MATT DILLAHUNTY VS DINESH D'SOUZA For The First Time Ever! DOES GOD EXIST? WHAT IS A WOMAN? & MORE!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- #mattdillahunty #dineshdsouza #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #atheistvschristian #atheistsofinstagram #atheistrepublic #secularism #god #religion #religiousbeliefs #jesus #bible #christianity #pangburn #pangburnphilosophy #whatisawoman #gender #genderequality #genderidentity #climate #climatechange #climatecrisis
Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza
This is the first time Matt Dillahunty & Dinesh D'Souza have appeared live together on stage. This event took place at the Town Hall Theater in New York City on March 1st 2020. This event was produced by Pangburn. The discussion topics begin with God & Trump, but as you will see, move very quickly into social issues.... Enjoy the discussion!
A special THANKS to our additional event investors:
Sally Jennings
Dana Macleod
Ben Lang
Jeremy Williams
JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?"
Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets
😊😊😊😊
Too bad the topic is absolutely cringe.
Dinesh is a very dishonest con artist, selling the god idea for money. He also sells conservatism. He doesn't make any sound arguments, making the god idea seem, any more possible. He makes himself look like he doesn't believe the nonsense but knows stupid humans pay for such bias support. Humans need to gather to reassure each other they are not crazy for pretending magic is real. I have been there on Sundays and it feels like being in a mental hospital. It made me sick as a child to be around these people. Then they try to indoctrinate you. As a child, I knew they had ill will and would jump at the chance to force the crazy god idea on me. They tried. I would just tell my mom, those people are crazy.
O'Connor just made me feel . . . . embarrassed for D'Souza.
How much were the cost of a ticket?
I do not understand how anyone gives Dinesh a platform to celebrate his imbecility.
I had not heard him speak on anything substantive till watching this, and I couldn't see any coherent structure or meaningful narrative behind his words. I was thinking he might be right stoned, and not on any sissy dope neither.
"Well, obviously there is this thing, right? And this thing is not really one thing and not really more than one, it is a member of a set that is completely defined by it cardinality but that cardinality is neither one nor many, and the elements are not aware but the set in its totality is aware, so you see Mat, Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil, Jesus built my hot rod, and I am gonna Ding a Dong Dang my Dang Along Ling Long ......Mat? Mat? "
"What fresh hell is this, Dinesh? I thought you stopped doing mescaline before debates?"
Christian organizations exist. Yeah no idea how that happens.
Christian organizations exist. That's probably how it happens.
I'll remember that one. Thanks
My wife celebrates hers often.....
Dinesh's ability to not understand what Matt is saying is incredible
For apologists, that'd not a bug; it's a feature!
"Playing chess with a pigeon" is a perfect analogy for most debates with apologists.
Dinesh's ability to turn a two sentence thought into an 8 minute monologue without ever really reaching a conclusion is mind bending.
It's just a parade of bad analogies and examples that completely miss the mark every single time.
Intentional deflection is not misunderstanding...it's proof that Dinesh knows exactly what Matt's saying.
One of many traits that makes him one of the more ENTERTAINING debate participants (like playing tennis against a brick wall) even if he's far from the best at even making the points that he's trying to make
Every time dinesh loses an argument he makes up another topic
His world views are rathe disgusting
@@jamiem9179some are, some aren’t.
Yeah because Matt wouldn’t answer anything without it being his opinion rather than a common opinion. A lot of Matt’s arguments were a bit self entitled
@@btipton115 it was a discussion about opinions... of coarse he is talking about HIS opinion. Which argument was self entitled to you and can you explain how?
@@binnieb173 most discussion are about broader opinions and not all about yourself…
D’Souza always hijacks conversations, fails in his analogies & moves on to his next analogy whilst forgetting why he started analogising in the first place. I’m not hearing any substantive evidence or well reasoned arguments
I agree. He is not nearly as good at presenting or directing an argument as Matt. Matt seems far more intelligent yet utterly deluded by his emotions and ideologies. Human brains are not very rational. Even or maybe especially intelligent ones.
@@grantbaker371I agree with Matt on many points but we all know a person can’t be right about everything.
Matt is dating a trans woman and is “all in” with the ideology. He’s so entrenched that he can’t accept a biological man (with a penis) shouldn’t be getting changed next to 6 year old girl in the changing rooms. Maybe if he had a daughter he’d feel differently?
Another point I disagree with is biological men who transition going in to women’s sports, specifically contact sports. We KNOW biological men have a big advantage from bone structure, power, speed, etc.
@@livingart2576 Man, you completely destroyed my high regard for Matt. I wish I would never know that disturbing fact.
Matt has a transgender boyfriend, END of debate ! Matt lost !
@jonathandutra4831 That's a myopic take. He won the debate on the God issue but lost the debate on the trans issue. Your "end of discussion" comment is far too black or white and dismissive of open discussion
Average dinesh conversation:
Dinesh: “have you considered the following?”
*incredibly egregious straw man ensues*
Opponent: “I do not believe that at all”
Dinesh: “Nonono I agree! But… have you considered the following?”
*changes topic entirely*
-repeat infinitely-
Ugh, I stopped after 80 minutes. I was so sick of Dinesh doing exactly what you said. He'd say some nonsense and then Matt would respond, then he would laugh like an arrogant idiot, then say something unrelated. Such a terrible interlocutor. He doesn't have an interest in reasoned discussion. He doesn't want to work through any single topic.
Matt, please stop debating stupid people.
Matt is brilliant but deluded about many things. I'm shocked how blind he can be. But his emotions guide his bias
@@grantbaker371 While I'm not sure I agree with you on that, it is fair comment. My problem is smart guys entertaining dumb guys for clicks. D'Souza is dumb as a bag of rocks - you can see him trying to invent argument (and failing to conjure up anything of substance) in real time just to stay in the game. Matt is wasted on this grifter.
