It's rich of Dillhunty to act shocked and outraged and walk out of the debate for 'someone being a jackass' when he constantly interrupts and bashes people of the opposite world view on a constant basis as a method of argumenting- he just was unable to bring anything to the table and couldn't stand the fact that he got even a small portion of his own medicine and didn't want to start discussing a topic that he knew he could not win on and that he opened the door door to by mentioning LGBT etc in his own opening statement- if there was preparation or something to bring to bare than take it on the chin and prove the guy wrong period, don't run away and act self-righteous as if you are on a moral high-horse of victory for fleeing a fight.
Dillahunty said “I’m not gonna sit here and dignify the *PREPARATION I WENT THROUGH…* “ He opened up the debate by basically saying that he did no preparation. That is a disturbing amount of deception.
Dillahunty said that our new, Christian Speaker of the House wants to criminalize homosexuality! THAT IS A BIG LIE. MIKE JOHNSON HAS NEVER SAID THAT, AND WOULD NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO SO! Dillahunty is A BIG FAT LIAR!
Dillahunty can dish it, but can't take it. And Wilson turned the tables on Dillahunty: "I remain unconvinced, Matt". Dillahunty knew he was cornered, and got out of Dodge.
Agreed. There was a lot of questions about weather or not Matt actually believes what he claims, and his response here is more evidence he doesn't actually believe it, but uses it because it happened to fit his ideas in the moment.
@@nathanielalderson9111When you think the traits of narcissistic personality disorder are, • Sense of self importance. • Preoccupation with power, beauty, or success. • entitled. • can only be around people who are important or special. • interpersonally exploitative for their own gain. • Arrogant. • Lack empathy. • Must be admired. You can come to see nearly every boss, successful individual, king, lord, or politician, in the capitalist system, to name but a few, suffer with narcissistic personality disorder. Your comment on God’s position, and character is interesting, how would you yourself depict God’s position and character then?.
You know, the best part is that you can tell Andrew was reading a pre-written script. He (Technically) adressed every single point matt was going to make before he made them. He didnt even hear what he had to say this time around because of how predictable matt was. 😂😂
I don’t think it was really a “script” but more having notes on his opponents common points which is smart to have. Especially when Matt was completely unprepared to have Andrew know exactly what he was going to try and argue lol.
I will say kinda like Elijah mocked the god Baal, it did show the ridiculous world view of Matt …. I wished he could of done without cursing… other than that Matt has earned that
Matt and his fans try desperately to score some last second moral “how dare you” outrage, meanwhile every other debate of him and Aron Ra are them losing their temper and using personal attacks. Height of hypocrisy. And nothing Andrew said about Matt or his position wasn’t true.
Andrew is Bloodsport debater; you know those folks who don't debate on the grounds on not being a jerk. I've seen many of Andrew's debates and this seems like a mauling. Seems like matt offended him way prior to the debate.
He's also not a Christian apologist as his Orthodox religion does not allow him to debate on the existence of God (you need special permission). So he took this as a political debate. He removed the God not real argument, and used a modification of the philosophical zombie to argue Christian ethics as a secular system vs Secular Humanism
24:26 No, Andrew seemed to be granting Matt's worldview and pointing out how atomized it is. Each person has their own beliefs and just shouldn't (even though Matt said there are no should's and should not's) impose that on others. Using Matt as the example of a Humanist is just as valid as Matt using Mike Johnson in his opening (tit for tat as it were). I wonder if that will become clear later on.
I disagree that Andrew's approach undermined his position. Pointing out how absurd and corrosive "secular humanism" via the propping up of the trans delusion is the fastest way to disarm Matt's defense. And nothing Andrew said was untrue. Abrasive, maybe, but still true. And if the truth makes you walk out, so be it.
I’ve been on a debate binge lately. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dillahunty, etc. all argue the “absurdity” of Christianity by siting the personal beliefs of their opponents. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
@@andrewstarr8062as a Christian who wants the word spread more than I care to see someone win a debate I have to respectfully disagree. He did not handle things in a biblical manner. NO MATTER WHAT that is the standard we have to adhere to. And there are reasons for this. If we don’t we risk falling victim to pride and also losing souls who may have been watching with open hearts and minds. Was Matt deserving of the pushback he got ? Yes absolutely. But we have a higher power who empowers us to be above that.
In the psalms somewhere “Answer not a fool with his own folly so you won’t end up like him, but answer a fool according to his own folly so he doesn’t think himself wise” “The tongue who lies hates who it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin” Niceness isn’t a Christian virtue, kindness is Don’t forget, Yeshua himself called the Pharisees monsters
While I'm all here for Andrew's arguments, his specific choice of words was *obviously* going to provoke this kind of response. He would have done everyone a service if he had used kinder language instead.
No I don't think he was. He conceded their worldview and turned it against them. Just because their worldview sounds like trolling doesn't mean that's what he was doing.
The reason I think Wilson kept talking about Dillahunty in his opening is because secular humanists have a problem with no true Scotsman fallacy. If he talked about secular humanism broadly, Dillahunty could and has before responded with "nuh uh, that's not real secular humanism."
@@rickr530 Well Christianity and Islam both have books that, for better or worse, define what a "true Scotsman" is. If a Muslim or a Christian wants to seemingly conflict with a plain reading of each text then they need a compelling exegesis to support it.
There is a manifesto for secular humanism too, so there is a firm stance. Not saying Matt would have went by it, or that I believe it. Just putting it out there
@@michaelwinters2574 if I recall correctly, the secular humanist manifesto is a collection of impressively vague truisms and has no clear message or dogma.
@@rickr530 so your saying when dan says he is going off the manifesto in one debate and another debate saying he doesnt believe that in another its perfectly fair meaning you think when christians explain their stance its also fair? i have a hunch to believe you dont agree with christians doing it but have no problem with what is supposed to be the "more logical" answer is right . sounds like it isnt more logical after all and all your doing is picking a side based of another point
Andrew absolutely won this debate. He’s using Dillahunty’s exact same tactics strategically, so dillahunty fanboys can’t even say anything wrong with it without likewise exposing Dillahunty himself, conceding that he actually loses every debate he engages in. The only difference in this debate is that while Wilson is strategically using the same tactics, he’s just better.
You're delusional, Andrew is not better. There was no debate, just opening statements and Matt felt he was misled into thinking Andrew was actually going to debate. At first sign that there wasn't going to be an actual debate he refused to participate which is what would have happened if the promoter had told him, assuming he knew of course.
Matt feels an immense amount of shame for sleeping with a man who calls himself a woman and Andrew found the perfect way to hit that emotional bullseye without engaging in ad hominem (of Matt directly).
Well, my friend, you should feel even more shame at judging others to diffuse your own gender issues. Tell us the truth about you now.. Your argument/comment has no place in a biblical discussion other than to judge.. like so many judgements in this video.. the log is in your eye my friend.
The only reason why Matt quit was because Andrew came right out of the gate using the same tactics that he uses. He then realized he was going to be on the short end of the stick. He now knows that Andrew wasn't going to be one of the weak callers that calls into his show. Andrew being over the top gave him his out to flee. Which is too bad, because I would have appreciated watching Andrew continue to dismantle him.
Christians believe if you don’t repent and put faith in Christ, you spend eternity in hell. So, when we witness, it is love and concern for that person, that spurs us on. You can take it, or leave it. We just don’t want people burning in hell, for eternity.
@jonilikens8184 agreed. As a Christian i dont want anyone to burm in hell. BUT people most definitely will, by their own choice. That is a fact that we must all face and speak. Many will go to hell, only few will see heaven.
@@JustifiedNonetheless I wouldn't do it but that is exactly what matt does, and it was funny to see someone do it to him. That other speaker doesn't seem like a Christian.
@@JustifiedNonethelessYou keep saying this without giving qualifiers. You probably would have told Christ to be better when he called people ‘fool’. YOU be better!!
I disagree that he _had_ to be rude. But i think his worldview concession and “unconvincedness” were a brilliant move to force Matt to make a positve argument for his position, which heʼs not used to doing and proved here that he couldnʼt do.
you're siding with a man who wants the government in your bedroom telling you how you're allowed and not allowed to have sex, he wants to take your Right to Privacy away, he wants the government legistalting what style of clothing we're allowed to wear . Andrew wants the USA to be like north korea. Please consider the hill you're defending here
@@angelmartin7310 All I really know about him is that he is a fellow Christian monarchist that is friends with Jay Dyer and for that he will always have my support. Voddie baucham even said there is no scripture that says thou shalt be nice. But if someone seems interested and sincere in the gospel then you know God is dealing with them. So we are kind and gentle ofc. But I have no tolerance for blasphemous people. 😉
I call bull, Andrews behavior was like a child with a gun. He already had the winning argument, but he just made Christians look like jerks. Someone who clearly is either young in the faith, or doesnt know the first thing about it.
Andrew's tactic was to demonstrate the incoherence of the atheist worldview rather than make an affirmative theistic argument. Dillahunty couldn't deal with it and fled like a coward.
Jesus told his disciples to go out to the villages and if one of them didn't want to hear the Good News that disciple shouldn't even take the dust of their streets with him. How do you differentiate between the two? The people who've rejected the Gospel shouldn't get the same patience as the ones who are willing to listen. Pushing back against the likes of Dillahunty is something we all should do. Just because the Gospel is free don't treat it cheaply
@@goblin6587not to mention that he extremely insulted the prophet Muhammad saw. for example and probably Jesus as. as well, who most religious people love just as much
Not a matter of "treatment". It's not like Andrew got up and beat hit up on stage. He verbally destroyed Matt. You're in a debate over worldviews. If you expect everyone to exchange flowers. You are a part of the problem in the world. Grow a pair.
@@MultiBigAndy Since you've watched a lot, give examples. Have you watched his Atheist Debates series where he breaks down topics and review? I think this is a good example of his ability to logically think through arguments.
@@malirk The only thing that broke down was Matt. You run from the argument that means you've lost. If his world view is so perfect he should've been able to sit there and defend it. He ran like a bitch
See, Andrew was being big brained when he was adding Dilahunty into his statement. Dillahunty ALWAYS adds himself into a debate saying, “Well that doesn’t convince me” so Andrew was just 2 steps ahead of him and tried to cut him off at the knees. Giving him nowhere to run, which ended up happening anyway.
Love how this makes you think he was 2 steps ahead when he actually never took a step. As soon as Assdrew opened his mouth everyone in that room and watching lost brain cells
Dillahunty says humanism allows you to be Christian as long as it is not imposed on others while LGBTQ is being imposed on parents as a requirement to allow children to change genders including using drugs to do it. Is that not imposing humanism views on people who have other beliefs?
Guys… I like seeing Matt get a taste of his own medicine just as much as the next guy but if you are condoning anything Andrew did here, you need to rethink where your heart sits. This was neither a loving nor intelligent performance by Andrew. This shouldn’t be celebrated
With "right" being the operative word, he'd only be wrong if he violated a commitment he made without good reason. I'm not sure "my opponent hurt my feelings" is a good enough reason.
Said it before..Andrew Wilson out manoeuvred Dillahunty in a way that prior Christians in debates with Dillahunty have not. Approaching debates "showing love" with debaters like MD does not have any weight...because his debates are not in good faith but for self promotion at the expense and ridicule of those Christians debating him. Andrew was sharp and wiley enough to know this. In doing so he flattened Dillahunty and exposed him to everyone including his "fan base " . Salute to Andrew Wilson.
It actually would’ve gone poorly for Andrew had Matt stayed. Matt could’ve spent the rest of the debate destroying Andrew’s character as a representative of the Christian worldview. It wasn’t a smart move and a terrible representation of what it means to be a follower of Christ. It isn’t about being wily or snarky and worse rude and offensive to get under someone’s skin. When you watch multiple debates of Matt with respectable Christians you come out with two things: 1. Matt doesn’t have a leg to stand on other than his own inadequate and unscholarly perception that represents his worldview 2. Matt is ruled by his emotions and a clear representative of the type of character that’s a result of a Christless life. Having Andrew act that way will only encourage nonbelievers to side even more with Matt by showing them that Christians are no better and it will leave Christians feeling flustered because Andrew did not represent Christ. Sure emotionally we may get a kick of how Andrew handled it from a secular view, but that’s the issue, we are not to design our enjoyment through the suffering of others or the misrepresentation of Christ.
@musicianscrub458 I disagree. We are no better than non-believers. That is one core issue I see regularly as push back from secularists that Christians have a superiority complex even amongst each other. That is one of the core reasons that put me off and has put off of non believers I know from coming to Christ for a long time. Second point, moderate atheists...those not into the cult of Matt Dillahunty are being turned off by him, same way as the new atheists are turning off fair minded atheists. Everyone has their viewpoint on how Andrew Wilson handles himself (he regularly participates in debates and engages culture), but in the aspect of this debate, we'll have to agree to disagree.
@@mannyfabin1850 Jesus told us to "be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect" in Matthew 5:48. You can say we are no better than non-believers, but Christ calls us to be. It is not about a superiority complex, it is about glorifying God. You can say "showing love" does not hold any weight, but Christ calls us to be loving, and to be peacemakers. When involved in a debate, our motives and actions are not only judged by the people listening, but before God, and as Christians we should hold each other accountable in that.
How? Dilahunty couldnt have argued anything because Andrew is Eastern Orthodox and they dont buy into this "christian niceness" nonsense. Kindness, yes. But being kind isnt always the same as being "nice". 🤷♂️🤔
I will admit that Wilson’s approach would be inappropriate if he were debating someone who shows respect to his opponents, but Matt is a bully, and you don’t deal with bullies by being polite to them; you deal with them by giving them a taste of their own medicine. Christ commanded us to love our neighbors, but you don’t always have to be kind to them. Sometimes, the most loving thing one can do is humble their opponent so they will eventually see the light. Even if Wilson did cross a line, you don’t walk away from a debate because your opponent says something mean. Such a move is cowardly and most Christians wouldn’t last five minutes if they did the same.
“But Matt is a bully” - Don’t repay evil with evil (Romans 12:17) “But you don’t always have to be kind to them” - The fruit of the spirit is kindness (Galatians 5:22) - but be kind to everyone, patiently enduring evil (2 Timothy 2:24) Everything else you said I sort of agree with. Especially because this is Dillahunty’s MO in every debate
@@timothyvenable3336 Those verses have to be looked upon in the proper context. One must remember that Jesus often used quite harsh language while rebuking the Pharisees. In Mathew, he says, “You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” That is hardly kind language, but Jesus was trying to humble them so they would see the light. Christians certainly shouldn’t seek revenge, but harsh methods can sometimes be deployed if they lead to redemption.
