Atheist Debates - I walked out of another debate....
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- At DebateCon 4, by Modern Day Debates, I was paired up with Andrew Wilson, an individual that I didn't know at all. He had agreed to defend a Biblical Christian worldview as superior to Secular Humanism for society.
He lied.
He was there to get some schock-jock sensationalized footage of him going after me on gender and trans issues. He conceded my world view, didn't present anything about the Bible or Christianity, didn't address the secular humanism presented and specifically spewed a parade of "Matt thinks this, let's see if he can defend it", interspersed with mockery and name-calling of trans folks.
The debate was the final straw of folks showing up to get attention from my name instead of defending the beliefs they agreed to defend.
You actually said while storming out: “I’m not gonna debate someone who is rude and smug”. This be is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.
@@sadqqwwqeq4175What radical views?Atheists generally share Matt's views and positions and the medical science he stated about trans people is literally the general consensus of the corresponding medical fields that treat it. I think it's bizarre but I'm not a biologist, sociologist, anthropologist, or psychologist.
@sadqqwwqeq4175 you are one disturbing individual
@@brocKain The thing is, and I mostly support Dillahunty, that's not the science of it, which is why people like Dawkins object.
@@brocKain I don't think that is true at all. I'm an atheist and I don't believe that "trans-women are women" - most of my friends who are atheist don't believe it either. To me it seems like a faith claim.
@cyrusp100 then you should go learn, because you're wrong.
"I took another L" should be the title. 😆🤣
@@patula3499 Exactly
Sure mate, this guy didn't have enough integrity to talk about what he agreed to talk about.
You can call that an L if you want to, if someone shows up with a baseball glove to a basketball game and the basketball players leave... in your world they lost, somehow.
@@StormcastMarine Lol thats a cope 😂😂😂😂😂
Okay, person that doesn't have a clue
@@QuietWind01 just escort baldy out because he just rage quit because he cant debate andrew 😂😂😂 I have more respect to Destiny than someone who runs because he cant defend his beliefs 😂😂😂😂 try again kiddo
Completely got destroyed and raged quit like a coward
I am sorry. Its a debate. Which is a better foundation Christianity or secular humanism. Matt's position is the view of secular humanism. So Andrew saying well Matt has to address this or Matt says this, it's just attacking Matt's position of secular humanism. That is just part of debating. If you don't like people attacking your viewpoint then you shouldn't be debating.
He started with misrepresenting Matt followiwed with dishonesty and proceed with bigotry. He wasn’t there to debate what was agreed and all of you know it. Dishonest takes like yours take alway your argument.
Why so much bad faith and dishonest with you people? What are you afraid of? No defense on your part that you have to resort in lying and insults?
@@Puyax01 the level of projection goes hard nearly every comment i read, boy you dont know what you even talking about, just air and no argument to be found. That secular humanism can be everything what you want it to be is the topic at hand and if you dont understand even what the topic entails then just shut up and dont comment just because your cult leader said some incoherent bs you like, you guys are irrational and cant go with actual arguments, you just paraphrasing your feelings and we definately dont need more of this in debate culture, thanks
@@Puyax01debates on MDD are often messy arguments featuring uneducated people that don’t have any debate credentials. Matt agreed to go on knowing the track record of this platform. MDD is not for the easily offended because you can guarantee there will be ad hom attacks, misinformation, bigotry, or incorrect argument structure.
I definitely don’t agree with his crazy bigoted opponent, but Matt still shouldn’t have walked out. We need strong atheists to stand up to crazy ideologies within public debate forums. Unfortunately Matt just isn’t suited to do that anymore.
@@Puyax01are you saying the original comment was dishonest ? How can it be dishonest if it is just his opinion 😵💫
@@Puyax01 All ethics related to trans issues stem from Matts secular humanism, if he actually is one. If he's unable to defend them, it's on him. Matt did start the debate by attacking politicians who were against "LGB and whatever goes after that" so it's reasonable to expect of Matt to be able to defend why is that actually good. All of you defending Matt are now the same as religious people defending a theist leaving the debate because the atheist offended their faith - which Matt did millions of times. So Matt doesn't have nearly as strong of backbone as theists do. Noted.
Rich for you accusing someone of being smug and walking out when you're one of the smuggest cunts on youtube
Thanks for the engagement
@@SansDeity The truth stings sometimes, bud.
@@Schmeadeablewhat truth ? The guy conceded the debate , believing in a bronze age fairytale is better than us humans coming together and figure out what's best for us ?
@@AneurysmXXiron age*
But that's your own personal opinion that Christianity is a "bronze age fairytale" @@AneurysmXX
“I walked out of another debate which mean me big brain win argument.”
Aww, look, another person who can't tell the truth and doesn't understand.
@@RedShiftGalaxy lol he means YOU didnt tell the truth. He literally said you lied in your comment like the coward you are. Then you reply with proof you dont have the mental capacity to even understand what is said to you.
Also nobody is dumb enough to think Matt couldnt provide objective evidence of what is “true” in the subject you weaklings try and challenge.
@@SansDeity Truth? That's rich coming from a lol-cow.
@@RedShiftGalaxySo you didn't see the debate in question, but have a very firm opinion on it. Fun stuff.
@@Sometimeslifeiscrazy How could he have lost the debate when his opponent fucking conceded that Matt was right
I'm not even a theist but i consider this video as a Damage control.
@@jayrifel8920 then you're especially stupid
@@SansDeity I swear I saw you on a call in show suggest that we should applaud pedophiles who don't rape children
It's fair that Matt walked out of the debate. Not sure if Matt uses this analogy in the video, but the debate ended up being a chess match between Matt and a pigeon. It didn't matter how well or poorly Matt debated, Andrew was going to shit all over that debate and strut around like he won anyways.
Which is what he did. Andrew thought he won because he got his opponent to quit. Actually, the fact is, Andrew lost because it's his duty to act like a Christian and that is not how Christians should act. This isn't me as a non Christian trying to hold Christians to their own beliefs, but other Christians have said as much.
I disagree with Matt on other topics and have my qualms with the arguments that surround it. This could have been a good opportunity to see more of these conversations, but the fact is Andrew torpedoed the whole thing. Matt could have stayed, but there are better things to do than to entertain someone who was acting like Andrew did.
Edit: Furthermore, I think it was a mistake for anyone else in the audience to stay as well. Andrew was looking for attention and validation, and he got it.
@@der1222 I was commenting on the original posters comment, not matt's reply to it. Which is something I am allowed to do. Matt's comment is petty, but I don't see how that's relevant to what the video is about and the OP comment.
Are you suggesting that Matt wasn't justified in leaving the debate because 6 months later he called someone stupid in a TH-cam comment thread? Because that's what I'm talking about. Your point about giving back Matt's own medicine is exactly my point, that Andrew wasn't being a good Christian. I don't think he is a good Christian from the videos I've seen of him. He certainly knows how to memorize the bible and the apologetics that surround it, but that's not what a Christian is. Andrew lost because he could not hold a Christian ethic and allowed himself to stoop to Matt's level, which I can bet is something you would agree with. Matt didn't continue playing, so if that's a loss in your book that's cool.
If Matt acts like a complete child like Andrew did, then any caller or debate opponent has just as much of a justification as Matt did to stop the conversation and leave.
@@der1222 I was going to edit the other comment, but I think this deserves a comment of it's own.
Mathew 5:38-42
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
If Matt acts like a jackass, according to Jesus you don't act like a jackass back. Which Andrew failed to do. Matt isn't a Christian, he should act better than how he did in this comment thread, but he doesn't follow a religion like Andrew does that commands him to do so. That's why Andrew lost.
"A parade of mockery and ignorance that's rooted in bigotry", that's ironically how you treat 'Christians' on your show.
I agree except for the ignorance. Matt knows a lot about Christianity and the excuses people make for it. Mockery that borders on outright bigotry is pretty accurate though; that's one of the things that drives me crazy about Matt. He is so fast to just get FUMING angry and go off on someone which instantly removes any potential to actually have a meaningful conversation. Especially when someone asks him not to cuss and he triples down "I'll fucking cuss as fucking much as I fucking want to on my fucking show" or whatever, like come on. He's very knowledgeable and intelligent, but an absolute disgrace of a communicator.