@@grantbaker371because he’s a bitter fruit
@@grantbaker371 Matt is in a very perilous position. He was married (to a woman) and to become a pastor. Since then he has divorced, turned his back on God and chose to participate in relations with men. The worst part is that he influences others to leave their faith to engage in a hedonistic lifestyle contrary to Biblical values.
The wrath of God awaiting Matt must be endless or perhaps God will eventually use Matt to glorify God, it’s happened before.
@@ErnieRey I am not a fan of Matt as a person. I find his demeanor grotesque. Many of his opinions are based on his insistence of ideological delusions. (Ironically the very thing he normally can see clearly and railes against) However, his ability to honestly assess and disect the Christian doctrine is undeniable. The way he verbally attacks people is abhorrent and juvenile.
Dinesh: "We shouldn't straw-man here." Proceeds to construct his 100th straw-man of the evening.
I always wonder how pple like Dinesh get so popular when his thought process is so elementary
Being a conservative mouthpiece is easier than you think. He's a brown guy saying things that rich white guys agree with.
Matt has a transgender boyfriend! That's elementary. 🤡
That is precisely why
Conservatives consistently rank every year lower in IQ, political knowledge, scientific knowledge, etc...
A little less than half the country it's still a pretty big audience.
@@thedevil3890 Just look at your prez Biden & that will prove to you how low liberals I.Q is !
Dinesh’s climate solution: take off your jacket.
Libs answer- ruined the fkn world over it🖕👍
That's what I took from this 😅
And he's 💯 correct!
@@ramm8196 tell me you're brain dead without telling me you're brain dead
@kwkarol Climate control? Really? This is what you want to argue about? You believe anything they spew out at you don't you? You probably took the vax too right? You people... smh!
This REALLY needs a moderator. I feel like Dinesh would make an example to try and prove his point, but would only end up creating more rabbit holes to go down and never had to actually nail something down. Like, I feel like we were just discussing if a god exists, and now we’re discussing trans rights?
His health insurance example was just the definition of moral hazard, which is and always has been an issue insurance companies have to account for, but stretched over the span of like 15 minutes of yapping. I almost lost my mind listening to that.
Dinesh isn't doing nothing new. Anytime you try to pin a conservative down on any topic they will immediately try to flip it into a trans debate.
This debate is from 2020. It's just a reupload
@@marekb1556 It's weird how much they hate the trans world since all their arguments are in a constant state of transition since they can't ever stick to the topic.
Hahaha dinesh was definitely not expecting Matt to call out his logical fallacies. Classic!
Debate bros never miss the chance
@@NuvoVision I mean engaging in logical fallacies is antithetical to debating. If you are using them for your argument, your argument is inherently flawed. Dnesh took the L here.
@@ogd3thst4r93 my comment went right over your head
Dilly inaccuratly reframed ds ideas into L Fs
@@NuvoVision no I understood your comment, it was just a dumb one. Matt correctly called out his logical fallacies in Dnesh's arguments.
I'm 32 minutes into this thing and Dinesh is getting on my nerves. I cannot take another 1.5 hours of this.
At 25 min and he just keeps trying to move the goalposts of his narrative
He's bad isn't he? He doesn't present much substance.
I watched this 4 years ago. Why are they just reuploading old debates?
It was 15 minutes for me.
28 minutes in and just had to check the comments…glad to see my brain is t suffering through this on its own
Matt: "If I took you into a court room you could be found guilty or not guilty, correct?"
Dinesh, sweating: "Not again!"
If you think Dinesh D'Souza is an honest interlocutor on any question, you haven't been paying attention.
In other words D'souza won and you do not like it.
@TBOTSS
There’s no way any mature human can be this disingenuous. You must be like 12
@@TBOTSSno... it was embarrassing for him. If you fall for a cons man's confidence, that says a lot
@@TBOTSScan you give one example of an argument that he makes which is compelling?
@@TBOTSS No. He gish galloped left and right and couldn't adequately answer a single question.
I almost gave up right off the bat when Dinesh pretended religious people don't try to force their beliefs on others and then said "you know Hitchens was pro-life"
His point is that being against abortion doesn't necessarily indicate religiosity, and is therefore not a religious political issue.
Except Hitchens actually was pro-life...
@@kellyherrin it it not necessarily a religious issue, but it is probabilistically a religious issue. Because popular religions stake absolute "answers" to the issue.
@@SpicyCurrey Oh I do believe it's mostly due to religious influence. Just saying that's the point the guy was trying to make. 🤷♀️
@@kellyherrin In practice, it most certainly is religious.
People who don't drag God into the abortion question can much more readily reach compromise. Religious sorts will also be much more likely to require things like "this 9 year old must carry the baby to term" or "rape notwithstanding, she must carry the baby to term."
We have a _long_ history of just about everyone rejecting that kind of extremism. It's why even very conservative places like Kansas aren't reliably for blanket bans.
It is the religious right-to-life folks, who believe God mandates these horrors, that creates arguments that could otherwise be dispensed with relatively easily.
They also are very, very suspicious of exceptions and work hard to make them almost impossible in practice. As we saw in Ireland with their ban, now voted out. As we are seeing today in places like Texas where women carry clearly dead fetuses, but with heartbeats and aren't quite septic enough to intervene. We wait until they are at death's door -- or maybe beyond -- thanks to the religious sorts who want to make very sure that the "baby" is given every chance to make it -- even when every doctor in the land would say it is time to operate.
Matt is dancing circles around dinesh, and dinesh with his non stop condescending interruptions and tangential thought process is absolutely Insufferable
considering this is from 2020, I think you mean "Matt danced circles around Dinesh".