Absolutely but let’s not neglect that there are many degrees between rolling over and punitively and personally bashing the man. It takes a poised and well-spoken debater to deliver an emotionally intense response without being offensive, but it’s possible. Andrew could have been even more fiery and intense in his delivery, that’s fine, but keep it to the logical defeaters of this humanist dribble, not mocking those deluded by it. The fact that secular humanism and “consensus theory” literally permits any atrocity, for example, would have allowed Andrew to punch Matt right in the gut, hard, but not below the belt
I think a point that needs to be driven home is that it's doubtful that Dillahunty actually 'rage quit" he simply engaged in theatrics to get out of there. He had no argument in response to Wilson openly demonstrating and using secular humanism to show how perverse Dillahunty's thinking and objectives are.
@@batman5224 I get you, and I don’t want to start an argument because overall I agree. But I’m afraid you’re the one not taking in the context. Jesus spoke harshly to others, as did Paul and other apostles, to other Jews. Not to unbelievers. That’s actually why I didn’t mention Ephesians 4:32 when Paul says we need to be kind and loving to one another. That verse is telling Christian’s to be kind to Christian’s. But there are ample verses of the necessity of being kind to everyone, especially unbelievers. The Pharisees knew better, and that was a Jew rebuking a Jew. The Pharisees should have known better. But It wasn’t Jesus talking to random people who didn’t know any better. That’s the problem. Also I think there is a difference between being “kind” and being “nice”. We don’t need to be nice to anyone, and at times we need to be stern and almost harsh. But we need to do it with kindness.
He already has been knocked down the ladder so far he only fell off the bottom rung. He'll be fine except people will be hesitant debate him since they are afraid he'll stomp off like a child and waste thier time.
@@scottwall8419 lol that’s not going to make anyone hesitant to debate 😂 that makes people want to even more bc a rage quit is ALWAYS good for views.
You are correct of course. The entire argument from the atheist perspective IS To insult the theistic worldview. They never shy for making fun of all of us.
I would bet Wilson's comment about the low energy in the room was probably due to an off camera event or interactions in which he realized he had to deal with what was probably a loaded audience. This is even more probable when you watch Wilson deal with people throughout the remainder of his time. Wilson's aggressiveness was absolutely appropriate to what Dillahunty established in the outset and he didn't lose the thread. The opponent sets the terms for the conflict. Classical debate went out the window with Dillahunty's opening. This was brilliant. Wilson actually applied "logic" as Dillahunty insisted people apply in his opening tirade. There was no slander on his part either. What he stated was uncomfortable but true and it was only uncomfortable to people who are conditioned by Nominalists to be hypervigilant about invalid opinions and invalid or feigned offenses. It was Dillahunty that was doing the slander by attacking Chrisitianity by imputing malice where there objectively is none. What Wilson stated was true and there is no reason to think he was a jerk. He opted to go on the offensive against Dillahunty rather than be put into a defensive position righting Dillahunty's deliberate Straw Man arguments. Nominalism of the secular humanists and Dillahunty is the main problem that Andrew demonstrated more effectively than giving a dry analysis. Also, let's not be naive, Dillahunty did not "rage quit." He had nowhere to go once being called out for his lack of definition and subjective points. How was he going to argue? And let's be frank about it, Dillahunty from his opening was not about debate. He was using/abusing the debate format to evangelize for his own political agenda. Wilson cut through all of that and exposed Dillahunty openly for anyone with eyes to see.
Perfect analysis. Couldn’t have worded it better myself. Only thing, Matt Dillahunty totally did rage quit the debate. He had nowhere to go, his entire worldview was thoroughly debunked and exposed as foolishness. He was definitely heated about that, his ego more than a bit bruised-but he pretended he was outraged for other reasons. Still a rage quit. Either way, all your points still stand, Dillahunty is a clown.
I know Dillahunty has a load Of loyalty followers, but he was completely and utterly obliterated in this debate. If anyone is doubting that then I’ll direct you to the diatribe he went on about Mike Johnson. When he stated that Johnson’s worldview was dangerous and harmful to LGBTQ later he claimed Wilson went off topic talking about Transgenders (the T). If a Dillahunty fan can’t at minimum acknowledge this hypocrisy then we have nothing to talk about.
Dillahunty stated that Mike Johnson, our Speaker of the House, wants to crimilize homosexuality! That is a lie. In the least, Johnson wants to stop minors from getting PERMANANT, dangerous surgeries. AND THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US, WHO WANT THAT. YOU CAN NOT DEBATE WITH A DILLAHUNTY, BECAUSE THEY TWIST UP THINGS, AND SPURT OUT LIES!
Yeah Andrew Wilson pegged Matt so well that he had no rebuttal and played it off as if he was offended by everything that was said. It was his utter lack of substance and self awareness that did him in.
He certainly wasn't obliterated, but his emotions do get the better of him lol Most of (not all) Andrews points are asinine... we should arrest the parents of children who have sex? Ridiculous... Let's take a child who doesn't know what they're doing and take their parents away from them so they grow up even more fucked up... great idea! It's very easy for children of good parents to have sex without the knowledge of the parent... A system like this would cause parents to keep their children locked inside and never let them out of their site for fear of arrest... All parents would be overly strict and literally have to home school their kids. In fact, it would result in ANOTHER very strong motivation to get an abortion. It would be out of control... the implications of such an oppressive law would be insane, and it would snowball to other laws that made no sense. Also, what is this about simulated sex being a crime? So the Elvis would've been arrested during every show he ever put on? Almost all modern entertainers should be arrested? Absurd.........
@@upplsuckimcool16 the analogy was to show the utter insanity of post modernism and atheist humanism. He isn't saying that this is an actual standard that should be upheld. Clearly you don't understand that what Andrew did was correlate the uselessness of saying "promotes human flourishing" in order to justify any particular view. That's the problem with moral relativism. You have the capacity in moral relativism for morals to become completely reversed which means what you view as good or bad will eventually be flipped as it suits your desires or that of your community.
@@pigzcanfly444 Well promoting human flourishing as being a requirement for good moral standards seems like something that would only change for the better when it comes to promoting human flourishing... When you use "human flourishing" as a standard for morality sure the morals will change over time, and will get better... for example: Killing witches was considered to be moral, and promoted human flourishing, but as society progressed and education got better we now realize that killing witches is an immoral act... So yes, those morals got reversed to suit the desire of our community. Are you suggesting that at some point the goal of human flourishing will result in an immoral society over a long period of time? The longer time goes on the better we get at things...... No? Another clear example is slavery.... At one point in our history slavery was a moral act... in fact it was touted as a moral right bestowed upon us by the christian god, but as we progressed as a society we realized that owning other people as property and beating them into submission was immoral. I don't understand your point.... "the problem with moral relativism". What else is there? We created a society based on what's best for the other people we inhabit space with... How else would we get our morals!? The hell?
@@patrickvdh8606 1) You're making assumptions here. You shouldn't do that. And 2) I don't really care about what WD said here. His criticism was AW shouldn't be mean... in an informal debate
25:00 Andrew using Matt as a stand in, works if Matt is allowed to mischaracterize every Christian in his opening statement. It's Christianity vs humanism in the resolution, but Matt projected falsehoods onto Christianity and any non humanist, so it makes sense for Andrew to correct Matt directly on that.
Matt had it comin' a long time If ppl disagree with Andrew's conduct, let us not forget that God will use anyone to check those who slander His name. Lets pray that this may be the start of a learning curve for Matt God Bless
You gotta how blatantly dishonest Matt is about Christian values. He says absolutely nothing about the actual commands of Christ, love thy God and love thy neighbor, but immediately shots for old "your God ordered X in the OT, so I'll rip all of the theological context out of the passage and declare that to be a Christian value."
Yeah, it boggles my mind that anybody takes matt seriously. I think he just trolls lots of christians for clout, knowing that those christians are pure of heart. Wilson knew this and so made a mockery of matt.
@@hordechess7629 And what? Its a response the the claim above, do you disagree that Matt is supposed to be pointing out the flaws in Christian morality?
Matt was openly mocking God and name calling God, but no rebuke from Nate. His opponent openly mocks the obvious absurdity of people like Matt, and Nate rebukes him... Now, I'm all for holding ourselves to a higher standard, but let's be honest, these folks need to hear these things in a language that they understand.
We don’t rebuke unbelievers in the way we rebuke believers. Unbelievers are dead in their sin. Believers are alive in Christ. There is no excuse for behaving in the way Andrew did on that stage.
@@JakeRuzi please. Matt has long talked about his time as a "believer" and how it was his time in seminary to become a Pastor that he decided to openly rebel instead. So, if anything, depending on your position, Matt is a prodigal. So, it's more than a "excuse" it's necessary.
@@JakeRuzi how exactly did he believe? And no one ever said you can't rebuke unbelievers in the way you do believers l. The argument is that you don't do so on the same subjects.
Debates are for getting at the truth, not for looking good for the audience. When you start making the latter a priority you lose your attachment to the truth.
The crux of the debate: Atheist: “Secular Humanism is all about promoting human flourishing!” Christian: “Define human flourishing. And who gets to determine that definition and why. And why I should care about anyone except Old #1.” Atheist: “Uuhhh…..” Kind of like: Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!” Christian: “Without begging the question, define ‘extraordinary’.” Sagan: “Uuhhh…..”
@@tomasrocha6139 Sure, but what _makes_ a claim extraordinary, unusual or remarkable? Who gets to decide? And if “extraordinary” evidence _is_ provided, then you need extraordinary evidence for that, and then extraordinary evidence for _that,_ and you have an infinite regress where nothing can be proven. How about this: “All claims (whether “extraordinary” or not) require _sufficient_ evidence.”
Carl Sagan’s little epigram presupposes that the existence of a supernatural dimension to life is an extraordinary claim. However, that presupposition is very much a minority view, both in the world today, and even more so in history. That being so, the extraordinary claim is on the part of those who declare that there’s no such entity as a god, gods or God. Sagan actually needs to provide extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claim. Since he’s dead, those who repeat his aphorism as if it’s a magic formula to defeat theism must provide such evidence. But they never do. They simply take refuge behind saying, “You can’t prove a negative. I’m just saying I’m not convinced there’s a god because there’s no good evidence for it.”
@@Mark-cd2wfTo call this an infinite digress shows the flawed logical reasoning present in your argument. For a claim to be made, there must be evidence to show how you could claim such a thing. When you claim easily the most extraordinary existence of a supernatural entity, and provide astonishingly NO evidence, there’s a problem. Forget regular, natural evidence through scientific proof, but no evidence for a claim besides individual experiences of people which cannot be tested. If that’s the BEST you have, there’s a problem. Furthermore, for a claim of supernatural existence, there must be evidence of the supernatural kind. Whether you call it extraordinary, supernatural or fantastic, the essence of the evidence requires it to emerge from the same plane of existence that this supposed entity emerges from. And since you have not even been able to prove a supernatural plane of existence, I think there’s a lot of homework left indeed. Word mambo jambo may impress those already biased in your favour, but the essence of your argument (if I may quote Richard Dawkins, who is a brilliant mind in his own right) is to others simply “it must be so incredibly profound because I can understand none of it”. And Mr/Mrs infinite needs also now to provide the definition of sufficient, no? Which, if you may realise, causes a greater paradox than the hypothetical one stated above, as the definition of sufficient is of greater contention than extraordinary or fantastic.
Words have meaning: Depraved: morally corrupt; wicked Lunatic: a mentally ill person. Prove how Andrew was incorrect, especially Biblically. It's a very bad thing when you prioritize feelings over the Truth. I believe the Scriptures call that wicked.
I've seen some Christian apologists start to take notes on this and express the need to be more aggressive in light of how devastating Wilson's argumentation was. Demonstrating the utter stupidity of the other side by adopting it was not groundbreaking but an underused and sorely needed strategy for today.
He absolutely did, and if anything you should be annoyed by the 'Christian' who he was debating since he was clearly not loving and failed to argue in a Christ honouring way and simply insulted those he disagreed with. The arguments he used were ridiculous when there was so much he should have challenged Dillahunty on. He failed at debating on a massive scale Andrew should be considered an embarrassment.
@@joshuaroberts2137 what do you mean the way he had the argument with dillahunty was the same as how he makes he’s arguments to Christian’s. But when the christians says no dillahunty basically calls them out on it because they don’t want to deal with it so when it is thrown back at him the way he reacts is telling and so are you. Because Jesus in the end said follow your head not your heart because that is what will lead you astray. So to go too love automatically is to dishonor and disarm your fellow Christian even when you don’t agree with then course of love of course because that’s all we feel.
@@joshuaroberts2137Jesus didn’t use kind language against the Pharisees, nor did John the Baptist, nor did the Church Fathers when fighting against heresies. Andrew brought up the LGBT, because Matt did. Andrew addressed his argument directly, and using mean language, doesn’t make him wrong. Dilahunty has no legs to stand on with “mean” debaters, when he’s known for being an asshole.
Andrew didn't fall off, you did. You didn't call out Matt when he insulted God and the Bible as being rude and are only picking up on Andrew's common sense take that a man cannot be a women. Anyone who believes this incredibly untrue idea is, in fact, a lunatic. There is an unsaid debate rule, you get what you give. I am so sick and tired of my fellow Christians bending over backwards to not offend the overly rude non-believers like Dillahunty or Hitchens or Krauss or Harris, and the list goes on. Where has that gotten us? How bout the secular society we now live in because we backed down every time. Well done. Now it's up to Christians with a backbone to take it back.
Andrew is more firm then the stereotypical meek, mild and gentle christian. Matt did not expect this approach. Andrew internally criticized Matt's view and christianity still won, in the context of human flourishing is way worse with secular humanism. Add human flourishing to anything you want. Christianity is supirior as the last 2k years of greatness brought to the world. I get church hurt and bad or fake Christians help make atheists. But good example of Matt unable to take the same medicine he gives to everyone.
Being firm doesn't mean doing what Andrew did. Andrew wasn't firm he presented himself and Christianity as hateful. He failed miserably to present Christianity as the loving religion it is.
@joshuaroberts2137 Christanity is love. But when dealing with people that will not reason or have conversation. But rather insult or use violence. We do the same because for defence and tough love. Jesus wasn't always a man speaking nice things all the time. He also use violence and harsh treatment when dealing with unreasonable people like the merchants. He flip tables and whipped them because they were making profits inside a temple that was only use for worship.
@timbotron4000 You can be kind, generous, and compassionate. Or rude, obnoxious, or insulting. The fact of the matter is telling the truth. End of story.