@@huggniceman4975 Matt hardly knows anything about Christianity -hasn't even read the Church Fathers, doesn't know basic Church history, heck probably doesn't even know what the filioque is, probably doesn't know how many natures Christ has. Matt has a Protestant understanding of Christianity which is very limited. Matt doesn't know what a presupposition is or a transcendental argument. Matt hardly even knew what logical fallacies were till recently or relativism. Matt just wants to be his own little god and do whatever he wants.
We live strange times where the truth is seen as insult, hard to live in a world like this..
And that truth is?
@@deimoskaischylos simple biology of a man being a man not a woman
@@isaacmorales9973 exactly... How hard can it be to know this?
@@danielfreitas8432 Oh they know they're wrong and they hate it.
@@isaacmorales9973 It'd be hilarious to point out such an obvious strawman in a thread of people high-fiving each other over "the truth" if this lie wasn't used to justify bigotry and spread hatred. Genuinely, if you think going "but simple biology" is a good response, you don't have a clue what position you're arguing against. It's like turning up to a debate about abortion and your entire point is that the fetus is a human.
I'm gonna look past the "They just hate the truth" take in this thread and give a friendly suggestion; you don't appear to understand the topic. I'm not attacking you, not criticising you, just letting you know. Since this comment thread started by talking about The Truth, I'm sure you'd be amenable to me suggestion maybe reading up a little more on the subject. I can do my best to steelman positions I don't hold to see if I understand them. Try to work towards that if you can. Have a good one
Assigned male at birth, like it's just a guess and the testicles and penis aren't a dead giveaway
It sure is a long winded way of saying male.
This guy making himself look like he won a debate by not having it LOL
There wasnt a debate though. It was this guy presenting an argument and the other guy just babbled and attacked Matt personally. Lol imagine being such a toddler you try and convince yourself that Matt thinks he “won?” How did you watch this and come away with “hE tRyiN tO sAY He wOn.” This reeks of cope
@@ahh_yes_mr_bax "There wasnt a debate though"
That's literally what i just said to the comment you are replying to.
"the other guy just babbled and attacked Matt personally. "
that was after Matt called him a jackass.
How did you watch this and come away with “hE tRyiN tO sAY He wOn.”
because he made a video where he thinks hes right dumbass. come back when youre not stupid.
@@ahh_yes_mr_baxummm no it doesnt, and this video is clearly damage control. Youre just uoaet because dillahunty got triggered at andrews facts and got butthurt and left
agree
The “toddler” here is the clown 🤡 that can’t defend his positions and walks out of debates in addition to sycophant supporters like you who believe that EVERYTHING came from NOTHING and don’t have any logical arguments to support it.
It is very foolish not to do research on an opponent that you'll debate to understand their debate tactics. Had you done so, you would have been able to prepare for the debate
@@seznibrien8525 research wouldn't have changed anything... beyond refusing to book the debate with a liar who tries to change the topic.
Learn ethics. You don't get to hire me for one topic and switch it when I sit down.
@SansDeity Come on, the fact that he took God out of the equation and mentioned the cons of the LGBTQ in society?
You clearly got offended. You lost your "big sky daddy" argument. It wasn't about changing the topic. You brought up homosexuality first, expect to defend your arguments on anything related to homosexuality
@@SJBIII it doesn't work that way, you should know.
Matt’s all about logic… until it comes to biology… or history…
How is it not logical to accept transgender people's identities?
@@lilstevechan8427 Ironically it's the field of neurobiology which demonstrates that gender identity is a neurological phenomena which manifests in humans at around age 5, so it seems reactionaries are all about logic until it comes to biology.
@@lilstevechan8427because it’s a lie, which means it’s harmful.
@@junkaccount2535how is it a lie to say a trans person is a trans person?
@@lilstevechan8427 How is accepting 1+1=3 not logical?
You were wrong for leaving, and this entire comment section is pure cope.
There were a number of easy comebacks to Andrew's opening, and you just left instead of employing them.
He granted your entire worldview, which he thought was a slam dunk, but is actually quite the double edged sword. That should been a layup, and you ran instead.
Absolutely terrible look for you, no matter how you slice it.
Also, I am absolutely astounded by the lack of intellectual honesty by you and your defenders. You brought up LGBT issues in your opening, and then he (rather crassly) countered along the same topic.
There is no universe where what he said wasn't (topically speaking) fair game at that point, and it was your responsibility (you were the headliner ffs) to counter him.
Best and most honest comment yet.
Merry Christmas from Upstate South Carolina, USA
You got cooked by Andrew Wilson lol. Thanks for the laughs!
Did you consider making this response at the debate instead of from behind the protection of your computer screen? 👍
Nope. I don't debate liars who ignore their contractual obligations and mock trans suicide.
But thanks for failing to point out where I'm wrong and focusing, instead, on your fantasy concerns.
@@SansDeityyou have more excuses than a pregnant nun. And they all sound exactly like a 21 year old political science major from overland college. You speak in left wing narratives and buzz words. It’s incredibly pathetic.
@@SansDeity Still commenting on this video. Grow up and move on. For someone who is an atheist, you're very reliant on emotions.
@SansDeity you don't debate people when they come with arguments, instead you make video where you strawman so nobody can even respond to all misrepresentation. That is example of intellectual dishonesty.
@@stefanlicanin9485it’s strange that he goes after this commenter for not saying where he went wrong, but won’t address all the other one hundred commenters who point out precisely how he was wrong.
Saying man can be woman clearly align with science 😂😂😂
Nobody said that. 🤦♂️
@@JeffreyIsbell exactly... Nobody said that, only someone particular date him 😂😂😂
Any modern biology book is quick to describe the distinctions between sex and gender. Maybe you should read about it a little bit because it seems like you may be confusing the two.
@@B0Z0606 modern book that written by professor that can't define what woman is without being circular. Yeah, believe that shit 😂😂😂
@@obdios I'm just pointing out that you are wrong if you are implying that it doesn't apply to science when it does.Hope one day you understand the difference between sex and gender, it's not that hard
Just saw Andrew on the whatever podcast, seems Andrew is dong fine. Matt will struggle to find anything new but his call in show.
A podcast, you say? _Impressive!_
It's very easy for disgusting and terrible people to be very popular with tons of idiots. Just look at Donald Trump.
@@shassett79 the whatever podcast is one of the most culturally relevant podcasts to the west in the whole world. Unfortunately.
@TheMeefmaster I personally find that hard to believe but whatever.
Seems mostly like a hangout for terminally online incels and other bro-adjacent demos
@@shassett79it gets like 10x the views that Matt does.
Andrew destroyed you Matt. You should just admit it.
Hey, it’s the “Dilly Dodge” guy
Hey, it's another random comment with no substance, unable to prove me wrong.
“I’m unconvinced that I am wrong, therefore I win the debate! Haha owned!1!!1!1!”
@@SansDeity lol Matt you claim to have a wife..despite her penis...I remain unconvinced.
What a lame explanation for your walking out, you crumbled like a house of cards during that debate.
How stupid and dishonest you are. I'm the only one who didn't lie, who actually defended the agreed upon topic, who didn't pull some ambush... your understanding of debates and ethics are incredibly poor
@@SansDeity matt, i'd recommend ignoring random comments; it doesn't paint a good picture of you. Not taking a shot, just saying
@@SansDeity ignore this ass**les, they are probably just Andrew cultivating their business
SING IT BROTHER! SING! LMAO
@@SansDeity "Defended the agreed upon topic" Life isn't a game, Matt, where you get to opt in if the rules suit your fee-fees. Your worldview was called on its bullshit, and you cried to the pussy moderator because you KNEW Andrew had a point. THAT is what happened, and its plain to see.
And don't pretend like you wouldn't make the same argument if someone hit the eject button pre-debate with you. It's spineless behavior, and you know it.
Seems foolish to me to resolve not to look into your opponents beforehand. I appreciated your preparedness that time you debated Circular Sye, to the point of predicting his arguments and responding them before he made them. I don't think that was a bad thing at all.
