 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not Richard Dawkins tweet last month was transphobic and we're starting right now with Tom Jumps opening statement as Tom is taking the negative position. Tom, the floor is all yours. Thanks, James. Thanks, Arden, for participating in this debate. I appreciate the conversation. So I think one of the big problems of the woke SJW feminist ideology is that they don't differentiate between rational criticism and hate, calling anyone who criticizes their position a racist, transphobic, sexist, misogynist, et cetera. And these morally charged terms are essentially calling someone evil or immoral. And they're essentially saying something is wrong with the person's character, which is why they get de-platformed or lose awards or get fired, et cetera. And I think it's wrong to call someone evil or immoral or transphobic, racist, sexist, whatever, just because they disagree with you. It doesn't matter if they're factually right or wrong. Just being wrong about facts doesn't make you transphobic or racist or sexist. And I think Dawkins' tweet is a perfect example of this. Dawkins' tweet isn't even about trans people. It's about the hypocrisy of the woke community who vilify others for not accepting their preferred identities, while at the same time, not accepting someone else's preferred identity. The tweet that Dawkins posted says, in 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of the NAACP, was vilified for identifying as black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. There's nothing in this tweet which demeans or implies anything negative about trans people. The tweet doesn't imply that either race or sexual identities are valid or invalid. The subject of the tweet is the vilification, which is why he used the word twice to make the comparison. The tweet is pointing out the hypocrisy in the woke community, that trans people have an identity and you'll be vilified if you deny it. Dolezal has an identity, and the ones vilifying you are denying her identity, hence the hypocrisy. The ones being targeted by Dr. Sweet are not the trans people, but the ones doing the hypocritical vilifying the woke community. This tweet would equally apply to the other gender identities as well, like gender, neutral, non-conformant, intergender, bi-gender, gender, expansive gender, fluid gender, queer, masculine, or non-binary, omni-gender, poly-gender and pen-gender, and cis-gender, masculine, feminine. There are many straight people who identify whose identity matches their sex, who will also vilify you if you misgender them or someone else. While at the same time not respecting Dolezal's identity, the vast majority of people who adopt the gender identities and criticize others for not accepting them are not trans people, it's the feminist ideology. And the rational interpretation of Dr. Sweet would be that it would also apply to them because the subject is the hypocrisy, not the trans people. So calling Dr. Sweet transphobic doesn't make sense because it's not even about trans people. So if the tweet's not even about trans people, why are so many people calling it transphobic? Ironically vilifying him exactly as his tweet implies. Well, there's two main arguments that I've come across. The first is that because the woke community thinks race is not a valid identity and see Dolezal as being a liar or a bad character, they're making a comparison to her and trans people implying that trans people are just as invalid or bad as Dolezal, which it doesn't do. The tweet, that's a hasty generalization fallacy. You breathe, Nazis breathe, you're a Nazi. The comparison that Dawkins is making is not about the character of Dolezal or the character of trans people. It's about the identity and what qualifies as a legitimate identity versus non-legitimate identity. The character of the people involved is irrelevant. He just uses Dolezal because she's the most common example, the most obvious example of someone who has an identity, which the woke community rejects. Your character is not involved at all with the argument. There are trans people who have lied and claimed they were born of a different sex. Does that invalidate their identity? Well, no. In the same case, the fact that Dolezal may have a bad character that doesn't really make a difference to the argument because her character and the validity of her claim to identity are completely separate topics. The woke community are just applying their own hasty generalization and that hominem to Dawkins tweet, which he never said, and then blaming Dawkins for their own fallacy. The second major criticism is that the real transphobes might weaponize this tweet and apply it against trans people. So actual transphobes will apply the exact same hasty generalization and hominem and say that, oh, trans people are just as bad as Dolezal and they're liars, and then because they apply a fallacy to Dawkins tweet, Dawkins is then held accountable for their fallacy. I don't see how this is rational. It could understand if Dawkins said something comparable to Trump advocating for rioting or something, which is pretty easily interpreted to be violence. But Dawkins tweet isn't comparable in that sense. This is extremely mundane tweet and expecting someone to moderate their words into some kind of formal argument to prevent any kind of misrepresentation like a politician is kind of ridiculous. Especially since this isn't Dawkins original argument. It comes from feminist academics, the Rebecca Tuvelle, who published a paper in 2017 in defense of transracialism, in the Hypatia Journal of Feminist Philosophy. She uses the exact same argument. So the point here is that it doesn't seem like anything Dawkins said was transphobic. He was just bringing up a criticism of the woke community's hypocrisy and is then labeled as transphobic because the woke community and the far right community could both apply a hasty generalization fallacy to his words and misrepresent it in such a way that it could be transphobic. And I think that's a mistake and I'll conclude there. You bet. Thank you very much, Tom, for that opening statement. We are going to kick it over to Arden. Want to say, folks, if you're new to moderate debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from. Christian, atheist, gay, straight, trans, everybody. We hope you feel welcome. And so with that, we're going to kick it over to Arden. Thanks for being here. The floor is all yours, Arden. Awesome. So thanks to James for having me and thanks, Tom, for showing up. So we're discussing tonight whether or not Dawkins tweets and generally his behavior on Twitter recently has been transphobic. I think it's incredibly important to be clear when I say someone or something is transphobic, I'm referring to the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, as well as one that's used by I think the general public, which is an irrational hatred, prejudice or aversion to trans people. More often than not, when I use transphobia, I'm addressing not the summation of someone's character, but rather a quality of someone's actions. So firstly, in regard to the tweet in the case of Dawkins, his comparison of Dola's all a woman who felt that she identified more strongly with black culture and subsequently lied about her family members and gaining employment benefits is vastly different than what a trans person experiences. There's a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of trans identities and confirming that, like with homosexuality, this is a aspect of the character that is fixed and immutable and cannot be changed. No such evidence exists to support the existence of transracial identities. Furthermore, Dawkins categorizing trans people as men who choose to identify as women and women who choose to identify as men is an inaccurate characterization and contributes to the longstanding historical stigmatization of trans identities. Trans people can no more choose to be who they are than Tom or James here choose to be men or chose to be cis. Lastly, more recently, Dawkins posted an article which cited late on-site gender dysphoria while there are subtle differences there. This is undoubtedly a reference to Lisa, the Lisa Lippmann study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, a study that was so terrible that it was retracted from the journal that released it and revised and they subsequently made a public apology denouncing it. The study wasn't even on trans children, but instead was developed based on the parents' perception of their child and parents were pulled, the parents pulled or sampled from online forums like transgender trend. Dawkins has a platform solely based on his work as a scientist. He's an international celebrity of sorts and because of this, he has developed a following on social media, founded on him being a skeptic in a trustworthy conveyor of scientific information. One has to ask why Dawkins isn't applying that same skepticism to the topic of trans rights. Whether or not Dawkins is a celebrity, these ideas would still be transphobic. But I'm willing to come here and argue this case today because I believe he has a far greater responsibility than your neighbor to convey this information accurately. I personally would even go so far as to say that the continued pattern of behavior demonstrates that Dawkins himself holds prejudice beliefs about trans people and therefore is a transphobic person. I suspect the nexus of this conversation is going to be centered around my interlocutor using definitions of transphobia that are not the one that I'm arguing for in the affirmative and aren't sufficient to address the root of the problem being the societal and personal prejudice and would also therefore be disagreeing with the common use of the word transphobia. Given Dawkins' prominence in the sciences, he would most likely, if he wanted to, be able to talk to one of the countless researchers who have been a part of developing the internationally recognized best medical practices, being that gender affirming care is the best mode of treatment for trans people. But instead, rather than actually discuss, he simply doubles, triples and quadruples down while issuing non-apologies for how his takes could contribute to societal stigma. So in conclusion, I want to make it clear to the audience that doing something transphobic, even being a transphobe, is not mutually exclusive with success and doing good in another field. Doing something transphobic and being a transphobe is also not a branding that marks you as evil or a pariah or heretic for as long as you live. However, continually spreading misinformation when you are a respected intellectual figure and continually doubling down on that misinformation when it's corrected with science has the potential to embolden otherwise neutral people and legislators that seek to discriminate against us, especially in a time when multiple states in the US are seeking to categorize gender affirming care for minors as child abuse. And again, that is a internationally recognized best medical practice. And at a time when the UK just did something similar at the end of last year, I think spreading this misinformation is a truly terrible thing when it could say equivalent to spreading anti-vax conspiracy theories based on a few debunked studies in the global pandemic. All I want from Dawkins is the acknowledgement of the mistake and a stated commitment to challenging his biases going forward. I don't want him to get on his knees and wash the feet of trans people to atone for his sins or anything of that sort. And that is all I have to say. You got it. Thank you very much, Arden, for your opening as well. We're going to kick into the open conversation, folks, and we'll have Q&A at the end. But I want to let you know our guests are linked in the description. So if you hear and you're like, wow, I want to hear more, you can hear more by clicking on their links in the description. And with that, we'll kick it over into open discussion. If it gets rowdy, I'll basically switch it into three-minute intervals. But I don't anticipate that being the case. Thanks so much both, Tom and Arden. The floor is all yours. Cool. So Arden, I wanted