This should be a short form crash coarse on how not to debate. The guy literally ticked every “this puts you at a disadvantage” box like he doesn’t know what a debate is at all.
That title on the screen is the title of a live audience poll. The resolution was: "Christianity vs Secular Humanism: Who has the best ethical foundation" which isn't quite as horrible. But still not wonderful. Dillahunty is a waste. He goes on and dumps on people in the least charitable possible way then gets pissed when someone mocks his trans "girl" friend. Honestly, he got the exact treatment he deserves.
Yeah, if you only see a couple of his shows or debates he's not so bad, but when you see how slimy he is and how he gets off of being disrespectful and strawmanning people constantly, you just hope he gets G checked, and he did on that day lmao. Imagine trying to act tough or an authority on literally anything and running away from 4th grade level insults.
I love that you’re doing this video. I asked you to and maybe others did, too. I can hardly wait to watch this. I just started. But I wanted to thank you for listening to your subscribers. I’m so excited to hear what you have to say.
I believe you summed it up perfectly in saying it all was a waste of time. I had a conversation with someone in my family about salvation and he started getting quite upset emotionally. However, I asked why he was reacting that way when I was being calm. He did calm himself and didn’t walk away. We parted in a good manner, so he at least had food for thought, which didn’t make it a waste of time. It’s hard to plant seeds if you’re throwing them at someone😊 I always learn from your videos, so thank you, Nate, for another informative and encouraging one!!!
“It’s hard to plant seeds then you’re throwing them at someone” is a very good piece of wisdom lol I appreciate that. I hope the best for you and that family member’s relationship with God. He can certainly work wonders if we let it happen instead of trying to do it by our own power.
After watching Matt for 12 years it's become evident that his soil isn't conducive for growing crops. He was a professing Christian for the first part of his life so he's most likely heard the gospel and knows the Bible better than a lot of professing Christians. Matt is trying harder to convince himself that God's not real then he is his opponent and it's because of his lifestyle. The thought of being held accountable someday is not appealing to this type of atheist. But I agree we shouldn't throw seeds at people and exoect them to grow, But, Jesus also said don't throw your pearls to swine because they'll just trample them and then turn and attack you
Actually, no, he was way off in his summary. But it's understandable why he was and why you think he was correct. The background to this debate is important here. First, Andrew's tagline is "debate as bloodsport" and he has been in debates hosted by that organization before. This is Andrew's debate style, he advertises as such, and the organizer knew this when he approached Andrew for the debate and the two of them talked it over. Second, Andrew is a debater who happens to be Christian, not a Christian debater, and again he is open about this - he says he is a social issues debater whose personal views are informed by his religion but not an apologist. Matt was originally going to debate someone else on whether God exists but that person cancelled and Matt asked the organizers to find a replacement. They approached Andrew, who agreed to this debate only after a discussion that it was to be a political debate about worldviews and not a religious debate, and Matt himself is the one who wrote the debate topic. So it's understandable how people reach the conclusions they do without knowing the background, but when you know the context it changes things. I think the scriptures pretty much require Christians to be apologists whoever and wherever they are so I disagree with Andrew refusing to take responsibility for representing Christianity well in the first place, and I don't like his abrasiveness and profanity, so don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not approving of Andrew, I'm just saying that in context you can't blame him for failing to live up to the example set by William Lane Craig when Andrew lets you know from the beginning that on stage he is going to be vicious and un-Christian. Andrew is an attack dog and doesn't pretend to be anything other than that, and the organizer knew this about him and approached him for the debate anyway.
Years ago when my faith was waning, I was afraid to hear arguments from atheists because I felt how fragile I was at that time. Now years later, I'm willing to listen with a stronger faith in place and I'm shocked at how so few atheists (and even fewer well-known atheists) are actually able to make a coherent argument that actually speaks to what Christianity says.
Yeah, I've been dealing with it all my life so with all the arrogance masked as confidence that many atheists had i was expecting to be ignorant of whatever secret they knew about Christianity that supposedly defeats it... instead it's a fire hose of out of context quotes, dishonest interpretations, projecting etc. I'm honestly just as disappointed as I am relieved. Disappointed because I thought I'd learn something from them, relieved because my trust was placed in something so reliable, it stands the test(s) of time even today. The score board is looking nice on our end. ^_^.
Im a crucible member and a regular in Andrew's chat. This debate was crafted. Everyone knew Matt would rage quit. Andrew just took Matts worldview and destroyed it. And matt had nothing to say so he left indignantly. No one takes Dillahunty seriously anymore. You also need to understand Andrew is a blood sports debater. This is how he and most of the people he debates with online are. Including Matt Dillahunty. They know who he is.
I agree Andrew completely destroyed Matt’s worldview, but for goodness sake, as a Christian, represent Christ! Let everything be done in love! Shame on Andrew for his presentation
I have a friend who's atheist (yes still) and we used to be fans of his. He too said that nobody takes him seriously anymore. It seems that even atheist are sick and tired of his low hanging grifting.
@@timothyvenable3336You mean like when Jesus loved people enough to break out a whip, swing it at people, flip over tables, release animals from the cages, call the public speakers misleading the people "a den of vipers"along with "white washed tombs" ( HEAVY insults at the time) kind of thing? Ultimately be charged criminally and be crucified kind of thing? Why don't you cozy up to Satan? Find his good side "for 'goodness' sakes" and be careful not to hurt his feelings with the truth... Oh I'm sorry. That's sarcasm. Jesus never used that. Nope. He definitely never told the disciples that were upset about God's rules in marriage being for life to just go ahead and castrate themselves if they didn't like it. Nope. He sure didn't. Just asks the progressives; he was actually telling them to be trans. 😐... Paul, NEVER sarcasticly said of those that were demanding that Christians be circumcized that they go ahead and cut it all off when they did themselves. Nope. Read your Bible, brother.
@@timothyvenable3336how is it not love to tell the truth. Don't forget Jesus whipped and over turned tables. And called the pharisees a brood of vipers. I think Christians tie there hands behind their backs by trying to be nice.
@timothyvenable3336 just curious. Did St. Nick behave like christ? He punched a guy for teching heresy. Was thrown in prison. And then released. There are many other similar stories. Is Dillahunty not teaching a heresy? Andrew did nothing wrong. We as Chriatians have been far too weak. And far too afraid to destroy insane world views. Its why the church is falling away in droves.
A devastating argument doesn't result in the opponent walking off stage, despite what the bros on RUclips have convinced you constitutes debate. A devastating argument survives scrutiny and rebuttal.
I think he went too far at the end after he was called a jack###, but for all the official debate, he was in the right and Matt's leaving was a screen to get out of a debate he knew right then and there he was going to lose. His entire exit was disingenuous.
If Matt had done his research he would have known that Andrew would absolutely retaliate to an unwarranted personal attack. If Matt was an adult he would understand that if you start slinging mud you're going to get dirty.
From what I know know, Andrew hit Matt’s soft spot which is that he has a male husband that says he’s a woman. So when Matt brought LGBT issues into the debate in his opening, Andrew went for the jugular by saying, amongst other things, that Matt’s own sexual lifestyle and claims about reality were the opposite of human flourishing.
@@SE7VENSINS 1) Wasn't Matt's platform 2) He accepted the debate with Andrew and he even did a live study session of what he intended to argue against Matt 3) Matt admitted he put no preparation and was just gonna recite his spiel but then said he refused to dignify the preparation he made for the debate 4) Matt debated an actual chomo advocate for 3 hours but stormed out because he got his fee-fees hurt
@@nem2gz continuing to debate and give Andrew the attention he wanted would have been giving him a platform. Yes Matt agreed to debate Christian ethics vs secular humanism not godsnotrealdoh or about himself. No preparation into who Andrew was because in an actual debate you ask your opponent’s argument not your opponent. Even though Daniel is crazy he unlike Andrew still engages in good faith debates. Daniel is brave enough to actually defend child marriage while Andrew couldn’t even defend Christian Ethics.
@@SE7VENSINS funny thing is Matt did prep for Daniel which is why he took the debate lol. In an actual debate, which clearly you're not familiar with, you prepare for the argument and the actual position of your opponent. That requires actual studying but if you do the "I'm not convinced" thing for 99% of your discussions, I guess you can get away with doing that most of your career. Matt wanted to just recite his talking points and Andrew spanked him. Cope harder.
Hope to see more of this and Anderw has been significantly more respectful than Matt. People like him constantly lie about history and the impact that Christianity had on it and on society, go to the Low of Moses that no Christian follows, or has to follow, to make a strawman, hold meaningless worldviews that would turn into dictatorships in a heartbeat without the Christian framework and think they are smart and with a better moral compass. All Andrew did was point to the obvious idiocy of Secular Humanism, at the very least he engaged with his opponent's position contrary to Matt.
I think Andrew went in with the presupposition that trying to have an honest debate with Matt would be futile and decided to have a pettiness tit for tat/mix in valid arguments approach. I honestly can’t fault him for abandoning the regular debate form because all roads in debates with Matt lead to straw man/ad hominem/ double standards/fallacies. Andrew’s language could have been more measured because he was just unkind and no matter how challenging the trans issue is, it still deals with individual people and sweeping, insulting generalizations aren’t helpful when it comes to addressing that issue. Insults may be emotionally satisfying but that just shows Andrew’s lack of self control. Insults are the easy way out so Matt took the easy way out also and dipped. This was pointless. Trent Horn knows how to deal with Matt.
Dillahunty is a liar. And that is reason enough not to debate with him! Mike Johnson, our Speaker of the House has never stated anything close to, wanting to crimilized homosexuality.
Ummmm, I never saw Andrew lose self-control. There’s a video from Andrew’s crew showing him taking questions for quite awhile from an entirely hostile room and never losing his temper. Focus criticism where it actually belongs.
@@jayv3264 I think Nate mightʼve gotten the right first impression: Andrew was trolling. His response to Mattʼs outrage shows that he had Matt right where he wanted him.
@@Crich_Lesliewell....is it trolling though when: 1. you concede for argument's sake the other person's side/worldview, 2. you then use the other person's own approaches and words to flesh out their worldview as you understand it (and for benefit of the audience members who might be unaware), 3. use argumentation to turn those approaches and words on their head, 4. counter the other person's points ("Matt's point, Matt's points, Matt's points") raised by the other person in the speech/statement they literally just made, and 5. reciprocate the other person's tenor that the other person is well-known for using? The chances of interlocuters getting upset or worked up a bit in the course of a debate, especially one with personal aspects, are highly probable and the norm, by the way.
@@jayv3264 His cockiness, rudeness, and especially his pokes at Mattʼs personal life were trolling, imo. But the argument tactics you pointed out were brilliant (at least _i_ think so).
Thanks for covering this,I had seen a couple other reviews of the rage quit. Many of them agreed with the Christian at too many points. But I couldn't put my finger on why I left feeling so icky. After watching your channel for a few weeks, I totally get it! Fair assessment 👍
Ok, so after watching the full debate video on The Crucible, we can find that the topic was changed last minute and Andrew and Matt were gonna debate under the topic of Secular Humanism v Christian ethics. On the full video we can hear the talk between Matt and Andrew and after Matt leaves Andrew adresses the questions from the audience; around minute 35 he is asked about the topic and we can see Andrew’s surprise when he finds that the topic was changed. ruclips.net/video/f6WViJ9-C58/видео.htmlsi=I8haC8iK6Q439GTb
Yeah, the TV behind them is a survey who they think won. The real title of the debate is "Christianity vs secular humanism: which has the best ethical foundation.
Dillahunty admitted that secular humanism is a religion and then precedes to claim that his views are superior to religion because religion can’t be proven scientifically?
I actually can’t believe you sided with Dillahunty here, when all of Wilson’s arguments were completely valid. View Trent Horn’s analysis. Lost a bit of respect here.
If Matt was operating in "good faith" and not open rebellion to God, then certainly it was harsh. However, Matt is in open rebellion and if it was soft or hard there would be no speaking to him, so give him the straight up truth, and pray it shatters his heart, so that God may make something of the pieces.
Which God are you talking about? Allah, Yahweh, Krishna. I'm agnostic, I don't know if there is one and not afraid to say it. Believers in all religions say theirs is the true and only one. I've had true Christian friends tell me I should believe just in case I'm wrong. I find that funny because if he's so all powerful he would know that's not a good reason. I have a question, before man was allegedly created there would be no knowledge of a god by humans, why did he need us? He had his angels so it couldn't be he needed companionship. what was his motivating factor?
@@highlandjimbo6957 I’m assuming your aware that intelligent design is required for any of your questions to even be considered relevant in any objective way, sometimes you find the answers by asking why not instead of why. Also read the Bible if you want to know why. If no other “reason” can satisfy know that existence is objectively greater than non existence and one needs no other reason than this there is a line that separates, it separates good and bad, day and night, life and death a higher standard an objective truth and this standard is God/good.
@@ap90462 Yours is opinion based on faith and not actual fact. The bible in my opinion (I have one also) is just a book of stories. Things written thousands of years before the bible (Epic of Gilgamesh) have virgin births, Man taken down by a woman just like Samson and Delilah, etc. I'm like Doubting Thomas, I want proof and if we are so called children of God, he would have no problem with people asking because that is what children do.
@@highlandjimbo6957 which opinion did I give that was solely based on faith? I believe your question was in a biblical context. Also I encourage you to keep asking questions I do on a daily, I simply hope you wish for the truth and not your own truth.
@@ap90462 You told me to read the bible and in my opinion it's just a book, if you are relying on it for your truth then your truth is based on faith, not fact that can be proven. All religions are based on faith (my opinion) because none has been proven and they all claim to be the only true way to their God. I don't know if there is a God or not, so I am sure not going to claim one and then tell everyone else they are going to face eternal damnation if they don't believe as I do. (I know you didn't say it, but your bible does.)
So glad to see you cover this! I actually wanted to hear your opinion on this and sent you a request to cover it! Thanks Nate! Also, don’t know if you addressed this (I’m only about 2/3 of the way through the video, but Matt is dating a trans woman.
I'm trying to tease this out. Here is where I'm at: When there is nothing left to discuss, war is the only recourse. I would prefer Andrews style of debate to that war, which seems to be creeping ever closer. In other words, it feels like a cultural escalation is taking place. If Christians do not push back we will be run over. Historically, we know Christians are very capable of weilding weapons. Before it gets to that point, should we not match our oppositions intensity? Please let me know what I'm getting wrong.