LMAO a very good point. It's kind of funny that he almost bragged about having no idea who Andrew was and then Matt bowed out of the damn debate. He wasn't ready.
>I walked out of another debate
Ran away, you ran away from another debate Matt.
Matt walked out of a debate with a white nationalist who lied about his debate intentions.
When your opponent has no interest in engaging in honest debate, it's not cowardice to walk out. It's just a stop to feeding a troll
@@ljr6490he didn’t like the fact someone questioned his own worldview.
You are not the end boss of anything, you are the pacifier children cut their teeth on.
Cool story. Care to do something beyond name-calling?
@@SansDeity
I've read most of your replies, Matt, and in most of them it is you that is name-calling. Pan calling kettle.
Cope 😂
You called Andrew a jackass and he laughed.
Andrew said your couple your "husband" and you got offended
Let that sink in.
Yeah, there’s a huge difference between saying someone is a jackass and insulting a person not their to defend themselves in a way that is mean deliberately to do nothing but hurt them. It’s what most theists do when they can’t form a real argument.
@@KaeFwamhe insulted the speaker of the house and he wasn't there to defend himself. So it's fair game
@@Taydutt13 must’ve not heard it. Doesn’t really matter in this context, though. In a debate you critique arguments, not people.
@@KaeFwam he did critique his arguments matt opened the door with his rant about lbgt rights so its still fairgame
@@KaeFwam Matt started it with "Muuh Christianity is bad becuz christian governor bad!!!!".
So Andrew used the same logic.
Cope. Matt brought up the new speaker of the house and derided him for being a Christian who is ' homophobic' and a 'Christian nationalist' and spent next 5 minutes explaining that Chistianity is 'bad' because Christians are against LGBTQ issues. Andrew, who DID study his opponent knew Matt would make that claim. So Andrew made the opposite claim; that human secularism is bad because it DOES support LGBTQ. Same argument. Matt fled.😢
Exactly, Matt was the one who opened the door to transgender issues which he used to attack Christianity and now he's crying about it because Andrew made his views look as ridiculous as they are
Well that's a stupid counter argument. Explain why supporting the LGBTQ is harmful, and further, why homophobia would be a good thing?
Wouldn’t be an atheist cope vid without calling your opponent a tiny mustache man fan
He calls himself a fascist. Look at the hill you're defending....
@@SansDeitySarcasm! Learn it.
they cant learn it, they dont know humor@@henryy-tq8tn
@@henryy-tq8tn just be honest and admit you're a bigot 😕
In the world of the internet it's insane not to research an opponent because you can bet they're researching you.
One thing they all know is that you have a volatile temper (short fuse) and they will look for ways to make you explode so they can use that moment in edited form to raise their own internet profile.
People like this guy will post a highly edited version to his own site and show "look what I did to the famous Matt Dillahunty."
You're going to have to do one of two things - learn to control your temper, or do a better job of picking your targets.
My advice - for what it's worth - is to go for the former. Calm down and use ridicule to better effect because it has two benefits. One is that it enables you to get your ducks in a row without having to look through a cloud of steam. The other is that it may result in their fuse blowing, which can be met with a wry smile and a point for your side.
You suggest it is insane to think that the topic should be prepared for, instead of the person.
Your opinion is dismissed.
@@SansDeity. That's not a very intelligent response.
Tell me where I said "that the topic should be prepared for, instead of the person."
If someone learning to drive has trouble finding the brake - and crashes - they wouldn't be very bright if they responded to my assertion that they should get used to the position of the brake before they start to drive by responding: 'are you saying I shouldn't learn what to do with the accelerator and steering wheel?'.
Your opinion is a lot easier to dismiss.
@@SansDeity You couldve prepared for the topic AND prepared for your opponents strategies. Its not one or the other
@@hawkesworth1712 See how he responded to you here? This is how he approaches his debates. Straw-man + Dismissal. You gave him pretty solid advice, and so he straw-manned what you said in real time, and then provided no rebuttal to the rest of your comment.
You: It's insane not to research your opponent before a debate.
Him: You suggested that it's a shame not to research the discussion of the debate instead of the person. What a ridiculous position. I'm dismissing the rest of your comment.
This is literally how he approaches theism.
@@donnyjones5600 . I simply sought to be constructive. I've never heard a rational argument from a theist and they are as easy to defeat in a debate as a flat Earther but it requires patience and even Hitchens didn't possess much of that.
Walking out of a debate isnt something to brag about it's weak and cowardly but then again why am I surprised? Yeah you finally ran into a Christian who doesn't care to play your game instead of being nice and polite you couldn't take it. That line about your bf wrecked you to your core and you could tell. Can't handle it don't dish it out. It's all fun when you shit on others beliefs but as soon as you get it you "walk out" nah it's rage quitting and running away.
Nailed it
Andrew walked out of the debate and began to attack a filthy strawman that he invented through a compilation of TH-cam videos
So no good arguments for the truth of Christianity were presented then
Aww, it's so cute that you think Matt completely dismantling any semblance of rational thought behind your pathetic religion is "shitting on your beliefs". I totally agree that Matt shouldn't have walked out, by the way. I definitely wouldn't have. I don't necessarily agree with Matt's views on trans rights, but they're completely irrelevant to the debate, and I would have pointed that out as an obvious non sequitur. Andrew's smugness would have crumbled into whimpering within minutes, had Matt kept the conversation on track with the secular humanist vs Christian morals debate and not acted like a child by leaving.
It's really interesting seeing the comments on debates in general.
As far as I can tell, this one is mostly being brought up on christian channels as some sort of massive win, with people (in the comments) patting each other on the back and having their faith reaffirmed.
Whether it is this debate, or some other, the comments are always just an endless stream of people cheering their team and agreeing that whoever they already agreed with crushed all opposition. Like, how do you explain any position to people who clearly cannot process what is being said...
(inb4. Not all christians. This happens in all sorts of comment sections on all sorts of subjects)
@@chrisman10485 I know it's difficult to understand for a religious person, but just because you think that it doesn't mean it's true :D
@@chrisman10485 I am not entirely convinced you understand what objective reality means. Your statement happens to be very subjective.
Debate culture is entirely worthless imo. I have never seen a debate with any even remotely serious or important topic where one side "won" and the other side generally acknowledges that. Instead, every single debate on anything noteworthy ends with the two debaters leaving as firm in their beliefs as they came in, with both halves of the audience convinced the other half got embarrassed by how the debate went for them.
I dunno what we're calling it, but "dunk culture," which drives debate culture because of the fantasy that we'll have that One Good Comeback that finally and permanently makes a silly person stop being silly, is killing our ability to just move on and get adult work done.
Drew crushed him
@@magicrectangleEnt Exactly.
Debate is a fun game for people who love to produced talking points. But debating about anything with a philosophy attached to it, is like debating over which girl or guy is the hottest.
Everyone has their own opinion. It is possible to change one's mind, but there is no such thing as a winner.
I must admit, I read the title and laughed lmao
You say you would debate people on the arguments and not the people... Lets test that. Would you debate Pinecreek then on politics? Because he mention he would have a discussion with you and while you may not like his position or the video he made about you, he is still very knowledgeable, respectful and fair with the people he engages with. I would love to see that and I think that if you went 'with an open mind' you could be pleasantly surprised.
But I do believe your mind is made up on him with all the names you called him on that response you made...
Because Matt doesn't believe in truth, my friend. He believes in himself. And that's it. He thinks what he wants. Says what he wants. Debates when he wants. Fucks who he wants.
But that's it. That's all there is to him. He won't be in the trenches when the real tests come our way, when it really matters what we believe. He will LEAVE.
@@wilder11 You're really weird
Saying that a man can b a girl is folly
Yet another person who didn't listen, didn't think and just parades their ignorance around.
@@SansDeity
Thinking a man can be a girl is pure ignorance
@@SansDeity Always with the same "you're just stupid" insults. So pathetic. To think I used to actually admire you.
So I watched the introductory statements… I can’t believe Matt walked out on this. I used to enjoy watching him debate, but this type of avoidance is a discredit to his ability to articulate his position.