to start by asking what your definition of transphobic was again. Could you read that slowly for me so I can tie it up? Yeah, sure. That would be an irrational hatred, prejudice, or aversion to transgender people. And you mentioned that you thought this would be a focal point in the debate misusing the definition in some way. To me, it seems like all of these are character attacks. Like there's something about the person's character, which is relevant here. Sure, Tom, have you ever done anything that hurt someone's feelings in your life, something that could be considered wrong? And do you think that that made you a bad person, that that marked your character for all of your life? No. Right. So in my perception, being transphobic is prejudice and the tweets that Dawkins put out involve prejudice against transgender people. And while that is wrong, that doesn't attack his character. That simply means he did a bad thing. I think he has continually done this for long enough that I think he probably holds some deeply rooted prejudice about trans people. However, I don't think that means that he is a unsavable, just heretical person. I think he's just fallen for some misinformation and he is continually spreading it. Is that the same as prejudice? Like I'm not, because me doing a mean thing to somebody and hurting their feelings doesn't mean I'm prejudiced or hateful or averse to them. I'm not seeing how that any of those would fit. Claiming that men choose to identify as women and women choose to identify as men, that is a prejudice. Well, I understand the word identify to mean like establish or indicate what or who something is. So like if someone tells me I identify as a woman. That's not the word that I'm taking issue with. Choose. Choose to identify is what I'm taking issue with. So when I, the word identify, like if someone tells me I identify as a woman, my only like knowledge of that is from their say so. So if they didn't tell me that, if they didn't choose to give me that information, then I would never know. So they chose to tell me this. They chose to. Right, but choosing to give someone information is different from choosing an identity. Now, if you want to read into Dawkins mind and say that maybe he missed, he didn't convey what he was actually thinking properly, that could be a separate discussion. I'm going on what he said, choose to identify. What basically my understanding of beliefs is obviously we don't choose any of our beliefs. They're determined in our brain, but we say I choose to believe in X. Obviously that's factually false. I don't choose to believe the world isn't flat, but colloquially when we say certain psychological features, we're saying we choose that. I choose to be an atheist. I choose to be a not Republican. Sorry, go on. So my concern here is that that's just not applying the principle of charity to that sentence because that sentence isn't implying that somehow trans identity isn't real. Like we choose lots of things that doesn't mean our choices aren't real just because we chose them. Right, but okay. So in the case of belief with atheism or flat earth, whatever, I would agree that you don't choose that in that sometimes colloquially we use the term like I choose to be a Christian or something along those lines. In the case of trans identities, it's specifically a phrase that is used by anti-trans, whatever you want to call them, bigots, prejudice people, people who are advocating against trans identities to invalidate their identity, to suggest that they aren't actually who they are. They are just choosing to identify. Like I identify as an attack helicopter. I choose to identify. Well, sure, sure. I grant that there are definitely mean transphobic people who do that, but that doesn't mean that Dawkins himself is transphobic because he also uses choose. Because as you mentioned, there are colloquial contexts where we use choose and it doesn't mean a subjective negation or any kind of demeaning of the thing you're choosing. That's not, I don't, when I read those terms, that doesn't seem to be in any way what he's trying to imply. He's just describing with the words that he knows. Is it possible that you, as a cis person, who haven't had to deal with transphobic legislation, it's probably not popping up on your feed quite as much as it is for trans people that maybe you aren't as fine-tuned into some of these, what we might call in my pop culture, dog whistles? Yes, which is exactly why I would probably say something similar to Dawkins was and not in any way mean it to be transphobic. Right, okay, so this is my thing. And this is what I tried to say at the end of my statement. If Dawkins did not actually mean that trans people choose to identify in the way that is used by bigots, and I realized that he said he denounces people using his words that way, but to me, that's not a sufficient apology. To me, what would be a sufficient apology is I did not mean for it to come across as though trans people have a choice in who they are. That was like a, I just misspoke. If Dawkins did that, I would say he's not a transphobe, that he cleared it up for me and I'm good, I'll go home. But Dawkins hasn't done that. Sure, I think if you clarified that's what you're looking for, he would probably say that readily because I didn't understand that to be any of the criticism that was given against him. Sure, that's fair. But the thing is, Dawkins has been tweeting stuff like this for, I mean, I'm not going to put a timestamp on it. I don't know how long. This is probably the fourth or fifth time he's tweeted something like this. I amongst with many of my trans friends who are in the skeptic movement who initially tried to approach him with saying, hey, look, I realize you might not have meant it this way, but this is actually not a great way to say these things. If you could clarify, that would be great. And I realized Dawkins is a popular dude. He doesn't always maybe necessarily have the time to respond to every little Twitter account that responds under his tweets. That's fine. But the problem is, he's never addressed those criticisms. Instead, he doubles down. He posts more bad research like the late onset gender dysphoria research, retweeting people, or not retweeting, but tweeting about people like Debra So who have been spreading some pretty bad information about trans people. Like he's not gone so far as to clarify any of these things. So like if you have insight into Dawkins' mind that I don't, then please inform me of your psychic abilities. But as far as I know, I'm just interpreting what he has actually said. Well, that's the part I'm disputing because what he's actually said is nothing transphobic as far as I can tell. Like as you just agreed, there are very common usages of those exact same words which are not in any way transphobic if you're not familiar with- But I didn't agree to that. Just for clarification, I agreed in certain contexts that usage can be correct. In this context, it's different. Well, wouldn't the context be based on the history of the person and their uses of the word? So if they commonly use it in that context, then it would be pretty common for them to use it in that context. Right, but Dawkins' skeptic, I'm pretty sure Dawkins is probably familiar with the fact that you don't get to choose your beliefs. Well, that most people- I agree, yeah, for sure. But that doesn't mean he's not going to colloquially use the word choose for beliefs because that probably will. He's like, I choose to be an atheist. I'm sure I can find clips of him saying that all the time. You think following comparison of trans identities to a transracial identity, though, that using a specific term like choose to identify isn't a highly suspect? I don't think it's suspect at all. Like when I read that, I never even- didn't even cross my mind. It's just like simply the way he expressed the argument. Because the argument seems to have nothing to do with whether or not you literally choose or whether or not you're biologically determined, it seems like a completely separate topic. Like you could be biologically- Dolezal is biologically determined to identify as Black if she does, because we're all determined. So I don't see why that would be a difference. Right, but I don't think there's like- Okay, so there's I think a slight difference to point out that like, Dolezal says she identifies as Black and if that's the case, that's fine. I'm not going to dispute what's in her mind. There's not enough research, though, behind the existence of transracial identities to confirm that on the same way that we know that trans identities exist. So like there's a false comparison there and he's like, this is a comparison that is often used in popular media, especially by like anti-trans like law, I don't know what the fuck you'd want to call it. Sorry, James, I don't know if I can say fuck on here. Lobbyists or whatever you want to call it, anti-trans groups, TERFs, whatever. Sure, I mean, I'm happy to agree that there probably isn't as much research on that side effect because there are definitely not nearly as many examples of it, but I don't think that because the science is different or because Dawkins may not have the same level of evidence that that makes him transphobic because it seems like the argument he's making is a pretty legitimate point. Like maybe racial identities are real and so maybe we should be taking Dolezal seriously. And so what is the difference between these two seems to be the kind of the point here. Sure, and when the evidence comes out to suggest that trans-racial identities are valid, I will change my position and I will accept that trans-racial identities exist, but as of right now, that is not the case. Sorry, I had a brain stump. I don't know where I was going with. There was another thing you just said I was going to respond to and... Oh, wait, actually, yes. You don't think that that makes Dawkins transphobic. The way you worded that makes me curious because I've said this multiple times that even though I do think the pattern of behavior for Dawkins makes him a transphobe, again, that's like saying to me, that's like saying, wow, you're an asshole. Like you've done a rude or unkind thing. Transphobic is like calling someone an asshole? In a way that I'm about to describe that if you do a rude and unkind thing consistently to someone, I think they're probably justified in calling you an asshole. But I think if you call them an asshole and they go, oh, wow, was I being an asshole? I'm sorry, I didn't realize what I was doing was affecting you that way. I'll try to make sure I'm more conscious of that next time the same situation pops up. For most reasonable people, I think that would absolve that entire situation. I would say, no, maybe I still don't trust you right off the bat, but I appreciate that you are at least able to acknowledge it happened and you're aiming to change your behavior. That's exactly how I look at as trans folks. I mean, I know you said in your opening statement that you think these criticisms of transphobia and racism and homophobia are trying to paint someone as evil, but in my experience in activist circles that is never what people are trying to do. Are there some people who try to do that? I'm sure they're out there, but that is not what I try to do and that's not what most of the prominent people that I interact with are trying to do. We're trying to call out a flaw in a particular action and to just ask for someone to make amends for that. If you didn't mean that, that's fine. I would accept that if Dawkins himself came forward and said that's not what I meant, but he has not done so. Oh yeah, that's fair. It's only a small minority of people who actually vilify and harm others. The majority don't actually agree there. But the point here is that it doesn't seem like he was being an asshole. Even if his phrasing offended people, which I'm sure he did not in any way attend, it seemed like he was just trying to make an argument. This is the argument. This is my genuine position on the issue. I'm not trying to be an asshole. This is what I believe. And I don't think you should apologize for that because he's just honestly representing his