Nice breakdown, i watched part of the original video because it seemed interesting as I have heard Matt before and didn't know of the opposing speaker. I appreciate listening to debates however you helped me understand how it should work. Thanx
Jesus definately used sarcasm to naysayers and he totally torn a new one out of the pharasies, so Wilson did just give him a taste of his own medicine. Dillahunty has spent years tearing into people on his talk show and on debate stages, with vulgarity, rudeness, personal attacks, and taking the moral high ground from the get go. Wilson has just shown everyone what a cry baby Matt really is when he's got no argument and is the one being bullied for once. Righteous anger is a thing!
Yes but the difference is the Pharisees were the keepers of God’s Law and Matt Dillahunty is and unbeliever lost in darkness. Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the people who claimed to be God’s children, not the hypocrisy of the pagans.
@angelosophy There's no difference other than you haven't read or understood the bible. For example ,(Matt 7:6) Jesus is talking in general to genriles and not specifically to the religious Jewish leaders. So that ends your self-righteous diatribe, I guess. Have a nice life.🙏🏼
@@therealawakener7 “So that ends your self righteous diatribe. Have a nice life 🙏🏻" Is this how you address people? You think this is the Christian way to disagree with your brothers and sisters? Jesus was using yet another parable to tell His disciples why there are some to whom correction means absolutley nothing. Look at the verse before. “You hypocrite. First take the log out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Where in this passage or the passage after Matthew 7:6 does the reading indicate that Jesus was talking about Gentiles specifically. Please, since I am self-righteous and you are not, *then correct me if you can.*
This was not a debate. Matt has a transformer wife so he needs demons excised. This was an exorcism for Matt. On a side note this exact logic lead me back to a Christian path.
Amen. This sort of thing is inspiring to a lot of people. Christians are characterizing this like Andrew called for the forced conversion of people or tried to launch a crusade. All he did was put an antichrist in his place.
Matt poked the bear and got mauled. We have to quit pretending we have to treat these people with kid gloves so as not to hurt their delicate feelings. Andrew represented Christianity well in this situation.
No he didn't Andrew failed in every way to present Christianity. Christ debated with the Pharisees not to one up them or to 'destroy them' He did it in love and with the will that they would come to Him. That is how we must debate and engage with others, always being loving and professional. Andrew had no intention to debate he tried to anger Matt in order to get him to quit, Dillahunty shouldn't have left but Andrew knew what he was doing.
These people are in no way like the Pharisees that Jesus corrected and by the way Jesus went into the Pharisees hard on several occasions. These people are more like the merchants that Jesus whipped with a rope for defiling the temple. Go cast some loving pearls before those people and watch them trample them and turn and devour you. They are destroying the minds of children and must be handled appropriately.
Great breakdown of this debate. I like your perspective and explanation. Quite right with the resolution not being right. Great work. Could Andrew have been merely giving Dillahunty a taste of his own medicine? Secularism has caused society to fall into degeneration. How would you propose we confront these ones that need saving if they are less inclined to listen to a word a Christian would say, as they're more likely to be attacked, persecuted, etc. Going in with the "nice Christian" approach doesn't work on these degenerates. Can you suggest how we can spread the good news and save those who need christ?
If Matt did any research on Andrew, he would have expected it. Andrew did his research on Matt. Matt is in a relationship with a trans female(male to female). Andrew knows from all of Matts debates that the only real constant in a debate with Matt is his opinion. While Nate is correct that it was quite shameful, it is also the only way to debate Matt. Then again, the bible states to not argue with a fool and join his folly. It also says to answer a fool as his folly deserves. I'm a little torn biblically on this because Matt is a fool and deserves to be made foolish like he was. However, I believe it was not done respectfully as a debate would demand. Again, nobody except fools should debate Matt, because he always makes himself and his onions the focus. There is a better way to do this, but Matt got his just desserts.
@@oxtailsoup6493i mean it was fun to watch, then I think to myself, should I find such enjoyment in a fool being laid out in his folly? I don't know. The answer is yes and no. It is obvious Matt is a fool, and doing a serious debate with him is playing into his folly, but proverbs, I think it is 26, states to not let him walk away thinking he is wise, and I don't think that happened.
Andrew is using Matt as a figurehead to the ideology he espouses. While Andrew is strong in his manner and language, it doesn’t change the fact he makes valid points. To back down and be mild mannered like many Christian’s try to be isn’t always effective in discussion. It’s difficult to nail down exactly the right temperament to have when conducting hard conversations
Matt rage quit because Andrew removed his mask. Matt has a gay relationship with a man and he is trying to justify it with the human manifesto. Once he hit the wall 🧱 of the Truth is a very painful situation.
I disagree with some of your assessment. Dillahunty rage quit because he got treated the same way he treats others. You cannot treat people like Dillahunty nicely, because to do so is an instant loss. You have to confront them the way Andrew did. I agree he wasn't very nice, but in this situation it was suitable
The Bible says to turn the other cheek and love your neighbor as you love yourself, not to treat others as they treat you. That is my problem with your reasoning. Seems very man-centered and not biblically focused
@@MeanBeanComedy kindness and love are fruits of the spirit. Romans calls us to not repay evil with evil. I do not believe it is out of context, it is just something that is not fun to believe or hold to, so people minimize it so they can deal more harshly with people that annoy them
@@nathanrobbins2440Kindness and love is telling the truth. Evil is lying. By being honest, he was being kind and loving. Stop confusing that with agreeable and "nice," which is what you're pushing for here.
@@nathanrobbins2440 the problem with your reasoning is that you think love means being nice. Was Jesus being nice when he overturned the money changers tables? Or was he confronting an abomination to God head on? Telling people the truth is loving them, even if it's not what they want to hear
Matt is currently “dating” a trans “woman” so the husband might have been a low blow but saying only one side lost the plot is a lie. Where in the opener did it bring the speaker of the house and his past?
I mean dyer didn’t do anything spectacular there. Just pointed out that Matt can’t prove logic and doesn’t have a solution to hard solipsism. But nobody does as far as I’m aware. We rely on them due to necessity
@@johnferranti3566need to watch it again. Logic and Mathematics are metaphysical and immaterial - you have to account for their existence as a structured framework. If atheists can say that the metaphysical framework just exists without a mind then the theists can just say God just exists and the debate is over.
@@Sbock86 no because logic and mathematics can be demonstrated. It doesn’t matter that they’re immaterial. The concept of a god doesn’t exist other than what human beings say.
@@johnferranti3566 mathematics and logic exist even without human demonstration. To demonstrate that they work you need to presuppose logic and reasoning in the first place. And yes, the fact that they are immaterial does matter. For all the scientific explanations for the beginnings and existence of the material world you cannot or ever will be able to give justification for transcendentals. And if you don't have to - despite utilising all of them, then I also don't have to give justification for the existence of God.
@@Sbock86 you do have to give justification. I agree with you that you have to presuppose logic and reasoning. We have to by necessity. You even use it to arrive at the existence of a god. You also used your senses to take in information about god. And since there’s no solution to the problem of hard solipsism, you can’t assert that a god exists because you’re smuggling in steps that aren’t accounted for. You also have no path to the god if any specific religion. And even if I grant you everything and agree 100%. So what? Where are we? I’m asserting logic, reasoning. You’re asserting god and neither of us have to justify it. That’s as far as it goes. So who cares
Bullies hate it when those they’re trying to bully turn out to be stronger than them. Dillahunty is an intellectual bully who expects to be on top, especially when debating Christians. I’ve never come across Andrew Wilson outside this debate, but other threads explain that he is a practitioner of “debate as bloodsport,” who is also a Christian, rather than a Christian who does debate as apologetics or evangelism. Dillahunty likes to beat up the latter kind, and it appears he was rather shocked to be treated the same way. But he lost the thread totally in his opening statement. He went off on a tangent attacking Christianity as if it were guilty of the crimes of Islam (don’t anyone dare say it’s a religion of peace!). He had no coherent, logical, linear argument, so there was no body of argument to counter. He set up several straw men and enthusiastically hacked them to pieces. He was in a totally different zone from the question under debate; which is odd if, as one commenter has asserted, it was he who set the debate topic.
Dillahunty doesn't claim that these are brute facts; rather, he argues that we take logical axioms and the laws of the universe to be assumed true for practical reasons. This doesn't mean Dillahunty believes they are inherently true. Instead, we have no method to confirm or deny them-disproving logic would require us to use logic itself. Like everyone else, Dillahunty assumes that logic and the laws of the universe will continue to function as they do now, because we have no other choice. Using God as an argument or reason for these laws is not evidence for their truth. In fact, it's irrational to assume you have an answer to something we have no method of even investigating. If they both agreed to have a debate about X, and the other person completely deviates from the set topic, I don't see how it should be expected of Dillahuny to entertain it. Not only because it's a topic he did not agree to, but also because Dillahuny has had zero time to prepare for the other topic.
It's rich of Dillhunty to act shocked and outraged and walk out of the debate for 'someone being a jackass' when he constantly interrupts and bashes people of the opposite world view on a constant basis as a method of argumenting- he just was unable to bring anything to the table and couldn't stand the fact that he got even a small portion of his own medicine and didn't want to start discussing a topic that he knew he could not win on and that he opened the door door to by mentioning LGBT etc in his own opening statement- if there was preparation or something to bring to bare than take it on the chin and prove the guy wrong period, don't run away and act self-righteous as if you are on a moral high-horse of victory for fleeing a fight.
Yeah I don't think Andrew did that great a job here but he gave Dillahunty all the respect that man deserves
Dillahunty said “I’m not gonna sit here and dignify the *PREPARATION I WENT THROUGH…* “ He opened up the debate by basically saying that he did no preparation. That is a disturbing amount of deception.
Exactly what I was thinking. He had no clue who he was debating by his own admission.
I’m glad someone else caught that..I thought I was taking crazy pills
Mmm, crazy pills..gotta go!
You can't get a good faith argument from the faithless.
Dillahunty said that our new, Christian Speaker of the House wants to criminalize homosexuality! THAT IS A BIG LIE. MIKE JOHNSON HAS NEVER SAID THAT, AND WOULD NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO SO! Dillahunty is A BIG FAT LIAR!
Great point!
Dillahunty can dish it, but can't take it.
And Wilson turned the tables on Dillahunty: "I remain unconvinced, Matt".
Dillahunty knew he was cornered, and got out of Dodge.
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
at best 'hunty is a bully
Agreed. There was a lot of questions about weather or not Matt actually believes what he claims, and his response here is more evidence he doesn't actually believe it, but uses it because it happened to fit his ideas in the moment.
There seems to be a lot more people describing him as a narcissist, without actually saying it.
@@nathanielalderson9111When you think the traits of narcissistic personality disorder are,
• Sense of self importance.
• Preoccupation with power, beauty, or success.
• entitled.
• can only be around people who are important or special.
• interpersonally exploitative for their own gain.
• Arrogant.
• Lack empathy.
• Must be admired.
You can come to see nearly every boss, successful individual, king, lord, or politician, in the capitalist system, to name but a few, suffer with narcissistic personality disorder.
Your comment on God’s position, and character is interesting, how would you yourself depict God’s position and character then?.
The Dillahunty Dodge has evolved to its final form; actually rage quitting and leaving the debate entirely.
You know, the best part is that you can tell Andrew was reading a pre-written script. He (Technically) adressed every single point matt was going to make before he made them. He didnt even hear what he had to say this time around because of how predictable matt was. 😂😂
I don’t think it was really a “script” but more having notes on his opponents common points which is smart to have. Especially when Matt was completely unprepared to have Andrew know exactly what he was going to try and argue lol.
I will say kinda like Elijah mocked the god Baal, it did show the ridiculous world view of Matt …. I wished he could of done without cursing… other than that Matt has earned that
Frankly, the use of the word was appropriate in the explanation.
Elijah was funny in that! Lol i loved it!
Without cursing, he did not curse, anglo saxon a bit coarse for you? You know 'filthy rags' are not filthy rags right
Yes he said maybe he had to relieve himself....Elijah trusted the Lord with everything
Elijah told the prophets of Baal to scream louder because perhaps their idol was taking a shit.
so swearing is in Scripture
Matt and his fans try desperately to score some last second moral “how dare you” outrage, meanwhile every other debate of him and Aron Ra are them losing their temper and using personal attacks. Height of hypocrisy. And nothing Andrew said about Matt or his position wasn’t true.
True
Be better.
Andrew is Bloodsport debater; you know those folks who don't debate on the grounds on not being a jerk. I've seen many of Andrew's debates and this seems like a mauling. Seems like matt offended him way prior to the debate.
He's also not a Christian apologist as his Orthodox religion does not allow him to debate on the existence of God (you need special permission).
So he took this as a political debate. He removed the God not real argument, and used a modification of the philosophical zombie to argue Christian ethics as a secular system vs Secular Humanism
@Jaryism 🎯
24:26 No, Andrew seemed to be granting Matt's worldview and pointing out how atomized it is. Each person has their own beliefs and just shouldn't (even though Matt said there are no should's and should not's) impose that on others. Using Matt as the example of a Humanist is just as valid as Matt using Mike Johnson in his opening (tit for tat as it were). I wonder if that will become clear later on.
Yes this point about Mike Johnson is precisely correct. This is a clear example of Dillahunty knowing being deceptive
I disagree that Andrew's approach undermined his position.
Pointing out how absurd and corrosive "secular humanism" via the propping up of the trans delusion is the fastest way to disarm Matt's defense.
And nothing Andrew said was untrue. Abrasive, maybe, but still true. And if the truth makes you walk out, so be it.
It was hardly abrasive
@@andrewstarr8062 hence the "maybe".
I’ve been on a debate binge lately. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dillahunty, etc. all argue the “absurdity” of Christianity by siting the personal beliefs of their opponents. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
@@andrewstarr8062as a Christian who wants the word spread more than I care to see someone win a debate I have to respectfully disagree. He did not handle things in a biblical manner. NO MATTER WHAT that is the standard we have to adhere to. And there are reasons for this. If we don’t we risk falling victim to pride and also losing souls who may have been watching with open hearts and minds. Was Matt deserving of the pushback he got ? Yes absolutely. But we have a higher power who empowers us to be above that.
"Trans delusions" have scientific proof unlike the fairytale you believe.
In the psalms somewhere
“Answer not a fool with his own folly so you won’t end up like him, but answer a fool according to his own folly so he doesn’t think himself wise”
“The tongue who lies hates who it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin”
Niceness isn’t a Christian virtue, kindness is
Don’t forget, Yeshua himself called the Pharisees monsters
Those are proverbs, dear.
You're right, though. The idea of "Christian niceness" is ridiculous.
Matt rage quit because Andrew actually took Matt's worldview seriously and Matt didn't like it.
While I'm all here for Andrew's arguments, his specific choice of words was *obviously* going to provoke this kind of response. He would have done everyone a service if he had used kinder language instead.
