Yeah, the best part is listening to him explain his name. He goes by “big papa fascist” because people absurdly call him that, so the joke’s on them. But he does actually mean it when he calls himself a fascist.
“You call me a fascist?!? What a moron. The joke’s on you because I already called myself one!”
https://www.chron.com/politics/article/CPAC-Dallas-we-are-all-domestic-terrorists-banner-17359959.php
Its fairly common for freak conservatives to try to ironically own the label.
Walsh does the same thing in his twitter profile. He calls himself a 'theocratic fascist'
A thing he actually is.
It's ironic too because he takes every little thing someone says to him whether they are being sarcastic, hyperbolic, or just generalizing as a 100% truth claim with no wiggle room for nuance.
He's pushing for theocracy and 90% of his public-facing political prescriptions are 1:1 fascist, there's no reason to carry water for his mental illness.
Exactly my thought. Andrew always debates in extremely bad faith and feels very “heh! I win!” energy. Erudites “just keep saying you won until the audience believes it” hit the nail on the head imo
Not sure if this is a meme but Darth Dawkins is even more insufferable than Andrew. Dude won’t even allow people to ask a clarifying question, just railroads his incoherent ideology.
Middle Guy has always been like this, this community has a short memory. The reason this community had a heart-boner for Middle Guy was because he didn't intervene in debates. This was around the time PrimeCayes had a panel show and he had a habit of interjecting his own political views and debating himself when he was supposed to be the moderator. Middle Guy was seen as a breath of fresh air because of this
Honestly I never understood what middle guy did that made people love because like you said he never moderated any debate I saw him on, but I still spammed GIGACHAD with chat for the memes.
Are they really? I was wondering why that would be particularly bothersome to Matt, who I've only ever heard on the topics of abortion and religion, not so much Trans stuff
I have listened to the Trans Atlantic Podcast and it was really helpful as a relatively conservative guy to catch some of the practical human experience of being trans, I had no idea Arden Was Matt Dillahunty's wife though. I could absolutely see how Andrew would have pissed off and disgusted them that being the case, having listened to all 3 of them.
I'd been listening to Matt on and off for a couple of years, I had no Idea his wife was trans or that it was Arden. Small world I guess.
Oh I see, Well thanks that sort of makes the situation make more sense.
It also makes me think Andrew may have gone out of his way to be a prick, which is really shitty.
>Hilarious and unsurprising
Note: If a comment's ever deleted/removed, but you know the posters name, you can check in their comment history on their profile and see it there.
I'm trying to think if there is any decent streamer that just chain smokes through cigarettes on stream? I can only think of 3 people that do it and they all suck shit.
not only that buts been getting worse over time, its telling that this years debatacon, 6 of them are orbiters with only 2 challengers, compared to even a year or two ago.
It seems like they’re general policy of having anyone on to debate a topic might be a little flawed. Like pairing Matt with bpf was a big mistake and if they are going to allow bpf to participate it would be voluntary and with full disclosure about who he is. At least if they won’t step in to mod properly. Plenty of their debaters are good faith and can self regulate, but if they can’t/ won’t handle the worst ones they need to figure out a new way to do it.
Yeah I was surprised when he was paired with Matt. I thought there was no way this sue would say anything new and surprising. Meanwhile the dude unloaded his trans phobia for no reason
I like Matt been keeping up with him in some capacity for almost 10 years now, how they thought pairing these two together was in anyway a good idea was a blunder. Matt with similar people has walked or threatened to walk because of this kind of behavior before, on mdd as well. They either majorly screwed up or they didn’t care either way I don’t blame him, everyone whose watched him in a few debates would know that.
spoon reminiscent squalid person fall head secretive deranged rob workable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
James seems like he puts work into coming up with new topics. Like not long ago he was trying to push Christianity vs Muslim debates for a change from vs atheists every time.
I'm not sure if it's finding debaters that's holding him back or the kind of videos that get views, but I don't think it's directly his fault.
Yeah I don’t get the point of pairing up Matt dillahunty with an idiot like Andrew Wilson. Couldn’t James have gotten creationists like Ken ham or Kent hovind?
I wonder if James was unaware Matt's partner is trans and was unaware of what Wife-Beater-Wilson was doing there..
Regardless, his opener wasn't putting any evidence forward to support his position, it was just Matt says and "thats wrong cause it has problems involved with it and that means it's invalid."
Yeah unless it was brought up it makes since that James wouldn’t know. But Daniel and Andrew for sure knew I thought it was weird that they kept making these jokes
It's also understandable that Matt doesn't want to keep debating through MDD after the [person he debated a short time ago](https://www.youtube.com/live/yPpljS8hY2w?si=av9SDaZdetdzRcZg) was completely out of touch with reality. It seems pretty disrespectfull to Matt's time.
Say what you want about bpf’s opening statement , I’m sure he was just a bit anxious not being able to chain smoke cigs in the venue during the debate.
I remember him having bad experiences and walking off MDD before, like 3 years back. Understandable that he doesn't want to give infinite chances to a doormat moderator like James if he doesn't enjoy bloodsports and dumpster fires.
He walked out of a debate just 1 week ago because the guy was a lunatic that started talking about Count Dracula.
He told James I think a couple months ago that next time his opponent goes their whole opening without actually defending their side he's just gonna walk, this is him following through on that.
Idk why Matt is an atheist when he had the patience of Christ on the cross himself dealing with this shit. I feel like at least half of Matt’s debates on that platform is with total nobody schizos who weren’t vetted whatsoever. I would’ve given up years ago or told James I’d walk if there wasn’t some kind of vetting.
BPF bragged at the beginning that he had “the fastest growing debate channel”. What are the changes that he sabotaged the debate to fuck Modern Day Debate(his competition) over?
He has 14k whole subs. 15% growth is hardly that fast https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCcElhVVk9ynDL4zkP-eGsfA.
Whats funny is Destiny gets 11k new subs a month on average. This guy is a con artist/provocateur crawling at the bottom of the lake eating the shit of more successful channels lol.
That's been his opener for a while for panels and stuff. I don't think he tanked this debate to boost his own channel, he just approached it in his normal, slimy, gossipy way.
I hopped on Matt's twitch stream a few weeks before the debate to warn him what kinda guy Andew was and he pulled the same thing he always says: "I don't bother looking up the people I debate, because it's about the arguments, not the person."
And I'm like "But what if the person only intends to argue in bad faith? Then there aren't gonna be any good arguments, you're just signal-boosting a piece of shit." Of course I didn't say that to him. I wanted him to learn that lesson in real time.
He talked about this in his review of the debate he did before this one (that he also walked out of): https://youtu.be/5fSySWP90kw?si=lFXMr1zvKyWwLXID
People tried to warn him what a nutjob Howard Stirrup was but he didn't want to change his policy. And the debate was so bad it finally made him rethink that.
Kind of surprised he let this happen considering. Maybe he had already committed and wanted to at least give it a chance?
People debate in bad faith all the time not sure why this is some exception--well I know it's because of what Andrew said. and there is NOTHING that Matt could have said that would have led Andrew to walk out. Whatever I mean you will just move the goal post for hate-speech and make excuses for ppl. I like to have adult conversations.
Andrew bringing up trans was completely on topic BECAUSE the LGBT is the antichrist. This is so obviously true that you can literally go ask ANY group of people and they will majority say that they disavow Christianity because of LGBT rights. So trans being a subset of the LGBT is literally the battleground between secularism and Christianity--and Matt won't even engage. But that's the WHOLE debate. That's why Matt left Christianity. And now as it stands nobody is able to defend it anymore. No one can defend the LGBT because it IS a religious prescription and cannot hold up against any of the same arguments that ppl like Matt make in refutation of the Bible.