position and asking for debate on the topic, essentially, which is pretty much what the skeptic community does about everything. Is that really a good excuse though? Because if I call someone ugly and they're like, hey, you're kind of being an asshole, and I'm like, that's just what I genuinely believe. That's not an excuse. You can say what you genuinely believe in a way that doesn't make you an asshole or that doesn't make you a transphobe. If he genuinely wants to understand the differences between transracial and transgender identities, maybe that's a valid discussion to have. I'm open to having that discussion. But the way that he did it was using language that could be considered prejudice towards trans people, men choose to identify as women. Sure. In the case of calling someone ugly, definitely. It's a pretty obvious insult that we could just be like, yeah, we should probably phrase that a different way. But in what Dawkins said, I didn't even, when I read it, I had no idea of this interpretation of the word choose was the problem here. It didn't even come to mind. This doesn't seem like an issue at all. It just seems like common crazy. Yes, really. I had no idea. I was like, what is the issue here? I couldn't figure it out. I had to do some research. Oh, that's the problem they're taking. And most of the people on the anti-woke side of the debate have the exact same issue. We don't see language in the same way. We don't see that as in any way calling someone ugly. It's just a phrasing of the argument and nothing more. There's no extra connotations there. This is just the position. Okay. I can accept that we potentially view language a different way. But I mean, I know when you initially reached out to me, Tom, you had said you saw me on the line. It's potentially you just saw the topic and you didn't watch the video or something. That's fine. But in the video, multiple ties back, and I both stated that our position was not that Dawkins was this unsavable, terrible person who should be marked and branded with a big red A to be outcasted from the community for all time. No, that's not what I want at all. I just want him to address the ways in which his words contribute to societal prejudice and to say, oops, didn't mean that. Didn't realize that's, again, if he said, I didn't realize that's how it was used, I'll take back what I said. I'll say, okay, he fixed it. I mean, I still don't like the comparison. I don't really like, I think there's a time and a place for those sort of discussions. And I don't think Dawkins necessarily has the qualifications to be discussing sociology in this way. He's a smart guy. I'm sure with a proper interlocutor, he could contribute to that discussion. But I mean, I think he's demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't know how to address this topic. That's definitely fair. But I mean, I think that most people on the internet aren't qualified to talk about anything they're talking about, especially in our community, the debate community. But I don't really think that's a fair comparison. I think that every human being is entitled to say, this is what I believe, and then talk with other human beings on a public forum about whether or not that's right or not. I think that restricting yourself because you're a public figure and trying to not portray your ideas in public because lots of people may share them is exactly the opposite approach. I think that if you are a big public figure and a lot of people are probably going to share your views, that's the best place to have the conversation because that's where most people's minds are likely to be changed one way or the other. But to go back to your point, yes, I actually found this argument, the choose part from watching your conversation with Matt Dillahonte because I had no idea until I watched your channel that that was the main argument. It made no sense to me whatsoever. So yes, interpreting that language, I would be interested to know what Dawkins would say if presented with your contention specifically and how he would respond to that because I tend to think he'd probably just say the same thing I did. Like, I had no idea that was the problem. That was just why I was phrasing the argument. I mean, that's great and all, but I mean, until he states that, I'm going to continue to hold my position. I mean, I can't read his mind, so I'm going to go on the words he says and the fact that he followed that up a couple of weeks later by reposting an article that researched, sorry, this is like three degrees removed, an article that cited an article, an academic journal that was like a retracted debunk study is just really disappointing. I think from a science communicator, like, I mean, I realize this isn't his field and so I don't expect him to be perfect on this all the time and that's like why I was saying it would be nice if he would actually talk about these things with like qualified people, especially just because he has the resources to talk to the qualified people in the field. It's just really disappointing to see him not being skeptical about this topic and just going, hmm, yeah, that sounds, I mean, I guess that's probably reading his mind to some degree too, but just kind of reposting things with no degree of skepticism about the information he's conveying is disappointing and again, I think contributes to the societal prejudice. I haven't gone through all the talking sweet, so I can't really comment on that, but it does seem like he does have many friends in the anti-SJW community, Peter Bergogian and has talked about similar issues quite a bit and it seems like that's kind of the argument that he seems to be the most compelling from his conversations and friends in the community. So he's presenting it to be challenged. That's kind of seems like the point. Well, like he doesn't actually respond to any of that. If, I mean, I also get that like, I know some people have claimed that maybe Dawkins doesn't really understand how Twitter works. I don't want to be like, agist or whatever, but like he's an older dude, maybe he doesn't really get what he's doing when he says discuss on Twitter, but like the implication that I think most people get from him making a bold fucking claim and then saying discuss is that he's going to respond to counterarguments subsequent in the tweets, but he never does that. He like, well, weeks later, post another thing in the same lane without clearly having like confronted any of the counterarguments of his point at all. In Twitter, yeah, for sure. Like I don't think he's probably going to spend much time on Twitter, but I do foresee him actually writing articles on this in the future. And I think he probably is talking with a lot of people about this behind closed doors, which is normally how he does his conversations anyway. So I agree. Yeah, he's not responding on Twitter and neither would I when you're getting a million retweets that I'll say you're transphobic. But I think he probably is actually talking to people about the issue and looking more into it based off of this. I think that's concerning though, the fact that, I mean, amongst like Peter Bogotian and Sam Harris and I don't know what Michael Sherlock or Schurlock or Schurlock or whatever his name is. Schurmer. Schurmer, there you go. They all do the same thing where when somebody calls them a transphobe or say that something is transphobic, they interpret this as a branding, a thing you can't come back from, a characterization of someone's character that can't be changed or understood or developed with new information. When again, I think as you admitted earlier, most people when they're saying someone is transphobic or something is transphobic are not characterizing the totality of someone's character that way. Oh, sure. But I think that most character attacks aren't usually attacking the entire character of a person, even calling someone like a white supremacist doesn't mean that they don't help grannies across the street who have groceries or whatever. But I think the bigger concern here is that when you attack someone's character in that way, it has real consequences or can have real consequences to their life. They can get fired. They can get deplatformed. They can get their awards removed. Oh, please. Is Dawkins suffering from this at all? He lost an award he got in the 90s. Like they have a vested interest in making sure that the people who have those awards represent their values accurately. And if Dawkins is not representing those values, yeah, they took his award away. Dawkins could literally sit down with any scientist across the world that he wanted to right now. Anyone he contacted would be fucking giddy to sit down with Richard Dawkins and talk about science. I don't think he suffered at all from this. Absolutely. Everyone cries boo-hoo. He's marked as a pariah. He's been shunned from the atheist community. Like what? That's absolute bullshit. So what does Joe Schmo do? What does Joe Schmo from Down the Street do when he's labeled a trans hope and fired? Can he go do that? If that's happening, I would say that's wrong. If someone's getting fired from their job. I mean, with the exception that if someone is making the workplace toxic for a trans coworker by intentionally misgendering them or something along those lines, then at that point, I don't give a fuck if they're fired. But if they put on Twitter a take like this and they got fired, sure. I would say that's wrong. Yeah, and that's really the bigger concern here. That's the reason Dawkins is making this tweet is because those happen. There are people who are- Do you actually have evidence of that? Yes, trans hope fired. There's lots of evidence of it. Sure, I would love to see more evidence of that. So I mean, that's the bigger concern here is that people are being attacked for not agreeing and for disagreeing and phrasing things in not quite the right way and having real consequences to them. And there's not really much they can do about it if they're not in Dawkins situation where he's a millionaire. Right, but again, the issue isn't like if people are being attacked for it, like it's as simple as being like as if you were being an asshole to someone and being like, oops, sorry, I didn't realize that. That's not what my intentions were. I guarantee you if people had the dignity to admit they were wrong, a vast majority of these situations would be absolved so much faster, but that's never what happens online. People, as I said earlier, double and triple and quadruple down on their points. I mean, I definitely wish that was the case, but there's many cases where people do apologize and it only gets worse for them. They don't get freed of the guilt or whatever. They're just condemned more and that also happens a lot. So even though the bigger problem here is I think that you shouldn't have to apologize for just expressing what your position is. If someone else considers it to be offensive and you didn't mean it to be offensive, you should still be able to say, this is still what my position is because you address what I'm saying. If you want me to try and rephrase it in a better way, tell me how to rephrase it, but this is still what I want to talk about because this is what's important to me. Why can't that be followed with an apology? Sure, it can be. Didn't Dawkins include I'm sorry somewhere? I apologize for... Nope. He said I deplore conservatives or whatever using this in a bad way. That's not what I wanted to happen. He did not apologize. I'll definitely check that for sure, but you could include apology if you want to, but I still think you should not be obligated to apologize for just expressing your opinion with no ill will and no intentional disregard for anyone if you're just saying, this is honestly what I believe and phrased in the most honest way I can phrase it, that you shouldn't have to apologize. I think you're so ugly, honest. I'm not going to apologize. Like I think it's the same fucking thing. I agree if you want to talk about something, you can find a way to talk about it, but if you're and granted, are there people who are going to irrationally find issues in every minor thing you do? Absolutely, of course. Like you're