Spot on brother
I think I'll wait for the whole thing, but he wasn't exactly curteous...
@Draezeth absolutely not. Us bending the knee to this behavior IS THE REASON ITS A PROBLEM. Stop respecting their BS and they'll stop trying it
@@TruthAboveAll08cause Matt is always so courteous.
The audience was stacked with matt’s fanbois, so yeah, Andrew was 100% trolling him and the audience.
No I don't think he was. He conceded their worldview and turned it against them. Just because their worldview sounds like trolling doesn't mean that's what he was doing.
@@VinnySmiles01exactly. It was an internal critique, and Dilahunty couldn't address or counter it. 🤷♂️
The reason I think Wilson kept talking about Dillahunty in his opening is because secular humanists have a problem with no true Scotsman fallacy. If he talked about secular humanism broadly, Dillahunty could and has before responded with "nuh uh, that's not real secular humanism."
Seems like that sword cuts both ways. "That's not my brand of Christianity." "My family is Muslim and we don't believe that...."
@@rickr530 Well Christianity and Islam both have books that, for better or worse, define what a "true Scotsman" is. If a Muslim or a Christian wants to seemingly conflict with a plain reading of each text then they need a compelling exegesis to support it.
There is a manifesto for secular humanism too, so there is a firm stance. Not saying Matt would have went by it, or that I believe it. Just putting it out there
@@michaelwinters2574 if I recall correctly, the secular humanist manifesto is a collection of impressively vague truisms and has no clear message or dogma.
@@rickr530 so your saying when dan says he is going off the manifesto in one debate and another debate saying he doesnt believe that in another its perfectly fair meaning you think when christians explain their stance its also fair? i have a hunch to believe you dont agree with christians doing it but have no problem with what is supposed to be the "more logical" answer is right . sounds like it isnt more logical after all and all your doing is picking a side based of another point
Dillahunty looks like a guy that can't take a beating nor can he be in a room if the odds aren't all in his favor. The very example of a safe spacer.
Andrew absolutely won this debate. He’s using Dillahunty’s exact same tactics strategically, so dillahunty fanboys can’t even say anything wrong with it without likewise exposing Dillahunty himself, conceding that he actually loses every debate he engages in. The only difference in this debate is that while Wilson is strategically using the same tactics, he’s just better.
You're delusional, Andrew is not better. There was no debate, just opening statements and Matt felt he was misled into thinking Andrew was actually going to debate. At first sign that there wasn't going to be an actual debate he refused to participate which is what would have happened if the promoter had told him, assuming he knew of course.
Matt feels an immense amount of shame for sleeping with a man who calls himself a woman and Andrew found the perfect way to hit that emotional bullseye without engaging in ad hominem (of Matt directly).
💯
Nailed it. It also exposes matts bias. Cant let some people live "their truth" and not others
That is ad hominem, are you stupid?
Well, my friend, you should feel even more shame at judging others to diffuse your own gender issues. Tell us the truth about you now.. Your argument/comment has no place in a biblical discussion other than to judge.. like so many judgements in this video.. the log is in your eye my friend.
How do you know he feels guilt? Or are you just bullshitting like what presupps always do?
The only reason why Matt quit was because Andrew came right out of the gate using the same tactics that he uses. He then realized he was going to be on the short end of the stick. He now knows that Andrew wasn't going to be one of the weak callers that calls into his show. Andrew being over the top gave him his out to flee. Which is too bad, because I would have appreciated watching Andrew continue to dismantle him.
Absolutely
Yes, Dillamonkey can dish it out but can’t take it.
All that guy Assdrew dismantled was brain cells from everyone in that room and watching
@@redemptionix5895 We’ll never know because he’s a soft coward and quit.
@@JGreez why would he stay and lose more brain cells listening to that idiot?
Faux virtuous rage quiting was his only option that his followers would buy.
Exactly, he realized very soon that he was going to lose so his only option was to quit, pathetic display of a loser.
Also, it was Matt who made his entire opening about LGBTQ so it makes total sense that. Andrew took his opening to the same place right??
I am a Muslim but it was absolutely beautiful seeing how Matt ran away .. respect to Andrew
Some sects of Islam allow for Mohammeds pic to be drawn. @@victorf.larsen1651
Respect? That POS?
What does Muslim have to do with it?
@@scottwall8419 well Andrew's audience is mostly Christians so just wanted to show my appreciation
@@theislamicfirewall7473
I agree! Good on Andrew
Matt: " You just dont get to impose your worldview on anyone else"
Also Matt: proceeds to impose his worldview on everyone else.
Christians believe if you don’t repent and put faith in Christ, you spend eternity in hell. So, when we witness, it is love and concern for that person, that spurs us on. You can take it, or leave it. We just don’t want people burning in hell, for eternity.
@jonilikens8184 agreed. As a Christian i dont want anyone to burm in hell. BUT people most definitely will, by their own choice. That is a fact that we must all face and speak. Many will go to hell, only few will see heaven.
@@jonilikens8184 bullshoot
@@shaunbuckley304 your god already knows who will burn. why do you subvert your god's will and knowledge?
@madddog7 whatever you say my friend. God bless you, and my you find peace in all your days.
Matt got a taste of his own medicine.
Be better.
@@JustifiedNonetheless I wouldn't do it but that is exactly what matt does, and it was funny to see someone do it to him. That other speaker doesn't seem like a Christian.
@@JustifiedNonethelessYou keep saying this without giving qualifiers.
You probably would have told Christ to be better when he called people ‘fool’.
YOU be better!!
@@benh580then research Andrew and start watching his many, many debates. He defends the faith in the trenches frequently.
Matt Dillahunty sure af did get a taste of his own medicine.
Andrew Wilson just gave Matt a taste of his own treatment. Andrew did well even if he had to be rude to prove a point.
I disagree that he _had_ to be rude.
But i think his worldview concession and “unconvincedness” were a brilliant move to force Matt to make a positve argument for his position, which heʼs not used to doing and proved here that he couldnʼt do.
you're siding with a man who wants the government in your bedroom telling you how you're allowed and not allowed to have sex, he wants to take your Right to Privacy away, he wants the government legistalting what style of clothing we're allowed to wear . Andrew wants the USA to be like north korea. Please consider the hill you're defending here
He is always rude though
@@angelmartin7310 All I really know about him is that he is a fellow Christian monarchist that is friends with Jay Dyer and for that he will always have my support. Voddie baucham even said there is no scripture that says thou shalt be nice.
But if someone seems interested and sincere in the gospel then you know God is dealing with them. So we are kind and gentle ofc. But I have no tolerance for blasphemous people. 😉
I call bull, Andrews behavior was like a child with a gun. He already had the winning argument, but he just made Christians look like jerks. Someone who clearly is either young in the faith, or doesnt know the first thing about it.
Andrew's tactic was to demonstrate the incoherence of the atheist worldview rather than make an affirmative theistic argument. Dillahunty couldn't deal with it and fled like a coward.
this^ 100%
There is no atheist worldview.
I'm an atheist but I agree with Andrew on trans issues. All atheism means is that I don't believe in any gods.
@@jessyhart6638 Yes there is. Even the claim "there is no atheist worldview " is a world view in itself. You're uneducated.
Jesus told his disciples to go out to the villages and if one of them didn't want to hear the Good News that disciple shouldn't even take the dust of their streets with him. How do you differentiate between the two? The people who've rejected the Gospel shouldn't get the same patience as the ones who are willing to listen. Pushing back against the likes of Dillahunty is something we all should do. Just because the Gospel is free don't treat it cheaply
Push back against all the corruption.
Ive watched alot of Matt's "debates" and he got treated exactly how he treats everyone else.
Matt has literally never attacked anyone’s family ever
@@goblin6587 Its only an "attack" if you presuppose the conclusion of the point under contention. Grow some integrity.
@@JD-xz1mx How convenient of you. In your worldview it's not an attack.
@@goblin6587not to mention that he extremely insulted the prophet Muhammad saw. for example and probably Jesus as. as well, who most religious people love just as much
Not a matter of "treatment". It's not like Andrew got up and beat hit up on stage. He verbally destroyed Matt. You're in a debate over worldviews. If you expect everyone to exchange flowers. You are a part of the problem in the world. Grow a pair.
This is a Matt Dillahunty mirror match, he didn't like looking at himself. This is Andrew to the core.
Nah. Andrew has little to no debate skills. Andrew is all ad hom.
@malirk Apparently you haven't watched enough Matt Dillahunty videos there.. That dude on the phone calls is good at ad-hominem attacks.
@@MultiBigAndy Since you've watched a lot, give examples.
Have you watched his Atheist Debates series where he breaks down topics and review? I think this is a good example of his ability to logically think through arguments.
@@MultiBigAndy Are you ever going to give examples?
@@malirk The only thing that broke down was Matt. You run from the argument that means you've lost. If his world view is so perfect he should've been able to sit there and defend it. He ran like a bitch
See, Andrew was being big brained when he was adding Dilahunty into his statement. Dillahunty ALWAYS adds himself into a debate saying, “Well that doesn’t convince me” so Andrew was just 2 steps ahead of him and tried to cut him off at the knees. Giving him nowhere to run, which ended up happening anyway.
Exactly. 🎯
Love how this makes you think he was 2 steps ahead when he actually never took a step. As soon as Assdrew opened his mouth everyone in that room and watching lost brain cells
Matt also brought up Mike Johnson into the debate. The debate was not about what Johnson believes. I thought this was justified.
Andrew is a bad debater who goes for insults.
Matt fell for it.
Matt should've been better with his debate experiences.
@@malirk That's literally all of Matt's content with Christians. Andrew was obviously aware of who Matt is and his "debate" style.
Dillahunty says humanism allows you to be Christian as long as it is not imposed on others while LGBTQ is being imposed on parents as a requirement to allow children to change genders including using drugs to do it. Is that not imposing humanism views on people who have other beliefs?
Guys… I like seeing Matt get a taste of his own medicine just as much as the next guy but if you are condoning anything Andrew did here, you need to rethink where your heart sits. This was neither a loving nor intelligent performance by Andrew. This shouldn’t be celebrated
With "right" being the operative word, he'd only be wrong if he violated a commitment he made without good reason. I'm not sure "my opponent hurt my feelings" is a good enough reason.
Said it before..Andrew Wilson out manoeuvred Dillahunty in a way that prior Christians in debates with Dillahunty have not. Approaching debates "showing love" with debaters like MD does not have any weight...because his debates are not in good faith but for self promotion at the expense and ridicule of those Christians debating him. Andrew was sharp and wiley enough to know this. In doing so he flattened Dillahunty and exposed him to everyone including his "fan base " . Salute to Andrew Wilson.
It actually would’ve gone poorly for Andrew had Matt stayed. Matt could’ve spent the rest of the debate destroying Andrew’s character as a representative of the Christian worldview. It wasn’t a smart move and a terrible representation of what it means to be a follower of Christ. It isn’t about being wily or snarky and worse rude and offensive to get under someone’s skin. When you watch multiple debates of Matt with respectable Christians you come out with two things:
1. Matt doesn’t have a leg to stand on other than his own inadequate and unscholarly perception that represents his worldview
2. Matt is ruled by his emotions and a clear representative of the type of character that’s a result of a Christless life.
Having Andrew act that way will only encourage nonbelievers to side even more with Matt by showing them that Christians are no better and it will leave Christians feeling flustered because Andrew did not represent Christ.
Sure emotionally we may get a kick of how Andrew handled it from a secular view, but that’s the issue, we are not to design our enjoyment through the suffering of others or the misrepresentation of Christ.
@musicianscrub458 I disagree. We are no better than non-believers. That is one core issue I see regularly as push back from secularists that Christians have a superiority complex even amongst each other. That is one of the core reasons that put me off and has put off of non believers I know from coming to Christ for a long time. Second point, moderate atheists...those not into the cult of Matt Dillahunty are being turned off by him, same way as the new atheists are turning off fair minded atheists. Everyone has their viewpoint on how Andrew Wilson handles himself (he regularly participates in debates and engages culture), but in the aspect of this debate, we'll have to agree to disagree.
@@mannyfabin1850 Jesus told us to "be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect" in Matthew 5:48. You can say we are no better than non-believers, but Christ calls us to be. It is not about a superiority complex, it is about glorifying God. You can say "showing love" does not hold any weight, but Christ calls us to be loving, and to be peacemakers. When involved in a debate, our motives and actions are not only judged by the people listening, but before God, and as Christians we should hold each other accountable in that.
How? Dilahunty couldnt have argued anything because Andrew is Eastern Orthodox and they dont buy into this "christian niceness" nonsense. Kindness, yes. But being kind isnt always the same as being "nice". 🤷♂️🤔
Conceding the debate in under a minute is definitely a maneuver.
I will admit that Wilson’s approach would be inappropriate if he were debating someone who shows respect to his opponents, but Matt is a bully, and you don’t deal with bullies by being polite to them; you deal with them by giving them a taste of their own medicine. Christ commanded us to love our neighbors, but you don’t always have to be kind to them. Sometimes, the most loving thing one can do is humble their opponent so they will eventually see the light. Even if Wilson did cross a line, you don’t walk away from a debate because your opponent says something mean. Such a move is cowardly and most Christians wouldn’t last five minutes if they did the same.
“But Matt is a bully”
- Don’t repay evil with evil (Romans 12:17)
“But you don’t always have to be kind to them”
- The fruit of the spirit is kindness (Galatians 5:22)
- but be kind to everyone, patiently enduring evil (2 Timothy 2:24)
Everything else you said I sort of agree with. Especially because this is Dillahunty’s MO in every debate
@@timothyvenable3336 Those verses have to be looked upon in the proper context. One must remember that Jesus often used quite harsh language while rebuking the Pharisees. In Mathew, he says, “You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” That is hardly kind language, but Jesus was trying to humble them so they would see the light. Christians certainly shouldn’t seek revenge, but harsh methods can sometimes be deployed if they lead to redemption.
Absolutely but let’s not neglect that there are many degrees between rolling over and punitively and personally bashing the man. It takes a poised and well-spoken debater to deliver an emotionally intense response without being offensive, but it’s possible.
Andrew could have been even more fiery and intense in his delivery, that’s fine, but keep it to the logical defeaters of this humanist dribble, not mocking those deluded by it. The fact that secular humanism and “consensus theory” literally permits any atrocity, for example, would have allowed Andrew to punch Matt right in the gut, hard, but not below the belt
I think a point that needs to be driven home is that it's doubtful that Dillahunty actually 'rage quit" he simply engaged in theatrics to get out of there. He had no argument in response to Wilson openly demonstrating and using secular humanism to show how perverse Dillahunty's thinking and objectives are.