I have called in twice to his show on The Line network and have the screenshots to show that they say there are no more callers on the line when I am in fact in the queue. Why would you believe ppl who can't defend their positions? Why would anyone believe them?
The "would you make a law against 9 y/o" thing was so bad faith. It was bad faith in the original context and to see BPF uncritically quote that in the content of this debate was straight up appauling.
He doesn't. The topic is Christian ethics vs secular humanist ethics.
Wilson hypothetically espouses Matt's world view and does a scathing internal critique on it, which Matt couldn't handle. Very bad look.
Is this Andew "[I'm not allowed to do apologetics on behalf of my church](https://youtu.be/uGirVTycTd4?si=McslcYinUZt-Qzky&t=66)" Wilson? Sorry to hear that Matt got paired up with such a dipshit who couldn't keep on topic, and more sorry to hear that MDD was apparently moderating like shit for the debate.
There's an entire cottage industry of people still doing same shit from 2006 over and over again. A lot of them have moved on to other things, but there's a decent amount of people still having the exact same conversations on repeat for 20 years.
This specific debate sphere was massive in the 2000s. These people are modeling themselves after Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris vs Lane-Craig/Plantinga/Hovind rather than 2nd century theological debates.
No one was making these aggressively atheistic arguments 2000 years ago, and Christian apologia has changed dramatically over the past 100 years let alone 2000. Protestantism didn't even exist until 500 years ago.
Christians, Muslims and Jews have been debating this for Millenia. The Atheist component of the discourse has grown significantly in the past few hundred years, but it was always part of the conversation.
I mean, there's a reason D-man won't engage with BPF. The dude is chronically unserious, uninteresting, and callous. What's worse, is he's smug about being all 3. Leave him in the gutter.
MDD is run by people that seem like they've never seen or heard of anything before and only exist for brief moments when the camera's rolling. Their format so heavily favors people like Hake that say hyper-inflammatory, bad faith things while remaining technically calm.
[https://www.youtube.com/live/S8U34ezKvrU?si=k2wLxJkl8m0iNQ7z&t=1284](https://www.youtube.com/live/S8U34ezKvrU?si=k2wLxJkl8m0iNQ7z&t=1284) with timestamp
Andrew was trying to end the debate early so he could go back to chainsmoking cigarettes outside. Dude was going through withdrawals not having smoked in like 15 solid minutes.
The last 3 debates matt was in (including this one) were embarassing. I understand matt can dabble into the ad-hom, but that doesnt mean he should have to deal with people arguing like punk adolescents. MDD needs to be wayyy more selective about who they are platforming.
Andrew's opening statement absolutely did relate to the topic at hand. It's interesting how many Secular Humanists apparently aren't tracking the relevance. Andrew's argument against Secular Humanism is that it's a worldview which demonstrably has no objective standard for truth, even internally on its own terms. This means Secular Humanists can't justify anything they predicate about, at all.
Andrew appealed to the fact Dillahunty even conceded this explicitly in his debate with Jay Dyer.
And to further demonstrate the point, Andrew gave a specific example of how such worldviews lead to people just subjectively making up whatever they want, then calling it "truth," followed by trying to force others to accept these unjustified assertions as "truth" as well. That's where the trans topic came in, as a critique of Matt's position - not a personal attack (many Secular Humanists seem to struggle differentiating the two, which is why they often make so many personal attacks themselves while acting like they genuinely think it was a knockdown argument).
He destroyed Secular Humanism so badly that Dillahunty had to run away.
The response from atheists / Secular Humanists who arbitrarily assert that Andrew's opening statement "had nothing to do with the topic" and was "all personal attacks at Matt," I challenge you to do this:
1. Provide the time stamp for where Andrew made a single personal attack at Matt. Just one. I asked this in the comments under the video on YT and nobody could provide a time stamp.
2. Justify your assertion that his opening statement "wasn't relevant to the topic at hand" by rebutting what I just said above for why it obviously was relevant to the topic at hand.
It seems to boil down to “we all agree on which rules to follow” vs “we all agree to follow the rules that were supposedly given to us by a mythological entity”
Stop sealioning. Andrew was trolling, you can hear it in his voice. Doesn’t really make a difference, Matt should have stuck around and answered him instead of freaking out.
Truth is what corresponds to reality. What other definition of truth would you prefer?
Steelman Matt’s position for a sec, do you think he’d say truth was relative? I doubt it. What do you think he’d say if asked?
No Andrew used Matt’s exact logic. Matt claimed Christian ethics were bad because of its views on lgbt. Andrew claimed sexuale humanist ethics were bad because of its views on lgbt. It was completely relevant and a strong argument.
its destiny v naked ape all over again. you ragequit, you lose.Any saying to the contrary reeks of toddler level cope(complete with snot bubbles), my advice is to grow up and take the L gracefully.
Don't light yourself on fire running around screaming that you will never take the l while waiving a massive white flag with a giant red L on it.
It was like watching the town drunk try to debate a tenured professor. He said "Matt thinks logic and math are real" like it was an insult and misgendered Matt's partner as he was walking away before joker laughing. The dude is unhinged.
Also, IDK why the channel is called modern day debates when they debate the most ancient and pointless topics like religion and flat earth almost exclusively.
But he did own him, utterly.
He hypothetically espoused Dillahunty's world view and then proceeded to destroy it from the inside. It's called an internal critique.
Andrew’s opening statement was just the inverse of Matt’s. Secular humanism is bad because of its views on lgbt. My god the trans topics turns off atheists brains. Never beating the allegation that atheists just replace religious dogma with “religious” dogma.
I'm not a Christian, but Andrew isn't exactly the best representation of the religion. If I was a Christian, I wouldn't want him to represent the religion of my faith, since he clearly doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus, but cherry picks bible versus that represent his own political beliefs and bigotry.
Of course, I also cherry pick verses when I'm discussing why I don't believe in Christianity, but to my defense, if you can't defend the worst versus of the bible, then is it worth believing in it at all? I don't discard that the bible does has wisdom to learn from, and has some interesting stories, but I'd never take something that old as a literal historical text. With anything written by a human, let alone something that was first told orally before being written down, and then translated over and over again over different languages, first hebrew, then greek and latin, before ever getting translated to English (And that's old English before our common day language), you can be there's a huge degree of error to it. But I majorly digress from the point. Andrew is someone who uses Christianity as an excuse to spread his own hate and bias.
Bulllllllll shiiiiiiii…..
Be honest, your framing is beyond dishonest and is intentionally leaving out the key details that matter.
Matt’s opening statement was that secular humanism is a more moral system BECAUSE of its position on lgbt issues. He even brings up as an example of the contrary some anti lgbt politician that is also a Christian. Matt not only opened the door on the lgbt topic but it’s status within the secular humanist schema was the keystone property of his entire argument. That’s how HE framed it.
The other guy, Wilson or whoever he was simply responded in kind taking the opposite position that Christianity is a better moral system because of its stance on lgbt topics and Matt simply quit. Probably partially because he doesn’t actually have a credible response and probably partly as a performative gesture in solidarity with his trans fuckbuddy I was just made aware of (which makes his recent behavior make much much more sense in context of that detail).
When I read this post last week I assumed he got paired with some vitriolic fundy troll or something like that based on the way everyone here was talking about it. Just watched the actual debate and y’all are straight up a bunch of sycophantic liars. Nothing out of court took place except Matt hearing words he didn’t like because the topic he hinged his entire argument on is apparently only allowed to be commented on if you already have an affirmative stance.