not going to have to do that in every case, but I think when you're not replying to any of the criticisms at all, that's when it becomes a problem. He could very easily just say, again, oops, sorry, it didn't mean for it to come across that way. This is what I want to talk about though, and everyone could move on, but he doesn't do that. You have to wonder why. Why doesn't he do that? Why does he value his pride or his ego or his point over just making an honest apology? I mean, I think that's kind of some weak ego shit to not be able to just say, oh, I'm sorry and move on with the point. Probably because he doesn't feel sorry because he doesn't realize he's done anything wrong. That would be my guess. Well, that's possible, but I mean, I don't know how he's going to realize he's done anything wrong if he doesn't actually respond to any of the criticisms ever. Well, you've noticed he has posted a few responses, which is significantly more than he usually does. And so he probably is actually looking more into this than 99% of any of his other tweets that he's ever made. So I'm guessing he probably is. I would love to see it. Did you have any questions and any points you wanted to talk about? Nope, I think I made my main point that transphobia is not saying someone's evil. That if he, if you, like I'm just addressing the words that he actually said, not the words that he possibly could have meant. And that, I also, I mean, I guess there was something you said earlier that it might be worth talking about. You said there's something about like, trans people lie sometimes and claim we were bored of different sex. Like, don't get me wrong. I have seen that on Twitter from time to time, but most trans people aren't claiming to like be born XX when they're born XY or anything like that. They might be criticizing the common use of biological sex as like a concept and how it's often like weaponized. And like acknowledging the fact that it's a bimodal distribution would be a more accurate description of what sex is than a binary, excuse me. But yeah, I would love an elaboration on that point. Yeah, for sure. So I totally agree. Most people don't. But the point of that was that simply the fact that Dola's all was lying doesn't invalidate her identity. So many, I've heard in many of the debates like Richard dog, Richard Carrier's post stating that, well, because she's a liar that invalidates her claim. And I think that's false. Like there are trans people who are lying, but that doesn't invalidate their identity of being trans or being women or whatever. The fact that she has a bad character or whatever doesn't invalidate her claim to identity. And so it's not a counter argument to say that Dawkins made a mistake here. Wait, that doesn't address my point. How are trans people lying? By saying they were biologically born, something they were not biologically born as. Okay. So this very niche sliver of, okay. Sure. I guess. The point is just to say that any individual person who lies doesn't mean that their lie invalidates their identity. You can still be genuinely correct about your identity even if you lie about other things. That was the whole point. Sure, fallacious reasoning doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. A broken clock can be your right choice today. I get it. Right. So I wasn't making a claim that like most or many trans people do this. It was, that was not in any way, anything I was trying to imply. All right. I appreciate the clarification. There are no other issues. We can go into the Q and A. Sure. Yeah. We'll do that then. Want to remind you folks, couple of things we are thrilled to let you know our guests are linked in the description. And so if you want to hear more, you certainly can hear more. And that includes if you're listening via Modern Day Debate podcast. We're pumped folks that Modern Day Debate is available via podcast. So hey, if you haven't already, pull out your phone and find us. And if you're listening to this debate via podcast, you can find our guest linked in that description box as well. So thanks very much for your first question. Coming in from Pax Americana. Thank you for your super sticker, I should say, as well as Zylot. Thanks for your kind words. I'd love this channel sending my support. Appreciate it, Zylot. And Sunflower says, Arden, trans people existed before the wealth of evidence for trans identities. So why dismiss the possibility of legitimate racial dysphoria? I don't dismiss the possibility when sufficient evidence exists to confirm the existence of trans-racial identities. I will change my position. As of right now, no such evidence exists. Gotcha. And thank you very much. Sunflower for your second questions at Arden. Would you have been a skeptical and incredulous of transgender people if there was no scientific evidence of it as a valid identity? That's complicated, being trans. I mean, assuming that I felt trans, that definitely complicates things. But if I were cis and there was no evidence, all else being equal, yeah, I would be skeptical. You got it. And thanks very much for your question. Logical, plausible, probable, shameless plug, but it's a super chat so I have to read it. So he says, epic double after show. He's having both an after show and calling out Professor Dave explains, you won't want to miss that. So that sounds juicy. And Chris Gammond says, when Dawkins mentioned people who they literally are, it sounds like he is referencing a genetic identity. What do you two think about that? Yeah, I think that's a fair interpretation. So what he's saying is that when Dawkins says, if you don't acknowledge what they literally are, what they literally identify as, the question is implying that Dawkins meant that they are literally biologically this thing that I identify as. And it's not just a choice. That's the point of the comment. I think that's a very terrible interpretation that I disagree with, but sure. I mean, if you want to inject meaning into his words, that's cool. Gotcha. And thank you very much for this question. This one coming in from Bubblegum Gunn says, who the heck is Dawkins? I think they're being facetious. But this next question is coming in. Dawkins, look at this chord. Yeah, that's who we're talking about. Right. Tom's father, by the way. A lot of people didn't know that. And Hella Baluba says, would T-Jump think the same about Dawkins' tweet if he had suggested that gay people, quote unquote, choose to identify as gay, rather than trans people, quote unquote, choosing to identify as trans? Yeah. I think the colloquial term he used there would apply to any kind of choose. Like I choose to be an atheist. I choose to be a theist. I think that just is just a common way to use the word in the context. I don't think it's anything. You don't think that that harkens like a really shitty religious trope of like, oh, like you're choosing to engage in your sin or some bullshit like that? No, I just think it's a common word to describe ideologies. Ideologies. Interesting use of term. Gotcha. And this one fresh in from Sigefrados, Arabia. It's been a while, Sigefrado. We hope you're well. It says, I don't understand this topic. T-Jump, can't you agree there is a difference between male and female gender? Sure. And then they say, if Arden, you and T-Jump agree that gender is subjective, how then is Dawkins wrong? What? Gender is subjective? I don't know if that question is... I don't know if this will help, but they say at the very end, they say to you both in biology. Sigefrado, sometimes you confuse me. I don't know what this is asking. Tommy, the debate isn't about whether Dawkins is right or wrong. The debate is whether he's transphobic or not transphobic. So... He is wrong. But yeah, sure. Gotcha. And CJ asks, if no one is looking into the issue of racial dysphoria, how do you think we would get evidence for it? I don't know who that's for. Either of you want to answer. The argument is that if we imagine before we had evidence of trans identities being real, the sufficient evidence we have, wouldn't it be reasonable to give those all the benefit or the doubt because we have just started looking into racial identity in the same way recently, but it's possible? Sure. I mean, if a sufficient enough population existed that was requesting to be seen and treated as another race, and if evidence found that giving them treatments to make them look and act and integrate into society in a way that other people perceived them as that race, or maybe not even necessarily, it doesn't have to go that far, but that's just a criteria that could help. And they got some statistically significant data that said this improves their quality of life. I think it would probably be worth looking into efforts to destigmatize trans-racial identities and to give them whatever access to healthcare that they need to live authentically. You got it. And DC Blunt, thanks for your super sticker. Do appreciate the support. And that is actually all we have for questions. This has been the shortest debate on record for modern-day debate. Want to let you know, folks, I'm going to be back in just a moment with a post-credits scene to let you know about epic upcoming debates that we have this month is going to knock your socks off. You won't even believe it. But yes, we are very excited. One example being in the next month, as you see on screen, bottom right of your screen, folks, we are thrilled to welcome Matt Dillhunty back as he will be debating Christian scholar Dr. Kenny Rhodes on whether or not there is strong evidence for God. That's going to be epic. And so if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button and that notification bell so you don't miss that epic debate coming up on June 5th. And so as mentioned, I'll be back with a post-credits scene in just a moment, folks. But I want to say a huge thank you to our guests. Tom and Arden, it's been a true pleasure to have you on with us. Yeah, thanks. Are we allowed to plug anything before we go? You got it. And I also want to remind folks, since you mentioned that, I'll give you a chance in a moment. Our guests are linked in the description, folks, and go ahead, Arden. Yeah, I wanted to plug... If anyone wants to debate anything that we talked about tonight, I host a call-in show called The Transatlantic Call-In Show over on the line. Saturday nights at 5 p.m. Central. So if you want to debate me about anything we talked about here or anything else related to trans rights, you can feel free to call in. Also, I'm doing a charity stream over on my Twitch tonight. 