Atheist Debates - I walked out of another debate.... 

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.

​@@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

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.

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.

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

@@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 RU-vid 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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

Matt is obnoxious and rude to his callers every week 😂😂😂

Ignorant trolls deserve an obnoxious rebuttal.@@mas03

@@mas03 No he's not. His callers are just obnoxious and he doesnt put up with it

@@krizula1117 Actually he can be taken as rude several times....that the caller is obnoxious ...dont mean that your not rude if your rude.

@@krizula1117 Well some people are offended by those things we aint....or at least pretend to be.

No, he didn't. Sorry, champ.

@@user-qt8ko4gm2k ratiod

@@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.

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.

@@squanch4458​​⁠stop 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.

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" 😆

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.

Nailed it

Andrew walked out of the debate and began to attack a filthy strawman that he invented through a compilation of RU-vid videos

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.

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

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.

A bunch of Matt’s lackeys in the crowd who were refuted with ease.

@@chazmcgooski83 sure i suppose that's a perspective that could be taken from it. Definitely not what i saw and I'm not even a big proponent of Matt. He has some good points but he's blind to his own bias in others.

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

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

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.

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

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.

You obviously have not been paying attention. 😞

Right it’s every other person who is the problem whether it be at the ACA, his calllers or his debate partners. Matt is lucky nobody has physically hurt him.

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.

He doesn't "walk in" to trash talk people, that's what he ends up doing when they don't listen to him, but if they are being reasonable then he talks to them like he would a regular person. Andrew walked in with the specific intention of spewing his own personal beliefs on transgenderism and other things he doesn't like, which wasn't even the debate topic, so Matt had every right to leave.

​@@benjamintanderson5735shill

​@@benjamintanderson5735 you're actually complaining that someone in a debate brought their personal beliefs into it? You people keep acting like the opening argument being related to LGBT means it wasn't directly addressing Dillahuntys secular humanist ideology. "He was just ATTACKING TRANS FOLX" no he was attacking the morality presented by his opponent. Quite frankly you're cowards hiding behind what your philosophy deems taboo so you can stick your nose up and say "I'm not even going to dignify that" instead of actually defending your position. It's because you know it's bullshit.

​@@benjamintanderson5735Are you gay?

​@@benjamintanderson5735are you gay?

@thinkmtb1548 No. We were contacted to a debate on a specific topic. He tried to change that after we went live. If you were contracted to play a game of chess and your opponent decided to rearrange the pieces and wanted to play their own variant, that also involved mocking people who ended their own life... you can stay, but I won't.

@@SansDeity ​ @SansDeity You appear to be attempting to rewrite history here. The debate topic was "Christianity Vs Secular Humanism Which Has Best Ethical Foundation?" Andrew directly engaged with this topic, the arguments you made and the subjects you brought up in your opening statement. Bottom line, he made arguments in a debate, he was not playing Parcheesi in a chess match. He out played you and you were not prepared to support your own world view. I'm sure you would have loved to challenge his. Furthermore, all of this concern for a group you feel is marginalized would be energy better spent creating good arguments.

@SansDeity Andrew did not change topic, you were first started talk8ng about LGBTQ rights, Andrew simply respond to your arguments by saying that LGBTQ people would not have any rights and that they are delusional, and you than run away claiming that is not topic of debate.

@@SansDeity Huge loss for you. You shouldn't have ran away like you did. You might think you took a moral standing point doing so but you lost it there. You showed that you can't defend your position and you can't defend your worldview.

He just called out your views about Secular Humanism which is Secular Humanism. You are funny Matt. HAHA

You're a cis man, just like you're a confused man... it's an adjective, whiney man.

@@SansDeity This man's post was neither attacking you or derogatory in any way. He simply disagrees with you on a point. Your response is embarrassing and continues to expose how limited you are. So, you have no problem insulting people for no reason, but when met with a little resistance and attitude, you cower and run. Try to do better.

@@SansDeity The word 'cis' was first coined by a German sexologist who was also a pedo.