@@batman5224 I get you, and I don’t want to start an argument because overall I agree. But I’m afraid you’re the one not taking in the context. Jesus spoke harshly to others, as did Paul and other apostles, to other Jews. Not to unbelievers. That’s actually why I didn’t mention Ephesians 4:32 when Paul says we need to be kind and loving to one another. That verse is telling Christian’s to be kind to Christian’s. But there are ample verses of the necessity of being kind to everyone, especially unbelievers.
The Pharisees knew better, and that was a Jew rebuking a Jew. The Pharisees should have known better. But It wasn’t Jesus talking to random people who didn’t know any better. That’s the problem.
Also I think there is a difference between being “kind” and being “nice”. We don’t need to be nice to anyone, and at times we need to be stern and almost harsh. But we need to do it with kindness.
Matt knew he would look bad if he left, obviously he thought he would look worse if he stayed
He already has been knocked down the ladder so far he only fell off the bottom rung. He'll be fine except people will be hesitant debate him since they are afraid he'll stomp off like a child and waste thier time.
@@scottwall8419 lol that’s not going to make anyone hesitant to debate 😂 that makes people want to even more bc a rage quit is ALWAYS good for views.
0:32 No, he didn't.
You are correct of course.
The entire argument from the atheist perspective IS To insult the theistic worldview.
They never shy for making fun of all of us.
I would bet Wilson's comment about the low energy in the room was probably due to an off camera event or interactions in which he realized he had to deal with what was probably a loaded audience. This is even more probable when you watch Wilson deal with people throughout the remainder of his time.
Wilson's aggressiveness was absolutely appropriate to what Dillahunty established in the outset and he didn't lose the thread.
The opponent sets the terms for the conflict. Classical debate went out the window with Dillahunty's opening.
This was brilliant. Wilson actually applied "logic" as Dillahunty insisted people apply in his opening tirade. There was no slander on his part either. What he stated was uncomfortable but true and it was only uncomfortable to people who are conditioned by Nominalists to be hypervigilant about invalid opinions and invalid or feigned offenses. It was Dillahunty that was doing the slander by attacking Chrisitianity by imputing malice where there objectively is none. What Wilson stated was true and there is no reason to think he was a jerk. He opted to go on the offensive against Dillahunty rather than be put into a defensive position righting Dillahunty's deliberate Straw Man arguments.
Nominalism of the secular humanists and Dillahunty is the main problem that Andrew demonstrated more effectively than giving a dry analysis.
Also, let's not be naive, Dillahunty did not "rage quit." He had nowhere to go once being called out for his lack of definition and subjective points. How was he going to argue? And let's be frank about it, Dillahunty from his opening was not about debate. He was using/abusing the debate format to evangelize for his own political agenda. Wilson cut through all of that and exposed Dillahunty openly for anyone with eyes to see.
I agree: I think Matt "I'm not convinced" Dillahunty faked a rage to avoid loosing the debate (he lost anyway).
Perfect analysis. Couldn’t have worded it better myself. Only thing, Matt Dillahunty totally did rage quit the debate. He had nowhere to go, his entire worldview was thoroughly debunked and exposed as foolishness. He was definitely heated about that, his ego more than a bit bruised-but he pretended he was outraged for other reasons. Still a rage quit. Either way, all your points still stand, Dillahunty is a clown.
The "low energy" comment was a Trump reference.
Yeah the christian simps are working overtime on this comment section. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I know Dillahunty has a load
Of loyalty followers, but he was completely and utterly obliterated in this debate. If anyone is doubting that then I’ll direct you to the diatribe he went on about Mike Johnson. When he stated that Johnson’s worldview was dangerous and harmful to LGBTQ later he claimed Wilson went off topic talking about Transgenders (the T). If a Dillahunty fan can’t at minimum acknowledge this hypocrisy then we have nothing to talk about.
Dillahunty stated that Mike Johnson, our Speaker of the House, wants to crimilize homosexuality! That is a lie. In the least, Johnson wants to stop minors from getting PERMANANT, dangerous surgeries. AND THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US, WHO WANT THAT. YOU CAN NOT DEBATE WITH A DILLAHUNTY, BECAUSE THEY TWIST UP THINGS, AND SPURT OUT LIES!
Yeah Andrew Wilson pegged Matt so well that he had no rebuttal and played it off as if he was offended by everything that was said. It was his utter lack of substance and self awareness that did him in.
He certainly wasn't obliterated, but his emotions do get the better of him lol
Most of (not all) Andrews points are asinine... we should arrest the parents of children who have sex? Ridiculous... Let's take a child who doesn't know what they're doing and take their parents away from them so they grow up even more fucked up... great idea!
It's very easy for children of good parents to have sex without the knowledge of the parent... A system like this would cause parents to keep their children locked inside and never let them out of their site for fear of arrest... All parents would be overly strict and literally have to home school their kids. In fact, it would result in ANOTHER very strong motivation to get an abortion. It would be out of control... the implications of such an oppressive law would be insane, and it would snowball to other laws that made no sense.
Also, what is this about simulated sex being a crime? So the Elvis would've been arrested during every show he ever put on? Almost all modern entertainers should be arrested? Absurd.........
@@upplsuckimcool16 the analogy was to show the utter insanity of post modernism and atheist humanism. He isn't saying that this is an actual standard that should be upheld. Clearly you don't understand that what Andrew did was correlate the uselessness of saying "promotes human flourishing" in order to justify any particular view. That's the problem with moral relativism. You have the capacity in moral relativism for morals to become completely reversed which means what you view as good or bad will eventually be flipped as it suits your desires or that of your community.
@@pigzcanfly444 Well promoting human flourishing as being a requirement for good moral standards seems like something that would only change for the better when it comes to promoting human flourishing...
When you use "human flourishing" as a standard for morality sure the morals will change over time, and will get better... for example: Killing witches was considered to be moral, and promoted human flourishing, but as society progressed and education got better we now realize that killing witches is an immoral act... So yes, those morals got reversed to suit the desire of our community.
Are you suggesting that at some point the goal of human flourishing will result in an immoral society over a long period of time? The longer time goes on the better we get at things...... No? Another clear example is slavery.... At one point in our history slavery was a moral act... in fact it was touted as a moral right bestowed upon us by the christian god, but as we progressed as a society we realized that owning other people as property and beating them into submission was immoral.
I don't understand your point.... "the problem with moral relativism". What else is there? We created a society based on what's best for the other people we inhabit space with... How else would we get our morals!? The hell?
Much respect for Andrew. Did not show fear. This debate came to attention due to what Andrew did.
💯
You sure it's not due to what Dillahunty did 😆
@@onegaisti If Andrew did what Wise Disciple said, Matt wouldn't have rage quit. And you wouldn't have heard about the debate.
@@patrickvdh8606 1) You're making assumptions here. You shouldn't do that. And 2) I don't really care about what WD said here. His criticism was AW shouldn't be mean... in an informal debate
Dillahunty rage quit because he knew he had no way to answer. The guy exposed his nonsensical worldview.
25:00 Andrew using Matt as a stand in, works if Matt is allowed to mischaracterize every Christian in his opening statement.
It's Christianity vs humanism in the resolution, but Matt projected falsehoods onto Christianity and any non humanist, so it makes sense for Andrew to correct Matt directly on that.
Matt had it comin' a long time
If ppl disagree with Andrew's conduct, let us not forget that God will use anyone to check those who slander His name.
Lets pray that this may be the start of a learning curve for Matt
God Bless
Well said. I can think of quite a few prominent OT and NT individuals that God used for His purposes who weren’t very touchy-feely kumbaya.
You gotta how blatantly dishonest Matt is about Christian values. He says absolutely nothing about the actual commands of Christ, love thy God and love thy neighbor, but immediately shots for old "your God ordered X in the OT, so I'll rip all of the theological context out of the passage and declare that to be a Christian value."
The historical context is the god of the OT is one of many fabricated gods of the region. So its very consistent that they would be OK with slavery.
Yeah, it boggles my mind that anybody takes matt seriously. I think he just trolls lots of christians for clout, knowing that those christians are pure of heart. Wilson knew this and so made a mockery of matt.
Well he is supposed to be pointing out he flaws in Christian values and in using the bible as a moral guide.
@@kaineskeptic6484 And?
@@hordechess7629 And what? Its a response the the claim above, do you disagree that Matt is supposed to be pointing out the flaws in Christian morality?
Matt was openly mocking God and name calling God, but no rebuke from Nate. His opponent openly mocks the obvious absurdity of people like Matt, and Nate rebukes him... Now, I'm all for holding ourselves to a higher standard, but let's be honest, these folks need to hear these things in a language that they understand.
We don’t rebuke unbelievers in the way we rebuke believers. Unbelievers are dead in their sin. Believers are alive in Christ. There is no excuse for behaving in the way Andrew did on that stage.
@@JakeRuzi please. Matt has long talked about his time as a "believer" and how it was his time in seminary to become a Pastor that he decided to openly rebel instead.
So, if anything, depending on your position, Matt is a prodigal. So, it's more than a "excuse" it's necessary.
@@JakeRuzi how exactly did he believe? And no one ever said you can't rebuke unbelievers in the way you do believers l. The argument is that you don't do so on the same subjects.
I agree. Us Christians are called to be gentle and respectful, BUT we don't let blasphemy and nonsense just slide.
Funny how its mostly women complaining. It's time Christian women get behind the men and suport instead of giving their emotional opinions.
Debates are for getting at the truth, not for looking good for the audience. When you start making the latter a priority you lose your attachment to the truth.
This kind of debate is not about "getting at the truth" it's about "winning" versus "losing" - a battle fought with words.
@rclrd1 here's the thing, both can be true at the same time.
“And is smug…”
Well good thing Matt D is never smug 🙄
The crux of the debate:
Atheist: “Secular Humanism is all about promoting human flourishing!”
Christian: “Define human flourishing. And who gets to determine that definition and why. And why I should care about anyone except Old #1.”
Atheist: “Uuhhh…..”
Kind of like:
Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!”
Christian: “Without begging the question, define ‘extraordinary’.”
Sagan: “Uuhhh…..”
👏👏👏 💯
So Christians don't know that extraordinary means very unusual or remarkable?
@@tomasrocha6139 Sure, but what _makes_ a claim extraordinary, unusual or remarkable? Who gets to decide?
And if “extraordinary” evidence _is_ provided, then you need extraordinary evidence for that, and then extraordinary evidence for _that,_ and you have an infinite regress where nothing can be proven.
How about this:
“All claims (whether “extraordinary” or not) require _sufficient_ evidence.”
Carl Sagan’s little epigram presupposes that the existence of a supernatural dimension to life is an extraordinary claim. However, that presupposition is very much a minority view, both in the world today, and even more so in history. That being so, the extraordinary claim is on the part of those who declare that there’s no such entity as a god, gods or God. Sagan actually needs to provide extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claim. Since he’s dead, those who repeat his aphorism as if it’s a magic formula to defeat theism must provide such evidence. But they never do. They simply take refuge behind saying, “You can’t prove a negative. I’m just saying I’m not convinced there’s a god because there’s no good evidence for it.”
@@Mark-cd2wfTo call this an infinite digress shows the flawed logical reasoning present in your argument. For a claim to be made, there must be evidence to show how you could claim such a thing. When you claim easily the most extraordinary existence of a supernatural entity, and provide astonishingly NO evidence, there’s a problem. Forget regular, natural evidence through scientific proof, but no evidence for a claim besides individual experiences of people which cannot be tested. If that’s the BEST you have, there’s a problem.
Furthermore, for a claim of supernatural existence, there must be evidence of the supernatural kind. Whether you call it extraordinary, supernatural or fantastic, the essence of the evidence requires it to emerge from the same plane of existence that this supposed entity emerges from. And since you have not even been able to prove a supernatural plane of existence, I think there’s a lot of homework left indeed.
Word mambo jambo may impress those already biased in your favour, but the essence of your argument (if I may quote Richard Dawkins, who is a brilliant mind in his own right) is to others simply “it must be so incredibly profound because I can understand none of it”.
And Mr/Mrs infinite needs also now to provide the definition of sufficient, no? Which, if you may realise, causes a greater paradox than the hypothetical one stated above, as the definition of sufficient is of greater contention than extraordinary or fantastic.
Words have meaning:
Depraved: morally corrupt; wicked
Lunatic: a mentally ill person.
Prove how Andrew was incorrect, especially Biblically.
It's a very bad thing when you prioritize feelings over the Truth.
I believe the Scriptures call that wicked.
@VikVaughnMISC All of scripture is about Jesus Christ. Christ is King.
@VikVaughnMISC and you are a fool.
@VikVaughnMISC The Word of God told Abraham about the coming salvation on a hill in the region of Moriah.
Jesus is there from the very start.
@VikVaughnMISC I quoted you a story from Genesis that specifically prophesies the Christ.
@VikVaughnMISC if you read the verses carefully, you'll notice that it's a mountain IN the land of Moriah and not necessarily mount Moriah.
"Rebuke a fool according to his folly" maybe?????
"In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive" -Jordan Peterson
This was a historic moment in the Christian/atheist debate world.
No, Dillahunty didn't have a point and every single Christian needs to recognize and acknowledge that!
I've seen some Christian apologists start to take notes on this and express the need to be more aggressive in light of how devastating Wilson's argumentation was. Demonstrating the utter stupidity of the other side by adopting it was not groundbreaking but an underused and sorely needed strategy for today.
He absolutely did, and if anything you should be annoyed by the 'Christian' who he was debating since he was clearly not loving and failed to argue in a Christ honouring way and simply insulted those he disagreed with. The arguments he used were ridiculous when there was so much he should have challenged Dillahunty on. He failed at debating on a massive scale Andrew should be considered an embarrassment.
@@joshuaroberts2137 what do you mean the way he had the argument with dillahunty was the same as how he makes he’s arguments to Christian’s. But when the christians says no dillahunty basically calls them out on it because they don’t want to deal with it so when it is thrown back at him the way he reacts is telling and so are you. Because Jesus in the end said follow your head not your heart because that is what will lead you astray. So to go too love automatically is to dishonor and disarm your fellow Christian even when you don’t agree with then course of love of course because that’s all we feel.
@@joshuaroberts2137Jesus didn’t use kind language against the Pharisees, nor did John the Baptist, nor did the Church Fathers when fighting against heresies. Andrew brought up the LGBT, because Matt did. Andrew addressed his argument directly, and using mean language, doesn’t make him wrong. Dilahunty has no legs to stand on with “mean” debaters, when he’s known for being an asshole.