12 a.m. Central. So, yeah. You got it. And we have one question that came in from Hala Baluba says, for Tom, even if he made the comment in ignorance, wouldn't the reasonable course of action be to simply apologize for causing offense, even if unintentionally, and to offer to learn? No, because anything could subjectively offend anyone. Like Charlie Hebdo definitely offended some people. Should he apologize? No. The fact that you make a claim that is honest to yourself and just how you understand the words to work, you shouldn't have to apologize for that unless there was actually like some significant mistake there. The fact that... But he doesn't know it, and neither do I. I don't see it either. I don't really don't see the issue. So I don't think you should have to apologize because it's just, he's just using English, normal English. Dutch and Thought Sponge has a question said, who is to say that? I think they're saying that she, in this case, refers to Rachel Dolezal? Let me know if I pronounced it wrong. Dolezal. Thank you. So who's to say that Rachel wasn't born black if black, like gender, is a social construct? I think there is a variety of things that support the evidence of transgender people and the issue is that while it's possible, again, it's possible that Rachel Dolezal really is transracial and really is black, but so far, we don't have any evidence to confirm the existence of an identity like that. You got it. And Jeff Cordell, thank you very much for your super, if you meant to put a question in that super chat, let me know and I will read it. Just throw it in the normal chat and I can read it. But in addition, Whizbang says, choosing to be gay is definitely very loaded. Choosing to be trans, I feel is the same. Go more of a question than a comment. I agree. And let's see. We have a question from Merezzawan of Gore says, let's see. Yes, it's true. The debate was short tonight. And so I think that is it. We've caught up on them. And so as mentioned, folks, I'll be back with a post-credits scene in just a moment, but a huge thank you to our guest, Tom and Arden. It has been a true pleasure. Thanks. Thanks. Awesome. So super fun, folks. We hope you enjoyed that one and want to let you know though, if it is your first time here at Modernity Debate, we are a neutral channel with the vision, with the goal. We are determined to provide a neutral platform on YouTube where people can make their case on a level playing field. And we are very excited about that, folks. We believe it's important. It's something that we value. Everybody getting a fair shot. And we are a fully neutral channel. In other words, if it's not a debate, it's not a video on Modernity Debate. It's only debates here. So there are no videos where let's say I come out and just state my position and I'm like, don't get me wrong. Cool. If YouTubers want to do that, it's great. That makes sense. However, we're like, you know what? We're going to be the one of the very few. In fact, I don't know if I know of any channels that are like, hey, we don't take any stances. We are even, just doesn't matter. Everything. We're like, hey, we're nonpartisan. We're not taking a stance on this. We'll let the debaters do that. We want to let you know though, folks, if you have not heard about this upcoming debate with Matt Dilla Huntie and Dr. Kenny Rose, which you are seeing on screen, I want to tell you about it is we are absolutely pumped. You guys, this is going to be epic. Like on the level of super duper epic. And so, in a moment, I want to say hi to you in the chat because I do love getting to say hello to people, but I do want to mention that this crowdfund is going to be gigantic. We are thrilled. This is our way of providing honorariums for the guests as we really do appreciate them for all they do. And so that's something I do want to share. Folks, if you have not yet, the link to the crowdfund, which you can see the fundraising meter on the far right of your screen, is in the description box as well as I'm going to throw it into the chat right now. And folks, we want to encourage you, if modern day debate has ever been even mildly entertaining for you, where you're like, oh yeah, it's like yeah, you know, yeah, we would highly encourage you to join with us on this crowdfund for the price of a cup of coffee, folks. You can join in on this crowdfund, $3 to help us make it happen as we want to compensate Matt Dillahunty and Kenny Rose for their time in preparing for this debate as well as their actual debate time during the debate. And so we are really excited about that, folks. I am putting that pardon, I'm delayed. The crowdfund fund link mentioned is right here in chat. And so folks, we are pumped to vote this on June 5th, less than 29 days away. We are excited to host this monstrous debate which will be open to the public. But folks, in order for it to happen, we need to raise the funds and believe me, oh, we're determined, folks. I mean, I don't care. It's me and T-Jump that have to do a car wash out there in the middle of May. It's going to happen, folks. We are going to raise the funds to make this event happen. And so we want to let you know a few things about this epic crowdfund. In particular, you guys, you don't want to miss this. First, let me show you this. Oh, I moved all the files. Well, I want to let you know this crowdfund, you can sign up for it, basically log in via Facebook. So you might be thinking, like, I don't know if I really want to do that. Like I, you know, it's kind of like, do I want to give them my like email and password? It's like, you don't even have to do that. You don't even have to create an Indiegogo account. All you have to do is you can just sign in through Facebook, which is awesome, super convenient. And like I said, for the cup of, the price of a cup of coffee, you can actually help support this event, which is going to be awesome. And so, and Haxed, thanks so much, do appreciate it, said I have supported it, and we do appreciate that in Haxed. Seriously, it means more than you know. So he said, I had pledged, and so thank you for doing that. And so if you have enjoyed this channel, if it has been of use to you in some way, shape or form, please consider joining up with us on this. Let me know, we have many perks. So one of which is like a modern day debate. T-shirt, if you pledge at, I think it's the fourth tier, I can't remember. Maybe it's the fifth tier, but many, many perks of which I'm going to show you in just a moment. Let me do a screen share and I'll actually show you the actual webpage. But also want to say hi to you in chat. So I am going to quick say hi and say thank you so much for being here. Adion, 55, thanks for being here. Travis Pratt, good to see you again, as well as Old Boy and Mine Ben, 256, pumped you're with us. And Stripper Looker, good to see you again. And Ophir, as well as Zach Frederick, thanks for coming by. The Master Quest, glad you are here. James SC, thanks for coming by. The Trillionaire, glad you're here, as well as Facts On Boy and Enigmaticle, Jedi, thanks for coming by. Not only that, but Cliff Burton, 62, 86, said amazing. I agree, no doubt about that. Amaretto, thanks for being with us. And Platy, I'm good to see you, as well as Converse Contender. And yes, I agree, Converse Contender said thanks for your contribution and hacks. We do appreciate it. As you guys, we are pumped after the first night that we announced this, which is on Wednesday, I think it's at $463 after that first night of announcing the Kickstarter. And so, you guys, we are absolutely pumped for this one. It is going to be epic. And so, as mentioned, that is linked in the description. And this is something that we really do want to use this. You could say, we want to use this strategy of crowdfunded debates in order to, you could say, we want to do it in order to take bigger risks. Namely, once we do this, Bob, or Saichobahnav, thanks so much for pledging, really do appreciate that. We appreciate your support of the crowdfund. Is as we do this, folks, it's going to help us host bigger, batter, more epic debates. And so, we really do want to encourage you to join up with us in doing that. And so, your support really does mean a lot as we try to host bigger epic debates. And so, please, folks, join us with this. And let me just pull up. Let me see here. Coffee. It allows us to take bigger risks, you could say. Namely, allows us to afford the honorariums of bigger name speakers. This summer, like late this summer, assuming this next one that we're working on with Kenny Rose and Matt Dillanti goes well, our hope, ideally, is we would like to host a debate. Basically, this is, like, not confirmed yet. We've still got to confirm it with the speakers, so it's not determined. But we would like to host a debate with Dinesh D'Souza and Vosch. No joke. Like, that's a very real possibility. But again, that depends on this one going well as we want to see, like, you could say that the process works. And so, Barry Dahher-Wegner, thanks for your super chat. Just said, huge love to T-Jump and Arden, take a little for yourself, too, James. Thanks for your support and your love, and we are so thankful for our guests. Yeah, I couldn't, I couldn't even say it enough. We really do, the debaters are the lifeblood of modern day debate. They make it fun, and so we really do appreciate them. And let's see here, Platium, Good Evening says, or good to see you here, and Hala Baluba says, what do you think of intelligence-squared debates in terms of format, topics, and moderators? I haven't seen a ton of their stuff. A little bit I have, though. And I don't know. I honestly haven't seen enough to like have an opinion. I'm sorry about that. But Simone Joyth, glad you were here, said, hello, how are you today? I'm doing really well. Thank you, appreciate that. And let's see here, Trillionaire says, thanks for the shout out. My pleasure, Trillionaire. And good to see you, Fat Bastard, thanks for coming by. Tim A, thanks for coming by. I said, hey guys, we are glad you were here. And Tuss Beatbox, good to see you. And thank you so much. Tuss said, going to pledge once I get my next payout. Thank you, Tuss. We do appreciate that support. That means a lot. And JPG, good to see you. As well as Darth Revan, good to see you again. Let's see here. Rem, relative, relative am, thanks for being with us. Trying to, it's hard to read my old eyes. I'm like, am I reading this right? We're glad you're here. And so thanks for hanging out with us. This is the first time I've seen you here. I don't know, but we're glad you're here. And you're all on steroids. Yuri, thanks for coming by. I am glad that you were here, my dear friend. And is this the first time I've seen you here? It's like, we've seen a lot of new faces in the old chat tonight. And so do want to get to say hello to you. And thanks for being here. Octane Booster says, James, do you only do Super Chat questions and debate Q&A? Now, I don't know if you were here, but we read several questions that were just standard questions tonight. So in other words, no, we don't only read Super Chats. Now, what do you think? I feel like I'm teaching a class. What? Well, like, what do you think would be a context in which we may not get to read all standard questions? Well, sometimes if the debate runs to be like three hours and it's Super Chats just keep coming, like we don't always have time to read standard questions. And it's just that we have to respect the time of the debaters. And so, but yeah, usually if we have time, we'll usually read at least a few of the standard questions. Tonight, we read all of them. We didn't have a lot of questions tonight, but let's see. The Master Qua- Oh, he said hi. Glad. Cam, glad you were here. And Mr. Anderson, good to see you. Tape deck, glad you made it. Brandy Beckett, thanks for coming by. And let's see here, which has moved fast on me. Oh, you're right. Brooke, sorry I'm behind. Twitch chat pumped to be with you. Thanks for coming by as well as Dave Langer, good to see you. Brooke Sparrow, thanks for coming by. Sephiron and Ms. Metal and poor Lucy as well as Sephiron, let's see Dave Langer. Move 37, good to see you. Ms. Metal, good to see you. And let's see here. Poor Lucy, Dave Langer, Brooke Sparrow, Tapatsul, the regulars. Thanks for being here, gang, in the old Twitch chat. And that's right. I forgot to mention. So, that's right. Ms. Metal, I couldn't agree more. And yeah, let me, I forgot. Let me link the old Twitch chat in the YouTube chat. Folks, if you didn't know this, we actually do have an account on Twitch. And so our Twitch right there, Tigera Hitman, thanks for your kind words. So the channel is growing rapidly. I think you were right. It is encouraging that this channel has really been growing and we are really thankful for that. Folks, thank you so much just for hanging out here. It really does make it like a melting pot. Like just different people from all walks of life. We hope you feel welcome. And so thank you just for partying with us. It's always fun. And WhizBang says, I'll donate a thousand if you shave your head when you moderate the next debate. I swear. Okay, I might actually do that for real WhizBang. I'm dead serious. Like if you're serious about it though, because it's like I do appreciate my hair. And so I really uh I have a kind of like oh geez do I really have to shave my head so that that happens? If you're serious, I'm like yeah, I'd probably actually do that. But if you're like nah, this is like joking and then you shave your head and you're an idiot, then I'd be like oh gosh like. So let me know how serious you are though. But Vlad Teep's good to see you. And Rem relative Vam said first time. Oh well glad to know that Rem. We're glad you're here. And FishFrogDolphin good to see you again. Said what would Nick debate on? I don't know. I've