He articulated pretty well how it was a dishonest debate from the beginning and essentially a waste of time. Imagine you prepared for a game of chess to determine who’s better at chess and when you show up your opponent whips out a Chutes & Ladders board in the attempt to still determine who’s better at chess. All while leading you to believe you were showing up for a chess match. Complete waste of time and an intellectually dishonest attempt on Andrew’s part. That’s not how debates work sir.
@@squanch4458stop getting mad at Andrew for making an argument against Matt. I’m tired of atheist always attacking Christian’s in debates. it was about time someone stood up. Yall get mad at Christian’s for pointing out basic common sense. How sad.
@@Pizzacrisp I’m neither mad nor do atheists like Matt “attack” Christians in debates. If you view how Matt responded in the debate with Andrew as an “attack”, you need to reevaluate your understanding of the term “debate”. I’m not even going to entertain your “How sad” statement as you seem to know absolutely nothing about what you’re talking about. But I will say that if you view a debate as one side attacking the other, you really need to educate yourself and just shut up really until you do so. Thank you for your time
I never once stated that the actions of Matt during the debate were an attack on Andrew. My point was the fact that atheists are always on the offensive side while Christian’s are on the defensive. I was trying to say it was about time someone stood up and went on the offensive. And clearly when Andrew pointed out basic things Matt was in denial and ran away. Also if this was the other way around, atheists would be all over Andrew if he left 😂
@@Pizzacrisp Well the topic at hand was Matt’s leaving of the debate, so my fault for assuming your comment had something to do with the topic at hand. Anyway, theists make a claim and have to defend that claim with the backing of evidence, so debates between theists and atheists will always consist of theists defending their position and beliefs. Also, Matt wasn’t in denial of anything other than denying Andrew the opportunity to debate him on topics that had nothing to do with he topic they had agreed to debate on. And no, if Matt brought up topics that had nothing to do with the topic they had previously agreed to debate on, we would call him out for it. Andrew was on the “attack” about stuff that was off topic. But I am not a fan of intellectually dishonest debates, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen Matt have (or begin to try to have) an intellectually dishonest debate. You seem to have a difficulty in the understanding of how debates work so I don’t blame you for your seemingly uneducated view on the matter. Pertaining to your viewpoint specifically though, ultimately, theists have the burden of proof and must defend their position and beliefs in debates with atheists, not the other way around, so that’s why it might seem to you that atheists are the ones “attacking” while theists are the ones defending.
Matt, if the guy's a moron, that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of debating - you expose his lack of capacity. Instead, you ran away and failed to meet your obligation to MDD.
MDD has an obligation to properly moderate debates, which is something they consistently fail to do.
Matt was there to debate. Andrew was there to be a dickhead.
Matt you tucked your tail and ran when your stand and live style were challenged in so many words, the bully was bullied and took his toys and left.
Keep crying and supporting liars and bigots. We weren't there to debate my "lifestyle", genius
if you're reduced to ad hominem, as you are here, you've already lost. Oh, and *lifestyle.
Christian lying and gaslighting is very frustrating, and you bad faith throwbacks are generally not worth bothering with.
You Xians are different. You come in with strawmen taught to you by your preachers, you refuse to apply critical thinking, shit all over the place, and claim you win debates when you repeat the same thought ending cliche your preacher said as your heart swelled up with pride and emotion as you felt, "it hit the spot" when it came to your feelings about Xianity.
Matt abandoned one cult and has found himself in another, and just like last time, he doesn't seem aware of it.
Which cult? Instead of accusations, how about some argument backed by evidence?
@@SansDeity the cult of far leftism, where men can be women and women can be men. You're sacrificing your logic on the altar of woke ideology. You've even failed some of the purity tests in the blowup between the ACA and Rationality Rules.
Evidence by whose standard? 😂
@@SansDeity The post-modern cult of progressive ideas. Gender is divorced from sex, hierarchies are tyrannical and oppressive, colonization and colonizers, etc. We all laughed at Peterson for years for the idea of "Post-modern neo-marxists" but descriptively he was just accurate. In the end, all of the social constructivist attitudes aren't about being descriptive and factual, their purpose is to create the playing field for the constructivists to bring on their utopia. It's just communism with a different hat on. Though, I'm sure you can say communism was just the hat this thing wore in the 20th century and the spirit or idea of this thing goes back as long as people have believed themselves to be gods.
Used to be a big fan of you and the Atheist experience. Honestly, a pretty big let down to see you walk out on the fight because the guy is abrasive and uncouth. Debates don't need to avoid conflict. Everyone doesn't always have to be civil. I personally don't like Andrew's style. I think it's pretty belligerent and can easily railroad more agreeable personalities even when the points aren't that strong, which can give the appearance of validity or victory when it isn't deserved. It's definitely not how I conduct myself or my relationships personally. I am, however, glad someone is out there not being a pussy. Civility politics only works when you have a coherent society that agrees to all the rules and if the last seven years have taught us anything, it's that we aren't there and we're moving farther away from it.
@@SansDeity all objectivity and logic goes out the window when it comes to the trans issue and it all devolves into "feelings", what a sell out, he lies to himself because he's too embarrassed to admit he has sex with a man because he could not find a Real woman who would have him.
Kinda ridiculous how you’re complaining that none of his points were relevant to the topic and yet you didn’t bother engaging and allowing him to prove to you they were relevent. If you were confused about it that’s your fault for walking out. For example, the topic of the debate was whether Christianity or secular humanism is better for society, not whether Christianity is true. So his conceding your world view was him conceding that theism is false, and he was affirming in spite of this Christianity is still better for society. So apparently you’re the one who didn’t understand the debate topic. Also it’s absurd that you think you’re too good a debater to be on stage with andrew; you would’ve had zero chance against him because he wouldn’t have allowed your snarky tone to make up for your lack of competence and coherence; you wouldn’t get away with attitude in place of argumentation with andrew because he throws it right back in your face, which obviously you cannot handle given how you keeled over after about 5 minutes.
Guy was a racist nazi because he said men can’t be women, ok Matt.
Wow. Infantile and ignorant response, totally falsifying what happened. And you know perfectly well that it's not what happened. You are a liar, plain and simple. And everyone who watches this video, as well as everyone who watched the original debate knows that you are a liar.
LOL a trans “man” has a womb and ovaries because the “man” is a woman Matt. What happened to your skeptical approach to things?
The joker pfp 🤦♂️
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib I know a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina. I guess just being "gay" is too boring anymore and to get the mega attention today you need to be "trans". Like this really changes anything lol. I'm just surprised to see Matt follow this nonsense and take it serious.
Tell her you know nothing about this from a medical science point of view without saying it lol. Matt is correct. You are.... Kinda just intellectually useless.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Thank you!! 🙂
26:50 , has matt ever answered the question "what is a woman/man?" If he instead of skipping that part, would explain it, he would understand the issue here. But I understand why he does not, as you quickly end up finding out that there are two options eighter ppl can be whatever they want, (including dragons or whatever), or you need some other basis than just what they self identify as. If no other basis the language just implodes on itself, and words start to mean nothing. Yes men can get pregnant, but only if by man you mean something completely unrelated to the regular defintion of man. I can also be a helictopter pilot, but only if by helicopter pilot you mean me sitting in bed watching a Matt debate (lol?). Like, if the word means nothing, then sure anyone can be anything at any time, but conversations are going to be a big mess.... And then you try to point the blame at the other side for not going along with butchering the language, its their fault! I get that you are woke, but please reconsider this aspect, caring about peoples feelings is great and all, but there has to be some limits to how much one destroys language to achieve some feelings-goal.
To show the problem with this mindset, another semi-woke person "Destiny" also has this problem, he can with a straight face say "vaccine mandates is systemic racism.....And i am for vaccine mandates". The only way the sentence makes sense is if the words means nothing close to the standard usage of them. And at that point what is even the point, like if systemic racism is good suddenly, then are we supposed to be for systemic racism, and against anti-systemic racism?? LIke it will be impossible to have conversations under these word-games where nothing means what it should mean, because instead of making new words we just completely redefined the old ones to mean something completely different than previously did.