Who gives a shit? @@ADanZLife
I have never seen someone trying SO HARD to think irrationally like Dinesh.
I really think Dinesh is at a point where he realises that Christianity may not really be true.. he just does not want to say it out openly .. this is from his debate with Alex O Conner .. that was really bad. ..
That was a beautiful shutdown totally and completely. Dinesh was in flight mode as soon as he hit the stage.
That debate was painful. I'm not sure why I'm going to watch this.
I can't figure out how Dinesh has become so popular.
@@juanlinares5182 He writes books that make conservative religious people feel good about their worldview, and Netflix series about how bad socialism is. Unfortunately there's a massive market for that.
@@juanlinares5182apologistsdon't aim to make compelling arguments or convert atheists, they only need to reassure people who already believe and want to accept any response to atheist arguments
@@waynedas873 You think its unfortunate that anyone would denounce murderous regimes like socialism?
Here's how weird Dinesh's argument is:
I don't know what the lottery numbers will be tomorrow. You don't know either. It is physically impossible to predict the future, (imagine our universe is not deterministic). You say you don't know the numbers. I say I believe the numbers are 5,6,7,8,9. It's irrational for you to demand evidence for this when this information is outside of the empirical world. The numbers haven't been chosen yet. It will never be possible to scientifically predict lottery numbers, yet you want scientific evidence.
Then that Mats argument is; don’t buy a house, or even bet your ‘future winnings’ on this. It would be completely irrational to suggest you are going to win the lottery just because we don’t know the lottery numbers. Just as is God.
He also said him believing he will win the lottery is as logical as Mat saying he needs evidence for him not to think it unlikely
😂😂😂 lol yeah that pretty much it in a nut shell
I just love how he completely evaded the question of an objective purpose of life by bringing up trans people and then complained that Matt was changing the topic.
That’s Dinesh D’Souza 101: when floundering, just change the topic. Then you can say you won later because “well, he didn’t beat me”
I'd like to propose an unregulated untimed conversation between Dinesh D'Souza and Jordan Peterson. We wouldn't have to deal with either of them or their fans for minimum 6 months
🤣😭
No one has any kind of right to tell me, "im sorry, but your wife is going to die because we cannot legally give her an abortion procedure"
1. This debate is from 2020
2. What law prevents a doctor from saving a pregnant woman's life?
@@ADanZLife tons of laws in red states
@@darenrrful So you should have no problem providing 3, right?
@@ADanZLife and you might want to look up how the texas supreme court just attacked a bunch of females who needed abortions and had to go out of state
@@ADanZLife did you really just ask that dumbass question call any doctors office in these bum ass republican states and ask them if there is ANY circumstance where they can perform an abortion
With the polar bear situation: why did he avoid mentioning that the increase of popullation corresponds with polar bear hunt ban??
Because he’s dishonest
There are 19 populations of polar bears. They don't know about 10 of them. On the other 9, they are (on average) decreasing. Some up, some stable, some down. They depend on glaciers and glaciers are melting. These two facts together indicate a great concern. Source is WWF.
Like you said, they also disallowed hunting, which mitigates the loss. The fact is trending in the wrong direction doesn't magically get fixed without human intervention.
The person who talks the most is obviously the one who is wrong...Dinesh just rambles and rambles endlessly because he cannot prove his position. Matt sits quietly and comfortably on proveable facts.
What the hell. Matt don’t believe if he has no evidence of it. Dinesh believes without any evidence of it. So I’m with Matt.😊
Interesting. He mentions the scam of healthcare, but he ignores the scam of the oil industry and car infrastructure.
And he didn't mention the scam of Matt being an actual intellectual, instead of someone who just tears down others beliefs while refusing to defend any of his beliefs. Matt builds his stance on a house of cards, and spends all his time tap dancing around his beliefs.
“Who is going to pay me to debunk climate change,” how on earth did Matt not just say “BP, Exxon, Shell…”
@djublonskopf one of the main tenants of science is to isolate variables. No one doubts climate change. It is the cause of said climate change and the science behind it that has always been in question. Liberals like to name things in such a way that it seems ludicrous to deny. When in fact the names they give things is usually in complete contradiction to what their agendas are. Their arguments are always a misrepresentation of the other sides argument.
take a shot every time dinesh says “in other words…”
You don’t look at the real estate agents to assess the values of coastal properties. Try checking insurance companies. How much does it cost to insure a property at the coast today versus 20 years ago?
How dinesh gets paid for these appearances is the real question
I imagine it's pretty similar to how clowns get paid
Dinesh has been Hitchslapped and Dillahunted. He needs a wheelchair to get around.
And now Connived!
Now he’s also been Cosmically Skepticized 😂
@@Error_404_Account_Deletedfacts! 😂
He ded. Alex was the o’coroner
@@toffee.totolino Brilliant.
39:31 "Where's the money in debunking [climate change]?"
??? How can you be this ignorant? I'm absolutely dumbstruck - and then instead of giving the obvious examples of people who have a VERY STRONG MOTIVE and PLENTY OF MONEY to deny the existence of climate change (fossil fuel industry, automobile industry, corporations who want to keep producing in an environmentally destructive manner e. g. high emissions), Dillahunty gives the absurdly stupid answer of "All those people buying coastal properties."
Like, sure? I guess? But do neither of these two know that there are extremely highly funded conservative research think tanks whose clear motive it is to deny/make harmless anthropogenic climate change (a forgone conclusion) for those they receive funding from?
1:22:00 Dinesh is basically arguing that death is the termination of experience, but somehow arrives at "it's okay to believe in an afterlife given no evidence." This is basically like saying "here's this gift, wrapped up, so you can't see what's inside. Is there something inside? Or is the box empty?" Matt's stance would be "I don't know, so I'm not taking a stance" while Dinesh is saying "I don't know, so I'm going to say there is." It seems pretty clear which one is ACTUALLY the foolish assumption.
