, I'm open to it. I happen to be sympathetic to the five point perspective. And so you could call me a flower man. So I, but yeah, anyway, long story short, I'm like, if you wanna come on, like let me know, email me at moderatedjewel.com. I'm not saying that you have to come on, otherwise don't complain. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying the door is open. And we'll look for more Calvinist people because I do wanna get Jeff Durbin on the show. So I am very serious about that. And so Munda Skeptical says, this is a great channel, keep up the great work. Thanks for your kind words, man. That seriously means a lot. MI cases, that was a bit intense. G-Man and Jim Majors. Anyway, thanks for hosting this. I agree, that was incredibly intense. That was one of the first times I ever kind of felt like maybe a little bit bad. It was just because it got so intense, that I was like, ooh, this is so personal and emotional. That was the first time I was like, ooh, is this bad? Am I doing something bad? I felt bad about, I don't know if we've ever gotten that far in a debate in terms of the emotional stuff. But Mitchell, thanks for your kind words, said good night and God bless everyone. Thanks Mitchell, appreciate you. God bless you as well and take care. Thanks for your kind words, it seriously means a lot. Joseph Turcott says, good night Mitchell. Mark Reed says, I gotta go, it was fun. Take care, everyone. That was, Jay Mixon says, let's shoot for 200 likes. We've got 258 in the chat. Do we really still have 258 people? Oh, you're right. Oh, about 250 I see. So yeah, let's see. Saxie Calzone says, non-secret are showcaded to the dumpster fire, whereas in modern day debates simply becomes a victim of them. That's funny. Yeah, sometimes it's true. But yeah, let's see. Jay Mixon says, I have to watch it again. What was intense? It was intense because G-Man and Jim started becoming more heated. Then the topic of race came up and that's where it got really intense, like in a more personal way. And that was where it was like, oh gosh, this is like, I hope that these guys don't walk away being enemies. Like we always want, ideally, we want people to walk away being like, hey, we hope you have a great rest of your day. Code 5601 says, what if you have offline debate experience but nothing online? Yeah, that would count. I mean, I guess I'm kind of like trusting. If you don't have any video footage, I'm still like willing to trust. And frankly, so yeah, I mean that, like if you let me know that in an email, you know, let me know. If you, one thing that sometimes people do, and this is not a requirement, but it helps, is sometimes a new debater will find a bigger debater, but they'll like go out of their way to try to get them to come on to modern day debate. They'll say, hey, you know, do you want to go on to modern day debate with me? And then they'll be like, hey, James, like I, you know, for example, Dr. David D. Friedman, maybe the most prestigious guest we posted. Brenton, Brenton went out and contacted him on his own. And he was like, hey, do you want to go on this modern day debate show with me? And David D. Friedman was like, sure. And then they came to me and I was like, you got David D. Friedman to like say that he's going to come on to modern day debate. And I was like, are you serious? So that helps. Like that's a really nice thing to do, but it's not necessary, but I will say like, I'll usher it to the front of our debates, like our debate schedule. If somebody, if you get somebody, if anybody gets somebody that's kind of a big name, good experience, brilliant. Like David D. Friedman, but CD says, I think what you experienced, James's content overload, it's hard to not laugh sometimes. I was laughing at G-Man moving his head so much. That made me laugh pretty hard tonight. Topot2 says, the important thing is you jumped in and muted them when it got intense. Good job, James. Thanks for your kind words. Yeah, I felt bad. I was like pretty crazy. But yeah, oh, that's right. Music producer, I hope he's doing well. He's a character. Let me show you, let's see. I think I usually show you like one thing from behind my like curtain each night. Let's see. Oh yeah, this is actually one of the more meaningful things I can show you guys. This is not a diary, all it kind of is. It's more of a thank you journal, a thank you log. I write down everything I'm thankful, like not every day. Now it's actually even become like only once a week or something. But I usually like to write down things I'm thankful for. And I write them in here and just got it from like a thrift shop. I think I got this at Goodwill. It's just blank pages. And I would encourage you, it's a great habit. Just kind of counting the things you're thankful for. I, modern data bait is in here a lot. So much, you guys. I'm not joking, I'm dead serious about that. But yeah, it's like just the exciting things that we've seen happen at the channel and the support that people have shown everything you guys. So that's the one thing I'll show you from behind the curtain tonight. So thank you guys for hitting like. We got way beyond the 160. And so, but yes, mega dude man 21 says, hi James, hey man, glad you made it. And sexy kelzone says, James I'm going to get Joe Biden on your show. That would be epic. Thank you so much. That I appreciate that. And