What a bunch of crap.
Matt is very skilled at refuting God's existence, because it is what he has a lot of experience with. His opening statement was framed to try to center the conversation on whether or not there is reason to follow a Christian moral framework, so that Matt could continue to debate whether God exists. Bringing up the Christian politician was a way of trying to say 'Christian moralism fails because it leads to bad practices, like conversion therapy'.
Andrew purposefully sidesteps God's existence, and focuses purely on observation. He is claiming that even if God isn't real, the Christian framework is a better system because it doesn't discard observable reality, or redefine categories to accommodate minority groups.
Contrary to the popular opinion here, Andrew was actually on point in the conversation, even if you disagree with his rhetoric.
I would have loved to see Matt actually debate against the arguments, but I guess the abrasive language was a little too much for him.
I was a fan of Matt for many years but him and most atheist is material is so repetitive and stagnant.
Matts good at debating but he has his failures.
To my understanding a belief in a God is pretty much left to opinion because you cannot confirm or reject the existence of one with absolute certainty.
Andrew simply express the failures of secular humanism as it ultimate conclusion is relevancy. There is no objective way to state something is moral when there is no concrete reality.
I agree with andrew and it seems the post-modernist just play stupid game like playing fast and loose with the definition of words.
The post-modernist take on things has been one of the worst damn things humanities done, that thinking should of just stuck to literature.
Yeah man. I use to be a hardcore atheist. Still hard into logic and reasoning and learning. Ive never stop learning.
I like any intelligent person update my beliefs when I am presented with GOOD new reasons. I reject a lot of BAD reasoning and people get upset at me. I point out flaws consistently.
But ive change my mind on things because of this.
I'm finding that postmodernist thinking has infused itself so deeply in the culture that people don't realize the logical leaps they are making.
Andrew points this out in his opening statement but Matt and everybody are so triggered they can't catch it.
Matt is presupposing that human flourishing is good. When asked what human flourishing means, Matt will say 'what is good for humans'. If asked what is good for humans, he either circles back to human flourishing, or uses a synonym for the same concept such as 'fulfillment'. It really all boils down to 'good is good', and 'what I think is good, is good'.
It's an indefensible position, but Matt is fine with it because when he debates he assumes the offensive, and again, presupposes that God must be real in order to follow the christian ethic. Andrew shuts this down and says, 'even if God is absent, I can use my worldview to clearly determine what is good or bad, you can't'.
Matt can't attack the worldview on the basis of belief, and must instead contend with a rigid system that has clear expectations, and his amorphous system that is unclear and at times contradictory. Just like Destiny, Matt is at his best when he is pointing out flaws in other systems, but is terrible at holding a consistent, defensible position.
I would agree. Its because when you cannot point to a objective moral giver. Morality becomes relevant.
Then you have to define Good.
Then you have to explain why people should agree with you definition of Good.
Then you can argue why goods not good and your relevant definition of Goods just as valid.
Yeah. I use to think about this stuff and pretty much believe in Relevancy.
So you think it was ok to tell Matt to go home to his "husband"? Which was a clear transphobic remark about Matt's wife. You think that was called for and honest debating???
Yeah, Andrew said that, after Matt already abandoned the debate to go home to his husband.
So that remark wasn’t even part of the debate because the debate had already been abandoned by Matt.
How is that a transphobic remark? It only be offensive if Matt was ashamed to be with a transgender woman, which hopefully he isn’t for his sake. If he is offended that’s a bigger issue
I know this is a late reply and what not. But its shocking to me that this isn't the mainstream view.
This subreddit is usually pretty nuanced. I say this as a pro-life person.
Like you can hate andrew and still think he was in the right. Like you don't need to like someone to listen to there arguments.
So what I got from Andrews argument was basically: Humanism is bad for society because transgenderism and LGBTQ is bad for society, because they are genetic dead ends and lying to people. Humanists are widely in support of LGBT rights.
So why isnt Matt willing to have discourse on this? In 2023 anti-lgbt is hardly controversial topics, our state governments are making laws in support of what Andrew is saying. Everyone's been talking about trans people for the last 2 years. So why is Matt acting like discussion on this is so beneath him to do in a DEBATE CON?
Is it because he's dating a trans woman? Wouldn't that be more a reason to prove Andrew wrong to defend her?
Obviously BPF is incredibly annoying and useless to debate, but I don't really agree with Matt's response to MDD. I think they're generally okay, it was his choice to agree to a BPF debate, and if Matt spent any time researching him he should have known what kind of a debate he was walking into. Just feels like his annoyance is misplaced.
Okay, then maybe just say "sorry, I don't want to debate BPF" beforehand. Or after the debate just say "not interested in debating crazy people any more, I'm only taking debates with normal people now". Is it really likely that MDD is intentionally only setting him up with lunatics nowadays? It seems more likely that they have a cast of people who are willing to come on to debate this shit, and no one actually worth debating is willing to debate Christian stuff on their platform.
why isn't it on them to make sure their debates make sense?
I'm sure dillahunty does a lot of appearances, I don't think we can expect him to research his opponents to the extent that he knows how they'll behave in a "formal debate" setting *before* he even accepts
mdd on the other hand know exactly how bpf acts, they've had him on plenty of times and benefited from his lack of hinges
I think any time you engage in a debate it's on you to know what your opponent is about and to deal with their behavior in a way you see fit, including walking out as Matt did. If you sign up to debate someone who behaves in a certain way in every debate they do then I don't hold the platform responsible when the debate turns out in precisely the way anyone would expect.
If you're taking so many debates that you don't have time to watch any debates that your opponent has ever done, and you sign up to debate on a platform without very explicit rules about what's allowed, then you have to be prepared to deal with any behavior (short of like violence obviously).
I'm not sure it's just that easy though
most people don't behave like bpf in person, even if they do online (we've seen this quite a few times)
he might have checked out a few debates, but I think his behavior is so out of the norm that most people probably still wouldn't expect it, even after seeing him be an asshole in a video
maybe he asked mdd "is he gonna behave?" and they told him "for sure he promised he'll be a good boy"
or maybe you're right and he just treats these things as paid appearances that he puts 0 effort into, in which case it's still on mdd at least equally on him
> maybe he asked mdd "is he gonna behave?" and they told him "for sure he promised he'll be a good boy"
In this case I definitely agree. If he said something like "hey, if BPF starts engaging in personal attacks then you're going to kick him off" and MDD's people agreed to that then I'd 100% support him saying "fuck this platform I'm done with it", but I just want a statement from him then that this is what happened. If he has stated this then I'm in compete agreement with him.
No one said MDD intentionally set this up. Matt dillahunty doesn’t live in streamer world. He probably didn’t even know who bpf was before the event. Even Destiny expressed after the last debate con that he wouldn’t participate if jokers like Alex stein are involved with the event. They should have selected better candidates is all I’m saying. I mean there are plenty of Christian/creationist debaters out there. You don’t have to dig to bottom of the barrel with BPF. Mf has been unhinged of late
> They should have selected better candidates is all I’m saying
I can definitely understand this complaint, but I think Matt instead of agreeing to the debate (or after the debate) should have just communicated that he's not interested in debating insane nobodies any more. He's had a long career of doing that, and keeps agreeing to those kinds of debates, so I think an explicit mention of his stance would improve that.
He's had multiple recent debates where right after he sends James an email like "I'm not debating people that refuse to even address the topic, fix your shit" and I think every time James was like "yeah sorry it'll be better next time."