This aged like milk for Dinesh. His inability to stay on topic or actually make a case for his god is pretty obvious
you are an obvious atheist so anything that would be presented as evidence would be denied.
Are you claiming God does not exist?
@@theredeemeriam to quote Pierre-Simon Laplace "Sir, I have no need for that hypothesis"
@simplybaker.
That's funny because I don't bring a hypothesis. I bring the TRUTH. Absolute verifiable, testable, and proveable proof.
@simplybaker.
Why, what do you bring?
Thank a god that Dinesh is in this debate to tell us what Matt’s believes!
I identify as an Earthling. Where’s my bathroom 🚽? 😂😂
I love Matt
There’s no way Jesus is ok w/ Dinesh being on his team.
and you speak for Jesus?
@@SKRooU2
Everyone does. How's about everyone listens to their Christ.
Yeah, your Christ would get straight to the proof instead and avoid the back and forth banter.
@@theredeemeriam you are having auditory hallucinations.
@SKRooU2
What, Are you saying Yeshua is God in the flesh? I think the problem is that the devil is in control of this house, and it is he who has been whispering sweet nothings in your ear.
Dinesh just got SMASHED by Alex O’Connor. Was fucking beautiful if you’re smart enough to recognize it.
I'm truly impressed by Connors way of debating. Matt let him get away with far to much pivoting whilst never getting to a point. He gives an example and before making a point he moves on to another example.
@@danilonden3782 Matt has become one of my all time favorites but damn Alex is becoming a powerhouse of intelligence. I’ve watched him grow since his launch of his channel and man I’m impressed. Dinesh needs to go away. He’s such a dishonest interlocutor.
@EternalGaze8 yes me too, he popped up years ago in my feed as this, kind of awkward, but obviously very intelligent kid. Now years later he is sitting on stages absolutely demolishing people in debate. His debate with Jordan Peterson is also very good. Where matt is very combative, which is fun to watch, alex has a more refined way of getting more out of debates.
This is like watching a boxing match where one guy keeps punching himself in the face while his opponent just watches.
Matt: All of these points youre making ate irrelevant to the facts and statistics
Dinesh: Ok, well, lets just ignore that for a second.
🙄🙄🙄🤛
I thought it was strange how Dinesh went on and on about universal healthcare as though it were some complete hypothetical that no nation has ever attempted. Matt should have pointed out that we can look at countries that have different healthcare systems and see if Dinesh's predictions came true.
Other countries are Racially homogeneous.
Nothing is free
Things work better in nondiverse Nations.
@@RRR-vr7cd Whatever, USA makes enough to pay for everyones healthcare. We could also take preemptive measures so that people who get into preventable injuries will be paid. Like drug addicts, people engaging in reckless actions.
@@stowlicters8362 For that, the taxes should be increased (specially the middle class). This is how Germany can pay for basic healthcare. I am not sure Americans would vote for increased tax rate (which is way lower than germany currently). That´s the issue
I'm sorry did Dinesh just insinuate that Trump would have lowered college tuitions? What in the actual fuck lol
You know Trump… always doing things for the good of others without ever thinking of how it will benefit himself lol
Listening to Dinesh is like playing guess the fallacy, he starts an explanation and slowly it just turns fallacious...bingo!
Great debate, fascinating,insightful stuff from both. We need more conversations and debates like this. Either it's gonna strengthen hour beliefs or give you a different perspective 👊🏼
27:53 Aristotle dint travel around the world. But he asked one simple question.
“If earth is flat, we should be able to see all the stars which we can in North at the south as well”
Basically northern pole star should be visible from south as well.
He dint believe Earth was flat as preached by religion
Man... just embarrassing for dinesh. Between here and the debate where Alex OConnor took him to school without any trouble, i cannot understand how anyone takes this guy seriously. He is a walking logical fallacy who only exists to baselessly reinforce existing bias
This absolute clown up here trying to defend corporate greed.
This is like a dad talking to his teenage son over Christmas dinner.
They always talk about anything else but proving god exists
It’s because they have no actual argument. It’s always go off topic or try to misinterpret the point.
Non-falsifiable assertion is our friend.
Thats because EVERY single god claim/miracles etc , when properly, precisely
( not airy fairy handwavey )
investigated, have been found to be from natural causes.
( or mistakes & lies)
Not "random" occurrences, but they are what the natural laws, naturally end up "falling" into.
😁🌏☮️
“God not real though, derr derr”
When you say "they", I assume you are speaking of theists in general? Or are you saying "they", as in Dinesh D. and Matt D?
Around 53:00 mark, as a lawyer, I have to correct them both on the 'insanity defense' to a crime--mostly to correct D'Souza. A psychopath, one who is born without empathy or a moral compass that most of possess, can most certainly be convicted and ultimately put to death. The issue here is NOT if the killer has a moral compass--the correct issue is if the killer understands that to kill is wrong (against the law) and the person killed anyhow--delusion or not. Here's an example in which a person is facing trial for killing children by driving through a playground:
A) the person suffers a delusion causing the person to believe the children were evil and that killing them was a necessary act to save humanity; or
B) the person suffers a delusion causing the person to believe that their car can fly and that the car simply flew over the children without causing them any harm.
In A, the person is aware that killing is unlawful and wrong, the person just believed the killings were justified (i.e. there was intent to kill). In B, the person lacks intent to kill, did not mean to kill, and did not understand their actions caused to children to die. Person A can be found guilty and Person B would likely have a successful insanity defense.
Of course, the law is a nuanced animal and this is just a generalization. But this hypothetical provides a good jumping off point to understand how the defense actually works.
@@theredeemeriam huh? Are you responding to my post? The word “god” doesn’t appear once in my post.
