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

At DebateCon 4, by Modern Day Debates, I was paired up with Andrew Wilson, an individual that I didn't know at all. He had agreed to defend a Biblical Christian worldview as superior to Secular Humanism for society.

He lied.

He was there to get some schock-jock sensationalized footage of him going after me on gender and trans issues. He conceded my world view, didn't present anything about the Bible or Christianity, didn't address the secular humanism presented and specifically spewed a parade of "Matt thinks this, let's see if he can defend it", interspersed with mockery and name-calling of trans folks.

The debate was the final straw of folks showing up to get attention from my name instead of defending the beliefs they agreed to defend.

[jayrifel]

I'm not even a theist but i consider this video as a Damage control.

[danielfreitas]

We live strange times where the truth is seen as insult, hard to live in a world like this..

[beyondfirstthought]

So I watched the introductory statements… I can’t believe Matt walked out on this. I used to enjoy watching him debate, but this type of avoidance is a discredit to his ability to articulate his position.

[JimJamJuicy]

You slagged off Christian nationalism which was irrelevant and then he asked a bunch of very valid questions that pertain to truth and you got offended and had a hissy fit and walked out. It was pathetic. He destroyed you in nearly every level headed thinkers eyes.

[onlyht]

I can't believe I ever respected Matt. I'm glad that's not the case anymore because it means I've grown out of this pathetic mindset that I used to share with this bald old dude that should know better.

[Schmeadeable]

Matt’s all about logic… until it comes to biology… or history…

[RobinLionheart]

Seems foolish to me to resolve not to look into your opponents beforehand. I appreciated your preparedness that time you debated Circular Sye, to the point of predicting his arguments and responding them before he made them. I don't think that was a bad thing at all.

[MickeyAbraham]

You don’t have to make an excuses — Andrew offended you and you left. It’s really not that hard to understand what Andrew means when he says trans people are “delusional” etc.
even if you disagree it’s a pretty rational thing to say and think.

[Schmeadeable]

Matt basically met Christian Matt and then got really upset about it. The funny thing is that Andrew’s opening statement, while way more colorful than I ever would have presented, was perfectly suited to Matt’s opening contention. Matt’s opening contention was essentially Christianity should not be a foundation for ethics, because it leads to immoral conclusions involving LGBTQ issues. In fact, Matt went on a tirade against Mike Johnson, the recently appointed speaker of the house, with tons of factually incorrect statements about his positions and legislation on LGBTQ issues. Andrew’s response was perfectly within bounds addressing Matt’s contention, Matt just got a little too butthurt someone pushed back on his worldview and couldn’t handle it.

[lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre]

You are not the end boss of anything, you are the pacifier children cut their teeth on.

[GrizzV]

I dont think its fair to say Andrew was offtopic when you spend a couple of minutes speaking about the speaker of the house and his stance on LGBT rights and his views on transgenderism as a net negative for society.

[Tayerful]

"A parade of mockery and ignorance that's rooted in bigotry", that's ironically how you treat 'Christians' on your show.

[philiphied]

When you keep thinking everyone else is the problem, look internally. Starting to wonder Matt. Keep grabbing your ball and going home, imo.

[erkkidreiak]

On the aftermat of this debate, Andrew said that he had multiple opening statements and he used the trans one because you dedicated a minute or so on LGBT. So this debate could have had much different and perhaps a productive outcome. Gender ideology is #1 go-to argument for religious thesedays and I must say, I really haven't heared any convincing arguments by secularists on it. So I guess it's better to avoid it.

[patula]

How do you know if someone is lying about their gender identity? If a male identifies as a woman, is that persons' declaration of their gender sufficient proof of their gender identity or does that persons' background need to be investigated to determine if they are telling the truth?

[Mr.Gnomebody]

The pseudoscience used to support transgender ideologies is no more sound than the pseudoscience used to support young earth creationism. A mostly self-contained industry of ideologically motivated people with degrees in regurgitating transgender talking points, in fields that are steeped in the same ideology, issued by institutions that wholeheartedly accepted those talking points without question and blindly defend them against any criticism, all corroborating each other's world-view. To be trans is just having a "feeling" and having it catered to by like-minded people with the same delusions or miseducation as them. It's no different than theists having a "feeling" that god is talking to them that they can't otherwise demonstrate in any tangible way.

Transgender proponents might have a leg to stand on if trans people's desire to mimic their idea of the other sex was treated as a matter of personal taste, rather than an inherent indisputable truth (their only evidence being their feelings). The average transgender person is clearly suffering from a mental illness that negatively affects their ability to rationally evaluate themselves, much like a person with anorexia.

The greatest detriment to modern atheism and secular humanism is allowing themselves to be so completely subverted by irrational and delusional beliefs about gender and race for fear of being seen as "bigoted". If more athiests don't start viewing these beliefs with a critical (or perhaps, a skeptical) eye, then atheism will flounder and decay while dogmatism prospers.

[johnnymm]

Rich for you accusing someone of being smug and walking out when you're one of the smuggest cunts on youtube

[ceceroxy]

Not sure who else is gonna pay Matt to debate. Seems like MDD is the only one interested in Matt.

[bpotts]

He will debate with people in the comment section, but wouldn't debate with Andrew. Hold that L.

[swampselkie]

It's disappointing to see how many people commenting here seem to be sticking with the WWE model of debate. A debate question was mutually agreed upon, but one participant ignored that question and moved the goalposts. It is unreasonable to expect the other participant to accept a change to the premise of the debate without mutual agreement, and there's no point debating dishonest people like Andrew - debate is impossible when one person is engaging in bad faith. Frankly, Andrew was moving into great replacement / white genocide nonsense - that kind of garbage isn't worth anyone's time. Matt was absolutely right to walk out rather than giving oxygen to Andrew's unserious ideas.