Please reconsider =(
Yes he has several times in detail. I only read your first sentence (I'm at work) but consider calling into tacis Thursday. Seems like there is a lot you can learn.
The regular definition of man is prescriptive, just as dictionaries are prescriptive. Butchering of language? Evocative wording. Oh you're one of those "facts don't care about your feelings" people aren't you? I mean when you look at the actual legitimate science across multiple fields, you realise that language evolves as understanding does. Our scientific understanding of gender and sex has outgrown prescriptive definitions, thus we change them as we always have. That's why "gay" no longer means happy for example. It is a curiousity that it is most often because a word becomes a pejorative that the meaning changes like the word f*ggot for example which for literal centuries meant a bundle of sticks. There was a time historically when women who were barren were not considered definitionally women. Putting aside the fact it was probably the man being impotent and the woman getting the blame, language changes. Language has changed to include the sociological and psychological reality. "I get that you are woke" and "there has to be some limit to how much one destroys language" is deeply ironic and you have absolutely no clue or self awareness as to why.
@@49perfectss Just tell me here, "What is a woman?" No callin should be needed. And also are you fine with trans women in womens sport or no ? And what about trans-age, should people be allowed to identify as different ages to get age specific rights? If not how is that not fascist/evil/etc to deny that?
@@nightshade7240 Lots of words here, can you be more specific/practical. If i feel like i am, say a cat, and want to be treated like a cat, will you treat me like a cat, or not. Or with age, or other things?
Ofc any word can mean any thing, but I suspect it is not an accident that somehow all these redefinitions also coincide with some woke agenda.
@@luckyviking1619 someone who identifies as one. Obviously. It's called an autological word. A category often used to refer to social constructs like gender. This is the first thing you learn from credible sources so thanks for admitting you have never honestly tried to look into this. I stopped reading after that first question. I'm not here to teach you the basics so maybe someday you won't be a bigoted asshole. You choose if you want to be one or not but stop pretending this isn't backed by every single medical and psychological association on Earth along with literally thousands of studies showing it's a valid way to identify. In other words... Grow up little boy. As you are now you're intellectually and morally worthless.
Walking out if a debate is never something to be proud of.
Never? There's never a time to bow out? So you would beat a woman for stepping to you in the ring so to speak. Got it!
@@michaelmerriott2155 "Stepping to you in the ring", what does that even mean?
If you find out that the person you're talking to is Borat, you can walk out.
@@jsmall10671 Who?
@@michaelmerriott2155 wow. I never thought of it like that.
what a coward
@Matt, I am an unbeliever, I have watched some of your debates, and I think, I have heard you call "God" a fairy tale or something similar to it, and I agree with you on that, but saying men can get pregnant is not this a fairy tale too?
No. Trans men often have wombs and ovaries and they can, have and do get pregnant.
Didn't I address this in this very video?
Learn to listen and research.
@@SansDeity by addressing it in your video does it make it true? what does it mean "trans"? I had a lot of respect for you, but you lost me on socialism and on the fairy tale about Trans, (sorry my English is bad)
@@SansDeity What dumb fucking liberal bullshit. Youre getting old matt, and losing touch.
@@SansDeityThe claim is that men cannot get pregnant. The claim has nothing to do with trans men. Trans men are women after all. Their sex is female. That's why they are trans.
I used to love watching Matt's debates. Brilliant guy. How surprised I was when I learned he was so thoroughly consumed by wokeism. Now he is too far gone and won't listen to reason. Tragic story.
Having a general knowledge of who your debate opponent is seems like the bare minimum.
He didn't concede the whole debate. He just said he'd grant you the secular worldview, and didn't want to get in to a "Got not real tho" debate, so he said let's say you're right and there is no God... it's still better for people to act as if there was a God. You were the first one to bring up the transgender topic in your opening statement. You left because he really put you in a difficult spot and it was very clear. He pulled a B Rabbit from 8 Mile and you were Poppa Doc lmao.
I stopped watching ModernDayDebate a while ago because their moderation sucks. I could not stand watching a debate where people talk over each other or someone just insults others and so on without the moderator doing their job. I am glad I stayed away.
Most times when I attempted to watch an MDD debate, I noticed that too - his lack of involvement/moderation. All he seemed to do was have his head down to read and track the superchats coming in.
he does that for shock value and that's how he thinks he can increase viewership.
They have a new moderator named Justin that's really good. James sin't that great and Ryan is really bad. Not a big fan of Amy either.
Your sensitive on the trans issue, feelings appear to be your sword (when the issue arises). Many years you've had the logic sword by yourself and it seemed a little over powered. It's great to see the Human side of yourself now, where reason and logic appears 2nd place to conviction and love. The question you, and many people need to ask... What's the state between reason & logic and conviction & love? That is where humankind can hopefully live in harmony.
Says "the man of reason"...
Reason and logic aren't "out the window". You're really smug for someone so wrong.
@@SansDeity
*Edited to be less smug, hopefully zero smug now.
Don't read my words as ill intentions, my bad if read like that.
Removing yourself out the debate was the correct move because Andrew Wilson had a motive, and it was clear as day He was trying to drag you into a trans debate, it's appears to be a touchy subject for yourself and you showed frustration and feelings, strange to see Matt Dillahunty forfeiting, takes a big man to do that, even if leaving can appear cowardly.
I can imagine many people (myself included) want to see you do a long forum debate on the trans "issue", this instance was not a genuine way in doing so.
I see you as a prepared calculated debate machine monster with Science as a side kick when debating religion, but anytime trans comes up, you appear Human... vulnerable, that's not a wrong by the way.
Just different from the norm!
I do want to see you pressed in a trans debate to see how you can handle difficult questions where Science *may* not enterally back you up, but of course when you are comfortable in the timing, if or when it becomes a reality, I'll be keen to watch it!
Keep up the awesome work!
@@SansDeity Because I might have your attention, the chess analogy you use, and I love it!
You forgot one critical factor...
Fog of war.
(Smart-arse Intensifies)
@@SansDeitylol says the smug one 😂😂😂😂😂 debate andrew
Walking out of debates is crazy
Commenting to support liars and bigots and oppose professionalism, honesty and compassion is crazy.
Go fix your life.
@SansDeity using the word "bigot" as an adult man is crazy. Love your work Matt but do us all a favor and drop the college kid SJW woke slang. You're too smart for it.
@@deceptionary Clearly he is not too smart for it.
@@deceptionarybigot is a real word though
@rainrainlsn yea... I know lol. But its overused and incorrectly assigned a lot these days
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu
The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society
Book by Debra Soh
Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist's Guide Out of the Madness
Book by Miriam Grossman
Bad Therapy: Why the Kids Aren't Growing Up
Book by Abigail Shrier
Read, educated doctors clinic workers are walking out.
Guess you skipped over books on how to present your point? Maybe try some of these occasionally:
* Introduce the issue and your position on the issue.
* Explain and describe the issue.
* Address the opposition.
* Provide evidence to support your position.
* Offer a conclusion.
I read sohs work, though I had to hold my nose to get it down. She is a wack job if im being honest. Lets warp the world so that we can appease the few who are holding us hostage with their threat of self deletion.
Wow, and you doubled down?! Andrew exposed you for what you really are my friend. It was actually very interesting to watch Andrew become you, and watch you throw a tantrum, and leave. Unlike the people who have to sit and listen to you, while you're snide and perpetually unconvinced.
I’d like to hear Matt debate Dawkins on gender identity and trans views.
It wouldn't be a debate so much as an educational lecture for Dawkins. He knows nothing about it and just goes off vibes on that topic.
theres no point
Sarah Haider would be even better, imo.
@JDO145 What a social construct is, and what the evidence says on best outcome for trans-people's lives. Those would be things essential to the topic that Dawkins knows nothing about.
Matt can't win a debate with anyone without a mute or hangup button. He'd also have 500 of his atheist sheep show up to give support and clap at his insults.
I thought it was funny when called Andrew a jackass and then got offend when Andrew called Arden his husband, can dish it out but can’t take it.
Difference is, Matt insult Andrew a bit, and Andrew attacked... someone else, specifically Arden.