@seadog2969
Oops, I must have screwed up. My apologies. Carry on.
Why does this thumbnail look like a thumbnail for an Epic Rap Battle of History video
Dinesh Is completely out of his league facing Matt!
I had high hopes that this conversation would focus on whether God exists. almost 2 hours of talking and only 20-30 minutes of actually staying on the topic. A moderator may be better next time.
If anyone needs the definitive response to deniers that humans are the cause of global warming the only thing you need to make reference to are carbon isotope ratios. We can see from ice cores that the ratios of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has changed over time. From those ratios we can determine that the bulk of carbon currently in the atmosphere must meet the following criteria;
- It must derive from organic matter
- It must be old because there are undetectable levels of radioactive carbon 14 which has a half life of around 5700 years
- It needs to be a reservoir of significant magnitude that is bigger than anything in at least the last million years
The only source of carbon that fits this criteria are fossil fuels. It's not even a debate. It's case closed let's all go home.
Dinesh strikes me as a very unpleasant person to debate with. He often makes these editorial comments with some accusatory tone and it makes me think how weak his actual arguments are, that he feels the need to do that at all.
Dsouza "if I have a cup of milk, measured in U.K not U.S, add a pound of sugar, a kilo of flour, three pounds of filtered demineralised water, 3/4 half a dozen of non free rage eggs, four yellow to green bananas picked in autum, how many teeth do I have if my local butcher asked me directions to the nearest pub?"...😂 30 minutes in and thats pretty much what I got from this man. God bless you Matt for sitting with this man...
Dinesh may just get the award (if it exists) for longest argument from ignorance. Though he dips so often into tu quoque I'm not sure without using a stop watch. What a kant
How is Dinesh even on the stage. His thinking is poor, his reasoning is poor and his whole apologetic argument is poor. If that’s Jesus’s best then they are fucked.
It's the same answer to the question why are there billions of religious people. We give way too much credit to humans as somehow intelligent.
Matt Dillahunty: "I use logic, reason, and science. I care about what is true in reality."
Also Matt: "There are multiple genders and transwomen are women." 🤣🤣
If this is what "intelligence" looks like, then we're fucked.
@@ADanZLife how many genders are there? Are you getting sex and gender mixed up? Here’s an explanation from a biologist (there are Christian biologists out there who will say the same if you need that world view ) ua-cam.com/video/Yzu7j6yH2Vw/v-deo.htmlsi=8WxXiWihd8FpW5Go
@@ADanZLifegender is a societal creation. People throughout history have identified as more than two genders. Recognising someone’s gender is of zero consequence to the world. That you will ignore the content of all Matt arguments because you have a narrow view of sex and gender would allow me to ignore every argument Dinesh makes because I don’t like his choice in suits…
I don’t do that though. I discount what Dinesh says because it’s rambling nonsense.
@@dougiefraser2432 People throughout history and in different cultures believe all kinds of weird shit, but I don't think you'd accept these or respect them just because it doesn't affect you. Sorry, but this gender nonsense is having consequences to the world and you're either being willfully ignorant or you don't care.
Since you seem to be a gender expert, how many genders are there and why are there new genders popping up every day?
The three "big questions" raised in this debate are easily "answerable":
*Question 1: Where did the universe come from?*
Answer: We don't know and we don't know if that question is even knowable. We do not have enough knowledge or evidence to construct more than hypotheses. _But science and reasonable people are open to new information that may change this answer._
*Question 2: Why are we here and what is our purpose?*
Answer: We have no reason to think that there is a "why" to our existence, only a "how". We have no reason to think there is an overarching "purpose" to human lives except to survive and reproduce. _But science and reasonable people are open to new information that may change this answer._
*Question 3: What happens after we die?*
Answer: The current understanding is that consciousness depends entirely on a living body and brain, so when you die, your body and brain cease to operate and can no longer generate your consciousness. There is no evidence that a mind can exist outside of the mechanism that creates it. You might as well ask "Where does the speed go when a car breaks down?". _But science and reasonable people are open to new information that may change this answer._
To describe the human state as being "in a certain kind of blind ignorance" is incorrect. We are not blind, we are searching. We are ignorant about some areas and not about others. Classic apologist tactic: introduce "big question" that "atheists can't answer", insert "god did it" into the gap, fail to produce supporting evidence, repeat endlessly then wonder why atheists are always so angry.
I'd be interested to see a summary how one topic morphed into another and to see which topic ever was concluded and how. I have troubles keeping all the open threads in the back of my head while I am trying to figure out what the current thread is about.
Dinesh is one of the most irritating guys I've ever listened in these debates. He can be even more irritating than William Lane Craig.
Even his mouth is... arrrggggg... incredibly irritating :D
Pivotmaster Dinesh Shuckin' and jivin' D’Souza is one fluffy toad
It's like a ant fighting an elephant. Dinesh is such a pathetic figure
54:45 D'Souza tries to define "having purpose" and tells a story of a person thinking they are a toad. Thinking you are a toad is not a purpose, it is a state. To further illustrate my point, imagine a person who thinks they are a human: their purpose remains undefined whatever the person identifies as. D'Souza is a weak thinker and a cheap-shot merchant. I'm not defending Dillahunty here either, because he allows himself to be dragged off topic instead of staying on topic and dismantling the analogy and unpacking D'Souza's flawed claim of god-given purpose.
Dinesh says forcing people to buy insurance is like forcing them to buy broccoli. It's more like forcing them to buy military protection through taxation, which works pretty well.
Time is not an abstraction. Physics has settled that time is a property of gravity.
Is it? Gravity distorts time. But it's not a property of it. I would rather say it's a property of movement through space.
If there was no gravity, there could still be movement through space. Without movement through space there wouldn't be a description of time. Without time, there couldn't be any movement.