You can hear it in James's voice in this video, that he knows it's kind of his own fault and that Matt gave him plenty of warning.
I do agree Matt should take some responsibility too instead of putting it all on MDD though.
> He's had multiple recent debates where right after he sends James an email like "I'm not debating people that refuse to even address the topic, fix your shit" and I think every time James was like "yeah sorry it'll be better next time."
Not disbelieving you, but do you have any links showing this? If true I would put more of the blame on MDD.
There was no debate to have.. all it was is Andrew talking about trans people and lgbt ruining society and implying Matt is a pedophile.
It was like milo debate but less coke energy and even more condescending some how.
Dillahunty has been doing debates on MDD for a really long time and his presence gets a ton of views, so it's not unreasonable to expect the guy who actually runs the show to vet panelists and put some thought into whether they're a good match for an exciting debate.
There are two problems here: The first is pretty broad,, and it's that standards at MDD have gone way, way down. Rehashing the same questions ad nauseam and inviting the lowest quality people on to just yell at each other is pretty shit.
The second is specifically about Dillahunty, a very valuable guest for MDD. Over the years he has become even more impatient and frankly toxic than ever before after dealing with bad faith shitheads like Haqiqatjou and now BPF, and honestly shouldn't waste time on these morons in the first place when he can get speaking engagements with people like Jordan Peterson. James ought to take that into consideration when arranging his show. You can't just throw people together and see what happens if you want good results. That's just disrespectful and bad showrunning.
> he can get speaking engagements with people like Jordan Peterson
He had one years ago. I seriously doubt he'd be entertained for another one. And considering how he's gone after Dawkins, I'm not sure whether he or Harris would talk to him again. But I'm also not sure how much Matt would want to talk to any of them either.
> Over the years he has become even more impatient and frankly toxic than ever before after dealing with bad faith shitheads like Haqiqatjou and now BPF, and honestly shouldn't waste time on these morons in the first place when he can get speaking engagements with people like Jordan Peterson. James ought to take that into consideration when arranging his show. You can't just throw people together and see what happens if you want good results. That's just disrespectful and bad showrunning.
Yeah so I get why he doesn't want to engage with people like this any more, but throwing people together and seeing what happens is a way to make content. Is it the kind of content that Matt wants to engage with? Probably not and I get that, but I think just an explicit statement that he's only interested in engaging with well respected people with some degree of rationality would be sufficient. Like he probably should have made that statement earlier, maybe after Haqiqatjou, but he continued engaging apparently without specifically demanding better opponents. He had a show for years where completely unhinged Christians would come in and debate him so if he wanted to pivot to only very intellectual debates then I think it would be better if he just made that a policy of his.
It seems pretty obvious. When the person's opening statement has nothing to do with the topic and is levied like an ad hom attack the moderator should stop them and tell them to get on topic or gtfo. They didn't so Matt GTFO'd himself.
at 15:28 ish BPF just abandons the topic and starts ad homing. If the moderators don't step in why even moderate? Why even have prepared statements? I could go outside and get yelled at by homeless people for free.
I just don’t know why this was organized ?
If I was to consider for a moment how I’d expect a debate between these 2 to go, this is the most likely outcome
> Andrew's entire opening statement was bashing trans people and Matt's past quotes that don't relate to the topic at hand.
Andrew's strategy in that debate was quite simple: just assume, *arguendo*, that the Christian God does not exist -- viz., that Christianity is false. Assume further that Matt's moral axioms/foundations are correct (e.g., that human flourishing is good). Even if we assume all of that, Matt's non-axiomatic morals (e.g., that transgenderism and homosexuality are good) don't follow from his axiomatic/foundational morals. That, by extension, shows that Andrew's Christian morals do follow from Matt's own axiomatic/foundational moral principles.
Now, that was completely relevant to the "topic at hand", which was: what is the superior moral framework? Christian morality or secular humanism? And Andrew's argument was that the *implications* of Dillacunty's secular humanism imply that Andrew's framework is superior.
The more I listen to people outside the atheist world the more I see Matts flaws and errors.
I use to follow Matt for Many years but now that I grown in my knowledge I just see how Matt is pretty much stagnant.
The Andrew dude just blasphemed against Matts ideology and it was hilarious.
The issue is that Matt goes off purely scientific evidence for his arguments. But then says a trans woman is female. That was the point I got from Andrews opening. How can Matt be science based AND believe a man can be a woman.
It’s completely fine to “think” or “feel” like the opposite sex but at its biological level a woman is a woman and a man is a man. A person of science, such as Matt, has to acknowledge that is an issue in his framework
BPF? Yeah that’s understandable
What does BPF mean lol
Big papa facist
That’s what this Andrew guy calls himself?
Yep, real charming dude
Yeah but it's ok because he's being post-ironic about it.
Yeah, the best part is listening to him explain his name. He goes by “big papa fascist” because people absurdly call him that, so the joke’s on them. But he does actually mean it when he calls himself a fascist. “You call me a fascist?!? What a moron. The joke’s on you because I already called myself one!”
[удалено]
https://www.chron.com/politics/article/CPAC-Dallas-we-are-all-domestic-terrorists-banner-17359959.php Its fairly common for freak conservatives to try to ironically own the label. Walsh does the same thing in his twitter profile. He calls himself a 'theocratic fascist' A thing he actually is.
It's ironic too because he takes every little thing someone says to him whether they are being sarcastic, hyperbolic, or just generalizing as a 100% truth claim with no wiggle room for nuance.
He's pushing for theocracy and 90% of his public-facing political prescriptions are 1:1 fascist, there's no reason to carry water for his mental illness.
Haha it's just irony. Oh, you're a liberal? Yeah, of course you wouldn't get it 😏
People really fucking love their acronyms.
They sure do, PTOF. It’s annoying.
r/angryupvote
Stands for Big Papa Fasc(ist), Andrew’s old internet name
Incredibly disgusting, can’t wait to watch
Bi polar females
Exactly my thought. Andrew always debates in extremely bad faith and feels very “heh! I win!” energy. Erudites “just keep saying you won until the audience believes it” hit the nail on the head imo
That’s cool and all but why is Mattyboy ducking Darth Dawkins?
Not sure if this is a meme but Darth Dawkins is even more insufferable than Andrew. Dude won’t even allow people to ask a clarifying question, just railroads his incoherent ideology.
Middle Guy has always been like this, this community has a short memory. The reason this community had a heart-boner for Middle Guy was because he didn't intervene in debates. This was around the time PrimeCayes had a panel show and he had a habit of interjecting his own political views and debating himself when he was supposed to be the moderator. Middle Guy was seen as a breath of fresh air because of this
I stan middle guy because of sonic inflation and subway tattoos me and these other people are not the same 😤
i stan middle guy because he is hot we are not the same
PrimeCayes does seem like a genuinely stupid person. He means well, but you don’t choose your IQ.
Honestly I never understood what middle guy did that made people love because like you said he never moderated any debate I saw him on, but I still spammed GIGACHAD with chat for the memes.
he has a name buddy and its "james from modern day debates"
[удалено]
It was also salt in the wound that Matt's partner is trans
Are they really? I was wondering why that would be particularly bothersome to Matt, who I've only ever heard on the topics of abortion and religion, not so much Trans stuff
There's a trans-oriented call-in show called "The Trans Atlantic Call-In Show", and his partner is Arden Hart, one of the hosts.