Who is not present to defend themselves.
And also not relevant to the topic.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 It is, because Arden is a Trans...
Man I can’t believe I used to listen to this guy when it turns out he just wants to date trans men 😂
What's it like to have a stranger's personal life live rent free in your head? "😂"
Mats bf?
@@angusMcloud84 *Matt's (you use that little dinky character when using possessive nouns, just figured I'd run that by you)
Mats husband intellect be 2 strong !!! Me defeated !!! 😂
@@angusMcloud84 Cope
I personally don't think MDD has ever been a good debate platform mostly because they don't seem to vet any of their debaters and James is just a bad moderator. A lot of their debates go off the rails fast and James seems unwilling to try to get them back on track - probably because it generates a lot of clicks and money. It's not a serious place for a debate IMO.
can you recommend any other good alternative ones? ive not found many yet and would like to find more
@@daibhidh I'm interested in other good debate platforms also.
Should've just named this video "I'm still coping.."
The hypocrisy of saying he wont debate someone who mocks his beliefs is honestly staggering. What an embarrasing debate for him frankly.
Who said that?
You did 25:36
@@SansDeity What's the point to a debate if you want your opponent to agree/respect you? You don't respect religions, you've that made that abundantly clear, yet people still enter into debate with you. Throwing a tantrum because "muh respect" is seventh grade, wannabe gangsters say on the playground. Throw on your Depends and let's go!
@@zsedcftglkjh you're conflicting respect of people with respect of ideas.
@@SansDeity You did buddy.
leaving the way you did was disrespectful to the event and the crowd. Should've stayed and stood your ground.
I'm sorry, did you actually watch the debate?
The crowd was fucking ROARING with applause when Matt walked out.
Even the Christians in the audience hated Andrew.
How do you know if someone is lying about their gender identity? If a male identifies as a woman, is that persons' declaration of their gender sufficient proof of their gender identity or does that persons' background need to be investigated to determine if they are telling the truth?
As with most things in society, we should assume they are telling the truth unless we have a reason to believe they are lying. If a person who was amab, says they are a (trans)woman, we should accept that with no pressure or investigation, unless they have given us reason to doubt.
@@MasamiPhoenix Ok so Ryan Webb is really a trans woman?
@@MasamiPhoenix What do you think would be a reason to investigate?
@@patula3499In general we should treat the claim the same way we would treat any other statement and only investigate if we have reason to believe they might be lying (or misinformed or misunderstanding) While I'm not an expert, here is a short, non-exclusive list:
1. If there is a clear and substantial benefit to lying.
2) if this seems contrary to views or statements they've made in the past.
3) if they are known for habitually lying
4) if they lack significant knowledge of what they are claiming.
5) if they demonstrate tells when making the claim.
In more extreme examples, like Ryan Webb, we can dismiss them as lying without investigation and it is up to them to prove they are sincere - if that's even possible. Again, a non-exclusive checklist, written by an amateur:
1) if their tone, manner, or atitude makes it clear this is not an earnest claim, but is done for mockery or scorn
2) if this blatantly contradicts past behavior where they have expressed the opposite view
3) if they have expressed intent to lie about the claim in the past.
4) if they do not demonstrate the fundamental knowledge about the claim, or act on a strawman version of the claim.
Note Ryan Webb violates at least three out of four of these, particularly #1
Use your eyes. Failing that, use your ears. Failing THAT, just ask.
The first two will cover 99% of cases.
the cope is real
Sure rightist. Defend your dishonest oath, andrew
You kinda threw a hissy fit and you let him emotionally manipulate you
I saw no hissy fit. Just a decision not to platform bigotry. This is a really silly take from you.
@@49perfectss sounds a different way to say run away lol
@@Bilbo383 only if you're an idiot 🤷♂️
@@Bilbo383 No, it's a different way to say you didn't listen well enough to what Matt said in this video. LOL
@@Bilbo383 From an uneducated point of view I guess.
A cursory glance at some of your opponents will tell you all you need to know about some of them . Forewarned is forearmed.
Unfortunately, Matt didn't do that as he himself stated that he never even looked up what flavor of Christianity that Andrew belonged to.
Exactly my point.@@junkaccount2535
The same could just as easily be said of you and your "colleagues". In fact, that was the point Andrew was making. So many of you can't even acknowledge an objective fact in front of your fucking faces: a man cannot become a woman. And the fact that you and Dillahunty and so many sperg at the very idea of reasserting such a basic and fundamental truth shows that your. Values. Are. WORTHLESS.
"You people will listen and listen, but you will not understand. You will look and look, but you will not really see. Yes, the minds of these people are now closed. They have ears, but they don’t listen. They have eyes, but they refuse to see. If their minds were not closed, they might see with their eyes; they might hear with their ears; they might understand with their minds. Then they might turn back to me and be healed. But God has blessed you. You understand what you see with your eyes. And you understand what you hear with your ears." Matthew 13:14-16
Andrew Wilson won by forfeiture.
He won? He's the one who forfeited. My, you simps are so pathetic. Thanks for the engagement
How is engaging with your opening forfeiting? Do you know how debate works? 😂
@@Schmeadeableyou asking Matt if he knows how debate works? Are you tarded
@@SansDeityHe granted all your presuppositions, showed they were based on nothing, and you actually fled the debate while throwing ad hom. You are a snobby, pompous coward.
@@dustinmark6808 andrew is pathetic i agree. But what can you do. You have a professional debater with a solid track record and offers successful classes on how debate works vs an incel who thinks everyone who studies a subject is wrong, and that anyone actually kills themselves because they were misgendered. Thats a level of dishonest and stupidity that was hard to handle.
I mean Matt has almost never walked out of a debate, yet the cope from the Andrew fans would have you believe that Andrew actually won somehow. Matt sat on stage with Richard Dawkins and debated the best apologists of our time, but im supposed to believe he couldnt handle Andrews pathetic nonsense? The cope is real lol
“Parade of mockery”. See Matt’s opening statement.
You got bodied by your own tactics. Very funny to see, would love to see a rematch if you disagree.
New Matt debate policy: Walk out on any debate where the opponent says Matt's name during their intro.
That would be a great lesson in what happens most often in formal debates with those who are there is bad faith. The opening of your arguments shouldnt mention your opponent’s name (but is not the sign of actual attacks or bad faith arguing). Its just better for your own opening to try not to mention your opponent, when it should be about the topic and not the person. This helps you to to stay more honest. Maybe walking out when you hear your name isnt a literal answer but a good thing to listen for.
@@ahh_yes_mr_baxDepends on context. If my opening is “I’d like to thank Matt for his time to debate on this topic” or something else that is specifically mentioning the opponent but doing it with the intent of being courteous, then it’s not something you should walk away from
@@ahh_yes_mr_baxhe walked out because he knew he was about to be destroyed and he was. 😂
This is pathetic Matt
What's cute about Matt here is his humblebrag, "I'm very science-minded", as if this translates to "I'm a good person". A fundamental delusion.
I dont think its fair to say Andrew was offtopic when you spend a couple of minutes speaking about the speaker of the house and his stance on LGBT rights and his views on transgenderism as a net negative for society.
Yeah he can’t defend that. Which is why this is a video of him without an opposition.
He doesn’t want beliefs forced on him, but he wants his beliefs unquestionably forced on others. He wants to give his so called “scientific” description of what a man and woman is, without hearing “NO Matt, you have not convinced me. Do better or you failed.” Cis = fake, false, lie, untrue. I’ve never looked up what the trans community wants me to think that prefix means. Because I know it’s a fallacy.
@@what8567 You don’t know what a fallacy is if that’s how you’re going about it.
@@WhatDreamsMayCome10Z a fallacy i just a lie purported to be true. A logical fallacy is a lie purported to be true by a describable logic process that is inconsistent with it's own logic process. Like implying no true fallacy would be what that guy said (No True Scottsman fallacy)
Trent Horn exposed you in his coverage of this. Sorry champ.
No, he didn't.
Sorry, champ.
@@Basilmoment ratiod
Lol comments scrambling to justify matts rage quit aren’t failing to meet the hype
Theist coming here saying he got beat just because he didn’t want to engage in a dishonest and insulting debate. This is not how debates like these work.