That why we call it space time. Now gravity distorts space therefor distorts time.
@@danilonden3782 I was being reductive, I admit. Time is a quantifiable dimension which is proven to exist as an aspect of the physical reality by the fact that it is changed by the presence of gravity.
There, its existence is by proxy a property of gravity. I just wanted to make a succinct comment on UA-cam without getting into the weeds at all.
@Mmoll1990 too bad, buddy, where getting into it;).
I still don't really understand how it follows that time is a property of gravity, rather being intertwined by gravity, as it is by speed for example. Now it might be that speed and gravity are somehow the same thing bringing it all back to movement.
And bare with me, since I'm in no way a physics expert or something. I'm just using basic reasoning with the knowledge I have, which might be(probably) is completely wrong.
If you look at how we quantize units of time it is interesting to see that a unit of time is based on the decay of an isotope. So you could argue that time is a scale for the rate of change happening. If we imagine a "frozen" universe where everything it at the absolute zero point time would be a pretty meaningless concept.
@@trixn4285 exactly, so bassically movement is needed to make sense of time. Without movement, no time. That's why it's called spacetime.
So Dinesh what’s the evidence for God? Never received that info.
Heres a fun drinking game: every time Dsouza tries to Gish Gallop, take a drink. Every time Dsouza avoids answering a question altogether, take two drinks. You will be mercifully unaware of the end of the video. Lol
Matt could def use some Schopenhauer
Everyone could use some Schopenhauer 😊
Gore said, "CLIMATE CRISIS," not "climate change."
Morons!
and why is there a crisis? .... 'change'.
.
@@bootskanchelsis3337
As greenhouse gas emissions blanket the Earth, they trap the sun’s heat. This leads to global warming and climate change. The world is now warming faster than at any point in recorded history.
Generating electricity and heat by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas causes a large chunk of global emissions. Most electricity is still produced from fossil fuels; only about a quarter comes from wind, solar, and other renewable sources.
@@bootskanchelsis3337 As greenhouse gas emissions blanket the Earth, they trap the sun’s heat. This leads to global warming and climate change. The world is now warming faster than at any point in recorded history.
Generating electricity and heat by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas causes a large chunk of global emissions. Most electricity is still produced from fossil fuels; only about a quarter comes from wind, solar, and other renewable sources.
Matt Dillahunty's posture gets more and more like that of a Professor listening to one of those Verbal Audits from a grad student who clearly didn't read any of the material this semester.
Eventually, the disappointment gives way to giddy delight. "Ooo! What fresh new Hell are you cooking up now? I can't wait to hear this come hot off the presses!"
He has no proof of any god existing and is dancing around the argument with nonsense
Dinesh's argument about "iF cLimATe cHAngE, whY BuY wATEr hOusE" is so stupid, and he's constantly dragging it out like it's a good point.
“The fact that is not happening…” Hamptons flooded, Charleston SC floods with barely any rain, Miami floods consistently, let’s not even talk about TX and Louisiana…does Dinesh live under a rock?
I’m actually amazed that D’Souza’s views on climate change can be based so deeply on logical fallacies and flawed logic.
What is the Logical fallacies and flawed logic that he made?
@@Ghatius Matt pointed everyone of them out in the video. You can watch it right here
@@htown11465 My point it that it is easy to say someone have logical fallacies and flawed logic, but it really says nothing if you dont back it up. i can say that Matt dillahunty use logical fallacies and have flawed logic. I can say that anyone have them. But without justification the statement has no substance. That is the reason I give that kind of comment to remind of the importants of giving reason for the claimes we give.
@@Ghatius sure, but your point isn’t well made when the video we are commenting on contains all of the logical fallacies and each of those fallacies are pointed out in the video. It seems like you’re just too lazy to watch the video.
@@htown11465 So I can do the same then(this is example not necessary my view). "Matt is stupid and just using bad logical and all logical fallacies. I could give you justification but I dont want to, because you can just see the clip. You asking for justification maybe you are just too lazy to watch the clip"... I dont want to start a debate, not sure why I even started. Little frustrated that there are so little justification for claims nowadays. Have a nice day I will take my leave.
Every time Matt makes a point, Dinesh misrepresents what he said.
Happens a lot here.
D'Souza getting these stages with how little of value he brings is astonishing.. this guy is a complete and utter clown.. rofl
I’d like to see Dinesh D’Souza play Serena Williams in tennis and then tell me that gender matters when it comes to sports.
Seems to me, the interviewer has fallen into the trap of not 'listening' to his interviewee....
It’s not an interview. Has the watcher (you) forgotten what he was “watching?”
@@Psilocin-City 🤣
Dinesh has no capacity for nuance of any kind be it epistemic or socio-economic. It's infuriating.