@@SansDeity Of course...only TRANS people get to choose their labels. Not "whiney'" men...🤦‍♂

@@cd3532 Yeah it's pretty pathetic at this point. I used to respect Matt for his atheist arguments but now I'm seeing him for what he is - an extremist. I bet he was an extreme Christian, then an extreme atheist and now an extreme SJW

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

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)

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.

Its fun when the dumbest people in the world pretend making up their own meaning of religion magically means they can label anything a religion lol

@@AnonYmous-yj9ib right, and secular humanism, from my understanding, is to form society around what best makes people thrive. So who decides and by who’s metric?

I think you're adding what was not there. Which is silly.

@@49perfectss it was there just buried under ad hominem attacks.

@@hatepaste sure sure 🙄

@@AnonYmous-yj9ib doesn’t sound like a society. Would you not have to have common goals, common principals, objective or subjective?

LOL,,,,,you can’t fix your level of intellect by pretending to believe you can look down on others,,,,,shame you aren’t crhistian,,,,I could maybe explain it in your preferred paradigm,,,

It sure is a long winded way of saying male.

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?

@@user-qt8ko4gm2k 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.

And now these secular people are crying about how mean Andrew was when that's exactly how they treat believers.

​@@kylemoore9997Matt was completely outsmarted, all ground conceded, left to defend a ridiculous proposition.

​@@kylemoore9997lol you literally just chose the position of every secular person what a bad thing to do

@@ortology Could you explain what you mean by that? Otherwise your comment makes no sense and your just making things up I'll wait for your response.

@@ortology Looking at your channel you think there's to many peopleon theplanet what a evil thing to think.

He’s been getting more protein in his diet 😂

@@chrlpolk Less sugar. And do you think everyone else is stupid, and cannot understand your dogwhistles? You do realize that on average, the people you're interacting with are smarter than you, right?