uh let's see. I had a one or two emails with Nick. I don't know if it's going to be as easy as some people might think for Nick to come on. I think that he um but yeah I don't know if you're asking me or someone else. But Dave Langer, good to see you. Argon the sad. Thanks for coming by. And thank you. Old boy good to see you. Ball Diablo. Glad you're here. And Hannah Anderson. Thanks for your support of the channel in the chat. That seriously means a lot. Zach Frederick. Glad you are not or glad you are here. And E.N.J. Is it pronounce Bro New Bro Bro E.A. Bro Bra Bro Bro Neola. Am I saying it right? Let me know. Said hi James. So glad I'm finally able to catch one of the debates live. Well it's going on. Love from the Philippines. Wow. I am so glad you said hi. Thanks so much. We're glad you're watching from the Philippines. That's encouraging. Thanks for hanging out with us. That's cool. I'm trying to, closest I've been to the Philippines was Malaysia. So um quite far. So that that's cool though. Thanks for hanging out with us. And Taikira Hitman. Yeah but yeah. Thanks for your encouraging words Taikira. That does mean a lot. And we are excited though. Yeah it's it's just a cool. It's a fun thing. Like it's something I'm absolutely passionate about the future of this channel. We are determined folks. We are going to do big things at modern day debate. And so thank you so much for all of your support. Dave Langer's right. Says shortest non-rage quit debate. And it was so respectful. Arden was so great. Hope we can get. Let's see. Arden to debate here more often. Yeah that'd be fun. That sounds juicy. The door is always open. And Platinum thanks for your help. Not help. You run the show. You do everything. You and others with the discord. And so thank you for doing that. And I hope that it's fun. And because yeah I still haven't. I still haven't. What's the word I'm looking for. I still haven't learned discord. It's embarrassing. Forgive me guys. But Enig medical. Let's see. Thank you Resuad of course. Channel getting swole like Jack James. Thank you for your support. We are excited. It's it's like unbelievably cool and exciting that it is. People are enjoying it here. And we hope they do. And so Dave Langer says get the don't know the donation first. Then shave your your head. My boy whiz bang was teasing me. I almost pulled out the like shaver. And started shaving it right now. But yeah thank you old boy for asking. It says how are your studies doing. They're doing well. I'm so glad. That we are folks. I'm excited that this today is like my last. I've got to turn into paper in about 10 minutes. I'm so pumped. That this is my last semester of classes. So that's really encouraging. And so we're we're really just yeah I'm thrilled about that. And then Mac Caran. Thanks for being with us. So it's sticking feathers up your butt. Doesn't make you a chicken. Next up Tim a thanks for being here as well. But yeah Mac Caran we're glad you're here. We hope you're doing well. And hello hello Baluba says yeah bring Arden back. And I agree Arden was a lot of fun. That was it was an awesome debate. And Platinum says no worries. Ha ha when things calm down for us. Both we can schedule some time. And I'll run you through it if you want. Thank you for being willing. I need a little rest time now that the session is over. Time now that the semester is pretty much done. But I may reach out to you throughout the summer. Like maybe this month but I'm honestly pretty. I'm honestly pretty exhausted after this semester. It was insane. Harry White thanks for being with us. So James what are you getting your PhD in. Thanks for asking Harry. Basically I'm working on my PhD in industrial organizational psychology. And I'm so glad I'm not all but dissertation. But I'm not far away. I've got basically the comprehensive exam and then a big dissertation project. So basically I've just finished up three intense years of classwork and teaching. I'll still do some teaching but it's not going to be as intense as what I've done. I've got to catch up on some research stuff. But yeah so that's your answer Harry. And thanks for coming by Harry. We're glad you're here. Dirk at work says what. Let's see. We're glad you're here Dirk at work. And peace and chaos program. Thanks for coming by. I says what's up James. Good and respectful debate tonight. I still haven't figured out discord either. That makes me feel better. Thank you for saying that. And I agree tonight was a great debate. It was respectful and it was fun. And let's see here. Thanks and Hacks says good work James. Thank you for your kind words. That seriously means a lot. And I appreciate your positivity. As well as I'm trying to think of something you guys. I'm trying to think of like a plan. A way of doing something. I got to think about it. I've got to really got to think about it. I got to mull it over. But long story short. Amazing. Something from nothing says. Glad you're here. Something from nothing. Glad you made it. And is it pronounced amaretto? Let me know. We're glad you're here. As well as the Spart 344. Thanks for coming by. We're glad you made it. And ball. That's right. Is it pronounced ball diablo? Let me know. But yeah, folks, let me know. Can you guys give me some information? I am open and teachable. And I want to ask you what are things? Are there any perks that we could offer through the Indiegogo the crowdfund campaign? Thank you so much to those two new people that gave to the crowdfund as we are pumped. We have jumped up to 481. So thank you so much for your support. And so yeah, pumped for that. And is there a way? Are there any perks we could offer, folks? Like I'm very serious right now that I want your feedback so we can offer quality perks where people are like, hey, that's a cool perk. Like I'll give to the crowdfund for that reason. Let me know. I'm listening like right now. I mean, let me know. Like I'm not saying like email me. I'm saying like right now I am listening and want to know. And so I just you can see on the far right of your screen the meter, the fundraising meter is updated. And so pumped for that. Dave Lerner says, how much would it cost for you to shave one eyebrow? That might be a little bit more. But thanks Dominic Rabin says, thanks James. I always listen to y'all during work. Hi from Taiwan. Thank you so much. Dominic Rabin, that seriously means a lot. And I'm pumped you're from Taiwan and you're listening to modern day debate. That is super encouraging. So really do appreciate it. We are excited, folks, is that want to let you know, folks, if you haven't yet, folks, we're on podcast. Did you know that for real? Folks, pull out your phone right now. And if you have not already found modern day debate on your favorite podcast app, pull up your favorite podcast app. Whether you're listening via Twitch or via YouTube, pull out your favorite podcast app and look us up and subscribe. Because we are excited, folks, is that a lot of people, I'm really happy that people have said, hey, we're actually enjoying that sweet little podcast. And I'm like, that's super encouraging. Like the people are finding it useful and the downloads are growing. So that's encouraging. And so I've had people say, hey, when I'm listening to it, like I'm maybe at work, I'm cleaning the house, I am, you name it. People are just saying all sorts of things that they'll do. They're working out and they're like, I listen to modern day debate and it's just nice because it's long form content. You don't have to change it up. And so, highly encourage you, folks. Anthony Gillis says, have you considered having Jay Dyer on to defend Orthodox Christianity? Oh yeah, I'm open to that. I think a long time ago, I can't remember how long ago it was. I emailed Jay. I can't remember. I honestly don't remember if I got a response or not. I know it wasn't anything like I never, I can't remember. I honestly don't know. But I have that reached out to Jay before. And Invisible Ninja, thanks for your support of the kicks, the crowd fund said, I'm in for $12 Indiegogo link for upcoming debate. Thank you so much. I really do appreciate that Invisible Ninja. Thanks for your support. That means a lot. And oh, yeah, folks, want to let you know, well, hold on, let me read this really quick. There's a couple of ideas. I see you guys firing them into the old chat. And I appreciate that. Want to let you know that if you are a Patreon member, we appreciate it so much. I forgot, we now, so this debate is different. We used to, and we've got to reform our Patreon. So if you're part of our Patreon, hang in there. We're going to fix it because I know that some people, they signed up for the $2, like the lower level of Patreon tier. And they're like, man, I signed up for that because I thought I'd get free access to these events. And now they're just free to the public. And so we're trying to figure out a replacement reward for the Patreon, the lowest Patreon tier. And so this one will be public. And so we are looking, we're trying to figure out a replacement tier. So thanks for your patience on that. And I'm used to saying also, like, but anyway, let me read through some of these. Bail, okay, thanks for letting me know that. Bail Diablo says, I pronounce it like Bail. Thank you for letting me know that. Dave Langer said, we got that. But yeah, let's see. That's funny. Spart says, James Coon's calendar fireman style as a perk. Guys, oh man, you wouldn't want that. Nobody would go for it then. That's funny. Jacob Churian says, psychoanalyzing the mind of God. Actually, I'm in like, you could think of it as work psychology. That's basically like my type of psychology. But yeah, thank you so much for your ideas, folks, in terms of, I saw someone said, I think it was like, oh, you're right, exclusive merch. I never thought about that. And Hax says, maybe a tier for people to have a meet and greet via Zoom with the debaters before the debate starts. I agree. And Hax, that's an offer, that's there now. So we're pumped about that. We do offer it. And I want to let you know, I'm trying to think of like, yeah, additional stuff like that, like maybe a signed book or something. Maybe like both the speaker signed it or something. But yeah, let me think about that. L.R. says, limited edition t-shirts and merch would be awesome. That's a good idea. I got to think about that. T-shirts or merch, other types that would be cool that we could offer that we don't currently offer. So thanks for that feedback. T-shirts and merch are a hip. And something from nothing says, offer something from behind the curtain. That's right. The old curtain back here, you guys, this isn't a wall, it's a curtain. Do you know that? All right. But yeah, let's see. T-jump says, James would shave it for free Wi-Fi from iHop for a week. That's true. I'm very big on free Wi-Fi. I do, I'm a major patron. Brooke Chavez says, do you give all the perks below the level pledged as well? Or is it just the one you donate to? You get all of, you get that perk plus all the ones below it. So yeah, pretty epic stuff. I mean like pretty cool. And I've got to probably emphasize, I've got to go through the Indiegogo and like write that out so that it's as clear as day because I don't think it is because I was rushed the other day. I was like, what was it, Wednesday? Oh my gosh, you guys, this is a rough week. It was honestly really intense. I am so thankful that next week, in fact starting tomorrow, my schedule slows down immensely. So I'm really pumped about that because right this week has been just, oh, it's been intense. So I'm glad. But yeah, so you get that everything, you get the whatever's offered at that tier plus everything below it. So Zach Fredericks says, James, I keep telling you, you need to get people on here debating the Mandela effect. I'm telling you, there's a lot of people who debate it. Just search on YouTube. There's a bunch of people who will debate. I'm open to it. It's just that I don't, it's like, I don't know if the audience would go for it. I could be wrong. I just don't know if they dig it. And Hax says, maybe a tier for people to, oh yeah, I've got that one. And then I'm catching up with you chat. The socialist Quaker, glad