Oh Mat you're eating your time. Dinesh doesn't make a coherent argument..ever
The funny thing with the data around climate science is that not only are the models completely bunk (not replicable, dont include major variables like sun activity or water vapor) and not only is statisitcal modelling not nearly powerful enough to estimate long term shifts in the climate (its not a magic crystal ball), but that they do the exact same thing that happens in drug studies. The institutions or companies with the incentives to find a particular outcome are the ones conducting the research that is cited and they provably are not trustworthy. Didnt the data show that oxycontin was not addictive and that the covid vaccines were safe and effective? The same time of shenanigans that happen with big pharma are provably occuring within the climate science realm. There are plenty of independently funded researchers demonstrating that climate change is not significantly being impacted by humans nor is it remotely even in the top 10 environmental issues we could actually do something about. What would I know Im just a statistician who is very familiar with the climate models and has seen the same problems with them since this became an issue. The IPCC has had to downgrade their predictions and change them significnatly over 20 times because their predictions have never come true to the point where the effect has been reduced by 95% from the initial claims. Every single time they admitted they were wrong and changed the predictions we were then told this was objective proven science and that anyone who questioned it was a conspiracy theorist. It would take at least a book that could be written off the top of my head to go through the major problems in the institutional organization of climate science in the West, the inaccuracy of the models, the scandals with envrionmental scientists (including openly hand selecting variables to purposefully show warming because they were unable to as well as the cerating on weighting schemes that essentially did the same thing). Cimlate scientists argue about current temperatures and continually update and change past temperatures with these weighting schemes in order to show the effects that they want. They do not even provide scientific explanations for these weighting schemes that would be necessary for any credible study. I have seen the IPCC put out models that were well below the threshold of statistical significance or replicability and treat them like they are actually valid. I have spoken with atmospheric physacists from Nasa who admitted that they do not use the Sun or water vapor (water vapor is 98% of the atmosphere) in their modelling because they do not know nearly enough about it. They have also stated that it is indeed the case that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is assumed to have the CO2 as the dependent variable rather than the reverse even though when temperatures go up due to sun activity, oceans release by far the most CO2. There was a study done on the opinions over 20,000 statitisticians, computer scienstists and people who create multivariate statistical models professionally who were not climate scientists to assess their statistical veractiy. It was found that the majority indicated that they were not statistically sound or met the threshold of a reliable scientific study. The list goes on and on about the models themselves but the actual politicization of the entire environmental science industry is as bad as big Pharma and provably so. This does not mean that we cannot trust science or statistics but it does certainly mean that public opinion has very very little to do with objective truth around these matters. I love that the vast majority of people who talk about the issue state the caveot that they are not scientists but then go on to hold strong opinions that are clearly effected by the political narratives around the topic. I am a statistician who has conducted well over 2000 studies and my father (who has been a statistician for over 50 years) studied under the first head of the IPCC. He knew first hand about the corruption in the field at the time when professors would indicate that the outcomes are all that matters and openly discussed their radical environmental views. You would have to deny that academia has a major problem in terms of political infliltration and deny the historical context of why the IPCC was created as a political tool in order to pretend that the science is settled around this issue. The best statisticians I know never got the covid vaccine becasuse it was obvious from march 2020 that Covid was not a threat to the vast majority of people and every lie that was based around scientific authority was extremely obvious based on nothing but the quantatative data. My point is that data is reliable if you actually use it in context and study it like any other complex issue. It is difficult because most people are unable to do so and need to rely on what they are told, however, if the government is pushing it in a way that demonizes opposition to it, you can be pretty certain that being skeptical is mandatory.
01:23:20 | So, who was the first to claim there was life after death? Do you know, or like when you ask, "Is there life after death?" are you just guessing/repeating somebody else who wasn't the original source of the answer?
Dinesh’s healthcare argument is tired and terrible.
I love when Dinesh says 'youre missing something...' while floundering around topics like mr. Magoo
This is an old debate, why is it being reposted as though its new? Is it because Pangburn screwed a bunch of people, perhaps?
As a climate scientist myself it's so hard to listen to Dinesh talking this insane level of stupid bs about my field. He doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about.
enlighten the world and what field are u specializing in?
@@CourageToB If this will enlighten the world I’m happy to provide some information about my expertise. I’m specialized on the turbulent exchange of energy and mass under different land use conditions. Currently I’m working in a project about West Africa using measurements of Eddy-covariance towers and physical models. Let me know if I can do some further enlightening of you and the world. I’m happy to help ;)
@@hipolt sure. let s hear a bit more about the accuracy and predictive power of your models. it would be very welcome if you elaborated further specifically on the covariance part. and please tell us your profession.
@@CourageToB I see. You didn’t dedicate a lot of time to learn about the physics of the atmosphere and physics in general right? ;) As I said, I’m a professional climate scientist working at a university. For further information about the eddy covariance method I would recommend you using a search engine and read some books. That’s quite a complex topic for UA-cam comment section. If you are interested in the accuracy of climate models I could recommend for example Hausfather et Al 2019. where they compare modeled scenarios of studies carried out between 1970 and 2007 with measurements. They found very high accuracy, meaning that the scenarios predicted the real change of the climatic conditions very good. The modern models are even more accurate than those used in those studies. Which studies did you read about this topic so far?
@@hipolt so you re dodging the question or is there now a stuy called climate science? regarding predicting post-hoc, you really want to.insist there is valuable prediction possible, you just need to wait til the event happened and play enough with the data?
regarding your suggested literature...i see a lot of terminology sounding like estimation, calculation, adjustment,...and in regards to accuracy plenty of "howevers"
Dinesh is making an extraordinary claim, that there is life after death. Therefore It is Dinesh's responsibility to give evidence of it. Matt just says he does not know. Dinesh loses.
I have a question? 🧐
What do you think about ppl who have had close to death experiences. Where they experience
seeing themselves floating in spirit form over their dead bodies??
👍👍
The TDS is strong with this one.
you can get help you know.
I support every point Matt makes up until he starts yapping about Gender Identity. I hope he realizes there are sports such as MMA or boxing. If there were no gender segregation in MMA, you’d have to pair women to get beat up by almost any man. I get that he’s arguing that there should be tiers. But what about debut amateur fights? You gotta start somewhere. This could lead to women losing their lives.
That's exactly what I thought as someone who had trained martial arts my whole life. It's a fine premise in a context of pool, or tennis; not so much in mma
I've recently watched Dinesh vs Alex O'Connor. I'm having dejavus. He's saying the same stuff here. Or rather, he's said the same stuff there, since this is less recent. The same faulty arguments...
Why is matt even debating anymore? Hes a runner
Smart people run from ignorant people - like you.