You people hate Matt because he has been calling you religious and overall bigots out.
@@Puyax01 im not even religious i just love how the tides have turned from the 2000’s when polemics were atheist’s (the lefts champions) main style.
Now they cry and leave debates and demand their opposition is censored, the same thing they used to cry about the evil catholic church doing.
Matt can dish it out but not take it, people like you who cant be objective and realize questioning someones God is just as unpopular, which equals bad to an atheist, speech as questioning transgenderism. In fact in a very basic amoral utilitarian sense, its more logical to appeal to religious people. Debate and defeat the person in the market place of idea’s, im sure Hitchens wouldnt lose an ounce of sleep over Andrew Wilson.
Purchase “Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning” by David Zarefsky and “The Great Courses” watch it, and then your opinion might sound coherent in a response.
@@abruhigoham7472 tell me when Matt has being dishonest, misrepresenting the other side view, bigoted, etc etc etc. he is always willing to debate, the fact that he gets mad because the opposition moves the goal post, starts to be dishonest is a different thing. Provide me with 1 clip where Matt did what Andrew did.
@@Puyax01MATT LITERALLY BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT RELIGION DISCRIMINATES AGAINST DIFFERENT SEXUAL IDENTITIES FIRST, THAT MADE TRANS PEOPLE FAIR GAME.
Listen man i can guarantee ur not an intelligent person, i know ur not gonna look into anything i told you, just keep defending Matts crybaby behavior over his husband’s delusions lifestyle.
@@Puyax01watch trent horns coverage of this, stop responding to me and go learn.
Makes sense a person who believes in nothing and thinks everyone is nothingness, has no foundation to stand on or spine to hold him up.
Who thinks everyone is nothingness? Matt doesn't think this, as you'd know if you watch any of his videos. Nothingness is... nothing.
Belief that laws can fix things is a religious or fallacy belief, and so thank you Matt for keeping to that philosophy. It might not be part of atheism, but it does go along with "not believing" as a tool for discovery and innovation. ☮💜
Lame response Matt. You got paid to be there and have a debate. Very weak reaction to your own negligence.
"I'm very science minded" HAHAHAHAHA
If you listen to this whole video it just gets worse. He's trying sound all reasonable yet ends up saying: yes woman IS an adult female human....as long as your definition of female covers the biological, social, psychological blah blah...ie a definition that includes males LOL That's not science. It's activism. What limit is there to the things these extremists will tear down to fit their new narrative? The actual concept of sex is under threat just so Matt can feel good sleeping with a male and that male can feel "like a women".. It's really quite incredible.
he's so science minded that he ran away from a debate 3 years ago because his opponent (Dr. James White) tweeted about "dangerous anti-mask conspiracy theories" 😆
I commend you on your debate skills but once again you change it to fit your own narrative Matt. It’s becoming overwhelming apparent that while a person can identify as the opposite gender, it’s technically viewed by some as a disability, like left handed people. A mental disorder or chemical imbalance if you will.
You are a man of science and only go off facts, but yet continue to subscribe to the concept that gender is fluid, a person can be either/or. This just is blatantly false. Like the earth. It’s flat or round, it can’t be whatever someone’s personal opinion is, it has to be based on factual evidence.
I view debates as a sport. The more you practice the better most get. In any sport the opponent always gathers information on their opponents weaknesses or what they can exploit. To not do this puts someone at a severe disadvantage and we get an outcome like we witnessed, you walking off.
If you prepared for him to attack you, wouldn’t that have made you better apt to defend the incoming onslaught? I don’t know this entire video is cringe to be honest and obviously it’s still weighing on your mind or you wouldn’t feel the need to address it over a month later.
The smug demeanor and condescending attitude is overflowing once again. None of these debaters have any intention of changing their minds, they think they know everything and most are extremely narcissistic in behavior. If God himself came down and was right in front of your face you’d say it was a hallucination, an apparition, an illusion or something that could be explained. That’s the honest truth Matt
Dillahunty says that a women can be defined as something psychological and sociological while he ignores the great lengths that trans-identifying individuals go to medically change their physical characteristics to conform to the opposite sex. In the pursuit of anatomical conformity, they unwittingly affirm that gender is binary and the subordinate of sex.
You got so close. Gender is at the intersection of psychology, sociology and biology. I'm not the one ignoring changes to secondary sexual characteristics, you just left out 1/3 of my answer in order to pretend that I was ignoring something.
Those who alter physical aspects are NOT affirming that gender is binary, they are selecting secondary sexual characteristics that are associated with their gender... selecting those characteristics has nothing to do with how many genders there are.
Maybe listen to what I've said and think about it before coming on my forum to get it wrong.
Let’s not forget you got destroyed by a 13 yr old Matt 😂😂😂
Dogma replacing Dogma.
1. not all trans ppl have surgery done or even take medicine to identify as the gender they are 2. u talk about the lengths some trans ppl go to in order to fit a general view that SOCIETY has on their certain gender. wouldn't that make it...sociological? 3. u do know that getting gender affirming surgery is very prevalent in cis ppl also right? noob implants, lipo for both men & women, face lifts, ab sculpting.
in conclusion your "points" are irrelevant at best & nonsensical at worst 😐
@@dceezy15 lets see how sensical your thinking is.
What is a woman?
I think Matt took the biggest debate L of 2023.
Andrew Wilson is a moron, winning against it shouldn't be hard but the fact is that Andrew Wilson was doing the exact same thing which Matt is typically doing and Matt couldn't deal with it.
@@VindensSaga "Andrew Wilson is a moron" is not a counter-argument
@@VindensSaga Your lack of ability to accept criticism toward the slimy and degenerate worldview of secular humanism is not a valid argument.
@@wilbertwakingup3498 You got him to delete his comment, great job! @VindensSaga keep living the 🤡 life 😂😂
Then your dumb
This is a classic example of a beaten debater who is usually very insultive and bullying in his manner when talking who has been trounced by his own methods. This is so cucky, that he calls Wilson here indirectly a "racist Nazi". This is totally butt hurt waffling to his fans in order to do damage limitation to the fact that Matts run as god has actually just finished. Humanistic thought is done. Amen🙏🏼
oh loser normally run...science..science..funny
You can't defend your position against your opponent. Simple as that.
His opponent completely changed the subject from secular humanism vs Christianity to trans issues, and on top of that was really rude about it, calling trans people lunatics, attacking Matt personally and so on. It was never an honest debate.
@@webbe8292 Wrong. Matt brought up Mike Johnson and how christianity makes wrong conclusions about lgbtq. Andrew, afterwards, showed that sec humanism also causes wrong conclusions. Fair game. Personal attacks? Didn't happen until Matt started walking out, and called Andrew a jackass. Only thing I can agree is that calling "lunatics" is out of bounds
@@samcolserra2425 Andrew failed to point out any actual false conclusions that secular humanism makes, at least on the topic of LGBTQ+ issues. And let's be honest here, a simple insult like Matt calling Andrew a jackass, which happened only after he called trans people lunatics and so on, is not nearly as personal as Andrew bringing up his partner and deliberately misgender her.
@@webbe8292 He pointed out several conclusions: 1. that men can be women, can get pregnant, can have periods. 2. homosexuality is to be preserved/celebrated even though it serves against the basic requirement to reproduce. 3. egalitarian politics are superior, eventhough, similarly, serve against sustaining the population. 4. unwillingness of people to prevent/outlaw behaviour that would lead to morally questionable acts like underaged sexual activity.
@@samcolserra2425 yep, he sure knows how to make a strawman.
First of all, no-one said that men can be women. It all boils down to how you define men and women. Andrew has a strictly biological, and frankly quite outdated, definition of gender, but when we discuss trans issues, it's important to differentiate between biological sex and gender identity. In other words, being a man or a woman is not the same as being male of female. There is a lot of overlap between them, so most people are what we call cisgender, but they are not one and the same, and there are people whose gender identity does not align with what we associate with their sex, so they are transgender. This is really basic stuff.