@@chrlpolk Why only godless alone trash people are obsessed with hell, while we are not? Another reason to do not be like them, and live with this constanlty fear… What idiots! For really you did not get those empty Videos where godless alone people constantly talk about God, showing their obsession, are made not to help anyhow your godless alone life but to trap you into this empty stupid cult called atheism they know we live in the time of stupidity and godless trash people so they need to capture them as more as they can. They know you are the most stupid, weakest and alone people in the face of earth and they need to take advantages on you. They know you run anytime you see godless ass to kiss it. That what this empty BS cult atheism make you be, without God and without dignity. But let see how you are in trapped in this cult: Let see how many godless rats are here with their empty words and life, just as their cult called atheism. Why? Why Godless alone trash people want see the existence of God when it is clear that if they and all the things they see around (earth, stars, planets and so on) if they are creation something must created them. For real no respect for those godless blind trash people. God is what they do not know have and do not know in their miserable alone trash life. But God will take care about them as well, once death as anyone alse. Let's hope we will have better generation that those godless alone trash one.... We really do not need this empty and worthless cult called atheism and those modern godless alone idiots who thinks God cares to exist what those poor alone people think about him. No respect for them and their miserable godless alone life. (they are also godless ass kissers, as they run anytime they see a godless alone person... that what happen when you do not have God in your life, you lose your dignity, and you start to be disgusting in that way)... Oh anyway when you stopped to believe in God something died on you but you are so pathetic that you are not willing to admit it (right?). What trashy people without shame they deny their creator, and they will be judge for it.... Liars ad patetich as any Goddeniers. so their worthless empty life without him.... They are even the weakest people, because if they are wrong, they are the ones who will pay for denying God... Won't be in their shoes. No respect for them.... I told you this godless is the worst generation (those people are just empty and worthless as the cult they are in), and when it will be gone with their stupid empty, worthless atheism that does not going anywhere, that do not offer or teach anything, none will complain about it, not even those very weak losers!!!!! ... Do not call them atheist but godless alone souless trash. Let's forget about those worthless empty people and their worthless and empty cult do not even good to clean the dirtiest motel. WHEN YOU WILL BE GONE NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID CULt CALLED ATHEISM. You are the worst of people, no respect for you:... those are juss godless alone trash people, liers as any Godeniers with less thing sacred in their miserable alone godless life… those weak people are so weak and alone that they wait for an empty videos from an obsessed godless person to kiss his ass, disgustingly (no God, No Dignity) it would not change their life, actually more alone and empty, (they do not even have a real community) empty life they live empty shit they are in like this stupid cult called Atheism! No respect for them. (They are very weak, empty and frustrated people, a life that none will accepted, but those godless alone trash idiots).. those who say there is no God will pay for it, soon or later... No won't be a godless alone trash person into an empty cult not even good for my ass such atheism, that offers them nothing. But emptiness and lonlyness for their miserabile godless alone life. No respect for them. They are just empty as their cult called atheism. But they will pay this soon or later, and all the emptiness for nothing they are facing in their ridicolous miserable alone life! It is time to throw on the trash empty atheism and godless alone trash people, they are not even worthless to clean shit. You can not respect them and their emptiness! It is over for you, trash is not even good to clean you of all this atheism BS. No respect for you. Let's really hope we can have a better generation and forget this godless alone trash one as quickly as possible. IT IS OVER, it is time for you and this nosense called atheism to go back from the nothing you come from. No respect for you. You will pay all this shit, soon or later... Today I will put your BS atheism in the toilet and flash it and you godless alone will shut up, ok? You are worthless and empty as your stupid cult. No respect for you.... This is the worst, weakest, empty generation, and when it will be over with their stupid empty cult called atheism none will complain it. IT'S IS OVER, godless alone trash.... Those godless alone poor people are playing with the fire, and they will pay for it, and even badly........ They are so desperate and frustrated in and empty stupid life... No sorry for you. Let's hope in the next generation, let's hope in a better generation, and let's forget this one and trhow it on the trash with their stupid, nosense cult called atheism that will lead them anywhere. No respect for you again..... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GODLESS ALONE TRASH PEOPLE AND YOUR EMPTY STUPID ATHEISM NOT EVEN GOOD TO CLEAN THE DIRTIEST TOILET IN THE WORLD... You got no peace over there (and if God is real you will be and are f.... up.. You godless alone people are so weak)......... God will care about you as well, poor person.... (you life is more miserable and empty without God, but you are so patetic to realize it). NO respect for you and your empty cult called atheism....... You are just frutrated,obsessed, miserable, alone godless person that does deserve any kind of respect, just to be so. (Lier as any Godenier)....... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GUYS, YOU AND YOUR STUPID EMPTY CULT ATHEISM That does not even deserve my piss….. all this just show how much those godless trash people are frustrated (to do not have what people have sacred and holly) no respect for them. (they are just here to kiss godless ass as they are into a stupud Cult and do not have God in their miserable alone life),...

@@chrlpolk 🤣🤣🤣

He looks terrible. Stop, lying.

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.

Infuriated at what? Do you disagree with the statement "men can't be women and women can't be men"? Matt is in a homosexual relationship. That's a fact. If he accepted that fact, obvious facts wouldn't hurt his feelings.

Sociopata ​@@mike7419

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...

I think Matt realized that if he sat through the debate he would’ve looked like a fool.

@@Schmeadeable lol true. kind of a lose-lose situation for him.

Totally, it's why the most religious places on Earth are all the worst by every conceivable metric of human prosperity, while the most secular places have the highest quality of life.

@@user-we5rg9bn1b tell that to secular countries such as china and North Korean. And before you say “those aren’t secular” then why do their governments insist that they are? 🤥

@@benclark4823 They don't, North Korea claims it's Juche, which is a cult of personality around the Kim family & communism. China is "atheist" because religious power structures could challenge the CCP, not due to any philosophical or educational reasons. To compare that to all the other first world nations that have high amounts of atheism due to education and stable societies is obviously arguing in bad faith, so I won't engage further.

No need to avoid it. If he wanted a debate on that topic, he could have asked for it. Instead, he lied. He trivialized suicide. Fuck him.

​@@SansDeity I don't think he trivialized the topic. He said that's the justification the community use to deflect criticism of their ideals. It's called emotional hostage taking. You need to agree with x y and z or else I'll do something to myself and it will be your fault.