Because this is just a reupload of a debate that happened in 2020
yeah, a runner from idiots
Matt is very good at debating. He can get heated, but his arguments are still very well structured.
I usually agree with Matt but I just don’t see the point for letting mixed sexes/genders into one bathroom. There doesn’t need to be any evidence for actual harm, especially in this case since he mentioned emotional harm against trans people but I reckon the same emotional harm is experienced by women who have to share their private space with an „invader“
Safe access to public restrooms is a right and a necessity for participation in civic life, in the workplace, in educational settings and other public spaces. However, many transgender people are afraid to go to bathrooms, as they are exposed to embarrassment (and violence) and may even be prevented from accessing them. This stems from discriminatory practices already socially established and not legally regulated, given the absence of clearer and/or effective laws or legal provisions that protect the rights of transgender people to access these spaces without embarrassment or hostility. Therefore, the right to access bathrooms is fundamental to the fight for equality in the transgender community, which is reveal by the many legal cases that dealing with protection against discrimination that refer to this issue (Elkind, 2006, p. 922).
The legal debates about the right to use restrooms by transgender people in the United States add to the set of studies known as the “bathroom law” or “bathroom bill,” which adds legal provisions and analyses ranging from the right to work to the dismantling of the racial segregation experienced in that country10 (Rios and Resadori, 2015, p. 204). Levi and Redman (2010, p. 133) go so far as to say that “bathroom inequality is one of the greatest barriers to full integration of transgender people in American life.” Rios and Resadori (2015, p. 204) argue that the accumulation of the American legal debate on “bathroom laws” provides valuable arguments for improving this discussion in the Brazilian context.
Trans-exclusionary bathroom laws (or bills)11 end up giving new meaning to these equipment by targeting its use exclusively to cisgender people, segregating the transgender population as a result. These discriminatory initiatives reverse the burden of crime, by penalizing trans people who assert their right to use social facilities, instead of penalizing the very discriminatory parliamentary practices that intend to legislate for the exclusion and invisibility of this population. They are usually based not only on a definition of sex as a set of physical characteristics seen as immutable, but also on the legal assignment of sex registered in a person's first birth record. For example, a bill presented in South Carolina-United States-12 understood that the “original birth certificate may be relied upon as definitive evidence of an individual's sex.” The emphasis on the original birth certificate as definitive evidence is not accidental, as transgender people, including minors, may have later rectified the assignment of sex in their official documents13. The proposed wording therefore implies that even transgender people who have already managed to rectify their documents could not, in theory, use the bathrooms in accordance with their current official documentation, which denies the right to recognition of civil identity and legal status of transgender people
Numbers are from endnotes, here is the link to the paper: www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2021.652777/full
@@johnrossbleacher5381 That’s A LOT to read, but by skimming through it, it actually seems like those are all individual cases and many of them in very “conservative” and not really advanced countries. I am not in shock that something like this has happened and is maybe still happening, but it ain’t on such a big scale as some people claim it to be on and still, the damage goes both ways. People aren’t just comfortable having a physical man entering a women's bathroom and that is for very good reasons.
Even if they had good reasons to enter the opposite-sex bathroom (which they don’t have), reality is still something completely different. You can’t force something as outlandish as this practice, which stems from a very small minority, onto the whole population (the majority) without expecting any kind of backlash and negative output, that’s straight up ignorant and naive
@@miralem8689 so you’re going to argue without having the full picture? That sounds exactly right 👍
Well this all comes down to your (or society's) concept of "invader".
We make up these rules, if you and all of the women would consider trans women "not an invader" than your argument doesn't make sense.
If you want to put trans women into an "invader" category you should provide sound reasoning for it, otherwise anyone could come up with some "invader" category (black women once were considered "invaders" in public bathrooms, if you recall).
To wrap up, I think we should address the question very thoroughly to avoid mistakes already made in the past, and personally I think your line of thought is discriminatory and a bit dangerous, let me know if you ever change your mind.
@@johnrossbleacher5381 I am not going to read an article that is 100 times as long as your comment for a little UA-cam discussion and since it almost only states individual cases and almost exclusively talks about America, it doesn’t seem that necessary to be read in its entirety
Well, I agreed with Mr D'Souza when he said society should have safety nets in place. As for the other hour and 59 minutes of this two hour debate...
"Where the Universe came from" is this man's first question? "Where" is a strange question, indeed.
Everyone commenting: “Matt is so consistent and rational except on gender.” Turn the mirror around, guys.
Please explain? Just because a person is correct on many things doesn’t mean he’s correct about everything.
What is a woman?
Dsouzah: Opens mouth.
Dillahunty: Fallacy!
😂😂😂
he s very proud, he can say a three-sillable-word.
@@CourageToB and he easily p'wns every dishonest religious interlocutor with it.
@@bootskanchelsis3337 yeah
no he doesnt.
@@CourageToB he sure does, every time.
it's all documented, so you cant lie for jesus here.
@@bootskanchelsis3337 🥱sure. when asked to be explicit, you ll run - bet?
"Real estate agents aren't responding to climate change in the way you should expect" is like saying "the dude in the local takeaway told me my brain tumour is pretty benign so I'm going to ignore my oconlogist", it's so dumb on various levels.
The topic is "does god exist" then Dinesh goes to entrepreneur and marketing.
I gotta grant that Matt ignores science in the gender discussion. He shouldnt have gone there
He also gobbles up the science on the climate. Yest his view on religion is sharp and irrefutable. Why does he not employ the same logic on these ideologies.
Cause he loves sausage and transmissions
what do you think the science on gender is? Have you hard Forest Valkai talk about gender and sex?
@@htown11465 Forest valkai is a female to male trans, and a lackey of Matt stillacunty
@@grantbaker371 his logic on religion is sharp with hate, but definitely not irrefutable.. his pastor must have touched him