@@joshuaroberts2137 you should check out Proverbs 26:4-5
Andrew didn't fall off, you did. You didn't call out Matt when he insulted God and the Bible as being rude and are only picking up on Andrew's common sense take that a man cannot be a women. Anyone who believes this incredibly untrue idea is, in fact, a lunatic. There is an unsaid debate rule, you get what you give. I am so sick and tired of my fellow Christians bending over backwards to not offend the overly rude non-believers like Dillahunty or Hitchens or Krauss or Harris, and the list goes on. Where has that gotten us? How bout the secular society we now live in because we backed down every time. Well done. Now it's up to Christians with a backbone to take it back.
Exactly, everybody is ok with disrespecting God, christians, and our faith and beliefs. It's like a competition of who gets the better joke on God.
agreed!
cool man, keep posting from your mom's basement about the holy war because you're mad your favorite content creator isn't a big enough asshole.
Andrew is more firm then the stereotypical meek, mild and gentle christian. Matt did not expect this approach. Andrew internally criticized Matt's view and christianity still won, in the context of human flourishing is way worse with secular humanism. Add human flourishing to anything you want. Christianity is supirior as the last 2k years of greatness brought to the world. I get church hurt and bad or fake Christians help make atheists. But good example of Matt unable to take the same medicine he gives to everyone.
Being firm doesn't mean doing what Andrew did. Andrew wasn't firm he presented himself and Christianity as hateful. He failed miserably to present Christianity as the loving religion it is.
@joshuaroberts2137
Christanity is love. But when dealing with people that will not reason or have conversation. But rather insult or use violence.
We do the same because for defence and tough love. Jesus wasn't always a man speaking nice things all the time. He also use violence and harsh treatment when dealing with unreasonable people like the merchants.
He flip tables and whipped them because they were making profits inside a temple that was only use for worship.
It’s loving to tell the truth in a way that forces someone to understand.
There are far better ways to oppose faulty worldviews without being rude, obnoxious, and condescending like what we saw in this video
@timbotron4000
You can be kind, generous, and compassionate.
Or rude, obnoxious, or insulting.
The fact of the matter is telling the truth.
End of story.
If I’ve learned anything from debate in The last 8 years of politics it’s: there are no rules.
This should be a short form crash coarse on how not to debate. The guy literally ticked every “this puts you at a disadvantage” box like he doesn’t know what a debate is at all.
That title on the screen is the title of a live audience poll.
The resolution was: "Christianity vs Secular Humanism: Who has the best ethical foundation" which isn't quite as horrible. But still not wonderful.
Dillahunty is a waste. He goes on and dumps on people in the least charitable possible way then gets pissed when someone mocks his trans "girl" friend.
Honestly, he got the exact treatment he deserves.
Yeah, if you only see a couple of his shows or debates he's not so bad, but when you see how slimy he is and how he gets off of being disrespectful and strawmanning people constantly, you just hope he gets G checked, and he did on that day lmao. Imagine trying to act tough or an authority on literally anything and running away from 4th grade level insults.
I love that you’re doing this video. I asked you to and maybe others did, too. I can hardly wait to watch this. I just started. But I wanted to thank you for listening to your subscribers. I’m so excited to hear what you have to say.
I believe you summed it up perfectly in saying it all was a waste of time. I had a conversation with someone in my family about salvation and he started getting quite upset emotionally. However, I asked why he was reacting that way when I was being calm. He did calm himself and didn’t walk away. We parted in a good manner, so he at least had food for thought, which didn’t make it a waste of time. It’s hard to plant seeds if you’re throwing them at someone😊 I always learn from your videos, so thank you, Nate, for another informative and encouraging one!!!
“It’s hard to plant seeds then you’re throwing them at someone” is a very good piece of wisdom lol I appreciate that. I hope the best for you and that family member’s relationship with God. He can certainly work wonders if we let it happen instead of trying to do it by our own power.
"It's hard to plant seeds..." is really wise, as was said above.
After watching Matt for 12 years it's become evident that his soil isn't conducive for growing crops.
He was a professing Christian for the first part of his life so he's most likely heard the gospel and knows the Bible better than a lot of professing Christians.
Matt is trying harder to convince himself that God's not real then he is his opponent and it's because of his lifestyle. The thought of being held accountable someday is not appealing to this type of atheist.
But I agree we shouldn't throw seeds at people and exoect them to grow, But, Jesus also said don't throw your pearls to swine because they'll just trample them and then turn and attack you
Actually, no, he was way off in his summary. But it's understandable why he was and why you think he was correct.
The background to this debate is important here. First, Andrew's tagline is "debate as bloodsport" and he has been in debates hosted by that organization before. This is Andrew's debate style, he advertises as such, and the organizer knew this when he approached Andrew for the debate and the two of them talked it over. Second, Andrew is a debater who happens to be Christian, not a Christian debater, and again he is open about this - he says he is a social issues debater whose personal views are informed by his religion but not an apologist. Matt was originally going to debate someone else on whether God exists but that person cancelled and Matt asked the organizers to find a replacement. They approached Andrew, who agreed to this debate only after a discussion that it was to be a political debate about worldviews and not a religious debate, and Matt himself is the one who wrote the debate topic.
So it's understandable how people reach the conclusions they do without knowing the background, but when you know the context it changes things. I think the scriptures pretty much require Christians to be apologists whoever and wherever they are so I disagree with Andrew refusing to take responsibility for representing Christianity well in the first place, and I don't like his abrasiveness and profanity, so don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not approving of Andrew, I'm just saying that in context you can't blame him for failing to live up to the example set by William Lane Craig when Andrew lets you know from the beginning that on stage he is going to be vicious and un-Christian. Andrew is an attack dog and doesn't pretend to be anything other than that, and the organizer knew this about him and approached him for the debate anyway.
Yep. Best way to show people things, is to listen, and go slow… with humility. Then again, Christ did not die for door Matt’s!
You can "speak with love" while "being rude", they're not mutually exclusive..
Years ago when my faith was waning, I was afraid to hear arguments from atheists because I felt how fragile I was at that time. Now years later, I'm willing to listen with a stronger faith in place and I'm shocked at how so few atheists (and even fewer well-known atheists) are actually able to make a coherent argument that actually speaks to what Christianity says.
Yeah, I've been dealing with it all my life so with all the arrogance masked as confidence that many atheists had i was expecting to be ignorant of whatever secret they knew about Christianity that supposedly defeats it... instead it's a fire hose of out of context quotes, dishonest interpretations, projecting etc. I'm honestly just as disappointed as I am relieved. Disappointed because I thought I'd learn something from them, relieved because my trust was placed in something so reliable, it stands the test(s) of time even today.
The score board is looking nice on our end. ^_^.
Im a crucible member and a regular in Andrew's chat. This debate was crafted. Everyone knew Matt would rage quit. Andrew just took Matts worldview and destroyed it. And matt had nothing to say so he left indignantly. No one takes Dillahunty seriously anymore. You also need to understand Andrew is a blood sports debater. This is how he and most of the people he debates with online are. Including Matt Dillahunty. They know who he is.
I agree Andrew completely destroyed Matt’s worldview, but for goodness sake, as a Christian, represent Christ! Let everything be done in love! Shame on Andrew for his presentation
I have a friend who's atheist (yes still) and we used to be fans of his. He too said that nobody takes him seriously anymore. It seems that even atheist are sick and tired of his low hanging grifting.
@@timothyvenable3336You mean like when Jesus loved people enough to break out a whip, swing it at people, flip over tables, release animals from the cages, call the public speakers misleading the people "a den of vipers"along with "white washed tombs" ( HEAVY insults at the time) kind of thing? Ultimately be charged criminally and be crucified kind of thing?
Why don't you cozy up to Satan? Find his good side "for 'goodness' sakes" and be careful not to hurt his feelings with the truth...
Oh I'm sorry. That's sarcasm. Jesus never used that. Nope. He definitely never told the disciples that were upset about God's rules in marriage being for life to just go ahead and castrate themselves if they didn't like it. Nope. He sure didn't. Just asks the progressives; he was actually telling them to be trans. 😐... Paul, NEVER sarcasticly said of those that were demanding that Christians be circumcized that they go ahead and cut it all off when they did themselves. Nope.
Read your Bible, brother.
@@timothyvenable3336how is it not love to tell the truth. Don't forget Jesus whipped and over turned tables. And called the pharisees a brood of vipers. I think Christians tie there hands behind their backs by trying to be nice.
@timothyvenable3336 just curious. Did St. Nick behave like christ? He punched a guy for teching heresy. Was thrown in prison. And then released. There are many other similar stories. Is Dillahunty not teaching a heresy? Andrew did nothing wrong. We as Chriatians have been far too weak. And far too afraid to destroy insane world views. Its why the church is falling away in droves.
Andrew might have been a jack ass but his argument was devastating to matts position.
I reject "jackass". It implies someone foolish. Unintelligent. Ignorant. I'd take "not nice". Which is just fine.
@@dakotajones9709 Oh he definitely was "not nice".
@@Uncle_Jacob Good.
A devastating argument doesn't result in the opponent walking off stage, despite what the bros on RUclips have convinced you constitutes debate. A devastating argument survives scrutiny and rebuttal.
@@WaxPaper Oh. So an arguments merit is dependent on the opposition being able/willing to dispute the argument. How illogical.
I think he went too far at the end after he was called a jack###, but for all the official debate, he was in the right and Matt's leaving was a screen to get out of a debate he knew right then and there he was going to lose. His entire exit was disingenuous.
If Matt had done his research he would have known that Andrew would absolutely retaliate to an unwarranted personal attack.
If Matt was an adult he would understand that if you start slinging mud you're going to get dirty.
It was hardly an insult, simply a statement of fact. Dillahunty is banging a man. You can say it however you want. That’s the truth.
From what I know know, Andrew hit Matt’s soft spot which is that he has a male husband that says he’s a woman.
So when Matt brought LGBT issues into the debate in his opening, Andrew went for the jugular by saying, amongst other things, that Matt’s own sexual lifestyle and claims about reality were the opposite of human flourishing.
Nope. Matt Dillahunty was absolutely wrong for rage quitting.
Why should Matt platform or entertain someone who has no interest in a good faith debate?
@@SE7VENSINS
1) Wasn't Matt's platform
2) He accepted the debate with Andrew and he even did a live study session of what he intended to argue against Matt
3) Matt admitted he put no preparation and was just gonna recite his spiel but then said he refused to dignify the preparation he made for the debate
4) Matt debated an actual chomo advocate for 3 hours but stormed out because he got his fee-fees hurt
@@nem2gz continuing to debate and give Andrew the attention he wanted would have been giving him a platform.
Yes Matt agreed to debate Christian ethics vs secular humanism not godsnotrealdoh or about himself.
No preparation into who Andrew was because in an actual debate you ask your opponent’s argument not your opponent.
Even though Daniel is crazy he unlike Andrew still engages in good faith debates.
Daniel is brave enough to actually defend child marriage while Andrew couldn’t even defend Christian Ethics.
@@SE7VENSINS funny thing is Matt did prep for Daniel which is why he took the debate lol. In an actual debate, which clearly you're not familiar with, you prepare for the argument and the actual position of your opponent. That requires actual studying but if you do the "I'm not convinced" thing for 99% of your discussions, I guess you can get away with doing that most of your career.
Matt wanted to just recite his talking points and Andrew spanked him. Cope harder.
@@SE7VENSINSI'm 'not convinced ' that Matt Dillahunty is honest.
Hope to see more of this and Anderw has been significantly more respectful than Matt. People like him constantly lie about history and the impact that Christianity had on it and on society, go to the Low of Moses that no Christian follows, or has to follow, to make a strawman, hold meaningless worldviews that would turn into dictatorships in a heartbeat without the Christian framework and think they are smart and with a better moral compass. All Andrew did was point to the obvious idiocy of Secular Humanism, at the very least he engaged with his opponent's position contrary to Matt.
Andrew smoked him BADLY
He knows how to act like child thats for sure
@@firefly9838 ahh yes, because he's the one who pouted and left after the opening statement because his beliefs were mocked😃
@@firefly9838 Andrew knows how to take it to the nose and keep going.
Andrew conceded the debate a minute in.
@@SE7VENSINS can you steel-man Andrew's argument?
I think Andrew went in with the presupposition that trying to have an honest debate with Matt would be futile and decided to have a pettiness tit for tat/mix in valid arguments approach. I honestly can’t fault him for abandoning the regular debate form because all roads in debates with Matt lead to straw man/ad hominem/ double standards/fallacies. Andrew’s language could have been more measured because he was just unkind and no matter how challenging the trans issue is, it still deals with individual people and sweeping, insulting generalizations aren’t helpful when it comes to addressing that issue. Insults may be emotionally satisfying but that just shows Andrew’s lack of self control. Insults are the easy way out so Matt took the easy way out also and dipped. This was pointless. Trent Horn knows how to deal with Matt.
Dillahunty is a liar. And that is reason enough not to debate with him! Mike Johnson, our Speaker of the House has never stated anything close to, wanting to crimilized homosexuality.
Ummmm, I never saw Andrew lose self-control. There’s a video from Andrew’s crew showing him taking questions for quite awhile from an entirely hostile room and never losing his temper.
Focus criticism where it actually belongs.
@@jayv3264
I think Nate mightʼve gotten the right first impression: Andrew was trolling.
His response to Mattʼs outrage shows that he had Matt right where he wanted him.
@@Crich_Lesliewell....is it trolling though when: 1. you concede for argument's sake the other person's side/worldview, 2. you then use the other person's own approaches and words to flesh out their worldview as you understand it (and for benefit of the audience members who might be unaware), 3. use argumentation to turn those approaches and words on their head, 4. counter the other person's points ("Matt's point, Matt's points, Matt's points") raised by the other person in the speech/statement they literally just made, and 5. reciprocate the other person's tenor that the other person is well-known for using? The chances of interlocuters getting upset or worked up a bit in the course of a debate, especially one with personal aspects, are highly probable and the norm, by the way.
@@jayv3264
His cockiness, rudeness, and especially his pokes at Mattʼs personal life were trolling, imo.
But the argument tactics you pointed out were brilliant (at least _i_ think so).
Thanks for covering this,I had seen a couple other reviews of the rage quit. Many of them agreed with the Christian at too many points.
But I couldn't put my finger on why I left feeling so icky.
After watching your channel for a few weeks, I totally get it!