then Colin Loren said, I'd say Wolf is equally esteemed. They're both Ivy League grads. Those are both like famous guys. And Wolf also has his YouTube channel, which is way bigger than modern day debate. So thank you guys though. We really do appreciate you for all your love, your support, your feedback. Thanks so much. I do appreciate you guys. You guys rock. You're always fun. Seriously, you guys put me in a great mood. It's always just really fun and it's a blast. So thank you guys for everything. I'm thankful for you. I hope you have a great night and yeah, we're excited about the future. So yeah, thanks guys again. We will be back on, I think it's Tuesday night. There's a debate. It's going to be epic. It's against Brenton and Ben Burgess are teaming up against two newcomers. So that will be a political debate. Think it's on economics to some extent. Yeah, it is. It's on economics, on socialism. So that should be a fun one. And so the crowd daddy zero two nights is you don't have to feel bad. Quincy Mann is being a dishonest clown. I don't know who Quincy Mann is. They said he needs to be called out, comparing pets and prisoners, football players. Yeah, I mean, I don't like, you can, it's like, I would highly recommend consider like, you know, you could call someone's argument bad, but to say that they're like dishonest. Like I just like, a lot of times I see people call people dishonest all the time. It's like, just cause you think that they're, their arguments bad doesn't mean they're dishonest. Like I just, a lot of times I'm like, you need to, if you have evidence, like if you have a recording that before the show, somebody was like, hey, I'm going to go on modern day debate and give these arguments that I don't even believe in. Then yeah, they're dishonest cause we don't like, we don't want to have a devil's advocate debates. But I mean, if they're like, I just sometimes, I see, in the chat or the comments, you see a lot, it's like, oh man, so and so is so dishonest. And I'm like, it's one thing to say people have bad arguments, but it's another thing to say they're dishonest. And it's like, so, like a dude man glad that you're here and Joseph Turcotte says, good night, James and crew. Saxie Calzone says, James, you just talking here at the end was highlight of tonight's debate. Thanks for your kind words. That means a lot, Saxie Calzone, seriously. And big thing Bruce Wayne says, you should hit up Brie Gray Joy. I don't know who that is, but I'm open to it. Oh, that's the name of, she's got, let's see. I'll put her name in here. Oh yeah, that's actually, if you guys, I would say, if you guys wanna know what's used, like another helpful thing for the channel, if you know of a person who's got debate experience, or they're just articulate and they're willing to debate, that's the big thing is like, are they willing? Because it's like, if you know of a big, like YouTuber out there and you're like, yeah, they're articulate, because that usually those are correlated, like audiences, like people who are articulate. If you know of like somebody out there and you're like, yeah, man, like, rather than that they just have a big YouTube channel or be articulate even, like, but you're like, yeah, I actually think that they're like, open to doing debates and stuff. Like maybe you even asked them and they're like, yeah, like I'd be open to doing a debate, like on another channel. If you let me know those, who those people are, that definitely does help. So thanks, big thing Bruce Wayne for letting me know about that. And I'll reach out to your friend. What is it? I think he said, Brie Kay. I wrote her name down though. But yeah, Tim Durand says, I like the chill after show after the debate, often more enjoyable than the actual debate. Thanks, appreciate that. Tim Durand for hanging out with us. And let's see, Brittle says, good night James, the after show continues to be the most fun part. Enjoy the rest of the weekend. Thanks friend, I appreciate that. Means a lot, Brittle. Moomin writer, bicyclists for justice says, hi James, hey, thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate you being here. And then Colin Loren says, she does bad faith podcast. I didn't know that. By the way though, we are excited that our podcast, so much positive, people have been really apparently enjoying it. We're on virtually every podcast app you guys. And so if you enjoy podcasts, and if you are like, oh, are there any debates that I missed with like, let's say you missed a debate with like, Matt Dillahunty in the past. Because we upload on every Thursday our throwback Thursday debates. And we try to pick like our best ones. So oftentimes those would be like people like Matt Dillahunty, Richard Carrier, some of our like most epic ones in the past. We try to upload those because they're, we did those debates prior to, prior to when we started the podcast. So now we're kind of like, oh, hey, like these have never been on podcast before. So we'll upload them as like a throwback Thursday. And so hey, I think you guys would enjoy it. Check out that podcast. You might enjoy it. And so Strip of Liquor said they have the gift of GAB. I don't know what that means, but thank you. Web Bar says I see dishonesty when people have different level of acceptance for evidence from both sides or use false dichotomy questions. We can agree to disagree on what dishonesty is, but different thresholds for evidence. Like I see that in everybody though. Like I see that in virtually every, like no joke, every human I think they have. It's just kind of a form of confirmation bias where we usually, everybody has confirmation bias. I don't know. And you could say maybe it's different degrees. I grant that, but long story short. Craw Daddy says I don't mean he's being dishonest the way you put it. I mean he's being dishonest because he learned this stuff before he has been told how wrong he was and then bring this thing. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I would say that, I can see why you'd say that's dishonest. That triggers me when people do that. The Craw Daddy. So I get what you mean there. That, I even one time got in like a little argument with someone because it totally ticked me off. Saxie Kelzone says James, do you ever need a dumpster fire like for tax purposes or something? I have a friend who loves to debate, but he's absolutely terrible at it. Thanks buddy, I appreciate that. And then Demill Olymp says, have you ever considered debate reviews? We haven't, just because I, we could do it in an objective way. I don't deny that's possible. I think it is, but I just don't know if I have the bandwidth in terms of time right now. It's just really hard. Moominrider, Bikeless for Justice says, sign up for the modern day debate podcast. It's great for a long walk and listen to the debates. I completely agree as well as long drives. If you're on long drives, having modern day debate via podcast is useful. I think that it may be useful because we have long form content. So it's like, that's the one thing is like, sometimes you have a podcast that's like 20 minutes and don't get me wrong. Those can be great. But if you want one that's gonna run for a long time, modern day debate fits that well. Will Stewart said it's tough to be articulate and clearly express a question in 200 to 250 characters. Thanks for the compliment though. While you've done it well, despite the character limitation. So, and you're very welcome. And big thing Bruce Wayne says, Kyle Kulinski, get that fellow to discuss politics. I'm open to that. I can't remember. I think maybe we reached out. I can't remember. But yeah, so thank you guys, appreciate you. We love you guys and good to see you. Thank you guys for coming by. Thanks for all your guys' support and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. We plan on being back on Tuesday for that epic economics debate. And then we'll have, I think several more next week as well. So big thing Bruce Wayne says, Jackson Hinkle, he's a podcaster that is very articulate. Oh, okay. And he's a leftist, eh? And it sounds like you're saying, you know, he likes to debate. That helps me if you know that he actually does. That's funny. Will Stewart says, I use modern day debate as my sleepy time tea. There is something comforting about like a channel that you're familiar with where you're like, cause sometimes I'll listen to like my friends while they're streaming late at night while I go to bed because it's just like kind of, you kind of feel like you're almost there. You know, it's more personal. So it is kind of like more feeling like a community when it's like, well, it's live especially, you know, like you're kind of like there with them and you know, other people are enjoying it live even if you're dozing off. There's something about that that feels comforting to me. So Colin Loren says, hi all. Cheers James, thanks Colin. And CD says, have a good one everyone. Tim Durant says, good night peeps. CD says, peace. Gay nomadic says, stay handsome as always James. Thanks for your kind words. Big thang, Bruce Wayne says, stay strong. This is my sports. I have thoughts as good night. And big thang, Bruce Wayne says, yeah, he debates. He looks like debate team. That's cool. Well, I'll write his name down. I've got it right here. I'm gonna put reach out to and, okay. So I've saved their names. Thanks for that. I appreciate that feedback. That helps a lot. Keep sifting out the reasonable. From the unreasonable everybody, take care and we'll see you next time. I love you guys. Really do. Thanks for everything. It means a lot. Terence Sam, thanks so much for your kind words. Said, I just subscribed. Keep those debates coming. Thanks so much Terence for subscribing. Welcome to the community. We hope you feel welcome. We hope you feel loved. And we hope you feel, no matter what walk of life you're from, folks, Christian, atheist, gay, straight, Republican, Democrat, black, white, you name it. I can't name everybody because there's just so many groups. But we do want to say, we hope you feel welcome, folks. We really do appreciate you. Thanks for being with us at Modern Day Debate and thanks for your kind words. So, Will Stewart says, go to bed, James. I just, I love being here and it's fun. So I don't like leaving, even though it's, now it's been three hours and 40 minutes. I really should go. So thanks, everybody. Megan says, take care, everyone. Have a good night. Mayor, thank you for that. Jay Nixon says, good night, everyone. Make sure you stay on top of those taxes. Thanks, everybody. Seriously, I love all you guys. Appreciate it. It's always fun, every one of you. Take care. Thanks for all your kind words and support.