The dillamonkey cope.

@@SansDeity what a dishonest little man you are. You have officially lost all credibility as a "debater".

​@@AdamSmith-de5oh Exactly 💯

Very aragont (wtf that supposedly means in your world of grammar and language) of you to not concede the point made either. Grow up and first buy a dictionary, then an encyclopedia, friend.

@@patriklindholm7576 Your pathetic you know that.

>"He made the stated argument that even if atheists are right about God not being real, they should still want to live under Christian ethics anyway," This position is incoherent, in my opinion. The entire grounding of so-called "Christian ethics" (ignoring for a moment that Christianity doesn't deserve much credit) is that its positions are backed by theistic claims. The ethics you attribute to an arbitrary theistic tradition, whatever those may be, are just secular ethics if we're all rejecting the existence of a god.

I’m inclined to agree with you on your middle section. I havnt see n the debate so I have no skin in the game here. But I do agree that certain secular ideologies have gotten out of hand. I do not believe trans women are women, but by women I’m using the biological definition. Basically someone that has the anatomy intended to gestate and birth children. I think that men who identify as a woman suffer from a mental disorder. Mental disorders are an indication of improper brain development and or function. Obviously a man that thinks he is a woman has not had the proper brain development due to hormone imbalances etc. I do not feel these people should be ridiculed or treated less than anyone else. I think just like anyone else they should be shown compassion and care the same as a person with schizophrenia or cancer has. This delusional mindset does not make them bad people. However I do not think we should endorse this behavior for their own benefit. We should point them in avenues of treatment. I have been clinically diagnosed with schizophrenia. I have delusions that I am the only real person on the planet, I think the majority of people conspire to do me harm. I think we can all agree this is not healthy and can only serve to bring me harm. It I was encouraged to seek treatment and I have acquired tools to be able to separate my delusions from reality.i still have these delusions, but now that I know they are not real I can move forward in a more productive manner. I’m pretty sure if someone was walking around with the belief that they were really a squirrel in a human body we would question their mental fortitude. I do not see why the same principle does not apply to transgender people.

@@shassett79 Those ethics are attributed to that theistic tradition, because they are entrenched ethical positions of that theism's belief structure. That system of ethics requires belief in God to be valid, but the argument is that atheistic belief structures are so bad and nonsensical that we should want the Christian ethical structure, regardless if God exists or not.

@@benjaminsnyder9587 That's nonsensical. Ethics don't require a god to be valid. Theists act like nobody knew murder was wrong before the first century but that's obviously not the case.

@@shassett79 Easy now. Keep your fedora on. 1) I never said that ethics require a god to be valid. I'm an atheist, after all. 2) I was saying that the Christian system of ethics is philosophically constructed in a manner that their ethics rest on the foundation that their God is backing those ethics, regardless of whether you or I think that is valid.

That’s exactly what happened. Wilson used Matt’s tools against him. Matt saw the writing on the wall and realized he was backed into a corner after Andrew’s opening statement so he fled. Simple as that. He was neutered from the get-go and tried to save face just like he’s attempting to do with this cringy cope response.

...bated.

@@ALTDOK667, woops

​@@philosofish6128🎣🪱👄 "baited breath" 😅

Legit? As in, you agree with him on almost everything, and therefore you wanted matt to stick to trying to "win" a dishonest debate that he didn't prepare for at all because his opponent did a bait and switch?

Dullacunty and honesty? You must be joking. He was always the atheist village idiot and I'm an atheist myself.

@BobBelson roflmao... it's secular influence that changed Christianity.

Secular societies have flourished all over the west.

@@Glasschin2.0 Where. ?????? All western societies core demographics are were and are Christian. It is only recently that those numbers are diminishing .Name one Atheist society that flourished in history?.There are none.. Your currency says in GOD We Trust .Don't forget that..The core rot of secularism as the driving force is exactly what we are facing now. Secular thought is not in and of itself bad.It has helped bring innovation to our society. However making a non spiritual ideology your primary driver means I can kill you or you can kill me with no guilt just because______ (fill in the blank)..This is the recipe for civil unrest on a scale of the bolshevik revolution and beyond..