Fair assessment 👍
Ok, so after watching the full debate video on The Crucible, we can find that the topic was changed last minute and Andrew and Matt were gonna debate under the topic of Secular Humanism v Christian ethics. On the full video we can hear the talk between Matt and Andrew and after Matt leaves Andrew adresses the questions from the audience; around minute 35 he is asked about the topic and we can see Andrew’s surprise when he finds that the topic was changed.
ruclips.net/video/f6WViJ9-C58/видео.htmlsi=I8haC8iK6Q439GTb
The topic was "Which Is a Better Basis for Ethics?" It says it right there lol.
Yeah, the TV behind them is a survey who they think won.
The real title of the debate is "Christianity vs secular humanism: which has the best ethical foundation.
Dillahunty admitted that secular humanism is a religion and then precedes to claim that his views are superior to religion because religion can’t be proven scientifically?
A lot that Matt does makes no sense. I mean, they make sense to himself(aka Matt's god) when he says them.
That guy Matt literally attacked Christians in the same way 😂😂
This is like watching a backyard amateur boxing match
I actually can’t believe you sided with Dillahunty here, when all of Wilson’s arguments were completely valid. View Trent Horn’s analysis. Lost a bit of respect here.
His religion is to be nice rather than follow Christ.
If Matt was operating in "good faith" and not open rebellion to God, then certainly it was harsh. However, Matt is in open rebellion and if it was soft or hard there would be no speaking to him, so give him the straight up truth, and pray it shatters his heart, so that God may make something of the pieces.
Which God are you talking about? Allah, Yahweh, Krishna. I'm agnostic, I don't know if there is one and not afraid to say it. Believers in all religions say theirs is the true and only one. I've had true Christian friends tell me I should believe just in case I'm wrong. I find that funny because if he's so all powerful he would know that's not a good reason. I have a question, before man was allegedly created there would be no knowledge of a god by humans, why did he need us? He had his angels so it couldn't be he needed companionship. what was his motivating factor?
@@highlandjimbo6957 I’m assuming your aware that intelligent design is required for any of your questions to even be considered relevant in any objective way, sometimes you find the answers by asking why not instead of why. Also read the Bible if you want to know why. If no other “reason” can satisfy know that existence is objectively greater than non existence and one needs no other reason than this there is a line that separates, it separates good and bad, day and night, life and death a higher standard an objective truth and this standard is God/good.
@@ap90462 Yours is opinion based on faith and not actual fact. The bible in my opinion (I have one also) is just a book of stories. Things written thousands of years before the bible (Epic of Gilgamesh) have virgin births, Man taken down by a woman just like Samson and Delilah, etc. I'm like Doubting Thomas, I want proof and if we are so called children of God, he would have no problem with people asking because that is what children do.
@@highlandjimbo6957 which opinion did I give that was solely based on faith? I believe your question was in a biblical context. Also I encourage you to keep asking questions I do on a daily, I simply hope you wish for the truth and not your own truth.
@@ap90462 You told me to read the bible and in my opinion it's just a book, if you are relying on it for your truth then your truth is based on faith, not fact that can be proven. All religions are based on faith (my opinion) because none has been proven and they all claim to be the only true way to their God. I don't know if there is a God or not, so I am sure not going to claim one and then tell everyone else they are going to face eternal damnation if they don't believe as I do. (I know you didn't say it, but your bible does.)
So glad to see you cover this! I actually wanted to hear your opinion on this and sent you a request to cover it!
Thanks Nate!
Also, don’t know if you addressed this (I’m only about 2/3 of the way through the video, but Matt is dating a trans woman.
Matt is married, not dating, a man in a wig.
@@jimcricket1 Ooh, by bad. Thank you for the clarification.
@@jimcricket1 no he isn't. A man cannot marry a man by definition
Out of the few reactions I’ve seen, I am sure looking forward to yours!
I'm trying to tease this out. Here is where I'm at: When there is nothing left to discuss, war is the only recourse. I would prefer Andrews style of debate to that war, which seems to be creeping ever closer. In other words, it feels like a cultural escalation is taking place. If Christians do not push back we will be run over. Historically, we know Christians are very capable of weilding weapons. Before it gets to that point, should we not match our oppositions intensity? Please let me know what I'm getting wrong.
Nice breakdown, i watched part of the original video because it seemed interesting as I have heard Matt before and didn't know of the opposing speaker. I appreciate listening to debates however you helped me understand how it should work. Thanx
Nate has lots of knowledge when it comes to debate. I’d love to see him in one.
It takes courage and confidence to debate, both of which Nate lacks.
Nate is soft and would get destroyed in a debate. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
"3 days later"
Today we are reacting to Daniel Haqiqatchu vs Matt Dilahunty
Hahaha if its in demand probably but nate seemed so stressed.
@taraellis8279 yeah. We should give him a break. And by that I mean never recommend these again.
@@Young_Christian7 hahaha
I know you couldn't stay away from Matt 😂😂😂 I can't wait for this One
Really appreciate your channel! So glad I found it! Keep up the great work!
Matt was right to walk off Andrew showed he was there on bad faith, his comment at the end showed where he was going to take the rest of the debate.
Jesus definately used sarcasm to naysayers and he totally torn a new one out of the pharasies, so Wilson did just give him a taste of his own medicine. Dillahunty has spent years tearing into people on his talk show and on debate stages, with vulgarity, rudeness, personal attacks, and taking the moral high ground from the get go. Wilson has just shown everyone what a cry baby Matt really is when he's got no argument and is the one being bullied for once. Righteous anger is a thing!
Seriously, calling them "Sons of serpents" out in the open to their face
Don’t forget what Apostle Paul did to the magician or how God punished 42 naughty boys.
Yes but the difference is the Pharisees were the keepers of God’s Law and Matt Dillahunty is and unbeliever lost in darkness. Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the people who claimed to be God’s children, not the hypocrisy of the pagans.
@angelosophy There's no difference other than you haven't read or understood the bible. For example ,(Matt 7:6) Jesus is talking in general to genriles and not specifically to the religious Jewish leaders. So that ends your self-righteous diatribe, I guess. Have a nice life.🙏🏼
@@therealawakener7 “So that ends your self righteous diatribe. Have a nice life 🙏🏻" Is this how you address people? You think this is the Christian way to disagree with your brothers and sisters? Jesus was using yet another parable to tell His disciples why there are some to whom correction means absolutley nothing. Look at the verse before. “You hypocrite. First take the log out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Where in this passage or the passage after Matthew 7:6 does the reading indicate that Jesus was talking about Gentiles specifically. Please, since I am self-righteous and you are not, *then correct me if you can.*
This was not a debate. Matt has a transformer wife so he needs demons excised. This was an exorcism for Matt. On a side note this exact logic lead me back to a Christian path.
Amen. This sort of thing is inspiring to a lot of people. Christians are characterizing this like Andrew called for the forced conversion of people or tried to launch a crusade. All he did was put an antichrist in his place.
What logic?
@@tomasrocha6139 That religion is net positive and Christianity does the most good.
Matt poked the bear and got mauled. We have to quit pretending we have to treat these people with kid gloves so as not to hurt their delicate feelings. Andrew represented Christianity well in this situation.
No he didn't Andrew failed in every way to present Christianity. Christ debated with the Pharisees not to one up them or to 'destroy them' He did it in love and with the will that they would come to Him. That is how we must debate and engage with others, always being loving and professional. Andrew had no intention to debate he tried to anger Matt in order to get him to quit, Dillahunty shouldn't have left but Andrew knew what he was doing.
These people are in no way like the Pharisees that Jesus corrected and by the way Jesus went into the Pharisees hard on several occasions. These people are more like the merchants that Jesus whipped with a rope for defiling the temple. Go cast some loving pearls before those people and watch them trample them and turn and devour you. They are destroying the minds of children and must be handled appropriately.
@@joshuaroberts2137So I can say the 7 woes to you?
Even though I don't agree with you as an agnostic, I do respect your professionalism and you have great advice for debating.
Great breakdown of this debate. I like your perspective and explanation. Quite right with the resolution not being right. Great work.
Could Andrew have been merely giving Dillahunty a taste of his own medicine?
Secularism has caused society to fall into degeneration. How would you propose we confront these ones that need saving if they are less inclined to listen to a word a Christian would say, as they're more likely to be attacked, persecuted, etc.
Going in with the "nice Christian" approach doesn't work on these degenerates. Can you suggest how we can spread the good news and save those who need christ?
Andrews language was absolutely necessary.
Who determines what kind of language is necessary?
@@KorruptedFlame the Truth.
"It was super necessary" Jorge Masvidal
Lol like would Matt not call a hypothetical believer of Christianity a lunatic in a debate setting? Give me a break
You can when you debate Matt
If Matt did any research on Andrew, he would have expected it. Andrew did his research on Matt. Matt is in a relationship with a trans female(male to female). Andrew knows from all of Matts debates that the only real constant in a debate with Matt is his opinion.
While Nate is correct that it was quite shameful, it is also the only way to debate Matt. Then again, the bible states to not argue with a fool and join his folly. It also says to answer a fool as his folly deserves. I'm a little torn biblically on this because Matt is a fool and deserves to be made foolish like he was. However, I believe it was not done respectfully as a debate would demand.
Again, nobody except fools should debate Matt, because he always makes himself and his onions the focus. There is a better way to do this, but Matt got his just desserts.
I get your point but I still like the way Andrew made a show of him openly!
@@oxtailsoup6493i mean it was fun to watch, then I think to myself, should I find such enjoyment in a fool being laid out in his folly? I don't know. The answer is yes and no. It is obvious Matt is a fool, and doing a serious debate with him is playing into his folly, but proverbs, I think it is 26, states to not let him walk away thinking he is wise, and I don't think that happened.
Andrew is using Matt as a figurehead to the ideology he espouses. While Andrew is strong in his manner and language, it doesn’t change the fact he makes valid points. To back down and be mild mannered like many Christian’s try to be isn’t always effective in discussion. It’s difficult to nail down exactly the right temperament to have when conducting hard conversations
Andrew did exactly as Matt did and Matt couldn't handle it. Hopefully he learns from it.
Matt rage quit because Andrew removed his mask. Matt has a gay relationship with a man and he is trying to justify it with the human manifesto. Once he hit the wall 🧱 of the Truth is a very painful situation.
I disagree with some of your assessment. Dillahunty rage quit because he got treated the same way he treats others. You cannot treat people like Dillahunty nicely, because to do so is an instant loss. You have to confront them the way Andrew did. I agree he wasn't very nice, but in this situation it was suitable
The Bible says to turn the other cheek and love your neighbor as you love yourself, not to treat others as they treat you. That is my problem with your reasoning. Seems very man-centered and not biblically focused
@@nathanrobbins2440No, that's out of context. Turning your cheek was a challenge in that time. If you're hit twice, you fight.
@@MeanBeanComedy kindness and love are fruits of the spirit. Romans calls us to not repay evil with evil. I do not believe it is out of context, it is just something that is not fun to believe or hold to, so people minimize it so they can deal more harshly with people that annoy them
@@nathanrobbins2440Kindness and love is telling the truth. Evil is lying. By being honest, he was being kind and loving. Stop confusing that with agreeable and "nice," which is what you're pushing for here.
@@nathanrobbins2440 the problem with your reasoning is that you think love means being nice. Was Jesus being nice when he overturned the money changers tables? Or was he confronting an abomination to God head on? Telling people the truth is loving them, even if it's not what they want to hear
Matt is currently “dating” a trans “woman” so the husband might have been a low blow but saying only one side lost the plot is a lie. Where in the opener did it bring the speaker of the house and his past?
Good to call Matt out for being a freak.
If you want to see Dillahunty show how clueless he is, watch Dillahunty vs Jay Dyer. It's like Bahnsen vs Stein (if Stein were like a petulant child.)
I mean dyer didn’t do anything spectacular there. Just pointed out that Matt can’t prove logic and doesn’t have a solution to hard solipsism. But nobody does as far as I’m aware. We rely on them due to necessity
@@johnferranti3566need to watch it again. Logic and Mathematics are metaphysical and immaterial - you have to account for their existence as a structured framework. If atheists can say that the metaphysical framework just exists without a mind then the theists can just say God just exists and the debate is over.
@@Sbock86 no because logic and mathematics can be demonstrated. It doesn’t matter that they’re immaterial. The concept of a god doesn’t exist other than what human beings say.
@@johnferranti3566 mathematics and logic exist even without human demonstration. To demonstrate that they work you need to presuppose logic and reasoning in the first place. And yes, the fact that they are immaterial does matter. For all the scientific explanations for the beginnings and existence of the material world you cannot or ever will be able to give justification for transcendentals. And if you don't have to - despite utilising all of them, then I also don't have to give justification for the existence of God.
@@Sbock86 you do have to give justification. I agree with you that you have to presuppose logic and reasoning. We have to by necessity. You even use it to arrive at the existence of a god. You also used your senses to take in information about god. And since there’s no solution to the problem of hard solipsism, you can’t assert that a god exists because you’re smuggling in steps that aren’t accounted for. You also have no path to the god if any specific religion. And even if I grant you everything and agree 100%. So what? Where are we? I’m asserting logic, reasoning. You’re asserting god and neither of us have to justify it. That’s as far as it goes. So who cares
Bullies hate it when those they’re trying to bully turn out to be stronger than them. Dillahunty is an intellectual bully who expects to be on top, especially when debating Christians. I’ve never come across Andrew Wilson outside this debate, but other threads explain that he is a practitioner of “debate as bloodsport,” who is also a Christian, rather than a Christian who does debate as apologetics or evangelism. Dillahunty likes to beat up the latter kind, and it appears he was rather shocked to be treated the same way. But he lost the thread totally in his opening statement. He went off on a tangent attacking Christianity as if it were guilty of the crimes of Islam (don’t anyone dare say it’s a religion of peace!). He had no coherent, logical, linear argument, so there was no body of argument to counter. He set up several straw men and enthusiastically hacked them to pieces. He was in a totally different zone from the question under debate; which is odd if, as one commenter has asserted, it was he who set the debate topic.
Dillahunty doesn't claim that these are brute facts; rather, he argues that we take logical axioms and the laws of the universe to be assumed true for practical reasons. This doesn't mean Dillahunty believes they are inherently true. Instead, we have no method to confirm or deny them-disproving logic would require us to use logic itself. Like everyone else, Dillahunty assumes that logic and the laws of the universe will continue to function as they do now, because we have no other choice. Using God as an argument or reason for these laws is not evidence for their truth. In fact, it's irrational to assume you have an answer to something we have no method of even investigating.
If they both agreed to have a debate about X, and the other person completely deviates from the set topic, I don't see how it should be expected of Dillahuny to entertain it. Not only because it's a topic he did not agree to, but also because Dillahuny has had zero time to prepare for the other topic.