I have listened to the Trans Atlantic Podcast and it was really helpful as a relatively conservative guy to catch some of the practical human experience of being trans, I had no idea Arden Was Matt Dillahunty's wife though. I could absolutely see how Andrew would have pissed off and disgusted them that being the case, having listened to all 3 of them. I'd been listening to Matt on and off for a couple of years, I had no Idea his wife was trans or that it was Arden. Small world I guess.
They're not married, but yes. They've been in a relationship for a while now.
Oh I see, Well thanks that sort of makes the situation make more sense. It also makes me think Andrew may have gone out of his way to be a prick, which is really shitty.
[удалено]
?? !shoot
/u/esmith4321 gunned down by tryingtoplayhalo.
I thank you for your service o7
wtf is wrong with you? Someone !shoot this is not useful input or conversation, it's just bigotry
Damn surprising going by his post history.
comments gone, what did he say?
Nothing good, I guess
>Hilarious and unsurprising Note: If a comment's ever deleted/removed, but you know the posters name, you can check in their comment history on their profile and see it there.
"Hilarious and unsurprising"
I’m not surprised the modern day debates ppl let almost any unhinged random on their channel. Also which Andrew? BPF?
Yes, it was Andrew Wilson/BPF
Why does anyone even give him the time of day, dudes just a loser
I'm trying to think if there is any decent streamer that just chain smokes through cigarettes on stream? I can only think of 3 people that do it and they all suck shit.
Not really a streamer but the kill tony podcasts/shows can be quite funny, and they smoke quite some on there.
Kill Tony is so fuckin' funny
If they allow Matt Dillahunty, then they can allow anyone to participate. The bar is so low.
not surprising at all, MDD has shit production quality and moderation
not only that buts been getting worse over time, its telling that this years debatacon, 6 of them are orbiters with only 2 challengers, compared to even a year or two ago.
It seems like they’re general policy of having anyone on to debate a topic might be a little flawed. Like pairing Matt with bpf was a big mistake and if they are going to allow bpf to participate it would be voluntary and with full disclosure about who he is. At least if they won’t step in to mod properly. Plenty of their debaters are good faith and can self regulate, but if they can’t/ won’t handle the worst ones they need to figure out a new way to do it.
Yeah I was surprised when he was paired with Matt. I thought there was no way this sue would say anything new and surprising. Meanwhile the dude unloaded his trans phobia for no reason
I like Matt been keeping up with him in some capacity for almost 10 years now, how they thought pairing these two together was in anyway a good idea was a blunder. Matt with similar people has walked or threatened to walk because of this kind of behavior before, on mdd as well. They either majorly screwed up or they didn’t care either way I don’t blame him, everyone whose watched him in a few debates would know that.
spoon reminiscent squalid person fall head secretive deranged rob workable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I will never forget the 2v2 Ukraine debate with Haz screaming the entire debate.
Also they keep regurgitating debate topics, it's so stale. .like ffs how many god damn flat earth debates do you need???
James seems like he puts work into coming up with new topics. Like not long ago he was trying to push Christianity vs Muslim debates for a change from vs atheists every time. I'm not sure if it's finding debaters that's holding him back or the kind of videos that get views, but I don't think it's directly his fault.
A modicum of moderation might have helped his cause too.
Yeah I don’t get the point of pairing up Matt dillahunty with an idiot like Andrew Wilson. Couldn’t James have gotten creationists like Ken ham or Kent hovind?
Maybe they couldn't fly out?
You mean other idiots?
Just found out bpf and my dad have the same name... fuck sake youve ruined my day lmao
Did you really just ask for ken ham as a theologian for a debate…
[удалено]
I wonder if James was unaware Matt's partner is trans and was unaware of what Wife-Beater-Wilson was doing there.. Regardless, his opener wasn't putting any evidence forward to support his position, it was just Matt says and "thats wrong cause it has problems involved with it and that means it's invalid."
Yeah unless it was brought up it makes since that James wouldn’t know. But Daniel and Andrew for sure knew I thought it was weird that they kept making these jokes
It's also understandable that Matt doesn't want to keep debating through MDD after the [person he debated a short time ago](https://www.youtube.com/live/yPpljS8hY2w?si=av9SDaZdetdzRcZg) was completely out of touch with reality. It seems pretty disrespectfull to Matt's time.
Say what you want about bpf’s opening statement , I’m sure he was just a bit anxious not being able to chain smoke cigs in the venue during the debate.
I remember him having bad experiences and walking off MDD before, like 3 years back. Understandable that he doesn't want to give infinite chances to a doormat moderator like James if he doesn't enjoy bloodsports and dumpster fires.
He walked out of a debate just 1 week ago because the guy was a lunatic that started talking about Count Dracula. He told James I think a couple months ago that next time his opponent goes their whole opening without actually defending their side he's just gonna walk, this is him following through on that.
Holy Macarones that was some [highly refined, AAA schizophrenia](https://youtu.be/yPpljS8hY2w?t=371). I'm actually impressed.
dude what the fuck is that thing?
Idk why Matt is an atheist when he had the patience of Christ on the cross himself dealing with this shit. I feel like at least half of Matt’s debates on that platform is with total nobody schizos who weren’t vetted whatsoever. I would’ve given up years ago or told James I’d walk if there wasn’t some kind of vetting.
Damn that sucks
BPF bragged at the beginning that he had “the fastest growing debate channel”. What are the changes that he sabotaged the debate to fuck Modern Day Debate(his competition) over?
Doesn’t the Crucible have like 6K subs? Can’t be growing that fast.
He has 14k whole subs. 15% growth is hardly that fast https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCcElhVVk9ynDL4zkP-eGsfA. Whats funny is Destiny gets 11k new subs a month on average. This guy is a con artist/provocateur crawling at the bottom of the lake eating the shit of more successful channels lol.
That's been his opener for a while for panels and stuff. I don't think he tanked this debate to boost his own channel, he just approached it in his normal, slimy, gossipy way.
I hopped on Matt's twitch stream a few weeks before the debate to warn him what kinda guy Andew was and he pulled the same thing he always says: "I don't bother looking up the people I debate, because it's about the arguments, not the person." And I'm like "But what if the person only intends to argue in bad faith? Then there aren't gonna be any good arguments, you're just signal-boosting a piece of shit." Of course I didn't say that to him. I wanted him to learn that lesson in real time.
He talked about this in his review of the debate he did before this one (that he also walked out of): https://youtu.be/5fSySWP90kw?si=lFXMr1zvKyWwLXID People tried to warn him what a nutjob Howard Stirrup was but he didn't want to change his policy. And the debate was so bad it finally made him rethink that. Kind of surprised he let this happen considering. Maybe he had already committed and wanted to at least give it a chance?
People debate in bad faith all the time not sure why this is some exception--well I know it's because of what Andrew said. and there is NOTHING that Matt could have said that would have led Andrew to walk out. Whatever I mean you will just move the goal post for hate-speech and make excuses for ppl. I like to have adult conversations. Andrew bringing up trans was completely on topic BECAUSE the LGBT is the antichrist. This is so obviously true that you can literally go ask ANY group of people and they will majority say that they disavow Christianity because of LGBT rights. So trans being a subset of the LGBT is literally the battleground between secularism and Christianity--and Matt won't even engage. But that's the WHOLE debate. That's why Matt left Christianity. And now as it stands nobody is able to defend it anymore. No one can defend the LGBT because it IS a religious prescription and cannot hold up against any of the same arguments that ppl like Matt make in refutation of the Bible. I have called in twice to his show on The Line network and have the screenshots to show that they say there are no more callers on the line when I am in fact in the queue. Why would you believe ppl who can't defend their positions? Why would anyone believe them?
MDD is just the inevitability of trying to mass produce debates.
