Well, howdy there internet people, it's fell again.

So today we're going to talk about Vance, diversity of tactics, and being boring.

We'll start with a message from one of you. It says, longtime viewer

subscriber, first-time emailer. In your recent video, let's talk about last night's

debate between walls and Vance.

You recited the viewers comments that they thought the debate was too boring.

You said it's supposed to be boring, not a cage match, and that debates being so dramatic was an artifact of the Trump era.

The thing is, I didn't want this debate to be a cordial conversation between two adults about policy differences.

In my eyes, that lends legitimacy to the fascist and allows them to launder their positions

into the mainstream.

The way debates about climate change legitimize climate denial,

which seems relevant given that this exact thing happened on stage before Vance dodged the question.

I wanted it to be a cage match that Vance lost very obviously and publicly in a way that

would make even the most disengaged voter avoid voting for him.

Or one, that at least forced him to articulate his awful positions for all to see.

I don't long for drama because I want it to be reality TV.

I long for an appropriate reaction to the radical nature of Vance's beliefs.

Do you think this would have been worse

than the boring normal debate model we got instead?

And if so, can you explain why? Feel free free to shorten sanitize this is needed for the short form video format

you're doing an awesome job maintaining continuity with the channel from where bow left it. And even though not all the new

segments are really my cup of tea, I love how much experimentation y'all are

...