you came by. We hope you were feeling welcome. We hope you know, we're glad you're here. So pumped to have you. And I'm just basically, the debate was super short tonight. So I'm just partying in the live chat saying hello to people and trying to get feedback, all that. Norman Bates, good to see you. And also Resilat of Gore says, would a few comedy debates in which you or the debaters have to eat a Carolina Reaper or a spoonful of cinnamon powder during the debate be a juicy idea? Maybe. I mean, I'll maybe make Tom do it. I'm open to it if I make Tom do it. But Tokyo Lloyd, good to see you. Thanks for coming by. And is there anybody new in the chat? Let's see. Norman Bates says, James makes over 100,000 a year. That's funny, I wish. That's funny. Where'd you pull that stat from or that number? Let's see. It's funny. There's a website where I can look up my professor's income. Did you guys? You guys probably know that like so public workers. I'm wondering you might be able to find, I don't know if you can find me because I think I'm like technically an employee, but I'm like a halfway, I'm like a half breed where I'm not a professor. I'm an instructor so I can teach classes. But I think that because I'm a graduate student teaching, it's like I'm not quite employed. If you guys can find my real income online, let me know. It's probably, it's embarrassing. So I don't know if I want you to see it, but it's temporary. Once I finish this PhD, that is, that's going to be awesome. So that's, I'm excited that I won't be on the graduate student like budget anymore. But Norman Bates says, my mother thinks James is sexy. Thank you, Norman. And tell your mom, I appreciate that. That means a lot more than you know. And let's see. Darth Revan, good to see you. Where is, any other ideas though? Thank you, Norman Bates for your kind words that we love you, James Grachel. Thank you, seriously, appreciate your positivity. And any other ideas though in terms of like how could we make the crowdfund more attractive to you? So I am excited though, folks. It is cool that it's growing. And I'm like even tonight, I'm excited that there are two new people that joined into the crowdfund. And we believe it. We're going to make it, folks. We are absolutely going to fulfill this goal of raising all of the funds for the speakers. It's going to happen. And the debate is going to be epic. And so like it's hard to emphasize just how pumped I am about it. We've got stuff, you could say tricks up our sleeve in terms of both, I'm open to adding up new perks. If people are like, man, that's a great idea. I love that. Also though, I do no joke, plan on doing a 12 hour stream this month. And so we're going to have like five debates in a row. And then there will be like a little kind of like intermission times in between where I'll just be, I don't know, playing a game or something. And it, believe me, it's going to be epic. So let's see. And actually, I think you're right. Yeah, it's, I'm, yeah. But yeah, I got that. And Platinum says it's more like an internship, right? I don't know. I mean, I guess like really loosely speaking, like I'm, it's like a, a grad assistantship. So it's, yeah, it's like, I'm not, I get a W too, but I'm still like not quite a full fledged employee. Cause I looked, when I looked up my professors salaries, they know that we do that sometimes. Like, I don't know, I haven't told them, but when I looked up my professors as like, could you see my like what I made? And it was like, no, it was like weird surprise that I wasn't on there. But yeah, sorry. Like I said, it's nothing worth writing home about. Zach Frederick says, well, we could find out right now, James. I bet there's a lot of people in the chat that want to see that debate. Which debate? Oh, the, the, that's right. Maybe, I don't know. Eximusic, good to see you. We're glad you're here. Oh, it's not easy to find people with a Mandela effect. Especially like, is it, do you know if there's like someone with a big following? Cause I gotta be honest, a lot of you guys don't know, man, modern debate is not as easy as it used to be for a couple of reasons. One, there, don't get me wrong. I'm thankful. But I want to get, I'll give you guys some of the inside scoop of like what happens. One, I see the stats in the creator studio and some debates actually lose us subscribers. It's rare. We've started, like I figured out like, okay, where people will say, hey James, do you want to host this debate? And I'm like, ah, it's like, oh, like I'm like thinking, and I'm like, I think this debate is going to make us lose subscribers overall. But you know, I have to know for sure. So we, we do the debate. And then I'm like, yep, it lost the subs. And that's pretty rare. We're getting pretty good at like predicting like, are we going to grow as the audience going to actually enjoy the show? Or are people going to say, I didn't enjoy that show. I'm unsubbing. And so that's one thing is that I've got to be pretty picky about topics. But that's like where modern debate has become more challenging is it's just not because, you know, we've got a lot of people we're trying to please. I don't know. But thank you, Norm Bates, for your kind words. And also thank you, Oscar Stenberg. Thanks for your kind words. Love, modern day debate. I listen to it all the time. Love from Sweden. That's super encouraging, Oscar. Seriously, we really hope you're doing well. We hope I've never been to Sweden, but I think I would love it. It looks beautiful for real. I would love to get to see Sweden. And so I've been to Europe before, but Sweden, I still have to see. I would love it. And let's see. Let me try to catch up with chat. Thank you for your kind words, Tuss. And thank you for your encouragement, Norm and Bates. Seriously, that means a lot. Thank you. That's right. Tuss, you're in Sweden too. And Fox Sushi. Good to see you again. And Oscar, that's a good idea. More debates about Islam. I agree. That is a good, that's a fun topic. And I did. I'm excited. I'll probably email him tonight. I, a gentleman who identifies as Islam or Muslim recently contacted me maybe Monday or Tuesday. He's like, hey, I'd be happy to come on. I was like, that'd be great. So that's pretty cool. Norm Bates says, James said his age is 34. That's right. I am 34. And it's amazing how time flies. And everybody older than me says it's just going to keep getting faster. L. Wands says, James is a gamer. Poggers, James is a gamer. I actually do. No joke. I do hang out on Steam in my study breaks. Because man, it's like I used to do a poor job of taking breaks. And I would just go for like, I don't know, I mean like two or three hours doing like really hard work. And like, I'd maybe take like a break here and there. But it was like, I go get up and I fill my water bottle and then I go to the bathroom or something. But now I'm like, okay, well, I'll take like 10 minutes, you know, 10 minutes per hour, let's say. And I get on Steam and I play old school Star Wars games. So like, Shadows of the Empire, back from Nintendo 64. Episode one, Pod Racer, that was on 64, I think too. And so yeah, they just had a sale on Steam. And so if you like Star Wars games on Steam, we are just two P's in a pod. Because yeah, I actually do, you could say I game a little bit now, just with old school vintage games. So I don't know if I'm the, when you say gamer, I don't know if I'm the kind of gamer you usually think of. Dave Langer says, James plays Dark Souls 3. Oh, I see, that's where that came from. I don't know what Dark Souls 3 is. That's how old I am, Dave Langer. By the way, huge thanks to Dave Langer and to Potsall and others for all their support of our Twitch stream. Oh, I keep forgetting to put that in the actual chat here. Sorry about that. And Hax says, I'll have a think, James. Hopefully come up with something you aren't already offering this time. Thank you for letting me know. And no, that's totally cool. Like, the fact that you said that is encouraging to me because I'm like, oh, so that's good that it is something that people would actually like appreciate is getting to do a meet and greet with the debaters. So that's cool. And Simone Joyce said, do you mind sharing with us some of the debate topics that tend to lose subscribers? Interestingly, the more narrow a topic, the more subscribers we lose. And I think the reason is this. Now here's the thing. There's like this balance of factors. So sometimes I tell people who are new, they email me. They're like, James, can I come on and debate? I want to debate. And I tell them, you know, it's like, well, there's like different factors that play out. I'm only going to do a narrow topic, but I usually say, hey, is there anybody like a big name debater that would want to do it because that helps us get more exposure? If we have Destiny on or Wash or whoever it is, more people hear about us that hadn't heard of us before because they have big followings that love watching them debate. And that's cool. So we're open. It's like, well, depending on who it is, we'll do a narrow topic. So for example, a narrow topic though would be like trying to think of somebody recently. It's not too narrow. What is it? Somebody just asked me if I would host a debate on. Well, if it let's say it's on in the context of religion, if it's too narrow, like it's like, hey, let's do a debate on, you know, if it was like something, here's an obvious example. This is like, well, did the, in Mark, if I remember right, it's Mark chapter nine. Is it Mark chapter nine? It's got to be Mark 16 or 17. I can't remember. What was the, man, my memory must be bad because I used to know this stuff like the back of my hand. What is the controversial chapter in Mark where what's the final chapter of Mark? You know, there are those final chapter of Mark. You know, though, Mark 16. Okay. So you know, at the end of Mark 16, there's debate on whether or not the angel makes the announcement, whether or not the portion of Mark 16 where the angel says that, you know, Jesus is resurrected. There's debate about whether or not that was in the original manuscripts. People like to debate about that. It's not a great topic for modern day debate. It wouldn't, I wouldn't do it unless it was like Bargherman because it's just too narrow. History debates don't do very well. They usually, almost anything history unless it has to, unless it is imbued with this religious significance. So for example, like did Jesus rise from the dead? Like in the year, you know, like roughly 30 AD is some people are like, okay, yeah, like people show up for that, but that's because it's imbued with this, like religious, you know, like Christian and atheists feel like there's something on the line, right? So narrow topics, history topics don't do well. Frankly, one-on-ones with, I'm not trying to be mean, but one-on-one debates with new people don't usually do well. And that's, you know, if they're new, I mean, if they don't have a lot of experience, it's probably that the audience maybe just doesn't find them as engaging. I don't know, but that's why, but yeah, so anyway, thank you, Norm Bates, for your kind words. And then thanks Travis Pratt for saying, you can't please everyone, just do what you think is right. I appreciate that. And Frishfuck Dolphins says, James, you should do more philosophy debates, mind, body, problem, free will, et cetera. Those are topics that will not do well. Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's true, philosophy, just straight up philosophy that's not imbued with some sort of religious significance. As I'm telling you, just not a lot of people are gonna show up. And so the audience is like, like, hey, we want stuff. That is, we're gonna show up for, that's fun. And those, they just don't do it like they used to. You're right, Hannah Anderson is right, that I don't think the topic is as important as the actual debaters. Yeah, that's probably a heavier factor. You could say it's like a stronger predictor. That's true. Amaretto says, wait until you have kids. Yeah, I believe it. You mean like in terms of time seeming like it's speeding up? I'm kind of afraid for that. Yeah, I'm watching the movie, Click. Have you guys ever seen the movie, Click? Where it's like, he's kind of like wanting to skip through periods of life. And it's all about, yeah. You know, he is kind of like a Scrooge story. He kind of like learns the roux of his ways. But let's see. It's part three, four, four. Says, Apostate Prophet would be good for that Islam debate. Yes, he would. And we are setting up a debate with Apostate Prophet and Dr. Michael Brown for June. And then we're hoping to set up one with him. And possibly, this is like a long shot, maybe Shabir Ali in June. So that's not confirmed. Frankly, I think it's going to be hard to get. Old boy says, if you ever tried to get Muhammad Hajab, that would be peak content. I agree. I have asked him and he's actually pretty like, pretty selective in terms of what he says yes to. So I'm honestly probably not going to ask him as much just because it's like, gee, it seems like everything I ask him, he's like, I want it to be this way. And I'm like, oh, I can't really do that. Like he wants me to fly Matt Dillahunty and myself to Europe to do a debate with Matt Dillahunty in person. And I'm like, well, I don't know. I don't know if Matt's going to go for that. Like Matt's probably a busy guy. So I'm kind of like, he's selective about like what he wants. And I'm like, maybe I'll ask him again. DC Blunt says, can we have a debate that is T-jump versus T-jump? Maybe have two cameras on opposite sides of his face. That's funny, I like that. It also said, oh, thanks for your super chat. Sigma N. He says, I may have missed the debate, but I can super chat. Thank you for doing that. We do appreciate that support. Good to see you, Sigma N. And let's see, where was I in the old chat? It's been moving. Did I lose my spot? Oh yeah, Knights of the Old Republic. DC Blunt, you're right. I am, I've been told that Knights of the Old Republic is like one of the best games. That I can get. And I bought it. I just haven't started it yet. I bought it. I always buy them on sale. I've got Battlefront 2 as well. The old Jedi games. Yeah, I definitely want to play those. I haven't yet. And I've heard that their long, which is cool, because some games are so short. May 4th, what is it? May the 4th be with you. This last week they had like awesome deals. I got Shadows of the Empire for two dollars. And that, I'm like, that is awesome. Like, Spartan 344 says, maybe that could be a perk, a massive multiplayer session for a Star Wars game. That would be cool. I wish I knew how to do it. But T-Jump says, have you seen Nightbot? It posts links automatically in the chat every 20 minutes. I will probably set that up this summer, Tom, for real. And for real, the reason I'm laughing is because Resort of Gore says two betas and a pod racer. I don't know what that means, but doesn't sound good. But yeah, T-Jump, for real, I probably will do that because I do want it to both link the speakers. And then also, I want it to link other stuff too. Maybe, oh, maybe the fundraiser. And Platinum says, I was hoping to create a platform for informal debates for smaller beginners on the modern day debate discourse. Thank you for doing that. I think it's a great way for people to get training, and you could say like dark shows. Like in WWE, if you're doing a show that's not on TV, I think they used to call them dark shows. I can't remember. But some people get so triggered, by the way, that I sometimes compare the model, the debate model, to pro wrestling. Obviously nothing's fixed here, but I don't even think that's what bothers them. They're not worried about it being fixed because they know it's like, well, like who would fix the debate? It'd just be dumb. But instead, I think that some people, they like, look, I want my debate to be perceived as civilized and professional and boring. And I'm like, okay. But Dave Langer says, what about a debate about Austin 316? That's funny and would be epic, no doubt about it. You know me, I am. Back in the attitude era, back when things were good, I was a huge fan. Thanks for your kind words, Norman Bates. Full of good things to say tonight. And then, oh, Twitch chat. Sorry I'm late. Oh gosh, I'm so sorry, folks. I'm like really behind on Twitch. Thank you, ASEAN, for your gift subscriptions in Twitch. Seriously, that really does mean a lot. So that's, Twitch, you've gifted a total of 53 subs to the channel. So ASEAN, thank you for doing that. Seriously, that is really encouraging. We do appreciate that. And let's see, Dave Langer says, ASEAN is gifting five-tier subs to modern database community. They've gifted a total of 53. That is, thank you so much, ASEAN, seriously. Appreciate that support. It means a lot. And Sigma N, he says, I may have missed the debate. Oh, that's right, I saw that. Thank you, Sigma, for your super chat. And Amaretto says, yes, in terms of time speeding up. My kiddo is six, and I feel like I was yesterday. I left the hospital with them. That's, yeah, I'm kind of frightened by that. Just the idea of time accelerating even faster, because I'm like, man, it's already moving fast. Outside the queue, thanks for coming by. Says, is there an after-show anywhere? John Maddox, I think, is hosting one. And then I'll be going on here for like, I don't know. Yeah, tonight's debate was exceedingly short. I'll be here for a little while yet. I kind of enjoy this, so it's hard to leave. So I'll be here for a while. Talbot2 says, T-Jump versus T-Jump on April 1st would be awesome. That's true. I will dress as T-Jump. And then I will be T-Jump as we debate each other. It could be so cool. And Hannah Anderson says, T-Jump on our day debate. You can link the fundraiser. That's a good point. Yeah, we do need to do that. You can do that with the nightbot, too. That's a good idea. And so PorexShark says, why does it cost $3,500 to have those guys on? So if you check out the link in the description, there is a graph that shows where all the funds are going, in particular. One is honorariums is by far the biggest chunk. So gifting the speakers this honorarium for their coming on, basically for their preparation and all that stuff. And so thanks PorexShark says, don't people come on here for free and the funds raised are used for various charities? Well, we do charity streams as you've seen in the past and not everybody does come on for free. And one lets you know, we do plan on doing more charity streams. But at the same time, I would suggest one is, I think a lot of people are like, well, people should come on and debate for me for free. I want the free entertainment. And it's like, okay, if anybody has that type of attitude, I'm like, uh, let's, I'm not going to even say what I think it sounds like. But what I will say is this, is that we do want to give the speakers, you could say a worker is worth their due. And so we do want to compensate them. So both Dr. Rhodes as well as Matt Delhenty, we do want to compensate. And then if you look at the Indiegogo, the graph that we have there on the main page, is that in addition, honorarium is being the biggest chunk. We also do want to make this event huge. And so we are running ads on YouTube to help, you could say spread it, kind of give exposure to this event to make it epic, as well as we build in the fees that, uh, not Kickstarter. I'm in the old habit of saying Kickstarter. We build in the fees that Indiegogo has. And what's the word I'm looking for? Taxes as well. Because yeah, so long story short, that's where those are the different like sources. And then Dr. Gildo, thanks for coming by. Says, how long was the debate? Yeah, it was super short. And so Spicy Rhodes, good to see you again. And so yeah, we are pumped though, as we are excited about it, and want to let you know, Spark344 says, who's your favorite wrestler during the attitude era? It was definitely Stone Cold, but it was the rock after a while. And Platinum says, but you need a chair like T-Jump though. Yeah, that's true. But thank you, Spazier Rises. I always suspected James like pro wrestling. You're right about that, I do. And dark matches, that's so, yeah, baby faces and heels, so true. That's right, all of Tom's debates are fixed. And Hannah Anderson says, oh, that's right, we got it. But yeah, want to let you know though, we are, oh, that's right, you guys, I seriously keep forgetting to link the Twitch. I'm going to do it right now. So if you haven't already, you guys, I highly encourage you to check out our Twitch as we are excited about that. And we suspect you'll find it useful. And so I just linked that in the chat. And so if you have a Twitch account like, hey, it's a great opportunity, you can jump on over there. I have now pinned that Twitch link for modern day debate to the top of the chat. And so you can click on that, and then you can follow us on Twitch as we stream there every stream. And Dave Langer says, if you try to set up Fight the Flat Earth versus Flat Earth Day, I think I did. I haven't heard back from Fight the Flat Earth. I don't know about, I don't know. I mean, Flat Earth Day is a nice, you know, he's been kind to me. He's like, you know, he's nice to me. But I don't know. We'll see. Reswater Gors is Jim Cornette would be hilarious in debate. He's a heat magnet. That's true. Jim Cornette. Trying to think of Jim Cornette. Yeah, the corny drive-through. Yeah, he is opinionated. Ozzie, and good to see you there in the old YouTube chat as well. And so, yeah, I will end with this though is we are excited about this though. And so you guys, I have to mention this, I am pumped is we, no joke, this summer. And this, of course, again, this kind of depends on if this event goes well, namely, is if the, oh, you know what I should do? Basic screen share. I'm going to do a window capture. And then I'm going to do chrome. Okay, so you are seeing on your screen, I've got to make it smaller. You're seeing on your screen, the Kickstarter, which we are pumped about you guys. And so, we are determined, we are going to make it. And want to let you know, yes, as mentioned, this is something that we are hoping, is that if this goes well, I'm not joking. We really do want to host a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Vosh. But we're kind of trying to, you could say learn, kind of learn the ropes of kind of crowdfunding. And that's why we're kind of having these smaller ones. And then we're going to, if this one goes well, we're willing like, we want to basically do a crowdfund at the end of the summer. Probably we're going to boost the goal to, it would be higher. So it'd be probably like five grand in order to host Dinesh D'Souza and Vosh. So again, that depends on these going well. And so we do appreciate your guys' support. If you would like to support this crowdfund, if you haven't already, we absolutely do appreciate you doing that. And I'm going to link that in the description folks. And so that way it is convenient, but, or it's already linked in the description. And I'm going to throw it into the live chat right now. And so let me find that two seconds. There it is. Okay. Thanks for your patience. Very embarrassing. I'm going to throw though the, yeah, Platium, I listen, I love you. But I've got to let you know, like this has been like one of the, I have put the, that Indiegogo fundraiser is now linked at the top of the chat. And so we do want to encourage you guys, if you have not already, please do join us in supporting that. Think about it this way. If only, if everybody who is watching right now, we have about 184 people. Oh wow, we only have 95 likes. Hit that like button if you haven't already either. That supports the channel. We do appreciate that. If 187 people that are watching right now, were to give just the smallest amount, $3 to help make this event happen, that would be a significant portion of the goal already covered that meter would jump up to. I don't know, my math isn't good right now, but basically it'd be at around 33% or so. So we really do appreciate all of your support. And so thank you guys for all of your support and love. Thanks for being with us. Thanks for hanging out here. And Tanjil, right? Thanks for coming by. We're glad you're here. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable folks. Take care and have a great rest of your night.