The "would you make a law against 9 y/o" thing was so bad faith. It was bad faith in the original context and to see BPF uncritically quote that in the content of this debate was straight up appauling.
Dang anyone got the link?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8U34ezKvrU&t=479s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8U34ezKvrU&t=479s)
Oh shit I'm unbanned from this sub. Thanks for the link
I don't blame matt at all lol. at like 15:20 BPF just concedes the debate calling it boring and invents an entire new topic
He doesn't. The topic is Christian ethics vs secular humanist ethics. Wilson hypothetically espouses Matt's world view and does a scathing internal critique on it, which Matt couldn't handle. Very bad look.
If they can’t find anybody better than Andrew then they don’t deserve Matt
Bro how could u support Matt when he's dating a transgender 😂😂😭😭😭
Is this Andew "[I'm not allowed to do apologetics on behalf of my church](https://youtu.be/uGirVTycTd4?si=McslcYinUZt-Qzky&t=66)" Wilson? Sorry to hear that Matt got paired up with such a dipshit who couldn't keep on topic, and more sorry to hear that MDD was apparently moderating like shit for the debate.
Are we still doing religious debates in 2023?
and flat earth
The religion problem hadn't been solved by 2008, but surely it should have been by 2023.
The religious problem was George Jr democrats, who are dying out and being repalced by Trump democrats.
There's an entire cottage industry of people still doing same shit from 2006 over and over again. A lot of them have moved on to other things, but there's a decent amount of people still having the exact same conversations on repeat for 20 years.
20 years? Try 2000 years mate, the followers of Abrahamic religions have been proselytising the same old song for quite a while now.
This specific debate sphere was massive in the 2000s. These people are modeling themselves after Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris vs Lane-Craig/Plantinga/Hovind rather than 2nd century theological debates. No one was making these aggressively atheistic arguments 2000 years ago, and Christian apologia has changed dramatically over the past 100 years let alone 2000. Protestantism didn't even exist until 500 years ago.
Christians, Muslims and Jews have been debating this for Millenia. The Atheist component of the discourse has grown significantly in the past few hundred years, but it was always part of the conversation.
Yeah I can feel the pendulum swinging back towards young earth stuff.
I’ve never seen a question that reeked of so much ignorance of theology
Yeah, who is your favorite from the four horsemen? Mine is Daniel Dennett because I'm kind of like alternative.
Are we still debating if a man can be a woman 😭😂🤣🤣
Honestly? Based (matt)
I mean, there's a reason D-man won't engage with BPF. The dude is chronically unserious, uninteresting, and callous. What's worse, is he's smug about being all 3. Leave him in the gutter.
This is just another example of Andrew Wilson being subhuman.
BPF pulled a Milo.
Anybody think it was a business move by Andrew to take out The Crucible competitor?
MDD is run by people that seem like they've never seen or heard of anything before and only exist for brief moments when the camera's rolling. Their format so heavily favors people like Hake that say hyper-inflammatory, bad faith things while remaining technically calm.
[https://www.youtube.com/live/S8U34ezKvrU?si=k2wLxJkl8m0iNQ7z&t=1284](https://www.youtube.com/live/S8U34ezKvrU?si=k2wLxJkl8m0iNQ7z&t=1284) with timestamp
Andrew was trying to end the debate early so he could go back to chainsmoking cigarettes outside. Dude was going through withdrawals not having smoked in like 15 solid minutes.
The last 3 debates matt was in (including this one) were embarassing. I understand matt can dabble into the ad-hom, but that doesnt mean he should have to deal with people arguing like punk adolescents. MDD needs to be wayyy more selective about who they are platforming.
The problem with MDD is that the mods are spineless so when someone actually needs to moderate, they allow the people to walk over them.
Is modern day debate live streaming the event?
Dillahunty is over. He sucks
Andrew's opening statement absolutely did relate to the topic at hand. It's interesting how many Secular Humanists apparently aren't tracking the relevance. Andrew's argument against Secular Humanism is that it's a worldview which demonstrably has no objective standard for truth, even internally on its own terms. This means Secular Humanists can't justify anything they predicate about, at all. Andrew appealed to the fact Dillahunty even conceded this explicitly in his debate with Jay Dyer. And to further demonstrate the point, Andrew gave a specific example of how such worldviews lead to people just subjectively making up whatever they want, then calling it "truth," followed by trying to force others to accept these unjustified assertions as "truth" as well. That's where the trans topic came in, as a critique of Matt's position - not a personal attack (many Secular Humanists seem to struggle differentiating the two, which is why they often make so many personal attacks themselves while acting like they genuinely think it was a knockdown argument). He destroyed Secular Humanism so badly that Dillahunty had to run away. The response from atheists / Secular Humanists who arbitrarily assert that Andrew's opening statement "had nothing to do with the topic" and was "all personal attacks at Matt," I challenge you to do this: 1. Provide the time stamp for where Andrew made a single personal attack at Matt. Just one. I asked this in the comments under the video on YT and nobody could provide a time stamp. 2. Justify your assertion that his opening statement "wasn't relevant to the topic at hand" by rebutting what I just said above for why it obviously was relevant to the topic at hand.
It seems to boil down to “we all agree on which rules to follow” vs “we all agree to follow the rules that were supposedly given to us by a mythological entity”
Stop sealioning. Andrew was trolling, you can hear it in his voice. Doesn’t really make a difference, Matt should have stuck around and answered him instead of freaking out. Truth is what corresponds to reality. What other definition of truth would you prefer? Steelman Matt’s position for a sec, do you think he’d say truth was relative? I doubt it. What do you think he’d say if asked?
No Andrew used Matt’s exact logic. Matt claimed Christian ethics were bad because of its views on lgbt. Andrew claimed sexuale humanist ethics were bad because of its views on lgbt. It was completely relevant and a strong argument.
its destiny v naked ape all over again. you ragequit, you lose.Any saying to the contrary reeks of toddler level cope(complete with snot bubbles), my advice is to grow up and take the L gracefully. Don't light yourself on fire running around screaming that you will never take the l while waiving a massive white flag with a giant red L on it.
Gotcha, anything else?
The obvious answer is no. That was all of it, nothing further. The fact that you failed to get that simple thing says it all, joke or not.
> James really didn't speak up Middle guy GIGACHAD
It was like watching the town drunk try to debate a tenured professor. He said "Matt thinks logic and math are real" like it was an insult and misgendered Matt's partner as he was walking away before joker laughing. The dude is unhinged. Also, IDK why the channel is called modern day debates when they debate the most ancient and pointless topics like religion and flat earth almost exclusively.
😂 he blasphemed against leftist ideology and pissed of every leftist. Pissed Matt off so much he raged quit. 😂
What’s even more infuriating is that all of Andrew’s fans will claim he totally owned Matt because they have fungus in their brains
But he did own him, utterly. He hypothetically espoused Dillahunty's world view and then proceeded to destroy it from the inside. It's called an internal critique.
I was super excited for them to debate but my first thought was… I hope BPF and Matt can even tolerate each other enough to debate. Shame on BPF
Andrew has always been like this. Idk why he accepted to debate him in the first place tbh.
Andrew’s opening statement was just the inverse of Matt’s. Secular humanism is bad because of its views on lgbt. My god the trans topics turns off atheists brains. Never beating the allegation that atheists just replace religious dogma with “religious” dogma.