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?

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!! 🙂

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.

😂 yeah being undefeated doesn't mean much if you never really step into the ring.

Except that's not how Dillahunty used the views expressed by the speaker. He was providing an example, taken from real current politics, of what Christian theocracy could look like. Wilson was irrelevant to this.

@@redflag4781That's not what Dillahunty says at 10:20 in this video. He wants to get at Andrew's views.

@LM-yw7gn No, he simply states that he doesn't know what Wilson's position is, relative to the speaker's. The discussion of the speaker is debate topic specific, Wilson's views cannot be as relevant since he is just some Internet weirdo.

@@redflag4781 In this video, after mentioning the 'problematic' views of the Speaker of the House, Matt says this: "I did this, and I specifically-it's so funny ^_^-I specifically said, because I didn't know... um, I want to know what Andrew-my opponent's-position is on Christianity in this sense because Andrew's version of Christianity could be much better than the Speaker of the House's." How do you make yourself believe that Matt didn't want to get at Andrew's views by way of the Speaker of the House (i.e. Satan)?

I'm sorry, was Mike Johnson's homophobia the debate topic? I thought it was Christian ethics vs secular humanism ethics. It was Matt who went off topic and disrespected Andrew by referring to God as "bumbling". But why would I expect atheists to be honest about what transpired? You liars only care about optics and damage control. You certainly don't care about the truth.

Andrew was fully on topic. Explain how he wasn't.

If you haven't noticed by watching it it seems hopeless to explain that to you. I don't think it's worth the energy. I fully accept that you will think different and that some people know what a debate structure is and others don't or at least don't know the goal and how to reach it. Watch it again and try to ask yourself if this on topic or just personal attack. Second question is which way to debate is leading to a conclusion both can reach to answer the beginning question. If we do that we come to the result that Andrew did a poor job in debating. And a good a good one in trying to attack Matt......but not his beginning point on the topic. So yeah . Have a good one

@@TheNowNonBeliever saying "just watch it again" after pontificating about how hopeless it would be to explain to me is so silly. Just give a specific quote or timestamp of Andrew making a personal attack. It shouldn't be hard. Edit: note, Andrew saying that trans people are lunatics is no more a personal attack than Matt saying God is a bumbling idiot. It may be provocative, offensive, and blunt, but it's not a personal attack, and in Andrews case, it was a clear argument to the point - under secular humanism, how do you justify calling men women and women men? Andrews point was that he can grant the god argument, and Matt has no rebuttal to what happens if someone uses their secular humanist logic and reason and decides that the modern trans ideology is BS and lunacy. That's not a personal attack, and it's a direct attack on Matt's worldview and the debate topic. To which matt had no answer, and instead threw a tantrum, clutched his pearls, and ran away.

@@joeyn985 I know that it's not the answer you wanted to hear. As predicted earlier. But swallow ot

Andrew spoke bullshit nonsense.

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?

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

While it might turn into that for many...becouse they learn to do it that way online.....on twitter etc. There are still more than enough people that focus on learning what is true, but sadly even lawyers learn to slam the table as a last resort if facts dont support them.

Matt got scared and ran

If Matt was any kind of debater he'd be able to handle whatever Andrew's tactics were. Matt's been doing this a long time, and he really shouldn't need random people on the internet to coddle his balls for him. Matt could've stayed and shown up Andrew for being a fool, but he didn't. He pussed out on a very important issue. I bet trans people feel nice and SAFE for Matt's lack of spine. If these are the people who believe they're standing up for trans people, I seriously fear for them. If I was trans I'd be appalled at what Matt did.

@@wilder11 I find it funny how you talk about Matt then start coddlin' your Andrew's balls. Maybe you should look at yourself before attacking others. Also you are not speaking for trans people, it disgust me that you even try.

@@wilder11 "he'd be able to handle whatever Andrew's tactics were" He did, though. By leaving. I know you think you can argue with people who are bad faith, but you can't.

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.

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.