Homosexuality is to be preserved or celebrated, whatever that means, to the same extent as any other sexual orientation. In other words, adults should be able to be in a relationship with whoever they want, as long as there is mutual consent. There are significantly more straight people than there are gay people, so some dude being in a relationship with another dude will have next to no impact on the size of the population as a whole. Besides, there are also straight people who just don't want to have kids, or are unable to have kids.
What Andrew was doing was not pointing out false conclusions, he was misrepresenting his opponent and ranting about the existence of people who don't fit into his narrow worldview.
I'd win any debate with Matt, AronRa, and the like.. I would just open with "You are a big dummy doo doo face" then say "I win".. mic drop.. im out
Why do all that when you can just show up, give your opening statement and then refuse to debate when your opponent lays out an argument? NOW you're winning.
Weak emotionally triggered supposed "atheist" ... disappointing
Matt, please, stop these modern day debates, they're uncivil and I stopped watching them all together. There's almost no moderation of the host, it's just him getting the popcorn and watching all the drama.
You need a proper host, proper conversations. I've seen you Matt on civil debates with no name calling, telling the other to 'shut up' or whatever. Noone ever got convinced by another person by yelling or calling him to shut up. This is not the way to debate other people.
Perhaps it's entertaining for some but I don't think this is the way to go in civil debates.
debating, is not how we discover true stuff, its for entertainment purposes only.
Yeah, he’s finally done with MDD. Should have been a long time ago, but at least he finally got there. So now James can sit there with his beta bigots and let them “debate” each other while he keeps not skipping leg day.
Yeah Jimmy is putting a debate channel together and Matt has already said he will not be doing any more MDD debates after Andrew. Look forward to it! Hell yeah get excited! Hahaha
MDD's lack of moderation relies on the good intent of the debaters. When it isn't there, it is just a sh!tsh⁰w.
@@larryscarr3897exactly
Appreciate you sticking up for us Matt, love your debates and the breakdown you gave here was perfect.
I would like to see his "walk out."
How would you prove robot has consciousness using empirical data. How do you prove to blind man what color red is using empirical data. In theory, robot can be programmed to move its hand when it touches hot surface. How do I know its having the experience of hot using test tube(Deduction/induction). The only thing i am certain of is that i have experience of hot. This experience can only come from entity that can already experience existence (Allah-one/indivisible/All-Loving).
If you cannot prove your own consciousness using “scientific method”, then how can you reject the existence of Perfect/infinite metaphysical being(Allah)? “Cogito ergo sum”( I think therefore I am) should be read as “cogito ergo est”(I think therefore Allah is)
Dillahunty is a coward running a charade of lies and deceit. How is that noble?
It was so obvious to everyone that you already knew informations about your opponent 😔. I know it's hard to swallow man! But this video confirmed what was already confirmed 🤦You are a liar.
Lmao it’s hilarious that no matter how good of a debater some can be, there is always a weakness and Matt just showed his.
I'm still just curious, did Andrew cover your speaker fee to Modern Day Debates like he said he would?
I saw several people saying he did not but can't confirm personally.
YES!!!! Please let us know!!
Lmao yall arr some sad sad individuals
@@thecakeisalie6601who da fuq are you talking to?
Pretty sure Modern Debates covered it themselves instead.
So much cope and so much dishonest..
You should've stuck out the debate and push back, all it did was make u look bad
To who?
You think you cultivated a WWE environment and you're the least bit surprised? Dude, you're the Jerry Springer of atheist talk shows.Exactly how did you think your combative style would play out?
Lol imagine being this confused? Combative =\= personal attacks
Matt debates reasonably in formal debates and is combative on a call in show. The reaching those trying to cope are doing is not even hard to counter with basic explanations.
Matt is combative on a show and debates like a great many who debated before him. You cant be so simple as to believe that how Matt performs on his show means it’s reasonable for personal attacks in formal debate.
The cope for the haters is thick
Yet curiously, for 20 years, this hasn't been a problem and it's ONLY been a problem with MDD. So... maybe rethink your argument.
why are you crying about shit you made up?
When Matt whined about Andrew being smug, it was the most ironic moment in human history
@@ahh_yes_mr_baxand Andrew was simply being combative.
Where was the personal attack, and was it before or after Matt ragequit and called him a jackass?
I see your still fighting against the truth. The truth is alive and well. Look what the truth did for the Apostle Paul. AMAZING GRACE! In spite of Saul (the religious Pharisee) fighting/kicking against the goad/truth, Jesus Christ/God had mercy on him (the Apostle Paul) and saved his soul. God can do the same for you if you would just humble yourself before Christ Jesus who is the truth.
Yet another preacher with no evidence
@@SansDeity What is the evidence for atheism then?
@@rl7012 there not being enough evidence for religions and their claims is a good evidence for atheism
@@bb.99 So you need religion to exist in order to have a belief system?
@@rl7012 no
So your solution is to flee the debate, collect your thoughts, formulate a response, record a video in a void and post it as if you won something? You can't always have arguments on YOUR terms- you need to meet people on even footing.
When did he ever claim that he won anything, you dolt? He's gone on record so many times as saying that debates aren't won or lost. Do you actually listen to the people you disagree with or do you just go with whatever daddy says?
@@Basilmoment settle down, name calling is not needed. Maybe read the post before you respond next time and you won’t look so silly.
He did the right thing, you don't feed a troll. If someone refuses from the get to go defend their side of the agreed upon debate then the debate is over, in point of fact. Matt simply didn't want to engage in an unplanned follow up debate.
The pseudoscience used to support transgender ideologies is no more sound than the pseudoscience used to support young earth creationism. A mostly self-contained industry of ideologically motivated people with degrees in regurgitating transgender talking points, in fields that are steeped in the same ideology, issued by institutions that wholeheartedly accepted those talking points without question and blindly defend them against any criticism, all corroborating each other's world-view. To be trans is just having a "feeling" and having it catered to by like-minded people with the same delusions or miseducation as them. It's no different than theists having a "feeling" that god is talking to them that they can't otherwise demonstrate in any tangible way.
Transgender proponents might have a leg to stand on if trans people's desire to mimic their idea of the other sex was treated as a matter of personal taste, rather than an inherent indisputable truth (their only evidence being their feelings). The average transgender person is clearly suffering from a mental illness that negatively affects their ability to rationally evaluate themselves, much like a person with anorexia.
The greatest detriment to modern atheism and secular humanism is allowing themselves to be so completely subverted by irrational and delusional beliefs about gender and race for fear of being seen as "bigoted". If more athiests don't start viewing these beliefs with a critical (or perhaps, a skeptical) eye, then atheism will flounder and decay while dogmatism prospers.
He beat you fair and square .
Fair? You have a very distorted view of fairness!
You may be right but could you explain ? thanks for replying:)@@stefanheinzmann7319
If you don't understand what someone is saying, don't comment. For you, there's the Kardashians on TV.
I hope thats not one of those trans-women shows because they are mentally ill. @@dieterdepoorter9842
Lol cope, cope, cope. My world view cant actually be substantiated so I run away like a coward
I watched the "debate". Andrew comes across as unhinged and frankly downright weird. But Matt was the one who introduced the topic of religious belief's effects on trans/gay issues. So I'd say that made it fair game. And Andrew might well be correct in that a secular worldview might well lead to the sorts of extreme nonsense we're seeing right now with all this genderwoo. I don't know but I'm starting to wonder. Is it any coincidence that so many American internet atheists are pushing it? Which direction the causality goes, I'm yet to decide.
pushing what exactly? there are many things related to gender
@@eidiazcas”transwomen ARE women” and all the repercussions of that mantra.
@@RaveyDavey atheists are very divided in that topic, Dawkins for instance is very against it, and I don't think a lot of atheists think that a transwoman is biologically equivalent to a woman, for the most part is how you want to be treated, do you want to be treated as a woman on the street? Ok because it doesn't affect anyone, in sports maybe not so much as it goes agains the very reason sports are divided into categories
@@eidiazcas I'm atheist and I don't buy into genderwoo. But the internet atheism 'community' seems very much dominated by leftist genderwoo peddling politics.
@@RaveyDavey it is not dominated, but they're certainly louder