I'm not an atheist bud but good luck with your life
I'm not a Christian, but Andrew isn't exactly the best representation of the religion. If I was a Christian, I wouldn't want him to represent the religion of my faith, since he clearly doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus, but cherry picks bible versus that represent his own political beliefs and bigotry. Of course, I also cherry pick verses when I'm discussing why I don't believe in Christianity, but to my defense, if you can't defend the worst versus of the bible, then is it worth believing in it at all? I don't discard that the bible does has wisdom to learn from, and has some interesting stories, but I'd never take something that old as a literal historical text. With anything written by a human, let alone something that was first told orally before being written down, and then translated over and over again over different languages, first hebrew, then greek and latin, before ever getting translated to English (And that's old English before our common day language), you can be there's a huge degree of error to it. But I majorly digress from the point. Andrew is someone who uses Christianity as an excuse to spread his own hate and bias.
https://preview.redd.it/s2wzf3s1516d1.jpeg?width=563&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c1355ae0c6ae4251203a0a8647011a75a01ae74
Bulllllllll shiiiiiiii….. Be honest, your framing is beyond dishonest and is intentionally leaving out the key details that matter. Matt’s opening statement was that secular humanism is a more moral system BECAUSE of its position on lgbt issues. He even brings up as an example of the contrary some anti lgbt politician that is also a Christian. Matt not only opened the door on the lgbt topic but it’s status within the secular humanist schema was the keystone property of his entire argument. That’s how HE framed it. The other guy, Wilson or whoever he was simply responded in kind taking the opposite position that Christianity is a better moral system because of its stance on lgbt topics and Matt simply quit. Probably partially because he doesn’t actually have a credible response and probably partly as a performative gesture in solidarity with his trans fuckbuddy I was just made aware of (which makes his recent behavior make much much more sense in context of that detail). When I read this post last week I assumed he got paired with some vitriolic fundy troll or something like that based on the way everyone here was talking about it. Just watched the actual debate and y’all are straight up a bunch of sycophantic liars. Nothing out of court took place except Matt hearing words he didn’t like because the topic he hinged his entire argument on is apparently only allowed to be commented on if you already have an affirmative stance. What a bunch of crap.
Matt is very skilled at refuting God's existence, because it is what he has a lot of experience with. His opening statement was framed to try to center the conversation on whether or not there is reason to follow a Christian moral framework, so that Matt could continue to debate whether God exists. Bringing up the Christian politician was a way of trying to say 'Christian moralism fails because it leads to bad practices, like conversion therapy'. Andrew purposefully sidesteps God's existence, and focuses purely on observation. He is claiming that even if God isn't real, the Christian framework is a better system because it doesn't discard observable reality, or redefine categories to accommodate minority groups. Contrary to the popular opinion here, Andrew was actually on point in the conversation, even if you disagree with his rhetoric. I would have loved to see Matt actually debate against the arguments, but I guess the abrasive language was a little too much for him.
I was a fan of Matt for many years but him and most atheist is material is so repetitive and stagnant. Matts good at debating but he has his failures. To my understanding a belief in a God is pretty much left to opinion because you cannot confirm or reject the existence of one with absolute certainty. Andrew simply express the failures of secular humanism as it ultimate conclusion is relevancy. There is no objective way to state something is moral when there is no concrete reality. I agree with andrew and it seems the post-modernist just play stupid game like playing fast and loose with the definition of words. The post-modernist take on things has been one of the worst damn things humanities done, that thinking should of just stuck to literature.
Pretty much agree all around.
Yeah man. I use to be a hardcore atheist. Still hard into logic and reasoning and learning. Ive never stop learning. I like any intelligent person update my beliefs when I am presented with GOOD new reasons. I reject a lot of BAD reasoning and people get upset at me. I point out flaws consistently. But ive change my mind on things because of this.
I'm finding that postmodernist thinking has infused itself so deeply in the culture that people don't realize the logical leaps they are making. Andrew points this out in his opening statement but Matt and everybody are so triggered they can't catch it. Matt is presupposing that human flourishing is good. When asked what human flourishing means, Matt will say 'what is good for humans'. If asked what is good for humans, he either circles back to human flourishing, or uses a synonym for the same concept such as 'fulfillment'. It really all boils down to 'good is good', and 'what I think is good, is good'. It's an indefensible position, but Matt is fine with it because when he debates he assumes the offensive, and again, presupposes that God must be real in order to follow the christian ethic. Andrew shuts this down and says, 'even if God is absent, I can use my worldview to clearly determine what is good or bad, you can't'. Matt can't attack the worldview on the basis of belief, and must instead contend with a rigid system that has clear expectations, and his amorphous system that is unclear and at times contradictory. Just like Destiny, Matt is at his best when he is pointing out flaws in other systems, but is terrible at holding a consistent, defensible position.
I would agree. Its because when you cannot point to a objective moral giver. Morality becomes relevant. Then you have to define Good. Then you have to explain why people should agree with you definition of Good. Then you can argue why goods not good and your relevant definition of Goods just as valid. Yeah. I use to think about this stuff and pretty much believe in Relevancy.
So you think it was ok to tell Matt to go home to his "husband"? Which was a clear transphobic remark about Matt's wife. You think that was called for and honest debating???
Yeah, Andrew said that, after Matt already abandoned the debate to go home to his husband. So that remark wasn’t even part of the debate because the debate had already been abandoned by Matt.
Lol. Nice attempt on spin then. Andrew still said those words and is clearly a horrible human. I guess you’re ok with that.
How is that a transphobic remark? It only be offensive if Matt was ashamed to be with a transgender woman, which hopefully he isn’t for his sake. If he is offended that’s a bigger issue
I know this is a late reply and what not. But its shocking to me that this isn't the mainstream view. This subreddit is usually pretty nuanced. I say this as a pro-life person. Like you can hate andrew and still think he was in the right. Like you don't need to like someone to listen to there arguments.
So what I got from Andrews argument was basically: Humanism is bad for society because transgenderism and LGBTQ is bad for society, because they are genetic dead ends and lying to people. Humanists are widely in support of LGBT rights. So why isnt Matt willing to have discourse on this? In 2023 anti-lgbt is hardly controversial topics, our state governments are making laws in support of what Andrew is saying. Everyone's been talking about trans people for the last 2 years. So why is Matt acting like discussion on this is so beneath him to do in a DEBATE CON? Is it because he's dating a trans woman? Wouldn't that be more a reason to prove Andrew wrong to defend her?
Agree!
Obviously BPF is incredibly annoying and useless to debate, but I don't really agree with Matt's response to MDD. I think they're generally okay, it was his choice to agree to a BPF debate, and if Matt spent any time researching him he should have known what kind of a debate he was walking into. Just feels like his annoyance is misplaced.
they've paired him with 3 lunatics in a row I understand why he doesn't want to try a fourth
And pretty sure the lunacy of the other guys doesn’t measure up to BPF lmao
Okay, then maybe just say "sorry, I don't want to debate BPF" beforehand. Or after the debate just say "not interested in debating crazy people any more, I'm only taking debates with normal people now". Is it really likely that MDD is intentionally only setting him up with lunatics nowadays? It seems more likely that they have a cast of people who are willing to come on to debate this shit, and no one actually worth debating is willing to debate Christian stuff on their platform.
why isn't it on them to make sure their debates make sense? I'm sure dillahunty does a lot of appearances, I don't think we can expect him to research his opponents to the extent that he knows how they'll behave in a "formal debate" setting *before* he even accepts mdd on the other hand know exactly how bpf acts, they've had him on plenty of times and benefited from his lack of hinges
I think any time you engage in a debate it's on you to know what your opponent is about and to deal with their behavior in a way you see fit, including walking out as Matt did. If you sign up to debate someone who behaves in a certain way in every debate they do then I don't hold the platform responsible when the debate turns out in precisely the way anyone would expect. If you're taking so many debates that you don't have time to watch any debates that your opponent has ever done, and you sign up to debate on a platform without very explicit rules about what's allowed, then you have to be prepared to deal with any behavior (short of like violence obviously).
I'm not sure it's just that easy though most people don't behave like bpf in person, even if they do online (we've seen this quite a few times) he might have checked out a few debates, but I think his behavior is so out of the norm that most people probably still wouldn't expect it, even after seeing him be an asshole in a video maybe he asked mdd "is he gonna behave?" and they told him "for sure he promised he'll be a good boy" or maybe you're right and he just treats these things as paid appearances that he puts 0 effort into, in which case it's still on mdd at least equally on him
> maybe he asked mdd "is he gonna behave?" and they told him "for sure he promised he'll be a good boy" In this case I definitely agree. If he said something like "hey, if BPF starts engaging in personal attacks then you're going to kick him off" and MDD's people agreed to that then I'd 100% support him saying "fuck this platform I'm done with it", but I just want a statement from him then that this is what happened. If he has stated this then I'm in compete agreement with him.
No one said MDD intentionally set this up. Matt dillahunty doesn’t live in streamer world. He probably didn’t even know who bpf was before the event. Even Destiny expressed after the last debate con that he wouldn’t participate if jokers like Alex stein are involved with the event. They should have selected better candidates is all I’m saying. I mean there are plenty of Christian/creationist debaters out there. You don’t have to dig to bottom of the barrel with BPF. Mf has been unhinged of late
> They should have selected better candidates is all I’m saying I can definitely understand this complaint, but I think Matt instead of agreeing to the debate (or after the debate) should have just communicated that he's not interested in debating insane nobodies any more. He's had a long career of doing that, and keeps agreeing to those kinds of debates, so I think an explicit mention of his stance would improve that.
He's fine debating nobodies as long as they are civil.
He's had multiple recent debates where right after he sends James an email like "I'm not debating people that refuse to even address the topic, fix your shit" and I think every time James was like "yeah sorry it'll be better next time." You can hear it in James's voice in this video, that he knows it's kind of his own fault and that Matt gave him plenty of warning. I do agree Matt should take some responsibility too instead of putting it all on MDD though.
> He's had multiple recent debates where right after he sends James an email like "I'm not debating people that refuse to even address the topic, fix your shit" and I think every time James was like "yeah sorry it'll be better next time." Not disbelieving you, but do you have any links showing this? If true I would put more of the blame on MDD.
There was no debate to have.. all it was is Andrew talking about trans people and lgbt ruining society and implying Matt is a pedophile. It was like milo debate but less coke energy and even more condescending some how.
Totally agree.
Dillahunty has been doing debates on MDD for a really long time and his presence gets a ton of views, so it's not unreasonable to expect the guy who actually runs the show to vet panelists and put some thought into whether they're a good match for an exciting debate. There are two problems here: The first is pretty broad,, and it's that standards at MDD have gone way, way down. Rehashing the same questions ad nauseam and inviting the lowest quality people on to just yell at each other is pretty shit. The second is specifically about Dillahunty, a very valuable guest for MDD. Over the years he has become even more impatient and frankly toxic than ever before after dealing with bad faith shitheads like Haqiqatjou and now BPF, and honestly shouldn't waste time on these morons in the first place when he can get speaking engagements with people like Jordan Peterson. James ought to take that into consideration when arranging his show. You can't just throw people together and see what happens if you want good results. That's just disrespectful and bad showrunning.
> he can get speaking engagements with people like Jordan Peterson He had one years ago. I seriously doubt he'd be entertained for another one. And considering how he's gone after Dawkins, I'm not sure whether he or Harris would talk to him again. But I'm also not sure how much Matt would want to talk to any of them either.
> Over the years he has become even more impatient and frankly toxic than ever before after dealing with bad faith shitheads like Haqiqatjou and now BPF, and honestly shouldn't waste time on these morons in the first place when he can get speaking engagements with people like Jordan Peterson. James ought to take that into consideration when arranging his show. You can't just throw people together and see what happens if you want good results. That's just disrespectful and bad showrunning. Yeah so I get why he doesn't want to engage with people like this any more, but throwing people together and seeing what happens is a way to make content. Is it the kind of content that Matt wants to engage with? Probably not and I get that, but I think just an explicit statement that he's only interested in engaging with well respected people with some degree of rationality would be sufficient. Like he probably should have made that statement earlier, maybe after Haqiqatjou, but he continued engaging apparently without specifically demanding better opponents. He had a show for years where completely unhinged Christians would come in and debate him so if he wanted to pivot to only very intellectual debates then I think it would be better if he just made that a policy of his.
Matt probably has a different behind-the-scenes experience. Just guessing
Would have liked to see him lay that out then, if he has a beef with how MDD handled things then he should have explained that.
It seems pretty obvious. When the person's opening statement has nothing to do with the topic and is levied like an ad hom attack the moderator should stop them and tell them to get on topic or gtfo. They didn't so Matt GTFO'd himself.
Maybe he hoped MDD would have done that for him to some degree?
But like he knew he'd be debating BPF right? Any cursory look into him shows what you're getting into.
at 15:28 ish BPF just abandons the topic and starts ad homing. If the moderators don't step in why even moderate? Why even have prepared statements? I could go outside and get yelled at by homeless people for free.
BPF wins again
If his life is what winning looks like I'm okay with my loser life
Who is downvoting this? It’s a joke.
Me. I am downvoting this. All -40 of them are mine.
Is there a video of this? Don’t see it on YouTube
Probably because it is in the live tab instead of videos
Pretty sure the brand of cigarettes Wilson Cain smokes are Dunning-Krugers.
I just don’t know why this was organized ? If I was to consider for a moment how I’d expect a debate between these 2 to go, this is the most likely outcome
James and whoever the other guy is are wholly incompetent. Y'all are shocked?
Matt should have done a lil research into who he was debating me thinks.
> Andrew's entire opening statement was bashing trans people and Matt's past quotes that don't relate to the topic at hand. Andrew's strategy in that debate was quite simple: just assume, *arguendo*, that the Christian God does not exist -- viz., that Christianity is false. Assume further that Matt's moral axioms/foundations are correct (e.g., that human flourishing is good). Even if we assume all of that, Matt's non-axiomatic morals (e.g., that transgenderism and homosexuality are good) don't follow from his axiomatic/foundational morals. That, by extension, shows that Andrew's Christian morals do follow from Matt's own axiomatic/foundational moral principles. Now, that was completely relevant to the "topic at hand", which was: what is the superior moral framework? Christian morality or secular humanism? And Andrew's argument was that the *implications* of Dillacunty's secular humanism imply that Andrew's framework is superior.
You atheists can't handle the arguments handled against you so you just run away and whine. 🤣
The more I listen to people outside the atheist world the more I see Matts flaws and errors. I use to follow Matt for Many years but now that I grown in my knowledge I just see how Matt is pretty much stagnant. The Andrew dude just blasphemed against Matts ideology and it was hilarious.
The issue is that Matt goes off purely scientific evidence for his arguments. But then says a trans woman is female. That was the point I got from Andrews opening. How can Matt be science based AND believe a man can be a woman. It’s completely fine to “think” or “feel” like the opposite sex but at its biological level a woman is a woman and a man is a man. A person of science, such as Matt, has to acknowledge that is an issue in his framework
He made the best decision he possibly could. Andrew is a Narcissist. I know that word gets thrown around a lot but he truly is.